Lesson video

Hello, my name's Mrs. Robone and I'm going to be working on today's lesson with you, which will be on divergent Muslim attitudes to pacifism.

Pacifism, peace and violence are all keywords we'll be using today.

Pacifism is a belief that all violence is wrong, which then affects all behaviours.

Peace is the opposite of war, harmony between all and society and violence is behaviour involving physical force which intends to hurt, kill or cause damage.

Our lesson today will form two parts.

We'll be looking at pacifism and arguments about pacifism.

So let's get started looking at pacifism.

The term pacifism comes from Latin and the word pax, and the word facere meaning make.

It has come to mean the belief that all violence is wrong, which then affects all behaviours.

It can result in refusing to fight in war, rejecting violent protest, opposing capital punishment, avoiding violent language and choosing peaceful responses, even in self-defense.

There are different types of pacifists.

We can have those who are the most pacifist, where violence is always wrong without exception, known as absolute pacifism.

Two, people who think violence is wrong with exceptions only in extreme cases, we might call that contingent pacifism because it depends on the situation.

Those who think almost no wars meet the criteria of a just war theory, and so in practise, war is wrong.

We might call this just war pacifism, and towards the other end of the scale, the least pacifists, specific wars are wrong.

For example, nuclear war or chemical war.

So we might call this selective pacifism.

What is pacifism? Take a moment to think about how you could define the keyword.

Pause the video, write down your answer and come back when you're ready to check.

You could have said it's the belief that all violence is wrong, which then affects all behaviours.

Well done if you got something along these lines.

A YouGov survey in 2024 asked British people whether they believe there will ever be a time when there are no war or military conflict in the world.

Answers range from there definitely will be a time through to there definitely will not be a time and I don't know.

So what might influence people's views on whether there is likely to be peace in the world? Take a moment, pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me and come back when you're ready to move on.

According to this data, what percentage of British people asked think it's likely there will be a time when there are no war or military conflict in the world.

So have a good look at the data concerned.

See if you can work out the answer.

Pause the video whilst you do so and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you spotted that 8% of those asked said there definitely or probably will be a time when there are no wars or military conflict in the world.

Pacifism has existed for thousands of years across many cultures and worldviews.

Jainism in ancient India is one of the oldest and most committed pacifist traditions.

Jains follow ahimsa, non-violence toward all living beings, rejecting warfare, killing and harm in any form.

Early Christianity in the Roman Empire in the first to third centuries.

Early Christians refuse military service, believing Jesus' teachings forbade violence.

Some were executed rather than go to war.

In the 17th century, we have the Quakers forming in England.

The Religious Society of Friends known as Quakers, formally rejected all war.

They promoted non-violence as a religious principle and helped shape modern peace movements.

In the 20th century, we have conscientious objectors.

In both world wars, over 213,000 people in countries like the UK and USA refuse military service on religious, ethical, or political grounds.

Modern secular pacifism.

Pacifism has also been promoted on humanitarian and ethical grounds, often linked to anti-war protests, nuclear disarmed, and nonviolent resistance movements.

A white feather had long been a symbol of cowardice.

Its use as such was popularised during World War I as part of a campaign to shame men into enlisting in the army.

Pacifists were frequently criticised by newspapers and politicians who accused them of undermining national unity and lacking patriotism.

The White Feather Campaign saw women handing white feathers to men not in uniform, pressuring them to enlist.

Conscientious objectors were often publicly shamed and somewhere imprisoned.

Others chose or were assigned to non-combat roles such as stretcher bearing, ambulance driving or bomb disposal.

A YouGov 2024 survey also asked British people whether they will be prepared to fight in a war.

The pie chart tells us the percentage of people who would be prepared to fight either willingly or reluctantly, and those who would try to avoid being conscripted or who would refuse to fight.

So what factors might make someone more or less prepared to fight? If you're able to pause and turn and talk to someone nearby, please do or you can talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Bertrand Russell is an example of a modern secular pacifist.

Bertrand Russell was a vocal pacifist during the First World War, opposing it as a product of nationalism and imperialism.

This led to his dismissal from Trinity College and imprisonment.

His pacifism was not absolute.

He later argued that opposing Hitler in World War II might be necessary to prevent greater evil.

After the war he focused on peace activism, especially nuclear disarmament and co-founded CND.

Is this statement true or false? Bertrand Russell was an absolute pacifist.

Pause the video, jot down your answer, but also have a think about why.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Excellent work if you chose false, but why is it false? While he opposed World War I, but accepted that force might be necessary in extreme cases, such as resisting Hitler in World War II.

For task A, I'd like you to answer the following questions.

What is the origin of the word pacifism and what does it mean? Name two historical examples of pacifist traditions or movements.

What symbol was used during World War I to shame men into enlisting and what did it represent? Who was Bertrand Russell and what was his view on pacifism during the two world wars? What is the difference between absolute and contingent pacifism? So take your time to think back through everything we've learned.

Answer those questions, pause the video, return when you have finished and want to see what you could have written.

You could have said, for what is the origin of the word pacifism and what does it mean? The term comes from Latin words, pax and facere, meaning the belief that all violence is wrong.

Name two historical examples of pacifist traditions or movements.

I chose Jainism in Ancient India and the Quakers in England.

You might have chosen differently.

What symbol was used during World War I to shame men into enlisting, and what did it represent? It was a white feather, symbolising cowardice.

Who was Bertrand Russell and what was his view on pacifism during the two world wars? Well, he opposed World War I as a pacifist, but later supported fighting in World War II to stop greater evil.

He later focused on peace activism.

And finally, what is the difference between absolute and contingent pacifism? Well, absolute pacifism rejects all violence in every situation, while contingent pacifism opposes violence except in extreme circumstances.

Excellent work if you've managed to remember and use the learning from the lesson so far.

For the second part of our lesson, we're going to be moving on to arguments about pacifism.

As Islam developed it maintained its emphasis on peacemaking, while also allowing the use of limited force in certain situations.

One of Adam's sons refuses to fight his brother and says, "If you raise your hand to kill me, I will not raise mine to kill you." That's in the Quran 5:28.

This is seen by some as the first example of pacifism.

The Prophet Muhammad in Makkah 610 to 622 CE, Muslims were a small persecuted group, and fighting was not allowed.

In Medina later on from 622 to 632, fighting was allowed if it complied with strict rules and peace had to be accepted if it was offered.

After the Prophet, Islamic scholars from the eighth century onwards developed detailed rules for when and how fighting is allowed, the aim should always be to restore peace.

Sufism in the eighth century.

As Sufism developed into a distinct tradition, some Sufis promoted spiritual pacifism by focusing on inner peace and avoiding all violence.

In the 19th, the 20th centuries, some Muslim fought against colonial powers, others did not.

Abdul Ghaffar Khan from 1890 to 1988 led a peaceful Muslim movement in British India and taught the Islam supports pacifism.

Today, most Muslims are not pacifists and believe limited force is sometimes needed.

Groups like the Muslim Peace Fellowship promote peace through non-violence and education.

So which of the following best describes Islamic responses to pacifism? A, Islam has always required total pacifism and rejects all violence.

B, Islam encourages violence as the main way to deal with conflict, or C, Islam supports peacemaking but allows limited force in certain situations.

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

So well done if you put C, Islam does support peacemaking, but it does allow limited force in certain situations.

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

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

The Quran can be interpreted as providing support for pessimism, but also as allowing force in certain situations.

Surah 5:27 to 30 tells the story of the two sons of Adam.

One threatens to kill the other, but his brother replies, "If you raise your hand to kill me, I will not raise my hand to kill you.

Indeed, I fear Allah, Lord of the worlds." So some see this as the first example of pacifism in the Quran.

For them, the brother's refusal to fight shows how a believer can choose peace even in the face of violence.

However, other Muslims don't see it as a call to total pacifism.

They would argue the choice that the brother made was a very personal one and not necessarily a general rule for all Muslims. That's because later verses in the Quran permit fighting in self-defense.

The Sunnah and Hadith can be interpreted as providing support for pacifism.

Muhammad said "The strong person is not the one who can wrestle others to the ground.

The strong person is the one who controls himself when angry." So this is often cited by pacifist Muslims as evidence that true strength lies in self-control rather than in violence.

Muhammad consistently showed mercy, even to his enemies.

At the conquest of Makkah, for example, instead of taking revenge on those who'd persecuted him and his followers, he actually forgave them instead.

So to check your understanding, I'd like you to complete this quotation from the Quran.

It's Surah 5:28.

"If you raise your hand to kill me, I will not." So take a moment, pause a video, come back when you're ready to see what the answer should have been.

So well done if you put raise my hand to kill you.

By some, this is thought to be the first example of pacifism in Islam.

Let's have a look at a very specific situation which shows Muslim ideas about pacifism and about the use of violence, it's known as the Arab Spring.

In 2010, a young Tunisian street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest after police officers confiscated his cart and humiliated him.

His death shocked the nation and stirred deep anger over corruption, injustice and poverty.

What followed were mass protests across Tunisia as thousands of people demanded change.

When the president fled the country, it inspired others across the region to rise up too.

This wave of protests, which came to be known as the Arab Spring quickly spread to Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa.

People gathered in streets and squares, called for dignity, freedom add an end to dictatorship.

At first, many of the protests were peaceful.

In countries like Tunisia and Egypt, Muslims took part in demonstrations that were rooted in Islamic principles of peace and justice.

They held signs quoting the Quran, such as "Repel evil with what is better." Surah 41:34.

Many saw this as a moral duty.

They believed the Prophet Mohammad's early years in Makkah offered a clear example when he showed patience and mercy in the face of persecution.

For these Muslims, peacemaking meant refusing violence and standing firm through protest, dialogue and civil actions.

But in other countries, the peaceful path was brutally shut down.

In Libya, Syria and Yemen, governments responded with deadly force.

Protestors were attacked, arrested and bombed.

In these places, some Muslims came to believe that peaceful protest was no longer enough.

They turned to another Islamic teaching that allows fighting in defence of the innocent.

"Fight in the way of all of those who fight you but do not transgress." Surah 2:190.

These Muslims believe that when violence is used to crush peaceful movements, defending others becomes a form of peacemaking.

They argued that the Prophet Muhammad did eventually take up arms in Medina when peaceful options had run out.

For them, resisting oppression with force was not a betrayal of Islam, but a necessary step to protect lives and restore justice.

Throughout the Arab Spring, Muslims held different views on how to respond.

Some believe peacemaking means avoiding all violence and stay committed to nonviolent resistance.

Others believe that under extreme conditions, using force to defend others could be justified.

What united them with a shared desire for justice, freedom, and dignity, the differences lay in how they believed peace could be achieved.

The Arab Spring revealed not just a political struggle, but a deep moral debate within the Muslim world about the meaning of peacemaking and the limits of pacifism.

Nadia is a Sunni Muslim and a Sufi.

She's been asked about her views on the use of violence.

Nadia says, "The Sufi path teaches me to seek harmony with myself, with others, and with the divine.

I believe pacifism is the discipline of the heart.

I follow the teachings of Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, a Sufi scholar who teaches that the real struggle is against the ego and that peace begins with the heart.

The Prophet was sent as a mercy to the worlds, and I try to live by that.

That is why I am a pacifist.

I cannot draw closer to Allah by harming creation." Hassan is a Shi'a Muslim.

He's been asked about his views on the use of violence.

Hassan says, "The Quran teaches us to repel evil with what is better, and the prophet showed mercy even to his enemies.

That is why I believe peace is a way of life.

I'm a member of the Muslim Peace Fellowship, which promotes nonviolence through education, public action and interfaith work.

We organise prayer vigils, speak out against war and support peaceful alternatives to violence.

Being a pacifist is about following Islamic values by actively standing up for peace." Jamila is a Sunni Muslim and she's a soldier too.

She's been asked about her views on the use of violence.

Jamila says, "I used to believe pacifism was always right.

Then I learned about Emir Abdelkader, a 19th century Algerian leader who tried peace but took her arms to protect his people when diplomacy failed, he followed Islamic ethics and showed mercy even in war.

His example helped me see that peacemaking can sometimes mean using force to defend others.

That inspired me to join the army with a commitment to justice and compassion." So let's check your understanding, true or false? Pacifism is passive and means doing nothing in response to violence.

Take a moment, have a think about why as well.

Pause the video if you need to, come back when you're ready to see what the answer was.

Well done if you spotted that, that is false, why? Well, this is because most pacifists take active steps for peace, and that might be through peaceful protest or through education or through campaigning.

Here are two arguments for and two arguments against the statement all Muslims should be pacifists.

Arguments for, Surah 5:28.

"If you raise your hand to kill me, I will not raise mine to kill you." And a Hadith which says "The strong person is the one who controls himself when angry." But looking at arguments against, Lesser jihad permits fighting to defend Islam and the oppressed and the Prophet himself led defensive battles when peace was not an option.

So do some of these arguments seem more convincing to you than others, or maybe you think that they're balanced? Take a moment to turn and talk to someone nearby.

If you can, pause the video, you can always talk to me and come back when you're ready to move on.

So which of the following is an argument against Muslim pacifism? In Surah of 5:28, one of Adam's sons refuses to fight even when threatened.

B, the Prophet forgave his enemies at the conquest of Makkah and C, Muslims are permitted to fight to defend Islam and protect the oppressed.

Take a moment, pause if you need to, come back when you're ready to check the answer.

So well done if you put C, that Muslims are permitted to fight to defend Islam and protect the oppressed.

I'd like you to consider the statement, "Absolute pacifism is unrealistic in today's world." And complete the table below showing whether these points can be used to argue for or against and how.

So the first point, lesser jihad permits fighting to defend Islam and the oppressed.

The second, some conflicts involve extreme violence against civilians.

The third, Surah 5:28 says, "If you raise your hand to kill me, I will not raise my hand to kill you." And the fourth, violence escalates conflict.

So take a moment, think about whether it's for or against.

Explain how that point could be used in a debate about the statement.

Pause the video, come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said for the first point, lesser jihad permits fighting to defend Islam and the oppressed.

This is an argument for, and that's because lesser jihad recognises that force is sometimes needed to protect others show that non-violence alone may not always stop injustice.

The second point is also in argument for, some conflicts involve extreme violence against civilians.

This would suggest that maybe refusing to engage in any violence at all could allow a great evil to continue.

And so being an absolute pacifist would be harmful.

Surah 5:28.

"If you raise your hand to kill me, I will not raise mine to kill you." Is an argument against because it values restraint over revenge, even in the face of personal danger when retaliation might be expected.

And finally, violence escalates conflict.

This again seems to go against the statement because it suggests that violence involves a cycle of retaliation and that makes the conflicts hard to end and causes greater suffering.

So well done if you managed to show whether those were points that could be used for or against, and to explain how.

In today's lesson, we have learned that Islamic views on pacifism vary, some support total nonviolent, but most believe limited force is allowed in specific situations.

Surah 5:28 is seen by some as an example of passive resistance, but others as a personal choice rather than a general rule.

The Prophet Muhammad forgave enemies such as at the conquest of Makkah, showing mercy is a powerful alternative to revenge.

Lesser jihad allows fighting to protect the oppressed and defend Islam but under strict ethical conditions and modern Muslim voices reflect a range of responses.

You have groups like the Muslim Peace Fellowship promoting non-violence and individuals who see force as justified when peace fails.

Thank you so much for working with me today.

Well done for all of your efforts on this lesson.