Comparison between Jihad in Islam and Just War in Christianity - Coursework Example

Running head: JIHAD VS JUST WAR Comparison between Jihad in Islam and Just War in Christianity Comparison between Jihad in Islam and Just War in Christianity Introduction: The right of the use of force for specific reasons has been acknowledged by every practiced religious tradition all around the world. To understand the different attributes related to the concept of war, example could be given of the two most widely followed religions Christianity and Islam. These globally followed and respected cultures have produced two significant moral traditions on the right of the use of force that is of Just War in Christianity and the Jihad of the sword in Islam. This paper is an attempt to over view the main features of Jihad and Just War with an evaluation and understanding on the grounds where these share similarities, and where these differ in their concept and tradition. The concept of Just War in Christianity: The emergence of the concept of Just war ideology could be found in classical Hebrew, Greek, or Roman scriptures. However, the origin of the specific tradition of this concept of war can only be attributed to Christianity’s ideology regarding the use of force. The writings of Augustine in the late 4th and early 5th centuries prove this fact. Its systematic development began during the middle ages with “Gratian’s Decretum” in the mid-12th century (Johnson, 2011). Furthermore, it evolved with Gratian’s canonist successors, and their contemporaries, most significantly the scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas. After Aquinas, and particularly in the era of the Hundred Years War, the concept of War in Christianity was further elaborated with the influences from the Chivalric code, and the rules and laws of war also evolved as well. The concept became stable during the era of the discovery of the New World, where thinkers like Francisco de Vitoria applied it to the question of interaction between Spanish Colonizers, and the inhabitants of the New World (Johnson, 2011). During the reformation era, Martin Luther immersed it in his thinking about government, and the use of Armed Force. In the era of Holy wars, i.e., the post-reformations era, it proved beneficial in rejecting the ideologies of Holy War. The complete and transformed tradition of Just War in Christianity was the result of the brainstorming of Hugo Grotius and his successors. Concept and features of Just War: The ideology of Just war is often misconstrued as a means to endorse any war by attaching the term Just or Justice. Just-war concept is an approach that implies comparative justice applied to the considerations of war. According to James Turner Johnson, “Just-war tradition has to do with defining the possible good use of force, not finding exceptional cases when it is possible to use something inherently evil (forces) for the purpose of good” (Charles & Demy, 2010). Philosophically, the just-war concept; stands on two grounds, Militarism and Pacifism. The core idea of just-war was summarized by Aquinas, according to whom “for a war to be just, three things are necessary: sovereign authority, just cause, and right intention” (Cromartie, 2005). This correct intention entails two aspects: avoidance of wrong intentions, and pursuit of true intentions. This clearly explains that just-war was; and still, is about the justified use of force by temporal sovereign authorities, it denies the vindicated use of a sword to everyone but the authorities, and only for temporal causes like the common good. It is not about religiously justified warfare, i.e., holy war, but the one that rejects war authorized by religious figures, and justified for religious reasons. Initially, the most prominent feature of just-war was the idea that stated power is sanctified by divine justice. However, as the perceptions changed, so did the ideological theory of just-war, and the ground was set for the reformed or more liberal/secular version of this tradition of Christianity. The theories and thoughts of Hugo Grotius greatly influenced this new version. They also formulated the modernized ideas regarding just-war Grotius in his work “The Law of war and Peace” defined sovereignty in terms not of the ruler’s moral responsibility for the common good, but the territory, the inhabitants of that territory, and de-facto rule over them (Cromartie, 2005). In the words of Grotius ‘justice insists neither that everything is always permissible nor that nothing is ever” (Charles & Demy, 2010). This new addition to the concept of just-war was further affirmed by the Peace of Westphalia. This idea rules out all uses of armed forces except in defense. It is now deeply embedded in positive international law, and much recent just-war thinking incorporates this conception of the justified use of armed forces. Just-war’s moral reasoning resides on a certain moral realism about human nature, which influences the construes of power and the use of coercive force (Downs & Murtazashvili, 2012). It now incorporates that moral judgments, and subsequent actions must proceed in a world of limitations, at the same time recognizes the need of self-defense against unjust aggressors, or on occasion active opposition towards the agents of oppression. The concept of just-war in the modern world refuses of legitimate imperialistic crusades, or the building of empires by the name of peace.  Concept of Jihad in Islam: Jihad is an Arabic word that means striving or the expanding of effort (Martin, 2011). The word Jihad is commonly translated in west as “the Holy War." The concept of jihad and its real ideology has been distorted so much lately that now it has become synonymous with a “mania of religion” (Hamzawy, 2010). Therefore, it is important to explicate the actual Muslim concept of Jihad. Jihad is one of Islam’s most fundamental concepts and central features. To Muslims, jihad denotes the struggle one faces throughout his or her life course (Gilly & Gilinskiy, 2009). In Islamic tradition, all Muslims are understood as obligated to strive to command the good, and forbid the evil in three ways; which are by the heart or mind, by the tongue, and by the hand. The idea of the jihad of the sword, which is the focus of this paper, is a particular form of jihad by the hand. The origins of a systematic concept of the jihad of the sword as an element in Islamic law, could be attributed to the Abbasids Era in the 8th century with the rise of Fiqh or Formal Islamic Jurisprudence (Johnson, 2011). The fundamental framework of ideas was laid out in the work of al-Shaybani and al-Shafi’i The central point of this juristic conception was the division of the world into two realms: the dar-al-Islam (abode of Islam) and the dar-al-harb (abode of war) which actually encircles the rest of the world (Johnson, 2011). The concept of dar-al-Islam is of a community that is both religious and political, and the ruler will have unparalleled political or religious authority. Just like the first head or ruler of Islamic state, Prophet Mohammad, had absolute power in both aspects. This means that at a time, there could be any one ruler of dar-al-Islam who becomes the rightful successor of the Prophet, the governor of the divinely given law, and inheritor of his authority.  This brings forth the most distinguishing feature of dar-al-Islam concept, that it has a unique unifying attribute attached to its basic concept of incorporating Islamic society and interpreting divine laws. The tradition of jihad is marked by the fundamental assumption that the best human society, the dar-al-Islam, is both religious and political (Aubrey, 2004). Islamic juristic tradition makes no differentiation between the religious and the secular. In this concept of dar-al-Islam, the peace that prevails in a good society is eschatological in character; i.e., peace can only be achieved through submission to God. The idea of an individual’s duty to jihad provided a way for the jurists to explain how all Muslims in the dar-al-harb ought to conceive their responsibility for contributing to the protection of this community. It also explains the purpose of contributing to the expansion of its rule, which was actually an expansion of the order of submission to God and God’s law. From this perspective, the idea of the distinctive duty of jihad simply means that all who are able should present themselves as volunteers when the ruler (Caliph) issues a call for jihad, or if there is an immediate emergency requiring an armed response (Aubrey, 2004). This clearly shows that jihad of individual duty is necessary, or provides an indispensable support for the jihad of collective duty.  For the emergency defense concept of individual jihad, there is another aspect that should be noted. This incorporates that if there arises from a situation of acute emergency, where there is no unifying Caliphal authority to organize a collective response, and all religiously and socially prescribed relationship structures are erased; Muslims of that area has the right to rise up in arms. This could be achieved on their own authority or by the will of local leaders. In the most immoderate scenarios, such an emergency might cross and eliminate all the usual divisions; healthy men, women, and children of all ages are obligated to fight to the ultimate limits of their ability. This form of jihad is allowed in time of dire emergency, caused by overt aggression, and arises in extreme cases. It also undermines family authority and family obligations, like the son can stand against his father or vice versa. Comparison and Contradiction: Their main difference is that just-war is defined in terms of temporal political authority, natural justice, and peace within and among societies. Jihad in its original essence is a personal and non-violent struggle by Muslims to engage in moral self-improvement. This includes self-purification, public service, controlling one’s emotions or passions, and promoting social justice and equality. This entails that where just-war promotes inclusion of diverse social structures and unifies them with international law or body of rules, the latter supports the concept of dar-al-Islam and segregates Muslim community with the rest of the world. The most prominent similarity between jihad and just-war is that both promote peace and harmony and provide guidelines on religious and political grounds. None could be related to any singular aspect but incorporate a vast area and wider phenomenon, along with the concept of self-defense against exterior oppression. The concept of the use of force arises in certain pre-defined situations. This is where the two traditions again share similarities. The jihad by hand concept is simply admitted in this category of self-improvement when there is some aggression or threat to the Islamic society or dar-al-Islam from the dar-al-harb Otherwise, Islam is a peaceful religion, and promoted unity and harmony among Muslims and preaches harmony throughout the dar-al-harb The military component of jihad, is either non-existent when comes the issue of spreading Islam in non-muslim lands using force or aggression, or permissible only in situations where self-defense is at stake. Advocates of this militia concept insist that radicals and terrorists have unjustly misinterpreted jihad to justify their immoral acts of murder and should not be associated with Islamic values or practices (Stern, 2007). In just-war, the understanding of sovereign authority, just cause, and right intention formulates the basics of just-war’s tradition of war. Finally, both just-war and jihad traditions define rules for conduct in the use of armed force; for example, both impose restrictions on harm to women, children, aged people, the infirm, and the other un-involved classes. It is indeed evident that there are some similarities and differentiations to the conceptions that define just-war idea and jihad. However, the fact remains that both traditions refrain from the aggressive use of arms or forces and restrict human abilities in case of war or oppression. References Aubrey, S. M. (2004). The new dimension of international terrorism. vdf Hochschulverlag AG. Charles, J. D., & Demy, T. J. (2010). War, peace, and christianity: Questions and answers from a just-war perspective. Crossway. Cromartie, M. (2005). Religion, culture, and international conflict: A conversation. (p. 86.87). Rowman & Littlefield. Downs, D. A., & Murtazashvili, I. (2012). Arms and the university: Military presence and the civic education of non-military students. Cambridge University Press. Gilly, T. A., & Gilinskiy, Y. (2009). The ethics of terrorism: Innovative approaches from an international perspective. Charles C Thomas Publisher. Hamzawy, A. (2010). Shifting western views on islam. JIHAD AND ISLAM. Retrieved from http://jihadphobia.blogspot.com/ Johnson, J. T. (2011). Ethics and the use of force: Just war in historical perspective. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Martin, G. (2011). The sage encyclopedia of terrorism. SAGE. Stern, B. S. (2007). Curriculum and teaching dialogue. IAP. Read More