Compare And Contrast Thomas Aquinas And Muhammad Al-Shaybani

Compare and contrast Thomas Aquinas and Muhammad al-Shaybani on just war, how is religion conned to war for these scholars? Discuss the problems with Thomas Hobbes’s making relations amongst states analogous to relations among individuals in the state of nature? Discuss constant views on morality and freedom. Discuss cons views on morality and freedom. What is democratic peace theory?

Compare and contrast Thomas Aquinas and Muhammad al-Shaybani on just war, how is religion connected to war for these scholars? Discuss the problems with Thomas Hobbes’s making relations amongst states analogous to relations among individuals in the state of nature? Discuss constant views on morality and freedom. Discuss cons views on morality and freedom. What is democratic peace theory?

Paper For Above instruction

The exploration of just war theory by Thomas Aquinas and Muhammad al-Shaybani reveals significant differences and similarities rooted in their respective religious and philosophical frameworks. Thomas Aquinas, a Christian theologian, articulated his theory of just war within a theological context, emphasizing the moral obligation of justice and the need for authority to declare war. His criteria, including just cause, legitimate authority, and right intention, are deeply intertwined with Christian doctrine and divine law, positioning religion as a guiding force in moral considerations of war. For Aquinas, warfare is permissible only when it aligns with divine justice and moral righteousness, underscoring a moral obligation rooted in religious conviction. Conversely, Muhammad al-Shaybani, a Muslim jurist and theologian, also emphasized religious principles in his conception of just war but within an Islamic legal framework. His approach incorporates the concept of jihad, which can encompass defensive warfare and preemptive action justified by Islamic law. Islam, as interpreted by al-Shaybani, connects religion directly to war by framing it as a duty to defend the Muslim community and uphold divine law. Both scholars, therefore, embed religion deeply into their conceptions of just war, but Aquinas emphasizes Christian divine law and moral righteousness, while al-Shaybani integrates Islamic jurisprudence and the concept of jihad, which encompasses both defensive and offensive dimensions. These frameworks demonstrate that religion functions as a moral compass and legal authority guiding the conditions under which war is justified, though their doctrinal contexts differ significantly. While both see religion as conjoined to war to promote moral and divine justice, Aquinas’s perspective is more centered on moral righteousness within Christian doctrine, whereas al-Shaybani’s formulation emphasizes religious duty and law in the context of Islamic beliefs. The connection of religion to war thus serves as a moral and legal foundation for conflict in both traditions, aiming to regulate war's conduct and justification based on divine principles.

Thomas Hobbes, in his social contract theory, draws an analogy between relations among states and relations among individuals in the state of nature, viewing both as areas of chaos and conflict absent a central authority. Hobbes argues that just as individuals in the state of nature are driven by self-interest and competition, states similarly operate in a condition of perpetual insecurity and conflict without a sovereign to impose order. This analogy underpins his justification for a strong, centralized authority—leviathan—that can impose peace and prevent destructive conflict. However, this comparison raises significant problems. Firstly, equating states with individuals neglects the complexity of international relations, where states possess sovereignty, national interests, and strategic considerations that differ fundamentally from individual self-interest. Furthermore, Hobbes's portrayal of the state of nature as inherently violent and chaos-ridden ignores instances of cooperation and diplomacy that can occur among nations. This analogy risks oversimplification, leading to unrealistic assumptions about international behavior and the necessity of absolute sovereignty to maintain order. Additionally, Hobbes's emphasis on fear and power as the primary drivers of state relations neglects ethical considerations and the potential for moral diplomacy or international law to foster peaceful coexistence. Critics argue that this analogy justifies aggressive foreign policy, promotes conflict, and undermines efforts toward international cooperation and peace. Consequently, while Hobbes’s model emphasizes security and order, it is criticized for overlooking the potential for moral and diplomatic solutions in international relations. This simplification could lead to a perpetual state of suspicion and conflict among nations, making the pursuit of lasting peace more challenging.

Views on morality and freedom have been central to philosophical debates throughout history. During the Enlightenment, many thinkers championed the ideas of moral universality and individual liberty. For example, Immanuel Kant posited that morality is grounded in rationality and the categorical imperative, which requires individuals to act according to principles that could be universally applied. Kant’s conception of freedom aligns with autonomy—the capacity to act according to rational moral laws rather than external constraints or impulses. This perspective emphasizes moral obligation and the importance of personal responsibility within a framework of rational moral laws. On the other hand, critics of traditional notions of morality and freedom challenge these ideas from various angles. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, questioned the universality of moral standards, viewing morality as a construct rooted in the power dynamics of society. He emphasized individual will and the creative potential of human freedom beyond conventional morality, advocating for a revaluation of values. From a postmodern viewpoint, some argue that morality is socially constructed and context-dependent, criticizing the notion of absolute moral truths and universal freedoms. These critics also highlight how societal structures, cultural norms, and power relations influence individual notions of morality and freedom, rendering them less universal and more fluid. They warn against uncritically accepting traditional moral frameworks and emphasize individual agency and diversity in moral reasoning. Thus, constant views tend to uphold moral universality and individual freedom rooted in rationality and autonomy, whereas critical perspectives focus on subjective, socially constructed, and power-laden understandings of morality and liberty, questioning their universality and moral authority.

References

• Aquinas, T. (1265–1274). Summa Theologica. Retrieved from https://www.newadvent.org/summa/
• Al-Shaybani, M. (9th century). Kitab al-‘Aqidah. Islamic Jurisprudence and Ethics.
• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3207
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett Publishing.
• Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morality. Vintage.
• Hult, G. T. M., & Hill, C. W. L. (2020). Global Business Today (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Smith, M. K. (2003). "Democratic Peace Theory." Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Risse, T. (2010). On Global Justice. Princeton University Press.
• Rosenberg, S. (2002). "Religion and War." Journal of Religion and Conflict. 8(2), 123-135.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.