Introduction
From the very beginning of history, humans have searched for justification for their actions as a result of their nature. Correspondingly, all the groups from democratic governments to tyrannical administrations and even terrorist organizations have all sought for the same in an effort to satisfy moral values and ethical reasoning. As a form of international relations, wars, which have been located at the crossroads of history or have directly amended the course of history, could not elude the need for moral and ethical justifications in spite of the contrasting views differentiating international relations from human relations. As Amstutz puts it , ethical reactions to the wars oscillated from “pacifism” to “amoral realism”. Whereas the pacifism approach prohibits the use of force and assumes that wars as a showcase of violence can never be morally legitimate, the latter perspective, amoral realism, holds that wars are legitimate instruments of policy and cannot be constrained morally.
Following the September 11th terrorists attacks to the United States in 2001, Jihad has been the talk of the town especially in the form of distorted interpretations by the influence of increased media coverage. In his effort of categorization which I cannot totally agree with, Amstutz also locates Jihad within the boundaries of amoral realism together with “cynical” and religious war understanding which includes holy wars and crusades.
Upon expressing the disagreement with the aforementioned position of Jihad perception, in this work, along with the original meaning of jihad, I will try to relocate the position of Jihad in an intermediary situation just like “Just War” conception. To that purpose, initially the literal mean...
... middle of paper ...
...ition-921
Amjad-Ali, Op.cit, p.239
Graham, Op.cit., pp.62-63
Jeff McMahan, “Just Cause for War”, pp.13-17
Graham, Op.cit., p.63
James Turner Johnson, Jihad and Just War, Opinion, p.12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam, accessed on Dec 7th ,2013
Aktan, Op.cit., pp.27-28
Amstutz, Op.cit., p.115
Johnson, Jihad and Just War, Opinion, p.12
Aktan, Op.cit, p.37
Romeijn-Stout, Op.cit., p.37
Amstutz, Op.cit., p.115
Romeijn-Stout, Op.cit, p.41
Ahmet Gunes, “Views on the Rules of War in Islamic Law”, Terror and Suicide Attacks:An Islamic Perspective, ed. By Ergun Capan, 2004, p.129
Ibid, p.128
Frances V. Harbour, “The Just War Tradition and the Use of Nonlethal Chemical Weapons during the Vietnam War”, Ethics in International Affairs, ed by Andrew Valls (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), p.54
In “Terrorism and Morality,” Haig Khatchadourian argues that terrorism is always wrong. Within this argument, Khatchadourian says that all forms of terrorism are wrong because the outcome deprives those terrorized of their basic humanity. To this end, Khatchadourian says that even forms of terrorism that are designed to bring about a moral good are wrong because of the methods used to achieve that good. Before Khatchadourian spells out why terrorism is wrong, he defines what terrorism is, what causes terrorism, and what people believe terrorism to mean. With a working definition in place, Khatchadourian examines terrorism’s role in a just war and shows that terrorism is never just, even during war. With the assertion that terrorism, even during wartime is unjust, Khatchadourian analyzes the variations of innocence and non-innocence surrounding the victims of a terrorist attack. The analysis of innocence and non-innocence is accomplished through review of the principal of discrimination and the principal of proportion and how each relates to terrorism. From these philosophical and ethical standpoints, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism is unjust and wrong because of the way it groups and punishes the innocent with the guilty, not allowing the victim to properly respond to the charges against them. Finally, Khatchadourian looks at how terrorism is always wrong because of the way it denies a person their basic human rights. In examination of person’s human rights, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism specifically “violates its targets’ right to be treated as moral persons,” as it inflicts pain, suffering and death to those who are not deserving (298).
... and Jihad According to Islam." HWeb. HWeb, 13 June 2006. Web. 05 Nov. 2013. .
Violent Jihad as a struggle against one’s enemies has its root in [these] situations. When the Islamic religion spread over the region, Jihad became a religious tenet and assumed the form of a peaceful, internal struggle to strive for the good and reject the evil in one’s action. Violent, external conflict was never r...
The tragedy of strained relations between Islamic and Judeo-Christian countries is a part of everyday life. One need only pick up a newspaper or check the news story of the day via television, radio, or internet to learn of the latest violent attack by a suicide bomber or military retaliation on such an attack. The terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by countries that are predominantly Islamic with the counter attacks coming from a well-armed Israel, supported by US arms sales as well as US silence. Arecent CNN talk show byline queried, “Are we at war with Islam?” One does sometimes wonder.
Many, including the Catholic Church, judge the justifications of a war based on several factors given in the “just war theory,” which is used to evaluate the war based on its causes and means. The first required factor is a just cause, meaning that a nation’s decision to begin a war must be due to “substantial aggression” brought about by the opposition which cannot be resolved through non-violent solutions without excessive cost whereas armed conflict is not hopeless or excessively costly (“Just War Theory”1). In most cases, wars are started for a reason; however, many of these reasons are for the benefit of the governments who start the wars. The just war theory is widely accepted as a way to determine the moral standing of the reasons. This part of the theory is to ensure that the objective of a war is a reasonable and moral one. It prevents the needless bloodshed and loss of human lives over petty disputes while still protecting the rights and lives of the innocent by acknowledging the necessity of war in dire situations.
Religion is a part of society that is so closely bound to the rest of one’s life it becomes hard to distinguish what part of religion is actually being portrayed through themselves, or what is being portrayed through their culture and the rest of their society. In Holy Terrors, Bruce Lincoln states that religion is used as a justifiable mean of supporting violence and war throughout time (Lincoln 2). This becomes truly visible in times such as the practice of Jihad, the Reformation, and 9/11. The purpose of this essay is to show that as long as religion is bound to a political and cultural aspect of a community, religious war and destruction will always occur throughout the world. A historical methodology will be deployed in order to gain
The question "Can war be justified?" plagued mankind since the first war. The Just War Theory holds that war can be just. The theory has evolved for thousands of years and modern theorists, such as Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, puts forth criteria for a just war, such as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum includes reasons for going to war, and jus in bello deals with the people who wage war. The criteria in jus ad bellum include; just cause, declaration by a proper authority, right intention, a reasonable chance of success, the end proportional to the means, and war as a last resort. Jus in bello includes keeping innocents outside the field of war, and limiting the amount of force used. Just War Theorists hold that all of these criteria must be followed for a war to be just. I will analyze The Just War Theories most debated arguments, self-defense, pre-emptive strikes, and the killing of innocents. In the second half of this paper, I will briefly explain Pacifism, and provide a counter argument for each Just War argument.
Winter, T. (2011), America as a Jihad State: Middle Eastern Perceptions of Modern American Theopolitics. The Muslim World, pp. 101: 394–411.
... hand, the principle is still very useful and is referred to in global political and social debate. It is noted that Richard Falk, critic of western wars argues that the just war theory ‘is a vital source of modern international law governing the use of force and it focuses attention on the causes, means and ends of war’ (Shaw, 2005, p.133). It can be acknowledged, that the morality of war still remains urgently central to political argument around the world. In recent years, the Just war theory has seen to respond to the main challenges surrounding the establishment of war in Iraq in 2003. It can be assessed the war in Iraq has distorted into a stimulating theory positioning the existence of Weapons of mass destruction.Therefore, this dissertation will elaborate on the theories that are challenged by Iraq war in relation to the use of weapons of mass destruction.
The Just War tradition is a set of mutually agreed rules of combat and may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. The Just War theory involved women and children or the treatment of prisoners. The Just War had undergone a revival mainly in response to intervention of nuclear weaponry. The Just War Theory possessing good intention constitutes the condition of moral activity, regardless of the consequences envisioned or caused, and regardless, or despite any self interest in the action the agent may have. When just war is engaged, the military ...
...” (Woodward, 2001, p. 66). Moreover, Mark Gould (2005) argues that it is true that Jihad exists in Islam, but Muslims are not to use violence in all situations. (p. 16) “For example: Muslims are simply reacting to external impingement on Muslim lands.” Likewise, force cannot be used unless when reacting to a articular incident. (Gould, 2005, p. 16).
Robert Paper argues that, in a way, suicide terrorism can be a logical choice for the individual carrying out the attack. When contemplating whether or not suicide terrorism can be a logical choice, you must be able to put yourself in the place of the “terrorist”. Whether or not someone is considered a terrorist can be a very subjective view, especially from the viewpoint of the person or group that is being terrorized. This requires the observer to exude empathy.We may look at Osama Bin Laden as a terrorist, but to him, he was doing the work of his “God”. The person considered to be a terrorist could be revered as a martyr in their community; someone who ultimately gave their life to perpetuate a particular faith or ideal. While, being a citizen of a country that has endured many tragedies, both on the homefront and abroad; makes these actions disgust me, there are two sides to view from. This subjectiveness is at the heart of figuring out whether or not this is a logical choice. Exploration of this topic shall lead to a greater understanding of the “how” and “why” terrorists commit these devastating activities, and allow those defending from such attack be able to do so. This would allow further safety in the area of homeland security.
“Terrorism involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience;” at least, this is how Pape (2003) defines terrorism in his article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (343). The goal of this article by Pape is to discuss suicide terrorism and how it “follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions” (343). Similar to Pape, Bloom (2004) and Horowitz (2010) also delve into the exponential increase of suicide terrorism and why it occurs. Although Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz concur that suicide terrorism is increasing, they disagree why it is so prominent. While the arguments presented from each of these researchers is powerful and certainly plausible, suicide terrorism is in fact not irrational, but strategic and is most often caused by state occupation and, when organized, aimed specifically at democracies.
The definiton of war will never change. Its ideal prupose throughly is to cause pain of those who go through it or who are somehow involved. Through my prespective, I believe we need less hostility and use other inititatives and methods of reasoning and resolving problems rather than create brutality and increase death in this world. This book, its descriptions, but most importantly, Erich Maria Remarque, has significantly suceeded in emphasizing an in-dept overlook and understandment of what the outcome of war turns out to be which can also be associated with its supporting literature. We cannot prove anything through war; the only thing we have proven is how low us humans in general have sunk in resolving conflicts. Anybody has the potential power to kill someone through a simple pull of a trigger.
Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, The Cold War, and the Roots of Terror (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2005), 5.