Islam and War: A Study in Comparative Ethics

I read this book about 5 years ago. It was the first I'd seen clearly explaining that under shari'a (Islamic law), it is acceptable to attack even women and children under certain circumstances--if Muslims believe they are "defending Islam"--which basically amounts to prosecuting war to spread Islam. The book is highly useful in many respects, and was certainly an eye opener for me. However, Kelsay one must read this with an awareness that Kelsay is overly sympathetic to Islam. He erroneously seems to believe that, while Islam justifies virtually all war without distinction--and also holds spreading religion by war as a bastion of faith--Islam also has some things to teach the West in terms of human rights. Given the amount of rape, pillage, murder and plunder prosecuted in Islam's name over 14 centuries--this frankly amounts to naive dhimmitude. With all its flaws, secular western Democracy is undoubtedly the best political system in the world, while "Islamic democracy" is by definition a contradiction in terms. As Irshad Manji wrote about a current Kelsay title moderate Muslims cannot be counted on to rescue shari'a reasoning from radicals. Kelsay hopes that three particular moderates will, in Manji's words, "rehabilitate democracy's appeal after the serial hypocrisies practiced in Washington" and elsewhere. Oh my. Serial hypocrisies is far more apt a description of Islam than Western democracy much less Western thinking on just war. As Manji notes, "Muslim democrats will also have to confront Koranic passages" on which radicals base what turns out to be rather traditional Islamic reasoning. As a courageous Muslim commented concerning my Jan 2, 2007 article on shari'a now affecting U.S. libel cases, Islamic law is "a highly self serving tool for purposes of maintaining "religious authority," and that "a central tenet of Islamists in Denmark, in Great Britain, in Canada, in France and (apparently) in the United States is to keep up pressure for principles of shari'a to erode and (eventually) replace civil and constitutional law?" Unfortunately, in both this and later volumes, Kelsay has clearly missed that critical point. Consequently, this volume is useful only up to a point. It does explain several very alarming points about Islamic theology and jurisprudence on warfare. But then, Kelsay erases some of that value--going to great lengths to excuse those immoral and untenable traditional Islamic positions. Like Manji and the courageous above-noted anonymous commentator, I believe Islam needs a reformation, but also that scholars ought to quit apologizing for inhuman Islamic practices and start demanding that it, not the west, change. --Alyssa A. Lappen

Kelsay's work is a welcome attempt to discuss seriously not only Islamic thought about "jihad" but also related moral and legal questions concerning irregular warfare, fighting among Muslims themselves, and recent Fundamentalist thought. Be forewarned, however, of three things which may lead the reader astray. Most obvious is the discussion of Fundamentalists not qualified as Alim (Ulema) to provide authoritative opinion. Further, there is nothing that speaks to how widely accepted such positions are which leaves the reader with his or her own biases to jump to conclusions. Lastly there is a bias from the `construction' of the work itself because the theory is tested against practice for cases like Saddam but not for any Christians who have been compared for "just war" theory. Perhaps this is because George Bush never directly justified his actions - or the lies and disinformation to get support for the first Gulf War - by any such theory. To that degree the it is misleading, the "comparative ethics" does not hold the feet of the West to the fire at all for contemporary events despite "The Gulf War and Beyond" in the subtitle.That said, Kelsay has provided a thoughtful and useful work that should be read more widely. It will feed negative bias for the reasons mentioned above but remains not only competent but interesting as well. The comparison of Iran and Iraq positions during their war with each other is a reminder that values matter even when considering bombing cities and treating prisoners. Early attempts to determine the nature and status of irregulars refers to the American Civil War and Southern irregulars. The treatment of the Kuwait invasion is less helpful and is one sided (and would have offered interesting comparative perspective with the Panama invasion shortly before).

This is an essential "read" for understanding classic Islamic theory of warfare as it relates to 9-11. Dr. John Kelsay, Chairman of the Department of Religion at Florida State University, an authority on the ethics of religion and war, wrote this book after observing how Saddam Hussein appropriated Muslim theology in his war with Iran and his invasion of Kuwait with the resulting Gulf War. In less than 150 pages, Kelsay makes an unfamilar subject understandable to the average college student. If this title is not on reading lists for Islam and terrorism, the list is plainly inadequate. "The territory of Islam is theoretically the territory of peace and justice....By contrast, the territory of war is the epitome of human heedlessness and internal strife; it also constitutes a continual threat to the security of the territory of Islam....The peace of the world cannot be fully secure unless all people come under the protection of an Islamic state." This is the classic Sunni meaning of "jihad"--the struggle to extend the territory of Islam, whether by the tongue, pen, or warfare. Understanding this doctrine is necessary for Western comprehension of the motivation of militant Muslims in their attacks on both Israel and Western nations. Kelsay discusses the Islamic rules of armed force: just cause, an invitation to become Muslims or pay tribute to the Islamic state, a requirement of right authority in declaring war, and war must be conducted by Islamic values. He demonstrates the parallels between the western theory of "just war" developed by Christianity and the Muslim philosophy of the ethics of warfare, noting that an understanding of culture and history are essential for proper understanding. Of highest interest to the West, in light of September 11, 2001, is Kelsay's chapter on "Soldiers without portfolio: irregular war in the tradition of Islam." He discusses the status of Islamic rebellion against a legitimate Muslim government and the protection the rebels have under Islamic law. Iran considered the more secular Iraq to be corrupt, an apostasy, forfeiting traditional Moslem protections. This is precisely the problem which faces the more "westernized" Middle Eastern nations such as Egypt and Jordan. Bands of "irregulars" within these countries believe that they must overturn established regimes in order to return justice and true Islamic values to their societies, a "defensive jihad." Palestinians living on the West Bank and Gaza see their activities against Israel as overturning injustice. As a consequence, these "irregulars" have challenged traditional "jihad" and the right of established governments to declare war. Muslim governments which negotiate treaties with "foreign" governments (e.g. Egypt's treaty with Israel) or allow the United States or others to place troops in the Arabian peninsula are "corrupt." The Islamic Jihad's assassination of Egypt's President Sadat, Hamas terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, and Osama bi