Theology of Terrorism by C. Kerr

Theology of Terrorism: Jihad and the Just War Theory

It is interesting to note that much of terrorism today has an association to religious institutions. Faith has influenced the course of terrorist activities over hundreds of years. Islamic militants use the doctrine of jihad as justification for their war against all non Muslims. They are allowed to engage in warfare to protect their lands, people and families and use any force necessary to maintain and expand the Islamic faith. Western society on the other hand, is able to defend their lands, people and families by the use of the just war theory. Under this theory, certain ethical criteria must be fulfilled in order to initiate and carry out war. Under the former are the foundations of various faith based terrorist activities. The western response tends to be the latter. To understand the meaning of jihad and the western position is vital as the world is learning to grapple with the new age of terrorism and its religious foundations.

 

JIHAD 

Many of the terrorist activities carried out by Islamic militants are based on the doctrine of jihad – also known as the sixth pillar. Practicing Muslims, on the other hand, see jihad as a route for spiritual purity. In order to understand what jihad is, it must be viewed from a Muslim perspective. The Koran and Hadith supply the main foundations for this doctrine. In Islamic thought, jihad can range from an internal spiritual struggle to taking up of arms. Dr. Louay Fatoohi, an Iraqi Islamic scholar, sums it well in the following:

“The Qur'anic concept of jihad refers to exerting efforts, in the form of struggle against or resistance to something, for the sake of Allah. This effort can be fighting back armed aggression, but can also be resisting evil drives and desires in one's self. Even donating money to the needy is a form of jihad, as it involves struggling against one's selfishness and inner desire to keep one's money for one's own pleasures. Jihad can, therefore, be subdivided into armed jihad and peaceful jihad.”[1]

The latter point of peaceful jihad is one that may benefit the individual as it deals with personal spiritual development. The internal battle might be against impurity and indulgences that a Muslim should not engage in such as drinking alcohol or sexual sin. The former point of armed jihad is open to theological interpretation ranging from justifications for defensive action to conquest. Esposito, an expert in Islamic studies, states that “despite the fact that jihad is not supposed to include aggressive warfare, this has occurred, as exemplified by early extremists like the Kharijites and contemporary groups like Egypt'sJihad Organization.”[2] Jihad, for the practicing Muslim is a battle for purity and expression of faith. Jihad, for the militant, is strictly a war against the House of War.

There are two houses in Islamic theology which essentially divide the global population into two. One is the House of Islam and the other the House of War. The former include all those who are Muslims. The latter include all those who are non Muslims encompassing secularists, modernists and various other religious denominations. Abdhulla Al-Araby states that the “The House of Islam are the Muslims, and the House of war are the non-Muslims. Muslims (the House of Islam) are in a constant state of spiritual/political/physical warfare with Non-Muslims (the House of War) until they subjugate them into Islam.”[3]  There is also a third house which is known as the House of Treaty, where non-Muslim nations have friendly relations with Muslim countries. This House still falls under the House of War by being associated to non-Muslims, though has a special standing within this category. The House of Treaty comes from “Islamic tradition, the precedent for Dar al-Sulh is a treaty that the Prophet Muhammad entered into with the Christian city state of Najran.”[4] Unfortunately the outcome of this treaty was not necessarily a happy one[5] but the intentions were a positive step in interfaith dialogue. The House of Treaty can provide an avenue for dialogue with Muslim nations provided the proper parameters are in place. If dialogue fails, then those non-Muslim nations lose the benefits of being in the House of Treaty and re-inherit the benefits of the House of War. Peaceful jihad focuses on personal spiritual development, in addition to transforming the House of War into becoming the House of Islam through passive means such as influencing thought on university campuses, proselytizing and being involved in political process. Militant jihad aims to transform the House of War into becoming the House of Islam through physical force such as assassinations, bombings and political interference.   Depending on what worldview a nation or people group associate to will dictate what House they belong to.  There are only two options.
   
Jihad acquires its rationale from interpretations in the Koran and Hadith. Both books are authoritative in Islam and carry the foundations of this faith. Many examples of Jihad root itself in the interactions that Muslims had with non Muslims during Islam’s early years.[6] Teachings from these scriptures hold very valuable information regarding the mindset, ethics, values and morals of Islam. They also hold the key to understanding the foundations of jihad in both forms.

JUST WAR

The just war theory on the other hand does not find itself in the heart of religious texts, though finds itself in the soul of philosophical and theological debate. Brian Orden states it best as the “Just war theory is probably the most influential perspective on the ethics of war and peace. The just war tradition has enjoyed a long and distinguished pedigree, including such notables as Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius, Suarez, Vattel and Vitoria." [7] The theory originally came from philosophical ideals and had the influence of Christian thought after the rise of the state church under Constantine. It slowly became the foundations of many laws including the Geneva Convention. 
The theory has three main parts to it as follows: “1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place; 2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and 3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war.”[8] This theory provides criteria in which, if a war was to occur, would have to ensure that all points are met in order for war to be just. This criteria supplements the main points and was developed in the best interest of humankind to ensure that war would be fought on the proper premise. Each criteria has an explanation of what must be met, and if all are fulfilled, will justify warfare. The theory may override the sovereignty of a nation when there is an oppressed people group or when a nation is threatened to be overtaken by an unjust regime. The just war theory ensures that if force is necessary, it will be used in the most upright sense.  Unfortunately, there have been cases where nations have used just war theory as a factor for unjust, unethical and oppressive reasons.

When dealing with nations that follow opposite worldviews, there is unfortunately a clash of cultures. One is carried out basis of scriptural authority and interpreted by religious leaders. The other is based on common set principles developed through philosophical debate. Both views operate on the same principle when a nation or community is oppressed or under attack by an unjust regime, though each have also been used for oppressive purposes.  This is reason for ensuring that proper leadership in is power, as law and policy is only as ethical as those who enforce it. As both are from opposing worldviews, it is quite hard to convince the other that their cause is just.

Western nations have used this principle as a deciding factor in many of the wars that have been carried out and it is even more important to stand by these principals in today’s day and age of terrorism.  When dealing with militant Muslims, the only real option for a western nation is to ensure that their reaction fulfills the just war theory as an ethical defense against militant jihad and its international focus.

CONCLUSION 
Militant Islam has carried out jihad against non-Muslim states and actors based on feelings of oppression and religious conviction. Culturally, jihad comes from an eastern perspective and has its roots in early Islamic history. The just war theory comes from Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian values that are considered the backbone of western law regarding warfare. The theory, in its present form, provides an ethical response for defense. The theological nature of jihad is to cultivate the Islamic faith as well as develop self purity in a Muslims life by refraining from sinful acts. Militant Islamists on the other hand, carry out jihad through various acts of terrorism to punish a state for its actions against Islam or carry out conquest. Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris states the following in one of his sermons; “We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world”[9] – this is the nature of militant jihad which western nations must be aware of and act upon through diplomatic avenues, legislative changes and productive dialogue to ensure preservation or risk loosing society to its missionary goal of global domination.

 

---

[1] Dr. Louay Fatoohi, Jihad in the Qur'an: The Truth from the Source (Second Edition), 2004, April 2 < http://www.quranicstudies.com/article96.html>, 2007 January 05.

[2] John L. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 93.

[3] Abdullah al-Araby, On the Road to the new World: Examining Islam’s Expansionist History, No Date listed http://www.islamreview.com/articles/theroad.shtml#, 2007 January 03.

[4] NewsWatch, Center for Integration and Improvement of Journalism: San Francisco State University, 2003 August 20 http://mediaguidetoislam.sfsu.edu/religion/03e_concepts.htm, 2006 December 21.

[5] Gordon Nickel, Collectanea Christiana Orentalia 3; We Will Make Peace With You: The Christians of Najran in Muqatil’s Tafsir (Cordoba: University of Cordoba Press, 2006), 171-188.

[6] Norman L. Geisler, Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002), 178.

[7] Brian Orden, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: War, 2005. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/> 2007, January 03.

[8] Brian Orden, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: War, 2005. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/> 2007, January 03. 

[9] The Middle East Media Research Institute, 2005, May 13. <http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=669> 2007, January 02.

Comments

[Brad Jersak]

Dear Mr. Kerr,

Thanks for taking the effort to write this. While I need to think through what you've proposed, I might mention a resource that came to mind when I saw you comparing Jihad and Just War. It was Ellul's book, entitled "The Subversion of Christianity." If memory serves, he was proposing that the Crusades were actually a direct rip-off of Islamic Jihad. Or conversely, that Islam's first and greatest influence upon Christianity was Jihad itself. I don't know what to make of this entirely, but thought I'd run it by you.

Sincerely,

Brad

[Mr. Kerr]

Dear Brad,

Thanks for your comment.

As regards Ellul’s position, there are some similarities between the Crusades and jihad. Ellul states that at this time, it was expressed that if one were to die for the purpose of the Crusades, and indirectly Christ, then one would go to heaven. Yes, this is an equivalent of jihad theologically, as one would go to paradise in the latter case. This is out of line with Christian thought as the faith of Christ is not meant to be spread by sword but in the heart of people. History has proved differently which is unfortunate. Christians of the East have a 2000 year experience factors that can help Christians of the West deal with Muslims on all levels.

The Crusades were a political purpose which intertwined faith – as much of Europe was under the Christian banner at this time. Europe became Christianized due to Constantine’s vision from God to put the cross on the shields of his soldiers. This would ensure him to win. In the end, Constantine won the battle and became emperor declaring Christianity as the state faith – this is the start of the Catholic church and Christianity in institutional form. The difference between jihad and the Crusades is that the Crusades were carried out for re-claiming Jewish/Christian areas that were taken away from them by Islamic conquest (it would be very difficult to believe that all people who came into contact with the soldiers of the conquest would willingly submit to Islam – spreading from Spain to the western regions of China and south to Africa – and thus would equate the level of aggressiveness as either equal or more than the Crusades). Jihadists carry out their call for the purpose of conquest on a political and spiritual level. This is their missionary goal. The Crusades had the purpose of re-claiming what was already theirs. This was a political goal. Ellul is right as the Crusades were theologically identical with jihad at that time, though the purpose of the two were different. Islam initiated conquest, Christianity the Crusades. The Crusades would have not occurred if Islam chose peaceful, diplomatic means rather than conquest.

Ellul’s point of jihad being Christianity’s greatest influence is incorrect. Islam may have influenced Christianity in terms of the interactions with saints, traders and the general population of this period of time. Ellul could be somewhat correct in that the jihad theology played a part in the Crusades, though the same could be said for the vision Constantine had prior to instituting the faith in the Roman Empire as well as the various sub-conquests carried out by Islamists. Christianity has influenced Islam by evidence of the term People of the book which is stated in the Koran itself which are influenced by Christian interactions with Muslims, in addition to contemporary Evangelical Christian missionary methods being used by Muslims missionaries to Western lands.

One point to consider is that Christianity in the East is culturally different that the West. Eastern Christians and Muslims have more in common that Western Christians and Muslims in terms of culture. For example, in a Jacobite church (the Orthodox church in Syria, Iraq and South India), men and women sit separately as they do in mosques. In Western church, men and women sit together. As the status of women is culturally similar in most of the Eastern cultures, Muslims and Christians show identical patters of behavior (this is true of other religious faith groups in the East as well). The same applies to some smaller taboos such as not having your shoes face upward (dishonouring God), shaking with your right hand and having women sit behind men while traveling in a car, bus or rickshaw. Western Christianity and Islam have more differences, based on cultural issues rather than theology, such as the interaction with the opposite sex, family values and social norms. For example, most Eastern families have their elderly parents in the home until death. In the West they are put into old age or retirement homes away from family. These cultural differences also bring light to understanding the interactions and influence of Islam to Christianity and vice versa.

Western Christianity influences government and policymaking which Eastern Christianity has not done. There definitely will be differences in these areas of thought. Sociologically, Muslims and Eastern Christians have a lot in common, in this Ellul is correct. Theologically there are many differences. Islam is a culture, not just a religion or political system and these variables cannot be removed as they are dependant on each other. Elements of Islamic culture are also Eastern culture. The founder of Islam decided to incorporate Eastern cultural values with the Islamic faith. Regardless or the political and cultural similarities, there is still a theological difference.

One question to ask is that since Eastern Christians and Muslims have more in common, why do Evangelical Christians have a more challenging time expressing their faith with Muslims? (This being said, I have to say that the Mennonites have done an excellent job in building bridges with Eastern faith groups including Islam). This resides in the cultural differences that Evangelical Christians and Muslims have. Evangelicals have carried out missionary activity with a style that can sometimes cause persecution. Orthodox and traditional Christians have lived side by side with Muslims (and other groups) for 2000 years in these lands and have been able to come to terms with their situations and still carry out their faith. I believe Ellul can learn a little from Eastern Christians when relating to his point of Islam and Christianity as the two have co-existed with each other. Nowhere in the East is there a Christian state - all Christians there have lived under non Christian governments (some oppressive and others passive). When seasons are peaceful, Christians live under law that provide them religious freedom. When seasons change to become more oppressive, Christians will have to adjust to these political dynamics. In present day Iraq, many Christians have fled to Syria and Lebanon to be refugees as the deposing of Saddam has brought the rise of an unstable government and increased persecution.

This being said, it must be understood that Islam is also going through growing pains, and the rise of extremism is occurring, causing more persecution in these lands. As the Middle East gets hotter, Christians and their fellow minorities feel the heat. Since Christians states have mainly formed in the West, these refugees will find peace and safety in Western lands, which will have to be protected so all who face similar circumstances can find refuge as well.

Thanks,

Mr. Kerr