A Socio-Cultural Analysis of ISIS's Violent Behaviors in Contrast with Islamic Jurisprudence and International Law
Subject Areas : CulturalALi Jahanibaygoot 1 , ALi pourmanouchehri 2 * , Seyed Reza Ehsanpour 3
1 - Ph.D. Student in Islamic Jurisprudence and Criminal Law, Department of Criminology, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Theology Department, ct.c., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 - Assistant Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: ISIS, Islamic jurisprudence, international law, Iranian law, socio-cultural factors, war crimes.,
Abstract :
This research investigates the socio-cultural underpinnings of ISIS’s violent behaviors, including massacres, genocide, destruction of cultural heritage, and enslavement, from the perspectives of Islamic jurisprudence, international law, and Iranian domestic law. Utilizing a qualitative descriptive-analytical method and content analysis of documents (2020-2025), the findings reveal that ISIS’s actions contradict fundamental principles of Islamic jurisprudence (both Shia and Sunni), such as the principle of non-harm ( la zarar) and human dignity, stemming from literalist interpretations of religious texts. Under international law, these actions constitute crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide (Articles 6-8 of the Rome Statute), violating the UN Charter; however, jurisdictional limitations of the International Criminal Court hinder the full pursuit of justice. In Iranian law, the charges of moharebeh (enmity against God), efsad fi-al-ard (corruption on earth), and premeditated murder (Islamic Penal Code of 1392) apply, but the lack of a comprehensive counter-terrorism law presents challenges. Social factors such as political instability, poverty, and a lack of proper religious education contributed to ISIS’s rise. Iranian criminal courts and the International Criminal Court possess jurisdiction, yet legal and implementation gaps necessitate reforms to domestic laws and enhanced international cooperation. Reparation for material and immaterial damages is mandated under both systems, although significant implementation obstacles persist.
فهرست منابع
احمدی، ع. (2021). تحلیل فقهی اقدامات داعش در خاورمیانه. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
الحسینی، خ. (2022). آثار الإرهاب على المجتمعات المحلية: دراسة حالة الیزیدیین. مجلة الدراسات الاجتماعیة, 15(1), 50-65.
الطیب، أ. (2020). الإسلام والتطرف: منظور فقهی. مطبعة جامعة الأزهر.
رحیمی، م. (2023). سیاست کیفری ایران در قبال تروریسم: چالشها و راهکارها. تهران: انتشارات میزان.
رضایی، س. (2023). مسئولیت مدنی در فقه و حقوق ایران. مجله حقوق تطبیقی, 8(1), 50-65.
علوی، م. (2022). فقه و میراث فرهنگی: بررسی تخریب آثار باستانی توسط داعش. مجله فقه و حقوق اسلامی, 12(2), 60-75.
قاسمی، ر. (2021). خلأهای قانونی در مقابله با تروریسم در ایران. مجله حقوقی بینالمللی, 15(3), 110-130.
قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری. (1392). انتشارات رسمی جمهوری اسلامی ایران.
قانون مجازات اسلامی. (1392). انتشارات رسمی جمهوری اسلامی ایران.
محمدی، ح. (2020). داعش و انحرافات فقهی: بررسی استرقاق در فقه اسلامی. تهران: انتشارات دارالفقه.
موسوی، س. ا. (2020). قواعد فقهی و مسئولیت کیفری در اقدامات داعش. مجله مطالعات فقهی, 10(1), 85-100.
1. Amnesty International. (2022). Justice delayed: Prosecuting ISIS crimes.
2. Garcia, M. (2020). Moral damages in international law: The case of ISIS victims. International Criminal Law Review, 20(3), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-02003002
3. Hassan, O. (2021). ISIS and the misuse of Islamic jurisprudence. Middle East Journal, 75(1), 120–140. https://doi.org/10.3751/75.1.15
4. International Criminal Court. (2021). Report on crimes committed by ISIS.
5. Johnson, P. (2023). Iran and the ICC: Prospects for accession. International Law Studies, 99(1), 80–95.
6. Smith, J. (2022). ISIS crimes and international humanitarian law. Oxford University Press.
7. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2021). Report on human rights violations by ISIS. United Nations.
8. Wilson, E. (2023). Cultural heritage destruction by ISIS: Legal implications. Journal of Cultural Property Law, 25(1), 90–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/jcpl.2023.001