"However, being laws of divine origin, there is an implicit assumption that they are static and unalterable. Hence amendments through legislative acts of government, or developments through judicial precedent, may not be permitted, although changes through evolving interpretations may be possible," (Saeed 162)

The laws are static and unalterable but changes through evolving interpretations may be possible. To me this statement is contradictory. If the law is a guide for both individual behavior and government, how is one exclusive from the other? I understand the context or its attempt to keep government and religion separate, but if "the purpose of these laws may range from providing purely individual moral guidance, to forming the basis of a nation’s legal system," then an 'amendment' is a sheer 'evolving interpretation.' The two still seem synonymous, although is it was interpreted likewise then the gov't could abuse their power...