Conflict and war — Islam

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 3, 3.1 (Islam). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

A word can do more damage than an argument. Most people who arrive at this topic already know one Arabic term, they have met it in headlines, and they think it means holy war. It does not, and the gap between what it means and what it is taken to mean is where nearly every mark on this unit is won or lost. Start with the word.

What it means

Jihad means struggle or striving. Classical teaching divides it: the greater jihad is the struggle against one's own selfishness and wrongdoing, and the lesser jihad is armed struggle, permitted only under conditions. The ranking is not a modern apology invented for a hostile audience — it is the classical order, and it is the first thing an answer should establish.

The specification packs four topics into this single point, and each has to be handled separately. The causes of conflict: politics, resources, history, culture and religion. Holy war, which the specification calls Harb al-Muqadis. Weapons of mass destruction. And Just War theory, with its conditions — just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, proportionate means, and discrimination between combatants and non-combatants.

Islam is neither pacifist nor permissive. Fighting is permitted in defence and against oppression, and Qur'an 2:190 attaches the limit in the same breath as the permission: do not transgress the limits. The protections are specific rather than vague — non-combatants, crops, trees, animals and places of worship — and the instructions attributed to Abu Bakr to his armies list them.

On weapons whose effects cannot be confined, most contemporary scholars hold that use is unlawful, because the requirement to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants cannot be satisfied by a weapon that does not distinguish. Where scholars genuinely divide is over possession as deterrence, not over use.

One difference inside the tradition is worth naming precisely. Sunni teaching requires legitimate authority for armed jihad; classical Twelver Shi'a doctrine distinguishes defensive struggle, which any Muslim may join, from offensive struggle, which it reserves to the awaited Imam. Sufi teaching keeps the emphasis on the greater jihad as the obligation that never ends.

Why believers hold it

The reasoning begins from justice rather than from violence. A religion that commands justice cannot forbid all fighting, because injustice left unresisted is itself a harm, and refusing to protect the oppressed is a choice with victims of its own. That is the argument absolute pacifism has to answer, and it is why Islam does not take the pacifist road.

But life is sacred, and a permission to kill given to people who believe they are acting for God is the most dangerous permission there is. So the limits arrive attached. This is the structural point a strong answer makes: in Islamic teaching restraint is part of the permission rather than a qualification added later by lawyers who had second thoughts. The verse that allows the fighting is the verse that caps it.

The condition doing the most work is the one most answers omit — legitimate authority. It means the groups most often presented as acting on Islamic teaching fail the first test of the law they claim, not because their conduct is excessive but because nobody empowered them to fight at all. That is a far stronger reply to 'religion causes war' than any amount of condemnation.

Two objections deserve real answers rather than dismissal. Religious sanction for war is dangerous because a cause believed to be God's is one no negotiation can compromise — and the honest reply is that the authority requirement and the explicit limits exist precisely for that danger, and that secular states have gone to war without any religious sanction whatever. And Just War criteria are said to legitimise rather than restrain, since every side claims just cause; the reply is that the criteria have been used to refuse participation as well as to justify it, and a standard sometimes evaded is not the same as no standard at all.

Where it comes from

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 5:32 (translated)

  Whoever saves one life, it is as if he had saved all mankind.

  The sanctity of a single human life, made equivalent to the whole of humanity. The foundation of Muslim teaching on the value of life.

  What it is doing here: Sets the value that the whole permission has to survive: if one life stands for all humanity, then a permission to take life needs conditions rather than enthusiasm.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 42:40 (with 42:43) (translated)

  The recompense for an injury is an injury equal to it; but whoever forgives ... his reward is with Allah.

  Justice permits proportionate retaliation, and forgiveness is explicitly the higher path. Both are held in one verse.

  What it is doing here: Supplies the proportionality principle that runs underneath the rules of war — an equal response as the ceiling, with restraint named as the better course.

• Hadith — Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Faith (translated)

  None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.

  Faith is measured by how one treats others. One of the most widely cited hadith on social ethics.

  What it is doing here: Gives the measure of faith that the conduct of a fighter is judged against, which is why the protections reach non-combatants rather than stopping at one's own side.

Where it bites

It shows in Muslim humanitarian organisations working inside conflict zones, in Muslim chaplaincy to armed forces, and in the rules about non-combatants that Muslim soldiers are taught. It shows most sharply in what Muslim scholars have said publicly about terrorist violence: the objection is not only to the killing but to the absence of any legitimate authority, which is the one condition a self-appointed group can never satisfy no matter how it fights.

It also shows in the argument Muslim states and scholars make about nuclear and chemical weapons, where the classical requirement to discriminate gives a clearer answer than most secular frameworks manage — a weapon that cannot be aimed at combatants alone cannot be used lawfully at all.

What people get wrong

People think: Jihad means holy war.

Actually: Jihad means struggle, and classical teaching ranks the struggle against one's own wrongdoing above armed struggle. Translating it as holy war and stopping there loses the greater jihad, misdescribes the classical teaching, and throws away the answer to the question the examiner is actually asking.

People think: Islam is a religion of peace, so it forbids fighting.

Actually: The sources permit fighting in defence and against oppression, and the specification examines that permission. Denying it does not defend the tradition; it describes a different one and leaves the learner unable to explain the conditions, which is where the interesting material is.

People think: The Qur'an says that none of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.

Actually: That is a hadith, recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari. The Qur'an is held to be the direct word of Allah; hadith are records of the Prophet's words and actions, and they carry different authority. The examiners record this conflation specifically, and it costs accuracy marks.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Define jihad as struggle before anything else, and name the greater and lesser forms, or the whole answer is built on the wrong word.
• Quote Qur'an 2:190 with its limit attached, because the permission and the cap are in the same verse and separating them misrepresents both.
• Do not list the Just War conditions without applying at least one of them to a case, or the AO2 half of the question is unmet.
• Use the legitimate authority condition on any 'religion causes war' evaluation; it is the strongest structure available here.
• Never attribute a hadith to the Qur'an — the examiner reports name this conflation as a recurring accuracy failure.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

The specification packs four topics into this one point: the causes of conflict, holy war, weapons of mass destruction, and Just War theory. Islam is not pacifist and is not permissive: it permits fighting in defence and against oppression, and then binds it with conditions that are older than the European Just War tradition. The word a learner must handle carefully is jihad, which means struggle and only sometimes means war.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Jihad (also jihaad)

Struggle or striving in the way of Allah; the greater jihad is the struggle against one's own wrongdoing, the lesser jihad is armed struggle under strict conditions.

Harb al-Muqadis (also harb al-muqaddas)

Holy war — the term the specification uses; classical Islamic law prefers the language of jihad with conditions.

Just War

The theory that war may be fought only for a just cause, by a proper authority, as a last resort, with proportionate means and discrimination between combatants and non-combatants.

Weapons of mass destruction (also WMD)

Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, whose effects cannot be confined to combatants.

Adl (also 'adl)

Justice; the value that authorises resistance to oppression in Islamic teaching.

What Islam teaches

• shared — Fighting is permitted in defence and against oppression, and Qur'an 2:190 attaches the limit in the same breath as the permission: do not transgress the limits.
• shared — Non-combatants, crops, trees, animals and places of worship are protected; the instructions attributed to Abu Bakr to his armies list them explicitly.
• shared — The greater jihad is the struggle against one's own selfishness, and classical teaching ranks it above armed struggle.
• common — Most contemporary Muslim scholars hold that weapons of mass destruction cannot be used lawfully, because they cannot discriminate; a minority argues deterrent possession is permissible where an enemy holds them.
  • Sunni — The dominant position forbids use outright; possession as deterrence is the point on which scholars divide.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning is that injustice unresisted is itself a harm, so absolute pacifism is not available to a religion that commands justice. But because life is sacred, permission to fight has to arrive with limits attached, and Islamic law puts them in the same verses rather than in a separate document. That is the structural point a strong answer makes: in Islamic teaching restraint is part of the permission, not a later qualification of it.

Sources of authority

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 5:32 (translated)

  Whoever saves one life, it is as if he had saved all mankind.

  The sanctity of a single human life, made equivalent to the whole of humanity. The foundation of Muslim teaching on the value of life.

  How to use it: Because one life stands for all, the argument does not weaken as the number of people shrinks — which is why it applies to abortion and euthanasia as strongly as to war.

  What it does not settle: It does not settle when life begins. Muslim scholars differ on abortion, particularly before 120 days, and citing this verse as settling it is inaccurate.

• The Qur'an — Qur'an 42:40 (with 42:43) (translated)

  The recompense for an injury is an injury equal to it; but whoever forgives ... his reward is with Allah.

  Justice permits proportionate retaliation, and forgiveness is explicitly the higher path. Both are held in one verse.

  How to use it: It gives an Islamic answer that is neither purely retributive nor purely forgiving, which is why it is far better than citing 'an eye for an eye' alone.

  What it does not settle: Whether forgiveness should be the state's policy or the individual's choice is not settled by it.

• Hadith — Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Faith (translated)

  None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.

  Faith is measured by how one treats others. One of the most widely cited hadith on social ethics.

  How to use it: It makes belief and ethics inseparable — a Muslim cannot claim faith while wronging a neighbour — which is why hadith is a source of authority alongside the Qur'an rather than an illustration of it.

  What it does not settle: Hadith authority differs between traditions, and the Qur'anists reject hadith entirely — a group the Pearson mark schemes themselves mention.

Different interpretations

• Jihad read primarily as inward struggle, with armed jihad as the exception requiring authority and cause — the mainstream classical reading.
• Jihad read by extremist movements as individual licence to fight; rejected by the overwhelming weight of Muslim scholarship precisely because it removes the requirement of legitimate authority.
• The Just War conditions read as a European framework that Islamic law happens to match, and read as a set of criteria Islamic law arrived at independently and earlier; the second is better supported by the sources.

Differences within Islam

All hold that fighting is limited and that the greater jihad is inward. The genuine differences are about who may authorise armed struggle and whether deterrent possession of WMD is lawful.

• Sunni — Armed jihad requires legitimate authority, just cause and observance of the limits; most scholars forbid the use of WMD.
• Shi'a — Historically distinguishes defensive jihad, which any Muslim may join, from offensive jihad, which classical Twelver doctrine reserves to the awaited Imam.
• Sufi — Emphasises the greater jihad against the self as the enduring obligation.

Application to the issue

It shows in Muslim humanitarian work in conflict zones, in Muslim chaplaincy to armed forces, and in the rules Muslim soldiers are taught about non-combatants. It also shows in what Muslim scholars have said publicly about terrorism: the objection is not only to the killing but to the absence of legitimate authority, which is the condition a self-appointed group can never meet.

Arguments supporting

• A religion that commands justice cannot forbid all fighting. — Refusing to resist an oppressor leaves the oppressed unprotected, which is itself a moral choice. (islam)
  Answered by: Non-violent resistance has succeeded where it was thought impossible, so the choice is not between fighting and doing nothing.
• Islamic rules of war are more restrictive than the laws of war they are usually compared with. — The protection of trees, crops and non-combatants is stated in the sources rather than negotiated later. (shared)
  Answered by: Stated rules and observed rules are different things, and the history of Muslim states is no better than anyone else's.

Arguments challenging

• Any religious sanction for war is dangerous because it removes the ordinary reluctance to kill. — A cause believed to be God's is one no negotiation can compromise. (non-religious)
  Answered by: Islamic law's requirement of legitimate authority and its explicit limits are designed for exactly this danger, and secular states have gone to war without any religious sanction at all.
• Just War criteria are never met in practice, so they legitimise rather than restrain. — Every side claims just cause and last resort. (shared)
  Answered by: The criteria have been used to refuse participation as well as to justify it, and a standard that is sometimes evaded is not the same as no standard.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Atheist and Humanist attitudes are usually consequentialist: war is justified only where it prevents greater suffering, and weapons of mass destruction are almost always ruled out because their effects cannot be confined. Many Humanists support deterrence reluctantly on the grounds that it has prevented war; others regard possession as a standing threat to civilians and therefore already wrong.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether the limits on war are part of the permission or a restraint bolted on afterwards. Islamic teaching claims the first, and the strength of the whole position depends on it.

Defensible conclusions

• Islamic teaching on war is closer to Just War theory than to either pacifism or holy war as popularly imagined, and the term jihad is the main obstacle to seeing that.
• The conditions are sound and the record of observance is not, so the honest verdict is that the theory is better than the history — which is equally true of the Western tradition.
• Weapons of mass destruction are the case where the Islamic criteria give the clearest answer, because discrimination between combatants and non-combatants is simply impossible.

Not defensible

• Translating jihad as holy war and stopping there; the greater jihad is the primary meaning in classical teaching.
• Claiming Islam is a pacifist religion, which the sources do not support, or that it permits unlimited war, which they explicitly forbid.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three causes of conflict, or three Muslim beliefs about war. Short phrases only.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two beliefs developed. 'Muslims believe fighting is permitted in defence (1) — but Qur'an 2:190 forbids transgressing the limits, so non-combatants may not be attacked (1).'
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain Muslim attitudes to war: the permission, the conditions, the protection of non-combatants, and the greater jihad — each with what a Muslim therefore does.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Religion causes war.' Use the authority condition: the Islamic criteria disqualify exactly the groups usually cited as evidence for the statement.

Common mistakes

• Using jihad as a synonym for holy war, which loses the greater jihad and misdescribes the classical teaching.
• Attributing a Hadith to the Qur'an; the examiners record this conflation specifically.
• Listing the Just War conditions without applying any of them to a case, which leaves the AO2 half unmet.

“The Qur'an says that none of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” — That is a hadith, recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari. The Qur'an is held to be the direct word of Allah; hadith are records of the Prophet's words and actions. They are different sources with different authority.

Write instead: Attribute correctly: 'A hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari records that…' or 'The Qur'an states, at 5:32, that…'. Paper 2 section 1 examines sources of authority, so getting this right is directly assessed. The Sunnah is a genuine source of authority, not a lesser illustration of the Qur'an. And its authority is itself contested — the Qur'anists reject hadith, a group Pearson's own mark schemes mention.

Grade 9 insight

The condition Islamic law places on armed jihad that most answers omit is legitimate authority — and it is the one that does the most work. It means that the groups most often presented as acting on Islamic teaching fail the very first test of it, not because their conduct is excessive but because nobody empowered them to fight at all. A Level 4 answer uses that to argue about the statement 'religion causes war' rather than only to condemn violence.

Carry on through Islam

• Previous unit: 2.8 · Childlessness and celibacy
• Next unit: 3.2 · Peace, reconciliation and forgiveness
• Conflict and war in the other religions: Buddhism · Christianity · Hinduism · Judaism · Sikhism
• Side by side: Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia across the six religions — Is human life sacred, and may it ever be deliberately ended?
• Side by side: Conflict and war across the six religions — May a believer fight?
• All of Islam · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification