Despite progress in norm-setting and monitoring, the international human rights system faces major challenges in implementing standards globally. In the Middle East, although the Cairo Declaration (1990) and Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004) exist, the absence of a binding regional judicial mechanism limits protection to state and political institutions, reducing effectiveness. Using a descriptive-analytical method and comparative approach, this study examines Islamic jurisprudence, international and Islamic instruments, and regional courts in Europe, the Americas, and Africa. Findings indicate the conflict between Islamic and international human rights is not inherent, but stems from interpretive, epistemological, and institutional divergences. Principles such as human dignity, justice, fair trial, state responsibility, pacta sunt servanda, and prohibition of oppression provide sufficient capacity to support an Islamic human rights court. Such a court requires judicial independence, complementary jurisdiction, fair proceedings, and constructive engagement with the international system. Obstacles are primarily political and institutional, rooted in lack of collective will among Islamic states, not legal or jurisprudential barriers. If grounded in shared Sharia foundations, due process, independence, and effective jurisdiction, this court would not contradict contemporary international law. Rather, as a complementary regional mechanism, it could protect fundamental rights and contribute to progressive development of international human rights law. The proposed model, integrating Islamic jurisprudence with regional court achievements, offers an indigenous, legitimate, and efficient framework for the Islamic world.