A Comparative Analysis of Islamic Laws of War and Contemporary International Humanitarian Law

Abstract

This paper critically reviews those principles of Islamic jurisprudence that govern armed conflict and then compares them with the norms of Contemporary International Humanitarian Law, in particular as expressed in the Geneva Conventions. The laws of war in Islam first appeared during the 7th century AD and were based upon moral restraint, protection of non-combatants, humane treatment of prisoners of war, and preservation of the environment. On the other hand, Modern IHL was developed through treaty law and custom with the express purpose of limiting suffering during an armed conflict by means of principles such as distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. By examining the primary Islamic sources, namely the Qur'an, Hadith, and classical juristic writings, along with international legal frameworks, the paper identifies key areas of agreement, such as civilian protection, prohibition of torture, and honorable conduct during hostilities, along with exploring how concepts such as jihad, categories of combatant, and legitimate authority to engage in war are variously treated. The comparative analysis identifies that Islamic teachings provide a sound ethical framework parallel to IHL and can meaningfully contribute to contemporary humanitarian discourse.