Lesson video

Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone and I'm really looking forward to working with you today on this lesson on Muslim responses to weapons of mass destruction.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain some of the issues surrounding weapons of mass destruction and Muslim and other responses to them.

Keywords we'll be using today are biological weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and weapons of mass destruction.

A biological weapon is a weapon of mass destruction which uses living organisms like bacteria, viruses, or toxins to infect and damage the body.

A chemical weapon is a weapon of mass destruction which uses manmade toxic substances to harm the body through inhalation, skin contact or eye exposure.

Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction which use a nuclear reaction to cause widespread damage and loss of life.

And weapons of mass destruction are weapons which cause widespread indiscriminate damage for example, nuclear, chemical, biological.

Today's lesson will take two parts.

We'll be looking at weapons of mass destruction and the issues surrounding weapons of mass destruction.

So let's get started looking at weapons of mass destruction.

Weapons of mass destruction are weapons which cause widespread indiscriminate damage.

For example, nuclear, chemical and biological.

Nuclear weapons work by releasing enormous energy through nuclear reactions.

Chemical weapons use manmade toxic chemicals to attack the body directly through inhalation, skin contact and eye exposure.

Biological weapons use living organisms, bacteria, viruses, or toxins to infect the body.

Nuclear weapons were used in 1945 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when around 300,000 were killed.

The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty bans the spread of nuclear weapons and promotes disarmament by those that have them already.

Chemical weapons were used in the 1988 Halabja attack which killed around 5,000 civilians.

The 1997 Chemical Weapons convention bans their use, production, stockpiling and transfer.

Biological weapons were used in 2001 when anthrax spores sent through the post in the US killed five people.

The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention bans their use, production, stockpiling and transfer.

So what are weapons of mass destruction? Take a moment, pause the video, jot down your answer and come back when you're ready to check.

You should have said something like weapons which cause widespread indiscriminate damage.

For example, nuclear, chemical, or biological.

The effects of weapons of mass destruction are a really important factor to consider when thinking about the issues surrounding them.

There are immediate effects.

Weapons of mass destruction cause powerful blasts, or extreme heat, toxic exposure, and rapid disease spread.

They kill instantly, destroy infrastructure and they overload the emergency response.

There are also long-term effects.

They can cause cancer, birth defects, chronic illness, and lasting environmental damage.

Survivors may face lifelong health issues, psychological trauma and social stigma.

Despite international efforts to control them, weapons of mass destruction still exist in large numbers around the world.

So as we've seen chemical and biological weapons are banned.

No country can own them or stockpile them, or transfer them or develop them, but nuclear weapons are not banned internationally and countries that already have them are allowed to keep them.

The Geneva Conventions, which were first signed in 1949, are international agreements designed to protect civilians and limit suffering during war.

The use of weapons of mass disruption clearly violates their core principles.

They create fear which goes against the Geneva Conventions' aim to limit suffering and protect civilians.

They affect civilians which breaches the Geneva Conventions' requirement to protect non-combatants.

Their use breaks the Geneva Conventions' ban on weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or indiscriminate harm.

Their consequences are uncontrolled and cause long-lasting outcomes the Geneva Conventions aim to prevent.

So what was the main purpose of the Geneva Conventions, first signed in 1949? Was it A, to ban weapons of mass destruction.

B, to protect civilians and limits suffering in war.

C, to create peace treaties.

Or D, to allow all forms of retaliation.

Take a moment, pause the video, jot down your answer and then come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put B, they were created to protect civilians and limits suffering in war.

There is a range of views on nuclear weapons in particular.

They go from most permissive to most opposed.

Some may argue, although not many, that their use could be justified in extreme cases.

So this could be as last resort and only when absolutely necessary.

So very unusual view.

However, keeping them for deterrence only is a more common view.

Nuclear deterrence is having nuclear weapons with the aim of deterring or preventing other states attacking for fear of retaliation.

This view is most commonly held by governments around the world, particularly those that are nuclear states such as the US and the UK.

Multilateral disarmament, this is when countries agree together to reduce or eliminate their weapons.

This is a view that's often held alongside support for deterrence.

So in the 1990s, the US and Russia which are both nuclear states, agreed together to cut their nuclear stockpiles.

Unilateral disarmament.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament is when a country gives up its nuclear weapons in entirely independently.

This is not a widely held view.

But in the early 1990s South Africa did do this and voluntary dismantled its entire nuclear weapons programme.

Two international treaties aim to regulate nuclear weapons.

So remember, they're not banned.

So the retreat is to aim to regulate them.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 stops the spread of nuclear weapons.

Five states are allowed to keep nuclear weapons temporarily, which includes the UK.

Disarmament should be gradual and negotiated.

So that's multilateral disarmament and it's been signed by 191 countries, which includes nuclear states such as Britain.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2017, bans all nuclear weapons and says that no country should have them.

Disarmament should be immediate and total.

Now that's been signed by 93 countries, but not by nuclear states, so that means not by the UK.

Both of these treaters aim to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons through multilateral disarmament.

This data from a YouGov survey of 2024 reflects the views of those asked on nuclear weapons.

66% said no one should have them.

23% said they should be limited to countries that already have them.

4% said other countries should be able to develop them, and 7% didn't know.

So how much more support is there for banning all nuclear weapons compared to allowing some countries to keep them? Pause the video, look carefully at the data, try and work out how much more support there is and then come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So 66% supported banning them all and 23% supported limiting them to countries that have them.

So how much more support there is for banning them all is 43%.

So what is nuclear deterrence? Take a moment, pause the video, think about what that term means.

Jot down your answer, come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put something along the lines of having nuclear weapons with the aim of deterring or preventing other states attacking for fear of retaliation.

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

One, what are weapons of mass destruction and what are the three main types? Give a brief explanation of how each type works.

Two, describe the immediate and long-term effects of using weapons of mass destruction.

Give two examples of each.

Three, what is the main name of the Geneva Conventions and how do weapons of mass destruction violate their principles? So take the time, pause the video, write up your answers and then come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, number one, what are weapons of mass destruction and what are the three main types? Weapons of mass destruction are weapons that cause widespread indiscriminate harm.

The three main types are nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Nuclear weapons release enormous energy through nuclear reactions.

Chemical weapons use toxic substances to harm the body.

Biological weapons use viruses, bacteria, or toxins to cause disease and death.

And number two, describe the immediate and long-term effects of using weapons of mass destruction.

Immediate effects of these weapons include powerful explosion, severe burns, poisoning, and fast spreading infections.

Long-term infect include environmental damage, higher rates of cancer, birth defects, psychological trauma, and the displacement of communities.

And for number three, what is the main aim of the Geneva Conventions and how do weapons of mass destruction violate their principles? The Geneva Conventions aim to protect civilians and reduce suffering during armed conflict.

Weapons of mass destruction go against this because they harm civilians, cause unnecessary suffering and create long-term damage.

So well done if you manage to answer all three of those questions using examples that we've looked at today.

For the second part of our lesson, we're going to be moving on to issues surrounding weapons of mass destruction.

Muslim attitudes to weapons of mass destruction 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 Muhammad, the Sunnah which are the prophets example, based on 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, personal conscience and reason guided by Islamic teachings.

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

Let's have a look at the Qur'an as a source of authority.

Surah 5:32 says, "We decreed upon the Children of Israel whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption in the land, it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.

And whoever saves one, it is as if he had saved mankind entirely." This ayah supports the sanctity of life and it's often used to condemn any form of killing particularly mass killing through the use of weapons of mass destruction.

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

Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors." This ayah sets clear limits on warfare, allowing self-defense but forbidding excess.

Many Muslims believe the use of weapons of mass destruction violates this command.

Surah 8:60, "And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others beside them whom you do not know but whom Allah knows.

And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged." So this ayah has been used to support nuclear deterrence, including by former Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa.

However, most Muslims believe that the use and possession of weapons of mass destruction goes beyond what this verse allows, due to their indiscriminate and lasting harm.

The Hadith and Shariah can be interpreted as prohibiting weapons of mass destruction.

"Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people." This Hadith clearly forbids the killing of civilians, reinforcing the view that weapons of mass destruction are not compatible with Islamic ethics.

Classical Islamic jurisprudence, fiqh, developed rules for warfare that include proportionality, distinction between competence and civilians, necessity of self-defense and a ban on excess.

These principles are accepted by both Sunni and Shi'a scholars and are often used to argue that the use and possession of weapons of mass destruction violates the moral limits of warfare in Islam.

Modern Muslim scholars and organisations argue that weapons of mass destruction break key Islamic rules of just war.

Even as deterrents, they are not compatible with the values of justice, mercy, and the sanctity of life.

So let's check your understanding.

Is this true or false? Islamic law includes rules for warfare such as proportionality and protecting civilians which are often seen as incompatible with the possession and use of weapons of mass destruction.

Take a moment to think about your answer and also have a think about why.

Pause the video.

Come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put that it is true, but why is it true? It's true because weapons of mass destruction cause indiscriminate and excessive harm, and even possessing them relies on the threat of mass killing, which goes against Islamic principles of justice, mercy, and the protection of life.

Nadia is a Sunni Muslim and a doctor.

She's talking about her experience volunteering with Islamic Relief.

Nadia says, "I treated victims of chemical attacks in Syria during a short-term placement with Islamic Relief and I witnessed a devastating impact of weapons of mass destruction.

Secrecy around them makes enforcement difficult, increases mistrust and raises the risk of conflict.

If these weapons fall into the hands of groups outside the law, the threat becomes even greater.

Wealthier countries can respond to attacks, but poorer nations often cannot.

Storing and dismantling weapons of mass destruction is also costly and dangerous.

So what is one risk caused by countries hiding their chemical or biological weapons programmes? Take a moment, pause the video.

Think about what Nadia has just said.

Come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So well done if you chose C, it increases mistrusts and the chance of conflict.

Sometimes non-religious people use ethical theories to make decisions about issues such as the use or possession of weapons of mass destruction.

For example, a humanist could use a theory such as Kantian ethics which asks whether an action in itself is right.

A Kantian might argue we have a duty to work towards nuclear disarmament.

And that relying on threatening mass death to maintain peace is wrong as it uses people as a means to an end.

A Muslim would agree with this idea as Islam teaches that peace must be built on justice.

Threatening innocent lives goes against the Qur'anic principle of protecting life and the moral limits of warfare.

An atheist could use a theory such as utilitarianism, and this judges an action on its consequences.

The principle of utility could support deterrence if it serves the greater good.

A utilitarian, however, might also support gradual disarmament to reduce harm and maintain stability.

A Muslim would respond that protecting the peace must not come through the threat of mass killing.

Both the use and possession of weapons of mass destruction goes against the sanctity of life.

So what is the missing word? Judges whether keeping or using nuclear weapons is right by looking at the consequences it would produce.

Take a moment, pause if you need to, think about the theories that we've just considered, come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So well done if you've got that, it is utilitarianism which judges based on consequences.

Here are two arguments for and two against nuclear deterrence.

Arguments for.

It prevents direct conflict between nuclear powers.

It gives protection whilst countries work towards disarmament.

Arguments against.

It creates constant global fear and it promotes continual buildup of nuclear arsenals increasing the risk of conflict.

So what is one argument for nuclear deterrence? Is it A, it creates constant global fear.

B, it allows countries to work towards disarmament safely.

C, it promotes the buildup of weapons.

Or D, it increases the risk of conflict.

Pause the video, have a think about your answer and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put B, an argument is that it allows countries to work towards this armament safely, knowing that they are protected in the meantime.

For part one of our tasks, I'd like you to complete the table setting up some arguments for and against the statement.

Nuclear deterrence is the best way to keep peace in the modern world.

So I'd like you to record two arguments for, and two against with at least one of those arguments against being a Muslim argument.

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

You could have said, for arguments for, it stops countries with nuclear weapons from attacking each other because they are scared of being attacked back.

And it gives protection while countries work towards getting rid of nuclear weapons together.

For arguments against, it creates global insecurity and builds peace through fear, not trust.

And for a Muslim argument, it threatens mass destruction which contradicts Islamic teachings that forbid going beyond what is necessary in war and require the protection of innocent life.

So well done if you managed to get two arguments on each side of that debate.

For part two of our task here, is the same evaluation question in full.

Nuclear deterrence is the best way to keep peace in the modern world.

Evaluate the statement considering arguments for and against.

In your response you should refer to Muslim teachings, refer to non-religious arguments/refer to relevant, ethical, or philosophical arguments, reach a justified conclusion.

I'd like you to use your table of arguments to write a paragraph arguing for or against the statement, so you can choose which way you want to argue.

Take your time, read your table again.

Read the statement, decide which way you want to argue.

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

You could have said, either arguing for the statement, "Nuclear deterrence is the best way to keep peace in the modern world because it stops nuclear countries from attacking each other.

They know that if they start a war, they will be attacked back with even more force.

Since nuclear weapons were developed, there has not been another world war.

This shows that deterrence works.

It also gives countries protection while they try to make agreements to reduce weapons in the future." So well done if you've written the paragraph for and you've included some of those points.

Or if you went against, "Nuclear deterrence is not the best way to keep peace in the modern world because it creates global insecurity by building peace through fear rather than trust.

It leads to the ongoing threat of mass destruction, which goes against Islamic teachings that forbid going beyond what is necessary in war and emphasise the protection of innocent life." So again, well done if you managed to put across some of those points when arguing against the statement.

In today's lesson, we've learned a lot.

We've learned that weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical, and biological cause large-scale destruction and long-term harm.

That there are international treaties which aim to ban or limit their use and their spread.

That both Islamic teaching and the Geneva conventions reject weapons that cause indiscriminate suffering.

That Muslim scholars argue that using or owning weapons of mass destruction goes against Islamic rules for warfare, that utilitarians focus on consequences while Kantian and Muslim thinkers might emphasise moral, responsibility and protecting life.

Thank you very much with all of your efforts and for working with me on this lesson today.