Comparing Islamic and international laws of war: orthodoxy, “heresy,” and secularization in the category of civilians
<p>This Article investigates how contemporary laws of war rationalize civilian deaths. I concentrate on two specific legal constructions in warfare: the definition of civilian/combatant and the principle of distinction. (The categories of civilian and combatant should be understood as dialogic...
| Autor Principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Journal article |
| Idioma: | English |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2021
|
| _version_ | 1826312163602464768 |
|---|---|
| author | Salaymeh, L |
| author_facet | Salaymeh, L |
| author_sort | Salaymeh, L |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p>This Article investigates how contemporary laws of war rationalize civilian deaths. I concentrate on two specific legal constructions in warfare: the definition of civilian/combatant and the principle of distinction. (The categories of civilian and combatant should be understood as dialogically constitutive and not entirely distinct. In addition, the category of “civilian” is a modern one and premodern legal sources often do not use one term to refer to noncombatants.) I focus on two significant parties in contemporary warfare: al-Qāʿidah (aka Al-Qaeda) and the U.S. military. Al-Qāʿidah diverges from orthodox Islamic law on these two legal issues, while remaining within the Islamic legal tradition. To scrutinize the nature of this divergence, I compare al-Qāʿidah’s legal reasoning to the legal reasoning of the U.S. military. I demonstrate that the U.S. military diverges from orthodox international law in ways that parallel how al-Qāʿidah diverges from orthodox Islamic law. Specifically, both the U.S. military and al-Qāʿidah elide orthodox categories of civilians and expand the category of combatant, primarily by rendering civilians as probable combatants. Based on this comparative analysis, I argue that the legal reasoning of al-Qāʿidah (and other militant Islamist groups) is as secular as it is Islamic; I call this fusion secularislamized law.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T08:23:28Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:962b49ad-de4c-408c-b39b-9af6fe12b5d5 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T08:23:28Z |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:962b49ad-de4c-408c-b39b-9af6fe12b5d52024-02-06T14:15:25ZComparing Islamic and international laws of war: orthodoxy, “heresy,” and secularization in the category of civiliansJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:962b49ad-de4c-408c-b39b-9af6fe12b5d5EnglishSymplectic ElementsOxford University Press2021Salaymeh, L<p>This Article investigates how contemporary laws of war rationalize civilian deaths. I concentrate on two specific legal constructions in warfare: the definition of civilian/combatant and the principle of distinction. (The categories of civilian and combatant should be understood as dialogically constitutive and not entirely distinct. In addition, the category of “civilian” is a modern one and premodern legal sources often do not use one term to refer to noncombatants.) I focus on two significant parties in contemporary warfare: al-Qāʿidah (aka Al-Qaeda) and the U.S. military. Al-Qāʿidah diverges from orthodox Islamic law on these two legal issues, while remaining within the Islamic legal tradition. To scrutinize the nature of this divergence, I compare al-Qāʿidah’s legal reasoning to the legal reasoning of the U.S. military. I demonstrate that the U.S. military diverges from orthodox international law in ways that parallel how al-Qāʿidah diverges from orthodox Islamic law. Specifically, both the U.S. military and al-Qāʿidah elide orthodox categories of civilians and expand the category of combatant, primarily by rendering civilians as probable combatants. Based on this comparative analysis, I argue that the legal reasoning of al-Qāʿidah (and other militant Islamist groups) is as secular as it is Islamic; I call this fusion secularislamized law.</p> |
| spellingShingle | Salaymeh, L Comparing Islamic and international laws of war: orthodoxy, “heresy,” and secularization in the category of civilians |
| title | Comparing Islamic and international laws of war: orthodoxy, “heresy,” and secularization in the category of civilians |
| title_full | Comparing Islamic and international laws of war: orthodoxy, “heresy,” and secularization in the category of civilians |
| title_fullStr | Comparing Islamic and international laws of war: orthodoxy, “heresy,” and secularization in the category of civilians |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing Islamic and international laws of war: orthodoxy, “heresy,” and secularization in the category of civilians |
| title_short | Comparing Islamic and international laws of war: orthodoxy, “heresy,” and secularization in the category of civilians |
| title_sort | comparing islamic and international laws of war orthodoxy heresy and secularization in the category of civilians |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT salaymehl comparingislamicandinternationallawsofwarorthodoxyheresyandsecularizationinthecategoryofcivilians |