You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
International-UN-NGOs
Moslems Want International Law To Be Based on Sharia
2004-04-30
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. .... Addressing the sixteenth session of the Conference, [Jaafar] Abdel-Salam, [Secretary General of the Islamic Universities Association] 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. .... Islam ... deeply respects vows, treaties and agreements and warns against the serious consequences of their violation, Dissouki averred. ....
Posted by:Mike Sylwester

#11  Then, of course, there's the remake of one of my favorite old ABC series -- "Shariaman."
Posted by: Infidel Bob   2004-05-01 11:45:55 AM  

#10  A new Thursday night series for NBC -- "Sharia and Order."
Posted by: Infidel Bob   2004-05-01 11:43:30 AM  

#9  Anonymous 4617 - I noticed that the capitalized "Western" several times. I wonder if those were workers who work for Western Geophysical?
Posted by: B   2004-05-01 7:06:35 AM  

#8  Since 9/11, I've been trying to keep an open mind about Islam and this "religion of peace" business. I've been trying to reserve judgement on the questions of whether we can co-exist with Islam, and whether it can be reformed (e.g., through the institution of democratic governments) sufficiently that it does not pose an existential threat to the West.

I really have been trying to keep an open mind. But I'm on the verge of giving up.

In the last two and a half years I've seen no evidence-- absolutely none-- that tells me there's any reason to hope we can get along with these people, nor any evidence that Islam is anything other than what Daniel Pipes calls it: a totalitarian utopian ideology bent on world domination.

It's looking more and more like it's either them, or us.
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-05-01 6:59:58 AM  

#7  Bulldog,

Thank you, I just got it.
Posted by: Anonymous4617   2004-05-01 6:49:11 AM  

#6  Anonymous, looks as though there has been.

For breaking news, try Google News.

Here's a link to the current stories in the online media relating to (keyword) Yanbu:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=ascii&q=yanbu&btnG=Search+News
Posted by: Bulldog   2004-05-01 6:29:12 AM  

#5  This is OT but I need your help. If any of you have any connections in the State Department or any news source, would you please find out if there was an attack on americans in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia today (5/01/04). I live in Dhahran and we will not know anything unless that saudi government wants us to know and I know this is something that they will rather keep quite.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Anonymous4617   2004-05-01 5:21:31 AM  

#4  "Islam, with its practices, is the best of international systems that could achieve peace,"

And of course the whole world, when it thinks of Islam, straight away thinks of peace. Not violence, hatred, intolerance, ignorance, misogyny...
Posted by: Bulldog   2004-05-01 5:15:02 AM  

#3  Can we replace Newton's Law with Sharia while we're at it?
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-05-01 12:32:33 AM  

#2  This is a really bad thing. International Law as it stands today is one of the great triumphs of humanity, and one of the last bastions of the tender mercies of Natural Law. Displacing it with sharia based law is (to my humble legal mind) the equivalent of asking a physician to return to the tools of empiric surgeons of the eight century. International Law can be described as a set of legal rules governing relations between countries. The Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Medieval Legal History, has a good set of sources that deal with the topic. As noted in the introduction to one treatise(INTERNATIONAL LAW A SERIES OF LECTURES DELIVERED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE 1887 BY HENRY SUMNER MAINE, K.C.S.I.), severely EFL:

In modern days the name of International Law has been very much confined to rules laid down by one particular class of writers. They may be roughly said to begin in the first half of the seventeenth century . . . It is further to be noted that before international law fell into the hands of these writers it had like most other subjects of thought attracted the attention of the Church. There is a whole chapter of the law of nations which is treated of by Roman Catholic theological writers, and a slight difference which distinguishes their use of technical expressions, such for example as 'law of nature' and 'natural law,' occasionally perplexes the student of the system before us. * * * Hence it came about that the great international jurists belonged to the smaller states and were wholly Protestants. . . . A law with a new sanction was required if states were to obey it, and this is what the new jurists produced. The effect was a rapid mitigation of wars and a rapid decrease in their frequency. * * * We may answer pretty confidently that its rapid advance to acceptance by civilised nations was a stage, though a very late stage, in the diffusion of Roman Law over Europe. * * * A great part, then, of International Law is Roman Law, spread over Europe by a process exceedingly like that which, a few centuries earlier, had caused other portions of Roman Law to filter into the interstices of every European legal system. The Roman element in International Law belonged, however, to one special province of the Roman system, that which the Romans themselves called Natural Law or, by an alternative name, Jus Gentium. * * * But though the founders of the system which lies at the basis of the rules now regulating the concerns of states inter se were not the first to describe the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations, Jus Nature, Jus Gentium, as the most admirable, the most dignified portion of Roman Law, they speak of it with a precision and a confidence which were altogether new. * * * It is sometimes difficult to be quite sure how Grotius and his successors distinguished rules of the Law of Nature from religious rules prescribed by inspired writers. But that they did draw a distinction is plain. Grotius's famous work, the 'De Jure Belli et Pacis,' is in great part composed of examples supplied by the language and conduct of heathen statesmen, generals, and sovereigns, whom he could not have supposed to know anything of inspired teaching. If we assume him to have believed that the most humane and virtuous of the acts and opinions which he quotes were prompted by an instinct derived from a happier state of the human race, when it was still more directly shaped and guided by Divine authority, we should probably have got as near his conception as possible. * * * To each successive inquirer, the actual childhood of the human race looks less and less like the picture which the jurists of the seventeenth century formed of it. It was excessively inhuman in war; and it was before all things enamoured of legal technicality in peace. But nevertheless the system founded on an imaginary reconstruction of it more and more calmed the fury of angry belligerency, and supplied a framework to which more advanced principles of humanity and convenience easily adjusted themselves.
Posted by: cingold   2004-05-01 12:19:13 AM  

#1  1. THERE IS NO "INTERNATIONAL LAW."

2. World Muslim scholars can go fuck themselves. Sideways.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-05-01 12:05:35 AM  

00:00