Religions: A Scholarly Journal - الأعداد السابقة

Both in the past and the present religious has given rise to inspirations of war as well as to promotion of peace. While religious values entail a desire to promote peace both on this earth and in the thereafter, religions -- including those which are conventionally deemed most “peaceful”— often make use of warfare symbolism and do engage into conflicts sanctioned or justified by some of their representatives. Is there a necessary connection between religion and violence? Before attempting to answer this question, it must be stressed that religions, or religious people, have no exclusive privilege over war and violence. The arguably most murderous and atrocious wars ever took place in the 20th century --namely World War I and World War II, and their main motivations were not religious, but rather political and ideological. However, there is no question that religious principles and feelings have played an important role not only in wars, but also sometimes in inordinate violence of all kinds. It bears specifying, however, that violence can come in many forms, whether external or internal, and that even outwardly similar violent actions may be motivated by very different intentions and factors. Moreover, even if taken only metaphorically and spiritually, the positive meaning of violence cannot be all too facilely discarded. This is brought home, among many examples taken from religious texts --and whatever interpretation one may give to it, by the oft-quoted sentence from Matthew (11:12 ) : "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." In examining the question of religious violence in general, it is important to start from the elementary fact that religions are teaching and often preaching what they consider to be the Truth in an absolute sense, as well as the true way(s) of gaining access to It. In other words, religions are focused on the Ultimate Reality. It means, secondly, that any religious approach of the Ultimate is claimed to be founded on the Ultimate itself, most often through some revelation or original spiritual recognition. As such, religious truth transcends, without necessarily negating it, the realm of rationality and socially negotiated rules and ways. Based on this fact, the point is often made by secular opponents of religions that religious truth claims are the primary causes of intolerance and, therefore, violence and war. In other words, according to these critics, the absoluteness of the religious message cannot but fuel conflict, since it admits of no relativization, therefore no compromise. On the other hand, though, it is widely acknowledged that religions strive to establish a relationship with what they conceive as the Principle of the universe. They see this relationship as the chief principle of human integration into the order of the universe, and thereby the way of reaching a sense of harmony and peace with the whole of existence. On the human level, this sense of connection, proceeding from the Principle and therefore virtually giving way to all connections, is deemed to promote and preserve peace among human beings. Thus, the religious mind seems to be characterized by two tendencies that are potentially at odds. On the one hand, the truth of the Absolute, or the absolute Truth, stands as the very condition for a state of authentic inner and outer peace, but this condition or principle is also potentially a source of conflicts, in some circumstances, with those aspects of reality and fellow human beings who are considered not to be aligned with religious truth claims. An objective consideration of the complex relationship between religion and peace cannot ignore the serious questions raised by those two tendencies. The question of peace, the preservation of peace, and the use of violence is necessarily connected, in religious traditions, to the fact that religion involves both ethico-spiritual demands and socio-political realities. In this connection, socio-political peace can provide a context for inner peace, while outer conflicts hardly predispose to the latter. Conversely, in an arguably more determining way, inner peace fosters the virtues that promote social harmony. Religious perspectives, therefore, recognize in principle the correspondence between the legitimacy and justice of the socio-political order and the spiritual and ethical values embodied in the life of individuals. However they traditionally tend to place a greater emphasis on the latter, because only the person can exercise discerning intelligence, faith, free will and compassion. Thus even strongly socially oriented religious ethics such as Confucianism place self-cultivation as the ultimate source of social harmony. One of the challenges of modernity come from the fact that our societies tend to lie either on the socially constraining side of politically imposed "religious order", which often result in hypocrisy or oppressive coercion, or on the side of secular neutrality, which result in religious "invisibility" and indifference, if not implicit or explicit hostility toward the religious dimension.

In this interview, Prof. Karen Armstrong addresses the question of the relation between religion and violence from the Axial Age to the present day. She argues that every single one of the Axial Sages developed the Golden Rule and insisted that you could not confine your compassion to your own group. Today more than ever, we should not forget the crucial Axial principles. We need them to counter some of the dangers of the new technology, not least the dangers to the environment and the dangers of scientifically produced weaponry.

Renaud Fabbri reflects on the connection between political and spiritual disorder, insisting on the millenarian roots of some of contemporary radical ideologies that seek to establish the kingdom of God on earth through violence.

The great discovery of the Classic philosophers was that man is not a “mortal,” but a being engaged in a movement toward immortality. Not everybody, however, is willing to attune his life to this movement. Quite a few dream of a shortcut to perfection right in this life. The dream of reality transfigured into imperishable perfection in this world, therefore, becomes a constant in history as soon as the problem has been differentiated. In the modern period, the expectation of divine intervention was replaced by the demand for direct human action that will produce the new world, thus giving birth to totalitarian ideologies.

After a brief presentation of the work of the German-born American political philosopher Eric Voegelin, Prof. Barry Cooper focuses on what Voegelin calls the Ecumenic Age, the period from the rise of the Persian around the eighth century BC to the fall of the Roman Empire around the eighth century AD. From this period, we can learn that any intramundane apocalyptic efforts to unify politically the ecumene (or inhabited world) and thus to bring an end to history are doomed to fail. Yet this dream remains the driving force behind many contemporary radical ideologies.

Violence is often seen as intimately connected to the Abrahamic religions, while on other accounts peace is the main religious objective. There is plenty of scope for coming to both conclusions when we examine Christianity, Islam and Judaism. It could be argued that religion takes violence seriously and provides suggestions for controlling it. In fact, the methodology of theology itself emphasizes balance and moderation, and so attempts to control violent and aggressive human behavior. Islam in particular, and all the Abrahamic religions, tend to accord theologically with Aristotelian approaches to ethics, and so an unbridled enthusiasm for violence would be anathema. The Abrahamic religions provide intellectual resources for the regulation of conflict and clearly all take a positive view of peace.

The conditions that are conducive to a state of peace are primarily spiritual and have larger implications for the cosmos, the individual, and society. Dr Ibrahim Kalin explains the theological and metaphysical foundations of the Islamic conception of Peace as well as the way this vision shaped Muslim Empires through centuries.

Since 9/11 and the Second Iraq War, the Muslim Middle East has witnessed an outburst of millenarian expectations. Prof. Eric Geoffroy analyzes how contemporary fundamentalist movements are distorting traditional Islamic eschatology in order to fuel sectarian violence and regional conflicts.

In 2014, many saw in the establishment of the Islamic State over parts of Iraq and Syria and in the subsequent “restoration” of the Caliphate by Emir Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi a "return" to the foundations of Islam as well as the fulfilment of the dream of an Islamic "renewal". The Islamic State was thus depicted by its supporters as a political entity that was supposed to have existed since the beginning of Islamic political history and as being an intrinsic part of traditional Islamic jurisprudence. In fact, however, the Islamic State belongs largely to an “invented tradition” and is better interpreted as a politico-religious utopia, with little connection to the past.

In considering peace from a Buddhist perspective, it is important to remember that it is, primarily, an inner disposition prior to its effective embodiment in the world as a particular course of action. Even before this can be made possible, it must initially become the fruit of spiritual realisation. This means that, in effect, any talk of peace ought to be grounded in a vision of the spirit marked by wisdom, compassion and equanimity. The solution to wars and violence can never be a political one alone – ultimately, it must be buttressed by a spiritual dimension. Politics can certainly deliver on compromises or half-measures but the underlying impetus has to be an ethical orientation that is illumined through an encounter with a transcendent order of reality, on which every genuine value is based.

The overarching challenge confronting humankind today is to break free from the cycles of violence and hatred that have become entrenched in societies around the world, to build momentum for a more peaceful, humane world—one in which no one is left behind. This paper offers a Buddhist perspective on this challenge, proposing approaches such as empathetic engagement with others and fostering the will to coexistence as key ways that religion can contribute to peace in a world of conflict.

Humanity has entered an age of planetary consciousness and war is outdated. However we have not put an end to the cycle of violence, because we fail to understand our interdependencies and the need to focus on our inner humanity. Advocating a secular ethics beyond religion, the Dalai Lama reminds us, in his latest book New reality, that peace is the fruit of compassion. Following Gandhi’s principle : « Become the change you want for the world ! » he issues a Charter of Universal Responsibility, laying out a set of commitments for peace and the protection of all forms of life, human and non human.

This article first appeared in its original French version in "Témoignage chrétien" on April 30, 1948. Written by the French Islamologist Louis Massignon, a pioneer of Muslim-Christian dialogue, it addresses the political situation in Palestine and reflects on the spiritual meaning of the city of Jerusalem for the People of the Book.

While the contemporary world has been heralded as being “post-racial”, we can look all-around to see evidence that this assertion is not only flawed but false. Religion is generally blamed as the key culprit for the escalating conflicts igniting the world over which threatens peace. Yet, rarely is secularism and the void created in its midst carefully analyzed in this context. The historical roots of this problem are more remote than postmodernism and modernism. However, secularism has fractured the way that human identity has been understood throughout time which eclipses the integral relationship between human diversity and religious pluralism.

Prayer is the greatest binding force, making for the solidarity and oneness of the human family. If a person realizes his unity with God through prayer, he will look upon everybody as himself. There will be no high, no low, no narrow provincialism or petty rivalries in the matter of language between an Andhra and a Tamilian, a Kanarese and a Malayalee. There will be no invidious distinction between a touchable and untouchable, a Hindu and a Musalman, a Parsi, a Christian or a Sikh. Similarly, there would be no scramble for personal gain or power between various groups or between different members within a group. The outer must reflect the inner. If we are in tune with God, no matter how big a gathering, perfect quiet and order would prevail and even the weakest would enjoy perfect protection. Above all, realization of God must mean freedom from all earthly fear.

The world abounds in clash of cultures, religions and beliefs today, as it has for millennia. In such contexts, how do we try to live peaceably with those who have differing opinions on how to live, worship, and believe. Such situations, in addition to the more mundane reasons based on wealth and land, often lead to wars, destroying each other’s religions and building walls to separate one another. We see this in the division of Korea into North and South Koreas and the devastating consequences for a divided country. Today, our American context of immigration is resulting in a clash of cultures between various world religions as well as the difference in relations between religions and state, where, in Jewish and Muslim societies, the two are intertwined, while in American Christian societies, the two are, in principle, separated. This article will examine the Book of 1 Chronicles to see how people in exile experienced sojourning, settlement, return and rebuilding and what its implications are for us are today. This paper will work towards how different religions, cultures and societies can peacefully coexist.

The approach of the Aga Khan as a Muslim leader of our times is a useful corrective to many of the misperceptions about Islam in today’s world. His words and actions illustrate not only the essentially peaceful message of the faith but also the perennial and universal relevance of its principles and values as exemplified in His Highness’ integral and pluralistic vision. It is a vision of a lived faith – of engagement with life through creating a bridge between faith and the world, a “bridge of hope” that places value in community while respecting individual aspirations, and that embraces diversity while remaining true to the principles of faith.

Comenius was a leading European intellectual and philosopher. In the wake of the Thirty Years War, he dedicated himself to perfecting and promulgating what he believed to be the formula for peace, a formula based on the idea of universal education.

Since the Enlightenment, the modern secular discourse has stigmatized religion as a source of violence. Eric Vinson argues that in order to understand how and why religion can justify violence but also promote peace, we should move beyond the simplistic dichotomy between religion and politics and rethink religion as a mediating instance between politics and spirituality.

Subverting Hatred is an edited book that brings together different voices on religion and peace from different religious traditions. The book is a lucid appeal to recover the transformative power of religion in the midst of global violence and terror. It is comparative and seeks to provide a cross-cultural understanding of peacebuilding. Beyond destructive rhetoric, the book seeks to provide a new narrative that can engender peace and understanding in the world. It uses a case study approach to uncover the contributions of religion to both inner and global peace. It wrestles with an understanding that religion can contribute to the discourse on subverting hatred and building the capacity for peace.