Religious attitudes to war and peace is a standard GCSE Religious Education topic requiring you to explain what Christianity and Islam teach about when — if ever — war is justified, what pacifism means and how believers might respond to conflict. Both traditions contain a range of views, from full pacifism to acceptance of justified war.
What does Christianity teach about war and peace?
Christianity's starting point on war is complex because the tradition has evolved over nearly two millennia and contains genuinely different strands.
Pacifism: Some Christians argue that Jesus's teachings rule out violence in any form. The Sermon on the Mount includes "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9) and "You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye, but I tell you, do not resist an evil person" (Matthew 5:38–39). Jesus told Peter to put away his sword in Gethsemane. The early Christian church, before Constantine, generally refused military service. Today, the Quakers (Religious Society of Friends) and Mennonites maintain a thoroughgoing pacifism — refusing all participation in war on principle.
Just War theory: Most mainstream Christian denominations — Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Orthodox — accept that war can be justified under specific conditions. This tradition is called Just War theory, developed by Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) and systematised by Thomas Aquinas (1225–74). The classic criteria are:
| Criterion | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Just cause | The war must be fought for a morally acceptable reason (e.g. self-defence, protecting the innocent) |
| Right intention | The intention must be to achieve peace and justice, not revenge or gain |
| Proper authority | War must be declared by a legitimate authority (a government, not an individual) |
| Last resort | All peaceful alternatives must have been tried and failed |
| Proportionality | The harm caused by war must not exceed the good achieved |
| Reasonable chance of success | War should not be fought if it is hopeless — causing suffering without prospect of achieving its aims |
If all six conditions are met, Just War theory says the war is morally permissible — not desirable, but permissible. Most mainstream Christian churches applied these criteria, for example, to evaluate the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with most concluding that the "last resort" condition had not been satisfied.
What does Islam teach about war and peace?
Islam's position on war is often misunderstood outside the tradition. The word "Islam" shares a root with the Arabic salam (peace), and the Qur'an contains many injunctions against aggression and in favour of reconciliation.
Greater and lesser jihad: The Arabic word jihad means "struggle" or "striving." Islamic scholars traditionally distinguish between:
- Greater jihad (jihad al-nafs): the inner spiritual struggle of the believer against their own moral failings — their ego, desires and temptations. This is considered the primary meaning.
- Lesser jihad (jihad al-sayf): the external struggle, including fighting in defence of Islam. This is the sense most often reported in Western media, but Islamic scholars emphasise it is secondary to the greater jihad.
Conditions for justified fighting: Like Just War theory, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) has developed detailed criteria for when fighting is permissible. The Qur'an permits fighting in self-defence ("Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits" — Qur'an 2:190) but prohibits aggression, killing non-combatants and the destruction of crops or property. These principles closely parallel Just War theory's criteria and reflect a shared attempt within both traditions to constrain the conduct of war rather than eliminate it entirely.
Salat and reconciliation: The Qur'an explicitly encourages peace where it is possible: "If they incline towards peace, incline to it too" (Qur'an 8:61). The concept of sulha (reconciliation) is central in Islamic ethics and Islamic international law (siyar).
What is pacifism and how do religions understand it?
Pacifism is the belief that war and violence are unjustifiable under any circumstances and that conflicts should always be resolved through non-violent means. It is a position held by minority but significant movements within both Christianity and Islam.
Christian pacifism is most consistently associated with the Quakers (founded in the seventeenth century), who have refused military service as a matter of principle. Quakers played significant roles in humanitarian work — founding aid organisations and peace-building projects — as an alternative way to respond to conflict. During the First World War, thousands of British men registered as conscientious objectors on religious grounds; many Quakers did so and some faced imprisonment rather than serve.
Non-violence in Islam: While classical Islamic jurisprudence permits defensive war, some contemporary Muslim scholars and movements have emphasised non-violent resistance. The concept that Islam is a religion of peace (dīn al-salāma) has been used to argue against militant interpretations of jihad, particularly in the context of terrorism claimed in Islam's name.
How do these traditions evaluate modern warfare?
Modern warfare raises questions that neither Augustine nor the early Islamic jurists faced: nuclear weapons that cannot distinguish combatants from civilians; drone strikes targeting individuals; terrorism as a tactic. Both Christian and Islamic frameworks have had to stretch their categories to address these.
Nuclear weapons: Most Christian Just War theorists argue that nuclear weapons cannot in principle satisfy the "proportionality" criterion — any nuclear exchange would cause harm vastly exceeding any conceivable military objective. The Catholic Church, for example, declared nuclear deterrence morally acceptable as a temporary measure in 1983 (Second Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes) but moved towards outright condemnation in 2017.
Terrorism: Mainstream Islamic scholars have consistently condemned terrorism — defined as the deliberate targeting of civilians — as violating the clear Qur'anic prohibition on killing non-combatants. Groups like ISIS have justified violence using Islamic language, but Islamic scholars worldwide, including Al-Azhar University (one of Islam's most authoritative institutions), have repeatedly condemned their interpretations as a distortion of the tradition.
How to structure a GCSE RE answer on this topic
A high-scoring GCSE answer on war and peace needs to:
- Define the key concept (just war, pacifism, jihad) precisely.
- State what Christianity teaches, with textual or theological reference.
- State what Islam teaches, with textual or theological reference.
- Acknowledge diversity within each tradition (not all Christians think the same; not all Muslims think the same).
- For evaluation questions (12 marks): present arguments on both sides, then give your own reasoned judgement with reference to religious teachings.
Frequently asked questions
What are the six criteria of the Just War theory?
The six traditional Just War criteria are: just cause (a morally acceptable reason, such as self-defence); right intention (the aim is peace, not revenge or gain); proper authority (war declared by a legitimate government); last resort (all peaceful options exhausted); proportionality (harm must not exceed the good achieved); and reasonable chance of success (war is not fought hopelessly). All six must be satisfied for a war to be considered just under this framework.
Does Islam permit war?
Yes, in specific and limited circumstances. Islamic jurisprudence permits fighting in self-defence and to protect Muslim communities from aggression, subject to conditions closely parallel to Just War theory: legitimate authority, just cause, proportionality, and prohibition on targeting civilians. It does not permit aggression, and the Qur'an explicitly encourages peace where possible. The mainstream Islamic scholarly tradition strongly condemns terrorism and the deliberate killing of non-combatants.
What is the difference between a pacifist and a conscientious objector?
A pacifist holds the general philosophical or religious belief that war and violence are always wrong. A conscientious objector is someone who refuses military service on grounds of personal conscience — which may be pacifist (believing all war is wrong) or selective (believing a particular war is wrong). During the First and Second World Wars, Britain recognised the right of conscientious objectors; those whose objection was accepted could perform alternative service (ambulance work, farming). Those whose objection was rejected faced tribunal, imprisonment or, in some First World War cases, execution.
How should I evaluate religious attitudes to war in a GCSE essay?
Start by summarising the religious teachings accurately (what Just War theory says; what the Qur'an says about fighting). Then consider the arguments for the position — that having criteria for justified war may actually limit conflict, and that pure pacifism may leave innocent people unprotected. Then consider the arguments against — that Just War criteria are rarely if ever fully met in practice and tend to be invoked after the decision to fight has already been made. Conclude with a clear, reasoned judgement that engages directly with a specific religious argument, not just a general opinion.
Want Professor Harari to help you practise structuring a 12-mark evaluation on religious attitudes to war, including counter-arguments and a clear conclusion? Connect at aitutors.me.