All Comments (19)

Do I understand you to be saying that Just War Theory should be rejected because it doesn't address the conclusion of a war, only its beginning, and to a lesser degree, its conduct? Either way, and given the appalling toll of war, it seems that rather than abandoning an incomplete theory, we might better enlarge our thinking to encompass whatever it takes to prevent wars from beginning in the first place.

That, of course, means improving the lives of people, reducing poverty, sickness, hunger, and a host of other ills afflicting the masses of humanity. Then, there is what we are doing to the environment now and to the world in which our descendants will have to live. Think of all the diversity of life that is winking out, and who knows what global warming has in store.

How did we come to live in a world so beset with war, and environmental upheaval? To what degree is it a consequence of human nature, technology, science, social history, religious traditions, or, all of the above plus the sheer numbers of people on the planet?

I must admit, I have more questions than answers.

Dave Brock, Muslims who strap bombs to themselves and kill a few people along with themselves need to know the truth about what happens AFTER the bomb goes off. They and their victims all go to the NEXT life. Allah isn't here to protect them and Allah isn't there either.

They think they are going to the kingdom of Allah and their victims are going to hell. Big surprise. Everyone arrives in the next world at the same time. Now take the case of the jihad suicider that drove the truck load of HE into the Marine barracks and killed himself along with 250 or so of them, Lebanon, 1982. They all arrive in the next life at the same time. Any idea what happens next to the jihad?

There are no atheists on the battle field. All believe the people they kill are going to hell while they, should the get it are going to heaven. Their "faith" is not so much there is a God in heaven as there is a Devil in hell. Where does this come from?

The inventer of hell did so in the interest of getting people to kill each other in his earthly interest. That's the stuff kings are made of. Jesus is the "king of kings." Are you getting it yet?

Try http://www.hoax-buster.org for the rest of the story. There's a picture there somewhere I saw of what the Jews did_are doing to Hitler. Can't say what that was here, you know.

This is nonsense. If there is no just war, there can be no war at all. You're saying there can be no just war, so whatever the president fools the rest of into accepting as "just" is the new standard for a "just war". That's how we got where we are in Iraq. There was no just cause for this war, except what the president and vice president told us and they were wrong on every reason.

We're not talking about mere religious jibberish or "teachings" here. We're looking for a legal structure that defines a just war, or a series of war crimes. And we want those responsible for war crimes brought to justice, don't we?

Dear Dave,

I don't think the West can pat itself on the back insofar as killing civilians are concerned. The US, after all, did drop two atom bombs on civilian centres in Japan. The UK firebombed Dresden--a refugee centre--with a loss of 45,000 civilians in one night!

No,man is made of crooked wood, and there are a lot of testosterone-infused young men out there that like to fight and kill...and plenty of old men that are more than willing to send them. More than enough to go 'round.

But there has been progress since the blood-soaked first half of the twentieth century, and the state-sponsored blood baths have stopped. Terrorists are stateless criminals, using religion as a way to delude themselves that they are NOT criminals.

We need to keep on the path to peace, not take more detours like the Iraq invasion.

To Hewitt Rose:

Hopefully you have been following the thread. The teachings and example of Jesus Christ as well as his apostles very clearly showed non-violence as the path a true Christian should take. Early Christians followed them, refusing to serve in the Roman army for example, choosing martyrdom over violent rebellion, &tc.

St Augustine thus started with the premise that war was UNJUST, and sought to find situations & a definition were it could be just.

For my part I do not think the Iraq invasion shows that any new theory is needed. The leaders of most Christian churches--John Paul II was especially excised about the idea of a 'pre-emptive' war-- behaved as they should in the light of Christian teaching and condemned the war. Recently there have been comments by both Pope Benedict and here by the Archbishop of Canterbury, questioning whether modern war can ever be 'just' due to the suffering in inflicts on civilians. This shows the old parameters are intact, however, as avoiding the suffering of innocents has always been paramount.

Muslims seem to forget these 'rules' of yours when they strap bombs onto themselves and board busses and trains.

They seem to forget this when they fly planes into buildings.

They seem to forget this when they blow up Mosques and shrines and all the worshippers in and by them.

They seem to forget this when they plant car bombs in market places.

They seem to forget this when they be-head the 'enemies of Allah' (and shout his name while doing it!) on camera for all the world to see.

Iran in particular liked to push as many brainwashed children into the line of fire as possible...Even Saddam's army got to the point where they refused to fire because of the carnage suffered on 'good' Muslim children on their way to Martydom.

And tell all this 'Islam is fluffy and warm in war' to the piles of heads that turn up regularly on Iraqi street corners.

Tell that to the be-headed U.S. soldiers they captured.
Tell that to the Christian Aid workers and (suitably stupid and misguided) peace campaigners they have also be-headed.

If you think for one second that a U.S. soldier captured by your Islmist friends will be remotely well treated you are more of a fantasist (or a liar) than I thought!

And the difference with things like Abu Ghraib is that they are condemned and the people brought to justice...
Whereas those Islamists that saw off the heads of bound captives (in the case of a female Muslim news reporter they slowly sliced off her head, while being filmed on a mobile phone camera, and placed it on her dead, naked chest) are classed as great warriors and are worthy in the eyes Allah!

Civilians ar killed in wars. By all sides.
But few cultures SPECIFICALLY target as many civilians as possible (or like Hezbolah place their civilian killing rockets in civilian areas...and then moan about dead civilians when the rocket sites are taken out!) and then also consider such targetting as a holy act!

Not even the IRA went so far out of their way to kill as many civilians as possible.
They often gave warnings and they did not want to die while carrying out the attacks.
None of this applies to the terrorist acts Muslims carry out (to gain Martydom and be seated next to Allah with all their juicy virgins) so even when you compare their 'rules' to other fanatics... Islamists are unique in the threat and danger they pose to those 'non-combatants or non-fighting personnel'!

Keep on spreading the Islmist lies Victoria...I'll always be there to tell the truth of the matter.

I think focusing on whether or not the War is just or not is a little bit of a moot point after all that has happened. I like Dr. Glen Stassen and others approach to creat a "Just Peacemaking Theory" in which instead of justifying the violence they look into practices that have prevented conflicts from turning into wars. It doesn't offer all the answers but it is pointing in the right direction.

James Anderson

If there are no just wars, then there are no unjust wars. Wars of conquest become morally permissible. I don't think your position works.

The title story of this site The Washington Post.com reads: 'More than 34,000 Iraqis killed last year', by Joshua Parlow. And follows; 'On average, nearly 100 civilians were killed violently per day, report finds. New death toll dwarfs Iraqi government's recent estimates.'

Most of those killed are innocent victims which render merit to atrocious charge against humanity. An even in the face of popular opinions and representative votes, the warmongers are still screaming for more soldiers and more weapons, and more war.

The only thing just about this is when the instigators of war are brought to justice.

Dear Sander,

You are mixing up the "Holy Roman Empire" ( a secular kingdom, with Charlemagne, a Frank, as its king established in the ninth century, accurately described as "neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire") with the ROMAN EMPIRE and later the ROMAN EMPIRE in the West which fell in AD 460.

St Augustine, living during the collapse and disintegration of the ROMAN EMPIRE in the West, tried to establish conditions where Christians (who like the empire or not were bound up in its disintegration) could justly wage war. His theory had no affect in the course of events determining the fate of the Roman Empire in the West: it fell before the barbarian hordes. Later, all the formerly Christian lands of northern Africa as well as Spain, would surrender to the Arabian tribes bursting out of the Arabian peninsula. Northern Africa became irrevocably Islamic with effects we feel to the present day. (Castillian armies, however, would eject Muslims & the Islamic religion from Spain some seven centuries later..)

I always find the justifications of war based on religion teachings to be an indictment of religion. Unfortunately, the teachings and actions of Jews and Muslims are full of examples of war.

Christianity had a chance to set itself apart because neither Christ nor his disciples participated in war. Quite the contrary, they were living under oppression and expected God, rather than war to remedy the situation.

Christianity opted not to pursue that avenue of distinction. Starting with the Holy Roman Empire and continuing to the present day, Christians have generally accepted war and they have put forward the just war theory to reconcile killing people with their faith.

If faith is to have any logic or appeal it must be used for good purposes rather than justifying ones violent actions. People who lack faith just shake their heads in wonder when someone like George Bush claims he is on a mission from God. It's a funny statement when Dan Ackroyd makes it. It appalling when the President says it.

I hardly think the changed nature of war is a rationale for declaring the just war theory obsolete. War has hardly changed. People use whatever means they have at their disposal to maim and kill. If anything war today is kindler and gentler than it was in the days before antibiotics, anesthesia and the Geneva convention.

If anything, the Bible foretold of modern day warfare in the book of Revelation which is pretty close to a nuclear war in its descriptions.

Victoria,

We've exchanged posts many times recently. I've expressed my conclusion that there is no such thing as a "just war" and said that Jesus would be horrified by the notion.

I said that those "Christians" who say there can be a "just war" are ignoring Jesus's admonition to "turn the other cheek".

I also said that these just-war "Christians" don't believe in a Christian Heaven. If they did, they'd realize that a Christian should simply accept death at the hands of an aggressor, expecting to go to Heaven, rather that disregarding what Jesus taught.

You let these statements of mine pass without challenge, perhaps because your Islamic sensibilities don't concern themselves with Christian doctrine.

But now that James Anderson says there's no such thing as a just war, you go ballistic. What's up? Do my views not count for anything because there's no "Rt. Rev." in front of my name? Victoria, you've hurt my feelings!

By the way, you usually end your posts with "peace", yet you argue for the validity of war. In view of your citation of Islamic doctrine, and your support for war, shouldn't you have ended this post with "jihad"?

**** Rt. Rev. Mr. Anderson: I think you should ground your rejection of the "just war" concept in the teachings of Jesus rather than the nature of modern warfare.

This would be more central to your Christian faith and be more persuasive. No thinking Christian could have supported the "just war" concept in previous eras.

Sports fans cannot accept the outcome of a soccer game and take to fighting. Just or unjust has nothing to do with human emotions when their side loses.

WW2 did not end in Germany before 1947, (still not over for some really die hards) a rarely recognized fact. It was the same people who could not accept the outcome of a simple sporting event that could not accept the outcome of the war even though their army and country had been totally destroyed. Baghdad_Berlin same same. Another car bombing today and 89 more dead with many more hurt and crippled.

Most people, Americans being no exception to the rule think of war as a sporting event. Our boys will rack up a lot of points and we win. The president catered to that psychology with his, "step out into the street" attitude. He gave Saddam 48 hours to "get out of town." And Dubya got preachers as Rev Anderson noted to preach on it.

Rev Anderson's gang is not as "toothy" as Baptists for instance. Wonder what their preachers had to say. We don't need to wonder about all of them. There's "pride of the Marines" Lt Pat Robertson, "hero of the Enchon landing" who was called to the white house to consult on the war with an equally heroic warrior. He told the president, according to my recolection, "he can expect a lot of casualties." He left out the part that he and Dubya wouldn't be counted in the casualty group.

George put his faith in God, spoke to a higher power, called on God's eliteist representatives, sent his highest general to preach at Sunday worship services, did everything right but one thing. Don't do it. And now I must notice that all those supernatural power merchants are being asked to justify it. So I must agree with Rev Anderson. There aint no way to do that, not even God can justify it.

That's right. I noticed http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and feel obligated to tell the president he has his supernatural being confused. It's Devil and not God that justifies war. Devil just loves war for war is an event where two or more groups of people attempt to send each other to hell. Devil can't lose and God can't win. Let's hear it for Devil for he is the only winner in war.

respectfully martin- why do you assume there are no muslim condemnations of terrotists?

im afraid in america that moderate voices do not make good copy for jouranlists-

however islam does prohibit agression in warfare- so if there are muslims in countries out there who have not attacked another country for this reason - cannot say honestly what drives some to war-

but the palestinian issue is tearing apart the world and american foreign policy is a driving force behind many of the angers directed at this government-

ps this is by no means the entire code- but i didnt want to take up so much space-

suicide is forbidden in the qur'an martin-
its not a negotiable aspect of islamic beliefs

the deeper question would be- what drives people to such desperation?

we all strive for the same things- a home- love- family- security- peace-

i appreciate the reasonable tone of your queries
peace

Martin CT,

The Palestinian suicide bombers are not all Muslims. They are fighting back with whatever means they have against state terrorism against the oppressed populace.

The 9/11 attacks are by those against the presence of US bases and troops in their country.

Both the Palestinians and the 9/11 attackers are politically motivated.

They used Islam to co-op the Muslim umma's sentiments against oppression and foreign domination. The Quran Suras saying fight oppressors whenever you find them, to fight those who drive you out of your homes.

And come on, even if they are not Muslims, they would still fight for their homeland - The IRA, the Basque seperatists, and if you cared to remember - the Vietnamese.

The Palestinian cause needs to be addressed fairly.

The rage of the Al Qaeda needs to be look in the context of Saudi Arabia. They think, to put it crudely - Saudi Arabia is whoring itself to foreign countries and foreign oil interest. And that Saudi Arabia, as the Keepers of the Holiest Places in Islam - Mecca and Medina, has lost its self-respect and credibily among the Muslim umma in the world.

And, to remind you, the core principles of Islam is justice, social equity, peace and dignity. Which Muslim and non-Muslim would not want to strive for that if they think they are deprived of all of that, ironic as it may sounds?

Victoria-

I ask whether the Just War ideas (or the Islamic ideas you present) actually help to determine the conduct of nations or individuals. Perhaps the JW theory is only a way for scholars to analyze the legitimacy of war after the fact?

It may be unfair, but the obvious response to arguments about Islam's position is to ask how the teachings of Islam are represented in the actions of the 9/11 attackers or the Palestinian suicide bombers? If (as I hope) you would say these are against Islamic teaching, why is there not a louder voice from Islam saying so?

I am ready to say that many actions of "Christian" nations are against the authentic teachings of Jesus, and I wonder why there is not a stronger message from Christians about this.

Asking is osmeone is restrained is asking to prove a negative - instead knowledge may help in understanding- i would venture that because there are no rules of engagement in thenew testament- it isnt neccesarily a proof os superiority- just avoiding a difficult subject-

VICTORIA:

War has always been a complex subject for objective study or analysis. Given the nature of man, one cannot imagine a world without wars. The best we can strive for is to have a code of rules for war. It is the merit of Islam that it does provide such rules, which remain ever nobler and more realistic than any other code existing for the conduct of war.

Concerning the rules of combat as outlined in Islam, the following points are important to note:

In war as in peace, the injunctions of Islam are to be strictly observed. Worship does not cease during times of war. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war.

Allah says in the Qur'an what means:

*{Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities.Lo! Allah loves not, aggressors.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:190)

The above permission to fight clearly lays down the following conditions: (1) Never commit aggression; fighting is allowed only for self-defense. (2) Fighting must never be against non-combatants or non-fighting personnel.

The Prophet used to instruct his followers during battles and tell them not to be embittered or inclined to commit treachery. He asked them to spare non-combatants, particularly children and hermits. Caliph Abu Bakr gave the following instructions to the commander who led the campaign to Syria:

"Do not betray, be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children, the aged or women. Do not cut or burn palm trees or fruit trees. Do not slay a sheep, a cow, or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who stay in hermitages for worship; leave them alone to what they devote themselves to."

Justice is highly valued in Islam and no Muslim is allowed to violate it even in times of war against their bitterest enemies. From the early days of Islam, medical assistance was available to all irrespective of religion or creed and was even given to the enemies. The medical profession itself was specially honored in Islam, and it was the duty of the Muslims to offer help in this regard to all.

A well-known example is that of Salahuddin Ayyubi (Saladin), who gave medical help to his opponent Richard the Lion-Hearted of England, who was seriously ill during the Crusades. He sent his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well. This is in contrast with the behavior of the invading crusaders. When they entered Jerusalem on July 15, 1099, they slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims, including women, children, and the elderly: "They broke children's skulls by knocking them against the wall, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fires and cut open women's bellies to see if they had swallowed any gold."

This description was given by Edward Gibbon, the famous historian; and in modern warfare, this example is paralleled by the atrocious behavior of the Serb army in Bosnia, to quote just one instance.

For the first time in the history of warfare, it was Islam that adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is to be sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury. Islam made it obligatory to feed prisoners.

Ibn Umayr, one of the captives of Muslims in the Battle of Badr recalled: "Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me bread and themselves [eat] the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor." Please note that in that desert situation, bread was a more luxurious item of food than dates.

Islam clearly prohibits subjecting captives to ill treatment by denying them food, drink, or clothing. According to Islamic law, the captive belongs to the state and not to his captor. The ruler has the ultimate option, as he sees fit, to grant him freedom immediately or at a later time, as he sees fit.

Sometimes enemy prisoners were exchanged for Muslim prisoners held in enemy hands. An acceptable ransom for release was for the prisoner to teach ten Muslim children to read and write. Combatants were set free upon their word of honor not to fight again; and if they broke their promise and were caught again, they might be severely dealt with.

Islam never fought civilian populations, but only fought despotic rulers. Islamic war was one of liberation and not one of coercion. The liberated people had the freedom to choose their religion, and Muslims often fought to ensure this freedom.

The process of active intervention to stop or remove aggression is a development that modem international law has recognized. And fourteen centuries before the establishment of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, Islam decreed such responsibility. This principle is based on the Qur'anic saying, which means:

*{ If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just).
The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.}* (Al-Hujurat 49:9-10)

One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its scant regard for moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements are flouted. From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited breach of trust and treachery. Recent examples of signing a pact with a nation with a hidden intent to attack it are diametrically opposed to the rules of combat Islam has laid down. The Qur'an tells us what means:

*{O you who believe!Fulfill your undertakings…}* (Al-Ma'idah 5:1)

The Qur'an also says what means:

*{Fulfill the covenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety; for God knows all that you do…}* (An-Nahl 16:91)

If Muslims sense the violation of an existing treaty by the enemy, they should first declare the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again. The Qur'an clearly says what means:

*{If you fear treachery from any group, throw back [their covenant] to them, [so as to be] on equal terms: for God loves not the treacherous.}* (Al-Anfal 8:58)

The fact is that there are no rules of war more humane and realistic, than the rules of Islam.

again the fact that it isnt dealt with in the new testament- didnt stop augustine from developing his theories (however inadequately) and the old was chock full of references-

Rev. Anderson,
Thank you for your message. I agree that modern conflicts can probably never meet the Just War criteria. Has any war ever done so?

In any case, why should we spend much time on these ideas of Aquinas, et al? The JW theory, to me, seems to be an elegant attempt to rationalize the violent behavior of "Christian" nations. Has anyone, anywhere decided _not_ to go to war because of it?

Reading Scripture might be more worthwhile! I find no support for war or violence in the New Testament.

And to Victoria - I would like to understand how the Islamic rules of war are helping in today's world. Do they actually restrain anyone?

SIR- THE CONDITIONS OF A JUST WAR HAVE BEEN LAID OUT AND MAINTAINED THROUGH THE DURATION OF MANY CONFLICTS- THE RULES OF WAR IN ISLAM
are explicit and comprehensive

they encompass all of gods creation-even environmental concerns- trees and plants-
if i see this post unresponded to ill post some here but i dont want to monopolize the space in case someone want to use it-

also ive noticed that all the gentle non-sensationalized panelists have a lack of responses- consider it a testimony to the sense and reasonableness of your post