Description
Can revenge ever be a just cause for war? Contemporary jihadists of the likes of the Kouachi brothers frequently mention that they fight to “avenge the Prophet” or as a vengeance for the suffering of Muslims. Centuries before them, Just War thinker Gratian had declared that “a just war is that which is waged by an edict and though which injuries are avenged” (c.23, q.2, dpc2). Quoting Cicero’s De Republica, Gratian contended that “those wars are unjust which are undertaken without cause. For aside from vengeance or for the sake of fighting off enemies, no just war can be waged” (Rep. III. 35a). In both cases, revenge seemingly holds the status of a just cause or result of war, justifying the undertaking of conflict. Can fighting to avenge indeed be just? After going back to the Just War tradition’s treatments of revenge in jus ad bellum, this article investigates the vengeful “justifying narratives” proposed by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State in French, English, and Arabic, between 2001 and 2020. In so doing, this article reviews how the various types of “jihadist revenge” claimed by the Islamic State and Al Qaeda may act, depending on their temporality and vengeful scope, as a just or unjust cause for war.
