Viewing archives for History

Understanding Christianity is a substantial resource aimed at supporting RE teachers’ work in teaching Christianity.

With funding from Culham St Gabriel’s Trust, Jerusalem Trust and Sir Halley Stewart Trust, the resource has been created by the Church of England Education Office in Partnership with RE Today.

Built on Theological concepts, the project aims to help teachers support pupils in their learning about Christianity.

This resource is a useful part of teaching and learning about religion and belief and should be used alongside other resources focused on the wide range of religions and beliefs relevant to the UK.

To access the resource, go to: www.understandingchristianity.org.uk 

This film, produced by BBC Manchester in association with  Jerusalem Productions Ltd, looks at the story of John Newton, the remarkable journey of Amazing Grace, and explores the concept of grace itself – being saved by God, without it being deserved, which connects it so strongly to the events of Easter. Rick Wakeman described Newton’s journey from slave trader to preacher, making use of the many locations that played a part in Newton’s life – including the ports he knew as a sailor; the vicarage in Olney where Amazing Grace was written, and the churches that played a part in his life. The programme shows how every word in the hymn relates to Newton’s life – an autobiography in six verses. A large part of the story of the hymn takes place in the USA, which has taken it as an unofficial anthem, sung at national events, by civil rights groups and at weddings and funerals.

Resources for KS3 (11-14) and KS4 (15-16). However, they can easily be used with KS5 (17-18).

In order to use these resources it is necessary for students to have watched the entire film. In addition sections may be re-shown in relation to each topic. The topic ‘Programme Outline’ contains the timings for each part of the film.

Teachers can select all or any of the resources and activities as suitable for the course they are pursuing. Although closely related to the film there are additional ‘Stretch and Challenge’ topics as well as cross-curricular materials.

Additional topics include:
• 20th century versions of Amazing Grace;
• Joseph Emidy;
• Notes on Amistad and 12 Years a Slave;
• Personal Revelation and Conversion;
• Slavery and the Roman Catholic Church;
• The Bible and Slavery;
• The use of hymns in worship.

Additional versions of resources are included:
• Dyslexic (D) for all topics;

and as appropriate –
• SEN – Special Educational Needs (S);
• EAL – English as an Additional Language (E)

This presentation aims to help students investigate the sources of wisdom for Hindus through study of shruti, smriti and the gayatri mantra.

This KS2 presentation builds on the KS1 starters on Sewa and Vand Chhakna in Sikhism.

This presentation aims to help students investigate the idea of God through study of a key text, the Nicene Creed.

GCSE support materials designed to give a thorough introduction to Islam for GCSE students and teachers.

Setting the Scene

What is Islam

An investigation into some stories from the Bible that feature women – and to see what may be learnt from their beliefs, actions and character.

For 8-12 years. Originally written by Kate Penfold-Attride, updated in April 2019.

Learning Outcomes

Emerging

• Retell one story of a woman in the Hebrew Bible
• Explain the original meaning of the story
• Offer a view as to how the story could be of use today

Expected

• Explain how the qualities and personalities of two women from the Hebrew Bible helped them in their stories
• Offer a view as to whether we can learn anything important about studying women’s stories

Exceeding

• Explain what sort of truth can be gained from reading stories in the bible
• Offer a supported view as to the value for today of biblical stories

Key words

Women in the Bible: Approximately 188 women are referred to by name in the Christian Bible. Several others are implied. They are considered minor figures in the majority of stories they appear in. This banquet uses familiar stories and explores them in light of the female character.

Hebrew Bible:  The canonical collection of Jewish texts known as the Tenakh. This corresponds closely to Anglican and Protestant versions of the Christian Old Testament.

Qualities: Here we are referring to aspects of human character that we admire; e.g., caring, loving, forgiving, honest, humility, willingness to help, courage, self-discipline, compassion, modesty, sense of humour, determination, perseverance, loyalty, etc.

Serpent in the Garden of Eden: a symbol of evil power. ‘Nakhash’ in Hebrew.

Divine: coming from (a) God.

Sin: an immoral act, against God’s laws.

Stranger: someone that is not known to anyone, alone.

Ishmael: ‘God hears’; so called because God heard Hagar’s prayers. NB ‘God’ is often written by many Jews as ‘G-d’ or ‘L-rd’ as a way of avoiding any misuse of the name.

Moral dilemma: an ethical question where choosing one answer is detrimental to the other. A choice between equally undesirable alternatives.

Leader: someone who leads or commands a group of people.

Freedom: the right to act, think, speak as you wish.

Slavery: a system where people are bought and sold and forced to work. They are often held against their will. Common practice in the times of the Hebrew Bible.

Isolation: lack of contact between individuals or groups of people.

Exclusion: to expel or keep out.

Friendship: mutual affection.

Loyalty: being faithful, committed.

Justice: fair behaviour or treatment.

Learning activities

This teaching resource could be used as a transition unit, with pupils learning about some of the women in Year 6 and the rest in Year 7.

You will need several passages from the Bible. Choose a translation that children can engage with, such as the New International Version, the Message or Good News, all available on biblegateway.com. Passages used:

Genesis 3

Genesis 21:1-21

Genesis 27

Exodus 15

Ruth 1-3

Esther 2:19-23

Esther 3:8-14

Esther 8:15-17

Explain that there are different views about the role of women in society, communities and families. Inventions and development in the modern world have had an impact on the role of women, but that many people believe that there is much wisdom to be gained from studying how women are portrayed in religious texts. Explain that, for many people, such texts carry important messages for the world today. According to many believers in the Bible, for example, such messages have a divine origin.

Eve

Read the story of ‘The Fall’ in Genesis 3 and ask the pupils such questions as:

• What  qualities  do each of the characters in the story have (God, Serpent, Adam, Eve)?
• What do you think about the way Eve acted?
• Were Eve’s actions positive or negative?
• Why does something bad happen in the story?
• What would life be like if Eve had not done what she did?
• What does the story say about human nature?

Arrange pupils into groups and debate: ‘The story of Adam and Eve contains no truth whatsoever.’ Give own opinions and suggest possible Christian / Jewish views in response.

Keep a summary sheet / make a poster at the end of each session about what pupils feel they have learnt from the story of this woman and what it teaches about Christian / Jewish belief about human beings. Encourage pupils to answer: What qualities does this woman portray? What impact does she have on other characters in the story? What might be her influence on Christian / Jewish believers today?

Hagar

Read the story of the Expulsion of Hagar in Genesis 21:1-21 and conduct a circle time discussion: Remind pupils that Hagar became a stranger in a new land and ask such questions as:

• In what situations are we strangers?
• How does it feel to be a stranger?
• When might it feel like a good thing to be a stranger?
• What can we do to welcome strangers?
• What qualities might strangers appreciate? Why?

Focus pupils’ attention on what happens to Ishmael in the story. Explain that Ishmael means ‘God hears’ and ask pupils for their views on whether they think there is a God that hears people’s cries for help in any way today?

Outline the concepts of: Freedom, slavery, isolation, exclusion (see ‘Subject Knowledge’ section above) and ask pupils if they can give modern examples of each.

Having checked in advance for suitable material, show pupils on the whiteboard what the BBC and Channel 4 News websites are featuring currently in relation to the four key terms of Freedom, Slavery, Isolation and Exclusion. Ask pupils to identify any behaviour or human qualities in the stories that shows (a) bad behaviour and (b) admirable behaviour. Point out whether and in what way there are any women featured in the stories.

Divide pupils into groups and encourage them to make a presentation based on some online research on how freedom, slavery, isolation and exclusion feature in the media. Encourage them to feature women as well as men in their presentations.

Ask pupils to present their findings to the class.

Rebekah

Read the story of Ruth in Genesis 27 and bring out points about how Rebekah duped Isaac, her blind, ageing husband to get justice for the son he favoured least. Ask pupils such questions as:

• Should Rebekah have done what she did? Draw up points for and against her
• What, if any, desirable qualities does Rebekah show?
• How might this story influence how Christians and Jews respond to dilemmas today?
• Have you ever faced a moral dilemma? What was it? How did you decide what to do?

Divide pupils into groups and make a ‘conscience alley’. Choose a pupil to be Rebekah and walk the alley. Pupils on one side should try to persuade her to dupe Isaac whilst pupils on the other side provide reasons to deter her. When Rebekah reaches the end of the alley, she should decide what she will do and try to provide reasons to support her argument.

Link to literacy by suggesting pupils write a persuasive or balanced argument.

Miriam

Read the story of the escape of the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt in Exodus 15 (particularly verses 19-21) and explain that Miriam led her people in search of a new land, a land of freedom. It is likely that she wanted them all to have a better life in a country far from the home they had always known. Ask pupils such questions as:

• Why do you think the people followed her? What qualities do you think she must have had?
• What effect did she have on the people around her?

Take pupils on the journey. Freeze at different points of the story and interview different people, with questions such as: Who are they? Why did they come? What did they hope to find? What was their first experience in the new land like? Why? What difficulties did they encounter? Why? Did they receive any good welcomes? What were they like? How did they make them feel? Why did they leave their land? What did they hope to achieve in your/their life?

Record the journey with a video camera, photographs or using sound postcards. Photographs could be taken which emotion vocabulary could be added to. Pupils could make an emotions graph to accompany the story.

Point out that Miriam is remembered in the story for leading the dancing. Ask pupils what would they would want to be remembered for and to give some reasons for their answer.

Ask pupils to rewrite the event in the form of a newspaper report or to film a news bulletin. They could include comments they think the followers would have made or interview them and explain what made them follow Miriam.

Pupils could include responses from believers and non-believers and explain how they think following / not following Miriam to the new land has effected them.

Esther

Read the story of Esther in Esther 2:19-23, Esther 3:8-14, Esther 8:15-17 and point out that she was a queen, a leader of her time. She saved Mordecai from Haman. It was risky but she did it to get justice for her people. Ask pupils such questions as:

• What do you think being a Queen would have involved in her situation?
• What  qualities  were needed for her role?
• What qualities do female leaders need to have today? Do you think female leaders today need to have different qualities to male leaders? Why / Why not?
• What do you think you would you have done in Esther’s situation?

Provide small groups of pupils with information sheets about women who changed the world, e.g., from Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls and encourage them to identify and write down their qualities and the impact they had on the world.

Show pupils some job adverts and person specifications and encourage them to write a person specification for a female queen / leader today. Can they identify the qualities needed for the role?

Ruth and Naomi

Read the story: Ruth 1-3, and bring out points about Ruth and Naomi being loyal friends. Explain that friendship can have significant effects on people. Ask the pupils such questions as:

• What is your definition of a good friend?

Show pupils these two paintings (available online):

• Ruth and Naomi by He Qi: and
• Whither Thou Goest by Sandy Freckleton Gagon

Ask pupils to offer suggestions about what these paintings may be saying about friendship.

Tell pupils that you want to run a competition to find the best friend and that you would like them to nominate someone. Encourage them to write their nomination form explaining why theirs is the best friend you can get.

Ask them to follow this up by composing an interview for a Christian and one for a female relative or family friend to answer about their life. They should write questions about the person’s role as a woman in their family and what influences their beliefs and actions.

Summary activities:

Put copies of the paintings of the women pupils have been learning about up on the wall – spread apart as far as possible.

Arrange pupils in small groups and provide them with some sticky notes. Ask them to write single ‘quality’ words on each note that they think apply to the women in the Bible stories and to then stick the notes to the appropriate pictures around the room.

Encourage then to stand by the picture of the woman they most admire and ask a few pupils for their reasons. Can they suggest what Christian or Jewish believers may learn from these stories? Can they say what they have learnt from these women?

Do pupils have any questions they would ask the characters if they could? Can they think of any questions that Christian or Jewish believers might want to ask?

Back in their small groups, ask pupils to design an internet meme (an idea, style or action that spreads from person to person via the internet; this may take the form of an image accompanied by a slogan, video, hyperlink or hashtag) to share in a simple way something new they have learnt from the old stories.

Memes that can explain what they have learnt about (a) Christian / Jewish beliefs and (b) the qualities of women in the Bible will provide possibility for further assessment.

Further application of this resource: Read about Mary, the mother of Jesus, and other women in the Christian New Testament. Pupils could explore what qualities these women portray and how they might influence believers today. Are there some new things that could be learnt about the portrayal of women in the Bible from these stories?

These materials and links were provided for RE:ONLINE with the kind assistance of the University of Lancaster ‘s Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion

Wednesday, 7th March 2012

Duration 1:42:01

A Level

AQA – Religious Studies: AS Unit A, A2 Unit 3F

Edexcel – Religious Studies: Units 1-4

OCR –

WJEC – Religious Studies: RS 1/2 CS; Religious Studies: RS 3 CS

This is a Faith debate featuring Charles Clarke, Linda Woodhead, Ed Husain, Marat Shterin, Mark Sedgwick, Matthew Francis and Mehdi Hasan. It focuses on the issues surrounding radicalisation, with particular reference to Islam.

Students could be given the same issues as used in this debate and asked their opinion on them prior to watching the discussion, revisiting them later to see if any of the views expressed had caused them to change their minds. For extension work students should look at the different meanings of radicalisation, extremism and terrorism. They might also consider the life of e.g. Adolf Hitler, as a case study, because of the ‘positive’ impact of Mengele’s work on genetics.

This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying philosophy, ethics, religion and society and Islam. However, the debate is quite long and it would probably be sufficient for one lesson to listen to the opening presentations. The Question & Answer section could be a useful second lesson or make worthwhile extension work.

Questions for debate

What is ‘radicalisation’ or ‘extremism’? Is it unique to Islam? Is it always religious? Is it a new and unique phenomenon, or just a new label for certain forms of terrorist violence? And what can research tell us about its causes and how to prevent it?

Conclusions from the debate

As currently used ‘radicalisation’ often includes too much and too little. Too little, because it focuses attention only on Islamic or religious forms of terrorism, and too much because radical ideas and ‘Islamism’ do not usually lead to violence and are too widespread for security initiatives to counter (attempts may be counter-productive).

As for what causes recent incidences of extremist violence, there is a growing consensus that there are multiple causes including: a sense of grievance and isolation, belief that violence can remedy a perceived problem, and contact with networks and images that glorify the use of violence.

Research Findings

‘Radicalisation’ is a new word, but the process whereby groups and individuals with religious or secular commitments turn violent is not new, and past and present research, e.g. that on New Religious Movements and various forms of terrorism, should not be ignored.

What needs to be explained (and countered) is not the embrace of radical ideas, which is widespread and always has been, e.g. communism, but why some groups and individuals embrace violence, which is rare.

It is impossible and often counter-productive for states and their security forces to counter radical ideas. This does not mean that extremist beliefs do not need to be contested, but there are more effective ways to do this, e.g., good education, including in religion and theology, and active initiatives in civil society.

Violence is always over-determined – there are multiple causes, many paths, and no single ‘conveyor belt’ to violence. There are situational, strategic, social and individual causes. This means that the move to violence can be explained in retrospect, but not accurately predicted in advance (two people with exactly the same circumstances may act violently in one case and not in another).

One dynamic observed in some of the research is the existence of an ‘us-and them’ (minority/majority) mentality combined with a sense of grievance. If the ‘minority’ then starts to attract criticism and repression by agents of ‘the majority’ this can lead to a vicious cycle of escalation.

The importance of (individual) belief as a driver of action tends to be overestimated. Involvement in social networks is arguably more important. Also important and underestimated is access to images, aesthetics, cultures and practices of violence which are not exclusively Islamicist but can be harnessed to Islamist ideas – as well as to anti-Muslim ideas.

There is no evidence to support the reality of ‘brainwashing’, nor of de-programming or de-radicalisation where these are equated with quick processes which bypass normal modes of socialisation, cognition and volition.

Practical Suggestions

‘Radicalisation’ includes too much. The holding of radical, intolerant attitudes, is widespread in all societies. It is the move to violence which needs to be understood and countered.

Counter-radicalisation policies have spread the net too wide. This is both ineffective and can be counter-productive when it engenders an us / them mentality and sense of grievance in a ‘target’ community.

Counter-radicalisation should follow established counter-terrorism pathways, which rely on gathering good intelligence and looking in a focused way for indications of interest in violence, involvement in networks advocating such violence, and other indicators of a move to violent action.

It is not the business of the state to prescribe or proscribe particular theologies, any more than particular political ideologies – so long as they operate within the law. It is, however, legitimate to educate and argue against false beliefs.

The model of human behaviour which holds that beliefs are the ‘drivers’ of action is misleading; practices, emotions and relationships are just as important as beliefs.

After watching the discussion, students should revisit their views to find out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard.

After discussion, if there is time, it would then be worth watching the 22 minute summary below to clarify and crystallize the thoughts and views expressed.

Additional content is available at http://faithdebates.org.uk/debates/2012-debates/religion-and-public-life/what-have-we-learned-about-radicalisation/

Wednesday, 26th March 2014

Duration: 24:44

A Level

AQA – RSS08, RSS10, RST3C, RST3F, RST3H, RST4B

Edexcel – 6RS01, 6RS02, 6RS03, 6RS04

OCR – G572, G575, G582, G585

WJEC – RS1/2 CS, RS1/2 ETH, RS1/2 CHR, RS2/2 CS, RS2/2 ETH, RS2/2 CHR, RS3 CS, RS3 ETH, RS3 CHR, RS4 HE

This is a Faith Interview featuring Sir Tony Baldry, Masooda Bano, Peter Herriot, Maajid Nawaz, Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead.

This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying Christianity, Christian thought, Islam and religion and society.

In order to get the most out of the programme it would be worth first showing students the two minute preview  below and then brainstorming them on questions such as:

• To what extent does religion cause conflict?
• Why do some religious people turn to extremism?
• Should extremists be allowed to practice their beliefs and influence others?
• What is the best way in which moderates can deal with hardliners?

All of these issues are addressed in the discussion and the Question and Answer section.

How can religious moderates deal better with uncompromising hardliners and the conflicts they cause?

Creating difference and conflict is the religious fundamentalist’s “raison d’être”, according to Peter Herriot at the fourth Westminster Faith Debate of the year. The panel of politicians and academics broadly agreed that religious moderates need to do more to tackle this challenge, but there was some disagreement about how this can be done in the (at times heated) discussion.

The debate was certainly timely. On Saturday 29th March the first same-sex marriages were legalised in the UK – an issue which polarised opinions within the Church of England, with those Anglicans who oppose the move becoming increasingly vocal in public discourse. As we saw in our first Faith Debate of the year, conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa following the Arab Spring are often portrayed along religious sectarian lines. Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke opened the discussion by emphasising that the media’s focus on the “dramatic” positions of minority religious groups has led to a public “misunderstanding” of religion. How can religious moderates contest these misleading images, and deal with the conflicts caused by hard-line positions?

Debating these questions were Sir Tony Baldry, MP for Banbury and the Second Church Estates Commissioner; Masooda Bano, University Research Lecturer in Development Studies at the University of Oxford; Peter Herriot, former Professor of Psychology at City University and the author of several books on fundamentalism; and Maajid Nawaz, a former member of a global Islamist group and now Liberal Democrat candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, and co-founder and chairman of Quilliam, a global think tank focusing on such issues as religious freedom and extremism. Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead, Professor of Sociology of Religion at the University of Lancaster, chaired the debate.

Bano began by addressing an issue that recurred throughout the discussion – the importance of conceptual clarity. She challenged the language of the debate title, arguing that it is unhelpful to assume that religious ‘hardliners’ have a propensity to cause conflict and violence. Nawaz agreed with this, distinguishing between ‘religious conservatism’ and ‘fundamentalism’. Focusing on Islam, he defined fundamentalism as the adherence to a strict, single interpretation of religion, combined with an attempt to stereotype and “dehumanise” people of other views. ‘Islamism’ for him is the attempt to impose a particular interpretation on others, through either political or violent means. Religious moderates must be clear in the meanings of their terms to avoid surrendering to fundamentalists the terms of engagement. As an example, Nawaz argued that the Law Society’s recent recommendations concerning ‘Sharia succession rules’ were not only “patronising” but would play into the hands of fundamentalists by offering only one interpretation of Sharia. As he put it, “there is no one Muslim community, there is no ‘the Sharia’.”

Distinguishing between religious conservatism and fundamentalism enabled Bano and Nawaz to argue that armed conflict comes not from the nature of religion itself, but from the use of religion by extremists. Bano also emphasised the importance of the political and economic contexts out of which violent fundamentalists emerge. In the case of violent Muslim ‘jihadists’, a sense of “injustice” at political marginalisation, and a build-up of personal grievances, including the loss of family members, are crucial for motivating individual violence; but this can only be sustained in the long-term through the political support of states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. She noted, nonetheless, that religions could encourage “sacrificial” violence by offering believers “rewards”, in this world and the next.

Looking at the situation from a theoretical standpoint, Herriot explained the emergence of fundamentalist positions in terms of collective identity formation. He argued that every social system is a continuum ranging from “integration” to “differentiation”; at the latter end, fundamentalists emphasise above all their “difference” from both their co-religionists and people outside their tradition. Stressing difference is key: it enables them to treat outsiders as stereotypes, setting up an “us and them” conflict situation; it encourages the internalisation of a collective identity; and it paints the world as a “cosmic conflict”, in which the chosen few on the right side have to oppose everyone else. Later, Herriot suggested that in today’s society it is very “countercultural” to have, as fundamentalists do, a social rather than an individual identity as the centre of one’s being – and that part of our anxiety about fundamentalism may come from this.

Having set out their ideas about how religious conflicts can arise, the panellists offered suggestions about how, in Woodhead’s phrase, the “disorganised majority” should respond. Baldry stressed his belief in the “power of rational argument and discussion”, suggesting that the debate within the Church of England on women bishops had required methodologies akin to Middle Eastern peace talks. Considering Christian divisions, he questioned whether individuals are attracted to specific churches by their “particular practices and ambience”, and then adopt that church’s theology, or whether the attraction of the theology comes first. Asking this question could help identify those standpoints which different groups might be willing to compromise on, and other positions which are rooted in theological convictions that are unlikely to move. Nawaz suggested that what is needed is a much broader “cultural shift” to rebrand moderate positions. Reasoned arguments are not enough – religious moderates need to recapture media attention through deployment of dynamic liberal leaders, popular music, art, and other cultural symbols.

Herriot suggested that debate between moderates and fundamentalists is ultimately futile – it is “not much use inviting them round for tea and a nice chat”. If fundamentalists’ very identities are built on a sense of difference and a stereotyping of others, then it is unlikely they will be persuaded to see beyond those stereotypes. He stressed that religious moderates should avoid allowing fundamentalists to paint them into a role of a persecuting “enemy”. If religious extremists adopt the position of “victim”, they can claim political concessions from governments. Further, he suggested conceiving of fundamentalists less as enemies, and more as necessary “opportunity costs”. The “disorganised majority” should spend less time countering the opinions of fundamentalists, which might only give the latter more media coverage, and focus instead on attracting media attention to religiously moderate responses to social problems.

A final theme recurring in the discussion was authority within religions. While both Nawaz and Bano emphasised that the lack of central authority in Islam means that extreme interpretations can compete for legitimacy with moderate ones, Bano argued that Islam is not as “open to interpretation” as Nawaz suggested – in many places the ulama (legal scholars) and established tradition retain control over possible interpretations. In the UK, however, Clarke noted that the 2013 YouGov polls conducted by Woodhead and the Westminster Faith Debates show a clear discrepancy, across different religions, between the views of religious leaders and the rank and file. Because the media and politicians often focus on the views of religious leaderships, they easily misunderstand and misrepresent religious majorities and reinforce their silence.

In the midst of debate on many issues, there was agreement amongst the panel on the need to give a large voice to religious majorities, without silencing minorities. The balance needs to be more proportionate to their numbers. Woodhead pointed out that according to the Westminster Faith Debates YouGov polls, only 3.6% of the UK population fall into the ‘fundamentalism’ category – yet such individuals are given much more air space, and a huge role in dictating church policies. Religious moderates themselves need to step up to the challenge of dispelling current misconceptions about religion – and religious opinion – as a whole. This is a global task, and it is urgent.

As always, after watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views and finding out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard. You might consider the impact of extremist views propagated by the media and the very small percentage of religious adherents who hold these according to the YouGov poll.

For 6th formers it might well be possible to watch the discussion straight through, however, for some students it might be advisable to watch one segment at a time. After discussion, it might be worth getting students to listen to some of the podcasts provided on the website http://faithdebates.org.uk/debates/how-can-religious-moderates-deal-better-with-uncompromising-hardliners-religious-extremists/

Wednesday, 12th February 2014

Duration: 24:32

A Level

AQA – RSS08, RSS10, RST3C, RST3F, RST3H, RST4B

Edexcel – 6RS01, 6RS02, 6RS03, 6RS04

OCR – G572, G578, G582, G588

WJEC – RS1/2 CS, RS1/2 ETH, RS1/2 WR, RS2/2 CS, RS2/2 ETH, RS2/2 WR, RS3 CS, RS3 ETH, RS3 WR, RS4 HE

This is a Faith Interview featuring Bassma Kodmani, Charles Clarke, Jack Straw, Linda Woodhead, Shuruq Naguib and Toby Matthiesen.

This programme is suitable for use with A level students studying Islam, religion and authority, religion and society and issues of war and peace.

In order to get the most out of the programme it would be worth first showing students the two minute preview below and then brainstorming them on questions such as:

• What is the relationship between religion and politics?
• Should religion and politics be kept separate?
• What can religion contribute to politics and vice versa?
• Is religion a danger to democracy and politics?

All of these issues are addressed in the discussion and the Question and Answer section.

“Everyone is quoting God,” said Shuruq Naguib, speaking about the Arab Spring in the first Westminster Faith Debate of 2014.

The issue for debate was the causes of violent upheaval occurring across the Middle East and North Africa since 2010. The media often present “sectarian” religious division, particularly between Sunni and Shi’a, as the culprit. However, are the conflicts actually being driven by religious animosities? Most importantly, what can be done to achieve peace?

Taking part in the debate were Bassma Kodmani, director of the Arab Reform Initiative and former head of foreign relations of the Syrian National Council, Toby Matthiesen, Research Fellow in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Cambridge University, Shuruq Naguib, Lecturer in Islamic Studies at Lancaster University, and Jack Straw, former Labour Foreign Secretary and MP for Blackburn. The debate was chaired by Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead.

Matthiesen began by downplaying the importance of religious belief in the Middle Eastern conflicts. While the media portrays an apocalyptic clash between religious rivals, observers should not be fooled by such “essentialising”. Three events were key to the current unrest: the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which “changed the way the Shi’a saw themselves”, the Iraq War which began in 2003 and redrew the balance of power in the region, and the events of the Arab Spring itself.  Insofar as religion was involved, Matthiesen mainly saw it as a political tool used by states and elites.

The manipulation of religious divisions by political regimes was a theme running through the debate. In Dr Kodmani’s view, corrupt rulers have been using religious establishments as a soft security device for decades.

For Naguib, however, a crisis of religious authority, particularly within Sunni Islam, is also a critical factor. She rooted this in postcolonial state-building. Newly independent states with nationalist agendas co-opted religious authorities to bolster support. The result is a crisis of legitimacy for traditional religious authorities. In Naguib’s view, organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are reacting as much against religious elites as against social injustice and political corruption.

This crisis of authority also involves conflict between different generations. Some young people, disillusioned by lack of employment and political voice, turn away from moderate religious figures to those who incite violence. Social media can play an important role here in spreading extreme views.

Woodhead drew parallels with a wider crisis of religious authority affecting all religions. Traditional leaders are questioned or ignored by new generations of believers who have increased access to religious knowledge, particularly through the internet.

The question “who speaks for Islam?” is linked to another: “who profits?” According to Matthiesen and Kodmani, religious conflicts have been stoked by corrupt regimes to undermine united opposition against them. In Syria, Kodmani suggested, the persistent threat of the ‘other’ provides justification for the use of violence against society. On a wider scale, sectarian violence offers major regional players the opportunity to assert their influence, with conservative forces from the Gulf monarchies and Iran casting themselves as the defenders of Sunnis and Shi’a respectively. Jack Straw also believed it was necessary to look behind these religious labels to the political rivalries they support.

What should be done? The panel offered two suggestions. For Matthiesen and Kodmani, a stable and lasting solution can only be found through the establishment of democratic societies on the basis of citizenship. For Kodmani, “Secularism provided it is well understood, is the most important principle we need to hold.” She offered the example of Tunisia, which following its Revolution has avoided extensive violence. Whilst one audience member suggested this was to do with economic pragmatism –“there is no such thing as Sharia-compliant tourism” – Kodmani stressed that Tunisia’s achievement was built on existing institutions of civil society lacking in many other countries – including trade unions and women’s groups. She believed that lasting solutions could only be based on equal citizenship, not ethnic or religious belonging.

Naguib and Straw agreed – but for them, the answer must be religious and well as political. Neither doubted that Islam and democracy are compatible. Naguib thought the issue of “Who speaks for Islam” must be resolved, and enduring solutions must have religious legitimacy. Straw suggested that stable religion-state relations have to be worked out in ways appropriate to each country. He reminded us that only a few decades ago religious “sectarians” from Ireland attempted to blow up the Prime Minister’s residence just across the road from where we were sitting. The history of religious conflict in Europe reminds us that stable solutions can take a very long time to evolve.

As always, after watching the discussion, it is worth returning to the students’ views and finding out if and how their personal opinions have been influenced or changed by what they have heard. In particular to would be useful to consider media and political responses to Islam and Islamaphobia.

For 6th formers it might well be possible to watch the discussion straight through, however, for some students it might be advisable to watch one segment at a time. After discussion, it might be worth getting students to listen to some of the podcasts provided on the website.

Additional content is available at http://faithdebates.org.uk/debates/religion-sectarian-violence-arab-spring/