In the ‘war on terror’ both sides have taken great pains to justify their actions in moral terms. As force is employed so are sophisticated arguments which directly invoke the just war traditions of the West and Islam. This book explores the moral‐theological arguments for war offered by the George W. Bush administration and al‐Qaeda. It examines the way in which these actors have drawn upon key just war concepts and, in some cases, reconceptualized their scope and content. The book's principal contention is that, in significant ways, the just war arguments of Bush and bin Laden are inconsiste ... More

In the ‘war on terror’ both sides have taken great pains to justify their actions in moral terms. As force is employed so are sophisticated arguments which directly invoke the just war traditions of the West and Islam. This book explores the moral‐theological arguments for war offered by the George W. Bush administration and al‐Qaeda. It examines the way in which these actors have drawn upon key just war concepts and, in some cases, reconceptualized their scope and content. The book's principal contention is that, in significant ways, the just war arguments of Bush and bin Laden are inconsistent with the moral requirements of their respective just war traditions. In two parts, the book examines these arguments in relation to the body of thought which comprises the Western just war tradition and that of Islamic jihad, and assesses the consistency of Bush and bin Laden's claims. The central argument of the book—that the Bush administration and al‐Qaeda depart from important consensuses about justified warfare—contains within it an alternative way of understanding the war on terror. Rather than a clash between civilizations, it is suggested that the war on terror can be accounted for by a clash within civilizations: in resorting to violence, both sides have acted against their own traditions and contravened the requirements of their own civilizations.