Arguing the Just War in Islam, by John Kelsay

There are two competing and incompatible strands of thought on Islamic extremism and terrorism. Some argue that it derives directly and necessarily from basic features of Islam, making Islam an inherently violent religion. Others argue that Islam is inherently a religion of peace, thus the extremism is a horrible aberration which has nothing to do with "true" Islam. The truth is somewhere in between: the extremism and terrorism can follow logically from Islamic traditions, but not necessarily.

Title: Arguing the Just War in Islam
Author: John Kelsay
Publisher: Harvard University Press
ISBN: 9780674032347

 

Pro:
•  Provides fantastic insight and background on Muslim theology & tradition
•  Acknowledges but does not excuse Islamic roots of Muslim extremism

Con:
•  May be a bit technical and detailed for the average readers

Description:
•  Analysis of history & methods of "Shariah reasoning" in Islam
•  Explains how and why Muslims come to certain conclusions about jihad, terror, violence, etc.
•  Explains how Muslim extremists have a legitimate point, but also how they can be challenged

 

Book Review

Those who claim that Islam is necessarily a religion of violence are just as wrong as those who claim that Islam is necessarily a religion of peace. Islam is what Muslims make of it — what they choose to emphasize, what they choose to ignore, and how they choose to combine their sources to create Muslim response to modern problems. What this means is that any response to the arguments of Muslim extremists must occur on the basis of Islam and Islamic traditions. Their arguments and reasoning have to be taken seriously enough to dissect them and explain their flaws.

Most people are unprepared to do this. Even many Muslims seem unprepared to do it because they are in denial about the degree to which extremists' arguments have a legitimate basis in Muslim traditions. Both Muslims and non-Muslims need to drastically re-orient their thinking and a good starting place is the book Arguing the Just War in Islam by John Kelsay, a professor of religion at Florida State University.

 

Islam on War & Terror

Kelsay explores the history of Muslim writings on power, violence, war, killing innocents, etc. One thing which many in the West many not realize, for example, is that principles of waging a "just war" which we find in the Shariah and Islamic traditions are remarkably close to those found in Christianity.

So where did the bloodthirsty, violent terrorists come from? As Kelsay makes quite clear, there are arguments in the Shariah which can be used to support violence — even violence against innocent non-combatants — as well as arguments which can be used to support using only violence for immediate self-defense.

Kelsay then traces how the threads of various traditions are woven though the arguments of contemporary extremists like Osama bin Laden, providing a measure of at least superficial legitimacy to their calls for terrorism. These threads of tradition are key to understanding what the calls for terrorism mean and the degree to which they are legitimate.

Kelsay also reveals the weaknesses of these arguments: how they carefully pick and choose which traditions to use, which to ignore, and thus how they arrive at just the conclusions which the extremists wanted to reach all along. It's arguable that everyone does this when using religious traditions as a foundation for political positions, but that doesn't mean that all such arguments are equally valid or equally invalid.

 

Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee

Muslim extremists use a few key tactics to avoid those aspects of Shariah and Muslim tradition which undermine their desire for violent revolution.

This allows them to make direct references to respected Muslim theologians and philosophers, giving their position a strong air of credibility — but only so long as you don't look too closely. What Kelsay doesn't spell out, but which quickly becomes obvious, is that these tactics are similar to those used by Westerners to wage their "War on Terror" without being restrained by Western traditions of civil liberties, judicial oversight, etc.

The most important tactics are: exploitation of strong emotions and fear (creating the impression that we have an "emergency" which requires desperate, unusual acts) and claiming that the enemy is within or surrounding us (rather than distant). Taken together, these tactics allow the use of measures which would not otherwise be permitted under Shariah.

For example both Western and Shariah just war traditions condemn the deaths of innocents as a general principle, but allow that it is sometimes unavoidable. Extremists go several steps further, using fear and "emergency reasoning" to justify actions where civilian deaths are the part of the point rather than just "collateral damage." Is it a coincidence that some in America use similar reasoning to justify actions like torture and bombings where "collateral damage" is very high?

It's curious that Kelsay doesn't spell out the parallels in reasoning between Muslims extremists and some of their Western opponents because he argues very well that this sort of reasoning and behavior by Western leaders will undermine any attempts to moderate Islam over the long term.

 

Moderating Islam

The value of liberty and democracy could be compatible with Islam and Shariah, if the arguments are presented right, but that will only happen if the West can demonstrate that liberal democracy is a legitimate way to structure and govern society.

That, in turn, is only possible if the West demonstrates that it values liberty, democracy, and justice in reality, not just in theory.

...if the United States and its allies are not careful, the conduct of the war on terror will present militants with a golden opportunity. The greatest weakness of militants involves a gap between their stated goals and the means they employ. Defenders of democracy must not give cause for Muslims to identify them with an analogous gap. The question “Who will believe that your cause is just, when your behaviours are so unjust?” may provide a rhetorical tool for militants as well as for democrats. The evidence suggests that advocates of Islamic government think this question serves them well. Some are pressing the question with great skill.

 

Bottom Line

Islamic extremism and terrorism will only be defeated through superior ideas, not through superior firepower. This requires sufficient understanding of the sorts of arguments which Islamic extremists are making and how to defeat them at their own game, on their own turf. Too few in the West understand or care enough about this to even begin; too few Muslims pretend that the extremists are completely outside legitimate Islamic traditions to ever be successful. John Kelsay's Arguing the Just War in Islam is a good first step in fixing both.