Chapter 5

Moral Relativism, Just War and Jihad

‘Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God’
(Einstein, 1954)

The Judeo-Christian culture that dominated the Western world for centuries has formed the basis for the primary moral philosophies of modern society. In a world where the North, South, East and West come together in Global institutions there is an argument for adapting Just War Theory to incorporate the moral philosophies of other cultures, so that it is truly inclusive. The characteristics of the Post- modern world as described by Cooper (2002) . Suggest that the world is becoming a global community. Therefore we should be attempting to find a moral metanarrative concerning warfare for the global community. A set of shared intrinsic ideals, which are not concerned with race, creed, religion, culture, gender, nationality, political affiliation or any other of the divisive labels that are placed on mankind. There are inherent qualities of the human being. Humanity is after all a single species of animal and thus what should be examined in relation to morality is what aspects of the human condition are truly universal.

The West was morally outraged when the beheadings of American hostages in Iraq were put on the Internet by the terrorist groups, but as Moslems their morality stems from the Koran where beheading is not an immoral act in warfare, ‘ When you meet unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads’, (Dawood, 1966) p121). This means that it is moral to behead a person as long as two criteria are met:
i) The person to be beheaded must be an unbeliever
ii) The act of beheading must take place in the battlefield.
An unbeliever is defined in the Qu’ran as a person who does not believe in Allah and/or debars others from his path. It is not clear if all unbelievers are classified as combatants if a Jihad is waged because of the different interpretations of what a Jihad actually is. Wuthnow (1998) provides examples of different interpretations of Jihad and Al-Qaeda sets out 39 principles of Jihad .., (Leydon, 2003), which afford protections to believers but not to any non-believer. The battlefield for the terrorist is Dar al-Harb . We can deduce that within the war on terror from the perspective of the Al-Qaeda terrorist, every non-believer is a combatant and everywhere occupied by a non-believer is the battlefield. For the Moslem terrorist then beheading an unbeliever is a moral act. Yet in the west it is viewed as being an act, which illustrates a lack of morality in the Moslem terrorist, an illustration of moral relativism. Just war theory does not tell us how we are to kill, only that we must kill in a way that is proportionate, which discriminates between combatants and non-combatants. Is there a greater morality in killing by dropping bombs on targets or using landmines, than killing by shooting a person or by the sword? Obviously not, the latter two provide greater discrimination between combatants and non-combatants.
The problem in the war on terror is that an inter-culturally, internationally agreed definition of combatant status does not exist. A need exists to clearly establish exactly who combatants are, if they are solely those who openly carry arms or if this category also includes those individuals who are involved in the support of military actions, such as supply of arms and intelligence, provision of monetary or political support, propagandists etc. The outcome of this determination would need to be included in international educational programmes that were sanctioned by not only governments but also by religious leaders and teachers on all sides, so that those who recognise a God as a higher authority also have a clear understanding of who it is morally right to engage in combat. Al-Qaeda recognises the importance of education in support of its objectives ., the international community must also participate in a counter attack within the educational base of Islamic nations, one that promotes moral conduct in war from a non- relativist perspective, if the international community is to establish any workable rules for conduct in a war on terror.
Bauman (1993) argues that morality cannot be reduced to local custom or tradition and yet it appears that this is exactly what has happened recently in relation to morality and war. The morality of the West has been reduced to the customs and traditions of Judeo-Christian cultures through the acceptance of Just War Theory by the International Community (Telford Taylor (1992), Rostow (1995)) and is perceived as though it has a universal foundation. The teachings of Islam (Dawood (1966), Wuthnow 1998), illustrate that the foundations of Just War Theory are not universal. Universality of a Moral Code that pertains to war is important if Global institutions are to create a Just War Theory that inclusive of all cultures and exclusive to none. In the West and in the Global institutions the legitimate authority in whom the power to declare war is vested is political, thus it is a political entity that takes responsibility for human action in war. In Islamic culture the higher authority is religious, it is the religious leaders and ultimately Allah in whom the responsibility for human action in war is vested. The distinction under current international laws is that combatants of a State bear no personal or moral responsibility for killing in war providing they abide by the rules. The terrorist has no state authority to bear the same responsibility ergo his act of killing is perceived by nation states as immoral.
In both cases personal responsibility for actions is limited to those actions that are set down as NOT permitted. There exists a duty to act in accordance with the moral code that applies only in war- time. Killing is murder in peace time, killing is duty in war the act is the same only the circumstances differ. The international political community accepts that moral responsibility for killing is taken from the combatants by the State. Orwell, 1941 explains,
’ As I write, highly civilised human beings are flying overhead trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity toward me as an individual nor I against them. They are only ‘doing their duty’ as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt are kind hearted, law abiding men, who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well placed bomb, he will never sleep the worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil’ (Orwell, 1941).

It is this moral relativism that is a problem for western nations who are engaged in a war on terror. The alternative to failing to eradicate relativist perspectives and incorporate the assistance of the Islamic Scholars and prominent religious teachers into debates to form a truly international Just War Theory, is to simply abandon Just War Theory altogether and to fight an all out war, without rules, where the only consideration is victory at any cost.S.SMcGonigal( 2005)
footnotes
. See Chapter 3, p19 for Cooper (2002) characteristics of the postmodern world.
. See Appendix D for definitions of Jihad.

. . See Appendix E.
Dar al-harb- Land of War as defined by Islamic Legal Scholars, the purpose of Jihad is to reduce the Dar al- harb to the Dar al-Islam-land of Islam, see Wuthnow (1998).
. Sections 22, 23, 24, 29, 33, 34 & 36 of Appendix E.