Background: Extremist organizations such as ISIS and Boko Haram systematically manipulate Islamic legal discourse to legitimize violence, territorial control, and political authority. Their use of pseudolegal interpretations often targets both Muslims and non-Muslims, distorting authentic Islamic jurisprudence. Methods: This study employs a qualitative comparative case study approach, analysing speeches, publications, and declarations of ISIS and Boko Haram. Due to limited primary sources, the analysis is supplemented with secondary literature and contextualized within classical Islamic law to critically evaluate their claims. Results: Both groups selectively reinterpret Islamic concepts, including takfīr, jihād, and ḥudūd, to justify actions such as killing civilians, taking captives, and expropriating property. These pseudolegal interpretations primarily serve ideological and political objectives rather than genuine religious guidance. The scarcity of primary evidence constrains the generalizability of the findings. Discussion: The findings highlight the urgent need to reclaim Islamic legal discourse from extremist misuse. Proper application of Islamic jurisprudence prohibits intra-Muslim violence and illegitimate warfare, in stark contrast to the distortions propagated by these groups. Conclusion: Effective responses require a combination of military, legal, and theological strategies. Strengthening religious education, promoting counter-narratives grounded in mainstream Islamic law, and reinforcing ethical jurisprudential authority are critical to dismantling extremist ideologies. Novelty: This research provides a comparative legal-religious perspective on the pseudolegal manipulation of Islamic law by extremist groups while explicitly acknowledging the limitations posed by scarce primary sources. It offers critical insights into the mechanisms these groups use to justify violence.
Gumel Salisu Muhammad (Wed,) studied this question.