A Christian-Ethical Evaluation of Worldviews: Christianity and Islam
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A Christian-ethical evaluation of worldviews: Christianity and Islam TW MOORE orcid.org/0000-0001-8697-7450 Thesis submitted for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Ethics at the North-West University in co-operation with Greenwich School of Theology Promoter: Prof dr AL Rheeder Co-promoter: Prof dr N Vorster Graduation May 2018 27781429 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am humbled and deeply grateful for the four deeply qualified individuals by whom I was guided through my thesis and related administrative requirements. I extend my deepest appreciation for Professor AL Rheeder who was the steady hand throughout my thesis, providing the right balance between challenging me, correcting me, and encouraging me. I also want to thank Professor N Vorster for supplementing my research with comments utilizing his expertise in ethical considerations with respect to war and violence. I extend a special thanks to Dr. Stuart Rochester for performing the language edit of this thesis with wisdom and care. I would be remiss without thanking Tienie Buys for her competence in adjudicating all things administrative through the PhD process without allowing me to veer off track. Last but certainly not least, I want to thank Peg Evans who was not only my first contact at Greenwich School of Theology but a constant reassuring presence every step of the way. ii ABSTRACT Western countries have been fighting the War on Terror against Islamic terrorist organizations for the better part of three decades. The defined objectives of this ongoing military campaign are many but the ultimate goal is to achieve a durable and comprehensive world peace. Notwithstanding this noble-sounding cause, the War on Terror has raised many moral issues, with critics charging, among other things, that Western countries have committed human rights violations while pursuing their real objective of imperialism. In the War on Terror, three broad ideas dominate discussions: just war theory, pacifism, and jihad. In order to address ethical considerations of whether to engage in war and how to execute a war, Western countries have mostly relied on variations of just war theory. The version of this tradition entrenched in biblical doctrine was first advanced by St. Augustine in the early Middle Ages. Just war theory gives weight to the notion that war is inconsistent with God’s creative order. However, war can be ethical if it is an instrument to restore the peace of God’s creative order. “The morality of a nation will be revealed by how and when it fights wars” is the way Peter S. Temes (2003:4) conveys this sentiment. Further, terrorism has introduced new challenges to just war theory, such as the propriety of preventative strikes, the use of torture in interrogations, and more recently, the use of drones against terrorist targets. Terrorism is frequently equated with the Islamic theory of jihad, which can be interpreted as “holy war.” Osama bin Laden, an avowed enemy of the West, said that “he prescribes violence as the only way to defend the truth,” (cited by Hoffman, 2006:51). This sentiment challenges peace-seeking Western nations to fashion a moral response and to consider how Islam defines truth. If some Muslims define truth as fighting a holy war against Western interests which they frame as a “just war,” Western leaders are confronted with ethical considerations in countering this threat. There are some Western scholars who blame Western policies for creating an environment that fosters terrorism, arguing jihad’s moral equivalency based on perceived injustices perpetrated by the West. Despite the military and economic power utilized by Western countries, the threat of terrorism continues mostly unabated. In fact, it can be argued that the response of Western countries to radical Islam has actually increased the spread of terrorist organizations. This raises the question of what has caused the ineffectiveness to date iii of Western countries’ foreign policy response to terrorism. This work will argue that the myth of peace in the context of the struggle against Islamic jihad is not a deficiency of just war theory or an endorsement of pacifism but a failure to comprehend vastly differing worldviews. Key terms: caliphate, jihad, just war, morals, peace, radical Islam, terror, worldview iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Problem statement 3 1.3 Aim 5 1.4 Objectives 6 1.5 Central theoretical argument 6 1.6 Methodology 6 CHAPTER TWO: EARLY ROOTS OF JIHAD 8 2.1 Introduction 8 2.2 Background 9 2.3 Pre-Islamic history 14 2.4 Muhammad 16 2.5 Islam after Muhammad 21 2.6 Quran 22 2.7 Spread of Islam 33 2.8 Crusades 35 2.9 History of jihad 39 2.10 Sayyid Qutb 44 2.11 Salafi movement and Wahhabism 48 2.12 Summary 50 CHAPTER THREE: TWO VERSIONS OF ISLAMIC WORLDVIEW 52 3.1 Introduction 52 3.2 Background 53 3.3 Ethical arguments in Islam 58 3.4 Islamic worldview 69 3.5 Islam's answers to questions of life 73 3.6 Jihadist worldview 78 3.7 Contrasting two versions of Islamic worldview 95 3.8 Summary 99 v CHAPTER FOUR: JUST WAR AND CORRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW 101 4.1 Introduction 101 4.2 Origins of just war theory 103 4.3 Greek and Roman additions 104 4.4 New Testament influences 106 4.5 Early church fathers 109 4.6 Middle Ages 112 4.7 War on terror 114 4.8 Just war requirements applied to terrorism 116 4.9 Corrective principles of a Christian-ethical worldview 121 4.10 Scripture 123 4.11 Triune God 123 4.12 Imago Dei 124 4.13 Teachings of Jesus 124 4.14 Summary 130 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 135 5.1 Introduction 135 5.2 Summary of results 135 5.3 Conclusions 139 5.4 Recommendations 139 5.5 Further research 142 KEY TERMINOLOGY 143 ANNEXURE: CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF SURAHS 159 BIBLIOGRAPHY 164 vi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background According to David Rodin (2004:755), terrorism is “the deliberate, negligent, or reckless use of force against non-combatants [civilians], by state or non-state actors for ideological ends and in the absence of a substantively just legal process” [emphasis added]. The terrorist events against Israeli athletes murdered at the 1972 Munich Olympics, the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, the explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and of USS Cole in 2000, the attack against the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001 (9/11), and the bombing of Madrid trains and the London subway in 2004 and 2005, made the terms “jihad” and “Allahu akbar” (Allah is the greatest) a part of Western vernacular (Anderson, 2008:117-118). The people who claimed responsibility for these terrorist attacks and many others were Muslims waging a holy war against Western interests. For the most part, those committing these attacks have been roundly condemned and Western countries have generally been clear to differentiate these extremists from the majority of Muslims. For example, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. President George W. Bush (2001) denounced the perpetrators but was quick to add that “Islam is peace.” In addition to seeking peaceful diplomatic solutions (the preferred course by pacifists who have a philosophical objection to the use of force), Western countries have responded to the rise of radical Islam by engaging in a variety of military responses in predominantly Muslim countries ranging from surgical strikes carried out by single nation special operations forces to full-blown wars involving multi-nation coalitions. Regardless of the scope, the objective has been to either punish those responsible for specific terrorist incidents or preempt suspected future attacks with an ultimate goal of reestablishing or preserving peace. When a military response is contemplated, scrutiny has chiefly focused on the application of just war theory, which arose out of the idea that the objective of using military force is the restoration of peace and justice (Bainton, 2008:38). As Daryl Charles and Timothy Demy (2010:88) observe, “Every religion and faith perspective, including secularism, agnosticism, and atheism, has a particular perspective on war and peace.” Some Western leaders regard the cause of radical Islamists to be fostered by what the “radicals” believe to be oppressive policies by the West against disenfranchised Muslims. Therefore, terrorism is merely an understandable response to these perceived injustices. Ryan Mauro (2014b) sees this view expressed in a State of the 1 Union address by US President Barack Obama in which he says that he believes “Islamic terrorists to be driven by frustration over perceived injustices at the hands of the West, rather than an ideology.” Since Kerry Stewart (2012:16) writes that terrorists believe their actions are justified, it calls into question whether all of the conditions of just war theory are relevant today. In fact, Held (2001:59) takes this notion further when she says that the common usage of just war is “unhelpful in deciding what terrorism is and whether it can be justified” because terrorism is often equated with the “illegal use of violence” but it is ambiguous regarding “who can decide what is illegal.” Further, some jihadists believe they are being obedient to the Quran by attempting to spread the faith (Cook, 2015:11-12) and will argue that their ultimate objectives are the same as those of just war theorists, the restoration of peace and justice (Kelsay, 2007:103). Sayyad Qutb wrote that Islam works towards peace but not a “cheap peace that applies only to the area where people of the Muslim faith happen to live” but a “peace which insures that … all people submit themselves to God” in what he calls the “ultimate stage of the jihad movement” (cited by Bergesen, 2008:50).