Armed non-state groups that frame grievances in Islamic terms now govern large territories, and military campaigns have often failed or backfired as their reach expands. Over half of intrastate wars involve movements seeking Islamic forms of statecraft, yet such conflicts are less amenable to international mediation. Drawing on cases from Mali and Syria, this paper shows how Islamic jurists interpret foundational texts (Qur’an and Prophetic traditions) to endorse, legitimize, or challenge executive leaders’ decisions—revealing enduring tension between judicial and political authority. Considering the 2025 developments in Syria with regional geopolitical repercussions, understanding the internal dynamics among Islamic jurists and their role is vital for mediators and for ethically grounded, innovative engagement strategies in protracted conflict settings.
Ghettas et al. (Tue,) studied this question.