The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning – Reason, Scripture, and War

And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allâh, and for those weak, ill­treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help.” (An-Nisa 4:75)

They ask you (O Muhammad SAW) about the spoils of war. Say: “The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger.” So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad SAW), if you are believers. (Al-Anfal 8:1)

And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad SAW)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad SAW) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) – And Allâh is Able to do all things. (Al-Anfal 8:41)

The “Reflective Responses” come from Omar Ha-Redeye, Randi Rashkover, and Peter Dula – all of whom were in the same group at a three-day Scriptural Reasoning Education training session at the University of Virginia this past summer. We invited these three contributors to respond because of their familiarity and participation in scriptural reasoning, and because none of them were a part of the AAR panel discussion on war. Therefore, we asked them to provide reflections specifically on the role of reason and scripture within this conversation on war rather than on “war” itself. Ha-Redeye offers a broader understanding of the role of Qur’anic interpretation for thinking about war and also a brief discussion on the practice of scriptural reasoning within Muslim ways of reading and reasoning. Rashkover provides a very thorough response to the ins-and-outs of this conversation and brings in other passages as a way to talk to and with Kavka’s article. Dula makes explicit the difference the method of scriptural reasoning makes for both reading scripture and thinking about questions concerning war. What he finds interesting in the conversation is more the ways that Ahmed and Kelsay read these scriptural passages, and less any attempt to construct some kind of clear and distinct scriptural “theory” for just war.