The Story
Professors Discuss the Reasons Muslims and Jews Fight
Sponsored by the Program in Comparative Legal Studies and Post-Conflict Justice, visiting professor of religious ethics Jacob Goodson and visiting instructor in the Religious Studies Department Chrystie Swiney lectured at the Law School on Wednesday evening. The lecture, entitled "The Law of War: Jewish and Islamic Perspectives" was moderated by Professor Scott Dodson of William & Mary Law School and was united under the central focus of looking at the reasoning behind sanctioned violence in Jewish and Muslim nations.
Swiney, who discussed the Muslim perspective of the topic, began her lecture with a question and her answer to it.
“Is there such a thing as Islamic just war theory?” said Swiney.
Her answer to this question was yes, and for the rest of her panel she explained her reasoning behind this response. After clarifying the word “jihad”as better translated a “just war” rather than the misconception of “holy war,” she stated that while Islam isn’t a pacifistic faith, there is an overwhelming theme of peace. Many Muslim phrases used today are infused with words of peace, and the origins of Islam show that its primary goal was to bring peace and unity for the warring Arab tribes. She explained two major Islamic doctrines, one of which advocates the idea of unity and wholeness and the other which centers on avoiding Fitna, or chaos and in-fighting.
“Ultimately,” said Swiney, “avoiding Fitna is about avoiding war.”
Eventually, philosophies on war and violence were developed by the Islamic nations, but as there are no central authorities in Islam there were multiple themes established on what constitutes a just war. Swiney describes the two major ideas on just war which permeated throughout Islamic history; the Greater Jihad, which is the internal struggle to lead a moral life, and the Lesser Jihad, which is the defense against any external threats to the Muslim world.
“In Islamic theology,” said Swiney, “there must be a spiritual goal underlying a war.”
This idea eliminated holy wars of conversion from being included in the bracket of a just war. While war is only one part of the doctrine of the Lesser Jihad, its importance has changed throughout Islamic history. In the Prophetic Period (7th c. CE), war was thought of as an absolute last resort which could only be declared by a head of state and could only be fought for defensive purposes. There were also provisions for Muslims to be able to protect other Muslims who were in danger and to allow for the fair treatment of prisoners of war and civilians.
In the Medieval Period, a coherent doctrine was established. As this was a time of great Muslim expansion, the past rules on strictly defensive violence were interpreted more loosely.
“But in rhetoric,” said Swiney, “[aggressive violence] is always spun as defensive warfare.”
In this more violent interpretation of war law, Jihad was a communal obligation, more violent methods of war were allowed to be carried out, and POWs were often forced into slavery upon capture. Shifting to the modern era of Islam, most predominantly Muslim nations began to ascribe to international law rather than strictly religious codes. This shift can be primarily attributed to the fact that these nations are now more concerned about defending their own borders rather than any explicitly expansionist policies.
Swiney concluded by discussing the views of the Fundamental Islamic terrorists, who “cherry pick” from the Quran and from Islamic history rather than basing their war theory on any past examples.
“The type of Islamic just war theory you hear from the terrorists…is very different from the rhetoric of the Prophetic Period,” said Swiney.
Goodson then gave a much shorter discussion about the debates on justified warfare throughout Jewish history. He first cited the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, who made a distinction between voluntary war and obligatory war. Initially, he stated that it is just to kill all in the Earth who are not Jewish, yet cites examples from the Bible which would allow the non-Jews who willingly submit, accept seven legal obligations, and to pay a tax to be exempt from death. However, Maimonides concludes that it is ultimately up to the king whether or not to go to war, which Goodson believes makes Maimonides’ earlier statements on obligatory theological war irrelevant. A later Jewish philosopher, Nahmanides, purported a philosophy of aggressive expansionism and land gain. Modern Jewish Writer David Novak further expanded the earlier philosophies on Jewish warfare and brought them into a modern and far more secular context.
“In my judgment,” said Goodson, “Novak offers a good way of thinking because he offers reasoning without resting on direct divine revelation.”
Both Goodson and Swiney then took several questions from the crowd before concluding for the evening. While many of the questions were answered, several more were left open for further debate about this persistent and relevant topic.