of the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on the doctrine of human rights in Islam
1. Through the channel of the Saudi Embassy in Paris, eminent jurists and intellectuals of Europe had expressed the desire to meet Moslem scholars in the Saudi Kingdom, in order to seek a thorough understanding of the concepts of human rights in Islam. In response to this desire, the Ministry of Justice, under the presidency of the Minister, His Eminence Sheik Muhammad Al-Harkan, organized a three-session conference, which convened in Riyad beginning on March 23, 1972 (7 Safar 1392 of the Hegira).
2. The Saudi delegates to the Conference were:
3. The European commission of jurists was composed of:
The European delegates arrived in Saudi Arabia in company of His Excellency Doctor Midhat Sheikelard, Ambassador of the Kingdom in Paris, who had invited the Professors His Excellency Doctor Assad Mahassen and Doctor Anouar Hatern to join in the commission. Mr. Anouar Orfan, interpreter at the Embassy, was also present.
4. His Excellency the Minister of Justice opened the Conference with a general address. He welcomed the guests, and made a brief survey of the detailed study which he had conducted on the principles of Islam with regard to the protection, preservation, and security of human rights in all domains. This survey was supported by examples taken from history and daily life, and illustrated with quotations of Koranic verses and Hadiths of the Prophet. The speaker referred to the Memorandum addressed to International Organizations by the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to the study which had been prepared by the Ministry of Justice for the benefit of the European delegation, and which was translated into French. In conclusion, he asserted the superiority of Islam over the Charter of Human Rights. This religion, indeed, gives evidence of a broader and deeper knowledge of man's nature and aspirations, and its teaching, being of divine origin, is destined to live eternally.
The President of the European commission, His Excellency Mr. MacBride, made a cordial reply to His Eminence the Minister of Justice, President of the Saudi delegation. Thereupon, each member of the European commission spoke in turn to ask questions and make observations, to which the members of the Saudi delegation successively gave answers.
5. During their first meeting with the Saudi canonists, the guests of the Kingdom raised some fundamental questions about Moslem legislation. They were determined, they had said, to evoke such matters, as they had come to this Moslem Kingdom for the purpose of making a deeper understanding of the Koranic concept of human rights. Their meetings with Saudi scholars would be of no avail, they felt, if the problems, which concerned them, were not elucidated.
While admitting that the questions they would pose were of a very delicate nature, they made it clear that they had no intention of making criticisms or causing embarrassment; in their opinion, it would be useful for Saudi canonists to hear these questions personally, after which they could take time to ponder over them and consult together before giving an answer. However, they emphasized the fact that, as the world today is going through profound changes, and ideas themselves change with the times, such an evolution will no doubt have an influence on religious men, and might undoubtedly lead to the presentation of different opinions.
6. With polite frankness, the guests summed up the questions which they intended to raise, as follows:
I. "It is the canonists' assertion that the Constitution of the Country, and its laws, whether in civil and penal matters or in questions of personal status, are founded exclusively on the Koran, according to the revelation received fourteen centuries ago: this, in our judgment, calls for examination and new evaluation. As life obeys the law of development and each century brings new changes, we feel that constructing the legislation of the Kingdom in all aforesaid matters on the Koran alone would not serve the interest of Islam. We think that it would do wrong to the Koran itself, considering the progress of life and the modifications in circumstances."
II. The problem of punishments and legal penalties.
III. The problem of woman.
IV. The problems created by the prohibition of syndicates.
V. Here follows the question why the Country has not been given a Constitution, in spite of the express intention of His Majesty the King, as early as 1962, when he was the Prime Minister, as it appears from a brochure distributed, among other texts, to the members of the Commission, and containing the Ministerial Declaration of the Government at that time.
VII. Finally, a question was asked about the extraordinary tribunals, which have been instituted by certain States to protect their security: did such tribunals, to which object scholars and jurists all over the world, exist in the Kingdom?
7. The Saudi Delegation gave direct and detailed answers to all the questions thus formulated, either on the same day, or during the following two sessions, on Saturday March 25 and Sunday March 26. The members of the European Commission insisted on receiving a maximum of information during these meetings. They were pleased to hear the explanations given by the Saudi delegates, and found them so convincing, that they demanded the suppression of some parts of the program, as previously established for their visit in Saudi Arabia, in order to obtain more precisions and clarifications. They also manifested the desire that a summary of the proceedings should be written down to constitute a source of reference, when they in turn would have to expound the realities of Islam to the large number of those who are ignorant of them, or even are hostile to Islam.
8. The Saudi Delegation, before answering the questions, thanked its European guests for their frankness. It declared itself in agreement with them, when they noted that their meeting with the canonists of the Kingdom would bear no fruit, unless all problems deserving consideration and discussion had been approached and explained. It expressed its appreciation of the courteous honesty with which the questions had been asked. The European guests, it said, should feel no embarrassment in raising these problems, as the Moslem scholars are not disturbed either at receiving them. For the Saudi, any question, any problem, will be welcome; they are pleased with the sincerity of their guests, whom they hold in high esteem. This attitude of the Saudi canonists is simply consistent with the precepts of the Koran, to which alone belongs the merit of enjoining Moslems to receive graciously anyone wishing to open a dialogue with them. For the Koran says: "Speak fair to the people" (II, 83). It also says: "Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation" (XVI, 125). And again: "And argue not with the People of the Scripture (Christians and Jews) unless it be in (a way) that is better" (XXIX, 46).
Further, the Saudi canonists see no reason why they should defer their answers untill a later date, as it has been suggested. They have no need either to consult together, and feel no hesitation or embarrassment in answering there and then.
At this point, a member of the Saudi Delegation requested from the President permission to speak. He said:
"As I have stayed in Europe for several years, and, by the same token, have known scholars in Law, I have become familiar with the sort of questions which these scholars are accustomed to raise. I think, therefore, that I must request permission to answer first. You will see that my colleagues are more learned, more competent, more intelligent than I, and more deserving also."
9. The speaker continued:
"On the other hand, I beg our guests to let me clarify for the audience the first fundamental question which they have so distinctly raised. This question concerns the Moslems' insistence on basing the whole of their temporal legislation on the Koran. Our guests think that such thing could be prejudicial to the Koran itself. I specify this point to make the answer more intelligible. I pray our guests not to be annoyed, if I also expound their opinion frankly, no matter how distant it may be from our own. For we have thanked our guests for their frankness, and we have opened our hearts to them. We will thank them again, if they feel that this precision which I intend to give to their question will correspond to their idea. Once more, we urge our guests to give straight answers."
10. Then he added:
"In 1951, as a guest of the French Government, I participated in the Week of Islamic Law in Paris. Authorities on Law from Universities all the world over had been invited. One of these advocated a similar view, contending namely that no religion could preserve its holy character unless it remained, in the eyes of its adepts, the same as it was at the time of its revelation, intangible, immutable, however remote its birth may be; else, according to him, that religion would lose its prestige and sanctity. Thus, he asserted, the Holy Book of any given confession will always appear like something static. The question would be, therefore, how on such a foundation a temporal legislation, destined to change with time, could be edified. In such event, one would be led to admit that the temporal legislation itself would become stagnant. For whatever is built on immovability, is bound to remain immovable. Therein lies the reason of a certain cautiousness towards the Moslems, whose legislative and juridical system is based on a Holy Book, the Koran. Of the Holy Book, indeed, it is impossible either to change the terms, or to modify the spirit, whereas life is in continuous progress. And so, one would be justified to adopt the position expounded by the European Commission, according to which excessively rigid structures would do wrong to the Koran itself."
Here, the Saudi speaker asked the President of the European Commission if this conveyed exactly the substance of the first question, which they had raised, and if he accepted what had just been said, as an accurate answer. He urged the President to speak openly, adding that all respected his opinion and honesty. The President ratified the declarations of the speaker, as the faithful and specific expression of the first question, which he wished to be examined.
11. The same member of the Saudi Delegation resumed:
"Considering what has just been said, I will ask our guests, before I give a detailed answer to their questions, to let me bring a preamble to their attention, and to consider it with an open mind, as it is necessary for a right understanding of the answers to come. I want to say, in all honesty, that it is in no way our intention to attack anyone, or to criticize any religion. Our only purpose consists, together with you, Gentlemen, in seeking the clear and simple truth; moreover, it is under the inspiration of the truth that all answers will be given to the various questions, which you have kindly submitted to us for consideration".
12. He went on to say:
"When the problem of religion was put to us at the University of Paris, I expressly pointed out that it was essential, before any answer could be given, to know in what precisely we, Moslems, differ from non-Moslems with regard to the idea that we conceive of religion. Then I asked some one to bring the volume of the Grande Encyclopédie des Sciences, des Arts et des Lettres (Paris, Societe Anonyme de la Grande Encyclopedie), containing the article "Religion" (XXVIII, pp. 341 - 366). As we read this long article, we found that scholars have listed more than one hundred definitions of religion. Two of these were picked out, nevertheless, for their scientific stamp. Here they are:
a) "Par religion, on entend la façon dont l'homme realise ses rapports avec les puissances surhumaines et mystérieuses dont il croit dépendre." (By religion is understood the way in which man actualizes his relations with the suprahuman and mysterious forces on which he believes to be dependent).
b) "La religion embrasse tout le savoir et tout le pouvoir non scientifique." (Religion encompasses all knowledge and power that are not scientific).
"I must tell you that the Moslem conception is different from that expressed by the former definition. The reason is that Islam embraces all knowledge, whether on the relations of man with invisible and transcendent forces, or on the relations from man to man."
"As for the second definition, Moslems and non-Moslems again are way apart. For it is written in the Koran: "We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge" (IX, 11). It reads also, sometimes "Thus We display the revelations for people who have sense" (XXX, 28), and sometimes "Thus do We expound the revelations for people who reflect" (X, 24). Hereby the Koran means that, according to Islam, religion is that which is in agreement with science, reason, and reflection, and that only men of science, men of reason, and men of reflection, are capable of understanding Moslem religion. Consequently, it is no wonder if the Moslems deem it necessary to found their legislation, in all matters, on the Koran, the very source of this idea of religion. Similar expressions are used by some of the Moslem scholars, following the example of the canonist Ibn Kayyem Al-Jaouziya, who said: "Where there is common good, there is the Law of God", to which another canonist, Ibn Akil, added: "even though no revelation has been given and neither did the Prophet speak about it."
13. The speaker proceeded as follows:
"So, Gentlemen, Islam, whose doctrine is in perfect agreement with science, reason, and reflection, must be able to adjust itself to the ever changing conditions created by the course of time; where no provision has been made by the sacred texts, simply by considering common good, it must be able to find the adequate answer to all questions, whether they concern constitutional, civil, or penal, matters, or regard personal status".
14. The speaker continued his report:
"In Moslem Doctrine, it is necessary to make a distinction between the general principles and particular provisions. The former allow neither change nor modification; the latter, which deal with particular matters, and are designed to apply the general principles, can alone be altered according to relative degrees of importance or the progress of morality. However, it must be remembered that both the general principles and the particular provisions, as already said, remain in constant accord with the data of science and the precepts of reason and reflection."
"The general principles are explicitly stated by the Koran. This is the reason why the Koran is regarded as our Constitution and our Organic Law, and why we build our particular laws on the Koran. Similar features exist in secular States also, where a Constitution declares general unchangeable principles of fundamental rights, and where, besides, a particular legislation is established to apply the general constitutional principles."
15. "We hold, therefore, that the prescriptions of the Koran, as general principles, are immutable. Here are some examples: it is a command of the Koran that justice in the exercise of authority should be absolute; discrimination is condemned, be it on the ground of religion, race, colour, kinship, or even hostility. Thus judiciary power must always operate in conformity with equity, even to the benefit of an enemy and the detriment of a relative. For these reasons, consequently, justice will make no discrimination, no matter how different the conflicting parties may be. It follows that, in spite of changing circumstances and motivations, the Koran will never allow the slightest modification to alter the rule of perfect justice among men, such as it has been established by the Holy Book, or any form of arbitrary procedure to replace it.
16. "Speaking of the general principles stated by the Koran, we should mention also the proclamation of the dignity of man, the same for all men, without any difference, except on the grounds of piety. The Koran asserts that all mankind, born of the same father and mother, forms one single family, that the God of men is Unique, that the Creator has ordered men according to nations and tribes to know, and assist one another for the good of all; Islam bans any kind of enmity among men, any kind of hatred, contempt, or oppression. It means that, even if circumstances and motivations greatly vary, the Koran will never admit the abrogation of the principle of the unity of mankind. This principle must direct men and peoples towards a better knowledge of one another, and a more effective cooperation, for the, good of all, on the basis of an unrestricted equality; never will it be permitted, for example, that to this principle be substituted an audacious racism."
17. "Thus, when we say that our Organic Law is the Koran, we mean to say that its general principles are those precisely which we have just exemplified. It is by the light of science, reason, and reflection themselves, that we consider these principles as immutable. Likewise, when we say that our legislation, in its particular provisions concerning civil and penal matters, or questions of personal status, has its foundation in the Koran, we mean to say that all these things are placed in the general context of science, reason, reflection, and common weal. This is so true that some particular laws cannot be understood but within the borders of general interest. Such is, for instance, the case, mentioned by the Koran, of the enemies of Islam. When Islam, at the very beginning, lacked any means of defence, it advised its adepts to ward off the attacks of their enemies by paying to them a part of the legal alms (Zakat). But, as soon as Islam became stronger, under the reign of Omar Ibn-al--Kattab, this practice was discontinued; to give money to the enemy, when the power of Islam could repel any aggression, would have been contrary to public interest. So, a Koranic text was enforced as long as it evidently served the general interest; when new circumstances arose, it ceased to be implemented for the sake of common weal."
Here, the speaker quoted other examples from the Prophet's prescriptions, and said:
"The reason, therefore, why we assert that Moslem Doctrine, in its general Koranic principles, and in the particular provisions, as applied, is destined to live eternally and to be fit for all men, is that its teaching remains in accord with progress of knowledge, demands of reason, and forms of reflection, within the bounds of unquestionable common weal. This, we have just demonstrated, by pointing out the basic difference in the concept of religion in the Koran and among non-Moslems."
18. Next, the Saudi Delegation came to the second question, that is the problem of punishments and legal penalties. Legal penalties in Islam were divided into two categories:
a) penalties provided by the Verses
b) discretionary penalties, inflicted by the judge himself, either for an offence whose punishment is not determined, or for prejudice deliberately done to one's neighbour.
To impose the latter penalties, it is not necessary that a Verse had explicitly mentioned the offence, as in the penal legislation of non-Moslem countries. There, indeed, many an offender, regardless of the harm he has done to society, escapes punishment, because allegedly no provision has been made by the law for the particular crime which he has committed. By contrast, Moslem legislation does not let that kind of criminals escape, and it is left to the judge's discretion to inflict the chastisements deserved by their deeds, when these have done harm to society, and thus aroused public indignation.
19. Legal penalties specified by Islamic Verses bear on five sorts of crimes:
The delegates in addition made this remark:
"There is no need to talk of premeditated murder, which is punished by death, for modern secular legislations widely differ on this point. Some provide death penalty for this crime, as in Islam; others refuse to practise it. We are not hesitant to declare that Islam has prescribed death penalty for premeditated murder: its very severity makes the chastisement more efficiently repressive, especially if one considers how simple and expeditious judicial machinery in Islam is, and how rapid the procedure; and how beneficial also are its effects for social tranquillity and the protection of human lives."
20. "Theft, with the exception of doubtful cases, as, for instance, stealing prompted by starvation, is punished by amputation of the hand. We are willing to admit, with the jurists, that such a punishment is exceedingly harsh. It must be noted, however, that stealing in the West is most of the time perpetrated by force, and so frequently entails the murder of the victim. In such event, one wonders if it is better to have pity on the hand of the thief rather than on the life of the assaulted person.
21. The debate went on: "Due to the harshness of this punishment in Islam, both the hand of the thief and the life of the victim have been protected, at one and the same time, and tranquillity secured for all. The execution, which is done publicly, serves to set an example."
At this point, Dr. Dawalibi made a comment:
"I have been in this country for seven years, he said, and I never saw, or heard of, any amputation of the hand for stealing. This is because the crime is extremely rare. So, all that remains of that punishment is its harshness, which has made it possible for all to live in perfect security and tranquillity, and for those who were tempted to steal, to keep their hands whole. Formerly, when these regions were ruled by the French-inspired Penal Code, under the Ottoman Empire, pilgrims travelling between the two Holy Cities, Mecca and Medina, could not feel secure for their purse or their life, unless they had a strong escort. But when this country became the Saudi Kingdom, and Koranic Law was enforced, crime immediately disappeared. A traveler, then, could journey, not only between the Holy Cities, but even from Al-Dahran on the Gulf to Jeddah on the Red Sea, and traverse a distance of more than one thousand and five hundred kilometers across the desert all alone, in his private car, without harbouring any fear or worry about his life or property, be it worth millions of dollars, and be he a complete foreigner."
22. The Saudi Delegation resumed:
"In this manner, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where Islamic Law is enforced, state money is transferred from one town to another, from one bank to another, in an ordinary car, without any escort or protection, but the car driver. Tell me, Gentlemen: in any of your Western States, would you be ready to transfer money from one bank to another, in any of your capitals, without the protection of a strong police force and the necessary number of armoured cars?"
23. The speaker proceeded:
"Only here, Gentlemen, in this Country where Islamic Law is enforced, the American Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. William Rogers, during his visit last year, could, he and his suite, dispense with the armoured cars, which had been carried in by special planes, and which accompanied them in their tour of more than ten countries. Only here, Gentlemen, did the Government of the Kingdom not allow its visitors to go around in these cars. Eventually, Mr. Rogers spontaneously declined the guard of honour usually placed by the Government at the disposal of their foreign guests; he walked through the souks by himself, and confessed that, in this Kingdom, and in this Kingdom alone, one had such a feeling of security that one had no more need of a guard."
24. To conclude his report on the punishment of hand amputation for stealing, the speaker said:
"If you consider the striking results with regard to security, public order, and general tranquillity, which are the order of the day in this country, do you not agree, Gentlemen, that it is our duty to remain faithful to the commands of our Religion, to prevent similar infraction? Stealing is almost unknown in our Kingdom, when people, in the great Capitals of Western countries, under secular regimes, have no more security for their lives or their possessions. I still remember, when I was in Paris in the summer, two years ago, a hold-up in one of the biggest restaurants, near the Champs Elysees: in front of hundreds of customers, stunned and motionless, gangsters managed to take off the whole cash. The next morning, all Parisian newspapers published the news."
25. After that, the Saudi Delegation entered upon the subject of adultery, a crime punished by stoning:
"This penalty is prescribed only when the culprit, prior to his delict, had contracted a legal marriage, and if four witnesses known for their righteousness and their integrity, were present at the accomplishment of the sexual act, in a manner which would exclude the possibility of any doubt; it would not be sufficient, namely, that they had seen the accused completely naked and stuck together."
The Delegation went on to say:
"Here again, we agree with our guests on the severity of the punishment. Nevertheless, it is not imposed in Islam, unless the act, as we just said, was testified to by four objective and trustworthy witnesses. The testimony of one witness has no value before the law: in that case, the person is advised to refrain from making the denunciation, and condemned to be scourged, if he would continue in his accusations; the same thing happens, if there are only two, or even three witnesses. The primary condition, required by the Verses, is the presence, at the moment of the act, of four witnesses who can be trusted, and have never been indicted. But if the act was accomplished in presence of four witnesses, the judgment is that public order has been seriously offended. Whether legitimate or not, it is always improper for the sexual act to take place in public. That is why Islam reveals the most severe attitude against offenders of public order and morality".
"We suppose that, if such a thing had occurred in the street of the Capital of a civilized country, where complete sexual liberty is allowed, passersby would have taken upon themselves to lynch the performers, even before the case could be laid before a court. Such people would be treated like beasts, and their lives would not deserve any more respect."
26. Then, the Delegation proceeded:
"It must be noted, in this matter, that the hard punishment of adultery was prescribed at the very beginning of the Islamic Message. There was, at that time, an urgent necessity to bring society out of a system, where existed, in numerous walks, absolute sexual licence, and by the very fact, there was utter confusion with regard to paternity, into a new order, where procreative instinct would be regulated, and could be exercised only within the limits of legitimacy. And so, from the beginning of the Islamic predication, and during the whole life of the Prophet, not one single case of adultery was established by evidence of four eye-witnesses. Only one case was verified, through the spontaneous confession of the culprit eager to purify himself in this life, and so to escape punishment in the other. When, coming to the Prophet, he confessed his crime, and asked to be stoned to death, the Prophet turned his face and refused to listen. Since the act had been accomplished in secret, and thus public order and morality did not suffer, the matter concerned only the culprit, who, in his soul and conscience, had simply to beg the Lord's forgiveness. The man, however, earnestly renewed his confession and his request, so as to prove his sincerity towards God, and to deter others from committing the same crime; again, the Prophet turned his face. The same happened a third time, but when the culprit repeated his words a fourth time, the Prophet asked him if he had become insane, or had really admitted being guilty of the crime. First by refusing to listen, then by questioning the fact, the Prophet had long prompted him to retract, but the man so insisted, that in the end his demand had to be heard. At the moment of the execution, however, he regretted his declaration and ran away; the punishment squad ran after him and killed him. The Prophet, then, pronounced his famous sentence: "Would that you had left him alive: he would have repented, and God would have been merciful to him."
27. The Delegation continued:
"Thus, Gentlemen, it was not possible to prove, by such evidence as is required, one single case of adultery at the time of the Prophet; and yet, it was an age of transition from general sexual licence to discipline and legality on this point. Fourteen centuries have elapsed since that most severe penalty was edicted, and we can strongly affirm that fourteen cases of stoning could hardly be numbered in all that time. In this way, punishment by stoning has remained what it always was, cruel in principle, but extremely rare in practice. But, through the very ruthlessness of this provision, Islam has prevented dislocation of the family and confusion with respect to paternity. We surely admit that men are always men, but it remains that, under a secular legislation, where such a severe punishment, religiously motivated, is lacking, married people tend to lose the fear of God, and are more tempted to fall in this crime. Generally speaking, the state of things prevailing in non-Moslem countries has caused the dissolution of family ties, and jeopardized the conjugal happiness, which Moslem husbands and wives, faithful to one another, to their religion, and to God, enjoy."
28. Commenting on the subject, His Excellency Doctor Dawalibi made the following observations. These were addressed in particular to the President of the European Commission, who had, before leaving for Saudi Arabia, heard from some people hostile to Islam the remark: 'So you are going to the country where they lynch women for adultery?':
"If you please, Mr. President, report to these people what you have heard. You have neither heard that anyone had been stoned, nor seen any such thing in this Kingdom. It would be better for a society, where the fear of God is enough to prevent both crime and punishment, thus securing integrity of the family and happiness of married couple, to prescribe a strict religious penalty in this matter, rather than rely on a secular legislation, which does not provide any similar penalty, but does not instil in man any fear of God either, and which, by the same token, causes many to lose the sense of the family. There inevitably follow offences to social dignity, and encouragement to crimes of the most dreadful and varied kinds, whereas, in Moslem countries, where God is openly revered, and His Law sincerely enforced, nothing comparable happens."
29. The Saudi Delegation now entered upon the study of the remaining question, asked by the European Commission concerning woman and syndicates. It referred its guests to the Memorandum of the Government of the Kingdom, where these problems are thoroughly clarified. As this Memorandum had been distributed, and each member had it in his possession, it seemed unnecessary, for lack of time, to repeat the explanations therein contained.
In the Memorandum, one will find all that one should know about the condition and liberty of woman in Islam, as also about the protection of labour and the rights of workers.
30. Finally, the Saudi Delegation answered the question, raised by the European Commission, about Organic Regulations in the Kingdom. Despite a promise made by King Faysal himself, then Prime Minister, in 1962, these have not been as yet promulgated. It answered also a question, regarding extraordinary tribunals, constituted in some countries for the security of the State, whether similar tribunals, of which jurists generally disapprove, existed in this Kingdom.
31. Starting with Organic Regulations, the Saudi Delegation made this statement:
"His Majesty the King has not forgotten his promise. General and particular circumstances, however, either before or after His Majesty's accession, had caused the Commission, appointed for the drafting of Organic Regulations, to suspend its work. We do not divulge any secret by saying that a draft of Organic Regulations has already been written, and submitted to a Higher Commission."
32. "Further, we must draw the attention of our kind questioners to this:
'Organic Regulations are established and promulgated, nowadays, for the special purpose of determining the attributions and prerogatives of the Chief of State, within the bounds of the essential human rights and positive rights formally declared. The original purpose was, in the old days, to put an end to the absolute power of monarchs over their peoples, and to the claim that they were representatives of God on earth and derived their authority from God alone. But in a State like Saudi Arabia, where Koranic Doctrine is implemented, the Sovereign's attributions are automatically limited by the Doctrine itself, through general or particular provisions. After that Doctrine, he is not different from any Chief of State in a constitutional country, but he holds his power through free commendation of the people. According to Moslem Doctrine, no Sovereign could ever claim to represent God in this world, and to derive his authority from Him. This is why it would be quite wrong, due to biased interpretations, to liken a Moslem State, where the ruler enforces Divine Law, to one of those former so-called "theocratic regimes" in the West, where kings actually considered themselves as God's deputies, and thus possessed an unlimited power. There is absolutely nothing in Islam which bars Organic Regulations founded on the principles of the Koran from being made."
33. To this question, the Saudi Delegation answered:
"As for extraordinary tribunals, they are unknown in our Kingdom. In Saudi Arabia, all people without distinction are subjected, whether in civil or in penal matter, to jurisdictions of common law, including the King himself, if such should be the case. And by the way, it so happened, some little time ago, that an ordinary citizen contested with the King some land property, the boundaries of which appeared differently in their respective deeds. The ordinary tribunals, which had to give a verdict in that conflict, decided in favour of the citizen, and the sentence was directly carried out, without any discrimination of persons. A case like this substantiates what we were saying before, namely that Moslem Doctrine in our Kingdom, by determining the prerogatives of the Chief of State in the general setting of regulations common to all citizens, does not grant absolute power to anyone, and admits no distinction of rights under the Law of God.
34. After answer had been given to all the questions raised by the European Commission of jurists, the Saudi Delegation closed its exposition. His Excellency the Minister of Justice, and the distinguished scholars with him, had all successively spoken.
35.Whereupon, the members of the European Commission, beginning with President MacBride, spoke in turn. They declared themselves deeply impressed by all that they had heard, concerning Moslem Doctrine and Human Rights in Islam. Mr. MacBride, particularly, said:
"It is here, in this Moslem country, that Human Rights should be proclaimed, nowhere else. To Moslem canonists belongs the task to enlighten the world on these things, as it is sheer ignorance which has led the enemies of Islam and Moslems to attack and blemish the name of Islam, Moslems, and Islamic government."
The President of the European Commission urgently demanded, that these important answers be written down and handed to the members of the Commission, so as to constitute a document which they, in turn, would use to defend Islam and explain its realities.
One of his colleagues congratulated this young State, on the admirable manner in which Human Rights were, through Islam, upheld and protected in the Kingdom. In the end, he said: "As a Christian, I declare that here, in this Moslem country, God is revered in all truth." He professed his agreement with Moslem canonists in asserting that, after what he had heard, and actually seen, he held Koranic prescriptions on human rights as undoubtedly more meaningful than the Charter of Human Rights.