Sudan's Essam al-Bashir
A call to Islamize international law comes from a Cairo conference on Islamic tolerance. Of course, Sharia is tolerant from an Islamic perspective, but from the point of view of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the belief systems from which that document was derived, it leaves quite a lot to be desired. From IslamOnline, with thanks to Bruce Gordon and Cathy J. Palmer:
CAIRO, April 30 (IslamOnline.net) – World Muslim scholars meeting in Cairo urged incorporation of Sharia into the International Law to avoid eruption of more crises or other forms of injustice."Some western researchers have found out that Islamic principles could be used to develop the International Law and incorporate its moral values into it," said Jaafar Abdel-Salam, the secretary general of the Islamic Universities Association.
He was speaking at the International Islamic Conference, held in Cairo from April 28 till May 1 under the title of "Tolerance in Islamic Civilization".
Addressing the sixteenth session of the Conference, Abdel-Salam, himself a professor of International Law, said the application of Sharia along with the International Law would help set up a world system "turning countries closer to each other".
"Islam, with its practices, is the best of international systems that could achieve peace," said Mohamed Dissouki, an International Law professor at Al-Azhar University, in the conference.
Abdel-Salam also stressed that the role of the United Nations should be enhanced and its system modified to prevent domination of specific countries.
He was referring to the veto power wielded by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council; the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain.
Dissouki, was of the same mind.
"The International Law has recently tilted towards unequal treatment of people, as some agreements turned into valueless pieces of paper when they came against the interests of such a super power as the United States," he lamented.
Islam, on the other hand, deeply respects vows, treaties and agreements and warns against the serious consequences of their violation, Dissouki averred.
He cited that the United States had enforced its veto power in the Security Council several times of the year, mostly to kill draft resolutions condemning Israel for aggressions against the Palestinians.
In September, the U.S. employed its veto to kill an Arab-driven resolution condemning Israel for its decision to expel Palestinian President Yasser Arafat.
On October 14, the U.S. vetoed a Syrian-proposed U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel for continuing its construction of the separation wall, which snakes through the Palestinian territories in the West Bank.
Ending Fatwa Battle
The participants also urged Muslim scholars to end their conflict on a number of social and jurisprudence-related issues.
Essam al-Bashir, the Sudanese Minister of Waqfs (Endowments), said the "battle" between scholars on fatwas or religious edicts should be settled.
"This weakens their edicts. We should adopt a moderate trend away from this wrangle" on hot issues, Bashir said.
Muslim scholars, however, heaped blame on western media outlets for an "unfair" campaign against Islam.
"Showing Islam as an enemy – in place of communism - of the west stocked up sentiments of hatred, bias and discrimination against the religion and its followers," said Mohamed Youssef, from the Islamic organization of Latin America.
Youssef lamented that the Muslim communities in Latin America mostly feel the need to boost religious awareness, increase the number of Islamic schools and make swift and permanent contact with the Islamic world.
Mohamed El-Masri, of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said Muslims need to change, not Islam.
"Islam is a religion of reform. What rather needs change is its followers," Masri said, urging Muslims to regain power for effectively dealing with current issues.
to quote: Mohamed El-Masri, of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said Muslims need to change, not Islam.
"Islam is a religion of reform. What rather needs change is its followers," Masri said, urging Muslims to regain power for effectively dealing with current issues.
-------------------------
That's just a bit too ambiguous for my tastes.
Who gives a s--t about International Law. I am an American, and I refer anyone who thinks one small shred of our sovereignty should be given over to the bastard sovereignty of the Sharia, the UN, or any other international body to a speech made by Henry Cabot Lodge on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1919. It was in opposition to the League of Nations, but the sentiment applies.
They make no mention of Dhimmitude in Sharia. They make no mention that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights eliminated the right to change one's religious affiliation which is stipulated in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.
When you make a group of people a second-class citizen to increase your coffers and demonstrate your "superiority" by humiliating them and deny one's free will even if it is to change one's religion, then tell me how are you bettering International Law? No, your are making the law unjust.
Hmmmmm, what would the Prophet Jesus think about making people a second class citizen since he said to love your neighbor as yourself. What would he say about you judging someone's decision to leave islam and deciding that they should die because they are an apostate?
Jesus said Do not judge and you will not be judged. In the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and the measure you use for others will be used for you.
What measure will you receive if you kill a person because for leaving islam? If God determines all things, then God has determined that this person has left islam. How can you say Allah is all merciful and benevolent if he leads someone away from islam only to be killed. This is not mercy or beneficence, it is sadistic.
John
"Islam, with its practices, is the best of international systems that could achieve peace," said Mohamed Dissouki, an International Law professor at Al-Azhar University, in the conference. "
What the conference proceedings forgot to add was that this line broke everyone up and most agreed that Mr. Dissouki has a great future ahead of him as a stand-up comic.
What - do you mean he was serious?
This asshole is stealling the routing from Chris Rock.
"Islam, with its practices, is the best of international systems that could achieve peace," said Mohamed Dissouki, an International Law professor at Al-Azhar University, in the conference. "--this is some good stuff,people.If I could lie like that I'd be the king of used car salesmen.
"Islam, with its practices, is the best of international systems that could achieve peace."
...well, maybe Mr. Dissouki has a point. If Muslims liquidated or assimilated the members of all other religions, sectarian conflict would be eliminated...
...except he forgot that little nattering Sunni vs. Shia vs. Sufi issue, and all of their subdivisions. (Wahhabist vs. Hanifites, etc.) It just goes to show that Islam, like all belief systems, is supported by human beings, and is just as susceptible to the splintering that has befallen Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. So much for the claims that Islam is God's one true vision for mankind, eternally binding.
Older Sardonic letter to a web site. I don't know who the author is but it is great and timely:
"Dear Editor,
Many Europeans express favor with the establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC, in the spirit of internationalism, would hold jurisdiction over the many different cultures, peoples, and nations of the world. Since this is the case, it is quite odd that the legal framework of the ICC is based upon European legal traditions. Surely an international body like the ICC would reflect and mirror the diverse legal traditions, values, morals, and mores found globally. In essence, the ICC, as currently established, is a New Colonialism whereby Europe would continue to exert its influence on the peoples of the world.
Considering the fact that there are more Muslims on the planet than Europeans, the "internationalism" of the ICC would be more clearly reflected if, for example, its framework was based upon the tenets of Sharia law rather than European law. The ICC could employ a council of ruling clerics to apply Sharia punishments for crimes found committed - punishments such as stoning, amputation, and beheading. Europeans, if they are truly interested in diversity and internationalism would have to allow the ICC to reflect non-European legal traditions - Sharia law being one of them.
As of now, the framework of the ICC reflects none of the diversity and "internationalism" that Europeans appear to cherish. Instead, the ICC reflects a jingoistic, colonial mindset which may in reality be more in tune with what Europeans want. Indeed, the ICC would only prove to the world that Europeans are not interested in the values and practices of other world cultures, but are instead solely interested in extending European culture throughout the world - in many places that do not want it. Indeed, the peoples of the world will be better off the sooner this nefariousness on the part of Europe is exposed and thwarted.
Cordially,
Jim Sellers
USA "