Is the International Criminal Court picking on Africa?

Many observers and critics of the International Criminal Court (ICC) argue that the Court has focused entirely on Africa and needs to expand its investigations to other continents. Some cast the ICC as a colonialist tool that is biased specifically against Africans. But while it is true that each of the individuals charged by the Court have been Africans, these arguments overlook and overshadow the fact that African governments have been largely supportive of the ICC and were instrumental in its founding.

As many have noted, of the eight active formal investigations that the ICC has opened in it’s over ten years of existence, all of them have been on the African continent. It is easy, then, with just that information, to conclude that the Court and its prosecutors have focused on Africa. But contrary to common perceptions, the ICC’s interventions in Africa have in fact been called for and supported by African states. In four instances—in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic and Mali—the situations were referred to the ICC prosecutor by those very states.

In those situations where investigations were opened on the volition of the prosecutor, there was also support from African governments. In Kenya, the prosecutor was given evidence of crimes allegedly committed during 2007-08 post-election violence by an international commission established by the Kenyan government. Even then, an investigation was only formally opened after the Kenyan government failed to meet an agreed upon deadline for starting its own prosecutions.

Likewise, the investigation in Cote d’Ivoire was supported by the Ivorian government, under the leadership of President Laurent Gbagbo which voluntarily accepted ICC jurisdiction in 2003.

The remaining investigations—in Darfur and Libya—were referred to the ICC prosecutor by the United Nations (UN) Security Council, with both referrals receiving support from African states sitting on the Council at the time.

Rather than seeking out cases on the African continent, the ICC opened investigations where it was asked to, and where grave crimes were being committed. As current ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has said: “The office of the prosecutor will go where the victims need us… The world increasingly understands the role of the court and Africa understood it from the start. As Africans we know that impunity is not an academic, abstract notion.”

African support for the ICC

“My largest constituency is Africa and its state parties. I make every effort to liaise with them and be truly attentive to their concerns,” remarked Ambassador Tiina Intelmann, President of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (the ICC’s founding treaty) recently. Her office has carried out exhaustive efforts to respond to any question from African states, whether they are ICC states parties or not.

African countries have long supported the idea of an international criminal court. Members of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and later the African Union (AU) were actively involved in the ICC’s creation. During the 1998 Rome Conference negotiations, OAU Legal Adviser Tiyanjana Maluwa gave two justifications for Africa’s interest in the ICC: the continent’s historical endurance of atrocities such as slavery and colonial wars, and the memory of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, where the international community failed to take preventative action.

In Maluwa’s words, these experiences “strengthened Africa’s resolve to support the idea of an independent, effective, international penal court that would punish and hopefully deter perpetrators of such heinous crimes”.

This resolve has carried through to the present. African states have routinely responded positively to requests for assistance by the ICC during the course of proceedings. They have facilitated investigations and provided crucial support to their conduct.

For example, just last month Rwanda, which is not a state party to the Rome Statute, cooperated in facilitating the transfer of ICC suspect Bosco Ntaganda to the Court. Furthermore, in July 2012, six West African heads of state attending a meeting of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Burkina Faso called for the ICC to intervene and conduct investigations of alleged crimes in northern Mali.

The fact is that several ordinary African citizens do not share the same opposing views as some of their leaders on the ICC. While attending an expert roundtable meeting on the African Union, the ICC and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in Addis Ababa in March 2013, I was asked why heads of state and senior government officials feel they are entitled to immunity from prosecution?

The AU and the ICC: a shaky relationship?

The AU’s relationship with the ICC is admittedly far from perfect. The AU has supported UN Security Council deferrals of the investigations in Darfur and Kenya, and most notably instructed member states not to act on the arrest warrant for Sudanese President and ICC suspect Omar Al-Bashir, arguing that he has immunity as a sitting head of state.

But that is not the whole story. It is important to bear in mind that institutional relations are complex and take time to develop. As a case in point, the relationship between the ICC and the UN was foreseen in the Rome Statute, but the negotiations of a draft relationship agreement as a basis for discussions between both organizations lasted for two years. No such provisions were foreseen for the relationship between the AU and the ICC, so some tension between the two may be expected.

The ICC Office of the Prosecutor has said that overall the relationship between the ICC and the AU has been very good. Between 80 and 90 percent of the ICC’s requests for cooperation are directed to African states, including to non-states parties, and to date none have been refused. One could argue that the Court’s current cases could not have proceeded without the support and cooperation of the AU’s member states.

Crucially, members of the AU have also begun to assert the need to abide by their obligations as members of the ICC over their membership in the AU. Countries such as Botswana, South Africa, Burkina Faso and Niger have publicly affirmed the need to arrest ICC suspects on their territory. During preparations for the July 2012 AU summit in Malawi, President Joyce Banda announced that the arrest warrant against President al-Bashir would be acted upon if he were to attend, which led to the relocation of the meeting to Addis Ababa.

Where states have been reticent to cooperate with the Court, African civil society has pushed the issue. In Kenya, for example, civil society groups worked through the Kenyan judicial system to assert the government’s obligation to arrest Al-Bashir.

Africans support justice

With 34 states parties and 43 signatories to the Rome Statute, Africa is one of the ICC’s largest bases of support. With Egypt’s recent expressions of interest in joining the Court, that support looks like it will continue to grow in the future. Likewise, the African continent is well-represented on the ICC’s staff. Several Africans hold key positions in the Court, including the chief prosecutor, 5 of the courts judges are African including the first vice president and deputy registrar. Out of a total of 658 permanent ICC staff, 144 are African nationals, representing 34 African nations.

Critics of the Court all too often discount this participation. When they do, they lose sight of the fact that Africans are not the victims of a biased ICC, but willful supporters of the Court’s mission to end impunity for the crimes from which they have too frequently suffered.

Finally, the Rome Statute states the ICC should select the gravest situations under its jurisdiction.  It is not about regional or geographic representation, and its not a subject of high politics, it’s the law: where there are crimes falling within its jurisdiction that are not being addressed by national jurisdictions, under the new system of international justice, the Office of the Prosecutor should step in if the Court is to do what it was set up to do.

Those who argue that the court is targeting Africans should stop and think for a moment: there are more than 5 million African victims displaced, more than 40.000 African victims killed, hundreds of thousands of African children transformed into killers and rapists, thousands of Africans raped. Should the ICC ignore these victims?  Arguably, it’s not about focusing on Africa; it is about working for the victims, and the victims are African. That is why the Court is a solution; its impartiality, its independence ensures the legitimacy of its intervention.

Kenya Following Sudan Tactics To Undermine ICC

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) obliges states parties to cooperate with the Court in regards to its investigations and prosecutions. It is perhaps not too surprising then that Sudan, which never ratified the Rome Statute, has not cooperated with the Court’s investigation in Darfur. What is novel is that Kenya—which joined the ICC in 2005—is now practicing its own form of non-cooperation that in many ways mirrors that of Sudan.

International community appeals for ICC assistance

In both Sudan and Kenya, ICC intervention was prompted by the findings of independent international bodies. This is key to understanding these states’ interactions with the Court.

In March 2005, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan for investigation by the ICC prosecutor. 

This came after a UN Commission of Inquiry in Darfur revealed that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed and that the Sudanese legal system was incapable of dealing with human rights violations.  Later that year, the prosecutor opened a full investigation.

In the summer of 2008, the prosecutor requested the issuance of arrest warrants for President Omar Ahmad Al-Bashir and other suspects. For many African and Arab diplomats the decision to open investigations in Darfur wasn’t a big deal. They were stunned, however, that a serving head of state could be prosecuted by the Court following a referral from the Security Council.

Two years after the Darfur referral, Kofi Annan handed over the Waki Commission envelope – containing the names of those suspected of being primarily responsible for Kenya’s 2007-08 post-election violence – to the ICC prosecutor. In November 2009, the prosecutor requested permission from ICC judges to uses his powers to open an investigation into the violence, leading to charges against six prominent Kenyans, including the future president and vice president.

Measures to escape ICC prosecutions

The Kenyan suspects and their allies in government have used the government apparatus to establish alternative rule of law mechanisms. In April 2012, President Mwai Kibaki lobbied his peers to pass a resolution extending the jurisdiction of the East Africa court of justice (EACJ) to cover crimes against humanity. Kibaki’s intention was to ensure that Uhuru Kenyatta, Francis Muthaura, William Ruto and Joshua Sang did not go to the ICC. Although the heads of state of the East African community agreed to extend the jurisdiction of the EACJ in April 2012, the vice president of the East African Law Society, James Mwamu, complained that “The EACJ has no jurisdiction whatsoever to deal with criminal matters and the move by the legislative assembly to pass that motion is absolutely illegitimate”.

The Kenya National Human Rights Commission (KNHRC) Commissioner Lawrence Muite also challenged the government’s efforts to transfer the ICC cases to the EACJ.  “This is not about justice for Kenyans. It is all about politics and protecting a few individuals. They seek to add protocols to the EACJ just for the sake of four people”.

It is worth noting that as early as 2006 and 2007, civil society organisations in East Africa had been advocating for extension of jurisdiction of the EACJ to include human rights violations. However, this idea was hijacked by Kibaki to protect the four suspects indicted by the ICC.

Similarly, the Sudanese government established the Special Criminal Court for Events in Darfur (SCCED) on June 7, 2005 – a day after the prosecutor of the ICC announced that he was going to commence investigations in Darfur. However, the cases at the SCCED do not address major issues of accountability in Darfur.

The ICC prosecutor gave both Kenya and Sudan ample time to undertake genuine and effective prosecutions at the national level before moving forward with his prosecutions.

Both countries have also tried to have their ICC cases deferred by the Security Council (under Article 16 of the Rome Statute, which allows for a one-year deferral) and have sought African Union backing for their endeavours. However, neither has found a receptive audience among Security Council members.

Politicization of the ICC process

By appealing to tribal and ethnic sentiments – portraying the ICC as a tool of Western imperialism—politicians in Sudan and Kenya have brainwashed many citizens and discredited the ICC and the Security Council in their countries, their region and beyond.

Extensive propaganda has been used to spread lies and turn their citizens against the Court and the Security Council while improving the credibility of suspects wanted by the ICC.

In the run up to the March 2013 elections, ICC suspect and Kenyan President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta stated that Kenyans would be voting on a “referendum against the ICC.” In relation to the prosecutor’s decision to drop charges against co-accused Francis Muthaura, he said “if Muthaura’s case is collapsing, is that not an indication even mine will go nowhere?” Kenyatta’s lie was exposed by ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on March 20, 2013, when she stated very clearly that he will face trial because the charges against him have not been dropped.

Over the same period, the Kenyan Daily Post published a fake statement purporting to be from the former ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo apologizing to Kenyans for indicting four suspects of the 2007/8 post election violence. The statement entitled “Romour: is it true?? Uhuru/Ruto ‘s ICC cases…Exclusive apology of Moreno Ocampo to Kenyans” was completely false. While giving a speech with the headline “Ten Years of the International Criminal Court: Is the World Better Equipped to Deal with Mass Atrocities?” at the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute, Hunter College in New York City on the 19th of March 2013, Luis Moreno Ocampo denied ever writing an apologetic letter to Kenyans.

In his condemnation of the Al-Bashir arrest warrant, former Sudanese UN Ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad claimed that the ICC is tool of imperialism, claiming that certain permanent members of the Security Council – the UK, France and the United States – were using it to dominate and destabilize Sudan and gain access to its oil and land.  He went on to say that the Court reflects the brand of Euro-American justice that had destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza.

Kenyans engaging legally

In May 2011, the Kenyan government pursued an admissibility challenge claiming that, as a result of the adoption of a new constitution and judicial reforms, it was now capable of investigating and prosecuting ICC suspects. However, pre-trial judges rejected the challenge, stating that there was no evidence of a national investigation into the 2007-08 post-election violence.   While explaining the decision to drop charges in the Muthaura case on March 11, 2013, Bensouda complained of a lack of cooperation: 

“Despite assurances of cooperation, the government of Kenya has provided only limited assistance to the prosecution and failed to provide the prosecution with access to witnesses or documents which may shed light on the Muthaura case.”

Kenyan ICC suspects have never argued that they are senior government officials and are also entitled to immunity. In August 2011, President Kibaki axed William Ruto from his cabinet as higher education minister and Kenyatta and Muthaura both resigned from their positions as finance minister and head of public service and cabinet secretary, respectively, after the ICC charges had been brought against them.

Sudan, on the other hand, attempted to challenge the jurisdiction of the court and admissibility of the Darfur situation through a Court-appointed defense counsel. Pre-trial judges rejected that request stating that the counsel didn’t have the right to make such a challenge. Sudan also argues that Al-Bashir is entitled to immunity based on Articles 98(1) and 27 of the Rome Statute.  In fact, Article 27 stipulates the irrelevance of official capacity, in particular concerning heads of state.

International community must stand firm on need for ICC prosecutions

In conclusion, Kenya isn’t living up to its obligations as an ICC member state in engaging with the Court from a strictly legal perspective. It has far too readily followed Sudan’s lead in attempting to shield suspects from justice through a variety of means.

Father Musaala's Letter on Failed Celibacy

FR ANTHONY MUSAALA

MIREMBE GARDENS

PO BOX 30329

KAMPALA
Tuesday 12th March 2013

AN OPEN LETTER TO BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND LAITY: 

THE FAILURE OF CELIBATE 
CHASTITY AMONG DIOCESAN PRIESTS.

It is an open secret that many catholic priests and some bishops, in Uganda 
and elsewhere, no longer live celibate chastity.

From the numerous cases on the ground one might be forgiven for saying that 
most diocesan priests either don’t believe in celibacy anymore, or if they do, 
have long since given up the struggle to be chaste.

In any case it still seems important for priests to vow even a woefully 
imperfect celibacy, if only for the sake of the hallowed ‘priestly image’.

The church however still maintains the fable that most catholic priests 
persevere in celibate chastity fairly well, which fiction begs belief.

ALL IS NOT WELL

All is definitely not well with what I call ‘administrative celibacy’, in the 
catholic church. It is a celibacy which is more forced than consented to, 
and its effects are anything but good.

I suggest that now more than at any other time, we must begin an open and 
frank dialogue about catholic priests becoming happily married men, 
rather than being miserable and single, either before or after 
ordination.

Although this may be quite a shock to many, but the alternative may be far 
worse. What do you think happens when lapses and scandals by priests, 
sisters,brothers and bishops continue unabated , whether hidden or not?

My forecast is that we will have a few more years of catholic 
self-deception; perhaps ten, telling ourselves and the world that everything 
is Ok, nothing serious. Then more scandals will surface.

As people become more enlightened (as in Europe) there will be a crisis of 
faith, perhaps a sudden collapse, with many leaving the church, either to join 
other churches (whose pastors may be no better, but who appear to be less 
hypocritical about it), or to become agnostics, especially the middle 
classes.

One must remember that there are other challenges facing the church, such as 
general weakening of faith, loss of sacramental life, low incomes, dull 
liturgies, and the challenges of the media. Many of the youth ( not the 
children) are already alienated from Catholicism and are easy prey to 
proselytizing groups.

FACING THE NAKED TRUTH

The number of catholic priests and bishops who are sexually active in Uganda 
is unknown, but almost everywhere unedifying stories of priests ‘sexploits’, 
are not hard to come by. These stories are told in counseling or as anecdotes,or 
by the media. They are told within the parishes and beyond. They are told at 
home in families, in taxis, in hair salons and in the markets.

What is talked about? Priests’ secret and not so secret liaisons with girls 
and women, coerced sex with house-maids, with students, with relatives; 
priests ‘wives’ set up in well established homes; priests involved with a 
parishioner’s wife; of priests romantically involved with religious Sisters; 
priests offering money for sex, and so on…

If you add to this, a fair number of priests’ and bishops’ children 
scattered around the nation, who are carefully hidden from view (and not so 
carefully!), not to mention children who are aborted at priests’ behest, we 
begin to get the true picture of human weakness, whose consequences are nothing 
less than catastrophic both for the priest and his partners, and which cannot be 
concealed by taking a vow of celibacy, or by retreats and more prayers.

LETS LEARN FROM EUROPE AND AMERICA

While in Europe and the States, the scandal of numerous paedophile priests, 
whose victims are rightly suing the catholic church is widely reported 
in the media, very little by contrast is heard about priests and bishops in 
Africa who continue sexually abusing female minors (or vulnerable women) with 
no legal action taken.

Obviously time has come for serious measures to be undertaken, similar to 
those in Europe and America. Apart from legal action in civil and ecclesiastical 
courts aginst offenders, strict ‘child protection’ codes and practices, must be 
enforced, by the state which for instance should prohibit young or 
vulnerable females from residing in parish houses, where some of the abuses 
occur.

THE SINS OF DECEPTION AND SILENCE
Thus the unnecessary and unpalatable deception about celibate priests, that 

they are chaste when they are not is clearly contradicted by what is on the 
ground. The deception is of course not tenable for much longer.

Surely we must first tell ourselves the truth as a church, that is to say, 
that celibacy has failed or is failing us, and then also tell the world which we 
have been deceiving the naked truth, before we are completely overtaken by 
events.

Unfortunately there is an ominous unhealthy conspiracy of silence about 
these matters among the Ugandan clergy and faithful alike, probably because 
priestly celibacy might be seen to be a hollow shell, which it mostly is 
nowadays.

The laity for all their good will, are also co-opted into this unwholesome 
silence, sometimes for lack of information, sometimes because they believe that 
they have some ‘moral’ duty to be loyal to an imperfect church. In truth their 
silence shores up the sins of priests and the destroys many lives.

MARRIED PRIESTS NOT WANTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

When I ask lay people whether catholic priests should have the option to 
marry the answer is always NO; since they say, that would make catholic priests 
like Anglican reverends! As if that was the worse possible fate, yet Anglican 
clergy who are married certainly do not have the same levels and same kinds of 
sexual lapses as their catholic counterparts..

Most lay people in Uganda would not like their priests to have the option of 
marriage, yet it is their very own children, sisters, wives who are being used 
and abused by the clergy!

THE CAMPAIGN

A campaign for optional married priesthood in the catholic church is now 
required. This campaign is primarily a form of education and purification. It 
is not be construed as a rebellion against established doctrine but a reading 
of the signs of the times

Since there are no fundamental theological arguments against a married 
priesthood (there are already some married priests in he UK and Uniate catholic 
churches) but only arguments from tradition and church discipline, I believe 
that it is a matter of time before common sense prevails and marriage for the 
clergy in the latin rite (i.e. catholic) church is accepted..

I am aware that there is a big struggle ahead.Unfortunately celibacy also 
serves certain vested interests in the power structure of the church, and of 
course celibate priests are cheaper and easier to deal with, even to manipulate, 
by ecclesiastical authority, but I believe that in time we will be freed from 
this unecessary yoke, unhelpful as it is, which is all the more severe in Africa 
where family and family ties are so crucial to one’s psychological 
equilibrium..

PERSONAL INTEREST

One factor which has prompted me to take up this campaign is my own 
biography. I am one of a handful of several priests who had the misfortune of 
appearing in the press for supposed sexual trespasses.

In my case,which was 2009, it was cited that I must be a homosexual, because 
I had homosexual friends and went to homosexual gatherings. Not that I cared 
much whether or not someone thinks that I am homosexual. Certainly I have been 
called worse things than that.

In my defence I tried to point out that I didn’t actually recall having had 
homosexual relations with any of my rabid accusers, neither did they; which 
meant that hearsay alone became the evidence .

What I found troubling is what followed. Apart from all the pain and scandal 
caused to all concerned, I found that even though all the allegations were based 
on hearsay, I was being treated, by my superiors as the biggest sinner in 
Nineveh.

Up till now judgements are being made against me by ecclesiastical 
authority in the light of those events, which I suppose is to be expected. I 
wondered about this and came to the conclusion that priests who ‘get caught.’ 
like me, have to pay for the sins of all those who don’t get caught.

In other words failed celibacy requires scapegoats.Some clergy are able to 
get away with the grossest behaviour, because of their age, position, influence 
or even because of financial inducements.

So while I appear to have little moral authority to talk about celibacy as a 
priestly virtue because of what may or may not have happened to me in 2009, 
nevertheless I can point out the systemic immorality of the institutionalized 
hypocrisy called celibate diocesan priesthood, which severely punishes lapses 
when they appear, but condones the secret crimes of many more.

I believe that there must be a new openness at whatever it takes. The point 
is not that diocesan priests should leave the priesthood and get married, but 
compel the church to offer the option of a married priesthood. This will put an 
end to the double lives so many priests are forced to live
.

SOME CASES HEARD

Case One

I spoke with a 21 year old young man last week. He is one of seven children 
of a catholic priest who happens to still be serving within the Province of the 
Archdiocese of Kampala. The young man, who is willing to testify, lived in a 
parish house with his father priest, even serving on the altar with him, but 
having to pretend to be a visiting nephew.

At times he was assisted by his father to go to school, but was later 
abandoned. On one occasion he drank poison in order to end his life, due to the 
trauma, but was taken to hospital before he died.

Case Two

Another is a personal friend. He was fathered by a missionary priest of the 
White Fathers 58 years ago but is still suffering the trauma of no real identity 
or home.

Although he has since received some minimum compensation from the White 
fathers , he still feels that there was an injustice to his mother who is still 
alive , who was sexually assaulted by the said White father priest in his office 
when she was only sixteen. He wishes to sue.

Case Three

Another case is of a priest who seduced a member of my youth group who 
happened to be in need of school fees, at Old Kampala, She soon became pregnant 
by the said priest, disappeared from church activities and from her home to be 
established in a ‘home’.

Case Four

Another lady tells of how she went to confession, only to be sexually 
molested by the priest, who fondled her breasts during confession

Case Five

When I was at secondary school, it was common knowledge that various Brothers 
were having sexual activity with the boys. It was called ‘jaboo’. As a pubescent 
teenager, my first sexual encounter was actually with one of the brothers who 
invited me to his room on the pretext of doing some extra chemistry equations. I 
was sixteen at the time. Later I heard that several others had been through the 
same thing..with the same Brother and with other ones..Some are still alive to 
this day.

ACTION REQUIRED

I do not believe either that these cases are just a few ‘bad apples’ in the 
barrel, but rather they are symptomatic of a sick system which has lost its 
integrity in this one area, but won’t admit it.

Some of these cases are clearly criminal in nature, especially those of sex 
with children. They should be dealt with in a normal fashion and legal action 
taken in civil courts either against the church, or against those priests who 
offend.

I am therefore compiling cases from all over Uganda.I believe that if the all 
the victims of clearly molestations were to come out and sue the church in 
civil courts, such abuses would sharply decrease.

I am also helping to set up a Victims Support Group, independent of 
the church for obvious reasons, with guidance and help from similar groups in 
Europe and the States.

I have also engaged a Human rights lawyer to advise on the wider implications 
of clergy abuse on the basic human rights of individuals, especially women.

Join me in this exciting challenge to bring fundamental change and renewal 
to the catholic church.

Happy Easter

FR. ANTHONY MUSAALA

Islam and Terrorism: The Truth

It is unfortunate that Islam, the religion of peace, hope, harmony, goodwill and Brotherhood hads been badly tarnished by the perpetrators of various terrorists acts and barbarism as seen in recent years.

More and more often, Islam has been associated with terrorism and violence due to the actions of a few extreme individuals who’ve taken it upon themselves to do the most heinous crimes in the name of Islam.

Tragic events such as the attack on the twin towers in New York, the bombings of Bali, Madrid and London are assumed to be justified by Islam in the minds of some people. This idea has been fuelled further by many media channels which defame Islam by portraying these bombers as ‘Islamists’ or ‘Jihadists’, as though they were sanctioned by Islam, or had any legitimate spokemenship on behalf of Muslims. The actions of a few fanatical individuals who happen to have Muslim names or ascribe themselves to the Muslim faith should not be a yardstick by which Islam is judged. For the same reason, that one would not do justice to Christianity if it where perceived as sanctioning the genocide of the Native Americans, the atrocities of world war II or the bombings of the IRA.

To understand Islam’s stance on terrorism, one must refer to its original sources, the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, which are explicit in their prohibition of any form of injustice including that of wanton violence which seeks to instill fear, injury or death to civilians.

The Quran turns our attention to the high value of human life, whether it is Muslim or Non-Muslim and makes it absolutely forbidden to take an innocent life unjustly.  The gravity of such a crime is equated, in the Quran, with the killing of all humanity.

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” ( 5:32 )

Not only is human life sacred in Islam but the property, wealth, family and dignity of all individuals in society are to be respected and protected.  Those who transgress these rights and sow fasad (corruption) as the Quran describes it, incur the wrath of Allah. "…and seek not corruption in the earth; lo! Allah loveth not corrupters " (28:77)

Likewise in another verse “The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous” (42:42) Islam goes further than just prohibiting oppression and safeguarding rights, it commands its faithful to deal kindly and compassionately to all those who seek to live in peace and harmony

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: For Allah loves those who are just" (60:8)

In times of war and conflict, where enmity can obstruct an individual’s judgement to act morally, Islam commands that justice be upheld even towards one’s enemies."O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do" (5:8) .Centuries before the Geneva Convention was drawn up, Muslims were bound by a code of conduct which the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, set. 

He forbade the killing of women, children and elderly in war. In an authentic narration the Prophet (pbuh) warned that he who kills anyone who has a covenant of peace with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Paradise. In fact, he taught that justice is not only to humans but must be shown to animals and all living things.  In a narration the Prophet (pbuh) informed us about how a lady was sent to hell because of a cat she had locked up until it starved and died.  If such is the sanctity which Islam places on the soul of an animal, how much more grave is the killing of hundreds of innocent humans?!

Abu Bakr the first Calipha of the Muslims reflected these prophetic teachings when he advised his general Yazid, who was confronting Roman armies,"I advise you ten things, Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."

The message of the Quran is clear as we have seen and continue to explore below. Its very precise that the sanctity of any human life is to be respected and any violation in that regard is paramount to the worst crime.  Mercy is at the heart of the Islamic call, “We sent thee (O Muhammad) not save as a mercy for the peoples” (21:107); a totally different message to what the terrorists are sadly imparting to humanity.

Diplomatic immunity and ethics of war

According to the Islamic Holy Book - the Quran, God has bestowed honour on every individual irrespective of skin colour, race, nationality, etc. Freedom is one of the great favours of God and its deprivation is a great misery. Under the Islamic dispensation, no one can be made a captive without a just cause. Prisoners can only be taken in the event of a regular declared war or battle and not for any other reason or under any other pretext. The Holy Quran specifically states:

It does not behove a Prophet that he should have captives until he engages in regular fighting in the land. If you take captives, except in regular fighting, you will be regarded as desiring the goods of this world, while ALLAH desires for you the Hereafter. And ALLAH is Mighty, Wise (8:68)

This verse cuts at the root of not only slavery practice in years gone by but also demolishes any supposed justification of modern day hostage-taking and hijacking of innocent people not involved in actual combat.

In his farewell address the Holy Prophet of Islam gave special instructions regarding good treatment which should be meted out to prisoners. The Holy Prophet said:

O men, you still have in your possession some prisoners of war. I advise you, therefore, to feed them and to clothe them in the same way and style as you feed and clothe yourselves ..... To give them pain or trouble can never be tolerated.

More specific commandments on the ethics of war and treatment of prisoners are contained in the fifth verse of the forty-seventh chapter of the Quran. This comprehensive verse can be paraphrased as follows:

"When engaged in a regular battle, it should be fought bravely and relentlessly. War can be continued till peace and freedom of conscience are established. Prisoners are to be taken judiciously. Free men cannot be deprived of their liberty without a just and reasonable cause. When war is over, prisoners should be released as an act of favour or on taking ransom or by negotiating a mutual exchange."

In the history of Islam all these methods have been used for releasing prisoners. A novel method to get release was that the educated prisoners could teach reading and writing to those who were illiterate, in lieu of ransom.

This verse further strikes at the roots of those who would justify modern day terrorism in the name and under the banner of Islam.Envoys are privileged people in the Islamic system. They enjoy full personal immunity. They are not subject to political ransom, no matter how worthy the cause may be, and to kidnap them is a heinous crime. They must not be killed, molested or maltreated. There are numerous instances from the Holy Prophet's life which illustrate the application of these principles.

Thus Islamic scriptural commandments and the precepts of the Holy Prophet of Islam concerning diplomatic immunity are free from ambiguities. In a nutshell, taking hostages and maltreating envoys and private citizens in any shape and form is totally foreign to the teachings and doctrines of Islam. In other words, the philosophy of Islam totally rejects terrorism.

Concept of Jihad in islam

Through the actions of some elements, the western world visualizes a wrong concept of Jihad (Holy War). The word Jihad conjures up the vision of a marching band of religious fanatics with savage beards and fiery eyes, brandishing swords and attacking the infidels.

Jihad in Islamic terminology means to make an effort, to endeavour and to strive in a noble way. Over the centuries this meaning of Jihad has been obliterated or at least diluted. The critical juncture in the Islamic world requires reviving and recapturing the true and pristine meaning of Jihad.

Jihad can be divided into two broad categories. First is Jihad-e-akbar. This is Jihad against one's own person to curb sinful inclinations, i.e., purification of self. This is the most difficult Jihad and hence in terms of rewards and blessings is the highest category of Jihad.

The second is Jihad-e-asghar. This is Jihad of the sword. This is communal Jihad and presupposes certain specific conditions. The Quran speaks of fighting only against those who first attack Muslims and this is the very condition laid down in other verses of the Holy Quran as well. The so-called verse of the sword in the Islamic scripture is often taken out of context as if it inculcates an indiscriminate massacre of all unbelievers. 

The Quranic words such as kill whatever you find them apply only in cases where the enemy has first attacked Muslims and apply to those unbelievers and enemies who break their oaths and firm agreements. They do not apply to unprovoked wars and battles. To interpret these verses in any other manner would be a travesty of the lofty ideals of Islam. There is not a single instance in the life of the Holy Prophet where he offered the alternative of the sword or Islam to anyone.

The Western media and even some scholars sometimes ignore the distinction between these two aspects of Jihad. It must be remembered that the Holy Quran does not make Jihad, the holy war, in context of an article of faith. The sayings and traditions of the Holy Prophet render it into a formula for active struggle that invariably and incorrectly tended towards a militant expression. Modern day terrorism is contrary to the purview of the real spirit of the Islamic Jihad.

The presentation of Islam as a crude and barbaric religion which gives itself the right to cause unwarranted human and material suffering and destruction under the guise of Divine authority, is not the kind of Islam we find in the Holy Quran and in the precepts of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him!)

Peace and international relations in islam

Among the attributes of God, the Holy Quran mentions that He is the Source of peace and the Bestower of security (59:23). The establishment of peace and maintenance of security must, therefore, be the constant objective of all Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Every pursuit and activity which disturbs peace is severely condemned in Islam. We find specific injunctions in the Holy Quran:

And create not disorder in the earth after it has been set in order.... (7:57; 11:86; 29:37)

Mischief and wickedness are condemned in several other verses and Muslims are commanded to work wholly for peace.

Islam draws attention to factors which tend to disturb or destroy peace and order, and deprecates them. Domination of one group by another in the domestic sphere, or of one people by another in the international sphere is a potent cause of disturbance of peace and is therefore strongly condemned. Economic exploitation of one people or country by another inevitably leads to domination by the exploiters, and develops into a potential threat to peace. The Holy Quran prohibits such exploitation and an economy based on exploitation cannot be beneficial in its consequences, nor can it endure.

Islam visualizes an association of strong and stable states allied together in the pursuance of peace, freedom of conscience and the promotion of human welfare. Treaties or covenants between nations may have to be drawn up which should be done in a straightforward language and should not be evaded or repudiated under the temptation of securing some advantage. In case of difficulties and disputes, it is the duty of Muslims to bring about a peaceful settlement and adjustment.

The Holy Quran teaches that God has sent His revelation to all people from time to time. Many of prophets of the Old Testament are mentioned by name and so is Jesus who with other prophets is honoured and revered by all Muslims. Indeed, the Quran requires belief in the truth of all these prophets. Islam is thus unique and distinct in requiring an affirmation in all prophets wherever they appeared and therefore it seeks to bring about reconciliation between the followers of different faiths and to establish a basis of respect and honour among them. 

The Quran says: Surely, those who believe and the Jews and the Christians and the SAabians - whichever party from among these truly believes in ALLAH and the Last Day and does good deeds, shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon then nor shall they grieve (2:63)

The same message is repeated in 5:70. The basic unity of the followers of all faiths is emphatically stressed in the Holy Quran and the creation of discord and disunity by terrorism or otherwise has no place in Islam.

In the domain of international relations, religion and inter-religious relations occupy an important position. 

Unfortunately, comparatively little attention is paid to this aspect of human relations. It is assumed that religion is a private matter for each individual and should, therefore, have no direct connection with the political, social aspects of life. This assumption is not justified. Islam being an egalitarian religion, is not just a personal faith, but an all-encompassing codes of values and conduct. Islam is and will be a vital factor in human relations and there is a good ground of hope that it might progressively become more effective in promoting unity and accord rather than continue to be required on the part of religious and political leaders to achieve that goal.

I must conclude by saying that whether peace or war, acts of terrorism are not only condemned in Islam but are also pointedly declared alien to the teachings of Islam which in fact means peace through the submission to the Will of God, the Lord of all human beings. Only through conformity to Divine laws can we hope to achieve the ideal of a secure world free of terrorism.

Electing a Pope

New rules
Popes are elected by the College of Cardinals meeting in Conclave when the Apostolic See falls vacant.
Pope Paul VI significantly changed the rules for conclaves in 1975 when he promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Romano Pontifico Eligendo. He excluded all cardinals 80 years old or over from the conclave and made provision to prevent any bugging of the Sistine Chapel.
It was according to these rules that Albano Luciano, Patriarch of Venice, was elected Pope John Paul I and that a little over a month later, Karol Wojtyla, Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow, was elected Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II himself promulgated a whole new set of rules in 1996 in the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis.He has not departed radically from the traditional structure. But he has made some significant changes:

If no cardinal has been elected by two-thirds majority after a certain number of ballots, the cardinals may agree by absolute majority (half + 1) to elect the Pope by an absolute majority instead of a two-thirds majority rather than stay in uncomfortable, makeshift quarters in the Papal Palace, the Cardinals will stay in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, hotel-style accommodation in Vatican City the only remaining method of electing the Pope is by scrutiny, ie, silent ballot -- the methods of election by acclamation and by committee have been excluded (but were rarely used)the older cardinals are still unable to enter the conclave, but they are invited to take an active role in the preparatory meetings the rules on secrecy are tougher.

The maximum number of Cardinal Electors allowed at any one time is 120. The Pope cannot raise more than 120 men under 80 to the Cardinalate at any one time. (Of course, being Pope, he can also dispense himself with compliance with that rule! On the last two occasions, the Pope named new cardinals soon after the number of electors fell below 120. There were as high as 135 electors at some stages.) As at April 2005, there are 117 Cardinals eligible to vote in Conclave. (Only 115 of them entered the 2005 Conclave, as two of them were too ill to travel to Rome for the Conclave.)

The Pope dies

When the Pope dies, the Cardinal Camerlengo (currently Eduardo Cardinal Martinez Somalo) must verify the death, traditionally by calling the Pope three times by his name without response (although this is only a ritual &emdash; the death is verified by medical staff). He must then authorize a death certificate and make the event public by notifying the Cardinal Vicar for the Diocese of Rome (currently Camillo Cardinal Ruini). The Camerlengo then seals the Pope's private apartments. He would also arrange for the "ring of the fisherman" and the papal seal to be broken. He then makes preparations for the Papal funeral rites and the novemdieles, the nine days of mourning.

The Interregnum

During the interregnum, it is the Camerlengo who is responsible for the government of the Church. He must arrange the funeral and burial of the Pope. He directs the election of a new pope, assisted by three Cardinals, elected by the College of Cardinals, with three replacement Cardinals elected every three days.

All heads of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia are suspended from exercising their authority during the interregnum (and are expected to resign their posts immediately on the election of the new Pope). The only exceptions to this are the Cardinal Camerlengo, the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, the Major Penitentiary (James Cardinal Stafford), the Cardinal Archpriest of St Peter's Basilica and the Vicar-General for Vatican City (both offices are held by Francesco Cardinal Marchisano). These continue in their posts during the interregnum.

After 15-20 days of "General Congregations", sermons at their Titular Churches on what kind of Pope the Church needs, and mourning for the Pope after his funeral, the Cardinal Electors enter the Conclave to choose which of them will emerge as Holy Roman Pontiff.

The Conclave

The Cardinals must take an oath when they first enter the Conclave that they will follow the rules set down by the Pope and that they will maintain absolute secrecy about the voting and deliberations. The penalty for disclosing anything about the conclave that must be kept secret is automatic excommunication.

The Cardinals all take seats around the wall of the Sistine Chapel and take a ballot paper on which is written "Eligo in summum pontificem" -- "I elect as supreme Pontiff...". They then write a name on it, fold it, and then proceed one by one to approach the altar, where a chalice stands with a paten on it. They hold up their ballot high to show that they have voted, then place it on the paten, and then slide it into the chalice. The votes are then counted by the Cardinal Camerlengo and his three assistants.

Each assistant reads the name, reads the name aloud, writes it down on a tally sheet and then passes it to the next assistant. The third assistant runs a needle and thread through the centre of each ballot to join them all together. The ballots are then burned, as well as all notes made. If a new Pope has been elected, the papers are burned with chemicals (it used to be wet straw) to give white smoke. Otherwise, they give off black smoke, so that the waiting crowds, and the world, know whether their new Holy Father will soon emerge from the Sistine Chapel. On 6 April 2005, it was announced that, in addition to the white smoke, the bells of St Peter's Basilica will be rung to signal the election of the new Pope. This will avoid any doubt about whether the smoke is white or black.

Until the conclaves of 1978, each Cardinal was provided a throne and a table and a canopy (or baldachino) over their heads. Paul VI abolished the practice because, with the internationalization of the College of Cardinals, there was simply no room any more. Whereas there were only 80 electors before then, the number had risen to 120. The thrones used to be arranged in two rows, along the wall facing each other. The canopies and thrones symbolized that, during the sede vacante when there is no Pope, the Cardinals all share responsibility for the governance of the Church. To further this symbolism, once the new Pope was elected and announced the name he would use, the other Cardinals would pull on a cord and the canopy would collapse, leaving just the new Pope with his canopy aloft.

To be elected Pope, one Cardinal must receive at least two-thirds of the votes. Except that, under the new rules established by Pope John Paul II, if a certain number of ballots have taken place without any Cardinal being elected Pope, then the Cardinals may then elect by simple majority. This is an important change and may well be the most important change made. In the past, it has often been the case that a particular candidate has had solid majority support but cannot garner the required two-thirds majority, eg, because he is too conservative to satisfy the more moderate Cardinals.

Therefore a compromise candidate is chosen, either an old Pope who will die soon and not do much until the next conclave (which is what was intended with John XXIII!) or someone not so hard-line wins support. The difference now will be that if, in the early ballots, one candidate has strong majority support, there is less incentive for that majority to compromise with the cardinals who are against their candidate and they simply need to sit out 30 ballots to elect their man. This may well see much more "hard-line" Popes being elected. There will also be far less incentive for the Cardinals to finish quickly as in the past. After such a long papacy, they may need time to arrive at a strong consensus on what type of papacy the Church now needs. They will also be staying in comfortable lodgings, rather than sleeping in foldaway cots in hallways and offices in the Sistine Chapel. On the other hand, the Cardinals will be reluctant for it to appear as if they are deeply divided, so there will still be an overriding desire to have a quick conclave. (No conclave in the last 200 years has lasted more than 5 days.)

The cardinals vote on the afternoon of the first day, then twice each morning and twice each afternoon. If they have not elected someone within the first three votes, then they may devote up to a day to prayer and discussion before resuming. They may do the same every seven unsuccessful votes after that.

The Cardinals are not permitted any contact with the outside world: no mobile phones, no newspapers or television, no messages or letters or signals to observers. There will be regular sweeps of all relevant areas for listening devices. The Cardinals will for the first time be able to move freely within Vatican City (eg, taking a walk in the Vatican Gardens, or walking from the Domus Sanctae Marthae to the Sistine Chapel). Workers in Vatican City continue to go about their business during the Conclave. If they run into a Cardinal, they are forbidden from speaking to him.

Habemus Papam!

Once a Cardinal has received the required number of votes, the Dean of the College of Cardinals asks him if he accepts election and by what name he wishes to be called as Pope. On giving assent, the Cardinal immediately becomes Pontifex Maximus, the Holy Roman Pontiff. In the unlikely event that the Cardinal chosen is not yet a bishop, the most senior Cardinal present (the Dean or Sub-Dean usually) immediately performs the ceremony to consecrate the new Pope as a bishop.

The Cardinals then pledge their obedience to His Holiness in turn. The Pope vests in his Pontifical clericals (white soutane and skull cap) -- the Italian family business in Rome that makes all the Papal vestments has several different sizes prepared in readiness for His Holiness, no matter what his shape or size!

The Proto-Deacon of the College of Cardinals (currently Cardinal Medina Estevez) then steps onto the main balcony of the Vatican and declares to the World: "Habemus Papam!" "We have a Pope!" and tells the waiting world who has been chosen as the new pope and the name he has decided to take as Pope. His Holiness then appears on the Balcony and delivers his Apostolic Blessing to the city of Rome and to the World.

The Pope can ask the Cardinals to remain in Conclave one last evening. Both John Paul I and John Paul II did so, and spent their first evening as Pope with the Cardinals. A suite in the Domus Sanctae Marthae is kept free for the new Pope to stay in instead of returning to the room he occupied as a voting Cardinal during the Conclave.

Within a short time of his election, before the Cardinals return home, a formal ceremony of inauguration takes place at which the woollen pallium is bestowed upon him. The choir chants "Tu es Petrus" (Thou art Peter), the words Christ spoke to Peter when He told him he was the Rock on which Jesus would build His Church and asked him to feed His sheep.

One of the few things Pope John Paul I managed to do in his short papacy was to abolish the traditional Papal Coronation, which Pope John Paul II did not resurrect. Traditionally, the Pope would be carried around St Peter's Square on the Sedia Gestatoria (the Papal Throne) and have the Papal Tiara placed on his head. These last two popes have done away with the monarchic symbolism of the papacy (including the use of the Royal "we") in favour of a heightened concentration of their role as "Servus Servorum Dei" -- Servant of the servants of God. It remains to be seen whether a future Pope restores some form of papal coronation ceremony, even if it does not involve a full return to some of the earlier monarchic rituals.