Mainstream Scholarship: a New Consensus?

It is clear that across the board, there is an interest in preserving the image of Islam and defending it against claims of violence. But another important fac­tor influencing scholarly works is the scholar's relationship with the political regime.

At any rate, it seems that rules governing jihad, are being altered by a new modern consensus among mainstream scholars. As evident from this chapter, modern Muslim scholars have agreed on the main themes in the regulation of armed conflict. For example, they seem to agree that anyone not participating in fighting should not be targeted and that captives should not be killed. This consensus could prove useful to attempts to limit the destruction ensuing from any form of armed conflict involving Muslims.

But in order for this consensus to prove useful and effective, many issues need to be addressed. First, scholars need to be aware of and reflect on the in­fluence of international humanitarian law on their thinking and assess the po­tential dangers of such influence. Is the legitimacy of their attempts likely to be eroded by an attempt to live up to a Western-inspired legal system? Does the reliance on IHL, even if unintentional, strip Islamic law of legal regimes that are potentially more restrictive and protective of life and property, such as the

202 Wahba al-Zulayli, al-Fiqh al-Islamifi uslubih al-jadid (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab, 1974), 393. rules governing rebellion? More important, can they continue to attempt to squeeze the Islamic legal tradition into the confines of IHL without honest recognition of the gap between their hypotheses about the law and the long juristic tradition? All these questions need to be examined by modern scholars in order for any reform project to prove meaningful and legitimate.