Crusades and Just War Theory

The Christian rulers were worried that the Muslims Turks would want to increase their Empire, so that they would be a threat. And on the worldly point of view that would have better trading routes to the east.

The crusaders were encouraged by the Popes who promised eternal life for any Christians involved. The crusaders were successful, they were able to capture Jerusalem but they lost it again. There were eight crusaders in total. Christians today regret these war in the name of Christ as they caused suffering to the Muslims and Jews.

The Muslims in those times accepted the doctrine of Jihad, which means Holy war. Jihad is the duty for all Muslims to defend Islam. To ensure that it is spread and if it is necessary fight for it. God told Prophet Muhammad that he was allowed to attack those Christians and Jews who betrayed him. He had to fight until they accepted the authority of Islam, they didn't necessary have to be Muslims but to accept it as a religion.

Only a few modern Christians and Muslims would say that war is a good thing. Christians today would say that war unavoidable or necessary but they would not classify it as good. In the same way Muslims concentrate on the idea of Jihad as a spiritual struggle of the individual to be a true and develop their faith on their life.

We have seen that the problem arising between the Muslim and Christians were due to distrust and fear. Modern Christians and Muslims try to understand one another rather than being enemies. They want to respect both the similarities and the differences of both the faiths.

JUST WAR: It means that war is wrong. It can never be good at any circumstances. It can sometimes be less wrong than refusing to go to war. The idea of Just war is just one Christian's point of view about war. War is on the side of Justice if it is said to be Just, which comes from God.

At the end of the third century Christianity became the religion of the Empire. Christians began to serve the army and the Christian view of war began to develop. For instance St Augustine (354-430) said that it was a Christian duty to defend an innocent country from attack.

At the end of the middle age, rules were set-up for the conditions of Just war. The condition for a was to be called a just one are:

A) LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY: The Just war argument (JWA) referred to it as a sovereign. The sovereign represented God's will on this Earth, establishment of peace for Augustine, and the ruling out of private citizens for the Aquinas. As a part of the instrument of the Government the JWA gave it a right to reject any attempt to overthrow state or Monarch. Today this is impossible because legitimate authority in the west comes from the comes from an elected government. But in International war the question is asked who can authorise the use of military forces. Coates argues that this principle of law causes disastrous consequences and gives right to terrorists.

More difficult issue is to judge when an authority is legitimate? What happens when an authority is not legitimate? This is a question which both Luter and Augustine could not resolve. The JWA allowed Revolutionary war if the Revolutionaries didn't fulfil the will of the people.

B) JUST CAUSE: This part of the JWA is ambiguous. It follows from the fact that legitimate authority decides what a Just cause is, which authorises the use of war. But for a just cause to be established it is a philosophically problematic Justifying whether the ground of war is desert or punishment. Some critics quote a fundamental rule in the law "no one can be the judge of his own cause". But then who has the right to give objective judgement? Is it the united kingdom? Others argue that the state should take responsibility for its own actions.

C) LAST RESORT: The JWA affirm that the aim of the war should be to establish peace. It should not be fought for power, ambition or land. The means should be approved by the pacifist like negotiations, sanctions, and appeasement. The criticism of the JWA is from the pacifist, who think that the war can be averted. The problem with that is the problem of hindsight. The Second World War would have been avoided if Churchill had signed appeasement with Germany in the 1930s. On the other hand many feel that the force in the Gulf war was used too hastily. A last resort can prove too late and can lose political advantage while sanction and negotiations give the enemy time to gather their troops together. Today the Americans did use war as a last resort because they tried to negotiate by telling the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden.

D) RIGHT INTENTION OR PROPORTIONALITY AND RECOURSE TO WAR: The right intention captures JWA's development of natural law environment of Aquinas. The intention must only be for peace and not for lands, rights and protection. What Aquinas means by natural law is that means can be justified if they are proportion to their ends. This is a difficult because no one can say before the war whether the outcome of the war justify the reason for going to war? Bentham's utilitarian calcus is generally thought to be unworkable even if we are able to count the number of people dead as a result of war would this prove the rightness or the wrongness of war?

The fear of those who warned that technology would result in a total or Atomic war have been proven wrong in the Gulf war where technology were used. It shows that war can be still be proportionate.

PACIFISM: Christians who reject war completely are pacifists. Pacifists believe in pacifism. Pacifists will never under any circumstances fight war. They will find non-violent methods to solve conflict between two people. Not all Christians are pacifists. It is believed that the early church were mostly pacifist.

Today Christians who are pacifists say that violence is never acceptable because they will break the one of the Ten Commandments "thou shall not kill". Which is against the Christian idea of love. Many passage of the Gospel support the view.

In the time of war some pacifist became conscientious objectors, which meant that their conscience refused them to fight in wars. They did not have to fight in wars but they were given other jobs like, help with medical care at home, the troops, or joining the fire brigate. In many countries conscientious objections are illegal. Not all conscientious objectors are pacifist. Some don't fight in wars because they think it's unjust.

Members of the religious Society of Friends sometimes called Quakers are pacifists. The work of George Fox was started by the Quakers.

The Quakers peace testimony means the way a friend bears witness to peace. The friend does not have to agree with the document or creed. This refers to bearing witness that is done by friends for years. The way to overcome conflict is not by fighting them or punishing them but by appealing to the something in God in everyone. Love, telling the truth, co-operation, non-violence, imagination and laughter are all the secrets, which do not destroy but heals the reaches of God. War is the damaging options because the damaging effects are permanent.