Does Islamic Law contain rules that govern conflict? Of course. Do these rules condone fighting? Yes. Is this unique for a comprehensive legal system? Obviously not. In the Shari’ah, the rules of engagement are thorough and the conditions under which combat is approved are many. Similarly, there are extensive rules pertaining to treaties and conflict resolution; and again, this is what you would expect from a comprehensive legal system. If the Law acknowledges that war and conflict exist in human societies, and these are matters it is necessary to legislate; I do not see why that should be controversial.
When scholars declare that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, they know what they are talking about. Just because extremists use Islam to justify acts of terror, obviously, that does not mean Islam actually justifies their acts of terror. They are extremists; by definition that means that their understanding of the religion is already skewed and their knowledge is weak. It would be difficult to find an atrocity in human history that was not justified by its perpetrators on some ideologically warped moral basis. States do it habitually.
Did the Prophet ﷺ engage in fighting? Yes. Did he also engage in peace treaties, pardons, forgiveness, and strategic alliances? Yes. You don’t get to cherry-pick from the Prophet’s biography and pretend that what you have selectively chosen to emphasize to suit your agenda constitutes the definitive portrait of his teachings.
We do not learn our religion from extremists, nor should anyone else learn Islam from them either.
I have seen scholars criticized for saying that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam; they are accused of being deceptive. It is said that scholars must come to terms with the “fact” that Islam promotes violence, and that they should begin a reformation movement in Islam to update the religion in order to make it fully pacifist. But you see, the scholars have already answered you about this, and they have answered honestly, and they have answered in the best possible way to dissuade extremist-minded individuals who imagine that terrorism is blessed and praiseworthy – they have stated unequivocally that this is a completely false notion, and that such acts of violence have no sanction in the religion. There is not much more they could say than this to convince misguided radicals who think they are seeking Allah’s Reward.
But the critics are not satisfied. Because they think that their understanding of Islam exceeds that of the scholars – a trait they share with Muslim extremists, by the way. So they want us to accept their misinterpretation and then reform Islam to satisfy their ignorance. This applies to the discussion of terrorism, and it applies to the discussion about Shari’ah.
Islamic Law is misrepresented as brutal, hateful, oppressive and backwards.
Obviously this is an argument that is going nowhere in the Muslim community; but I do not believe it is designed to achieve anything amongst Muslims. It is rhetoric intended for non-Muslim audiences with the aim of discrediting us and marginalizing us. It is the ultimate Straw Man argument. The goal is misrepresentation to eliminate the Muslim voice from social and political discourse.
In some cases, there is a dual purpose actually. Liberals have some planks in their platform which many people have a hard time accepting; particularly on various LGBT issues. By holding up the Muslims as the ultimate personification of hate and bigotry, it is possible to create an inventive to prove one’s tolerance and open-mindedness by accepting the Liberal agenda wholesale without debate.
I think it is important to understand what is really going on with this discourse, so we can engage with its proponents more effectively.