Lesson video

Hello there.

My name is Mr. Robertson.

Brilliant to see you and I can't wait to learn with you today.

Our lesson is in a GCSE unit about Religion, peace and conflict.

And today's lesson is all about contrasting religious views about violence.

And we're going to be looking at how some people justify violence and so how people argue against it.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain how Christians, Muslims, and non-religious people respond to war, including different beliefs about when, if ever, violence can be justified.

This lesson has three keywords.

First, we have the word conflict, and by conflict we mean a serious disagreement or fight, which can be between people, groups, or countries, and can sometimes lead to war.

Persecution is the unfair treatment of people, often because of their religion, beliefs, or identity.

Some religious teachings allow self-defense if people are being persecuted.

And finally we have the phrase last resort.

And by last resort we mean the final option when every other choice has been tried or is not possible.

So this lesson about contrasting religious views about violence has three parts.

And in the first part of the lesson, we're going to be looking at the impact of conflict.

Now, as I'm sure we all know, war and conflict can have many negative effects on people, societies, and the environment.

And these consequences shape how Christians, Muslims, and non-religious people think about whether conflict can ever be justified.

Lucas, Izzy and Alex have been thinking about the idea of conflict.

Lucas says, "War destroys homes and forces people to flee as refugees." Izzy says, "It causes loss of life and long-term trauma for survivors." Alex says, "conflict damages the environment and leaves whole countries struggling to recover.

I wonder if you can think of any other short or long-term consequences of war and conflict.

Now, of course, the impact of conflict and war reaches far beyond the battlefield itself, particularly nowadays with modern technology and the advancement of weaponry.

It affects ordinary people, people who are non-combatants, it can affect future generations.

Think about things like mines that are laid and could still be killing people many years later.

Or weapons such as depleted uranium, which can poison soils as well, and the planet more generally.

So let's think about this.

We've got some different areas of impact and we've got some different consequences here.

So one part is the obvious human cost of conflict and war.

And there we've got examples like loss of life, long-term trauma, families being separated if they've had to flee.

We have consequences in terms of communities as well.

People might become refugees.

War and conflict might cause mistrust between people who previously lived together.

It might cause division that can go on for generations after Society is impacted, education might be disrupted, healthcare services are destroyed, the economy suffers.

Businesses close and can't function.

Countries may be able to trade if their airports and ports are bombed or destroyed.

And of course, we're gonna have widespread poverty.

And finally, as we've mentioned earlier, the environment can be impacted.

Farmland, forests, water supplies might be damaged, mines might be laid.

There may be weaponry used which causes pollution.

So really, across as many areas as we can think of, there's huge consequences of war and conflict.

And for that reason, many people from many different worldviews work really hard to try and prevent it.

As we said, the impacts are not just immediate during the actual war or contact itself, but can last for decades afterwards.

A case study that might help us here is what's known as the Rwandan genocide.

This took place in 1994.

Rwanda traditionally, over many years after independence, have been ruled by the Hutu people.

But within Rwanda, there were two big ethnic groups, the Hutu and the Tutsis, and there was a long term tension, particularly exacerbated by colonialism between them.

In 1994, the Hutu people killed 800,000 Tutsi people in 100 days.

It was a terrible and shocking, violent moment in history.

As a result of that, unsurprisingly, the country faced lasting trauma, poverty, and massive mistrust between the Hutu and Tutsi communities.

And of course, that has a long-term impact.

Homes needed to be rebuilt, schools and hospitals, and that can, of course, take many years.

But actually overcoming this mistrust and healing that deep-seated trauma can take generations.

So that is just one case study of conflict and war and the impacts that it can have.

Let's just check our understanding so far.

Which of these is a long-term impact of conflict? A: farmland and water supplies being damaged for decades? B: buildings collapsing during an airstrike? C: soldiers being wounded in battle? Remember we're talking about a long-term impact here.

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

It's A, isn't it? It's farmland and water supplies being damaged for decades.

Brilliant if you got that right.

Okay, so thinking about this idea of impact, I've got some statements for you here.

And what I'd like you to do is match the consequences of war with its wider impact.

And I'd like you to choose one consequence after you've done that and explain how it could affect individuals and society as a whole.

So the consequences of conflict are: one, schools being destroyed, two, loss of farmland, three, families being separated, and four, widespread trauma.

So we've chosen four here for you and then we've got some impacts.

A: Refugee camps form, people struggle to find safety and rebuild their lives.

B: Food shortages cause hunger.

Some families face famine or malnutrition.

C: People feel unsafe or struggle to trust others.

And D: Children miss years of learning, limiting future job opportunities.

So the first thing I'd like you to do is match the consequence with its wider impact.

And then when you've done that, I'd like you to take one of those and explain how it might affect individuals and wider society.

Okay, really look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Okay, let's see what you've come up with.

So, schools being destroyed, links to D, children miss years of learning, limiting future job opportunities.

A loss of farmland links to B, that one causes food shortages and hunger.

Family separated links to A, refugee camps form and people struggle to find safety.

And four, widespread trauma links to C, people feeling unsafe or struggling to trust others.

Brilliant if you managed to match all of those correctly.

Well done.

And taking one of those and expanding on it, you might have said something like: If schools are destroyed in war, then individual children miss out on their education, which means they might struggle to get jobs in the future.

For society, it means a whole generation could be less skilled, making it harder for the country to rebuild and recover after the conflict.

You might have thought of your own short or long-term impacts.

In the second part of our lesson, we're going to be looking at Christian and Muslim teachings on war.

Now, many Christians see peace as the ultimate goal.

So they usually argue against violence.

Some Christians do accept conflict usually in extreme cases, such as protecting the innocent.

Many Muslims believe that fighting is only allowed under strict conditions such as self-defense or ending persecution.

And non-religious people such as humanists, often stressed that war should only ever be a last resort, decided rationally and not on religious grounds.

So we have three different views here, but there is some common ground as well, which is that violence should be limited and peace is the preferred outcome.

And so Christians, Muslims, and humanists may agree on the idea of peace, they may have different ways in which they get to that argument.

So let's look at what Christians might think.

So for Christians, the Bible is a source of wisdom and authority.

And Christians might look to the Bible to help them understand and interpret issues surrounding conflict and war.

One of the key texts that Christians might turn to when they're thinking about this idea of conflict is what's called the beatitudes.

And here we have a section of it.

Now this is a text.

It comes from Jesus's teaching at the sermon on the Mount, which is in Matthew's gospel.

And it is a really central place where many of Jesus' key teachings are laid out.

And so many Christians will use this and be strongly motivated by it.

This section says, "Blessed are the peacemakers that they will be called children of God." I wonder what you think this might say about conflict and how a Christian might interpret that text to think about ideas of conflict and war? Okay, so you might have said: Many Christians interpret this text to promote peace, not violence.

The text says "Blessed are the peacemakers." So that suggests that choosing peace aligns with God's will, they will be called children of God.

And so as a result of that, most Christians will argue that war should be avoided wherever possible.

Let's hear from a particular Christian.

This is Danielle.

She has a Christian worldview and she attends a Roman Catholic church.

Danielle says, "Jesus' teaching on conflict is really powerful.

He was challenging the standards of his time.

He calls on all people to become peacemakers As a Catholic, I tried to support the work of peacemakers around the world.

I'm inspired by Archbishop Romero who stood up against unjust government in El Salvador and was killed by the government." So Danielle said this is a really powerful teaching for her.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." At the time in the context he was in, he was arguing for peace.

So he was standing up against some of the big interests.

At the time of the Roman Empire, there was a lot of violence.

And so because of that, she supports the work of peacemakers around the world and she mentions Archbishop Romero, who is a particular very brave archbishop in El Salvador who was killed by the government when he stood up against them.

Now likewise, for many Muslims, the Qur'an is a source of wisdom and authority.

And again, many Muslims might look at the Qur'an and Muslim scholars will look to the Qur'an to help them understand issues of conflict and war.

So here we have a very famous extract from a Surah in the Qur'an: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress the limits." So I wonder what you think this might be saying about conflict or war? Read it carefully.

How might this be interpreted? And I wonder what you think about this idea of "do not transgress the limits" might mean? Transgress means go against or go beyond.

What might "limits" mean? So many Muslims have interpreted and do interpret this text to show that war and conflict should only be allowed for a good reason.

It says, "Fight in the way of Allah." So it's not saying don't fight.

So fighting can be justified, but it says "those who fight you." So this is the idea of self-defense, not about going out and causing a war, but if someone's fighting you, you can fight back.

But importantly, "do not transgress the limits" suggests that war should not just be open-ended, but it should have boundaries.

There should be rules about what war should be like.

Now, as well as the Qur'an, many Muslims look to the Hadith, and the Hadith are the sayings and deeds of the prophet Muhammad.

And these are a further source of wisdom and authority for Muslims. And they might look at this for issues around conflict and war.

And here we have an extract from the Hadith of Bukhari, and it says, "Whoever kills a non-combatant," that means there's someone who hasn't been directly involved in the fighting, not a soldier, "will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." So how might this Hadith help clarify that idea of limits that we saw in the Qur'an? The Qur'an said, "Do not transgress the limits." Do not go beyond the limits.

Here we have, "Whoever kills a non-combatant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." So again, this Hadith seems to apply that war or conflict should not be aimed at those not directly involved in the fighting.

So it might imply that war should be limited to the battlefield and not hurt innocent people.

So in a war, yes there's going to be people being killed.

Yes, they'll be fighting, but it shouldn't spread to the civilian population.

It shouldn't go beyond those limits.

Let's hear from Iqbal.

Iqbal has a Muslim worldview.

He says, "Islam is a religion of peace.

Peace is the state of harmony in which Allah created the world." So an idea of harmony, that's peace is the most important thing.

"Therefore, as a Muslim, I believe we should always work for peace over war.

However, I also believe that war can be justified at times.

Restraint in war is really important.

Throughout Hadith, we can see the Prophet taught that war should have rules and boundaries.

It should not involve civilians where possible." So we can see that Iqbal is building on the Qur'an about fighting in the cause of Allah, but not transgressing the limits and the idea of non-combatants, to say, ideally, Islam is about peace.

However, if there is war, it should have strict limits.

So what do both the Qur'an and the Hadith teach about conflict? A: fighting should always continue until the enemy is completely destroyed? B: conflict is acceptable within limits and should not go beyond what is necessary? C: violence is encouraged in all situations, even without a just cause? Think about what the Qur'an and Hadith said.

Pause the video, have a think.

Excellent, it's B, isn't it? It's that conflict is acceptable, but within limits.

It should not go beyond what is necessary.

Excellent if you got that right.

So for Task B, I'd like you to do this.

You're going to explain Christian and Muslim teachings on war and conflict.

And in your answer, you must refer to a source of wisdom and authority.

So that might be the "Blessed are the peacemakers." That might be the quote from the Qur'an.

That might be something about the Hadith.

Now when you do this, what I'd like you to do is write your point and then develop it.

So you might name and link in a relevant source and then explain what it teaches in relation to your point.

And that might be a quotation directly or a general belief in teaching.

So you might make your point about what you're going to say, explain it, but then develop it afterwards.

Really looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

So you might have said: Christians think peace is most important and conflict should usually be avoided.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," Matthew 5:9, which shows that Christians should try to bring peace and not fight.

Some believe war and conflict is only okay in extreme cases, like self-defense.

So we've made our point about peace being most important and we've used our source of authority, "Blessed are the peacemakers," and then we developed that by saying Christians should try to bring peace.

Some believe war and conflict is okay in extreme cases, like self-defense.

You might have gone on to say Muslims also believe peace is best, but conflict is allowed under strict rules.

The Qur'an says "Fight the cause of Allah but do not transgress the limits." Surah 2:190, meaning it should only be for defence and kept fair.

The Hadith adds, "Whoever kills a non-combatant will not smell the fragrance of Paradise," which reminds Muslims to show restraint.

Conflict should not involve civilians where possible.

So again, we've talked about the idea of conflict allowed under rules.

We've talked about the Qur'an and we've also used the Hadith as well.

And we've developed that to say that conflict should be about showing restraint and not involving civilians where possible.

If you've managed to do those things, absolutely fantastic.

So the final section of our lesson is looking at this idea of persecution and last resort.

Laura, Andeep, Jun, and Sofia are asking some ethical questions about conflict and war.

Laura says, "Should war have rules like any other part of life?" Andeep says, "Should war always be a last resort when everything else has failed?" Jun says, "Do all worldviews agree about reasons for war?" Sofia says, "Is war justified to stop persecution? Minorities suffer in wars." I wonder what you think of each of those questions? I wonder which of those you think is a really good question? I wonder how many of those questions you might be able to answer from your learning so far? What might be happening in this image? What might people be doing? What are they carrying? Where might they be going? And how might it connect to the idea of conflict? So both Christians and Muslims teach that conflict should only ever be a last resort when all other peaceful means have failed.

And this means violence is only acceptable when these peaceful options have been tried and they've failed.

Now, one key reason given for allowing conflict is to protect people who are facing persecution.

And that image showed some people who are fleeing a conflict zone.

Protecting people from persecution is often seen as an accepted last resort for conflict for the following reasons: If it defends the basic rights and dignity of those who are being harmed, their beliefs or identity.

So maybe people are being persecuted 'cause of their religious beliefs, maybe because of their sexual or gender identity.

If innocent people are being attacked, forced to flee or denied freedom of worship, then stepping in to protect them can be viewed as an act of justice rather than aggression.

So the key point here is the conflict, the violence is to stop further aggression, rather than just for its own sake.

Danielle has a Christian worldview and she attends a Roman Catholic church.

Danielle says, "I agree with the argument on last resort.

If a people in a country are suffering persecution, then I think it's acceptable if peaceful means have failed.

Jews were being persecuted by the Nazis in the Second World War.

And I think war was necessary at that point." So Danielle's saying, "I actually think that if people are being persecuted, she gives the example of Jews in the Second World War, "then war might be necessary and conflict is justified." Sam and Jacob discuss this issue of conflict and persecution.

Sam says, "I think defending people from persecution is a good reason for conflict.

If innocent people are being attacked just for their religion, someone has to step in, otherwise they'll keep suffering and no one will protect them." Jacob says, "I get that, but it could also be misused.

A country might say they're protecting people from persecution, when really they just want more power or land.

Then conflict isn't really about protecting people, it's just an excuse." Really interesting points made by Sam and Jacob.

I wonder what you think about those.

Can you think of any conflicts which might fit with what Sam's saying, but can you also think of conflicts which might fit with what Jacob is saying as well? Let's just check our understanding.

We've said that both Christians and Muslims often say conflict should only be a last resort.

What does this mean? A: violence is always wrong, even if people are persecuted? B: fighting is only acceptable if peaceful solutions have been tried and failed? C: conflict is allowed whenever it benefits a country? Which of those fits that idea of "last resort"? Pause the video, have a think.

Excellent.

It's B, isn't it? Fighting is only acceptable once peaceful solutions have been tried and failed.

Brilliant if you got that right.

So our final task then, we're going to be thinking about this idea of persecution and last resort.

I've got a table for you here and we've got some quotes.

One from Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers." And one from the Qur'an Surah 2:190, "Fight the fight of Allah, but do not transgress the limits." And what I want you to do is put a statement that would support that to mean a last resort conflict and a statement that would challenge it for both Christians and Muslims. I've had a go at filling in one for you.

So in mine, I've got humanist belief in human rights and peaceful solutions, and I said humanists might support a conflict as a last resort if it protects people's rights and freedoms. However, that same belief might be used to challenge a last resort conflict because humanists might argue that violence is wrong because it causes suffering.

So peaceful solutions should always be tried first.

So how could we take that statement, "Blessed are the peacemakers"? How might that support conflict as a last resort and how might it challenge it? In the same way, how might the quote about fighting for Allah but not transgressing limits, how might that support last resort and how might it challenge it? Really look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Okay, brilliant work.

I've had a go at filling in these myself.

So with that statement, "Blessed are the peacemakers," some Christians might say protecting the persecuted shows love for your neighbour, even if it means resorting to conflict.

So although one way of being a peacemaker might be to actually protect those who are being persecuted, more pacifist Christians might say this verse means that you can never use violence and peace should always come first.

The Qur'anic quote about fighting but not transgressing the limits.

Muslims might argue that this allows fighting back if people are being persecuted, but only as a last resort and only to protect the innocent.

An argument to challenge that might be that the idea of not transgressing the limits might mean that violence should be extremely limited.

So in most cases, peace and patience are the better option.

So if you've managed to get a sense in which people might interpret those quotes slightly differently and you've talked about this idea of persecution and last resort, then that's brilliant.

I'm really impressed.

Very well done.

Okay, so in today's lesson we've been learning about contrasting religious views about violence.

We've learned that conflict has serious consequences.

It damages people's lives, societies, and the environment, often for generations.

We've learned that most Christians, Muslims, and non-religious groups prefer peace, seeing conflict as something to avoid wherever possible.

Persecution is a key issue.

Some believe protecting victims can justify conflict, but only as a last resort after all peaceful options fail.

Sources of wisdom and authority matter.

Christians may use Jesus' teaching on peacemaking, while Muslims might refer to the Qur'an and Hadith, stressing limits and fairness.

Brilliant work for being with me in this lesson.

Thank you very much and I look forward to seeing you in another lesson soon.