Terrorism vs. Shariah: Defending Civilians Through Islamic Law and Moral Reasoning
By New Age Islam Staff Writer
5 November 2025
Terrorism in the Name of Islam: Unmasking Extremism Through Shariah and Reason
-------
Terrorism carried out under the banner of “Islam” continues to pose one of the gravest challenges in the contemporary world. This essay critically examines such acts from both the perspective of Islamic jurisprudence and rational ethical reasoning, focusing particularly on instances where extremist groups deliberately target ordinary civilians while claiming that the deaths were “unintentional” or “without intent.” Such justifications are not unique to non-state actors; even conventional military operations, as seen in the tragic civilian casualties in Gaza during conflicts with Hamas, often employ similar reasoning. This parallel underscores the urgent need for rigorous moral, legal, and religious scrutiny whenever the lives of innocent people are at stake.
The discussion herein will examine, in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah, the definitions of combatants and non-combatants, the principles governing conduct toward them, and scholarly perspectives on these matters. By analysing these issues, this essay seeks to clarify the Islamic legal and moral stance on acts of terrorism, offering insights for both religious and rational audiences.
At its core, Islam enshrines the sanctity of human life, justice, and ethical conduct even in the context of warfare. The Qur’an explicitly states:
“And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not love transgressors.” (Al-Baqarah 2:190)
This verse delineates the permissible conditions for warfare, explicitly forbidding transgression or excess. It establishes a clear ethical framework within which combat must occur. Similarly, the Prophetic Sunnah emphasizes that the principles of humanity must remain intact even amidst the chaos of conflict. Civilians, in particular, must not be harmed, and acts of warfare must maintain moral and ethical integrity.
Thus, any group that deliberately targets civilians under the pretext of Islam is acting in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. A comprehensive review of the Islamic law of war is therefore essential to contextualize and refute such extremist practices.
Combatants and Non-Combatants: Jurisprudential Definitions
(a) Non-Combatants
Islamic jurisprudence categorically identifies non-combatants as individuals who do not directly engage in fighting. They are not armed, do not participate in military operations, and do not serve as part of state-sanctioned military campaigns. Scholars are in consensus that non-combatants must never be targeted under any circumstances.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) explicitly prohibited targeting women and children during battles. A Hadith narrates:
“A woman was found killed in one of the battles of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and he disapproved of the killing of women and children.” (Sahih Muslim 1744)
This principle underscores the inherent protection afforded to those who are not combatants, regardless of their proximity to conflict.
(b) Combatants
Combatants, in contrast, are those who actively participate in warfare, including bearing arms, engaging in military operations, or fighting against an enemy. Jurisprudential scholars clarify that adult men may be considered combatants only if they actively participate in hostilities. Merely being male or an adult does not automatically confer the status of a combatant.
For example, Imam Sarkhasi notes that a merchant engaged in trade is not entitled to the spoils of war because he does not participate in combat. Similarly, farmers, craftsmen, or labourers are classified as non-combatants unless they directly engage in hostilities.
(c) Contemporary Interpretation and Challenges
In the modern era, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants becomes especially critical due to the prevalence of non-state armed groups and urban warfare. Several points emerge:
1. Civilians are often physically and operationally distant from military engagement.
2. Civilians contribute to society and the economy but do not actively participate in combat.
3. International law generally equates “civilian” with “non-combatant.”
Jurisprudentially, this means that mere adulthood, gender, or financial support does not constitute combatancy. Only those who actively engage in warfare may legitimately be considered combatants. Attacks against individuals not directly involved in combat are therefore prohibited under Islamic law.
The Sanctity of Life and Property in the Qur’an and Sunnah
(a) Qur’anic Injunctions
The Qur’an repeatedly underscores the sanctity of human life and condemns the unjust killing of innocents:
“Whoever kills a believer deliberately, his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide; and Allah has become angry with him, has cursed him, and has prepared for him a grievous punishment.” (An-Nisa 4:93)
This verse clearly indicates the gravity of attacking a protected life, particularly when the individual is not engaged in combat. Furthermore, the Qur’an emphasizes the importance of justice and reconciliation:
“Indeed, the believers are but brothers, so reconcile between your brothers and fear Allah, that you may receive mercy.” (Al-Hujurat 49:10)
The verse highlights principles of peace, justice, and the protection of innocent life, extending moral obligations beyond the battlefield. Additionally, the Qur’anic injunction against transgression, as found in Al-Baqarah 2:190, reinforces the ethical limits of warfare.
(b) Prophetic Traditions (Hadith)
The Sunnah provides further guidance: “Do not kill the elderly, nor children.” (Sunan Abu Dawood)
The teachings of the Prophet (peace be upon him), along with directives from the first Caliph Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (RA), emphasize not only the protection of life but also of property and worship spaces:
“Do not betray, do not steal, do not abuse, do not cut down trees, and do not slaughter cattle or mules except for food. Leave those who are devoted in worship untouched…”
These instructions illustrate that ethical conduct in war encompasses both the protection of human life and the safeguarding of societal property and sacred spaces.
Attacks on Civilians in the Name of Terrorism: Islamic and Jurisprudential Perspective
(a) The Deception of Extremism
Extremist groups often manipulate Islamic terminology to justify acts of terrorism, claiming that civilian casualties are “unintentional” or unavoidable. Such claims, however, find no legitimate foundation in Islam:
1. Islam categorically forbids attacks on non-combatants.
2. Responsibility for warfare rests with legitimate governing authorities; individuals or rogue groups have no unilateral right to wage war.
3. Non-state terrorism and attacks on civilians are entirely inconsistent with Islamic legal and ethical principles.
(b) Comparing Combatants and Non-Combatants
Some extremist arguments suggest that civilians paying taxes or indirectly supporting military efforts are combatants. Jurists universally reject this reasoning: active participation in hostilities is the defining criterion. Being male or financially contributive does not confer combatant status.
(c) Contemporary Context and Interpretation
Modern urban warfare complicates the enforcement of these principles due to the proximity of armed groups to civilian populations. However, Islamic jurisprudence maintains that:
• Even in cases of necessity or unavoidable collateral damage, deliberate targeting of non-combatants is never permissible.
• International humanitarian law and Shariah principles both uphold the requirement to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.
• Legitimate authority to declare and conduct war rests with the state; individual actors have no such license.
(d) Jurisprudential and Rational Rebuttals
Several key principles refute terrorism:
1. Sanctity of life: “And whoever saves a life, it is as though he has saved all of humanity.” (Al-Ma’idah 5:32)
2. Prohibition of transgression: Warfare is intended for defence and justice, not aggression (Al-Baqarah 2:190).
3. Protection of non-combatants: Women, children, and the elderly are explicitly protected in Hadith and jurisprudence.
4. Rejection of extremism: Islam commands justice and moral witness: “Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in justice.” (An-Nisa 4:135)
Illustrations and Contemporary Applications
Example 1: Bombing of Civilian Areas
If a non-state armed group detonates explosives in a civilian neighbourhood and claims the casualties were “unintentional”:
• Civilians remain non-combatants unless directly engaged in hostilities.
• Civilian areas cannot be deemed legitimate military targets without evidence of concentrated combatants.
• Such operations violate Islamic principles of restraint and transgression limits.
Example 2: Taxpaying Citizens
Arguments that civilians funding military operations are “indirect combatants” are invalid:
• Jurists define combatants strictly as those actively participating in hostilities.
• Civilians performing civic or financial duties are not legitimate targets.
Example 3: State Authority vs. Individual Action
Islamic Shariah requires that war declaration and execution occur under legitimate state authority. Non-state terrorist actions contravene both Shariah and international law and are intrinsically impermissible.
Key Points of Shariah Clarification
1. Protection of Non-Combatants: Women, children, the elderly, clergy, and civilians engaged in peaceful occupations are fully protected.
2. Prohibition of Transgression: Warfare may only target those actively engaged in fighting.
3. Intention and Necessity: Accidental harm in combat is addressed in jurisprudence, but direct targeting of non-combatants is never justified.
4. State-Enforced Law of War: Military action must occur under legitimate authority; individual initiatives lack Shariah sanction.
The Islamic and Rational Refutation of Terrorism
(a) Islamic Refutation
Islamic law emphasizes the protection of life, property, and public peace. Extremist targeting of civilians directly contradicts the principles of non-transgression, ethical warfare, and justice.
(b) Rational Arguments
From a moral and ethical standpoint, targeting innocents is impermissible. Justifying terrorism in Islam’s name undermines justice, mercy, and human dignity while causing societal harm and damaging Islam’s reputation.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that:
• Islam clearly distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants.
• Civilians—including women, children, the elderly, and worshippers—must never be targeted.
• Contemporary terrorist attacks justified under the banner of Islam are both religiously and rationally invalid.
• Condemning extremism aligns directly with Islam’s ethical and legal framework.
In conclusion, Islam teaches mercy, justice, and respect for human life. These principles require the protection of children, women, refugees, and all innocents affected by conflict. Following these teachings ensures adherence to the path of justice and truth.
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/terrorism-shariah-islamic-law-moral-reasoning/d/137526
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism