Hegghammer, Thomas. 
Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining Variation in Western Jihadists' Choice between Domestic and Foreign Fighting. American Political Science Review 2013 ;Volum 107.(1) s. 1-15

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0003055412000615

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining Variation in Western Jihadists’ Choice between Domestic and Foreign Fighting

Why has transnational war volunteering increased so dramatically in the Muslim world since 1980? Standard explanations, which emphasize US-Saudi support for the 1980s Afghan mujahideen, the growth of Islamism, or the spread of Wahhabism are insufficient The increase in transnational war volunteering is better explained as the product of a pan-Islamic identity movement that grew strong in the 1970s Arab world from elite competition among exiled Islamists in international Islamic organizations and Muslim regimes Seeking political relevance and increased budgets, Hijaz-based international activists propagated an alarmist discourse about external threats to the Muslim nation and established a global network of Islamic charities This “soft” pan-Islamic discourse and network enabled Arabs invested in the 1980s Afghanistan war to recruit fighters in the name of inter-Muslim solidarity The Arab-Afghan mobilization in turn produced a foreign fighter movement that still exists today, as a phenomenon partly di

The Rise of Muslim Foreign Fighters: Islam and the Globalization of Jihad

Thank you very much for reading man the state and war a theoretical analysis. As you may know, people have look numerous times for their chosen readings like this man the state and war a theoretical analysis, but end up in malicious downloads. Rather than enjoying a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they cope with some harmful virus inside their desktop computer. man the state and war a theoretical analysis is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can get it instantly. Our book servers spans in multiple countries, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Kindly say, the man the state and war a theoretical analysis is universally compatible with any devices to read.

Man The State And War A Theoretical Analysis

SUMMARY During the twentieth century there has been much speculation by scholars in the United States about the relationship between religion and prisoners. In spite of the fact that both religion and the prison have been subjected to considerable study, we know little about religion in prison, particularly as it relates to the psychological adjustment of offenders to the prison environment and reduction in problematic behaviors such as disciplinary infractions. Applying a survey methodology which incorporates a recently developed scale of religiousness (the first to be developed with the assistance of inmates specifically for use with inmates) and a previously developed scale of inmate adjustment to prison, this study explores the relationship between inmate religiousness and adjustment to prison and the number of disciplinary confinements they receive. A self-report questionnaire was administered to a non-random sample of 769 inmates in 20 prisons from 12 states in order to determine if an inmate's reli...

Prisoners, Prison, and Religion: Religion and Adjustment to Prison.

A genealogy of the radical ideas that underline al-Qaeda"s justification for violence shows that the development of jihadi thought over the past several decades is characterized by the erosion of critical constraints used to limit warfare and violence in classical Islam. This erosion is illustrated by the evolution of jihadi arguments related to apostasy and waging jihad at home, global jihad, civilian targeting, and suicide bombings.

A Genealogy of Radical Islam

O ver the past three decades discussions of the ethics of war have been enriched by a number of historical studies. In this, the work of James Turner Johnson stands out, although books by Frederick Russell, Philip Bobbitt, and others also deserve mention. Interest in comparison, particularly of the cross-cultural type, is more recent. And for some scholars, the comparative study of the ethics of war seems to raise problems different from (and more difficult than) historical works: linguistic issues, differences in worldview, and diverse social settings somehow loom larger when one compares, say, Christian and Muslim judgments regarding the resort to and conduct of war. Are such scholars right? Does comparison need justification? Does progress in comparison require special theories or models? In this essay, I argue that the answer to each of these questions is no. Comparative evaluation is always a part of historical study. While linguistic and other types of variation require attention, scholars engaged in historical work need no special models or justifications. This is also the case with studies involving comparison across cultures. While there are difficulties related to translation and other matters, the issues are no different than those raised by more ‘‘strictly’’ historical accounts. The most important questions in any comparative or historical project have to do with purpose: that is, scholars must be able to answer the question, why does this matter? In the case in which I am most interested—a comparison of the just war and jihad traditions—I argue that the payoff is considerable, not least with respect to understanding the encounter we have learned to call the war on terror.

Just War, Jihad, and the Study of Comparative Ethics

aristocratic families would have had much truck with an order that was suspected of engaging in arcane, dubiously esoteric or unorthodox practices. From Schenk’s material, the Templars appear locally highly transparent and open to the scrutiny of their neighbours whose kin they attracted as members and whose relatives they buried. However, this provokes a supplementary not touched upon here. Why, if there was so much longstanding family commitment in the order, did its demise fail to arouse much apparent secular public disquiet? Perhaps this form of after-life insurance was less vital, a smaller element in larger portfolios of such investments, than the Templar’s records suggest. As Schenk notes, we are looking at a minority concern. While it is admitted that the act of donating may cover a range of motives, from passionate conviction to indifferent conventional habit, in the nature of this research there cannot be a calculation of proportionately how many locals did not deal with the Templars at all. Equally when Schenk—and he is not alone—talks of the crusade movement, he is in fact describing only the free, property owning elements not the majority of those involved who followed the donors and patrons as paid soldiers and servants. However, despite the inevitable and conceded arbitrariness of privileging certain patterns in family networks over others, as a study of Templar patronage, this is exemplary. On the broader plane of social history, Schenk is to be congratulated on this highly impressive, meticulous, clear and sensible recreation of the cat’s cradles of family ties with the Templars. The accounts of how families arranged, negotiated, disposed, perceived, and memorialized this example of ecclesiastical patronage possess wide relevance. Here, the question of sincerity may be thought a sideshow. Maps and genealogies usefully support the text and as an appendix. It is of enormous help to the reader, whose stomach for names and detail needs to be of the stronger variety, that the publishers of this fine, and finely produced, series continue to print the notes at the foot of the page.

Armies of Heaven: The First Crusade and the Quest for Apocalypse. By Jay Rubenstein. New York: Basic Books, 2011. xiv + 402 pp. $29.99 cloth.

The abstract for the International Studies Association panel that gave rise to this special section of Ethics & International Affairs referred to the “triumph” of just war theory. However, I think we ought rather to speak of just war discourse as occupying a particular niche. This is especially so with respect to discussions about policy: when and where governments should make use of military force, what type, and so on. In that context, appeals to the criteria of jus ad bellum and jus in bello complement (or sometimes compete with) thinking that draws on international law, various strategic doctrines (for example, counterinsurgency warfare, or COIN), notions of reciprocity between states, and a host of other considerations. The notion of “triumph” claims too much. At the same time, for advocates of the just war framework, the kind of recognition indicated by presidential and other official mentions of the idea is worthy of note. Some of these are due to constituency politics—that is, to the idea that “institutional” advocates of just war (say, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) may influence blocs of voters. Other invocations are better interpreted as a recognition that the vocabulary of just war can serve (along with other ways of speaking) in the attempt to craft wise policy.

Just War Thinking as a Social Practice

This comment provides a brief response to criticisms of Kelsay (2012) set forth in a recent essay by Elizabeth Bucar and Aaron Stalnaker.

John Kelsay

Papers

Just War, Jihad, and the Study of Comparative Ethics

Armies of Heaven: The First Crusade and the Quest for Apocalypse. By Jay Rubenstein. New York: Basic Books, 2011. xiv + 402 pp. $29.99 cloth.

Just War Thinking as a Social Practice

Response to Bucar and Stalnaker

Islamic tradition and the justice of war