Of religion in conflict

de 
facto 
just war principles, both referring to 
jus ad bellum
and 
jus in bello
: 
‘War is permissible in self-defense, and under well-defined limits. When 
undertaken, it must be pushed with vigour (but not relentlessly), but 
only to restore peace and freedom of worship of Allah. In any case, 
strict limits must not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm 
men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace 
withheld when the enemy comes to terms’. At the same time, Islam 
has a tradition of non-violent resistance, also cited by Abu-Nimer (2003), 
which is exemplified by peaceful protests against British colonial rule in 
Egypt in 1919, the 1948 Iraqi uprising, the Iran Revolution in 1978–79, 
and the Sudanese insurrection of 1985. 
Social justice is a fundamental concept in Islam. It has been a central 
tenet of the Muslim Brotherhood’s mobilisation, and even Al Qaeda 
has tactically justified its attacks by elaborating on this Islamic concept, 
combining it with apparent Third Worldist claims. Abu-Nimer (2003) 
shows how social justice and other Islamic values can help promote 
peaceful conflict resolution: ‘According to Islam, a nation cannot survive 
without making fair and adequate arrangements for the sustenance 
and welfare of all the poor, underprivileged, and destitute members of 
every community. The ultimate goal would be the elimination of their 

---

British Academy // 
The Role of Religion in Conflict and Peacebuilding
31
suffering and poverty’. It can thus be argued that Islam is well suited 
to fighting against structural violence. Islamic values, he explains, are 
based on universal dignity of humanity, the equality of all races, ethnic 
groups, and the sacredness of human life and forgiveness are values 
that underpin any form of positive conflict resolution and help to build 
peaceful societies (Abu-Nimer 2003). 
On a similar note, Sachedina (2000, 20) highlighted the ‘centrality of 
Koranic teachings about religious and cultural pluralism as a divinely 
ordained principle of peaceful coexistence among human societies’. 
His work is a classic detailing of the human, non-violent values in Islam. 
Said et al. (2001) presented a valuable collection of essays exploring 
both Islamic teachings and practice on peaceful conflict resolution. 
They argued that Islam promotes, in theory and in practice, the values 
of justice, harmony and absence of war. Said et al also made a case 
for Islamic approaches to peacebuilding (Said et al 2002), and Kalin 
(2005) examined the concept of peace in the Islamic tradition to 
provide a contrast to the focus in the literature on the legal aspects of 
declaring jihad. He identified four contexts: the metaphysical-spiritual in 
which ‘salam’
, 
as one of the names of God, is assigned a substantive 
value; the philosophical-theological context in which the question of 
evil is addressed; the political-legal context, which is the locus of the 
legal discussions of war; and the socio-cultural context, which looks 
at the Muslim experiences of diversity with other faiths. Kalin (2005) 
concludes that Muslim communities must start addressing a ‘proper 
ethics of peace’ to assist in resolving of ethnic or sectarian conflicts 
in Muslim societies. 
Galtung and MacQueen (2008) analyse in detail the contribution 
to peacemaking by Asian religions such as Buddhism or Taoism, 
with reference to Galtung’s general theory of mentioned above. 
By presenting the ideas of 18 eminent Buddhist leaders, Chappell 
(1999) enlarged the understanding of Buddhist peacemaking traditions. 
Starting from and underlining the central role of achieving inner peace, 
he emphasises that Buddhism has a strong track record of providing 
peaceful answers to social and political violence, in particular through 
its worldwide grassroots work, and points to the responsibility 
that Buddhists have for promoting peace. However, others critique 
Buddhism for being too much of an individualistic tradition that does 
not really stress the importance of being at peace with the others, and 
note that it has missed opportunities to achieve peaceful solutions, 
in Sri Lanka and Tibet for example (Neumaier 2004). 

---

32
The Role of Religion in Conflict and Peacebuilding
// British Academy
According to Berling (2004), Confucianism has the potential to work for 
the common good, thanks to its notion of harmony and its stress on 
moral values and rituals. The works of Johnston (2003) and Little (2007) 
also contain case studies on Asia as well as other regions.
In their collection of essays, Polner and Goodman (1994) provide 
a first-hand account of the traditions of non-violent conflict resolution 
in Judaism. Similarly, Steinberg (2000) argued that there are specific 
Jewish approaches to conflict prevention and mediation, a theme also 
developed comprehensively by Marc Gopin, a prominent author and 
practitioner in the field of conflict resolution, who specialises on the 
Middle East. Gopin’s (2000) central argument is that while the world’s 
major religions, in this case the three monotheistic ones, have histori-
cally and until today contributed significantly to violence, they can also 
be a key source of peace and conflict resolution, and their commit-
ment towards peace can be identified in both classical theology and in 
modern interpretations. He notes, for example, that in Judaism there 
is the biblical concept of God fighting battles for the Children of Israel 
and Rabbinic analyses of 
milhemet hova 
(obligatory war) and 
milhemet 
mitzvah 
(war as fulfilment of a positive deed before God), but alongside 
those are the Rabbinic belief in ‘shalom’
 
(peace) and ‘pikuach nefesh’
 
(preservation of life). In Islam, the Qur’an
 
identifies jihad (holy war), but 
later interpretations split this into state jihad
 
and religious jihad. There 
are also both peaceful and violent interpretations of the Mahdi tradition 
of a prophesied redeemer in Islam. Gopin highlights the complexities 
within all these religions in the way they conceive war, violence, peace 
and nonviolence. 
Gopin (2000) bases his critique of Western diplomacy on its ignorance 
of religious values and practices. He argues that religion and religious 
values need to be merged with traditional Western conflict resolution 
policies and practices, and that religious values, such as empathy, 
nonviolence and sanctity of human life, should be used to frame the 
language of conflict resolution. To achieve this, there is a need for a com-
prehensive understanding of religious values, institutions and practices,