Hello, fine theologians, and thank you very much for joining me for another religious education lesson.

Today, we are going to continue our work on religion, peace and conflict, and have a look at violent and nonviolent protests and look at how both Christianity and Islam responds to that issue.

Now, before we get started, please make sure you have four things with you.

Those four things are a pen, a different colour pen, some paper, and your theology brains.

If you need to go and get any of those things, please go and get them now.

Pause the video and then join me in a moment.

Now, before we get started, it's just important for you to know that the lesson we're about to complete contains some references to violent forms of protest.

And in addition to that, it looks at nonviolent protest in relation to racial discrimination in America.

And for some people, that might be a sensitive topic.

If that applies to you, you may want to do the rest of the lesson with a trusted adult nearby who can support.

So we're looking at violent and nonviolent protest today.

The first thing we're going to do is look at different forms of protest to make sure we can define and explain them.

We're then going to have a look at an example of a form of violent protest before then looking at how Christians and Muslims would respond to the different forms of protest.

So we need to know three key terms to do well in today's lesson.

The first key term is protest.

And by protest, we mean an expression of disapproval, often in a public group.

By violent protest, we mean using actions that threaten or harm others in order to express a disapproval.

And by nonviolent protest, we mean using peaceful actions to express that disapproval.

Now, protests are always aimed at demonstrating that there is an injustice taking place.

And the actions that people take via protesting are aimed at correcting that.

They're seeking to bring about a change.

And you can see there's two ways people might go about that.

They might go about it using violence to bring that change about, and that might involve things like looting or rioting.

Or they might go about it in a nonviolent way.

If you're protesting in a nonviolent way, the key thing you really focus on is something which could be called information warfare.

Essentially, you want people to know about the issue, why it's wrong, and what the better alternative is.

There's lots of ways you can go about doing that.

Speeches is an example.

Other things might also help raise awareness of it like boycotts or sit-ins.

So let's just check that we understand the difference between these terms that we're looking at.

So first question, which concept expresses disapproval? And you can see your four options across the bottom there, violent protest, nonviolent protest, both, or neither.

All you need to do is point at your screens or say it to yourself.

So do that for me now, please.

Which concept expresses disapproval? Well done, it's both.

Which concept aims to bring about a change? Well done, it's both.

Remember when you're protesting, you're seeking to demonstrate there's something in society which you don't think is right, fair, or reasonable, and you want that to change.

Which concept uses threat or harm to bring about a change? Well done, that's violent protest.

It's part of the definition, isn't it? Which does not use threats or seek to cause harm? Well done, that's nonviolent protest.

Which seeks to correct a perceived injustice in society? Well done, it's both.

Remember, you're protesting because you believe something is not right, fair, or reasonable.

Which might involve delivering speeches to large groups, violent, nonviolent, both, or neither? It's typically something you'd find with nonviolent protest.

Which involves taking part in a march? Another example of nonviolent protest, well done.

Which may involve self-immolation? You can see in brackets there an explanation that self-immolation involves setting yourself on fire.

Well done, that's violent protests.

And I've put that one in there just to demonstrate that the violence doesn't have to be aimed at other people.

It could be that you harm yourself in an effort to create shock, which then subsequently raises awareness about the issue.

Which might involve burning buildings? Well done, that's violent protest.

Which might involve making protest art, music, or poetry to highlight the issue? Well done, that's nonviolent protest.

That's part of the information warfare I was talking about earlier.

Which may involve sharing information through leaflets? Well done, that's nonviolent protest again, again, part of that possible information warfare.

Which may involve community education? Again, nonviolent protest, well done.

Again, another example of that information warfare.

Which might involve rioting? Well done, violent protest.

Which might involve creating, singing, and sharing, sinking, creating, signing, and sharing an online petition? Well done, nonviolent protest.

Which might involve boycotting a company or event? And if you boycott something, you don't use it.

So, for example, if I decided to boycott pens, I would stop using pens, maybe just use pencils instead.

Well done, that's nonviolent protest.

Which might involve looting, which is stealing? Violent protest, well done.

Which might involve physically attacking law enforcement officers? Violent protest, well done.

Which might involve creating, signing, and sharing an online petition? Answer that one again for me.

Well done, it's about that information warfare that focuses its protest methods nonviolently.

Boycotting a company or event.

Remember, boycotting, not using it.

Nonviolent protest, well done.

Expresses a disapproval.

Both, remember, both point that something in society is wrong and therefore should be changed.

Excellent, now we've done all that really good work answering all those questions.

It's time to consolidate what we've just done.

So on your screen, you can see lots of statements.

All I need you to do is identify whether the statements are true or false.

Now, if it's true, just write the word true followed by the statement.

If it's false, write the word false followed by a corrected version of the statement.

So please pause your video now and have a go at that and then join me for feedback in just a moment.

Excellent, good effort.

So let's check our work.

Now, if you have a different colour pen, please use that to correct or amend or improve your answers after we've gone through them together.

And I'll tell you when to pause to do that.

So the first statement was true, protests do express disapproval.

The second was also true.

Protests to do aim to bring about a change to perceived injustice in society.

The third one was false.

Violent protests use actions that threaten or harm others.

So that's how you should have corrected it for me.

The fourth one was also false, so also needed correcting.

So I hope you've written something similar to this.

Nonviolent protests do not use actions that threaten or harm others.

The fifth one was true.

It is true to say that both violent and nonviolent protests are aimed at bringing about change.

The fifth one was false.

So you should have corrected it by saying examples of nonviolent protest would include information campaigns like speeches and community education.

That's the sixth one actually, isn't it.

So the sixth one should say that, not the fifth one.

And the seventh and final one was also false.

So you wanted to correct that by saying examples of violent protests include actions such as rioting and looting.

Now, if you need to make some changes to your work, you can pause the video now and do that for me now.

So we're going to look at a case study next, and you can see two things on your picture, which you might be surprised are joined together.

The first is the picture of that bus set on fire, ablaze.

And the second is, the title can see, London riots.

It might surprise you to think that that happened in London, and indeed it did.

And the London riots in 2011 had a trigger event.

And it all began with actually what started as a peaceful protest outside Tottenham police station after a local man, Mark Duggan, was shot and killed by police.

So it says here the protest started peacefully, but news quickly spread, and big groups gathered across London.

And very quickly it went from a peaceful protest into a protest where it was really obvious that law and order that held London together had fallen away.

The police, the government had lost control of the streets of London in some particular areas.

And the following days saw violence and lawbreaking spread throughout lots of other areas of London.

And the picture you can see on your board became actually a really worrying common thing to see when you switched on the news.

I remember working in a pub in Kent, it's only about 30 miles away from London, and switching on the news and seeing that sort of thing happening, not just buses, but buildings on fire, police cars being attacked, scores and scores of people forcing their way into shops, breaking and entry, going and taking whatever they want, coming back out with it.

To think that that was happening just 30, 40 miles away was a really, really, really worrying series of events.

And the violent rioting didn't just localise itself to London.

Copycat violence emerged in other cities further north, like Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool.

In fact, a few days after these riots happened, I remember walking through the streets of Birmingham.

I think I was actually out to buy my first suit for my first teaching job.

And I was walking past an Orange shop, which is a phone network, and the windows had been smashed in.

I remember pausing and thinking, how was Orange targeted? When you think about the trigger event here, Mark Duggan was shot and killed by police.

And then you think about that, a group of people have smashed an Orange shop window, probably gone in to try and steal some things, you've completely lost the connection between the event and the action.

And that's one of the big problems with violent protests, is, yes, this got a lot of attention, but actually the actions that people take take the attention away from where the intended attention is.

So when people began this peaceful protest, the intended attempt was to raise awareness that Mark Duggan was shot and killed by police.

But as these pictures are beamed around the country and beamed around the world, that information is lost.

And what people are focusing on instead is the loss of law and order across London and other cities in England.

Now what we're going to do next is start to look at different religious views on violent protest and nonviolent protest to see which they would prefer and why.

We're going to start off with the Islamic view on protest.

Now, the example of Muhammad encourages nonviolent responses for Muslims. And we see this in the Battle of Badr because when Muhammad and his followers were persecuted by the Meccan tribes, instead of fighting back, they fled to Medina.

And fled to Medina, so they didn't have to use violence and that they could themselves could be sure of safety.

But ultimately, the Meccan tribes followed Mohammed and his followers, so they felt like they had to fight back.

And the circumstances in which they fought back is referred to as the Battle of Badr.

That's where the battle happened.

And in the Battle of Badr, Mohammed and his followers were very careful to ensure minimum harm and damage was caused to the environment and to life.

And although this story is more closely related to conflict, it's talking about a battle, a war, it can be related to the principles of protest.

And there's a number of things we can draw from this example of the Battle of Badr, thinking really carefully about, well, Muhammad fled.

So he was keen to avoid violence.

And his conduct in the battle sought to minimise any violence that had to take place.

So we can take these three steps or these three two points from the example of Muhammad, firstly, that all steps have to be taken to address the injustice peacefully.

And we see Muhammad trying to do that, don't we, when he fled Mecca and went to Medina.

But where it's not possible to address injustice peacefully, then it is possible and is permitted to use violence.

Again we see that in the Battle of Badr, don't we? Muhammad didn't want to use violence, but essentially his hand was forced.

If he didn't use violence, then him and his followers were under threat and under quite severe threat 'cause it wasn't possible to respond nonviolently.

They had to respond with violence.

But if you are using violence, it is important to ensure that only the minimum force is required.

So you can't use excessive force.

So how do you relate that into protest? Well, if you are using violent protest because it's necessary to, you've got to make sure that the violence you're using is entirely proportionate and not excessive.

So Muslims can draw on the example of Muhammad to justify it under some circumstances, perhaps the use of violence, to correct an injustice.

But also really important to note that the example of Muhammad permits, but does not demand.

So it's obviously not compulsory to use violence as a form of protest.

But under certain circumstances, i.

e.

, if you've tried to address it peacefully first, and it's not possible to address it peacefully, then it is permissible to use violence provided you're only using the minimum required violence.

Now, when we add that in to looking at what the Quran says about violent protests, we can further support that view.

You can see a quotation on your screens now taken from the Quran.

And it says, "The servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them harshly, they say words of peace." And that tells us, essentially, that those who submit to Allah should respond to aggression with acts of peace where possible.

And we can see that in the quotation because, firstly, it talks about servants, and the servants here will be Muslims. It talks about servants of the Most Merciful.

The Most Merciful here is Allah.

So it's talking about people who submit to Allah.

And those who submit to Allah are called Muslims, aren't they? And then it talks about what people who submit to Allah, i.

e.

, Muslims, do when they're confronted by aggression.

It talks about a circumstance where they're addressed ignorantly and harshly.

So we can imagine they're perhaps under threat, or there's a threat to them.

And in these circumstances where that's a threat, the response is clear in this quotation as well.

They say that the response should be peace.

So this tells us, doesn't it, that Muslims ought to respond to aggression with acts of peace where that is possible.

And the second quotation that's relevant here is the one that you can see on your screens now: "Repel evil by that deed which is better." And essentially that's saying that the best way to respond to evil actions is with good actions.

So respond to those intent on doing harm as though they were a friend, and that would encourage peaceful responses from Muslims, wouldn't it? And you can see what's really clear here.

Look, repel evil by that deed which is better, essentially saying don't repay evil with evil.

If there is an injustice that's taking place, then you need to respond to it with something that isn't itself injustice.

Respond in a way that's just to try and correct it rather than responding in a way that's unjust using violence because that wouldn't necessarily be better.

And this quotation is calling upon the response to the injustice to be better than the injustice.

And what's better than injustice? Justice is better than injustice.

What's better than violence? Peace is better than violence.

So now we've had a look at the actions of Muhammad and the teachings of the Quran.

I think you're in a good position to answer these three questions.

And these three questions will help to explain the Islamic view on violent protest.

And if you do that referring to the example of Muhammad and the teachings of the Quran, you will be a fine and wise and noble and mighty theologian.

So if you pause the video now, please, you can do that task, and use the sentence starters on your screen to help you.

Pause the video now, please.

Excellent, good effort there.

So let's see the sorts of things you should have been writing there.

So hopefully you started off by saying Muslims will seek to respond to injustice with peace.

And this can be seen in the following teachings or examples, so firstly, the example of Muhammad.

Muhammad fled Mecca when under threat and only used violence when he needed to in Battle of Badr.

Even when using violence, he was careful to use only the minimum force required.

And then in the Quran, it states that when the ignorant address them harshly, they say words of peace.

And this shows that Muslims should always try to respond to injustice with peace.

Peace is the response there, isn't it? Peace is the response.

And if we're responding with peace, we're trying, as far as possible, not to use violence.

And if you need to try as far as possible not to use violence, that means if a Muslim is going to consider taking part in a protest, they should consider and try as far as possible to make that a peaceful protest rather than a violent protest.

The final part of your answer should look like this.

The Quran also states, "Repel evil by that deed which is better." This shows that enemies need to be treated as friends and that Muslims should try to respond with peace.

Remember when we look at that quotation, what's better than evil? Good deeds are better than evil.

What's better than injustice? Just deeds are better than unjust deeds.

What's better than violent deeds? Peaceful deeds are better than violent deeds.

So when responding to injustice, Muslims should try to do so in a way that's peaceful and in a way that's just.

And then they'd be fulfilling that instruction from the Quran.

So we can say overall, these teachings show that Muslims should seek to respond to injustice with peace.

And where that's not possible, it is justifiable to use the minimum force required in order to restore justice.

So if you need to pause the video to mark, correct, amend and add to your work so it's delightful, please do that now for me.

So we're now going to move on and have a look at Christian views on protest.

And Christian views on protests can be modelled by the example of Martin Luther King, Jr.

And Martin Luther King, Jr.

made a really conscious and deliberate effort to use nonviolent methods during the Civil Rights movement to win rights for black people living in America in the 1950s and the 1960s.

The 1950s and 1960s in America, there's a lot of racial discrimination.

And there were laws called the Jim Crow laws, which operated on a principle of separate but equal.

And what that means is different races, i.

e.

, the white Americans and black Americans, would be separate but equal.

So the word equal was in the principle of the laws, but the practise of that was really very different indeed.

The separation led to vast inequalities and vast discrimination against black Americans.

White communities established real barriers between themselves and other ethnic-minority communities.

And King saw this and was clearly and rightfully furious, but he sought to go about rectifying the situation in a nonviolent way, so made use of boycotts, sit-ins, marches, and speeches.

Now you might be familiar with one of those speeches, a famous speech "I had a dream," or "I have a dream," sorry.

And he was talking about his dream that one day people would be judged not by the colour of their skin but by their strength of character.

You may also be familiar with the bus boycott that Martin Luther King was really notable in organising.

One of his most notable forms of nonviolent protest is the Montgomery bus boycott.

And that actually has its roots in quite a shocking incident.

The shocking incident involves a lady called Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her bus seat to a white person who got on the bus and asked for it.

And it probably surprises you to know that Rosa Parks is actually arrested and fined for refusing to give up her seat to a white person.

The expectation was, as a black lady, she should have stood up and given her seat up.

And civil right groups were absolutely outraged by this.

They started an information campaign, sharing information about it and making a plan for action to correct this huge injustice.

And Martin Luther King played a really significant role in helping organise that.

Essentially, they encouraged a boycott of this bus company, which meant black people were not going to be using that bus.

And that was aimed quite deliberately to hurt their profit margin so they'd think about their discriminatory policies, and change them for the better, change them to something that's more just.

And Martin Luther King played a really significant role that enabled the black community to take part in that community in such way that it would damage the bus company.

For example, he spoke to lots of local taxi drivers and asked them to give significant discounts to people who needed to get in and out of town or travel around for work so that they were able not to use the bus.

He also encouraged and organised people to share lifts so that they could again have transport without relying on public transport of the bus.

Martin Luther King's leadership in that was quite significant, so significant, in fact, Martin Luther King himself found himself arrested and imprisoned for 10 days for disrupting business activities.

But that didn't deter Martin Luther King, and it didn't deter those people that were supportive of that movement either.

Instead, it galvanised them.

And they kept the protest, kept the campaign going in a peaceful way for close to 400 days.

And after 400 days, it was successful.

The bus company decided to change their policy so that what happened to Rosa Parks would not have to happen to other people.

So we see that, don't we, a persistent, peaceful effort in order to establish a change to correct an injustice, which was clear for all to see.

And when King talked about motivations for responding to injustice in this nonviolent way, he says these words: "Hate cannot drive out hate.

Only love can do that." And what he's talking about there is, think, well, how do we get to change the heart of a person, to change a person so that they think and feel and therefore act differently? And he didn't think the way to eradicate hate is to show people who have hate hate.

If you show people who have hate hate, and respond to hate with hate, you basically end up in a cycle, don't you, of really entrenched views.

Whereas if you show them love, it can be quite disarming, can't it? Someone being really vicious and treating you in an unjust way, yet you responding back with love, that can disarm the hatred.

That can make a person think.

That can make a person reflect.

And ultimately, that can change a person.

That can drive out hate.

It's not hateful actions that are going to drive out hate.

Martin Luther King was quite clear that for him, he believed it's loving actions that are going to drive out hate.

And, therefore, it's loving actions that are going to bring about change rather than hateful actions.

And we can see Martin Luther King's approach is clearly supported by the words of Jesus and the actions of Jesus.

On your screens now, you can see two quotations, two phrases from Jesus.

The first: "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too." And the second one: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Those responses might seem strange, mightn't they? Well, I'm under attack, and I turn my other cheek as well? I have an enemy, and I'm going to love them and pray for them? And that's not too dissimilar for what we've just said about Martin Luther King's words, hate cannot drive out hate.

Only love can do that.

Love can disarm hatred.

And that's what these quotations are trying to show too, that Christians ought to respond to hatred and evil with love.

You can only hope to change a person's heart with love.

It's love, not hate, that changes people for the better.

Some Christians, though, might use this quotation: "Life for life, eye for eye." And they might argue that that allows for the use of proportionate violet, violence, sorry, to correct an injustice.

When you read it like that, it's true to say, isn't it, that it would seem to allow for proportionate violence.

So we said when we were looking at the Islamic views, whilst we can say it does allow for proportionate violence, it doesn't demand it, does it? Another important point to note about that quotation you can see on the bottom of your board, life for life, eye for eye, is when you look at the one on the top of your board, those words of Jesus, "If anyone slaps you on your right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too," Jesus is actually overturning that quotation on the bottom from the Old Testament.

And in fact, you know, shortly before he says, "If anyone slaps you on your right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too," yeah, he says, "You may have heard life for life, eye for eye, but I tell you if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too." So many Christians believe that that teaching has been overridden, and they believe it has greater authority in the way that Jesus expressed it.

Anyone who slaps you on your right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too.

And, of course, it has great authority for a Christian because Christians believe that Jesus is God, don't they? God incarnate, God in human form on Earth.

They aren't just the words of Jesus, a man.

They are the words of God Himself.

So now we've had a look at the example of Martin Luther King and some Christian teachings on protests.

You're in a really good position now to explain the Christian views on violent protests.

In your answer, I'd like you to refer to the example of Martin Luther King, the teachings of Jesus, and the quotation from Exodus in your answer.

You can see I've put the quotations on your screen for you and some sentence starters.

So if you can pause the video now, please, have a go at that and then join me for some feedback in just a moment.

Fantastic, so hopefully your answer looks like this.

Most Christians believe that violent protest is not justifiable.

They'll point to, firstly, the teachings of Jesus: "If anyone slaps on your right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too, and love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." These teachings show that Christians ought to respond to injustice with love.

It's love, not hate, that changes people for the better.

If you need to change anything in the first part of your answer, improve it or correct it, please use the opportunity to pause the video now to do that and then un-pause it.

And we'll have a look at the second part of your answer in a moment.

Hopefully, the second part of your answer looks like this.

So you've stated, look, the example of Martin Luther King, Jr.

is important then gone on to develop that.

So Martin Luther King Jr.

responded to racist discrimination in America in the 1950s and 1960s with peaceful methods, including speeches, marches, and helping to organise the Montgomery bus boycott.

King famously said, "Hate cannot drive out hate.

Only love can do that." And that emphasises the teachings of Jesus, that to change a person for the better, you shouldn't respond with violence but with love.

And then finished off by saying, some Christians might disagree with this and point to the teachings, life for life, eye for eye.

And they may argue that it can be acceptable to use proportionate violence in order to respond to an injustice so that you're correcting it and turning an injustice into a just state of affairs.

So we're going to finish off by consolidating what we've looked at so far.

And we're going to do that by looking at these true or false statements.

So read the statements and identify, is that true or false? If it's true, write the word true followed by the statement.

And if it's false, write the word false followed by a corrected version of the statement.

So pause the video now, please, and then join for feedback in just a moment.

Hopefully, your work looks like this then.

So you identified the first one was false and corrected it to say that Muhammad's example in the Battle of Badr discourages the use of violence.

Violence should only be used as a last resort.

Second one was true, so it just needed writing out.

The teachings in the Quran encourage Muslims to respond to injustice with peace.

The third one was also true.

So you just needed to wite out that many Christians use the teachings and the example of Jesus and Martin Luther King to inform their response to injustice.

The fourth one was false, so it needed correcting, hopefully to something like this.

Christians are encouraged to respond to injustice with peace.

The fifth one was also false, so it needed correcting.

So hopefully you had something like this.

Jesus's teachings encourage responding to hatred with love.

Again, the next one was false, so again needed correcting to something like this.

Some Christians point to the teaching, life for life, eye for eye, to justify the use of proportionate violence in response to injustice.

And finally, false again, so hopefully you've corrected it to something like this.

Both Christians and Muslims generally strongly discourage the use of violent protest.

So, massive well done for all your work today.

You've learned a lot again.

Just to check what you have learned, you'll want to attempt the summary quiz to check you can recall all the key information.

If you wish to share your work with the Oak National Academy, please ask your parent or carer to share your work on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter using the information you can see on your screens there.

It's been lovely to spend this time with you, and I very much hope to see you again very soon.

Have a lovely day and goodbye.