Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2
Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
10.22091/ijicl.2026.15324.1238
Abstract
This article compares the epistemological foundations of Islam (sharʿ) and contemporary international humanitarian law through the lens of natural law, assessing their respective capacities to humanize the regulation of armed conflict. Although both systems converge on core principles, their differences arise from fundamentally distinct sources of moral and legal authority. Sharʿ is grounded in fitrah (primordial human nature) and infallible divine law, with reason (ʿaql) functioning as a divinely endowed faculty that apprehends an objective moral order which revelation confirms and perfects. This close alignment with natural law yields more substantive protections, including the prohibition of compelled participation in hostilities, an absolute ban on foreseeable civilian harm, immediate release or gratuitous manumission of prisoners, and protection based on actual cessation of fighting rather than formal legal status. By contrast, IHL reflects a hybrid epistemology in which natural-law principles coexist with positivist foundations rooted in State consent through treaties and custom. While natural-law elements—such as prohibitions on unnecessary suffering—remain normatively influential, positivist logic continues to shape key operative rules. Utilitarian proportionality, status-based targetability of combatants, and broad State discretion over conscription introduce instrumental reasoning that can dilute the intrinsic value of human dignity. Analysis of five core principles—conscription, protected persons/hors de combat, unwillingness to fight, prisoner release, and collateral damage—shows that sharʿ more consistently safeguards innocent life and individual autonomy. The article concludes that a fitrah-based epistemology offers a more coherently humanizing framework, and that renewed engagement with natural-law reasoning could strengthen IHL’s moral and normative foundations.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)