Lesson video

Hello, my name's Ms. Rawbone, and I'm going to be working with you today on this RE lesson on "Islam and Just War Theory." In today's lesson, you will be able to explain just war theory and Islamic responses to it.

Keywords we'll be using today are: innocents, just war theory, and lesser jihad.

Innocents of those who are not actively taking part in the fighting or planning of war.

Just war theory is a set of ethical principles used to decide whether war is morally acceptable.

And lesser jihad is the struggle to remove evil from the world.

In today's lesson, we'll be looking at two things.

We'll be looking at just war theory itself and our responses to just war theory.

So let's get started on just war theory.

Just war theory is a set of ethical principles used to decide whether war is morally acceptable.

Ideas about just war appear in both religious teachings and in non-religious philosophy.

Christian ideas in particular became the most influential in Western thought and in international law.

Just war theory helps people and governments make moral decisions about war.

It's used by both religious and non-religious people to evaluate modern conflicts.

So when, if ever, might war be justified? Lucas, Izzy, and Alex are discussing this question.

Lucas says, "When a group is being attacked." Izzy says, "I'm not sure it can ever be justified in the modern world." And Alex says, "To protect innocent lives being threatened." So let's have a look at how just war theory developed.

Going back to the 1st century BCE, thinkers like Cicero who lived from 106 to 43 BCE taught that war should have a discourse and be declared by the right authority.

Moving on to the 4th century BCE, this is when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire under Emperor Theodosius I in 380 CE.

Christians had to now consider how to govern and use force responsibly.

Still in the 4th century, St.

Augustine who lived from 354 to 430 CE was one of the first Christians to say war can be justified.

It must be for peace, led by the proper authority, and have the right intentions.

During the Middle ages, Aquinas built on Augustine's ideas using natural law, teaching that a just war needs just cause, right authority, and right intention, with peace as the ultimate goal.

And in the 20th century BCE, although Christian origin, just war theory has shaped laws like the Geneva Conventions.

It's used in debates about war and is widely accepted.

Just war theory divides into three parts.

We have the justice of resorting to war known as jus ad bellum, so this is about going to war.

A just cause: the cause must be to resist aggression or protect rights.

A legitimate authority means that only a recognised and lawful authority can declare the war.

Right intention: The goal must be to restore peace and justice.

Last resort: All reasonable, nonviolent options must have been tried.

Reasonable chance of success: So the war must offer a real prospect of achieving its aims. And proportionality: The expected outcomes must outweigh the harm caused.

The second area, the just war theory covers is known as jus in bello.

This is just conduct in war, so it's about what happens during the war itself.

In this case, we have no illegal weapons.

Weapons banned by international law must not be used, so that would include weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.

Discrimination: That means you must discriminate between targets.

Civilians must not be deliberately harmed.

Proportionality: Force is limited to only what is needed.

Treatment of prisoners: Prisoners of war must be treated humanely.

No intrinsically evil means, so things like ethnic cleansing or mass rape, these are always wrong in war, whatever the situation or cause.

And no retaliation: So the rules must be followed on your side even if the enemy breaks them on theirs.

And the third area of war is jus post bellum, justice at the end of war.

This is about things like securing rights.

So any rights that were missing that justify the war being fought must be restored.

Legitimate peace declaration.

So peace must be publicly declared by the proper authority.

Proportional peace terms: So the peace settlement itself must be fair.

You should not be asking too much of the defeated party.

And just punishment: Prisoners of war must be treated humanely.

International law incorporates many just war principles to regulate the use of force and conduct in war.

Just cause: This is reflected in the United Nations Charter of 1945, especially Article 51, which permits the use of force only in self-defense or with Security Council approval.

Discrimination: The Geneva Conventions of 1949 require parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians, prohibiting deliberate attacks on non-combatants.

Proportionality: Both the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions limit force to what is necessary and ban tactics causing unnecessary suffering or damage.

A YouGov survey in 2022 asked 2,219 members of the British public about whether having Geneva Conventions was a good thing.

Have a good look at the data in the chart.

What do most people think about having rules that govern war? Take a moment, pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can talk to me, and come back when you're ready to move on.

So you should have noticed that most people think it's a good thing to have the Geneva Conventions.

In other words, it's a good thing to have rules that limit war.

So which two of the following would violate the criteria of a just war? A: capturing enemy soldiers, B: using chemical weapons, C: declaring war after negotiations fail.

Or D: bombing civilian areas.

Remember, we're looking for two.

So pause if you need to jot down your answer, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So well done if you mentioned using chemical weapons and bombing civilian areas.

Chemical weapons are disproportionate and also they cannot be targeted, and bombing civilian areas is deliberately targeting non-combatants.

The rules for just war have been violated on many occasions, and this raises questions really about whether a war is ever likely to be just.

Is it possible that any war would ever follow them all? Jus ad bellum: The Iraq War, 2003.

The U.

S.

and UK invaded Iraq without UN approval based on claims about weapons of mass destruction.

Jus in bello: In the Bosnian War of 1995, Serbian forces killed over 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in the Srebrenica massacre.

Jus post bellum: The Treaty of Versailles 1919.

This treaty imposed severe penalties on Germany and it led to political instability.

Andeep is talking to Zara, who studied the ethics of war as part of her degree in politics, philosophy, and economics.

He says, "Do you think any war has ever been truly just?" Zara says, "That depends on how strictly you apply just war theory.

Very few wars, if any, fully meet all the criteria.

Even wars with strong moral reasons such as World War II, raise difficult questions about how they were fought.

For example, the bombing of civilian areas like Dresden and the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are often criticised as violations of proportionality and discrimination." Andeep it says, "So even if a war starts for the right reason, it can still be fought in the wrong way? Has any war ever actually met all the conditions?" Zara says, "Exactly, a war might begin with a just cause but still be carried out unjustly.

As for meeting all the conditions, some defensive wars come close, especially when a country is clearly under attack.

But even then, it's difficult to judge intention, proportionality, and long-term consequences perfectly.

Real wars are rarely that clear-cut." Andeep continues, "So is just war theory more of an ideal than something that actually works in real life." Zara says, "Well, yes, that is a fair way to put it.

It gives us a moral framework to judge decisions about war.

But in practise most wars fall short in at least one area.

It's more useful as a tool for reflection than a checklist that real conflicts neatly follow." So what do you think? Can war still be considered just if it begins for the right reasons, but perhaps involves actions that might harm innocent people? Take a moment, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me.

Pause the video and come back when you are ready to move on.

Let's check your understanding.

Is this statement true or false? "Very few walls fully meet all the criteria of just war theory because judging proportionality and intention in real conflicts is difficult." Have a think about your answer and also think about why.

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

Well done if you spotted it's true.

But why is this true? Well, it is often very hard to measure whether the harm cause is proportional to the good achieved, and to know the real intentions that are behind decisions made in war.

So it's very difficult for any war to follow perfectly all the rules of just war theory for these reasons.

for task A, Sam is trying to recall what she's learned about just war theory.

She's made a start but has left some gaps.

I'd like you to complete her explanation.

Sam says, "Just war theory, developed by Augustine and Aquinas, sets conditions for war such as.

These principles guide actions before, and have influenced international.

Examples like the Iraq War, the Srebrenica Massacre and Treaty for Versailles show.

Applying the theory is difficult because.

." So take your time, pause the video, come back when you've managed to develop her explanation, and then you can have a look at what you might have said.

You could have said, "Just war theory, developed by Augustine and Aquinas, sets conditions for war such as just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, last resort, proportionality, and discrimination.

These principles guide actions before, during, and after war, and have influenced international law like the Geneva Conventions.

Examples like the Iraq War, the Srebrenica massacre and the Treaty of Versailles show violations of these rules.

Applying the theory is difficult because judging proportionality and intention in real conflicts is complex.

So well done if you've remembered some of the conditions, and if you've also talked about how they've influenced international laws, given some examples of where those laws have not been followed, and if you've also shown that you understand how difficult it is to apply the theory.

For the second part of our lesson, we're going to be looking at responses to just war theory.

Muslim attitudes to just war theory are informed by different sources of authority, including the Qur'an, which is the direct word of Allah, the Hadith, which are the recorded words of the Prophet Mohammed, the Sunnah, the Prophet's example based on the Hadith, Shariah law, which is Islamic law based on the Qur'an and Sunnah, Islamic scholars who interpret and apply the sources in real-life situations, and personal conscience and reason which is guided by Islamic teachings.

Muslims may interpret the sources differently, but they all agree the Qur'an is the supreme authority.

So let's have a look more closely at the Qur'an as a source of authority for Muslim beliefs about just war theory.

Let's have a look at Surah 4:69-110.

Ayah 69, "And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger, those will be with the ones upon whom Allah has bestowed favour of the prophets, the steadfast affirmers of truth, the martyrs, and the righteous.

And excellent are those as companions." 71, "O you who have believed, take your precaution, and either go forth in companies or go forth all together." 73, "Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties in exchange for that they will have Paradise.

They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed." 74, "It is a true promise binding upon him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an.

And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted.

And it is that which is the great attainment." 77, "Have you not seen those who were told, 'Restrain your hands from fighting and establish prayer and give zakah'? But then when fighting was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men as they fear Allah or even more.

They said, 'Our Lord, why have you decreed upon us fighting? If only you had postponed it for us for a short time.

' Say, the enjoyment of this world is little, and the hereafter is better for he who fears Allah.

And injustice will not be done to you, even as much as a thread inside a date seed." 89, "But when death approached from before them and they were told to believe in the message they had rejected before and to repent and to receive protection from Allah and his messenger.

But if they would not, then they were told, 'Lay down your arms.' But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them, and take them captive and besiege them and sit and wait for them at every place of ambush.

But if they should repent, establish prayer and give zakah, let them on their way.

Indeed, Allah is forgiving and merciful." 90, "Except for those who take them captive after fighting has already begun and then release them freely or exchange them for a ransom, those are not considered wrongdoers." 91, "And if one of the politicians seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the word valour, then deliver him to his place of safety.

That is because they are a people who do not know." 94, "They want you to disbelieve as they disbelieve so you would be alike.

So do not take from among them allies until they immigrate for the cause of Allah.

But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take from among them any ally or helper." 95, "Except for those who take refuge with the people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you because their hearts restrain them from fighting you or fighting their own people.

And if Allah had willed, he could have given them power over you and they would've fought you.

So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause for fighting against them." 96, "Indeed, Allah only forbid you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and support others and expelling you that you make peace with them, and whoever makes peace with them, then indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people." 97, "The repayment of a bad action is one equivalent to it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah.

Indeed, he does not like wrongdoers." These verses, along with the Hadith and classical Islamic jurisprudence under Shariah law, explain Muslim teaching on lesser jihad and form the basis of Muslim just war theory.

It must be called by the correct religious leader.

Crops, land, and animals cannot be targeted.

It must not be for land or money.

Innocents and civilians must not be harmed.

People cannot be forced to become Muslims. Peace must be restored and mercy shown.

When it comes to lesser jihads, Sunni and Shias agree: Crops, lands and animals cannot be targeted.

It must not be for land or money.

Peace must be restored and mercy shown.

Innocents and civilians must not be harmed.

People cannot be forced to become Muslims. However, they disagree about who has the authority to declare and lead lesser jihad.

It must be called by the correct religious leader.

Sunnis see this authority as belonging to a rightful Muslim ruler, and in fact, they may also regard it as belonging to a political leader.

Shias believe it belongs to the divinely appointed imam or his representatives.

Alex is asking Tareeq, who is an imam, whether Muslim teachers align with internationally-accepted just war theory.

Alex says, "Are the conditions for lesser jihad the same as those outlined in just war theory under international law?" Tareeq says, "Most Muslims accept international just war theory because its key principles like just cause and protecting civilians align closely with Islamic teachings on lesser jihad.

While lesser jihad is based on Shariah Law, there is a strong agreement with international law on the moral rules of war." So let's check your understanding.

Is this statement true or false? "In Islam, a just war should aim for peace." Take a moment, think about your answer, also have a think about why, and come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you realised that was true, but why is it true? Well, that's because lesser jihad allows fighting only to defend justice and must aim to restore peace, not cause harm, or seek revenge.

Some people use ethical theories to make decisions about issues such as war.

So a Christian who uses situation ethics judges an action by whether it produces the most agape love.

Each war must be considered individually.

A war might be considered just if it produces a living outcome, and that could be protecting innocent lives or restoring peace.

So when it comes to Islam, looking at this approach, Islam would agree that each war must be judged individually.

But in contrast to situation ethics, Islam teaches that when it comes to war, there are actions which are right or wrong, and it doesn't judge by likely outcomes.

A humanist might use Kantian ideas about duty to decide whether a war is ever just.

They might argue war is unjust if it violates the duty to respect all human beings.

They might also say war should follow universal moral laws such as not harming innocent people.

On this point, a Muslim would agree that respecting human dignity and protecting innocents is important.

Their difference would be that this dignity comes from Allah.

An atheist might use a theory such as utilitarianism, which judges an action on its consequences.

The principle of utility shows a war is just if it produces more happiness than not having a war.

So a benefit, such as protecting the innocent, should outweigh any harm caused by the war.

A Muslim would be likely to reply that Islam teaches that war cannot be judged solely by its outcomes.

The conditions for lesser jihad provide very clear rules or guidance on whether a war is just.

So let's check your understanding: Situation ethics judges actions by outcomes while Muslim teaching holds that some actions are inherently right or wrong.

Is this true or false? Have a think as well about why.

Pause if you need to, come back when you are ready to move on.

So well done if you realise that is true, particularly in the case of war.

But why is it true? Well, it's because situation ethics allows a flexibility to choose actions that bring the most love, and this is really the only guidance.

Whereas Muslim teaching requires following Allah's clear commands, which means that some things are always going to be right or wrong.

Meryem and Nadia are discussing the statement, "War can be justified." Meryem is arguing for the statement.

She says, "If innocent lives are protected and war is fought only as a last resort to defend those lives, it meets the key criteria of lesser jihad and can be considered just.

War in this context aims to restore peace and justice, making it morally justified." Nadia is arguing against the statement.

She says, "I believe lesser jihad does not apply today because Islam is not under threat like in the past.

The Prophet said, 'The best jihad is the word of justice,' showing that true struggle is now peaceful." So which of the following best reflects a reason some Muslims believe war can be justified?" Is it A: War is always the best way to deal with injustice, B: Lesser jihad encourages war to spread religion, or C: War can be justified if it protects innocent lives and aims to restore peace? So take a moment, pause if you need to, come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's check your answer.

If you put C, you are correct, well done.

For part one of our task, I'd like you to explain two Muslim teachings about just war theory.

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

For guidance, you can use point, develop, point, develop, and you will need to, for one of those points, name and link in a relevant source and explain what it teaches.

It could be a quotation, it could be a general belief, or teaching.

So take your time, pause the video, think about what we've learned today about Muslim teachings on just war theory and come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, "One Muslim teaching about just war theory is that war must have a just cause such as defending Islam or protecting the innocent.

Surah 4:89 supports this by allowing fighting only against those who attack the Muslim community and encouraging peace if the enemy repents." "Another teaching about just war theory is the protection of non competence.

This means that innocent people should not be targeted, and ensures war is fought ethically and respects human dignity.

So well done if you managed to remember two of the rules for a just war according to Islam and the criteria for lesser jihad.

For part two of our task, Meryem's teacher has asked her to develop her argument for the statement, "War can be justified" by explaining why the argument is convincing, and I'd like you to help her to do this.

So she says, "According to the criteria for a lesser jihad, a modern war could be just if innocent lives are protected, and it is fought as a last resort to protect life.

This argument is convincing because.

." So take your time, have a think about how to develop her point, how to explain why that is convincing.

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

You could have said, "According to the criteria for a lesser jihad, a modern war could be just if innocent lives are protected and it is fought as a last resort to protect life.

This argument is convincing because Islamic teaching insists that a war must have a just cause, be declared by proper authority, and follow strict rules of conduct, including the protection of civilians.

If these conditions are met, and the war genuinely aims to restore peace and justice, it may be considered a moral duty to defend the oppressed and prevent greater harm." So well done if you manage to put your own take on why that argument would be convincing for Meryem.

In today's lesson, we have learned that just war theory developed through classical, religious, and secular traditions.

It sets rules for when war is morally acceptable, covering before, during, and after conflict.

Lesser jihad had shares similar conditions such as just cause, right authority, and protecting civilians with peace as the goal.

Sunni and Shia Muslims agree on the rules for lesser jihad, but differ on who has the authority to declare it.

Many Muslims accept just war theory as broadly in line with Islamic values like defence and protecting the innocent.

Some Muslims believe physical jihad no longer applies and focus instead on a peaceful struggle.

Thank you so much for working with me today, and well done for all of your efforts on this lesson.