The question of a fundamental incompatibility between sharia and international human rights law persists in influencing legal and political debate. This dissertation analyses the treatment of Muslim prisoners within three current detention systems, Guantánamo Bay, the Xinjiang internment camps, and the Al-Hol and Roj camps in northeast Syria. This is to establish whether the perceived incompatibility between sharia and international human rights law stems from the legal frameworks or the political strategies employed by the states. This dissertation argues that incompatibility is not inherent but fabricated through political strategies that suppress and manipulate both legal frameworks to justify coercive governance.