Lesson video

Hello and welcome to this lesson today on Muslim attitudes towards the death penalty.

My name's Mrs. Rawbone, and I'm going to be working with you today.

Thank you so much for joining me.

In today's lesson, you'll be able to explain different Muslim and non-religious views on the death penalty.

Keywords we'll be using today are death penalty, deterrence, and justice.

Death penalty is capital punishment, which means the execution of a criminal sanctioned by the state.

Deterrence is an aim of punishment.

So it's the threat of punishment as a way to put a person off committing crime.

For example, knowing they could go to prison if they steal.

And justice is fairness, working to fix an unfair situation.

Our lesson today will take two parts.

We'll be looking at the death penalty and at Muslim responses to the death penalty.

So let's get started on the death penalty.

Also known as capital punishment, the death penalty is the legal ending of a person's life as a punishment for a serious crime.

Laws on the death penalty vary around the world.

In some places it is fully abolished.

Other places the laws are mixed.

And in some it's more regularly used.

So in the UK, the death penalty is fully abolished.

In the US, the death penalty is legal in some states, usually by lethal injection.

And in some countries like Russia, the death penalty is retained in law but has not been used for many years.

In some countries like China and Iran, the death penalty is actively carried out for a wide range of crimes, and execution by hanging or shooting might still be used.

Let's check your understanding.

Is this statement true or false? All states in the United States have the same death penalty laws.

Pause for a moment if you need to.

Also think about why your answer is true or false and come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you spotted that that is false.

But why is it false? Well, excellent work if you've managed to remember that each state in the US has a power to set its own laws.

So that's why some allow the death penalty and others do not.

A YouGov poll in February 2022 asked 1,665 British people.

"Generally speaking, do you support or oppose the death penalty?" Views ranged from strongly support to strongly oppose with tend to support and tend to oppose in the middle, and the option to say, don't know.

So what does this data tell us about public opinion in the UK on the death penalty? Pause for a moment, look closely at that chart, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

You may have noticed the data shows more people oppose the death penalty than support it.

A small group are unsure, and this suggests that public opinion on the issue is quite divided although leaning against its use.

There is an ongoing debate about whether the death penalties are fair and effective form of justice.

Let's look at the views of two groups, Amnesty International, which is a global human rights organisation, and Justice for All, which is a US-based advocacy group.

Amnesty International is against the death penalty, and Justice for All supports it.

Well, Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases.

It argues that it's cruel, irreversible, and is often used in ways that are unfair or discriminatory.

So it's an organisation that campaigns for its complete abolition worldwide.

Justice for All is specifically based in the US and it's an advocacy group, so it supports the use of the death penalty.

It speaks in favour of it.

It believes it delivers justice for the victims, deter serious crime, and protect society.

The organisation argues that it's morally justified response to the most severe offences.

Complete this sentence.

Amnesty International and Justice for All hold opposing views on whether the death penalty delivers.

So take a moment, pause the video if you need to, come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So well done if you said, "justice." One way to decide on whether the death penalty is ever justified is to apply an ethical theory.

Alan, who's a humanist, is using Kantian ethics to inform his thinking on the death penalty.

Alan says, "Kant supported the death penalty because it's based on retributive justice." So the idea that punishment should fit the crime.

However, he believed moral rules must be universal, and that people should not be treated as a means to an end.

"There's always a chance of executing an innocent person, and so the death penalty cannot be universalized.

It also treats the person as a means to satisfy justice, not as someone with dignity.

For me, Kantian ethics shows the death penalty is wrong." So interestingly here, Alan disagrees with what Kant argues, but he's using some of Kant's methods, the idea of universal moral laws to oppose the death penalty.

Warren, who's an atheist, is using utilitarianism to inform his views on the death penalty.

Warren says, "I support the death penalty from a utilitarian point of view because it can deter serious crime and protect society, which increases overall happiness and reduces suffering.

I know others use utilitarianism to argue against it so the death penalty could cause more harm than good, especially if mistakes are made or it creates fear or injustice.

But, in cases where it clearly protects lives and reduces serious crime, I believe it's justified.

So which of the following best explains why utilitarian might reject the death penalty? Is it A, the principle of utility shows it causes more harm than good, B, it fails to respect the sanctity of life, C, it cannot be universalized if there's a risk of executing the innocent, or D, it fails to deter crime in most countries? So take a moment, pause the video, have a think, and then come back when you're ready to check your answer.

Well done if you put A, the principle of utility shows it causes more harm than good.

This is the basis of utilitarian thinking.

It does mean, however, that some utilitarians might accept the death penalty as we saw in the case of Warren.

Alan, who is a humanist, is responding to some arguments for the death penalty with a counter-argument.

Argument for, "The death penalty provides justice by ensuring the punishment fits the seriousness of the crime." Alan says, "Justice is about fairness and respect for human rights, not just about matching the severity of the crime." The second argument for, "Many people believe the death penalty deters others from committing serious crimes." Alan responds to this by saying, "Many studies show how the death penalty does not deter crime any more effectively than other punishments." Argument for, "The death penalty brings closure to victims' families." Alan responds, "Not all families feel closure.

The death of the convicted person does not necessarily help with loss and emotional responses should not determine legal punishment." Warren, who's an atheist, is responding to some arguments against the death penalty with a counter-argument.

So he's arguing differently from Alan.

Argument against, "The death penalty denies the offender basic human dignity and reduces justice to killing." Warren responds, "The death penalty recognises that offenders deserve to face the consequences of their actions through a proportionate punishment." Many people believe the death penalty does not effectively deter serious crime.

Warren replies, "Whilst evidence is debated, it cannot be proven that the death penalty doesn't deter crime.

It shows the most serious offences have the harshest consequences." Argument against, "Life imprisonment protects society just as effectively without taking a life." Warren says, "Life imprisonment still carries risks.

The offender could escape or act violently in prison.

The death penalty ensures public safety and achieves justice." Which of the following is an argument against the death penalty? A, it ensures justice by matching the seriousness of the crime, B, it brings closure to victims' families, C, life imprisonment can protect society without taking a life, or D, many people believe it deters serious crime? Pause the video, have a think, come back when you're ready to check your answer.

Excellent work if you put life improvement can protect society without taking a life.

For our task for Part A, Alan and Warren are discussing the statement, "The death penalties are fair and effective form of justice." I'd like you to complete the table by filling in the missing arguments.

So Warren is arguing for the death penalty and Alan is arguing against.

Let's think about the first row of the table.

Alan is arguing against the statement.

He says, "Justice is about fairness, dignity, and protecting human rights which the death penalty undermines." I'd like you to think about the kind of argument that Warren might have pose that Alan might be responding to.

Secondly, Warren argued for the death penalty saying, "The death penalty gives victims dignity and justice by ensuring offenders face consequences for their actions." Have a think about how Alan, arguing against the death penalty, might respond to that.

So pause the video, take your time to think really carefully about how arguments can balance or counteract each other.

Fill in those missing arguments.

Remember, these skills are really useful for GCSE evaluation questions.

Come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

So Warren might have said, "The death penalty provides justice by ensuring the punishment fits the seriousness of the crime." And this is quite a clear argument for the death penalty.

And it might lead Alan to make that response that actually justice is about fairness, dignity, and human rights, and the death penalty undermines that.

For Warren's point that the death penalty gives victims dignity and justice by ensuring offenders face consequences, Alan might respond, "The death penalty denies the offenders their dignity and it reduces justice to killing." So you may have used different arguments for me, but well done if you've managed to show how arguments might counter each other in a debate about the death penalty.

Moving on to the second part of our lesson, we'll be looking at Muslim responses to the death penalty.

The death penalty is legal in most Muslim majority countries.

However, only a small number of those countries actively use it.

So here's a world map.

Let's have a look at how the death penalty is used across the world in different Muslim countries.

There are a small number of Muslim countries where the death penalty is actively used.

And here are just some examples, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

We can see them marked on the map.

There are some Muslim countries where the death penalties retained in law but not used in practise, or at least it's not been used for a long time.

Examples here that we can see on the map are Algeria, Oman, and Kuwait.

There's a small number of Muslim countries where the death penalty has been completely abolished.

Examples are Turkey and Malaysia.

And again, we can see those on the map.

Muslim attitudes to the death penalty are informed by different sources of authority, including the Quran, which is the direct word of Allah, the Hadith, the recorded words of the Prophet Muhammad, the Sunnah, the Prophet's example, based on the Hadith, Sharia law, Islamic law based on the Quran and the Sunnah, Islamic scholars interpret and apply the sources in real life situations, and personal conscience and reason which are guided by Islamic teachings.

Muslims may interpret these sources differently or place greater emphasis on some over others, but all agree that the Quran is the supreme authority.

Most Muslims use the Quran to support the death penalty in certain cases.

However, Quran also includes teachings that promote forgiveness, mercy, and alternatives to execution.

So in support for the death penalty we have Surah 2:178.

"O you who believe, prescribed for you is legal retribution, qisas, for those murdered, the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female." But support for alternatives in Surah 2:178 continues, "But if the killer is forgiven by the victim's family, then grant any reasonable demand and compensate them with kindness.

This is a concession and mercy from your Lord." The Hadith and Sunnah are also a source of authority for Muslims on the death penalty.

Muhammad says, "The blood of a Muslim may not be lawfully shared except in three cases, a married person who commits adultery, a life for life, and one who leaves the religion and abandons the community." So the death penalty is allowed in certain cases.

Muhammad says, "Avoid applying the hudud punishments wherever there is doubt.

It's better for the ruler to err in pardon than to err in punishment." So here, we have the provision that doubt should prevent punishment including the death penalty.

At the conquest of Makkah, although he had legal grounds to punish many people, the Prophet chose to forgive the majority.

So the Prophet's example shows that justice must always be balanced with compassion.

In Islam, the death penalty is permitted only for serious crimes.

These fall under three categories in Sharia law.

Qisas, which is equal retaliation, this includes crime against individuals such as murder or serious bodily injury.

The death penalty can be chosen by the victim's family, but they can also choose to forgive.

Hudud, which affix punishments.

These are crimes against Allah such as a adultery, apostasy, which means leaving the Islamic faith, and waging war against Allah.

The death penalty can be used in these very specific cases and under very strict conditions.

So for example, there have to be four eyewitnesses for adultery.

Finally, Tazir, which are discretionary punishments.

These are crimes that are judged case by case.

They might be crimes against the state such as terrorism.

The death penalty can be used but rarely and only in extreme cases if the judge deems it necessary.

So which of the following best reflects Muslim teachings on the death penalty? A, the Quran always demands execution for serious crimes, B, the prophet Mohammed taught that mercy should never interfere with justice, C, Muslims are encouraged to apply the death penalty in all cases of murder, and D, the death penalties allowed in certain cases, but Islam also teaches forgiveness and mercy? Pause if you need to, jot down your answer, and then come back when you're ready to check.

Excellent work if you chose D.

Yes, the death penalty is allowed in Islam in certain cases, but Islam does also teach mercy and forgiveness.

Andeep is researching Muslim views on the death penalty, and he is speaking to Tareeq, who is a Sunni imam.

Andeep says, "Do you agree with the death penalty, Tareeq?" Tareeq says, "I agree that the death penalty can be justified, but only very rarely.

Sharia law allows it for serious crimes like murder but only if the evidence is clear and reliable such as two trustworthy witnesses or a clear compassion.

Even then the victim's family can choose to forgive or accept compensation instead.

Islam teachers that justice must be fair.

And the Prophet said punishment should be avoided if there is any doubt." Andeep is speaking to Mustafa, who is a Sunni Muslim, "What is your view on the death penalty, Mustafa?" Mustafa says, "I disagree with the official teaching of Islam and am firmly against death penalty, because I see Islam as a religion of mercy and forgiveness.

The Quran discourages execution, and scholars debate how to apply Sharia Law.

I also oppose the death penalty because it violates human rights.

I believe a justice system should be based on rehabilitation and mercy.

I actively support penal reform international because they campaign for legal reforms in Muslim majority countries." One way to decide on whether the death penalty is ever justified is to apply an ethical theory.

Kantian ethics ask whether an action in itself is right.

Kant supported retributive justice, so he might accept the death penalty for serious crimes like murder.

But if innocent people are ever executed, the action cannot be universalized and fails to respect human dignity.

And Muslim would agree with Kant's concern for justice and human dignity, especially the danger of executing the innocents.

However, they would not agree with Kant's method of using reasoning alone to decide right and wrong, because instead, they'd rely on the Quran and Sunnah for moral guidance.

Utilitarianism judges an action on its consequences.

The principle of utility could be used to support the death penalty if it deters people from crime and protects society.

But this principle could also be used against it on the basis that it causes more harm than good.

A Muslim might agree with the concern about protecting society and preventing harm, but they would not base moral decisions on the consequences alone, because Islam teaches that right and wrong are decided by the Quran and Sunnah, not by weighing up outcomes.

Let's check your understanding.

True or false? Muslims carefully weigh up what will produce the greatest happiness when considering whether the death penalty can be justified.

Have a think about the answer and also think about why.

Pause if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check.

Excellent work if you put false.

But why is it false? Well, Muslims don't base moral decisions on what produces the greatest happiness.

Instead, they follow the Quran and Sunnah, and these both allow the death penalty in certain cases whilst also emphasising justice and mercy.

For part one of our task, I'd like you to explain two Muslim beliefs about the death penalty.

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

For guidance, you can use point, develop.

So one Muslim belief about the death penalty is, and develop it by saying, "This means" or "This shows." And another Muslim belief about the death penalty is, and again, develop with "This means," "This shows." For one part of your answer, you should refer to a relevant source of wisdom and authority.

This could be an exact or paraphrased quotation or a general teaching from a named source.

So pause the video, take your time to think about two Muslim beliefs about the death penalty, come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, "One Muslim belief about the death penalty is that it is permitted in cases of murder based on the principle of qisas, equal retaliation.

This means the family of the victim can choose the death of penalty, but they are also encouraged to forgive instead.

This is supported by Surah 2:178, which says, 'Prescribed for you is legal retribution.

But if the killer is forgiven by the victim's family, then grant any reasonable demand and compensate them with kindness,' this shows that mercy is highly valued." Another Muslim belief about the death penalty is that it must never be applied if there's any doubt.

This shows that Islamic law protects the rights of the accused and highlights Islam's emphasis on fairness and preventing injustice.

So hopefully you can see there how I've got two beliefs and have explained them or developed them with "This means" or "This shows." But I've also, with the case of the first belief, supported it with a name source of authority, I've said Surah 2:178.

But you could just say, "In the Quran it teaches that." And I've also linked it in with the key points.

For part two of our task, Warren is arguing for the statement, "The death penalty is a fair and effective form of justice." He says, "The death penalty provides justice by ensuring the punishment fits the seriousness of the crime." I'd like you to use the sentence status to explain why many Muslims would think his arguments are unconvincing.

Warren's argument that the death penalty provides justice is not convincing for some Muslims. In Islam justice.

This means.

So for many Muslims, the death penalty goes against.

So pause the video, have a think about how there are Muslims who would argue against the death penalty saying it does not provide justice.

Take your time, come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

Let's have a look at what you could have said.

Warren's argument that the death penalty provides justice is not convincing for some Muslims. In Islam, justice must always be balanced with mercy and fairness, and the death penalties only allowed in very limited cases with strict conditions.

This means it cannot be used freely or simply to match the seriousness of a crime.

So for many Muslims, the death penalty goes against the values of forgiveness, repentance, and the protection of life that are central to Islamic justice.

Good work if you've managed to explain why for some of them, the death penalty would not provide justice.

In today's lesson, we've looked to add the death penalties, execution by the state for serious crimes and is legal in some countries but banned in others.

That non-religious views on the death penalty differ.

Ethical theories can be used to support or oppose it.

That in Islam, that death penalty si permitted but rarely applied.

The Quran allows qisas, equal retaliation, for murder, but strongly encourages forgiveness and accepting compensation as a better option.

That some Muslims reject the use of the death penalty today, focusing on Islamic values of mercy and justice to support alternative responses.

Thank you for all of your hard work in today's lesson.

I've really enjoyed working with you.