With the rise of new challenges in the aftermath of 9/11, the emergence of new types of war and the changing patterns of conflicts and the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the uniformity of IHL is questioned; a debate about the "regionalization" of IHL has spring to life. Academic discussions have become real life issues, such as the existence of an Islamic humanitarian law. Islamic humanitarian does indeed exist and has been shaped by the Quran and the Prophet along the wars. What are the consequences and the risks of this regionalization for IHL? The issue is so not such with the states that do abide by IHL standards but lies with transnational actors such as terrorist groups that provide a distorted version of Islamic law. The first part of the paper presents what Islamic humanitarian law; it is also necessary to give a definition of the notions of war and peace in Islam: the stance adopted for this paper is that Islam is a religion of peace that set up limits to war and humanitarian principles. There are intellectual trends that consider Islam to be a religion of war and jihad a tool to expand Islam. The second part of the paper explores these theories, from the classicists such as Al Mawdudi to the Orientalists; Can we declare upon these theories that any attempt to present Islam as a peaceful religion respecting IHL is doomed to fail? If one analyzes Islam and its interpretations, there are many common grounds regarding IHL. Therefore IHL can be enriched through experiences and other "versions" of humanitarian law. However there are differences as underlined by Classicists and Orientalists. The best way to solve these differences that could lead to a confrontation between the two sets of laws according to some would be to find a middle path that would respect both systems; One solution might be a reform of Islamic law and its interpretations: this would entitle Islamic law to reform itself from inside and be in conformity with international standards.