I refer to Salbiah Ahmad's Islam in the public domain' (Nov 13). As a Muslim who believes in the fundamentalist approach to religion, I find her article offensive. She seems to belittle Islam and place emphasis on international human rights.

I believe that Islamic law is the better choice because it is constant. International human rights may appear sweeter on the outside but it quickly crumbles when war occurs. Even recently former deputy premier Musa Hitam said that human rights must take a back seat in the war against terrorism.

Islamic law is the most protective law which safeguards a women's dignity. It protects men from treating women as sexual objects. There is no such thing as "eating the apple and throwing away the core" when Muslims deal with women. If men desire women they must do so within Islamic law, which is marriage. In Islam, mistresses and comfort women are forbidden.

Islam also places strict restrictions on war-time conduct when dealing with the fairer sex. Islam forbids the killing of women during war. Yet, international human rights permit this, as the killing of women is termed as "collateral damage". Even now, the United Nations is supportive of the US campaign in Afghanistan which is helping the so-called 'Northern Alliance' overrun cities.

The 'Northern Alliance' is well known for its atrocities when overrunning cities. This involves "revenge killings and rapes" in which male sympathisers of the losing camp are brutally murdered and their wives and daughters raped. I cannot imagine any greater and more horrible scenario, yet in the name of "destroying terrorism", such acts have become permissible.

Which is why I believe that the only law that is truly fair is Islamic law. International human rights are based on "might is right" and must be rejected by Muslims worldwide.