Part 13
By Ehsan Sajadi
The judicial system imposed by ISIS was not merely a deviation from Islamic law; it was a deliberate, systematic distortion of Sharia, engineered to advance specific political objectives. This structure did not emerge from misunderstanding or religious zeal, but from a calculated effort to weaponize religion and turn it into an instrument of domination and fear.
ISIS institutionalized harsh and inhumane punishments that stood in direct contradiction to the merciful and ethical foundations of Islam. Practices such as amputation, stoning, and public executions were carried out without adherence to the strict juristic principles that govern the application of hudud. In Islamic law, these principles exist to uphold justice, restraint, and human dignity. By ignoring them, ISIS stripped Islamic legal concepts of their moral substance and transformed them into tools of terror.
Islamic jurisprudence places exceptionally rigorous conditions on the enforcement of prescribed punishments, making their implementation rare and highly restricted. The accusation of adultery, for example, requires the testimony of four upright witnesses, while the punishment for theft is contingent upon the stolen property reaching a legally defined threshold and the absence of economic desperation. ISIS deliberately dismissed these safeguards in order to project a brutal, irrational, and violent image of Islam to both Muslims and the wider world.
The group’s so-called judicial practices also involved systematic violations of the rights of women and children. Women from religious minorities were subjected to sexual enslavement, while children were indoctrinated and exploited as instruments of war. This conduct directly contradicts Islamic teachings, which grant women and children explicit rights and categorically prohibit oppression. The use of staged trials, denial of the right to legal defense, and issuance of predetermined verdicts further exposed the fundamentally anti-Islamic and anti-human nature of ISIS’s judicial system.
ISIS also manipulated the concept of takfir, declaring its opponents apostates on fabricated and ideologically driven grounds. In Islamic tradition, pronouncing takfir is among the most sensitive and dangerous legal judgments, permissible only after rigorous scholarly scrutiny. The Qur’an states clearly:
“إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ”
“Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you.”
(Qur’an 49:13)
ISIS, however, reduced righteousness to blind loyalty to its organization, thereby emptying taqwa of its ethical and spiritual meaning.
From a broader philosophical perspective, ISIS’s judicial system had no genuine intellectual or moral link to Islam. Instead, it functioned as a political instrument that served the interests of Western colonial power structures by achieving several strategic aims: portraying Islam as inherently violent, discouraging Western youth from exploring Islam in their search for meaning, legitimizing foreign military interventions in Muslim countries, and deepening divisions within the Muslim Ummah.
Evidence suggests that during the peak of ISIS activity between 2014 and 2017, interest in Islam among European youth declined significantly. This outcome aligned precisely with the objectives of those who engineered and exploited the ISIS project: to instill fear of Islam, obscure its true message, and prevent sincere seekers from engaging with its moral and spiritual depth.
Authentic Islam is a religion rooted in justice, mercy, and balance. The Islamic judicial system is designed to protect both individual rights and collective welfare. Presenting this true, humane, and principled vision of Islam is a shared responsibility, essential to countering extremist distortions and neutralizing the narratives of colonial and anti-human agendas.