Customer Reviews

Arguing the Just War in Islam

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

John Kelsay has provided the best introduction I've found to the self-understanding and the social constructions of Islam and the way its consequent mindset has been used by both historical and contemporary extremists to justify jihad against its perceived enemies. He lays out with crystalline clarity the historical events and and resultant thought processes that have brought Islam to its place in today's world.

Professor Kelsay does not write entirely without bias but he keeps it well under control. One senses from time to time that he is trying quite hard to "stick to the facts" when there is much more that he could say were he willing to indulge his personal opinions.

The well-informed reader may not agree with all of Kelsay's conclusions about just war mentality in the contemporary Muslim world but one has to be impressed with the depth of his scholarship and the lucidity of his writing. Very highly recommended.

I find the prior review quite interesting, considering that John Kelsay lays quite heavily into traditional and modern Islamic theory on just war, making some shocking claims based upon questionable sources.

Kelsay constantly uses the Iraq-Iran war as an example of modern Islamic just war, using Saddam Hussein as an example of Sunni Islamic doctrine and Ayatollah Khomeini as the example for Shi'i doctrine, regularly dismissing Saddam's secular and Arab-nationalist tendencies. Kelsay cites contemporary scholars who point out the conflict has nothing to do with Islam and dismisses them as afraid for their safety by sympathizing. Other modern examples that Kelsay views as "mainstream" are Hamas, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Osama bin Laden.

Kelsay cherry-picks particular scholars who had highly aberrant views on Jihad (while much of their other work is very mainstream), such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Shaybani (who wrote As-Siyar as a book for rulers of an empire to refer to, and thus has some heavy bias toward particular opinions of current leaders), and Ibn Rushd (who has been largely rejected by the entire Muslim world in place of Al-Ghazali). Kelsay also has a very bad grasp on the concept of Maddhabs, continually citing Al-Shafi'i (incorrectly, I might add, as Al-Shafi'i was against aggressive warfare) when his own case would be better served by citing Al-Hanbali (the only maddhab to ever be ruling an Islamic empire and specifically advocate for expansionist warfare).

Muslim history isn't all pretty (and isn't all ugly either), and modern Islamic issues still have much to be done to resolve them, but Kelsay sandwiches two seemingly positive statements on Islam with an entire center of selective, fear-mongering criticism. Women were exempt from war because they were property? Kelsay gets cited by bigoted websites like JihadWatch, and it's where his scholarship belongs.

After reading a number of authors writing on Islam in the past three years exclaim how Islam and the Qur'an has an embedded Just War theory, I was keen to pick up this book. Kelsay's approach begins with an explanation of Islam; three in fact. This approach itself is testimony to Kelsay's understanding of divisions with Islam. Islam can be described from a Salafi perspective (deep understanding of Mohammed's intent, purpose, politics aside). Islam can also be studied theologically or politically.

After this introduction Kelsay considers early scholars in Islam and their use of Hadith (sayings of Mohammad) and the first four Caliphs regarding war and conduct of war. Kelsay also spends quite a bit of time explaining the different schools of Law: Shafi'i, Hanifi, Hanbali (mostly Ibn Taymiyya), very little Maliki ideas and little to no Shi'a input. Kelsay admits that any Muslim scholar, founders of the schools of jurisprudence included, were influenced by their circumstances.

As I read these portions of the book I was still grappling for a methodical flow of Islam's just war theory. All I found were bits and pieces in-between Kelsay's long reviews of early Islamic writings. As the book unfolded it was evident the author was addressing more than just war theory. Kelsay brought up the concept of democracy, its Islamic critics and defenders. Within war itself, Keslay stayed mostly within the lines of contemporary interests: terrorism, Al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the like.

The discussion of just war in Islam narrowed to the following: the proper authority to wage war, the responsibility to wage war and the proper targets of war. In this narrowed focus of terrorist groups, targets and authority, Kelsay does have a few interesting sources and a vivid dialogue between contemporary scholars. But I was looking for more. Outside of terrorism, Muslim states have engaged in multiple wars, with each other and with outsiders. What was the just war reasoning behind those engagements? Was it all politics?

Kelsay admits that Islam's focus in just war thinking is very different from the western tradition. Most discussions in Islam focus on the issue of authority. Something else interesting to note, Kelsay couldn't divorce Islamic just war from its religious roots. From the earliest days of Islam, war was an ethical demand to defend Islam. Those who apposed the religion were legal targets. Where there are democracy advocates in Muslim countries today, even the most liberal will limit their arguments of freedom and justice just short of apostasy. To protect Islam, which is an ethical demand, no one can preach anything other than Islam and no one can leave Islam for another religion.

Just war theory in Islam is all about protecting the religion, its teachings and its followers. It's the 'how' and the proportionality of this demand that is under debate. Overall, the book was a good read and I enjoyed the multiple historical sources and the creative approach. I was disappointed with the flow and the fact that Kelsay only chose a handful of token Qur'an texts to support his thesis. I was under the impression that the Qur'an had more to say on the matter.

Asking what Shari'a has to say about just war in this case is like asking what the British constitution has to say about a specific legal matter. The Brits have no formal constitution. They have a legacy of legal sources and legal precedent. Shari'a can interpret laws and just war from any number of reasonable angles. It's all about who does the interpreting. Back to square one.

As the title suggests, John Kelsay argues for a "just war" theory in the history of Islam, according the Islamic scholars he cites; according to Islamic (Sharia) law, etc., thus defying the violent history of Islamic jihad, as well as contemporary violent jihad and Koranic-inspired Islamic (imperial) expansionism and supremacism.

Islamic law, according to Kelsay, argues for protection of non-combatants and civilians, the protection of innocent non-Muslim women and children, etc., when the Qur'an make no such provision of mercy toward unbelievers. Unbelievers must be killed (converted) or subjugated in this world; they are consigned to hell-fire (or eternal torment) in the hereafter.

Osama bin Laden is not a true Muslim. This can be inferred from Kelsay's book. How can he or his followers be true Muslims or devout Muslims? Bin Laden is a heretic; an apostate. Only, what Islamic scholar of repute situated in the Middle East, has read bin Laden out of Islam? Does Kelsay say? The 9/11 terror-atrocities run counter to Kelsay's just war theory of Islam described in his tendentious book. After all, Kelsay argues Islam does not sanction the senseless slaughter of innocents. For purposes of research I gave this book a two star rating.