International Law is Dead , Islam Has a Higher Standard

International law is a consideration to be ignored when politically inconvenient. Islam has a higher standard. Islam does not chop and change its moral framework

It was reported on 3rd March 2026, that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, responding to questions about the bombing of Iran, said:

“This is not the moment to lecture our partners and allies. Despite our reservations, we share many of their objectives.”

His remarks were echoed by German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul who stated:

Two senior officials of one of Europe’s most powerful nations; a nation that lectures the world on its post-war moral obligations - openly admitting that international law is a consideration to be ignored when politically inconvenient.

It is clear these values matter little when it comes to bombing other nations for regime change.

Islam has a higher standard. Islam does not chop and change its moral framework based on time, place, or geopolitical alliance.

Last year I wrote about the deliberate and careful avoidance of the word genocide in the context of Gaza. The argument then was that international law, for all its weight and authority on paper, is only ever applied when it is politically convenient to do so. I have shared parts of that article below with an updated understanding regarding the Iran issue.

The legal position on Iran

The United Nations Charter under Article 2(4) is unambiguous. It states that all member states shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

There are two recognised exceptions. The first is a UN Security Council authorisation under Chapter VII. The second is self-defence under Article 51, which permits a state to act if it has suffered an armed attack, and even then only until the Security Council has taken the necessary measures.

Neither of these thresholds, on the face of it, appears to have been met in the context of the strikes on Iran. Yet Wadephul’s response when asked to make a legal assessment was not to engage with the law. It was to defer entirely. “At this point, I am not making a final assessment under international law.”

Carefully chosen words and loose definitions

In politics, the language used is always carefully selected, especially when it comes to addressing the actions of other states. It is an important tool that can be used to express disquiet or even anger to another state in a manner that gets the message across ‘diplomatically’. It is rare to see the public humiliation of other world leaders, such as Zelensky of Ukraine and Hussain of Jordan last year, both at the hands of Donald Trump, but we live in strange political times.

It is common for this language, especially in the Western world, to be tied up in legal jargon as to the exact meaning of a word and when and if it should be used. The legality or not of state actions, in theory, are the foundations of international law.

International law of itself is not a set of pre-written dos and don’ts that all states must adhere to; its make-up is of a complex nature of general principles, agreements based on treaties, and jus cogens (peremptory norms or compelling law).

The peremptory norms are issues of law that cannot be violated by any state (in theory, at least). This means that even if states agree a treaty that violates these norms, then that treaty could be rendered null and void (in theory, at least).

Under Article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any treaty that conflicts with a peremptory norm is void.

The full text of Article 53 reads:

Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (“jus cogens”) A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

Interestingly the UK House of Commons briefing paper on international law states the following regarding jus cogens:

A status of rules which means they cannot be derogated from. Any treaty incompatible with a jus cogens rule could be void.

The words ‘is void’ have been replaced by ‘could be void’, thus under UK law (according to the briefing paper) a treaty that violates peremptory norms could still be legal. In typical style the UK always gives itself enough weasel room, just in case.

This wriggle room is not academic. It is precisely this kind of deliberate legal vagueness that allows states to sidestep their obligations - whether that is refusing to name a genocide in Gaza or declining to assess the legality of bombing a sovereign nation.

The prevention of genocide was adopted in 1948 under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, this convention came into force a few years later in 1951 and subsequent global adherence to this meant it become one of the jus cogens or peremptory norms. Genocide is given as an example of a peremptory norm in the UK House of Commons briefing paper mentioned above.

The definition of genocide in Article II of the convention states:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

The full text of the convention can be read here, it goes on to state that any person or state enacting acts of genocide can be punished for these actions, there are rules in place for extradition of said persons and that the full force of the United Nations can be used to enact these rules.

Once both these two issues are understood; namely, the definition of genocide and that there are peremptory norms which a state cannot violate; then both the reluctance and the urgency to label the Zionist barbarism in Gaza as a genocide becomes clear.

A global acceptance of the Zionist actions as a genocide would mean an automatic violation of the norms the world lives by and therefore it would constitute a basis for potential action against the occupying Zionist state and or individuals within that state. Genocide does not obligate global action it simply lays the legal foundation for further steps.

It is for this reason why allies of the Zionists even when publicly rebuking its actions are reluctant to use the word ‘genocide’. This is why Joe Biden was rebranded Genocide Joe due to his refusal to label Israel a genocidal state. In fact Joe Biden went out of way to declare what was happening in Gaza was ‘not a genocide’.

The optics, and indeed the legality, of any state such as the Americans or the British doing ‘business’ and selling arms to a state that is enacting a genocide would not look good.

There is method in the madness of avoiding the word genocide.

Does it matter if the murder Gaza was a genocide or if bombing Iran goes against international law?

Having said all of this (there was a lot to get through) does it really matter if the western world regularly flouts international law ?

For all those who naively believe that international law actually holds any moral or political weight it does. Even though occupying forces in Palestine and Kashmir have routinely flouted international law for decades.

It does if we accept that international law is the basis and foundation of all that is good or bad in the world of geopolitics.

It also does if we accept international law as a barometer for when action should be taken against a state carrying out violent acts against others.

As a Muslim the definition of what is a genocide and want is or is not within the remit of international law matters very little.

Islam has a higher moral standard

So what does matter if it is not International Law?

The Islamic standard for when life is to be protected and what is justified in warfare (Gaza by the way is not a war) is way higher than that of current international law.

The obligations to act are not premised on some legal definition of genocide or global political opinion, but simply on accountability to Allah (swt). That is true of individuals, the leader (Caliph) and the state (Caliphate) as a whole.

An example of this is the hadith of Messenger of Allah (saw) that states:

عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ قَالَ رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَطُوفُ بِالْكَعْبَةِ وَيَقُولُ مَا أَطْيَبَكِ وَأَطْيَبَ رِيحَكِ مَا أَعْظَمَكِ وَأَعْظَمَ حُرْمَتَكِ وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ لَحُرْمَةُ الْمُؤْمِنِ أَعْظَمُ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ حُرْمَةً مِنْكِ مَالِهِ وَدَمِهِ وَأَنْ نَظُنَّ بِهِ إِلَّا خَيْرً

Abdullah ibn Umar reported: I saw the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, circling around the Ka’bah and saying, “How pure you are and how pure is your fragrance! How great you are and how great is your sanctity! By the One in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, the sanctity of the believer is greater to Allah than your sanctity, in his wealth, his life, and to assume nothing of him but good.”

Source: Sunan Ibn Mājah 3932

Grade: Sahih li ghayrihi (authentic due to external evidence) according to Al-Albani

Action to protect Muslim lives starts at the violation of a Muslim’s wealth, honour or life. By using the Ka’bah (the holiest place of worship to Muslims) as an example the Prophet of Islam (saw) is highlighting the seriousness by which protecting life should be taken.

A limit which was reached way back in 1948 when the Zionist state was forced upon the land of Palestine and an obligation to act which Muslim rulers have been failing ever since.

Islam does not only sanctify Muslim lives and ignore all others, the Quran clearly states:

“That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity. ˹Although˺ Our messengers already came to them with clear proofs, many of them still transgressed afterwards through the land.”

[Translated Meaning of the Quran: Al-Ma’idah: verse 32]

This oft quoted verse when it comes to Muslims distancing themselves from being labelled terrorists clearly shows the value Islam gives to human life be it Muslim or not. The irony of this verse is that is was revealed addressing the very people the Zionists claim to now represent the Bani Israel (Children of Israel), yet their actions are a world away from what they were ordained to do.

Even when it comes to warfare that is of one state to another state Islam has rules that protect the women and children, the environment and people of other faiths.

Abu Bakr Sadiq (ra), the first Caliph of the Muslims gave the following advice to the army of Usamah before it left for Syria.

“Oh army, stop and I will order you [to do] ten [things]; learn them from me by heart. You shall not engage in treachery; you shall not act unfaithfully; you shall not engage in deception; you shall not indulge in mutilation; you shall kill neither a young child nor an old man nor a woman; you shall not fell palm trees or burn them; you shall not cut down [any] fruit-bearing tree; you shall not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel except for food. You will pass people who occupy themselves in monks’ cells; leave them alone, and leave alone what they busy themselves with……”

The Histroy of Al-Tabari - Volume X - Page 16

This is stark contrast to the behaviour of not only Zionist occupying forces in Gaza but of their mentors the Americans and British in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan and now Iran. Western bombs seem to always mistakenly hit schools or wedding parties.

The Caliphate has a moral obligation to the world to protect those who have no protection, not to sit back and watch as women and children are starved and burnt.

The Quran clearly states that

We have sent you ˹O Prophet˺ only as a mercy for the whole world.

[Translated Meaning of the Quran: Al-Anbya: verse 107]

This is a duty the state carries when propagating Islam to the world not as a colonising tool but as a way to remove the oppression that people live under.

The concept of international law has failed the people of Gaza and Iran in fact it has failed the world only being rolled out when is suits the powerbrokers and ignored when it doesn’t.

Gaza has introduced the world to the darkest of secrets of the current global order, that human life is only sacrosanct if there is political capital to be had. This has been continued into Iran today.

Muslims keep ending up in the same place time and again, yearning to be recognised as the victims of grotesque crimes, holding onto the hope that any of the global organisations will stand up for Muslim lives.

Our lands have now become cannon fodder to be attacked because of the actions of America. When you make a pact with the devil you have to pay the price. We should not bemoan the destruction of facades of freedom built by our rulers, rather the reasons that got us to this point.

My article from last year ended with the following

“Muslims should not be afraid to tell the world that only Islam will save them from potentially suffering a fate just like the Palestinians in the future.”

I take no pleasure in saying I was right, but I was!

If the world does not stop the Zionist blood lust funded and backed by America then who knows which country is next after Iran.

(If you have made it this far then please consider subscribing & sharing this article with your friends and family. Please show your support by liking this article using the ❤️ below or even better restack)