Do Constitutions Requiring Adherence to Sharia Threaten Human Rights?: How Egypt's Constitutional Court Reconciles Islamic Law with the Liberal Rule of Law
Clark B. Lombardi
University of Washington School of Law; University of Washington - Henry. M. Jackson School of International Studies
Nathan J. Brown
George Washington University - Department of Political Science
American University International Law Review, Vol. 21, pp. 379-435, 2006
Over the last thirty years, a number of Muslim countries, including most recently Afghanistan and Iraq, have adopted constitutions that require the law of the state to respect fundamental Islamic legal norms. What happens when countries with a secular legal system adopt these "constitutional Islamization" provisions? How do courts interpret them? This article will present a case study of constitutional Islamization in one important and influential country, Egypt. In interpreting Egypt's constitutional Islamization provision, the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt has interpreted Shari'a norms to be consistent with international human rights norms and with liberal economic policies. The experience of Egypt does not tell us how constitutional Islamization will necessarily unfold in every country. It does demonstrate that, in a world where Islamic norms are contested, a progressive court can effectively develop and apply a theory that interprets Islamic legal norms to be consistent with democracy, international human rights and economic liberalism.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 57
Keywords: Islam, Islamic Law, International Law, Human Rights, Constitutional Law
JEL Classification: K1, K19, K3, K33, K39, K4, P2Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: June 22, 2006
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.484 seconds