Lesson video

Hello fine and wise theologians, and thank you for joining me for another religious education lesson.

Today we're going to spend some time looking at the just war theory within Islam.

In order to get ready for that lesson please make sure you have four things with you, a pen, a different colour pen, some paper, and of course your theology brains.

Now if you need to pause the video to go and get any of those things, please do that now and then come and join me in just a moment.

So learning about the Islamic just war theory.

We're going to start off by looking at the purpose of the Islamic just war theory.

Before then looking at each of the conditions in detail.

We of course want to be able to remember and memorise each condition of the just war theory, and we'll also be evaluating it.

So saying some good things about each condition and also stating what might be problematic about each of the conditions.

So let's have a look at some of the background information behind the Islamic just war theory.

So within Islam, war and violence is discouraged, as it is in all faiths.

The example of Muhammad and the Battle of Badr and the concept of Lesser Jihad does demonstrate that force can be considered necessary, and in those circumstances is permitted within Islam.

And the just war theory help determine when it's necessary or permitted to use force.

And we know, don't we? That conflict causes a huge loss of life.

And this was clearly understood by Muhammad and we can see that in his example in the Battle of Badr.

He went to such extreme lengths to try and avoid conflict, more at least by fleeing Mecca and resisting the aggression of the Meccan tribes.

It was only when it became abundantly clear that it was necessary to use force to defend himself, his followers and the faith that he actually took forceful actions.

And that tells us, doesn't it? Perhaps there are those occasions where it is necessary to use force.

But at the same time you need to do all things that you can to avoid using force before you engage in any sort of force or military conflict.

So the first condition of the Islamic just war theory is there has to be a just cause.

And after the next three rules we'll look at will help us determine and define what we mean by a just cause.

But a short explanation for you here, one which protects the state's land from outside attack or people from unjust leader.

And the, the land could be your own or perhaps it could be another country that also needs defending.

So we're looking at self-defense in terms of self or another state, or perhaps protecting people who might be being tyrannised by an unjust ruler.

Those are things that would be considered to be a just cause.

And a good thing about this you might say, look, you're limiting causes, and in limiting the causes you limit the number of wars and in doing that of course you save lives cause we know that conflict has a huge human cost.

A problem about it, might be that it's unclear about the precise point you may need to use force to defend your land.

Is it, as we said, in the last lesson on the Oak National Academy looking at the Christian just war theory, is it when you're under attack and therefore need to defend yourself then, or is it when there's a threat of attack.

And when it's a threat of attack how do we determine when that threat becomes credible and therefore it's then just to use force.

So it appears to be a bit of a grey line that it says, it's not always as black and white as we might hope these things to be.

The second condition of the Islamic just war theory is talking about one of the possible just causes.

And here we're talking about self defence.

So if you're defending the state or faith from an attack, then use of force is justifiable.

And then, again we're saying, look, we're limiting the number of reasons we're therefore limiting the number of lives put at risk as no other reason is acceptable.

And, again it can be hard to determine when it becomes necessary to defend yourself, actual attack or threat of an attack.

Now it's not just if your own land is under threat of attack, it could be if another country has been attacked.

And if one Islamic state, one Islamic country has been attacked by another state, then it's acceptable for other Islamic states to join in that conflict to help defend the faith and the of the Islamic community.

So, again a similar strength because it's essentially the same condition here, talking about just defending, we're limiting the number of causes.

And in doing that, limiting the loss of life by stating, lives can only be risk for self defence in this and the prior condition.

But we might point to a problem here in allowing other state to become involved in conflict, involving other States.

Then we've got bigger conflicts and bigger conflicts might lead to a greater number of deaths.

The fourth condition tyrannised.

If someone is tyrannised, if you have a tyrant ruler, what that means is you have a ruler who oppresses their people and perhaps rules them harshly punishes them really harshly.

People's lives will be really controlled and it won't be a pleasant experience.

And if an Islamic government has tyrannised it's people, then it is possible for another Islamic state to defend those people.

So if an Islamic government has tyrannised it's people it's possible for another Islamic state to help defend those people, to make sure that they don't live in those unjust circumstances under that harsh oppression.

The good thing about this condition is it gives the weak a chance to defend themselves and be defended.

But a problem, is it can be quite difficult sometimes to tell whether the group are actually being tyrannised or whether that group is being justly punished.

It's difficult to make that call, particularly on such an important topic such as war.

So just to recap, the first condition was just cause, wasn't it? Then the second three conditions we've looked at, self-defense, defence of another state and tyrannised.

I'm just giving, an idea as to what those just cause might be.

So you could have a just cause if you're defending yourself or you could have a just cause if you're defending another state or you could have that just cause if you're defending tyrannised people.

So the fifth condition is correct authority.

And this is also a condition we saw in the Christian just war theory, Thomas Aquinas.

The correct authority is the government or the rightful leaders of a country.

So in this country that's Boris Johnson and America that would be Donald Trump, in Russia it'd be Vladimir Putin.

Good thing about it, limiting the number of people who can start a war limits the amount of wars, which by extension also limits the damage caused by conflict.

The problem though, as we mentioned in the lesson on the Christian just war theory, which is the lesson before this, on The Oak National Academy, is that it can be difficult to tell who the correct authority is in some circumstances.

That can be particularly true, whether it's a civil war and perhaps you have someone holding the office and title as being a country's leader, but then you might also have an opposition group who also have a, a claim to leadership.

And then how to different states identify which one of those is the rightful leader.

Particularly if, for example there's been a democratic election and the result of that democratic election is being contested.

And that's part of the reason for the civil war.

You can imagine in those circumstances, it would be really, really, really challenging, won't it? To figure out what, who actually is the correct authority in that situation.

Condition six, again we saw this condition in the Christian just war theory, last resort.

So by that we mean all other ways to solve the problem must have been attempted before you decide to go to war.

And, we can remind ourselves of some of those examples.

So peace talks need to be tried first, perhaps things like trade sanctions or trade embargoes, putting economic pressure on the country, try and turn them financially to get them to change the way they behave, or perhaps involving other countries and trying to build diplomatic pressure on the country to change before using force.

And we might say that's a good thing because it encourages people to use peaceful ways to resolve disputes.

And if those peaceful methods are being used, there's obviously a chance isn't there? That it's going to work.

And if it works and you don't go to war obviously, stop a war from happening and you save the lives lost and the damage that that war would have otherwise caused.

But a problem would be that, this can be seen as delaying conflict, can't it? And although there are lots of things that might be solved in this way, in these peaceful ways.

There may also be those circumstances where, you know, I'm dealing with a brutal dictator.

This brutal dictator is not listening to leaders of other countries, and he is really oppressing his people or acting against us in a way which is damaging and threatening.

If we try those peaceful methods they're not going to work.

And in the interim time, the people there are going to be more oppressed or we're going to be more attacked.

In using those peaceful methods you've then for, prolonging the amount of time that injustice might exist, rather than perhaps going to war more speedily and trying to address the injustice and bringing about a just state of affairs quicker, because you didn't go through, the peaceful means, which you knew were never really going to work in that specific case.

So let's try and memorise the conditions of the Islamic just war theory then.

And you can see on your screens at the moment, a full suite of the names and the explanations.

So let's just remind ourselves what they are.

So just cause, just cause could be protecting a state from attack or people from an unjust leader.

Self-defense.

That's one of the options for just cause, isn't it? Defending your own state from aggression.

Another country has been attacked, that's another option for just cause, isn't it? Supporting another state that's under attack.

Tyrannised is also one of the other options for a just cause, defending citizens in an Islamic state from tyrant rulers.

Correct authority has to be started by the government or rightful leaders.

And then last resort, all other ways to solve the dispute must be attempted before war.

So I'll remove either one of the explanations or the title of the explanation and condition from your screen.

I'll give you a few seconds just to say to yourself, which one it is and we'll do that over and over and over again until hopefully you are able to remember the six conditions and the six explanations.

So here's the first one, which condition title has disappeared from your screens? Defending your own state from the aggression, what's that? That self-defense.

Well done.

This one, now what's gone? What do we mean, supporting another state that's under attack? Another country has been attacked.

Well done.

Next one, now which one is gone? Defending citizens in an Islamic state from tyrant rulers.

Tyrannised.

Well done.

Another one is gone.

Correct authority.

well done.

Another one is gone, which one is this? Protecting a state from attack or people from an unjust leader is just cause.

Now which one is gone? That's the last resort, isn't it? Well done.

Now which one is gone? Self-defense.

Well done.

Now which one is gone? Correct authority.

Good work.

Now we're moving the explanations out rather than the names of the condition.

So what does that condition tyrannised mean? Say it to yourself.

Well done.

Defending citizens in an Islamic state from tyrant rulers.

What does just cause mean? And we've got three examples on the board already.

Protecting a state from attack, whether that might be your own state or another state or people from an unjust leader.

Good, supporting another state that's under attack.

What's correct authority mean? Good, it has to be started by the government or rightful leaders.

What does last resort mean? Excellent, well done.

All other ways to solve a dispute must be attempted before war.

Self-defense.

What does that one mean? Well done, defending your own state from aggression.

Just cause.

Remind me what that means again.

Well done, protecting a state from an attack or people from an unjust leader.

Remember that could be your own state or another state.

Self-defense.

What does that mean again? Well done, defending your own state from aggression.

You see a last resort has gone, as well as what does last resort mean again? Well done.

Making sure you use peaceful methods first.

Now we've got whole conditions moved to, both the name and the explanation.

Which one is gone here? Well done, just cause.

Protecting a state from attack or people from an unjust leader.

Now which whole condition is gone? well done.

Another country has been attacked.

So supporting another state that is under attack.

Now what whole condition is gone? Well done.

It's correct authority.

Must be started by the government or rightful leaders.

Now which whole condition is gone? Well done.

Tyrannised.

So defending citizens in an Islamic state from tyrant rulers.

Now which whole condition is gone? It self-defense, well done.

Defending your own state from aggression.

Now which whole condition is gone? Last resort.

Well done.

All other ways to solve the dispute must have been attempted before war.

And which one is gone? Correct authority.

Well done.

Has to be started by the government or rightful leaders.

Now which one is gone again? Just cause, protecting a state from attack that's own or other state or people from unjust leaders.

Now which whole one is gone? Well done, tyrannised.

Defending citizens in an Islamic state from tyrant rulers.

Excellent work.

So what we're going to do next is summarise some of this information that we've looked at so far.

So I'd like you please to copy out that table.

Condition, explanation, strengths and weaknesses are your column headers.

And I'd like you please to see if you can complete the first two columns.

Only the first two columns.

Giving me the name of the condition and the explanation.

See if you can do that without using the clues on the board.

But if you do need to use the clues on the board, you can see they are in the bottom right hand corner there for you.

So please pause the video now, draw the table, fill in the first two rows, columns sorry.

And then join me for feedback in just a moment.

Excellent.

So hopefully your table looks like this.

A just cause, protecting a state from attack or people from an unjust leader.

self defence, defending your own state from aggression.

Another country has been attacked, supporting another state that is under attack.

Tyrannised, defending citizens in an Islamic state from tyrant rulers.

Correct authority, has to be started by the government or the rightful leaders.

And the last one, last resort, all other ways to solve the dispute must be attempted before war.

And you can see, I've put some conditions in black and some in pink.

The ones in pink are the examples of a just cause.

So it isn't a case that all six of these conditions need to be met.

The black conditions have to be met, so you need to just cause, the correct authority and a last resort.

The way you check whether you have a just cause is by seeing whether one of those three pink conditions has been met.

Not all of them.

So a just caused could be, self-defense, alternatively it could be, to defend another country that's under attack or it could be, to protect citizens from tyrant rulers.

So you will need to meet the first black condition and the last two black conditions.

And you check if you've met the first black condition by meeting at least one of the three pink conditions.

If you need to pause, to add to your work or correct your work, please do that for me now.

And join me in just a moment.

I've disappeared on your screens now, but don't worry I'm still here.

So on your screens now what you can see, even though you can't see me, but what you can see is 12 boxes.

And this box or these boxes either contain a strength of a particular condition or a problem with a particular condition.

There's one strength and one weakness for each condition.

What I would like you to do please is read these 12 boxes really carefully, identify whether it's a strength or a weakness and which condition.

And then write that in the relevant area of your table.

So please pause the video now and have a go at doing that for me please.

I'm back.

Back on your screens.

Good.

So, now you can see some feedback.

So let's check, you've got it as it is on your screens.

So the strength of just cause limits a situations when a country can go to war, our weakness though, it can be unclear at what point a cause becomes just.

And that's particularly true with self-defense remember, isn't it? And those are the next two things we're going to talk about anyway.

Is it only possible to use force or is it just to use force in self defence after you've been attacked? Or what is it when there is, a threat of attack? And if it is when there is a threat, at what point does that threat become credible enough in order to use force? So self-defense, again, it limits deaths, doesn't it? By stating one of the small numbers of just reasons for war is self defence.

But then again, we ask for when can a country actively defend themselves, after an attack or when there's a threat? If another country is been attacked, again you're limiting, aren't you? Limiting the number of courses and that's good because if you limit the number of causes, you're limiting the number of deaths.

But a problem might be, if you're allowing states to get involved in other States conflict, even if it is to help defend, you're making that conflict bigger, and in making that conflict bigger, perhaps you're going to bring about a greater loss of life.

So please pause your video.

Check you've got all the information organised, as you can see on your screens now, for those first three conditions and then unpause it, after you've had an opportunity to either tick to confirm it's correct, or make any corrections or amendments that you needed to do.

So the second set of three conditions, let's also check if you've matched those up correctly.

So, strength of tyrannised again, but we're still limiting the number of reasons, aren't we? And if we're limiting the number of reasons, we're limiting the number of conflicts and deaths, which is really good.

But a problem, it can sometimes be quite difficult to tell whether a group of people are genuinely being tyrannised or whether they're being perhaps punished harshly, but they've done wrong.

And the correct authority.

We said that limits don't work people who can start a war.

Again, that's good.

So we limit the number of wars and in limiting number of wars we limit the number of deaths and other damage that conflict causes.

But we might say a weakness is that, it isn't always clear who the correct authority is.

And we could also add into that, couldn't we? That sometimes, someone might be the correct authority but they might be an evil leader and might be intent on causing damage.

And last resort.

The good thing about that is it encourages people to find peaceful resolutions to avoid war.

And if they have to go through that process, there is a good chance that at least in some conflicts, not all but some, that, that might work and we might therefore avoid some conflict, which would be fantastic.

But a problem might be, a seeking peaceful resolution might result in people suffering for longer.

Particularly if you're dealing with a state which is led by government or leaders, which you know full well aren't going to change and aren't going to listen to peaceful resolutions.

If you keep going through those peaceful resolutions, because it just war theory tells you that you have to try first, that all that time the suffering of injustice is continuing.

When you know it's not going to work.

So again, pause the video here for me now.

Have a look at your work, make sure you've organised it in the same way that I have.

Mark it, correct it and mend it.

Or just tick it to confirm is all delightfully correct.

So, we are now going to summarise things we have done today.

So please have a look at the statements on the board and see they are all five of them.

And you need to identify whether they are true or false.

If it's true, you just need to write the word true, followed by the statement.

And if it's false, you just need to write the word false followed by correction of the statement.

Let me give you a big hint, the final two are in fact false.

And when you're correcting the final two, I would like you please, to make sure that you use the quotation from the Qur'an for the fifth one to explain why that fifth statement is false.

And the example of battle of Badr for the fourth one.

To explain why the theory does not reject the example of Muhammad, but instead leans on the example of Muhammad.

So please pause the video now and have a go at that work for me.

Good effort.

So let's go through the first three.

The first one was true.

So it just needed writing out, just war theory seeks to limit the amount of wars fought.

The second one was also true.

So it just needed writing out, the just war theory seeks to prevent innocent life from being lost.

The third one was false, so it did need correcting.

The first rule, that there has to be a just cause, has to be met along with it being started by the correct authority and the last resort.

The other three conditions, self defence, defence of others and tyrannised, are examples of just cause.

So only one of those three conditions have to be met, not all three.

And the final two, these are both false.

I let you know they're both false, and asked you to use the battle of Badr and the quotation from the Qur'an to correct them for me.

So, fourth one was indeed false.

And the example of Muhammad would in fact support the theory because in the battle of Badr, Muhammad used force as a last resort, to defend himself and his followers, which gives the just cause.

Muhammad was also the leader of this society.

So you can see there the Battle of Badr would meet the conditions of the just war theory, cause it was the last resort.

He fled Mecca first and did all he could to not engage in conflict and resist the threat peacefully.

But it didn't work.

So ultimately had to use force.

The reason for him going to war was to defend himself and his followers, which means he has the just cause.

And of course Muhammad was the leader.

So we have the conditions of the just war theory being met there.

The final one was also false.

The Qur'an does permit somewhat use of violence when it states, "Fight for the cause of God [against] those who fight you, but do not transgress, for God does not love the transgressors." And this makes it clear that fighting for Allah, which can be defending an Islamic state or against tyrant leaders who are oppressing their people, is permissible.

That would be fighting for the cause of God.

But it also makes it's fair, doesn't it? That there are rules to follow.

It says, do not transgress.

That means do not break the rules.

And the rules and conflict can be defined by the laws of Lesser jihad.

So some fantastic work again there today.

Well done.

You've covered a lot.

You've looked at those six conditions of the Islamic just war theory.

Hopefully feeling fairly confident in recalling and memorising those six conditions.

As well as being able to evaluate them by saying, a good thing and a problem with each one.

And, saying how the example of Muhammad and the teachings of the Qur'an can be used to support the Islamic just war theory.

So some terrific work.

Please make sure you attempt this summary quiz to check if you can recall all the key information.

If you wish to share your work with Oak National Academy, please ask your parent or carer to share your work on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter, using the information you can see on your screens now.

Thank you very much for joining me today.

I hope you have enjoyed it, and I hope that you feel like you have learned a lot.

And I look forward to seeing you again soon.

Thank you very much and goodbye.