View Full Version : War And Peace World Religions

09-28-2006, 07:37 PM


See also:
- just war
- pacifism
- nonviolence
- understanding conflict

Many wars have been fought with religion as their stated cause, and with peace as their hoped-for end.

What follows is a very brief summary of what the world’s major religions say about war - and peace. Of course, religious beliefs are often complicated; individuals and groups within each religion often have different views; and religious affiliation is often closely associatedwith partisan emotions.

A summary can only give a very limited picture. But it can open a door to understanding the links between religion and war.


1. War: wrong, just or holy?

Put simply, there are three possible views of war that a religion might adopt.

The pacifist view: all violence and killing is wrong.

Belief in 'a Just War': some wars, at least, are right because they are perceived to be in the interests of justice - and should therefore be fought according to just rules.

Belief in 'Holy War': the God of a religion is perceived to ask, or command, its followers to make war on those who do not believe in that religion and who pose a threat to those who do.


2. Supporting non-violence

Three major world religons have their roots in India: Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. Buddhism and Sikhism both grew from Hinduism. All three share the idea of non-violence (ahimsa).

The term 'non-violence' was actually coined in English (about 1920) by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) as a direct translation of ‘ahimsa’, 'avoiding harm to others'. The idea of non-violence was very important to Mahatma Gandhi’s thinking and actions as a Hindu leader during India's approach to independence in 1947. He wrote:
‘I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.’

Hinduism is perhaps the oldest world religion; in some of its writings ahimsa has been considered the highest duty from the beginning of time. Jainism also grew out of Hinduism; Jainists believe that people should strive to become detached from the distractions of worldly existence; and that the practice of ahimsa is an essential step on the way to personal salvation.

In Hinduism, however, there is another tradition. The Hindu scripture called the 'Bhagavad Gita' tells the story of Arjuna, who learns it is his duty to fight as a member of the soldier caste. Arjuna is told by his chariot driver Krishna, who is really the god Vishnu in human form, that:

‘Even without you, all the soldiers standing armed for battle will not stay alive. Their death is foreordained.’ Bhagavad Gita 11:32-3

In the story Arjuna overcomes his doubts and fights, even though he knows it means killing some of his own family. Strict rules, however, are laid down for war: cavalry may only go into action against cavalry, infantry against infantry and so on. The wounded, runaways, and all civilians are to be respected. The idea of a Just War is represented here.

How did Gandhi deal with this story in a scripture he loved? He thought of it as an allegory, and interpreted it as meaning that one should certainly engage in struggle, but only by means of non-violence. Certainly one should not kill anyone. However, not all Hindus interpret the story in Gandhi’s way.

‘Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world; it is appeased by love.’ (Dhammapada I 5)

Buddhism developed from the teaching of Siddhartha Gautama, called the Buddha (c.563 - 483 BC), who believed that human suffering could be overcome by following a particular way of life. The first precept of Buddhism is 'non-harming' (ahimsa): Buddhists reject violence. Buddhism is clearly pacifist in its teaching, and many Buddhists say quite bluntly that it is ‘better to be killed than to kill’. Some Buddhists have been very active in promoting peace, particularly during the Vietnam War (1961- 1975), when they offered a 'Third Way' of reconciliation between the American and Communist armies. Some Buddhist monks burned themselves to death in self-sacrificing protest against the war.

Buddhism perhaps has the best record of all religions for non-violence. However, Buddhists in Sri Lanka have been criticised for oppressing the Tamil minority there (Tamils are a mostly Hindu people whose origins are in southern India)

Buddhism, like all religions, seeks to be ethical. Confucianism and Taoism, which both developed in China, also share similar principles with Buddhism. For example, they seek to adjust human life to the inner harmony of nature (Confucianism) and emphasise mediation and non-violence as means to the higher life (Taoism). The founders of these religions, Confucius and Lao-Tsze, lived in the same period as Buddha, the 6th century BC.

Guru Nanak (1469-1534), the first Sikh Guru (a guru is a spiritual teacher, a revered instructor) wrote this hymn:

‘No one is my enemy
No one is a foreigner
With all I am at peace
God within us renders us
Incapable of hate and prejudice.’

He too emphasised the importance of non-violence and the equality of all humans whatever their religion (he was particularly concerned to reconcile Hinduism and Islam). But this pacifist emphasis changed as persecution against the Sikhs developed. The sixth Guru said:

In the Guru’s house, religion and worldly enjoyment should be combined - the cooking pot to feed the poor and needy and the sword to hit oppressors.

The tenth and last Guru, Guru Gobind Singh (1666-1708) was a general as well as a Guru. In order to strengthen the courage and military discipline of the Sikhs at a time of great persecution, he organised the Khalsa - the Sikh brotherhood. Guru Gobind Singh expressed the idea of 'Just War' as follows:

‘When all efforts to restore peace prove
useless and no words avail,
Lawful is the flash of steel,
It is right to draw the sword.’

But the idea of 'Holy War' is not found in Sikhism. A central teaching of Sikhism is respect for people of all faiths.


3. Holy Warriors
Three world religions with their roots in the Middle East adopted, at some stages of their history, the idea of a 'Holy War', as well as that of a 'Just War'.

They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall theylearn war any more’. (The Old Testament: Isaiah 2:4)

Peace is the central teaching of rabbinical Judaism (teachings based on the writings of early Jewish scholars). However, Judaism is not a pacifist religion. The idea of Holy War occurs in the Hebrew Bible, but it was not about making others Jewish, but about survival.

The idea of 'Just War' is clearly expressed both in the Old Testament (see Deuteronomy 20:10-15,19-20) and in the later rabbinical tradition. So while revenge and unprovoked aggression are condemned, self defence is justified. Jews have been victims of dreadful persecution, usually at the hands of Christians, for nearly two thousand years, culminating in the Holocaust during the Second World War (1939-1945). On the other hand, defending modern Israel and dealing justly with the Palestinians places thoughtful Jews in difficult dilemmas.

Christianity, during its 2,000 year history, has taken up all three positions on war: Pacifism, Just War and Crusade or Holy War. Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (The New Testament: Matthew 5 - 7) are very clearly non-violent: for example, ‘blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God’ (Matthew 5:9) and ‘love your enemies’ (Matthew 5:44).

Pacifism was the teaching and practice of the Christian Church until the Roman Emperor Constantine (274-337) made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Pacifism then largely gave way to the development of the 'Just War' doctrine. Politics and religion were able to endorse each other in going to war.

In the Middle Ages the Crusades were fought mainly to recover the Holy Land (the area between the Mediterranean and the river Jordan) from Muslim rule. Today most Christians would be ashamed of the terrible cruelty and injustice to which the Crusades gave rise. Most Christians would also be ashamed of the later persecution of heretics (people who did not accept the official teachings of the Christian church) and non-Christians (such as Jews).

The majority of present-day Christians support the idea that war is regrettable but unavoidable and should be fought according to 'Just War' rules. Pacifism is a minority position held by some Christians in the larger denominations (Roman Catholic, Church of England, Methodist, etc.). The Quakers, Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites together make up the historical 'peace churches', with a long tradition of pacifist belief and action.

The question remains: which position on war is the most faithful to the teaching of Jesus, who advised his followers to ‘turn the other cheek’ and who, when arrested, forbade a disciple to use a sword?

3. Islam
'Islam' means 'submission' or 'surrender' to the will of God (Allah). Its founder was the prophet Mohammed (c.570-632), who recorded his understanding of the word of Allah in the Islamic sacred book, the Qur'an.

Islamic teaching is often misunderstood in the West, particularly on the matter ofJihad. What does Jihad mean? One scholar wrote: 'Jihad means to ‘strive’ or ‘struggle’ in the way of God.' Jihad has two further meanings:

- the duty of all Muslims, as individuals and as a community, to exert themselves to realise God’s will, to lead good lives, and to extend the Islamic community through such things as preaching and education,

and :

- 'Holy War' for, or in defence of, Islam.

In the West Jihad has retained only the meaning of 'Holy War'.

However, it is more correct to say that there are four different kinds of Jihad::
- personal spiritual and moral struggle in order to overcome self-centredness and follow the teachings of the Qur’an;
- calm preaching and
- righteous behaviour that witness to the unbeliever about the
way of Islam; and
- war against those who oppress or persecute believers.

All faithful Muslims are thus involved in a continuous 'greater jihad' which is largely non-violent. 'The lesser jihad', war, is commanded by Allah but must be carried out acording to strict rules.

There is a sense in which the lesser jihad is both 'Holy War' and 'Just War'. But it is not about making others Muslim, although some Muslims believe it is. The Qur’an says: ‘There shall be no compulsion in religion’.

One Muslim became widely known for his practice of non-violence. Abdul Gaffar Khan, a member of the often warlike Pathans on the north-west frontier of India, adopted Gandhi’s ideas in leading his people to independence with the establishment of Pakistan. He became known as ‘the Frontier Gandhi’. Like Gandhi, he was often imprisoned.


4. The Humanist View
In recent times religion has played a decreasing role in many societies, particularly in the West. Many people have consciously rejected the notion of a spiritual and sacred religion or god. This does not necessarily mean the rejection of ethical principles. Some people have developed a philosophy of ‘humanism’. This is based on humanitarian ideals, such as individual responsibility for one’s actions, respect for others, co-operating for the common good, and sharing resources.

Some humanists would accept the ‘Golden Rule’, a term first used by Confucius: 'Do as you would be done by', or 'Treat others as you would wish them to treat you’. Some see the natural or logical conclusion of such a principle to be the rejection of all war and violence. Others, who have reservations about pacifism, argue for 'Just War' rules similar to those based on religious law.


See also:
- just war
- pacifism
- nonviolence
- understanding conflict

The Peace Pledge Union campaigns against war and promotes peace.We challenge the values and attitudes which are a serious obstacle to action for peace. As a non-sectarian organisation we welcome co-operation with a variety of other groups, religious or non-religious, who share our aims.

‘I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.’
Was Gandhi right?

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
09-28-2006, 08:08 PM
I think peaceful resolution to conflict should obviously be something to strive for, but when one gets past theory and idealism sometimes there isn't an alternative. The first Christians were completely pacifist, and were executed brutally for their beliefs. I do not believe that pacifism should be a suicide pact. Sometimes war is forced upon you, for just reasons and unjust reasons. However, there can be no doubt that war of any kind only breeds death and hatred, and for that reason war should be avoided if at all possible.

Eric H
09-28-2006, 09:00 PM
Greetings and peace Azhar786;

Thank you for starting this thread and I think you ended with an important question, was Ghandi right?
Personally I think he was absolutely right and he said something like he did not want to fight for independence because he would then have to fight for any peace that followed. He did not seem to seek personal wealth or power, he was prepared to fast until death if necessary.

I feel Ghandi was truly a remarkable man.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth


09-28-2006, 11:19 PM

An interesting thread, although I noticed an inaccuracy about Islam:

3. Islam
'Islam' means 'submission' or 'surrender' to the will of God (Allah). Its founder was the prophet Mohammed (c.570-632), who recorded his understanding of the word of Allah in the Islamic sacred book, the Qur'an.
Some people believe Islam "started" at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), but the core monotheistic message of Islam was what all the previous prophets came with aswell, therefore Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not a "founder" as such, but more a completion of a chain; the last 'brick' in a building.

Secondly, the Qur'an is not the Prophet's (peace be upon him) "understanding" of Allaah's Words, but is rather the exact Words of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, Himself.


Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
09-29-2006, 02:52 AM
Personally, I think the idea of a "religious war" is something of a myth. There have been a few, but in most cases religion was simply an excuse for something else - usually a land-grab of some description - and as a tool to motivate the troops. Very little convinces more than the idea of "serving God" in a "Holy War", but it isn't God that is being served, just political manipulators.

09-29-2006, 03:20 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Personally, I think the idea of a "religious war" is something of a myth. There have been a few, but in most cases religion was simply an excuse for something else - usually a land-grab of some description - and as a tool to motivate the troops. Very little convinces more than the idea of "serving God" in a "Holy War", but it isn't God that is being served, just political manipulators.
From what I have seen and read I would say that your statement is true. No matter what the original intent or the justification, war results in control by force. To control by force is a situation waiting for a tyrant to grasp the opportunity.

Nice, just, fair, religious people are soon replaced by the vultures that come to reap the spoils of war. The ultimate winners are arms manufacturs and grave diggers.

09-29-2006, 12:16 PM
A pacifist is a person who is opposed to war and violence. Pacifists believe that we should not kill or harm other people. And if killing is wrong, war must be wrong - because war is basically a matter of killing. Bertrand Russell pointed out that 'patriots always talk of dying for their country, but never of killing for their country'. Yet that is ultimately what war means: being prepared to kill other people and inflict suffering on them.

Have we the right to inflict suffering on others? If you think the answer might be 'yes' (or 'yes - in certain circumstances'), ask yourself if you would like to suffer in the way that people do because of other people's violence. For example, would you like to have petrol poured over you and set alight, so that you would die by burning or live in agony for a few days while your skin peels off? If you don't fancy suffering that sort of death, what makes you think you could ever be justified in dropping napalm bombs on people, since that is exactly the effect of napalm?

Or put it another way. Who is the person you love most? Your family? Your boyfriend or girlfriend? Your best friend? How would you feel about that person dying a horrible death as a result of someone's violence? Think about it, and then ask yourself if you still feel justified in using violence on other people. Because, whoever that person is, he or she is someone's child and has a mother, father or loved one to grieve over them, or children who will be left as orphans.

All I am trying to do is apply the Golden Rule: do to others as you would wish them to do to you. And it always has the implication: don't do to others what you would not like them to do to you. The world's religions disagree about many things but most of them agree that the Golden Rule is a good general guide to the way we should behave towards others.

Some people will argue that war is sometimes necessary to protect our families and fellow-citizens, or to defend such values as freedom, justice and peace. But how can war protect these things when it is a denial of freedom, justice and peace?

War may bring a sort of freedom to one group of people, but usually only at the expense of other people's freedom. In war, the side that 'wins' is not necessarily the one with the most justification, but the one with the greatest power. And the idea that you can get peace by fighting a war is about as sensible as planting weeds and expecting flowers to grow.

Far from ensuring peace, war creates new problems, such as leaving the vanquished to feel resentful so that they might want to get revenge in the future. We know from our everyday lives that, if we want people to live peacefully with us, it is best to be friendly - not threatening - towards them. So why should we think in international affairs it is possible to keep the peace by threatening or using war?

Pacifists are often asked such questions as 'What would you have done about Hitler?' - implying that some people are so evil that we need to use armed force to resist them. But Hitler was evil because he believed in violence and militarism, which led him (and his followers) to have so little respect for the lives and individuality of others. Pacifists believe in resisting evil - but nonviolently - and they would echo Albert Schweitzer's emphasis on the importance of 'reverence for life'. If we abhor Hitler because he killed people, how can it be right for us to kill people?

War is an unsuitable way for humans to solve their differences. And preparations for war deprive humans of many things they need. While two-thirds of the world's population is undernourished, the governments of the world spend more than a million dollars a minute on armaments.

The pacifist believes that war and violence are inhumane, impractical, immoral, unjust and wasteful. What has the pacifist got to offer in their place? Nonviolence - the very opposite of violence.

This doesn't just mean not using violence; it also means a search for positive ways of solving conflicts and achieving real peace; a situation where everybody is allowed all human rights and a full opportunity for development and growth. it is the use of nonviolence.

Pacifists can point to the success of nonviolent campaigns by such people as Gandhi in India, Dolci in Sicily, and Martin Luther King in America. But pacifists don't pretend to know all the answers. They cannot put forward nonviolence as a tried and tested method guaranteeing success, but as an idea worth trying because it is free from the harmful qualities of violence, because it is a more humane way than violence, and because it can conceivably work.

Pacifists will often work to improve society and remove the causes of war - injustice, exploitation, the repression of minorities. Some work politically, trying to influence governments on national or international issues. Others, who believe that people have to learn to improve their own immediate situation, work on a smaller scale in their own localities. All these different ways of working stem from the pacifist's wish to move from a society where war and violence are taken for granted, to a situation where peace is not only what people seek but also the only method they use in trying to move forward. Pacifists believe that 'There is no way to peace: peace is the way'

09-29-2006, 12:21 PM

The statistics of war are so appalling that they raise a question everyone ought to ask: are such levels of suffering, imposed by human beings on each other, really necessary? Aren't there better ways of managing and resolving the differences between people, and groups of people, which bring about war and violent conflict?

Conflict is a characteristic of human existence. It is part of the dynamic of life that drives us into the future. But it needs to be managed constructively. When associated with violence, destruction and killing, it is no longer a healthy part of living. Violent conflict solves few problems, creates many, and breeds more unhealthy conflict to come.

Conflict has characteristics of its own, and it is possible to analyse its structure and behaviour. When conflict is understood, it's easier to find ways to predict it, prevent it, transform it, and resolve it.

Starting to understand conflict

What is conflict? It is the expression of disagreement over something important to both (or all) sides of a dispute. The first important thing to grasp is that it is entirely dependent on the people involved. It depends on their having a particular point of view, which may or may not have independent facts and evidence to support it, and on how they behave when they encounter an opposing point of view. Violence is only one kind of conflict-behaviour, of course.

Q. What other sorts of conflict-behaviour can you think of?

The structure and process of conflicts are much the same, whether a conflict is between individuals or between groups and nations. The first thing to look for is the immediate cause, the event that triggered it off. Then it's necessary to look for the underlying causes - the state of affairs which makes that explosion likely. It is the underlying causes that are particularly important to understand.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-31-2014, 11:22 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-03-2010, 02:39 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2007, 07:11 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-15-2006, 05:44 AM


Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!