Legitimacy of Use of Force in Islamic Law: The Dividing Lines Between Jihad, Rebellion, and Terrorism

Abstract Legitimacy of the use of force has been a contentious issue in Muslim states between the rulers and non-state actors. Being political opponents, both rulers and non-state actors often resort to force against each other and claim such use of force to be legitimate. The claim of the legitimacy of the use of force is primarily based on Islamic rules and principles. This article shows that there is a dilemma in the legitimacy claim where both rulers and non-state actors alike use the same rules and principles to support their claims. This article offers an analysis of these claims about Islamic law to show where the legitimacy lies. It argues that to assess the legitimacy of the use of force, it is necessary to determine the dividing lines between jihad, rebellion, and terrorism. This is because both state and non-state actors (such as rebels and terrorist groups) often accuse each other of using illegitimate use of force under the banner of tyranny and terrorism. Whereas Islamic law allows the use of force by state authorities or rulers to suppress terrorism, it does not allow them to use asymmetrical force against armed rebels who have a just cause to fight the ruling authorities. Therefore, rebels have legal protection from being subject to asymmetrical force under Islamic law as opposed to terrorists. As a result, it is necessary to draw the dividing lines between jihad (which is often used as a justification for the use of force), rebellion, and terrorism to differentiate legitimate use of force from illegitimate ones. This article concludes by showing that regarding the legitimacy of the use of force in Muslim states, disentanglement between the law and Islamic religion is not only undesirable but also unattainable.