Emory Undergraduate Journal of Law & Society

Religious traditions have long shaped the ethics of warfare, providing moral frameworks that guide leaders and communities through difficult questions of how to engage in conflict. Catholic just war theory, Islamic principles of jihad, and Jewish laws on conflict have all offered ethical guidelines, balancing the necessity of defense with the imperative to minimize harm. Historically, these doctrines often served as justification and constraint. In modern times, however, the dominance of secular governance and international law challenges the authority of religious ethics. Institutions and agreements, such as the United Nations and Geneva Conventions, aim to create universal rules for warfare, emphasizing human rights and collective accountability. This shift raises critical questions: How do religious traditions, born of different eras, reconcile their principles with secular legal norms? Can they adapt to modern realities, or are they reduced to symbolic ideals, disconnected from actual practice?

Islamic law offers a compelling example of this tension. Grounded in the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet, Islamic principles treat municipal and international laws as unified under divine authority. For example, the Ayatul Idhn, a Quranic verse, allows Muslims to fight in self-defense against oppression but prohibits targeting non-combatants, including women, children, and religious figures. In his explanation of Islamic war ethics, Mahmood Ghazi, a federal jurist on religious affairs, explains, “the civil population and civil installations cannot be destroyed,” and non-combatants, even those offering logistical support, are to be protected [1]. Jewish goals in wartime also emphasize proportionality and restraint. The Halacha, also known as Jewish religious laws, derived from the Torah and Talmud, also governs warfare ethics. The Halacha on war divides war into categories, including obligatory and permissible wars, mandating principles that minimize harm to the innocent. For instance, Jewish law prohibits killing an innocent third party to save oneself, compelling others to risk their lives, or using excessive force. The Jewish thought on war ethics somewhat resembles the operations of a smaller force than a traditional military, as the rules governing conflict demand such a high standard of restraint. Like Islamic rules, this would be achievable only amongst the most disciplined of individuals. “Only the most genteel of modern armies can function in accordance with these rules” [2]. Jewish principles prioritize adherence to these ethics even in the face of hostilities, but that is not the reality in application. Divergent interpretations and practical realities reveal tensions between traditional doctrine and contemporary warfare, particularly in the face of modern conflicts.

One of the most profound critiques of religiously motivated warfare lies in its potential to absolve individuals of moral accountability. When war is framed as a divine mission, it distorts ethical boundaries, allowing soldiers and leaders to view violence as a sacred duty rather than a moral choice. This dehumanization of the enemy, reduced to an obstacle to sanctity, risks creating a dangerous necessity for violence. Cruelty becomes not a last resort but a religious compulsion in such frameworks. Soldiers and leaders alike absolve themselves of guilt, claiming to act as instruments of divine will rather than as active participants in destruction. The concept of “holy war” underscores this danger. Throughout history, wars have been legitimized by serving God or defending the faith. While religious doctrines often emphasize restraint and the sanctity of life, their application has been exploited to justify unchecked violence. This disconnect highlights the contradictions between the ethical codes set out in religious texts and the realities of wartime strategy.

Yet, religious ethics in warfare are not static. They evolve in response to societal and geopolitical shifts. Catholic just war theory, for instance, has increasingly engaged with international legal norms, advocating for civilian protection and proportionality. Similarly, Islamic principles continue to be reinterpreted to align with human rights standards, and Jewish law grapples with adapting its teachings to contemporary warfare. Despite these adaptations, significant contradictions remain. These tensions reflect the broader struggle of religious traditions to maintain relevance in a world governed by secular laws. Ultimately, the value of religious ethics lies in their ability to challenge the dehumanizing tendencies of war. By advocating for accountability, restraint, and the sanctity of life, they provide a moral counterbalance to the impersonal nature of modern warfare. However, their survival depends on their willingness to engage with and adapt to the secular norms that dominate the global stage. Religious ethics may never fully align with the demands of modern conflict, but their enduring presence ensures that the moral dimensions of war remain part of the conversation.

References

[1] Ghazi, M. A. (2008). The Law of War and Concept of Jihad in Islam. Policy Perspectives, 5(1), 69–86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42909187.

[2] Broyde, M. J. (2001). Battlefield Ethics in the Jewish Tradition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 95, 92–98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25659463.