Michael Waltser has written a book on the subject of just and unjust war, in this he claims that:
‘The war is evil even when it is necessary.’ M. Waltser
However a Muslim may disagree with this statement, believing that the war would be what Allah wants, and anything that Allah sanctions cannot be evil; however this raised another question which is that if Allah can sanction nothing that is evil what is Hell? – surely to send people to hell is evil even if they have been evil themselves, and does this fit in with the idea of Allah the merciful?
In the 13th Century Thomas Aquinas developed the ‘Just War Theory’. He said that for a war to be ‘just’ it needed to occupy seven conditions:
- It had to be fought by legally recognised authorities (e.g. governments).
- The cause of the war has to be just.
- The intention has to be to re-establish good or correct evil.
- There must be a reasonable chance of success.
- The war must be the last resort, after diplomatic measures have been tried and have failed.
- Only sufficient force may be used.
- No civilians are to be involved in warfare.
These are a set of values that are still in practice today, although they are becoming increasing difficult to adhere to, with eighty per cent of all those injured in modern wars being civilians.
From looking at the above list of criteria many go along with the Muslim idea of a Holy War, for example number 2 ‘The cause of the war must be just’ and number 3 ‘the intention has to be to re-establish good / correct evil’ – this ties in with Muslims only fighting to abolish oppression and be free to worship. Also number five and seven agree with the Holy War, number six could be considered as agreeing with the statement that as soon as peace has been offered fighting must stop, but in the idea of Holy War is does not say anywhere how much force can be used before the opposition surrender. However number one disagrees with the Muslims idea of Holy war – it says that war should be declared by the government whereas Muslims say the opposite, war should not be declared by a politician but by a religious leader. This is stated clearly in the reasons given for war not being holy, these are:
- War is declared by a political leader rather than a religious leader.
- An individual declares war without the support of the Muslim community.
- War is declared in attack, rather than in defence.
- War is declared to win new land or power.
- War is declared to try to convert others to Islam.
- Peaceful ways of solving the conflict have not been tried.
- Innocent civilians are exposed to physical danger.
- Trees, crops and animals have not been protected.
With this point being contradicted in just war documents and Islamic holy war rules it could be said that it is impossible for a Muslim war to be a just war. Another point that is not exactly contradicted, but is not backed up is point four ‘There must be a reasonable chance of success.’ Although nothing is said to go against this if we look to the example of Muhammad, we see that he took part in a war where people would say that he did not have a reasonable chance of success: the Battle of Badr. This war was carried out to free people from the oppression of those in charge of Makkah at the time and Muhammad was out numbered seven to three; he led a force of three hundred whereas the leaders of Makkah led an army of 1,000 men. However, others might say that because Muhammad was freeing his people from oppression Allah would have been on their side and so they would have a reasonable chance of winning, Muhammad did believe this and prayed for Allah’s help, the Qur’an tells us that one thousand Angels were sent to help Muhammad in answer to his prayers.
Therefore it is very difficult to determine whether this war should be considered just.
Overall Muslims are generally against war except from in extreme circumstances, and still only to defend themselves – they themselves must never be the oppressors, however if a war is required, as is sometimes the case according to the Qur’an then all able-bodied men should fight, the war must also stick strictly to a number of rules to ensure that is remains a holy war.
b.)
Explain how the beliefs and teaching of Islam might affect the attitude of believers towards Capital Punishment.
As we have seen already in the previous section Muslims seem to be against ‘turning the other cheek’, however this does not automatically mean that they will go along with the teaching of ‘a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye…’ because there is room in-between these two statements for belief.
Another point to take into consideration is how Muslims value life, Muslims believe life is sacred and you should never take another’s life, except in certain circumstances:
‘Do not take life – which Allah has made sacred – except for a just cause.’ Surah 17.33
This immediately begs the question – ‘what is a just cause?’, would a Muslim consider Capital punishment to be a ‘just cause’ to take someone’s life, or would this still be considered wrong – would it be going too far, and if so what crime would have had to be committed?
One important factor to consider is the principles for punishment in Islam, these are:
- Deterrence - to prevent other offenders.
- Justice - the punishment should be fair.
- Retribution - the offender should be ‘paid back’ in some way.
- Protection - preserve the safety of society.
- Involvement of the victim – the victim has a say in the punishment.
- Mercy - being merciful is a good deed and pleases Allah.
- Equality - ‘one life for one life’.
The last rule seems very clear in putting across the Islamic view towards capital punishment – ‘one life for one life’, i.e. if someone murders he too will be killed, however capital punishment is rarely carried out in Islamic countries (in England it is not an option for any crime but treason / piracy on the high seas / burning of Her Majesty’s shipyards). There are other punishments available for those who are convicted of murder or manslaughter, such as a prison sentence. The law of equality is set out in Surah 2.178-9:
‘O you who believe!
The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder…
But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain,
Then grant any reasonable demand
And compensate him with handsome gratitude…’
Overall Muslims would agree that in some extreme cases capital punishment could be used, it would seem reasonable, therefore to assume that although it can be agreed with, the decision should not be taken lightly, and where possible, alternatives should be found. Also to take in to consideration is the fact that it is better to forgive than to execute (as illustrated in the point above).
c.)
‘Conscientious objection is nothing more than cowardice’ How far do you agree?
One of the most important things to consider when looking at the quotation is to decide exactly what ‘conscientious objection’ is. From the very the first word, one can tell that conscientious objection cannot be doing simply nothing, because the objection must be conscientious, i.e. active and not passive.
Many people would consider conscientious objection, or pacifism to be cowardly; they may have different reasons for this, some may simply not understand that conscientious objection is active, and so that cannot simply do nothing. Another reason may be that they assume that to not fight in circumstances where conscientious objectors refuse to, is cowardly, for example, in a war a conscientious objector would refuse to fight, and many people would argue with his or her decision, because they feel it is cowardly or even disloyal not to fight for your own country.
On the other hand many people would consider that to contain your anger and not fight back when, for example, somebody hits you is less cowardly, or braver than to simply hit back.
It is also important to consider the fact that conscientious objects are active, and so they do not simply do nothing, but get involved, for instance, with peaceful protests. People could argue that this achieves more success, and is more respected than simply destroying the aim of the protest or creating violence, other people may disagree stating that if violence is used there will be more media coverage, which would mean that there would be greater awareness of the cause, however this does not directly mean that there would be more support because people are often against violence and so would scorn the violent protestors, and not support their cause, it is therefore questionable as to the point of the violence in the first place, if it achieves nothing then why was it implemented?
