Loving enemies and hating sin

2 Loving enemies and hating sin Let us do evil, that good may come. St Paul 1 The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like; anditisgenerallytopunishthesethings . that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars. St Augustine 2 The idea of a world living in peace under the rule of a universal law of nature was one of the most far-reaching in human history. But it was far from being widely held. In fact, in the ancient world, it appeared only in the two ancient civilisations previously noted: China, under the auspices of Confucian thought; and Rome, under stoic influence, reinforced by Christian ideas. In many parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa, the dominant view remained one of endemic hostility between neigh- bouring states. 3 Islamic society represented a kind of mid-way position between these extremes. It held relations within the Islamic fold to be peaceful, without regard to race, language or cultural heritage, while positing ceaseless hostility against the infidel world outside. This point is often unappreciated because of Islam’s famous, and largely deserved, principle of toleration of individual members of other faiths who dwelled within the Islamic fold. When it came to relations between Muslim and infidel states, however, the picture was importantly differ- ent. There, an unrelenting hostility was the norm. Where Islam made an important contribution to legal ideas about war was on the subject of internal, rather than international, conflict. In this area, Muslim legal 1 Romans 3: 8. 2 Augustine, Contra Faustum,inPolitical Writings, at 164. 3 Bozeman, Conflict in Africa, at 124–5, 203. 39 thought devised solut ions to importa nt problems that would elude Weste rn European writers until the ninete enth centu ry. Christi anity, in c ontr ast t o Islam, w as the he ir t o t he c lassica l t radition of natural law. 4 Mo reov er, C hristia n th oug ht w as e ven more insis tent than its s toic and Roman progenitors on t he e xiste nc e of a residual or background condition of peace in world affairs. Th is was the result of a powerful strain of radical pacifism inherent in Christi an doctr ine – and largely absent from I sla m. Indeed, this Chris tian bias towards pacifism was so strong that early Christian writers were hard-pressed to find any j u s t i fi c a ti o n f o r a r e s o r t t o w a r . W i th s o m e e f fo r t , t hi s i n t e l l e c tu a l cha llenge was succ essfully me t, resultin g in the development of a rich corpus of just-war doctrine that has never been surpassed in its detail, s u b tl e ty a n d c o n s is t e n c y . I t s h o ul d n o t b e t h o u g h t , h o w e v e r , th a t i n t e l - lec tu a l c ohere nce was t he sole force at w ork i n medieva l leg al conside r- ations of wa r. Lawyers a re prac ti cal people, even if theologians a nd monks and profe ssors are not (or not always). Th ey were attuned to developments on th e ground, in the practic e of sta te s; a nd th ey brought much of this practi cal knowledge to bear on their considerations of war. In the c ourse of t ime, these pra ctical conc erns would grea tl y ove rshadow the doctrinal considerations of the just-war expositors. Islamic perspectives In their views on war, the Muslim and Chris tian traditi ons presented a sharp c ontr ast. 5 Christi a nit y had a strong pacifist strain , deriving from the g ospels of the New Testament. The Quran, in c ontr ast to th e gospels, breathes the vigorous a ir of a marti al people, urging th e believers to exert themselves for the faith, to ‘[m]arch forth o n the Wa y of God’. 6 Th e r e are many re fe re nces to wa r in t he Quran (some forty-one in eightee n suras ),butitisaherculeantasktoforge acoherentdoctrinefromthem. On the one hand are found exhortations to th e fa ith ful to ‘[f]ight agains t them [in fidels] ti ll s tr ife be at an e nd and t he religion be all of it G od’s’. 7 On the other hand, t here are a number of e xpress condemnatio ns of ag gressive warfare. 8 I n t h e c o u r s e o f i ts d e v e l o p m e n t, Mu s l i m 4 Natural law did play some role in Islamic thought, though nothing like so significant a one as in Christianity. See generally A. Ezzati, Islam and Natural Law (London: Islamic College for Advanced Studies Press, 2002). 5 See generally Haleem (ed.), Crescent and Cross. 6 Quran, Sura 9: 38. 7 Ibid ., Sura 8: 40. 8 See, for example, ibid ., Suras 2: 186–7; 2: 190; and 4: 92–3. 40 WAR AND THE LAW OF NATIONS jurisprudence came to distinguish between three different levels of officially administered violence. First was fully fledged foreign war, which was known as Akham al-Hiraba. Second was war against internal insurgents – i.e., within the Muslim community – known as Akham al-Bughat. At the lowest level was state violence or coercion in the form of routine law enforcement, known as Akham al-Tariq. Our concern will be with the first and second of these. 9 Battling the infidel The single most striking feature of Muslim thought about war was the absence of a belief that the natural condition of international affairs was one of peace. In fact, it held precisely the opposite view: that, between the community of the faithful and the infidel world, there was inevitable and perpetual enmity, comparable to the never-ending ‘natural’ condi- tion of war between the Greek and barbarian worlds of classical times. The infidel world was even known as the Dar al-Harb, meaning ‘house of war’ in Arabic, in contrast to the Muslim world or Dar al-Islam (‘house of Islam’), which was the abode of peace and harmony. The everlasting enmity between these two ‘houses’ was what Muslim writers had in mind when they wrote of war – using the expression Akham al-Hiraba (Hiraba being a form of the word Harb). No specific wrong-doing was required on the part of the infidels to justify war against them. No declaration of war was necessary, nor was any permanent peace treaty possible. Instead, there was constant, if often desultory, conflict, consist- ing largely of seasonal raiding or campaigning by land in southern France, or by sea off the coasts of Sicily and Italy, or against the Byzantine Empire in the eastern Mediterranean. This was not, or not necessarily, defensive war on the part of the Muslims. On the contrary, there was a certain expansionist ethos to Islam, in that it was seen as inherently praiseworthy for the true faith to expand as much as possible, to bring as large a portion of the earth as possible under the enlightened rule of the Muslim law (the Shar’ia). Non-believers living within the Dar al-Islam, however, were not compelled to adopt the Muslim faith. They were allowed to retain their own religions provided that they refrained from disturbing the peace of the community and that they submitted to certain civil disabilities such as liability for extra taxation. 9 On Islamic conceptions of war, see generally Khadduri, War and Peace; and Løkkegaard, ‘Concepts’. LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 41 The idea of endemic warfare between the Muslim and infidel worlds naturally made it virtua lly impossible to devis e any body of r ule s for determining when a transition fr om peace to war was justified. 10 In addition, th e absence of any sense of moral community between Muslim and in fidel s ta te s was inauspicious for th e development of rules on th e conduc t of arm ed conflic t. As a r esult, Islamic writ e rs did not deve lop any very dee p or e xtensiv e body of idea s a bout foreign w ar. 11 I n p r a c ti c e , howeve r, Muslim jurisprude nce displa yed consid e ra ble inv entiv eness and flexibility in devising w ays to circumvent s ome of the practical inconveniences enta il ed by the doctrine of perpetual strif e . One useful devic e was truces. Even though, s tr ictly s peaking , fully fledged peace could not e xist betwe en th e Dar al-Islam and th e Dar al-Harb,tempor- ary pauses in hostilit ies were allowed. The Quran it s elf provided some support for th is practice, admonishing the faithful that agreements with polytheists should be kept by the Muslim side so long a s they were observed by th e infidels. 12 Truces were held to be terminable at the wil l of the Muslim party – subject, however, to the proviso th a t due notice must be given to the other side prior to the r ecommencin g of hosti lities. There w as some diversity of opinion as to the maximum permittedlengthfor truces,withten yearsasthe outsidefigure. 13 A related means of mitigating s tr ife betw een Christians and Muslims was the devising of an int e rmedia te category between the hitherto sta rkly opposed Dar al- Harb and Dar al-Islam, k nown as a ‘house of truce’ ( Dar al-Sulh) o r ‘ h o u s e o f c o v e n a n t’ ( Dar a l-’Ahd) . Th i s c a te g o r y consisted of infidel states which were in a positi on of contractual sub- ordin a ti on to the Dar al-Islam, r ecognis ing Muslim overlordship a nd pay in g tr ibute. Such states could be le f t i n pe ace under th e ir non- believing rulers. Th is device could be put to wide use by the simple means of deeming routi ne gifts to constitute the necessary ‘trib ute’, somewhat in the manner of the Chinese trib utary system. 14 Ye t a n o t h e r useful source of flexibility was the grant ing of safe-conducts (aman )to individual infidels. In time, these safe-conducts a lso came to be grante d to collectiviti e s, such as cities (mainly t he Italian t rading citi es) or even whole countries, although these collective aman could only be granted 10 See, however, Kelsay, ‘Religion, Morality’, for the view that Islam did, to some extent, develop a body of just-war doctrine comparable in spirit to that of the Christian world. 11 Donner, ‘Sources’, in Kelsay, Just War, at 52; and Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), at 76. 12 Quran, Sura 9: 4; and Sura 9: 7. 13 B. Lewis, Politics and War, at 175. 14 Ibid . at 176–7. 42 WAR AND THE LAW OF NATIONS by an imam, in the form of an order known as a berat. Secular rulers played a role by concluding agreements with Christian states, known as ‘capitulations’. The original purpose of these agreements was to settle the kinds of berat that imams would be allowed to grant. 15 The Akham al-Hiraba was not the only form taken by hostility between the Muslim and the infidel worlds. Two other types of conflict should also be noted. One was known as razzia,meaningperpetual raiding across the frontier of the enemy, undertaken on the personal initiative of the raiders themselves. 16 The practitioners of this form of combat, known as ghazis, lived ‘ordinary’ lives with their families in villages, engaging on a part-time basis in raiding missions against infi- dels. Ghazis held an honourable place in Muslim society, operating defensively as frontier guardians and offensively (when possible) as pioneers of future conquests. The most famous ghazi warriors were a clan in northwestern Asia Minor known as the Osmanlis, who, begin- ning in the thirteenth century, graduated from border warfare to full- scale imperialism as the founders of the Ottoman Empire, which endured into the twentieth century. The other form of interstate – or rather interfaith – strife that calls for particular notice was the jihad.ThistermhadQuranicroots,withthe first treatise on the subject dating from the eighth century AD, by the Syrian jurist ’Abd al-Rahman al-Awza’  1. 17 The word jihad is linguistic- ally quite distinct from harb, which is the standard Arabic word for ‘war’. It comes from an Arabic root meaning to strive, to exert oneself, to take extraordinary pains. The essence of jihad, therefore, was total dedication to a cause, even to the point of self-sacrifice. The concept did not, at least originally, have an exclusively military connotation. Striving and dedication can take many other forms. There could be, for example, a ‘jihad of the tongue’ and a ‘jihad of the pen’, referring to speaking and writing of virtue and to denouncing evil. In mystical and ascetictraditions,therewasadoctrineofa‘greaterjihad’or‘jihad of the heart’, meaning an interior struggle against one’s own sinful inclin- ations, with military activity relegated to the status of a ‘lesser jihad’. 18 A saying was attributed to Muhammad that ‘the best jihad is [speaking] 15 1 Shaw, Ottoman Empire, at 163. 16 For the linguistic origin of this term, see Donner, ‘Sources’, in Kelsay, Just War, at 34–5. 17 Løkkegaard, ‘Concepts’, at 272–3. 18 B. Lewis, Political Language, at 71–2; and B. Lewis, Politics and War, at 175–6. See also D. C. Watt, ‘Islamic Conceptions of the Holy War’, in Murphy, Holy War, at 141–56; and Firestone, Jihad, at 16–18. LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 43 a word of justice to a tyrannical ruler’. 19 InthecourseoftheMiddle Ages, jihad came to be downplayed in the Islamic world. In the thir- teenth and fourteenth centuries, the jurist Ibn Taymiyyah held that, in its military form, it referred only to defensive war. 20 The concept would be revived, however, in the nineteenth century and later, in the context of anticolonial and anti-Western campaigns. 21 Strife within the Muslim world To the subject of conflict within the Muslim world, Islamic jurisprudence brought a considerably greater degree of sophistication than it did to questions of foreign war. The crucial conceptual distinction made by the medieval Muslim jurists was between two categories of state-wielded coercion within Muslim society: first, against ordinary criminal bands; and second, against organised and ideologically inspired insurgents. The criminal groups such as highway robbers – the counterparts of the ancient Roman latrociniae – were known as muharib. This term was cognate with harb (‘war’), indicating that these brigands were, in a manner of speaking, equated with fully fledged enemies of Muslim society. Quite different, however, was the other type of internal enemy, known as bughat, which we should translate as ‘rebels’ or ‘insurgents’, a category unknown to Roman law. 22 Two characteristics in particular distinguished the two types of miscreant. First, bughat were animated by a doctrine or belief of some kind and not merely by greed for plunder. The doctrine held might be misguided or heretical, but the important point was that the bughat fought as a patriot for a cause. The second distinctive feature of a bughat group was the possession of some kind of internal organisa- tional structure of a governmental or quasi-governmental nature. This might take the form of a disciplined fighting arm comparable to a regular military force. Or it could consist of the effective possession of a territory in which the insurgents exercised de facto sovereign powers such as taxation or the handing down of judicial decisions. 19 Firestone, Jihad, at 17. 20 Løkkegaard, ‘Concepts’, at 274; and Hillenbrand, Islamic Perspectives, at 241–3. On jihad, see generally Peters, Jihad; Peters, ‘Jihad’; and Morabia, Arnaldez and Morabia, Giha ˆ d. For comparisons between jihad and Western just-war ideas, see Kelsay and Johnson (eds.), Just War and Jihad. 21 See Chapter 10 below for this development. 22 See generally Khaled Abou El Fadl, ‘Bughat’, in Johnson and Kelsay (eds.), Cross, Crescent, and Sword, at 149–76; and Fadl, Rebellion and Violence, at 237–49. 44 WAR AND THE LAW OF NATIONS Bughat were entitled to certain legal protections that were denied to muharib. For example, it was not lawful for a ruler to wage a war of extermination against bughat, nor to pursue them in flight. Bughat also could not be held accountable for blood shed or for property seized. They could not be imprisoned, enslaved or ransomed when captured, nor could property be confiscated from individual warriors (although property belonging to the rebel ‘government’ itself could be taken). The bughat leaders were conceded to have the ‘right’ to raise taxes lawfully in areas which they controlled, with the result that persons who paid taxes to them were not liable to make a second payment to the legitimate government. Similarly, judgments handed down by courts in insurgent- controlled areas were entitled to recognition by the legitimate author- ities. 23 Not until the nineteenth century would European lawyers devise a similar legal conception, which would be known as ‘recognition of insurgency’. In the Middle Ages, however, European legal thought about war became very highly developed in other directions – towards the devising of a body of just-war doctrine for dealing with war against foreign states. Christian soldiers On the Christian side of the great religious divide of the medieval world, the legal outlook on war had a dual ancestry: the natural-law tradition inherited from stoic philosophy and Roman law, and Christian doc- trines derived from scripture. The Christian side of the inheritance, in particular, offered something unprecedented in the Western world – a doctrine of radical pacifism, which urged believers to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek when struck. These two traditions were very different in many ways, but they agreed on one crucial point: the thesis that the ‘natural’ state of the world is one of peace, with war as an exceptional and perverse state of affairs requiring some kind of explicit justification. Stated in Islamic terms, it could be said that, according to the European natural-law view, the entire world was a ‘house of peace’, with no such thing as a ‘house of war’. The great achievement of the lawyers, philosophers and theologians of Christian Europe was to devise a coherent set of beliefs – known as just-war doctrine – that married these two streams of thought together while 23 Fadl, Rebellion and Violence, at 237–49. LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 45 managing, in the process, to circumvent some of the more awkward consequences of the extreme pacifism of the Christian heritage. On turning the other cheek In the early Middle Ages, the principal challenge facing writers on war was to reconcile the divergent (or apparently divergent) views of classi- cal natural law and Christianity. Natural law accepted that war was permissible for (broadly speaking) the enforcement of law. The Christian gospels held (or appeared to hold) that war was impermissible under any circumstances. 24 The most immediate practical question was one of personal ethics rather than of high state policy: whether indivi- dual Christians could, or should, perform military service. 25 The pre- dominant view of the early Church fathers, most notably of Tertullian, was that they should not, on the authority of the gospel teachings. It should be noted that there was a parallel view that Christians should not resort to the law courts either, since they, like armies, were organs of state coercion. 26 Gradually, this position was modified, as a result of several factors. 27 One was an increasing tendency of Christian writers to see the Roman Empire as a divinely approved political vehicle for the furthering of the Christian faith and for the safeguarding of civilisation in general. Even the most devout Christians could appreciate the value of a vigilant and disciplined military force against enemies of the faith, whether internal or external. The increasing threat that barbarians presented to the Roman Empire made this task particularly urgent. Consequently, Christian writers began to stress the virtues of defending the broader community, and the faith itself, against external foes. It became com- mon for them to lavish praise onto the Roman state and military as a model (or at least a potential model) of disciplined and devoted com- munity service. Saint Ambrose of Milan, writing in the late fourth century, lauded ‘[t]he virtue which leads people to protect their country from barbarians in time of war, or which in peacetime makes them defend the weak or protect their friends from robbers’. 28 Even 24 See Haines, ‘Attitudes’. 25 See generally, on this subject, Cadoux, Early Christian Attitude, at 96–160. See also Helgeland, Daly and Burns, Christians and the Military; and Childress, ‘Moral Discourse’. 26 Cadoux, Early Christian Attitude, at 67. 27 See Brie ` re, ‘E ´ tapes’. 28 Ambrose, De Officiis, at 193. On Ambrose’s views on war, see F. H. Russell, Just War, at 12–15. 46 WAR AND THE LAW OF NATIONS Tertullian, the most pacifistically inclined of the Church fathers, stressed that Christians prayed dutifully for the Roman emperors and their armies. 29 In much the same vein, Christian writers also began to stress the positive value of the law-enforcement activities of magistrates against internal wrongdoers. No less an authority than Saint Paul praised magistrates as ‘God’s agents’ labouring on behalf of the com- munity at large – agents whose tasks naturally included the distasteful, but necessary, chore of punishing wrongdoers. 30 These tendencies were summed up in the late fourth and early fifth centuries by Augustine of Hippo. 31 Following from earlier writings, he explained that the gospel exhortation to pacifism should be understood as a limitation only on the purposes for which force could be used. In particular, the gospels forbade only the use of force for egoistical ends. The position was very different, however, when force was employed altruistically, to protect others – i.e., to safeguard the community of faithful from its oppressors and enemies. That was a praiseworthy public service. In such a case, the real blame for any violence lay with the wrongdoer, not the law enforcer. 32 ‘[I]t is the injustice of the opposing side’, averred Augustine, ‘that laysonthewisemanthedutyofwaging wars’. 33 Good men, he contended, could wage war for the purpose of ‘bringing under the yoke the unbridled lusts of men’ and for the rooting out of vice. 34 In the mid twelfth century, his views were incorporated into the Decretum of Gratian, whose labours brought forth a de facto official canon-law code for the medieval Catholic Church. 35 They were also endorsed by Thomas Aquinas, the foremost of the medieval Catholic theologians, in the thirteenth century. He too made a close connection between permissible war and domestic law enforcement. ‘[J]ust as it is lawful for [rulers] to have recourse to the sword in defending [the] common weal against internal disturbances’, he pronounced, ‘so too it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the 29 Tertullian, Apology, trans. T. R. Glover (London: William Heinemann, 1931), at 151–7. (1st edn c. AD 211.) 30 Romans 13: 2–4. 31 For a convenient collection of Augustine’s principal writings on war, see Augustine, Political Writings, at 162–83. On Augustine’s contribution to just-war doctrine, see Brie ` re, ‘Conception’; Markus, ‘Saint Augustine’s Views’; and Langan, ‘Elements’. 32 Augustine, Contra Faustum,inPolitical Writings, at 170. 33 Augustine, City of God, at 862. 34 Augustine, Letter No. 138, in Political Writings, at 179–80. 35 See Causa 23 of the Decretum, in Gratian, Gratianus in Jurisprudence, at 18–30. LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 47 common weal against external enemies’. There was no sin, he insisted, following Augustine, in resorting to force when ‘commissioned by another’ for the common good. 36 By this mode of reasoning, the medieval Catholic Church succeeded in extricating itself from the snare of radical pacifism which the gospels appeared to command. Indeed, it may have succeeded all too well, as evidenced by the deep involvement which the Church began to take in military affairs. In the ninth century, a number of popes actively engaged in martial labours. Leo IV, in addition to fortifying the city of Rome (thereby creating the ‘Leonine City’), built a battle fleet which inflicted a defeat on Muslim forces in 849. Later that century, Pope John VIII also organised a naval force against the Muslims, but less successfully. He was reduced to buying his foes off with tribute instead, thereby becoming a rather disgruntled denizen of the Islamic ‘house of covenant’. Churchmen were also enlisted by rulers to give their imprimatur to armed action, if only safely after the fact. After the Battle of Fontenay, for instance, in 841, in which the forces of Charles the Bald and Louis the German bested those of their brother Lothair, a council of bishops duly pronounced the victors’ war to have been just. In 1155, after the slaugh- ter of over 1,000 rebellious citizens of Rome by the troops of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I, Pope Hadrian IV personally celebrated mass for the soldiers and absolved them of any sins committed during the operation. 37 As the Middle Ages progressed, the image of the Church Militant became more pronounced. 38 It was increasingly pointed out that the virtues of the religious devotee and of the soldier had a great deal in common. The qualities of steadfastness, courage and dedication to larger causes were common to both endeavours. 39 The conjunction of the monastic and military lives reached its peak in the various crusading orders in the Holy Land (the Templars and Hospitalers) and Spain (the orders of Santiago and Calatrava and the like). The soldiers in these bodies were not actually in holy orders, but they lived under a discipline that was clearly monastic in flavour and inspiration. Back on the European home front, this association took the form of knight errantry 36 Aquinas, On Law, Morality and Politics, at 221–2. 37 Verkamp, ‘Moral Treatment’, at 230–2. 38 See generally Harnack, Militia Christi; and Thouzellier, ‘Ecclesia Militans’. 39 On military imagery in early Christian writing, see Cadoux, Early Christian Attitude, at 161–70. 48 WAR AND THE LAW OF NATIONS [...]... the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, would later put it (with a trace of idealism), 49 50 51 53 Augustine, Contra Faustum, in Political Writings, at 164 Aquinas, On Law, Morality and Politics, at 221, 226–7 Augustine, Letter No 138, in Political Writings, at 178 Bonet, Tree of Battles, at 125 52 Ibid at 178–9 LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 53 ‘war is not opposed to the love of one’s enemies; for... name of right – while the other side was engaging in mere banditry 64 See Ambrose, De Officiis, at 197–9, 395–7; and Augustine, Letter No 189, in Political Writings, at 182 LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 59 Finally, it will be readily apparent that the law-enforcement model of war left no room for neutrality for third states For one thing, since there was really no such thing as a state of war in just-war... Duke of Burgundy to Charles VI, 24 Sept 1415, 2(2) ibid at 54; and letter from the Duke of Prussia to the king of Poland, 1454, 3(1) ibid at 199 Redslob, Histoire, at 152 Vitoria, On the American Indians, in Political Writings, ed Anthony Pagden and Jeremy Lawrance (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press), at 278 LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 73 declaration of war against France in 1557 Two groups of.. .LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 49 and chivalry, in which piety and warfare were, at least theoretically, combined in the most intimate possible way As early as the tenth century, the ceremony of the dubbing of knights (sometimes, revealingly,... The law of nature was applicable not simply to Christians but also to the entire human community (and indeed, to the animal world as well) Moreover, the content of this body of law was discernible through the application of human reason, an LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 55 attribute possessed by Christians and non-Christians alike The divine law of Christianity, in contrast, was based not on reason but... 126–7; and Suarez, Three Virtues, at 823–5 ´ ´ ´ On the legal character of the crusades, see Pissard, Guerre sainte; Alphandery, Chretiente ´ et l’idee; Villey, Croisade; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law; Walters, Jr, ‘Just War and Crusade’; and Tyerman, Invention On Spanish crusading, see Villey, Croisade, at 193–208 On the crusade concept in northeastern Europe, see Lotter, ‘Crusading Idea’ LOVING ENEMIES. .. of the opposing armies were, at least in principle, actual enemies of one another on a person-to-person basis, since each individual on the enemy side was seen as an actual evildoer, personally responsible for his wrongs in the eyes of both God and man The just war as law enforcement Stated in the very briefest and most general terms, the idea of war as a law-enforcement operation was (and remains)... the weak and downtrodden against sinners and oppressors.40 Further evidence of the happy alliance between war and religion is found in the popularity of warrior saints, such as George and Maurice Above all was the cult of Saint Michael (actually an archangel rather than a saint) A kind of Christian counterpart of the Zoroastrian Mithra, Michael was the foremost embodiment of the just warrior, since he... particular actions and attitudes of the participating troops Simply for fighting in a just war, a penance of three years was prescribed One year of penance was required of a fighter for each enemy soldier that he knew that he had 76 78 John of Legnano, Tractatus, at 304 Verkamp, ‘Moral Treatment’, at 224 77 Vitoria, Law of War, at 299–300 Haines, ‘Attitudes’, at 380 79 LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 63 killed... rivals agreed with one another in advance that the outcome of their combat would decide the issue between them and also 91 92 ´ For a systematic exposition of the jus victoriae, see Suarez, Three Virtues, at 840–51 See, for example, Gentili, Law of War, at 32, 298–9 LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 67 preclude any future quarrelling on the subject The evil of duelling therefore lay in the way that it converted . generally Khadduri, War and Peace; and Løkkegaard, ‘Concepts’. LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 41 The idea of endemic warfare between the Muslim and infidel worlds. Gratianus in Jurisprudence, at 18–30. LOVING ENEMIES AND HATING SIN 47 common weal against external enemies . There was no sin, he insisted, following Augustine,