Protection of Women and Children in Armed Conflicts: A Comparative Study of Islamic Law and International Humanitarian Law

This study undertakes a comparative analysis of international humanitarian law (IHL) and Islamic law (Sharīʿa) on the protection of women and children in armed conflict, using a functional comparative-law methodology that maps doctrinal analogues while treating internal contestation within each tradition as part of the analysis rather than a complication to be set aside. Through systematic doctrinal, textual, and evidence-based analysis, anchored in a purposively justified case study of Saudi Arabia, the research demonstrates that Qurʾānic injunctions, Prophetic traditions, and classical juristic reasoning anticipated the humanitarian principles later codified in the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, while also identifying where the two traditions diverge internally and where each has struggled to secure compliance in recent conflicts, including Yemen. Both systems, though distinct in epistemic origin, share a teleological commitment to the sanctity of human life and the preservation of human dignity. The study identifies critical enforcement gaps in both regimes: IHL’s overreliance on state consent and political will, and Islamic law’s variable institutionalisation and juristic plurality across diverse jurisdictions. To address these deficits, and building on but distinguishing itself from existing Islamic–human-rights scholarship, the paper advances two original theoretical contributions: a framework of dual legitimacy , combining the legal authority of international law with the moral authority of Sharīʿa; and the concept of re-moralisation of humanitarian law , grounded in maqāṣid al-sharīʿa (the higher objectives of Islamic law), which seeks to transform compliance from external imposition into internalised conviction. Three contemporary lacunae are further identified, autonomous weapons systems, climate-induced displacement, and digital radicalisation of non-state armed groups, as pressing challenges requiring collaborative jurisprudential renewal from both traditions. The conclusion affirms that aligning maqāṣid reasoning with Geneva principles, while remaining attentive to the divergences and enforcement failures this study documents, can transform humanitarian compliance from procedural obligation to moral conviction.