Muhammad is reported as saying man who fights it the cause of the Lord may be hadith “the compared to one who fasts and prays…” The two situations here, however, are distinctly different as Muhammad is directly praising a person for engaging in an act of violence, while Jesus’ praise for the soldier is not related to the soldier’s profession, but rather to the man’s faith in Jesus’ healing abilities. Nonetheless, both texts appear widely in discussions on war in their respective traditions. Since this paper is written in an era where and the on Terror” are still “terrorism” “War prominently featured on the nightly news, a brief discussion on the use of either just war theory or to justify the use of violence by individuals or small groups of people is both necessary jihad and probably expected given the literature being published today. Although in modern contexts we generally hear about Muslims claiming the right to declare a I believe the same jihad, conclusion can be drawn for both Islam and Christianity. According to the classical requirements for correct authority to wage either a just war or no group that would be jihad, labeled a organization” can rightly declare or claim their violent action to be a jihad “terrorist just war. While this point is still highly debatable, and could easily digress into discussions on topics such as defense, what constitutes a organization,” colonialism, the fight to “terrorist establish a Muslim (or Christian) state, etc., it is not the point of this paper to engage in “true” such discussions. As I have argued, these two theories, the Islamic and the Christian just war, jihad although truly distinct from each other, are not without their parallels. is fought primarily Jihad to expand Islam and at the urging of the Qur’an, against the unbelievers. From the evidence above, it would seem that President Bush was wrong in his assertion that is peace.” “Islam Although the religion does contain many peaceful aspects, it is incorrect to classify the religion
hadith Muhammad is reported as saying “the man who fights it the cause of the Lord may be compared to one who fasts and prays…” The two situations here, however, are distinctly different as Muhammad is directly praising a person for engaging in an act of violence, while Jesus’ praise for the soldier is not related to the soldier’s profession, but rather to the man’s faith in Jesus’ healing abilities. Nonetheless, both texts appear widely in discussions on war in their respective traditions. Since this paper is written in an era where “terrorism” and the “War on Terror” are still prominently featured on the nightly news, a brief discussion on the use of either just war theory or jihad to justify the use of violence by individuals or small groups of people is both necessary and probably expected given the literature being published today. Although in modern contexts we generally hear about Muslims claiming the right to declare a jihad, I believe the same conclusion can be drawn for both Islam and Christianity. According to the classical requirements for correct authority to wage either a just war or jihad, no group that would be labeled a “terrorist organization” can rightly declare jihad or claim their violent action to be a just war. While this point is still highly debatable, and could easily digress into discussions on topics such as defense, what constitutes a “terrorist organization,” colonialism, the fight to establish a “true” Muslim (or Christian) state, etc., it is not the point of this paper to engage in such discussions. As I have argued, these two theories, the Islamic jihad and the Christian just war, although truly distinct from each other, are not without their parallels. Jihad is fought primarily to expand Islam and at the urging of the Qur’an, against the unbelievers. From the evidence above, it would seem that President Bush was wrong in his assertion that “Islam is peace.” Although the religion does contain many peaceful aspects, it is incorrect to classify the religion
p9915_FINAL%20v%203%200.docx