Religious fundamentalism and other Wikipedia pages

Freedom of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Freedom of worship" and "Freedom to Worship" redirect here. For the 1943 painting/poster, see Freedom to Worship (painting).

Freedom of religion


Concepts[show]





Status by country[show]













































































































Religious persecution[show]


























Religion portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Freedom of religion or freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.[1] The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group—in religious terms called "apostasy"—is also a fundamental[peacock term] part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2]
Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right.[3][4] In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths.


Contents  [hide]
1 History 1.1 Muslim world
1.2 India
1.3 Europe 1.3.1 Religious intolerance
1.3.2 Early steps and attempts in the way of tolerance
1.3.3 Early laws and legal guarantees for religious freedom 1.3.3.1 Poland

1.4 United States
1.5 Canada
1.6 International
2 Contemporary debates 2.1 Theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs
2.2 Liberal secular
2.3 Hinduism
2.4 Judaism
2.5 Christianity
2.6 Islam
2.7 Changing religion 2.7.1 Apostasy in Islam
2.8 Secular law
3 Children's rights
4 International Religious Freedom Day
5 Modern concerns 5.1 Social hostilities and government restrictions
6 See also 6.1 Lawsuits
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links

History[edit]

Text document with red question mark.svg
 This section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies. (help, talk, get involved!) (September 2010)



Minerva as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions (Daniel Chodowiecki, 1791)
Historically, freedom of religion has been used to refer to the tolerance of different theological systems of belief, while freedom of worship has been defined as freedom of individual action. Each of these have existed to varying degrees. While many countries have accepted some form of religious freedom, this has also often been limited in practice through punitive taxation, repressive social legislation, and political disenfranchisement. Compare examples of individual freedom in Italy or the Muslim tradition of dhimmis, literally "protected individuals" professing an officially tolerated non-Muslim religion.



 The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) guarantees freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society.
In Antiquity, a syncretic point of view often allowed communities of traders to operate under their own customs. When street mobs of separate quarters clashed in a Hellenistic or Roman city, the issue was generally perceived to be an infringement of community rights.
Cyrus the Great established the Achaemenid Empire ca. 550 BC, and initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout the empire, documenting this on the Cyrus Cylinder.[5][6]
Some of the historical exceptions have been in regions where one of the revealed religions has been in a position of power: Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam. Others have been where the established order has felt threatened, as shown in the trial of Socrates in 399 BC or where the ruler has been deified, as in Rome, and refusal to offer token sacrifice was similar to refusing to take an oath of allegiance. This was the core for resentment and the persecution of early Christian communities.
Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India by Ashoka the Great in the 3rd century BC, which was encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka.
Greek-Jewish clashes at Cyrene in 73 AD and 117 AD and in Alexandria in 115 AD provide examples of cosmopolitan cities as scenes of tumult.
Muslim world[edit]
Following a period of fighting lasting around a hundred years before 620 AD which mainly involved Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Medina (then known as Yathrib), religious freedom for Muslims, Jews and pagans were declared by Muhammad in the Constitution of Medina. The Islamic Caliphate later guaranteed religious freedom under the conditions that non-Muslim communities accept dhimmi (second class) status and their adult males pay the jizya tax as a substitute for the zakat paid by Muslim citizens.[7][8]
Religious pluralism existed in classical Islamic ethics and Sharia law, as the religious laws and courts of other religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, were usually accommodated within the Islamic legal framework, as seen in the early Caliphate, Al-Andalus, Indian subcontinent, and the Ottoman Millet system.[9][10] In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi (Islamic judges) usually could not interfere in the matters of non-Muslims unless the parties voluntarily choose to be judged according to Islamic law, thus the dhimmi communities living in Islamic states usually had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who would have their own Halakha courts.[11]
Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order.[12] Non-Muslims were allowed to engage in religious practices that was usually forbidden by Islamic law, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork, as well as religious practices which Muslims found repugnant, such as the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous "self-marriage" where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter. According to the famous Islamic legal scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292–1350), non-Muslims had the right to engage in such religious practices even if it offended Muslims, under the conditions that such cases not be presented to Islamic Sharia courts and that these religious minorities believed that the practice in question is permissible according to their religion.[13]
India[edit]
Main article: Freedom of religion in India
Religious freedom and the right to worship freely were practices that had been appreciated and promoted by most ancient Indian dynasties.[citation needed] As a result, people fleeing religious persecution in other parts of the world including Christians, Jews, Bahá'í Faith and Zoroastrians fled to India as a place of refuge to enjoy religious freedom.[14][15][16]
Ancient Jews fleeing from persecution in their homeland 2,500 years ago settled in India and never faced anti-Semitism.[17] Freedom of religion edicts have been found written during Ashoka the Great's reign in the 3rd century BC. Freedom to practise, preach and propagate any religion is a constitutional right in Modern India. Most major religious festivals of the main communities are included in the list of national holidays.
Although India is an 80% Hindu country, three out of the twelve presidents of India have been Muslims.
Many scholars and intellectuals believe that India's predominant religion, Hinduism, has long been a most tolerant religion.[18] Rajni Kothari, founder of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies has written, "[India] is a country built on the foundations of a civilisation that is fundamentally non-religious."[19]
The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader in exile said that religious tolerance of 'Aryabhoomi,' a reference to India found in Mahabharata, has been in existence in this country from thousands of years. "Not only Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism which are the native religions but also Christianity and Islam have flourished here. Religious tolerance is inherent in Indian tradition," the Dalai Lama said.[20]
Freedom of religion in the Indian subcontinent is exemplified by the reign of King Piyadasi (304 BC to 232 BC) (Ashoka). One of King Ashoka's main concerns was to reform governmental institutes and exercise moral principles in his attempt to create a just and humane society. Later he promoted the principles of Buddhism, and the creation of a just, understanding and fair society was held as an important principle for many ancient rulers of this time in the East.
The importance of freedom of worship in India was encapsulated in an inscription of Ashoka:

King Piyadasi (Ashok) dear to the Gods, honours all sects, the ascetics (hermits) or those who dwell at home, he honours them with charity and in other ways. But the King, dear to the Gods, attributes less importance to this charity and these honours than to the vow of seeing the reign of virtues, which constitutes the essential part of them. For all these virtues there is a common source, modesty of speech. That is to say, one must not exalt one's creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others without legitimate reasons. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honour befitting them.
The initial entry of Islam into South Asia came in the first century after the death of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. When around 1210 AD the Islamic Sultanates invaded India from the north-west, gradually the principle of freedom of religion deteriorated in this part of the world. They were subsequently replaced by another Islamic invader in the form of Babur. The Mughal empire was founded by the Mongol leader Babur in 1526, when he defeated Ibrahim Lodi, the last of the Delhi Sultans at the First Battle of Panipat. The word "Mughal" is the Indo-Iranian version of Mongol.
On the main Asian continent, the Mongols were tolerant of religions. People could worship as they wished freely and openly, though the formation of 2 nations i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh has been on basis of religious intolerance.
After arrival of Europeans, Christians in zeal to convert local as per belief in conversion as service of God, have also been seen to fall into frivolous methods since their arrival. Though by and large there are hardly any reports of law and order disturbance from mobs with Christian beliefs except perhaps in the north eastern region of India.[21]
Freedom of religion in contemporary India is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the nation's constitution. Accordingly every citizen of India has a right to profess, practice and propagate their religions peacefully.[22] Vishwa Hindu Parishad counters this argument by saying that evangelical Christians are forcefully (or through money) converting rural, illiterate populations and they are only trying to stop this.
In September 2010, Indian state Kerala's State Election Commissioner announced that "Religious heads cannot issue calls to vote for members of a particular community or to defeat the nonbelievers".[23] The Catholic Church comprising Latin, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara rites used to give clear directions to the faithful on exercising their franchise during elections through pastoral letters issued by bishops or council of bishops. The pastoral letter issued by Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council (KCBC) on the eve of the poll urged the faithful to shun atheists.[23]
Even today, most Indians celebrate all religious festivals with equal enthusiasm and respect. Hindu festivals like Deepavali and Holi, Muslim festivals like Eid al-Fitr, Eid-Ul-Adha, Muharram, Christian festivals like Christmas and other festivals like Buddha Purnima, Mahavir Jayanti, Gur Purab etc. are celebrated and enjoyed by all Indians.
Europe[edit]
Religious intolerance[edit]
Most Roman Catholic kingdoms kept a tight rein on religious expression throughout the Middle Ages. Jews were alternately tolerated and persecuted, the most notable examples of the latter being the expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492. Some of those who remained and converted were tried as heretics in the Inquisition for allegedly practicing Judaism in secret. Despite the persecution of Jews, they were the most tolerated non-Catholic faith in Europe.
However, the latter was in part a reaction to the growing movement that became the Reformation. As early as 1380, John Wycliffe in England denied transubstantiation and began his translation of the Bible into English. He was condemned in a Papal Bull in 1410, and all his books were burned.
In 1414, Jan Hus, a Bohemian preacher of reformation, was given a safe conduct by the Holy Roman Emperor to attend the Council of Constance. Not entirely trusting in his safety, he made his will before he left. His forebodings proved accurate, and he was burned at the stake on 6 July 1415. The Council also decreed that Wycliffe's remains be disinterred and cast out. This decree was not carried out until 1429.
After the fall of the city of Granada, Spain, in 1492, the Muslim population was promised religious freedom by the Treaty of Granada, but that promise was short-lived. In 1501, Granada's Muslims were given an ultimatum to either convert to Christianity or to emigrate. The majority converted, but only superficially, continuing to dress and speak as they had before and to secretly practice Islam. The Moriscos (converts to Christianity) were ultimately expelled from Spain between 1609 (Castile) and 1614 (rest of Spain), by Philip III.
Martin Luther published his famous 95 Theses in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517. His major aim was theological, summed up in the three basic dogmas of Protestantism:
The Bible only is infallible
Every Christian can interpret it
Human sins are so wrongful that no deed or merit, only God's grace, can lead to salvation.
In consequence, Luther hoped to stop the sale of indulgences and to reform the Church from within. In 1521, he was given the chance to recant at the Diet of Worms before Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, then only 19. After he refused to recant, he was declared heretic. Partly for his own protection, he was sequestered on the Wartburg in the possessions of Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, where he translated the New Testament into German. He was excommunicated by Papal Bull in 1521.
However, the movement continued to gain ground in his absence and spread to Switzerland. Huldrych Zwingli preached reform in Zürich from 1520 to 1523. He opposed the sale of indulgences, celibacy, pilgrimages, pictures, statues, relics, altars, and organs. This culminated in outright war between the Swiss cantons that accepted Protestantism and the Catholics. The Catholics were victorious, and Zwingli was killed in battle in 1531. The Catholic cantons were magnanimous in victory.[citation needed]
The defiance of Papal authority proved contagious, and in 1533, when Henry VIII of England was excommunicated for his divorce and remarriage to Anne Boleyn, he promptly established a state church with bishops appointed by the crown. This was not without internal opposition, and Thomas More, who had been his Lord Chancellor, was executed in 1535 for opposition to Henry.
In 1535, the Swiss canton of Geneva became Protestant. In 1536, the Bernese imposed the reformation on the canton of Vaud by conquest. They sacked the cathedral in Lausanne and destroyed all its art and statuary. John Calvin, who had been active in Geneva was expelled in 1538 in a power struggle, but he was invited back in 1540.



 A US Postage Stamp commemorating religious freedom and the Flushing Remonstrance.
The same kind of seesaw back and forth between Protestantism and Catholicism was evident in England when Mary I of England returned that country briefly to the Catholic fold in 1553 and persecuted Protestants. However, her half-sister, Elizabeth I of England was to restore the Church of England in 1558, this time permanently, and began to persecute Catholics again. The King James Bible commissioned by King James I of England and published in 1611 proved a landmark for Protestant worship, with official Catholic forms of worship being banned.
In France, although peace was made between Protestants and Catholics at the Treaty of Saint Germain in 1570, persecution continued, most notably in the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day on 24 August 1572, in which thousands of Protestants throughout France were killed. A few years before, at the "Michelade" of Nîmes in 1567, Protestants had massacred the local Catholic clergy.
Early steps and attempts in the way of tolerance[edit]



 The cross of the war memorial and a menorah coexist in Oxford, Oxfordshire, England.
The Norman Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II was characterized by its multi-ethnic nature and religious tolerance. Normans, Jews, Muslim Arabs, Byzantine Greeks, Lombards, and native Sicilians lived in harmony.[24][25][not in citation given] Rather than exterminate the Muslims of Sicily, Roger II's grandson Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1215—1250) allowed them to settle on the mainland and build mosques. Not least, he enlisted them in his – Christian – army and even into his personal bodyguards[26][need quotation to verify][27][need quotation to verify]
Bohemia (present-day Czech Republic) enjoyed religious freedom between 1436 and 1520, and became one of the most liberal countries of the Christian world during that period of time. The so-called Basel Compacts of 1436 declared the freedom of religion and peace between Catholics and Utraquists. In 1609 Emperor Rudolf II granted Bohemia greater religious liberty with his Letter of Majesty. The privileged position of the Catholic Church in the Czech kingdom was firmly established after the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. Gradually freedom of religion in Bohemian lands came to an end and Protestants fled or were expelled from the country. A devout Catholic, Emperor Ferdinand II forcibly converted Austrian and Bohemian Protestants.[citation needed]
In the meantime, in Germany Philip Melanchthon drafted the Augsburg Confession as a common confession for the Lutherans and the free territories. It was presented to Charles V in 1530.
In the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V agreed to tolerate Lutheranism in 1555 at the Peace of Augsburg. Each state was to take the religion of its prince, but within those states, there was not necessarily religious tolerance. Citizens of other faiths could relocate to a more hospitable environment.
In France, from the 1550s, many attempts to reconcile Catholics and Protestants and to establish tolerance failed because the State was too weak to enforce them. It took the victory of prince Henry IV of France, who had converted into Protestantism, and his accession to the throne, to impose religious tolerance formalized in the Edict of Nantes in 1598. It would remain in force for over 80 years until its revocation in 1685 by Louis XIV of France. Intolerance remained the norm until Louis XVI, who signed the Edict of Versailles (1787), then the constitutional text of 24 December 1789, granting civilian rights to Protestants. The French Revolution then abolished state religion and confiscated all Church property, turning intolerance against Catholics.[citation needed]
Early laws and legal guarantees for religious freedom[edit]
In 1558, the Transylvanian Diet of Torda declared free practice of both the Catholic and Lutheran religions, but prohibited Calvinism. Ten years later, in 1568, the Diet extended the freedom to all religions, declaring that "It is not allowed to anybody to intimidate anybody with captivity or expelling for his religion". However, it was more than a religious tolerance, it declared the equality of the religions. The emergence in social hierarchy wasn't depend on the religion of the person thus Transylvania had also Catholic and Protestant monarchs (Princes). The lack of state religion was unique for centuries in Europe. Therefore, the Edict of Torda is considered by mostly Hungarian historians as the first legal guarantee of religious freedom in Christian Europe.

ACT OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE:
His majesty, our Lord, in what manner he – together with his realm – legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same matter now, in this Diet, reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing, which hearings is by the word of God.
— Diet at Torda, 1568 : King John Sigismund[28]
In the Union of Utrecht (20 January 1579), personal freedom of religion was declared in the struggle between the Northern Netherlands and Spain. The Union of Utrecht was an important step in the establishment of the Dutch Republic (from 1581 to 1795). Under Calvinist leadership, the Netherlands became the most tolerant country in Europe. It granted asylum to persecuted religious minorities, e.g. French Huguenots, English Dissenters, and Jews who had been expelled from Spain and Portugal.[29] The establishment of a Jewish community in the Netherlands and New Amsterdam (present-day New York) during the Dutch Republic is an example of religious freedom. When New Amsterdam surrendered to the English in 1664, freedom of religion was guaranteed in the Articles of Capitulation. It benefitted also the Jews who had landed on Manhattan Island in 1654, fleeing Portuguese persecution in Brazil. During the 18th century, other Jewish communities were established at Newport, Rhode Island, Philadelphia, Charleston, Savannah, and Richmond.[30]
Intolerance of dissident forms of Protestantism also continued, as evidenced by the exodus of the Pilgrims, who sought refuge, first in the Netherlands, and ultimately in America, founding Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts in 1620. William Penn, the founder of Philadelphia, was involved in a case which had a profound effect upon future American laws and those of England. In a classic case of jury nullification the jury refused to convict William Penn of preaching a Quaker sermon, which was illegal. Even though the jury was imprisoned for their acquittal, they stood by their decision and helped establish the freedom of religion.
Poland[edit]
Main article: Warsaw Confederation



 Original act of the Warsaw Confederation 1573. The beginning of religious freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Poland has a long tradition of religious freedom. The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in Poland in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. Poland kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe.[31]
The General Charter of Jewish Liberties known as the Statute of Kalisz was issued by the Duke of Greater Poland Boleslaus the Pious on 8 September 1264 in Kalisz. The statute served as the basis for the legal position of Jews in Poland and led to creation of the Yiddish-speaking autonomous Jewish nation until 1795. The statute granted exclusive jurisdiction of Jewish courts over Jewish matters and established a separate tribunal for matters involving Christians and Jews. Additionally, it guaranteed personal liberties and safety for Jews including freedom of religion, travel, and trade. The statute was ratified by subsequent Polish Kings: Casimir III of Poland in 1334, Casimir IV of Poland in 1453 and Sigismund I of Poland in 1539. The Commonwealth set a precedent by allowing Jews to become ennobled.
United States[edit]
See also: Freedom of religion in the United States
Most of the early colonies were generally not tolerant of dissident forms of worship, with Maryland being one of the exceptions. For example, Roger Williams found it necessary to found a new colony in Rhode Island to escape persecution in the theocratically dominated colony of Massachusetts. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were the most active of the New England persecutors of Quakers, and the persecuting spirit was shared by Plymouth Colony and the colonies along the Connecticut river.[32] In 1660, one of the most notable victims of the religious intolerance was English Quaker Mary Dyer, who was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts for repeatedly defying a Puritan law banning Quakers from the colony.[32] As one of the four executed Quakers known as the Boston martyrs, the hanging of Dyer on the Boston gallows marked the beginning of the end of the Puritan theocracy and New England independence from English rule, and in 1661 King Charles II explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism.[33]
Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle of government in the founding of the colony of Maryland, founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, in 1634.[34] Fifteen years later (1649), the Maryland Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore, provided: "No person or persons...shall from henceforth be any waies troubled, molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof." The Maryland Toleration Act was repealed during the Cromwellian Era with the assistance of Protestant assemblymen and a new law barring Catholics from openly practicing their religion was passed.[35] In 1657, the Catholic Lord Baltimore regained control after making a deal with the colony's Protestants, and in 1658 the Act was again passed by the colonial assembly. This time, it would last more than thirty years, until 1692[36] when, after Maryland's Protestant Revolution of 1689, freedom of religion was again rescinded.[34][37] In addition, in 1704, an Act was passed "to prevent the growth of Popery in this Province", preventing Catholics from holding political office.[37] Full religious toleration would not be restored in Maryland until the American Revolution, when Maryland's Charles Carroll of Carrollton signed the American Declaration of Independence.
Rhode Island (1636), Connecticut (1636), New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (1682)—founded by Protestants Roger Williams, Thomas Hooker, and William Penn, respectively—combined the democratic form of government which had been developed by the Puritans and the Separatist Congregationalists in Massachusetts with religious freedom.[38][39][40][41] These colonies became sanctuaries for persecuted religious minorities. Catholics and later on Jews also had full citizenship and free exercise of their religions.[42][43][44] Williams, Hooker, Penn, and their friends were firmly convinced that freedom of conscience was the will of God. Williams gave the most profound argument: As faith is the free work of the Holy Spirit, it cannot be forced on a person. Therefore strict separation of church and state has to be kept.[45] Pennsylvania was the only colony that retained unlimited religious freedom until the foundation of the United States in 1776. It was the inseparable connection between democracy, religious freedom, and the other forms of freedom which became the political and legal basis of the new nation. In particular, Baptists and Presbyterians demanded the disestablishment of state churches - Anglican and Congregationalist - and the protection of religious freedom.[46]
Reiterating Maryland's and the other colonies' earlier colonial legislation, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed:

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Those sentiments also found expression in the First Amendment of the national constitution, part of the United States' Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The United States formally considers religious freedom in its foreign relations. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 established the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom which investigates the records of over 200 other nations with respect to religious freedom, and makes recommendations to submit nations with egregious records to ongoing scrutiny and possible economic sanctions. Many human rights organizations have urged the United States to be still more vigorous in imposing sanctions on countries that do not permit or tolerate religious freedom.
Canada[edit]
Further information: Freedom of religion in Canada
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference. Canadian law goes further, requiring that private citizens and companies provide reasonable accommodation to those, for example, with strong religious beliefs. The Canadian Human Rights Act allows an exception to reasonable accommodation with respect to religious dress, such as a Sikh turban, when there is a bona fide occupational requirement, such as a workplace requiring a hard hat.[47]
International[edit]
On 25 November 1981, the United Nations General Assembly passed the "Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief". This declaration recognizes freedom of religion as a fundamental human right in accordance with several other instruments of international law, but the international community has not passed any binding legal instruments that guarantee the right to freedom of religion.[48]
Contemporary debates[edit]

Freedom of religion


Concepts[show]





Status by country[show]













































































































Religious persecution[show]


























Religion portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs[edit]
In 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief."[49] The committee further stated that "the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views." Signatories to the convention are barred from "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers" to recant their beliefs or convert. Despite this, minority religions still are still persecuted in many parts of the world.[50][51]
Within the United States, the Freedom From Religion Foundation argues that the United States Constitution not only prohibits the intrusion of religion into the processes of government, but also guarantees equal rights to citizens who choose not to follow any religion.[52] Conservative sociopolitical commentator Bryan Fischer has responded: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."[53]
Liberal secular[edit]

A man posing for a print

Adam Smith argued in favour of freedom of religion.
Adam Smith, in his book The Wealth of Nations (using an argument first put forward by his friend and contemporary David Hume), states that in the long run it is in the best interests of society as a whole and the civil magistrate (government) in particular to allow people to freely choose their own religion, as it helps prevent civil unrest and reduces intolerance. So long as there are enough different religions and/or religious sects operating freely in a society then they are all compelled to moderate their more controversial and violent teachings, so as to be more appealing to more people and so have an easier time attracting new converts. It is this free competition amongst religious sects for converts that ensures stability and tranquillity in the long run.
Smith also points out that laws that prevent religious freedom and seek to preserve the power and belief in a particular religion will, in the long run, only serve to weaken and corrupt that religion, as its leaders and preachers become complacent, disconnected and unpractised in their ability to seek and win over new converts:[54]

The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent, where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or, perhaps, into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquillity. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which are so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects.[55]
Hinduism[edit]
Hinduism is one of the more open-minded religions when it comes to religious freedom.[56] It respects the right of everyone to reach God in their own way. Hindus believe in different ways to preach attainment of God and religion as a philosophy and hence respect all religions as equal. One of the famous Hindu sayings about religion is: "Truth is one; sages call it by different names."[56]
Judaism[edit]
Judaism includes multiple streams, such as Orthodox, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, Jewish Renewal and Humanistic Judaism. Israel, viewed as the Jewish homeland, has been evaluated in research by the Pew organization as having "high" government restrictions on religion. The government recognizes only Orthodox Judaism in certain matters of personal status, and marriages can only be performed by religious authorities. The government provides the greatest funding to Orthodox Judaism, even though adherents represent a minority of citizens.[57] Jewish women have been arrested at the Western Wall for praying and singing while wearing religious garments the Orthodox feel should be reserved for men. Women of the Wall have organized to promote religious freedom at the Wall.[58] In November 2014, a group of 60 non-Orthodox rabbinical students were told they would not be allowed to pray in the Knesset synagogue because it is reserved for Orthodox. Rabbi Joel Levy, director of the Conservative Yeshiva in Jerusalem, said that he had submitted the request on behalf of the students and saw their shock when the request was denied. He noted: "paradoxically, this decision served as an appropriate end to our conversation about religion and state in Israel." MK Dov Lipman expressed the concern that many Knesset workers are unfamiliar with non-Orthodox and American practices and would view "an egalitarian service in the synagogue as an affront."[59]
Christianity[edit]



 Part of the Oscar Straus Memorial in Washington, D.C. honoring the right to worship.
According to the Catholic Church in the Vatican II document on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, "the human person has a right to religious freedom", which is described as "immunity from coercion in civil society".[60] This principle of religious freedom "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion."[60] In addition, this right "is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."[60]
Prior to this, Pope Pius IX had written a document called the Syllabus of Errors. The Syllabus was made up of phrases and paraphrases from earlier papal documents, along with index references to them, and presented as a list of "condemned propositions". It does not explain why each particular proposition is wrong, but it cites earlier documents to which the reader can refer for the Pope's reasons for saying each proposition is false. Among the statements included in the Syllabus are: "[It is an error to say that] Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true" (15); "[It is an error to say that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship" (77); "[It is an error to say that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship" (78).[61]
Some Orthodox Christians, especially those living in democratic countries, support religious freedom for all, as evidenced by the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Many Protestant Christian churches, including some Baptists, Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventist Church and main line churches have a commitment to religious freedoms. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also affirms religious freedom.[62]
However others, such as African scholar Makau Mutua, have argued that Christian insistence on the propagation of their faith to native cultures as an element of religious freedom has resulted in a corresponding denial of religious freedom to native traditions and led to their destruction. As he states in the book produced by the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief, "Imperial religions have necessarily violated individual conscience and the communal expressions of Africans and their communities by subverting African religions."[63][64]
In their book Breaking India, Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan discussed the "US Church" funding activities in India, such as the popularly advertised campaigns to "save" poor children by feeding, clothing, and educating them, with the book arguing that the funds collected were being used not so much for the purposes indicated to sponsors, but for indoctrination and conversion activities. They suggest that India is the prime target of a huge enterprise—a "network" of organizations, individuals, and churches—that, they argue, seem intensely devoted to the task of creating a separatist identity, history, and even religion for the vulnerable sections of India. They suggest that this nexus of players includes not only church groups, government bodies, and related organizations, but also private think tanks and academics.[65]
Joel Spring has written about the Christianization of the Roman Empire:

Christianity added new impetus to the expansion of empire. Increasing the arrogance of the imperial project, Christians insisted that the Gospels and the Church were the only valid sources of religious beliefs. Imperialists could claim that they were both civilizing the world and spreading the true religion. By the 5th century, Christianity was thought of as co-extensive with the Imperium romanum. This meant that to be human, as opposed to being a natural slave, was to be "civilized" and Christian. Historian Anthony Pagden argues, "just as the civitas; had now become coterminous with Christianity, so to be human—to be, that is, one who was 'civil', and who was able to interpret correctly the law of nature—one had now also to be Christian." After the fifteenth century, most Western colonialists rationalized the spread of empire with the belief that they were saving a barbaric and pagan world by spreading Christian civilization.[66]
Islam[edit]
Main articles: Political aspects of Islam, Sharia, Caliphate, Islamic religious police and Islamism
Conversion to Islam is simple (cf. shahada), but Muslims are forbidden to convert from Islam to another religion (cf. Apostasy in Islam). Certain Muslim-majority countries are known for their restrictions on religious freedom, highly favoring Muslim citizens over non-Muslim citizens. Other countries[who?] having the same restrictive laws tend to be more liberal when imposing them. Even other Muslim-majority countries are secular and thus do not regulate religious belief.[67][not in citation given]
Some Islamic theologians[who?] quote the Qur'an ("There is no compulsion in religion"[2:256] and "Say: O you who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship...To you be your religion, and to me be mine"[109:1–6], i.e., Sura Al-Kafirun) to show scriptural support for religious freedom.
Quran 2:190–194, referring to the war against Pagans during the Battle of Badr in Medina, indicates that Muslims are only allowed to fight against those who intend to harm them (right of self-defense) and that if their enemies surrender, they must also stop because God does not like those who transgress limits.
In Bukhari:V9 N316, Jabir ibn 'Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin accepted Islam and then when he got a fever he demanded that Muhammad to cancel his pledge (allow him to renounce Islam). Muhammad refused to do so. The Bedouin man repeated his demand once, but Muhammad once again refused. Then, he (the Bedouin) left Medina. Muhammad said, "Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good." In this narration, there was no evidence demonstrating that Muhammad ordered the execution of the Bedouin for wanting to renounce Islam.
In addition, Quran 5:3, which is believed to be God's final revelation to Muhammad, states that Muslims are to fear God and not those who reject Islam, and Quran 53:38–39 states that one is accountable only for one's own actions. Therefore, it postulates that in Islam, in the matters of practising a religion, it does not relate to a worldly punishment, but rather these actions are accountable to God in the afterlife. Thus, this supports the argument against the execution of apostates in Islam.[68]
However, on the other hand, some Muslims support the practice of executing apostates who leave Islam, as in Bukhari:V4 B52 N260; "The Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
In Iran, the constitution recognizes four religions whose status is formally protected: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.[50] The constitution, however, also set the groundwork for the institutionalized persecution of Bahá'ís,[69] who have been subjected to arrests, beatings, executions, confiscation and destruction of property, and the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher education.[50] There is no freedom of conscience in Iran, as converting from Islam to any other religion is forbidden.
In Egypt, a 16 December 2006 judgment of the Supreme Administrative Council created a clear demarcation between recognized religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – and all other religious beliefs;[70][71] no other religious affiliation is officially admissible.[72] The ruling leaves members of other religious communities, including Bahá'ís, without the ability to obtain the necessary government documents to have rights in their country, essentially denying them of all rights of citizenship.[72] They cannot obtain ID cards, birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, and passports; they also cannot be employed, educated, treated in public hospitals or vote, among other things.[72] See Egyptian identification card controversy.
Changing religion[edit]
Main article: Religious conversion
Among the most contentious areas of religious freedom is the right of an individual to change or abandon his or her own religion (apostasy), and the right to evangelize individuals seeking to convince others to make such a change.
Other debates have centered around restricting certain kinds of missionary activity by religions. Many Islamic states, and others such as China, severely restrict missionary activities of other religions. Greece, among European countries, has generally looked unfavorably on missionary activities of denominations others than the majority church and proselytizing is constitutionally prohibited.[73]
A different kind of critique of the freedom to propagate religion has come from non-Abrahamic traditions such as the African and Indian. African scholar Makau Mutua criticizes religious evangelism on the ground of cultural annihilation by what he calls "proselytizing universalist faiths" (Chapter 28: Proselytism and Cultural Integrity, page 652):

...the (human) rights regime incorrectly assumes a level playing field by requiring that African religions compete in the marketplace of ideas. The rights corpus not only forcibly imposes on African religions the obligation to compete—a task for which as nonproselytizing, noncompetitive creeds they are not historically fashioned—but also protects the evangelizing religions in their march towards universalization ... it seems inconceivable that the human rights regime would have intended to protect the right of certain religions to destroy others.[74]
Some Indian scholars[75] have similarly argued that the right to propagate religion is not culturally or religiously neutral.
In Sri Lanka, there have been debates regarding a bill on religious freedom that seeks to protect indigenous religious traditions from certain kinds of missionary activities. Debates have also occurred in various states of India regarding similar laws, particularly those that restrict conversions using force, fraud or allurement.
In 2008, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a Christian human rights non-governmental organisation which specializes in religious freedom, launched an in-depth report on the human rights abuses faced by individuals who leave Islam for another religion. The report is the product of a year long research project in six different countries. It calls on Muslim nations, the international community, the UN and the international media to resolutely address the serious violations of human rights suffered by apostates.[76]
Apostasy in Islam[edit]
Main articles: Apostasy in Islam, Takfir and Mutaween



 Legal opinion on apostasy by the Fatwa committee at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the highest Islamic institution in the world, concerning the case of a man who converted to Christianity: "Since he left Islam, he will be invited to express his regret. If he does not regret, he will be killed pertaining to rights and obligations of the Islamic law."
In Islam, apostasy is called "ridda" ("turning back") and is considered to be a profound insult to God. A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "murtad fitri" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later rejects the religion is called a "murtad milli" (apostate from the community).[77]
In Islamic law (Sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi'a scholars.[78]
Ideally, the one performing the execution of an apostate must be an imam.[78] At the same time, all schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that any Muslim can kill an apostate without punishment.[79]
However, while almost all scholars agree about the punishment, many disagree on the allowable time to retract the apostasy. Many scholars push this as far as allowing the apostate till he/she dies. Thus, practically making the death penalty just a theoretical statement/exercise.[citation needed] S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the Qur'an.[80]
Secular law[edit]
Religious practice may also conflict with secular law, creating debates on religious freedom. For instance, even though polygamy is permitted in Islam, it is prohibited in secular law in many countries. This raises the question of whether prohibiting the practice infringes on the beliefs of certain Muslims. The US and India, both constitutionally secular nations, have taken two different views of this. In India, polygamy is permitted, but only for Muslims, under Muslim Personal Law. In the US, polygamy is prohibited for all. This was a major source of conflict between the early LDS Church and the United States until the Church amended its position on practicing polygamy.
Similar issues have also arisen in the context of the religious use of psychedelic substances by Native American tribes in the United States as well as other Native practices.
In 1955, Chief Justice of California Roger J. Traynor neatly summarized the American position on how freedom of religion cannot imply freedom from law: "Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not."[81] But with respect to the religious use of animals within secular law and those acts, the US Supreme Court decision in the case of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah in 1993 upheld the right of Santeria adherents to practice ritual animal sacrifice, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision: "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection" (quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division 450 U.S. 707 (1981)).[82]
Children's rights[edit]
The law in Germany provides the term of "religious majority" (Religiöse Mündigkeit) with a minimum age for minors to follow their own religious beliefs even if their parents don't share those or don't approve. Children 14 and older have the unrestricted right to enter or exit any religious community. Children 12 and older cannot be compelled to change to a different belief. Children 10 and older have to be heard before their parents change their religious upbringing to a different belief.[83] There are similar laws in Austria[84] and in Switzerland.[85]
International Religious Freedom Day[edit]
27 October is International Religious Freedom Day, in commemoration of the execution of the Boston martyrs for their religious convictions 1659–1661.[86] The US proclaimed 16 January Religious Freedom Day.[87]
Modern concerns[edit]
In its 2011 annual report, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom designated fourteen nations as "countries of particular concern". The commission chairman commented that these are nations whose conduct marks them as the world's worst religious freedom violators and human rights abusers. The fourteen nations designated were Burma, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Other nations on the commission's watchlist include Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Venezuela.[88]
There are concerns about the restrictions on public religious dress in some European countries (including the Hijab, Kippah, and Christian cross).[89][90] Article 18 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights limits restrictions on freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs to those necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.[91] Freedom of religion as a legal concept is related to, but not identical with, religious toleration, separation of church and state, or secular state (laïcité).
Social hostilities and government restrictions[edit]



 Freedom of religion by country (Pew Research Center study, 2009). Light yellow: low restriction; red: very high restriction on freedom of religion.
The Pew Research Center has performed studies on international religious freedom between 2009 and 2015, compiling global data from 16 governmental and non-governmental organizations–including the United Nations, the United States State Department, and Human Rights Watch–and representing over 99.5 percent of the world's population.[92][93] In 2009, nearly 70 percent of the world's population lived in countries classified as having heavy restrictions on freedom of religion.[92][93] This concerns restrictions on religion originating from government prohibitions on free speech and religious expression as well as social hostilities undertaken by private individuals, organisations and social groups. Social hostilities were classified by the level of communal violence and religion-related terrorism.
While most countries provided for the protection of religious freedom in their constitutions or laws, only a quarter of those countries were found to fully respect these legal rights in practice. In 75 countries governments limit the efforts of religious groups to proselytise and in 178 countries religious groups must register with the government. In 2013, Pew classified 30% of countries as having restrictions that tend to target religious minorities, and 61% of countries have social hostilities that tend to target religious minorities.[94]
The countries in North and South America reportedly had some of the lowest levels of government and social restrictions on religion, while The Middle East and North Africa were the regions with the highest. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran were the countries that top the list of countries with the overall highest levels of restriction on religion. Topping the Pew government restrictions index were Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, China, Egypt, Burma, Maldives, Eritrea, Malaysia and Brunei.
Of the world's 25 most populous countries, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan had the most restrictions, while Brazil, Japan, Italy, South Africa, the UK, and the US had some of the lowest levels, as measured by Pew.
Vietnam and China were classified as having high government restrictions on religion but were in the moderate or low range when it came to social hostilities. Nigeria, Bangladesh and India were high in social hostilities but moderate in terms of government actions.
Restrictions on religion across the world increased between mid-2009 and mid-2010, according to a 2012 study by the Pew Research Center. Restrictions in each of the five major regions of the world increased—including in the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa, the two regions where overall restrictions previously had been declining. In 2010, Egypt, Nigeria, the Palestinian territories, Russia, and Yemen were added to the "very high" category of social hostilities.[95] The five highest social hostility scores were for Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and Bangladesh.[96] In 2015, Pew published that social hostilities declined in 2013, but Harassment of Jews increased.[94]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Human rights portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Adiaphora
Forum 18
Freedom of thought
International Association for Religious Freedom
International Center for Law and Religion Studies
International Coalition for Religious Freedom
International Religious Liberty Association
Missouri Executive Order 44
General Order No. 11 (1862)
North American Religious Liberty Association
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States
Religious discrimination
Status of religious freedom by country
Religious education in primary and secondary education
Witch-hunt
Witch trials in the early modern period
Lawsuits[edit]
C. H. v. Oliva et al.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.
2.Jump up ^ "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". The United Nations.
3.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H. "The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right". Archived from the original on 1 February 2008. Retrieved 5 December 2006. (archived from the original on 1 February 2008).
4.Jump up ^ Congressional Record #29734 – 19 November 2003. Google Books. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
5.Jump up ^ Cyrus Cylinder, livius.org.
6.Jump up ^ Richard A. Taylor; E. Ray Clendenen (15 October 2004). Haggai, Malachi. B&H Publishing Group. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-0-8054-0121-9.
7.Jump up ^ Natan, Yoel (2006). Moon-o-theism, Volume II of II. Yoel Natan. p. 514. ISBN 978-1-4392-9717-9.
8.Jump up ^ Njeuma, Martin Z. (2012). Fulani Hegemony in Yola (Old Adamawa) 1809-1902. African Books Collective. p. 82. ISBN 978-9956-726-95-0.
9.Jump up ^ (Weeramantry 1997, p. 138)[citation needed]
10.Jump up ^ Sachedina, Abdulaziz Abdulhussein (2001). The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513991-7.
11.Jump up ^ Mark R. Cohen (1995). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press. p. 74. ISBN 0-691-01082-X. Retrieved 10 April 2010.
12.Jump up ^ al-Qattan, Najwa (1999). "Dhimmis in the Muslim Court: Legal Autonomy and Religious Discrimination". International Journal of Middle East Studies (University of Cambridge) 31 (3): 429–444. doi:10.1017/S0020743800055501. ISSN 00207438.
13.Jump up ^ Sherman A. Jackson (2005). Islam and the Blackamerican: looking toward the third resurrection. Oxford University Press. p. 144. ISBN 0-19-518081-X. Retrieved 10 April 2010.
14.Jump up ^ The Last Jews of Kerala, p98
15.Jump up ^ Katz 2000; Koder 1973; Thomas Puthiakunnel 1973; David de Beth Hillel, 1832; Lord, James Henry 1977.
16.Jump up ^ Parsis#History
17.Jump up ^ Who are the Jews of India? – The S. Mark Taper Foundation imprint in Jewish studies. University of California Press. 2000. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-520-21323-4. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZWX6pF2PTJwC&pg=PA26.; "When the Portuguese arrived in 1498, they brought a spirit of intolerance utterly alien to India. They soon established an Office of Inquisition at Goa, and at their hands Indian Jews experienced the only instance of anti-Semitism ever to occur in Indian soil."
18.Jump up ^ David E. Ludden (1996). Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 257–258. ISBN 0-8122-1585-0.
19.Jump up ^ Rajni Kothari (1998). Communalism in Indian Politics. Rainbow Publishers. pp. 134. ISBN 978-81-86962-00-8.
20.Jump up ^ "India's religious tolerance lauded". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
21.Jump up ^ "Christian Persecution in India: The Real Story". Stephen-knapp.com. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
22.Jump up ^ "The Constitution of India" (PDF). Retrieved 3 September 2011.
23.^ Jump up to: a b "'Using places of worship for campaigning in Kerala civic polls is violation of poll code'". Indian Orthodox Herald. 18 September 2010. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
24.Jump up ^ "Roger II". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
25.Jump up ^ "Tracing The Norman Rulers of Sicily". New York Times. 26 April 1987. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
26.Jump up ^ Christopher Gravett (15 November 1997). German Medieval Armies 1000–1300. Osprey Publishing. pp. 17. ISBN 978-1-85532-657-6.
27.Jump up ^ Thomas Curtis Van Cleve's The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: Immutator Mundi (Oxford, 1972)
28.Jump up ^ Unitarian Universalist Partner Church Council. "Edict of Torda" (DOC). Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
29.Jump up ^ Karl Heussi, Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, 11. Auflage (1956), Tübingen (Germany), pp. 396-397
30.Jump up ^ Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Ciffs, N.J., p. 124
31.Jump up ^ Zamoyski, Adam. The Polish Way. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987
32.^ Jump up to: a b Rogers, Horatio, 2009. Mary Dyer of Rhode Island: The Quaker Martyr That Was Hanged on Boston Common, 1 June 1660 pp.1–2. BiblioBazaar, LLC
33.Jump up ^ Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: a comprehensive encyclopedia. Google Books. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
34.^ Jump up to: a b Zimmerman, Mark, Symbol of Enduring Freedom, p. 19, Columbia Magazine, March 2010
35.Jump up ^ Brugger, Robert J. (1988). Maryland: A Middle Temperament. , p 21, Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-3399-X.
36.Jump up ^ Finkelman, Paul, Maryland Toleration Act, The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, New York: CRC Press. ISBN 0-415-94342-6.
37.^ Jump up to: a b id=6ybHa6D24qQC&pg=PA78&dq=henry+darnall&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=3&ei=fcKDS_qNIKjoygTH_rnxCg&cd=5#v=onepage&q=henry%20darnall&f=false Roark, Elisabeth Louise, p.78, Artists of colonial America Retrieved 22 February 2010
38.Jump up ^ Christopher Fennell (1998), Plymouth Colony Legal Structure (http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/ccflaw.html)
39.Jump up ^ Hanover Historical Texts Project (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html)
40.Jump up ^ M. Schmidt, Pilgerväter, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Tübingen (Germany), Band V (1961), col. 384
41.Jump up ^ M. Schmidt, Hooker, Thomas, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Band III (1959), col. 449
42.Jump up ^ Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 74-75, 99, 102-105, 113-115
43.Jump up ^ Edwin S. Gaustad (1999), Liberty of Conscience: Roger Williams in America, Judson Press, Valley Forge
44.Jump up ^ Hans Fantel (1974), William Penn: Apostel of Dissent, William Morrow & Co., New York, N.Y.
45.Jump up ^ Heinrich Bornkamm, Toleranz. In der Geschichte der Christenheit, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Band VI (1962), col. 943
46.Jump up ^ Robert Middlekauff (2005), The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, Revised and Expanded Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-531588-2, p. 635
47.Jump up ^ Freedom of Religion and Religious Symbols in the Public Sphere. 2.2.2 Headcoverings. Parliament of Canada. Publication No. 2011-60-E. Published 2011-07-25. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
48.Jump up ^ "A/RES/36/55. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief". United Nations. 25 November 1981. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
49.Jump up ^ "CCPR General Comment 22: 30/07/93 on ICCPR Article 18". Minorityrights.org.
50.^ Jump up to: a b c International Federation for Human Rights (1 August 2003). "Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran" (PDF). fdih.org. Retrieved 3 March 2009.
51.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H. "The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right" (PDF). Retrieved 3 March 2009.
52.Jump up ^ "The Constitution Guarantees Freedom From Religion". Freedom From Religion Foundation. August 28, 2000. Retrieved December 27, 2012.
53.Jump up ^ Elena Garcia, Atheist Billboard Hits Idaho, 10 March 2009, The Christian Post.
54.Jump up ^ Smith, Adam (1776), Wealth of Nations, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p.643-649
55.Jump up ^ Smith, Adam (1776), Wealth of Nations, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p.647
56.^ Jump up to: a b "Hindu Beliefs". religionfacts.com.
57.Jump up ^ "Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Global restrictions on Religion (2009" http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/12/restrictions-fullreport1.pdf
58.Jump up ^ "Police arrest 5 women at Western Wall for wearing tallitot" Jerusalem Post (Apr 11, 2013)
59.Jump up ^ "Maltz, Judy 'Non-Orthodox Jews prohibited from praying in Knesset synagogue' (Nov 26, 2014) Haaretz" http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.628571
60.^ Jump up to: a b c "Declaration on religious freedom – Dignitatis humanae". Vatican.va. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
61.Jump up ^ Pope Pius IX. "THE SYLLABUS". Global Catholic Neetwork.
62.Jump up ^ "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may", the eleventh Article of Faith.
63.Jump up ^ Mutua, Makau. 2004. Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
64.Jump up ^ J. D. Van der Vyver; John Witte (1996). Religious human rights in global perspective: legal perspectives 2. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. [1]. ISBN 90-411-0177-2.
65.Jump up ^ Introduction | Breaking India
66.Jump up ^ Joel H. Spring (2001). Globalization and educational rights: an intercivilizational analysis. Routledge. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-8058-3882-4.
67.Jump up ^ United States of America, Department of State. "2010 International Religious Freedom Report". International Religious Freedom Report. US Department of State. Retrieved 15 February 2012.
68.Jump up ^ Islam and Belief: At Home with Religious Freedom, Abdullah Saeed (2014): 8.
69.Jump up ^ Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (2007). "A Faith Denied: The Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran" (PDF). Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-11-27. Retrieved 3 March 2007.
70.Jump up ^ Mayton, Joseph (19 December 2006). "Egypt's Bahais denied citizenship rights". Middle East Times. Archived from the original on 2009-04-06. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
71.Jump up ^ Otterman, Sharon (17 December 2006). "Court denies Bahai couple document IDs". The Washington Times. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
72.^ Jump up to: a b c Nkrumah, Gamal (21 December 2006). "Rendered faithless and stateless". Al-Ahram weekly. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
73.Jump up ^ "US State Department report on Greece". State.gov. 8 November 2005. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
74.Jump up ^ Mutua, Makau (2004). Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief. p. 652. ISBN 978-90-04-13783-7.
75.Jump up ^ Sanu, Sankrant (2006). "Re-examining Religious Freedom" (PDF). Manushi. Retrieved 26 July 2008.
76.Jump up ^ "No place to call home" (PDF). Christian Solidarity Worldwide. 29 April 2008.
77.Jump up ^ [2] from "Leaving Islam: Apostates speak out" by Ibn Warraq
78.^ Jump up to: a b Heffening, W. "Murtadd". In P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Encyclopaedia of Islam Online Edition. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912.
79.Jump up ^ Adbul Qadir Oudah (1999). Kitab Bhavan. New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan. ISBN 81-7151-273-9., Volume II. pp. 258–262; Volume IV. pp. 19–21
80.Jump up ^ S. A. Rahman (2007). "Summary and Conclusions". Punishment of Apostasy in Islam. The Other Press. pp. 132–142. ISBN 978-983-9541-49-6.
81.Jump up ^ Pencovic v. Pencovic, 45 Cal. 2d 67 (1955).
82.Jump up ^ Criminal Law and Procedure, Daniel E. Hall. Cengage Learning, July 2008. p. 266. [3]
83.Jump up ^ "Gesetz über die religiöse Kindererziehung". Bundesrecht.juris.de. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
84.Jump up ^ Bundesgesetz 1985 über die religiöse Kindererziehung (pdf)
85.Jump up ^ "Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch Art 303: Religiöse Erziehung". Gesetze.ch. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
86.Jump up ^ Margery Post Abbott (2011). Historical Dictionary of the Friends (Quakers). Scarecrow Press. pp. 102. ISBN 978-0-8108-7088-8.
87.Jump up ^ Religious Freedom Day, 2006 – A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America, Religious Freedom Day, 2001 – Proclamation by the President of the United States of America 15 January 2001
88.Jump up ^ "US commission names 14 worst violators of religious freedom". Christianity Today. 29 April 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
 ^ "USCIRF Identifies World's Worst Religious Freedom Violators: Egypt Cited for First Time" (Press release). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 28 April 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
 ^ Annual Report 2011 (PDF) (Report). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. May 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
89.Jump up ^ "France Passes Religious Symbol Ban". Christianity Today. 9 February 2004. Retrieved 29 April 2011.
90.Jump up ^ "The Islamic veil across Europe". BBC News. 17 November 2006. Retrieved 2 December 2006.
91.Jump up ^ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Retrieved 4 July 2009.
92.^ Jump up to: a b "Global Restrictions on Religion (Executive summary)". The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. December 2009. Retrieved 29 December 2009.
93.^ Jump up to: a b "Global Restrictions on Religion (Full report)" (PDF). The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. December 2009. Retrieved 12 September 2013.
94.^ Jump up to: a b "Latest Trends in Religious Restrictions and Hostilities". Pew Forum. 26 Feb 2015.
95.Jump up ^ Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion (Report). Pew Research Center. September 20, 2012.
96.Jump up ^ "Table: Social Hostilities Index by country" (PDF). Pew Research Center. 2012.
Further reading[edit]
Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark David Hall. The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Press, 2009).
Barzilai, Gad (2007). Law and Religion. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2494-3.
Beneke, Chris (20 September 2006). Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-530555-8.
Curry, Thomas J. (19 December 1989). Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (19 December 1989). ISBN 0-19-505181-5.
Frost, J. William (1990) A Perfect Freedom: Religious Liberty in Pennsylvania (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press).
Gaustad, Edwin S. (2004, 2nd ed.) Faith of the Founders: Religion and the New Nation, 1776–1826 (Waco: Baylor University Press).
Hamilton, Marci A. (17 June 2005). God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law. Edward R. Becker (Foreword). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85304-4.
Hanson, Charles P. (1998). Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1794-8.
Hasson, Kevin 'Seamus', The Right to be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America, Encounter Books, 2005, ISBN 1-59403-083-9
McLoughlin, William G. (1971). New England Dissent: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State (2 VOLS.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Murphy, Andrew R. (July 2001). Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02105-5.
Mutua, Makau (2004). Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
Stokes, Anson Phelps (1950) Church and State in the United States, Historic Development and Contemporary Problems of Religious Freedom under the Constitution, 3 Volumes (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers).
Stokes, DaShanne (In Press). Legalized Segregation and the Denial of Religious Freedom at the Wayback Machine (archived October 27, 2009)
Stüssi Marcel, MODELS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: Switzerland, the United States, and Syria by Analytical, Methodological, and Eclectic Representation, 375 ff. (Lit 2012)., by Marcel Stüssi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.
Associated Press (2002). Appeals court upholds man's use of eagle feathers for religious practices
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)
Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious
Ban on Minarets: On the Validity of a Controversial Swiss Popular Initiative (2008), , by Marcel Stuessi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.
"Religious Liberty: The legal framework in selected OSCE countries." (PDF). Law Library, U.S. Library of Congress. May 2000. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 June 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2007.
Utt, Walter C. (1964). "Brickbats and Dead Cats" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 59 (4, July–August): 18–21. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
Utt, Walter C. (1960). "A Plea for the Somewhat Disorganized Man" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 55 (4, July–August): 15, 16, 29. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
Utt, Walter C. (1974). "Toleration is a Nasty Word" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 69 (2, March–April): 10–13. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
Zippelius, Reinhold (2009). Staat und Kirche, ch.13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-150016-9.
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Freedom of religion
Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations.
The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of "Religion" in International Law Harvard Human Rights Journal article from the President and Fellows of Harvard College (2003)
Human Rights Brief No. 3, Freedom Of Religion and Belief Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)
U.S. State Department country reports
Institute for Global Engagement
Institute for Religious Freedom


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Liberty













Liberty



































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Substantive human rights






























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity and politics

















































Authority control
GND: 4125186-6 ·
 NDL: 00571078
 

  


Categories: Freedom of religion























Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Alemannisch
العربية
Беларуская
Български
བོད་ཡིག
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Føroyskt
Français
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Latina
Magyar
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پښتو
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 June 2015, at 16:50.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion










Freedom of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Freedom of worship" and "Freedom to Worship" redirect here. For the 1943 painting/poster, see Freedom to Worship (painting).

Freedom of religion


Concepts[show]





Status by country[show]













































































































Religious persecution[show]


























Religion portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Freedom of religion or freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.[1] The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group—in religious terms called "apostasy"—is also a fundamental[peacock term] part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2]
Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right.[3][4] In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths.


Contents  [hide]
1 History 1.1 Muslim world
1.2 India
1.3 Europe 1.3.1 Religious intolerance
1.3.2 Early steps and attempts in the way of tolerance
1.3.3 Early laws and legal guarantees for religious freedom 1.3.3.1 Poland

1.4 United States
1.5 Canada
1.6 International
2 Contemporary debates 2.1 Theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs
2.2 Liberal secular
2.3 Hinduism
2.4 Judaism
2.5 Christianity
2.6 Islam
2.7 Changing religion 2.7.1 Apostasy in Islam
2.8 Secular law
3 Children's rights
4 International Religious Freedom Day
5 Modern concerns 5.1 Social hostilities and government restrictions
6 See also 6.1 Lawsuits
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links

History[edit]

Text document with red question mark.svg
 This section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies. (help, talk, get involved!) (September 2010)



Minerva as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions (Daniel Chodowiecki, 1791)
Historically, freedom of religion has been used to refer to the tolerance of different theological systems of belief, while freedom of worship has been defined as freedom of individual action. Each of these have existed to varying degrees. While many countries have accepted some form of religious freedom, this has also often been limited in practice through punitive taxation, repressive social legislation, and political disenfranchisement. Compare examples of individual freedom in Italy or the Muslim tradition of dhimmis, literally "protected individuals" professing an officially tolerated non-Muslim religion.



 The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) guarantees freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society.
In Antiquity, a syncretic point of view often allowed communities of traders to operate under their own customs. When street mobs of separate quarters clashed in a Hellenistic or Roman city, the issue was generally perceived to be an infringement of community rights.
Cyrus the Great established the Achaemenid Empire ca. 550 BC, and initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout the empire, documenting this on the Cyrus Cylinder.[5][6]
Some of the historical exceptions have been in regions where one of the revealed religions has been in a position of power: Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam. Others have been where the established order has felt threatened, as shown in the trial of Socrates in 399 BC or where the ruler has been deified, as in Rome, and refusal to offer token sacrifice was similar to refusing to take an oath of allegiance. This was the core for resentment and the persecution of early Christian communities.
Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India by Ashoka the Great in the 3rd century BC, which was encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka.
Greek-Jewish clashes at Cyrene in 73 AD and 117 AD and in Alexandria in 115 AD provide examples of cosmopolitan cities as scenes of tumult.
Muslim world[edit]
Following a period of fighting lasting around a hundred years before 620 AD which mainly involved Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Medina (then known as Yathrib), religious freedom for Muslims, Jews and pagans were declared by Muhammad in the Constitution of Medina. The Islamic Caliphate later guaranteed religious freedom under the conditions that non-Muslim communities accept dhimmi (second class) status and their adult males pay the jizya tax as a substitute for the zakat paid by Muslim citizens.[7][8]
Religious pluralism existed in classical Islamic ethics and Sharia law, as the religious laws and courts of other religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, were usually accommodated within the Islamic legal framework, as seen in the early Caliphate, Al-Andalus, Indian subcontinent, and the Ottoman Millet system.[9][10] In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi (Islamic judges) usually could not interfere in the matters of non-Muslims unless the parties voluntarily choose to be judged according to Islamic law, thus the dhimmi communities living in Islamic states usually had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who would have their own Halakha courts.[11]
Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order.[12] Non-Muslims were allowed to engage in religious practices that was usually forbidden by Islamic law, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork, as well as religious practices which Muslims found repugnant, such as the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous "self-marriage" where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter. According to the famous Islamic legal scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292–1350), non-Muslims had the right to engage in such religious practices even if it offended Muslims, under the conditions that such cases not be presented to Islamic Sharia courts and that these religious minorities believed that the practice in question is permissible according to their religion.[13]
India[edit]
Main article: Freedom of religion in India
Religious freedom and the right to worship freely were practices that had been appreciated and promoted by most ancient Indian dynasties.[citation needed] As a result, people fleeing religious persecution in other parts of the world including Christians, Jews, Bahá'í Faith and Zoroastrians fled to India as a place of refuge to enjoy religious freedom.[14][15][16]
Ancient Jews fleeing from persecution in their homeland 2,500 years ago settled in India and never faced anti-Semitism.[17] Freedom of religion edicts have been found written during Ashoka the Great's reign in the 3rd century BC. Freedom to practise, preach and propagate any religion is a constitutional right in Modern India. Most major religious festivals of the main communities are included in the list of national holidays.
Although India is an 80% Hindu country, three out of the twelve presidents of India have been Muslims.
Many scholars and intellectuals believe that India's predominant religion, Hinduism, has long been a most tolerant religion.[18] Rajni Kothari, founder of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies has written, "[India] is a country built on the foundations of a civilisation that is fundamentally non-religious."[19]
The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader in exile said that religious tolerance of 'Aryabhoomi,' a reference to India found in Mahabharata, has been in existence in this country from thousands of years. "Not only Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism which are the native religions but also Christianity and Islam have flourished here. Religious tolerance is inherent in Indian tradition," the Dalai Lama said.[20]
Freedom of religion in the Indian subcontinent is exemplified by the reign of King Piyadasi (304 BC to 232 BC) (Ashoka). One of King Ashoka's main concerns was to reform governmental institutes and exercise moral principles in his attempt to create a just and humane society. Later he promoted the principles of Buddhism, and the creation of a just, understanding and fair society was held as an important principle for many ancient rulers of this time in the East.
The importance of freedom of worship in India was encapsulated in an inscription of Ashoka:

King Piyadasi (Ashok) dear to the Gods, honours all sects, the ascetics (hermits) or those who dwell at home, he honours them with charity and in other ways. But the King, dear to the Gods, attributes less importance to this charity and these honours than to the vow of seeing the reign of virtues, which constitutes the essential part of them. For all these virtues there is a common source, modesty of speech. That is to say, one must not exalt one's creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others without legitimate reasons. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honour befitting them.
The initial entry of Islam into South Asia came in the first century after the death of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. When around 1210 AD the Islamic Sultanates invaded India from the north-west, gradually the principle of freedom of religion deteriorated in this part of the world. They were subsequently replaced by another Islamic invader in the form of Babur. The Mughal empire was founded by the Mongol leader Babur in 1526, when he defeated Ibrahim Lodi, the last of the Delhi Sultans at the First Battle of Panipat. The word "Mughal" is the Indo-Iranian version of Mongol.
On the main Asian continent, the Mongols were tolerant of religions. People could worship as they wished freely and openly, though the formation of 2 nations i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh has been on basis of religious intolerance.
After arrival of Europeans, Christians in zeal to convert local as per belief in conversion as service of God, have also been seen to fall into frivolous methods since their arrival. Though by and large there are hardly any reports of law and order disturbance from mobs with Christian beliefs except perhaps in the north eastern region of India.[21]
Freedom of religion in contemporary India is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the nation's constitution. Accordingly every citizen of India has a right to profess, practice and propagate their religions peacefully.[22] Vishwa Hindu Parishad counters this argument by saying that evangelical Christians are forcefully (or through money) converting rural, illiterate populations and they are only trying to stop this.
In September 2010, Indian state Kerala's State Election Commissioner announced that "Religious heads cannot issue calls to vote for members of a particular community or to defeat the nonbelievers".[23] The Catholic Church comprising Latin, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara rites used to give clear directions to the faithful on exercising their franchise during elections through pastoral letters issued by bishops or council of bishops. The pastoral letter issued by Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council (KCBC) on the eve of the poll urged the faithful to shun atheists.[23]
Even today, most Indians celebrate all religious festivals with equal enthusiasm and respect. Hindu festivals like Deepavali and Holi, Muslim festivals like Eid al-Fitr, Eid-Ul-Adha, Muharram, Christian festivals like Christmas and other festivals like Buddha Purnima, Mahavir Jayanti, Gur Purab etc. are celebrated and enjoyed by all Indians.
Europe[edit]
Religious intolerance[edit]
Most Roman Catholic kingdoms kept a tight rein on religious expression throughout the Middle Ages. Jews were alternately tolerated and persecuted, the most notable examples of the latter being the expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492. Some of those who remained and converted were tried as heretics in the Inquisition for allegedly practicing Judaism in secret. Despite the persecution of Jews, they were the most tolerated non-Catholic faith in Europe.
However, the latter was in part a reaction to the growing movement that became the Reformation. As early as 1380, John Wycliffe in England denied transubstantiation and began his translation of the Bible into English. He was condemned in a Papal Bull in 1410, and all his books were burned.
In 1414, Jan Hus, a Bohemian preacher of reformation, was given a safe conduct by the Holy Roman Emperor to attend the Council of Constance. Not entirely trusting in his safety, he made his will before he left. His forebodings proved accurate, and he was burned at the stake on 6 July 1415. The Council also decreed that Wycliffe's remains be disinterred and cast out. This decree was not carried out until 1429.
After the fall of the city of Granada, Spain, in 1492, the Muslim population was promised religious freedom by the Treaty of Granada, but that promise was short-lived. In 1501, Granada's Muslims were given an ultimatum to either convert to Christianity or to emigrate. The majority converted, but only superficially, continuing to dress and speak as they had before and to secretly practice Islam. The Moriscos (converts to Christianity) were ultimately expelled from Spain between 1609 (Castile) and 1614 (rest of Spain), by Philip III.
Martin Luther published his famous 95 Theses in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517. His major aim was theological, summed up in the three basic dogmas of Protestantism:
The Bible only is infallible
Every Christian can interpret it
Human sins are so wrongful that no deed or merit, only God's grace, can lead to salvation.
In consequence, Luther hoped to stop the sale of indulgences and to reform the Church from within. In 1521, he was given the chance to recant at the Diet of Worms before Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, then only 19. After he refused to recant, he was declared heretic. Partly for his own protection, he was sequestered on the Wartburg in the possessions of Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, where he translated the New Testament into German. He was excommunicated by Papal Bull in 1521.
However, the movement continued to gain ground in his absence and spread to Switzerland. Huldrych Zwingli preached reform in Zürich from 1520 to 1523. He opposed the sale of indulgences, celibacy, pilgrimages, pictures, statues, relics, altars, and organs. This culminated in outright war between the Swiss cantons that accepted Protestantism and the Catholics. The Catholics were victorious, and Zwingli was killed in battle in 1531. The Catholic cantons were magnanimous in victory.[citation needed]
The defiance of Papal authority proved contagious, and in 1533, when Henry VIII of England was excommunicated for his divorce and remarriage to Anne Boleyn, he promptly established a state church with bishops appointed by the crown. This was not without internal opposition, and Thomas More, who had been his Lord Chancellor, was executed in 1535 for opposition to Henry.
In 1535, the Swiss canton of Geneva became Protestant. In 1536, the Bernese imposed the reformation on the canton of Vaud by conquest. They sacked the cathedral in Lausanne and destroyed all its art and statuary. John Calvin, who had been active in Geneva was expelled in 1538 in a power struggle, but he was invited back in 1540.



 A US Postage Stamp commemorating religious freedom and the Flushing Remonstrance.
The same kind of seesaw back and forth between Protestantism and Catholicism was evident in England when Mary I of England returned that country briefly to the Catholic fold in 1553 and persecuted Protestants. However, her half-sister, Elizabeth I of England was to restore the Church of England in 1558, this time permanently, and began to persecute Catholics again. The King James Bible commissioned by King James I of England and published in 1611 proved a landmark for Protestant worship, with official Catholic forms of worship being banned.
In France, although peace was made between Protestants and Catholics at the Treaty of Saint Germain in 1570, persecution continued, most notably in the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day on 24 August 1572, in which thousands of Protestants throughout France were killed. A few years before, at the "Michelade" of Nîmes in 1567, Protestants had massacred the local Catholic clergy.
Early steps and attempts in the way of tolerance[edit]



 The cross of the war memorial and a menorah coexist in Oxford, Oxfordshire, England.
The Norman Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II was characterized by its multi-ethnic nature and religious tolerance. Normans, Jews, Muslim Arabs, Byzantine Greeks, Lombards, and native Sicilians lived in harmony.[24][25][not in citation given] Rather than exterminate the Muslims of Sicily, Roger II's grandson Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1215—1250) allowed them to settle on the mainland and build mosques. Not least, he enlisted them in his – Christian – army and even into his personal bodyguards[26][need quotation to verify][27][need quotation to verify]
Bohemia (present-day Czech Republic) enjoyed religious freedom between 1436 and 1520, and became one of the most liberal countries of the Christian world during that period of time. The so-called Basel Compacts of 1436 declared the freedom of religion and peace between Catholics and Utraquists. In 1609 Emperor Rudolf II granted Bohemia greater religious liberty with his Letter of Majesty. The privileged position of the Catholic Church in the Czech kingdom was firmly established after the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. Gradually freedom of religion in Bohemian lands came to an end and Protestants fled or were expelled from the country. A devout Catholic, Emperor Ferdinand II forcibly converted Austrian and Bohemian Protestants.[citation needed]
In the meantime, in Germany Philip Melanchthon drafted the Augsburg Confession as a common confession for the Lutherans and the free territories. It was presented to Charles V in 1530.
In the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V agreed to tolerate Lutheranism in 1555 at the Peace of Augsburg. Each state was to take the religion of its prince, but within those states, there was not necessarily religious tolerance. Citizens of other faiths could relocate to a more hospitable environment.
In France, from the 1550s, many attempts to reconcile Catholics and Protestants and to establish tolerance failed because the State was too weak to enforce them. It took the victory of prince Henry IV of France, who had converted into Protestantism, and his accession to the throne, to impose religious tolerance formalized in the Edict of Nantes in 1598. It would remain in force for over 80 years until its revocation in 1685 by Louis XIV of France. Intolerance remained the norm until Louis XVI, who signed the Edict of Versailles (1787), then the constitutional text of 24 December 1789, granting civilian rights to Protestants. The French Revolution then abolished state religion and confiscated all Church property, turning intolerance against Catholics.[citation needed]
Early laws and legal guarantees for religious freedom[edit]
In 1558, the Transylvanian Diet of Torda declared free practice of both the Catholic and Lutheran religions, but prohibited Calvinism. Ten years later, in 1568, the Diet extended the freedom to all religions, declaring that "It is not allowed to anybody to intimidate anybody with captivity or expelling for his religion". However, it was more than a religious tolerance, it declared the equality of the religions. The emergence in social hierarchy wasn't depend on the religion of the person thus Transylvania had also Catholic and Protestant monarchs (Princes). The lack of state religion was unique for centuries in Europe. Therefore, the Edict of Torda is considered by mostly Hungarian historians as the first legal guarantee of religious freedom in Christian Europe.

ACT OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE:
His majesty, our Lord, in what manner he – together with his realm – legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same matter now, in this Diet, reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing, which hearings is by the word of God.
— Diet at Torda, 1568 : King John Sigismund[28]
In the Union of Utrecht (20 January 1579), personal freedom of religion was declared in the struggle between the Northern Netherlands and Spain. The Union of Utrecht was an important step in the establishment of the Dutch Republic (from 1581 to 1795). Under Calvinist leadership, the Netherlands became the most tolerant country in Europe. It granted asylum to persecuted religious minorities, e.g. French Huguenots, English Dissenters, and Jews who had been expelled from Spain and Portugal.[29] The establishment of a Jewish community in the Netherlands and New Amsterdam (present-day New York) during the Dutch Republic is an example of religious freedom. When New Amsterdam surrendered to the English in 1664, freedom of religion was guaranteed in the Articles of Capitulation. It benefitted also the Jews who had landed on Manhattan Island in 1654, fleeing Portuguese persecution in Brazil. During the 18th century, other Jewish communities were established at Newport, Rhode Island, Philadelphia, Charleston, Savannah, and Richmond.[30]
Intolerance of dissident forms of Protestantism also continued, as evidenced by the exodus of the Pilgrims, who sought refuge, first in the Netherlands, and ultimately in America, founding Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts in 1620. William Penn, the founder of Philadelphia, was involved in a case which had a profound effect upon future American laws and those of England. In a classic case of jury nullification the jury refused to convict William Penn of preaching a Quaker sermon, which was illegal. Even though the jury was imprisoned for their acquittal, they stood by their decision and helped establish the freedom of religion.
Poland[edit]
Main article: Warsaw Confederation



 Original act of the Warsaw Confederation 1573. The beginning of religious freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Poland has a long tradition of religious freedom. The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in Poland in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. Poland kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe.[31]
The General Charter of Jewish Liberties known as the Statute of Kalisz was issued by the Duke of Greater Poland Boleslaus the Pious on 8 September 1264 in Kalisz. The statute served as the basis for the legal position of Jews in Poland and led to creation of the Yiddish-speaking autonomous Jewish nation until 1795. The statute granted exclusive jurisdiction of Jewish courts over Jewish matters and established a separate tribunal for matters involving Christians and Jews. Additionally, it guaranteed personal liberties and safety for Jews including freedom of religion, travel, and trade. The statute was ratified by subsequent Polish Kings: Casimir III of Poland in 1334, Casimir IV of Poland in 1453 and Sigismund I of Poland in 1539. The Commonwealth set a precedent by allowing Jews to become ennobled.
United States[edit]
See also: Freedom of religion in the United States
Most of the early colonies were generally not tolerant of dissident forms of worship, with Maryland being one of the exceptions. For example, Roger Williams found it necessary to found a new colony in Rhode Island to escape persecution in the theocratically dominated colony of Massachusetts. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were the most active of the New England persecutors of Quakers, and the persecuting spirit was shared by Plymouth Colony and the colonies along the Connecticut river.[32] In 1660, one of the most notable victims of the religious intolerance was English Quaker Mary Dyer, who was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts for repeatedly defying a Puritan law banning Quakers from the colony.[32] As one of the four executed Quakers known as the Boston martyrs, the hanging of Dyer on the Boston gallows marked the beginning of the end of the Puritan theocracy and New England independence from English rule, and in 1661 King Charles II explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism.[33]
Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle of government in the founding of the colony of Maryland, founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, in 1634.[34] Fifteen years later (1649), the Maryland Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore, provided: "No person or persons...shall from henceforth be any waies troubled, molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof." The Maryland Toleration Act was repealed during the Cromwellian Era with the assistance of Protestant assemblymen and a new law barring Catholics from openly practicing their religion was passed.[35] In 1657, the Catholic Lord Baltimore regained control after making a deal with the colony's Protestants, and in 1658 the Act was again passed by the colonial assembly. This time, it would last more than thirty years, until 1692[36] when, after Maryland's Protestant Revolution of 1689, freedom of religion was again rescinded.[34][37] In addition, in 1704, an Act was passed "to prevent the growth of Popery in this Province", preventing Catholics from holding political office.[37] Full religious toleration would not be restored in Maryland until the American Revolution, when Maryland's Charles Carroll of Carrollton signed the American Declaration of Independence.
Rhode Island (1636), Connecticut (1636), New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (1682)—founded by Protestants Roger Williams, Thomas Hooker, and William Penn, respectively—combined the democratic form of government which had been developed by the Puritans and the Separatist Congregationalists in Massachusetts with religious freedom.[38][39][40][41] These colonies became sanctuaries for persecuted religious minorities. Catholics and later on Jews also had full citizenship and free exercise of their religions.[42][43][44] Williams, Hooker, Penn, and their friends were firmly convinced that freedom of conscience was the will of God. Williams gave the most profound argument: As faith is the free work of the Holy Spirit, it cannot be forced on a person. Therefore strict separation of church and state has to be kept.[45] Pennsylvania was the only colony that retained unlimited religious freedom until the foundation of the United States in 1776. It was the inseparable connection between democracy, religious freedom, and the other forms of freedom which became the political and legal basis of the new nation. In particular, Baptists and Presbyterians demanded the disestablishment of state churches - Anglican and Congregationalist - and the protection of religious freedom.[46]
Reiterating Maryland's and the other colonies' earlier colonial legislation, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed:

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Those sentiments also found expression in the First Amendment of the national constitution, part of the United States' Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The United States formally considers religious freedom in its foreign relations. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 established the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom which investigates the records of over 200 other nations with respect to religious freedom, and makes recommendations to submit nations with egregious records to ongoing scrutiny and possible economic sanctions. Many human rights organizations have urged the United States to be still more vigorous in imposing sanctions on countries that do not permit or tolerate religious freedom.
Canada[edit]
Further information: Freedom of religion in Canada
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference. Canadian law goes further, requiring that private citizens and companies provide reasonable accommodation to those, for example, with strong religious beliefs. The Canadian Human Rights Act allows an exception to reasonable accommodation with respect to religious dress, such as a Sikh turban, when there is a bona fide occupational requirement, such as a workplace requiring a hard hat.[47]
International[edit]
On 25 November 1981, the United Nations General Assembly passed the "Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief". This declaration recognizes freedom of religion as a fundamental human right in accordance with several other instruments of international law, but the international community has not passed any binding legal instruments that guarantee the right to freedom of religion.[48]
Contemporary debates[edit]

Freedom of religion


Concepts[show]





Status by country[show]













































































































Religious persecution[show]


























Religion portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs[edit]
In 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief."[49] The committee further stated that "the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views." Signatories to the convention are barred from "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers" to recant their beliefs or convert. Despite this, minority religions still are still persecuted in many parts of the world.[50][51]
Within the United States, the Freedom From Religion Foundation argues that the United States Constitution not only prohibits the intrusion of religion into the processes of government, but also guarantees equal rights to citizens who choose not to follow any religion.[52] Conservative sociopolitical commentator Bryan Fischer has responded: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."[53]
Liberal secular[edit]

A man posing for a print

Adam Smith argued in favour of freedom of religion.
Adam Smith, in his book The Wealth of Nations (using an argument first put forward by his friend and contemporary David Hume), states that in the long run it is in the best interests of society as a whole and the civil magistrate (government) in particular to allow people to freely choose their own religion, as it helps prevent civil unrest and reduces intolerance. So long as there are enough different religions and/or religious sects operating freely in a society then they are all compelled to moderate their more controversial and violent teachings, so as to be more appealing to more people and so have an easier time attracting new converts. It is this free competition amongst religious sects for converts that ensures stability and tranquillity in the long run.
Smith also points out that laws that prevent religious freedom and seek to preserve the power and belief in a particular religion will, in the long run, only serve to weaken and corrupt that religion, as its leaders and preachers become complacent, disconnected and unpractised in their ability to seek and win over new converts:[54]

The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent, where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or, perhaps, into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquillity. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which are so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects.[55]
Hinduism[edit]
Hinduism is one of the more open-minded religions when it comes to religious freedom.[56] It respects the right of everyone to reach God in their own way. Hindus believe in different ways to preach attainment of God and religion as a philosophy and hence respect all religions as equal. One of the famous Hindu sayings about religion is: "Truth is one; sages call it by different names."[56]
Judaism[edit]
Judaism includes multiple streams, such as Orthodox, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, Jewish Renewal and Humanistic Judaism. Israel, viewed as the Jewish homeland, has been evaluated in research by the Pew organization as having "high" government restrictions on religion. The government recognizes only Orthodox Judaism in certain matters of personal status, and marriages can only be performed by religious authorities. The government provides the greatest funding to Orthodox Judaism, even though adherents represent a minority of citizens.[57] Jewish women have been arrested at the Western Wall for praying and singing while wearing religious garments the Orthodox feel should be reserved for men. Women of the Wall have organized to promote religious freedom at the Wall.[58] In November 2014, a group of 60 non-Orthodox rabbinical students were told they would not be allowed to pray in the Knesset synagogue because it is reserved for Orthodox. Rabbi Joel Levy, director of the Conservative Yeshiva in Jerusalem, said that he had submitted the request on behalf of the students and saw their shock when the request was denied. He noted: "paradoxically, this decision served as an appropriate end to our conversation about religion and state in Israel." MK Dov Lipman expressed the concern that many Knesset workers are unfamiliar with non-Orthodox and American practices and would view "an egalitarian service in the synagogue as an affront."[59]
Christianity[edit]



 Part of the Oscar Straus Memorial in Washington, D.C. honoring the right to worship.
According to the Catholic Church in the Vatican II document on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, "the human person has a right to religious freedom", which is described as "immunity from coercion in civil society".[60] This principle of religious freedom "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion."[60] In addition, this right "is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."[60]
Prior to this, Pope Pius IX had written a document called the Syllabus of Errors. The Syllabus was made up of phrases and paraphrases from earlier papal documents, along with index references to them, and presented as a list of "condemned propositions". It does not explain why each particular proposition is wrong, but it cites earlier documents to which the reader can refer for the Pope's reasons for saying each proposition is false. Among the statements included in the Syllabus are: "[It is an error to say that] Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true" (15); "[It is an error to say that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship" (77); "[It is an error to say that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship" (78).[61]
Some Orthodox Christians, especially those living in democratic countries, support religious freedom for all, as evidenced by the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Many Protestant Christian churches, including some Baptists, Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventist Church and main line churches have a commitment to religious freedoms. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also affirms religious freedom.[62]
However others, such as African scholar Makau Mutua, have argued that Christian insistence on the propagation of their faith to native cultures as an element of religious freedom has resulted in a corresponding denial of religious freedom to native traditions and led to their destruction. As he states in the book produced by the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief, "Imperial religions have necessarily violated individual conscience and the communal expressions of Africans and their communities by subverting African religions."[63][64]
In their book Breaking India, Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan discussed the "US Church" funding activities in India, such as the popularly advertised campaigns to "save" poor children by feeding, clothing, and educating them, with the book arguing that the funds collected were being used not so much for the purposes indicated to sponsors, but for indoctrination and conversion activities. They suggest that India is the prime target of a huge enterprise—a "network" of organizations, individuals, and churches—that, they argue, seem intensely devoted to the task of creating a separatist identity, history, and even religion for the vulnerable sections of India. They suggest that this nexus of players includes not only church groups, government bodies, and related organizations, but also private think tanks and academics.[65]
Joel Spring has written about the Christianization of the Roman Empire:

Christianity added new impetus to the expansion of empire. Increasing the arrogance of the imperial project, Christians insisted that the Gospels and the Church were the only valid sources of religious beliefs. Imperialists could claim that they were both civilizing the world and spreading the true religion. By the 5th century, Christianity was thought of as co-extensive with the Imperium romanum. This meant that to be human, as opposed to being a natural slave, was to be "civilized" and Christian. Historian Anthony Pagden argues, "just as the civitas; had now become coterminous with Christianity, so to be human—to be, that is, one who was 'civil', and who was able to interpret correctly the law of nature—one had now also to be Christian." After the fifteenth century, most Western colonialists rationalized the spread of empire with the belief that they were saving a barbaric and pagan world by spreading Christian civilization.[66]
Islam[edit]
Main articles: Political aspects of Islam, Sharia, Caliphate, Islamic religious police and Islamism
Conversion to Islam is simple (cf. shahada), but Muslims are forbidden to convert from Islam to another religion (cf. Apostasy in Islam). Certain Muslim-majority countries are known for their restrictions on religious freedom, highly favoring Muslim citizens over non-Muslim citizens. Other countries[who?] having the same restrictive laws tend to be more liberal when imposing them. Even other Muslim-majority countries are secular and thus do not regulate religious belief.[67][not in citation given]
Some Islamic theologians[who?] quote the Qur'an ("There is no compulsion in religion"[2:256] and "Say: O you who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship...To you be your religion, and to me be mine"[109:1–6], i.e., Sura Al-Kafirun) to show scriptural support for religious freedom.
Quran 2:190–194, referring to the war against Pagans during the Battle of Badr in Medina, indicates that Muslims are only allowed to fight against those who intend to harm them (right of self-defense) and that if their enemies surrender, they must also stop because God does not like those who transgress limits.
In Bukhari:V9 N316, Jabir ibn 'Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin accepted Islam and then when he got a fever he demanded that Muhammad to cancel his pledge (allow him to renounce Islam). Muhammad refused to do so. The Bedouin man repeated his demand once, but Muhammad once again refused. Then, he (the Bedouin) left Medina. Muhammad said, "Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good." In this narration, there was no evidence demonstrating that Muhammad ordered the execution of the Bedouin for wanting to renounce Islam.
In addition, Quran 5:3, which is believed to be God's final revelation to Muhammad, states that Muslims are to fear God and not those who reject Islam, and Quran 53:38–39 states that one is accountable only for one's own actions. Therefore, it postulates that in Islam, in the matters of practising a religion, it does not relate to a worldly punishment, but rather these actions are accountable to God in the afterlife. Thus, this supports the argument against the execution of apostates in Islam.[68]
However, on the other hand, some Muslims support the practice of executing apostates who leave Islam, as in Bukhari:V4 B52 N260; "The Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
In Iran, the constitution recognizes four religions whose status is formally protected: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.[50] The constitution, however, also set the groundwork for the institutionalized persecution of Bahá'ís,[69] who have been subjected to arrests, beatings, executions, confiscation and destruction of property, and the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher education.[50] There is no freedom of conscience in Iran, as converting from Islam to any other religion is forbidden.
In Egypt, a 16 December 2006 judgment of the Supreme Administrative Council created a clear demarcation between recognized religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – and all other religious beliefs;[70][71] no other religious affiliation is officially admissible.[72] The ruling leaves members of other religious communities, including Bahá'ís, without the ability to obtain the necessary government documents to have rights in their country, essentially denying them of all rights of citizenship.[72] They cannot obtain ID cards, birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, and passports; they also cannot be employed, educated, treated in public hospitals or vote, among other things.[72] See Egyptian identification card controversy.
Changing religion[edit]
Main article: Religious conversion
Among the most contentious areas of religious freedom is the right of an individual to change or abandon his or her own religion (apostasy), and the right to evangelize individuals seeking to convince others to make such a change.
Other debates have centered around restricting certain kinds of missionary activity by religions. Many Islamic states, and others such as China, severely restrict missionary activities of other religions. Greece, among European countries, has generally looked unfavorably on missionary activities of denominations others than the majority church and proselytizing is constitutionally prohibited.[73]
A different kind of critique of the freedom to propagate religion has come from non-Abrahamic traditions such as the African and Indian. African scholar Makau Mutua criticizes religious evangelism on the ground of cultural annihilation by what he calls "proselytizing universalist faiths" (Chapter 28: Proselytism and Cultural Integrity, page 652):

...the (human) rights regime incorrectly assumes a level playing field by requiring that African religions compete in the marketplace of ideas. The rights corpus not only forcibly imposes on African religions the obligation to compete—a task for which as nonproselytizing, noncompetitive creeds they are not historically fashioned—but also protects the evangelizing religions in their march towards universalization ... it seems inconceivable that the human rights regime would have intended to protect the right of certain religions to destroy others.[74]
Some Indian scholars[75] have similarly argued that the right to propagate religion is not culturally or religiously neutral.
In Sri Lanka, there have been debates regarding a bill on religious freedom that seeks to protect indigenous religious traditions from certain kinds of missionary activities. Debates have also occurred in various states of India regarding similar laws, particularly those that restrict conversions using force, fraud or allurement.
In 2008, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a Christian human rights non-governmental organisation which specializes in religious freedom, launched an in-depth report on the human rights abuses faced by individuals who leave Islam for another religion. The report is the product of a year long research project in six different countries. It calls on Muslim nations, the international community, the UN and the international media to resolutely address the serious violations of human rights suffered by apostates.[76]
Apostasy in Islam[edit]
Main articles: Apostasy in Islam, Takfir and Mutaween



 Legal opinion on apostasy by the Fatwa committee at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the highest Islamic institution in the world, concerning the case of a man who converted to Christianity: "Since he left Islam, he will be invited to express his regret. If he does not regret, he will be killed pertaining to rights and obligations of the Islamic law."
In Islam, apostasy is called "ridda" ("turning back") and is considered to be a profound insult to God. A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "murtad fitri" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later rejects the religion is called a "murtad milli" (apostate from the community).[77]
In Islamic law (Sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi'a scholars.[78]
Ideally, the one performing the execution of an apostate must be an imam.[78] At the same time, all schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that any Muslim can kill an apostate without punishment.[79]
However, while almost all scholars agree about the punishment, many disagree on the allowable time to retract the apostasy. Many scholars push this as far as allowing the apostate till he/she dies. Thus, practically making the death penalty just a theoretical statement/exercise.[citation needed] S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the Qur'an.[80]
Secular law[edit]
Religious practice may also conflict with secular law, creating debates on religious freedom. For instance, even though polygamy is permitted in Islam, it is prohibited in secular law in many countries. This raises the question of whether prohibiting the practice infringes on the beliefs of certain Muslims. The US and India, both constitutionally secular nations, have taken two different views of this. In India, polygamy is permitted, but only for Muslims, under Muslim Personal Law. In the US, polygamy is prohibited for all. This was a major source of conflict between the early LDS Church and the United States until the Church amended its position on practicing polygamy.
Similar issues have also arisen in the context of the religious use of psychedelic substances by Native American tribes in the United States as well as other Native practices.
In 1955, Chief Justice of California Roger J. Traynor neatly summarized the American position on how freedom of religion cannot imply freedom from law: "Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not."[81] But with respect to the religious use of animals within secular law and those acts, the US Supreme Court decision in the case of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah in 1993 upheld the right of Santeria adherents to practice ritual animal sacrifice, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision: "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection" (quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division 450 U.S. 707 (1981)).[82]
Children's rights[edit]
The law in Germany provides the term of "religious majority" (Religiöse Mündigkeit) with a minimum age for minors to follow their own religious beliefs even if their parents don't share those or don't approve. Children 14 and older have the unrestricted right to enter or exit any religious community. Children 12 and older cannot be compelled to change to a different belief. Children 10 and older have to be heard before their parents change their religious upbringing to a different belief.[83] There are similar laws in Austria[84] and in Switzerland.[85]
International Religious Freedom Day[edit]
27 October is International Religious Freedom Day, in commemoration of the execution of the Boston martyrs for their religious convictions 1659–1661.[86] The US proclaimed 16 January Religious Freedom Day.[87]
Modern concerns[edit]
In its 2011 annual report, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom designated fourteen nations as "countries of particular concern". The commission chairman commented that these are nations whose conduct marks them as the world's worst religious freedom violators and human rights abusers. The fourteen nations designated were Burma, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Other nations on the commission's watchlist include Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Venezuela.[88]
There are concerns about the restrictions on public religious dress in some European countries (including the Hijab, Kippah, and Christian cross).[89][90] Article 18 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights limits restrictions on freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs to those necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.[91] Freedom of religion as a legal concept is related to, but not identical with, religious toleration, separation of church and state, or secular state (laïcité).
Social hostilities and government restrictions[edit]



 Freedom of religion by country (Pew Research Center study, 2009). Light yellow: low restriction; red: very high restriction on freedom of religion.
The Pew Research Center has performed studies on international religious freedom between 2009 and 2015, compiling global data from 16 governmental and non-governmental organizations–including the United Nations, the United States State Department, and Human Rights Watch–and representing over 99.5 percent of the world's population.[92][93] In 2009, nearly 70 percent of the world's population lived in countries classified as having heavy restrictions on freedom of religion.[92][93] This concerns restrictions on religion originating from government prohibitions on free speech and religious expression as well as social hostilities undertaken by private individuals, organisations and social groups. Social hostilities were classified by the level of communal violence and religion-related terrorism.
While most countries provided for the protection of religious freedom in their constitutions or laws, only a quarter of those countries were found to fully respect these legal rights in practice. In 75 countries governments limit the efforts of religious groups to proselytise and in 178 countries religious groups must register with the government. In 2013, Pew classified 30% of countries as having restrictions that tend to target religious minorities, and 61% of countries have social hostilities that tend to target religious minorities.[94]
The countries in North and South America reportedly had some of the lowest levels of government and social restrictions on religion, while The Middle East and North Africa were the regions with the highest. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran were the countries that top the list of countries with the overall highest levels of restriction on religion. Topping the Pew government restrictions index were Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, China, Egypt, Burma, Maldives, Eritrea, Malaysia and Brunei.
Of the world's 25 most populous countries, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan had the most restrictions, while Brazil, Japan, Italy, South Africa, the UK, and the US had some of the lowest levels, as measured by Pew.
Vietnam and China were classified as having high government restrictions on religion but were in the moderate or low range when it came to social hostilities. Nigeria, Bangladesh and India were high in social hostilities but moderate in terms of government actions.
Restrictions on religion across the world increased between mid-2009 and mid-2010, according to a 2012 study by the Pew Research Center. Restrictions in each of the five major regions of the world increased—including in the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa, the two regions where overall restrictions previously had been declining. In 2010, Egypt, Nigeria, the Palestinian territories, Russia, and Yemen were added to the "very high" category of social hostilities.[95] The five highest social hostility scores were for Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and Bangladesh.[96] In 2015, Pew published that social hostilities declined in 2013, but Harassment of Jews increased.[94]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Human rights portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Adiaphora
Forum 18
Freedom of thought
International Association for Religious Freedom
International Center for Law and Religion Studies
International Coalition for Religious Freedom
International Religious Liberty Association
Missouri Executive Order 44
General Order No. 11 (1862)
North American Religious Liberty Association
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States
Religious discrimination
Status of religious freedom by country
Religious education in primary and secondary education
Witch-hunt
Witch trials in the early modern period
Lawsuits[edit]
C. H. v. Oliva et al.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.
2.Jump up ^ "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". The United Nations.
3.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H. "The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right". Archived from the original on 1 February 2008. Retrieved 5 December 2006. (archived from the original on 1 February 2008).
4.Jump up ^ Congressional Record #29734 – 19 November 2003. Google Books. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
5.Jump up ^ Cyrus Cylinder, livius.org.
6.Jump up ^ Richard A. Taylor; E. Ray Clendenen (15 October 2004). Haggai, Malachi. B&H Publishing Group. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-0-8054-0121-9.
7.Jump up ^ Natan, Yoel (2006). Moon-o-theism, Volume II of II. Yoel Natan. p. 514. ISBN 978-1-4392-9717-9.
8.Jump up ^ Njeuma, Martin Z. (2012). Fulani Hegemony in Yola (Old Adamawa) 1809-1902. African Books Collective. p. 82. ISBN 978-9956-726-95-0.
9.Jump up ^ (Weeramantry 1997, p. 138)[citation needed]
10.Jump up ^ Sachedina, Abdulaziz Abdulhussein (2001). The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513991-7.
11.Jump up ^ Mark R. Cohen (1995). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press. p. 74. ISBN 0-691-01082-X. Retrieved 10 April 2010.
12.Jump up ^ al-Qattan, Najwa (1999). "Dhimmis in the Muslim Court: Legal Autonomy and Religious Discrimination". International Journal of Middle East Studies (University of Cambridge) 31 (3): 429–444. doi:10.1017/S0020743800055501. ISSN 00207438.
13.Jump up ^ Sherman A. Jackson (2005). Islam and the Blackamerican: looking toward the third resurrection. Oxford University Press. p. 144. ISBN 0-19-518081-X. Retrieved 10 April 2010.
14.Jump up ^ The Last Jews of Kerala, p98
15.Jump up ^ Katz 2000; Koder 1973; Thomas Puthiakunnel 1973; David de Beth Hillel, 1832; Lord, James Henry 1977.
16.Jump up ^ Parsis#History
17.Jump up ^ Who are the Jews of India? – The S. Mark Taper Foundation imprint in Jewish studies. University of California Press. 2000. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-520-21323-4. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZWX6pF2PTJwC&pg=PA26.; "When the Portuguese arrived in 1498, they brought a spirit of intolerance utterly alien to India. They soon established an Office of Inquisition at Goa, and at their hands Indian Jews experienced the only instance of anti-Semitism ever to occur in Indian soil."
18.Jump up ^ David E. Ludden (1996). Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 257–258. ISBN 0-8122-1585-0.
19.Jump up ^ Rajni Kothari (1998). Communalism in Indian Politics. Rainbow Publishers. pp. 134. ISBN 978-81-86962-00-8.
20.Jump up ^ "India's religious tolerance lauded". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
21.Jump up ^ "Christian Persecution in India: The Real Story". Stephen-knapp.com. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
22.Jump up ^ "The Constitution of India" (PDF). Retrieved 3 September 2011.
23.^ Jump up to: a b "'Using places of worship for campaigning in Kerala civic polls is violation of poll code'". Indian Orthodox Herald. 18 September 2010. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
24.Jump up ^ "Roger II". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
25.Jump up ^ "Tracing The Norman Rulers of Sicily". New York Times. 26 April 1987. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
26.Jump up ^ Christopher Gravett (15 November 1997). German Medieval Armies 1000–1300. Osprey Publishing. pp. 17. ISBN 978-1-85532-657-6.
27.Jump up ^ Thomas Curtis Van Cleve's The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: Immutator Mundi (Oxford, 1972)
28.Jump up ^ Unitarian Universalist Partner Church Council. "Edict of Torda" (DOC). Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
29.Jump up ^ Karl Heussi, Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, 11. Auflage (1956), Tübingen (Germany), pp. 396-397
30.Jump up ^ Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Ciffs, N.J., p. 124
31.Jump up ^ Zamoyski, Adam. The Polish Way. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987
32.^ Jump up to: a b Rogers, Horatio, 2009. Mary Dyer of Rhode Island: The Quaker Martyr That Was Hanged on Boston Common, 1 June 1660 pp.1–2. BiblioBazaar, LLC
33.Jump up ^ Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: a comprehensive encyclopedia. Google Books. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
34.^ Jump up to: a b Zimmerman, Mark, Symbol of Enduring Freedom, p. 19, Columbia Magazine, March 2010
35.Jump up ^ Brugger, Robert J. (1988). Maryland: A Middle Temperament. , p 21, Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-3399-X.
36.Jump up ^ Finkelman, Paul, Maryland Toleration Act, The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, New York: CRC Press. ISBN 0-415-94342-6.
37.^ Jump up to: a b id=6ybHa6D24qQC&pg=PA78&dq=henry+darnall&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=3&ei=fcKDS_qNIKjoygTH_rnxCg&cd=5#v=onepage&q=henry%20darnall&f=false Roark, Elisabeth Louise, p.78, Artists of colonial America Retrieved 22 February 2010
38.Jump up ^ Christopher Fennell (1998), Plymouth Colony Legal Structure (http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/ccflaw.html)
39.Jump up ^ Hanover Historical Texts Project (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html)
40.Jump up ^ M. Schmidt, Pilgerväter, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Tübingen (Germany), Band V (1961), col. 384
41.Jump up ^ M. Schmidt, Hooker, Thomas, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Band III (1959), col. 449
42.Jump up ^ Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 74-75, 99, 102-105, 113-115
43.Jump up ^ Edwin S. Gaustad (1999), Liberty of Conscience: Roger Williams in America, Judson Press, Valley Forge
44.Jump up ^ Hans Fantel (1974), William Penn: Apostel of Dissent, William Morrow & Co., New York, N.Y.
45.Jump up ^ Heinrich Bornkamm, Toleranz. In der Geschichte der Christenheit, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage, Band VI (1962), col. 943
46.Jump up ^ Robert Middlekauff (2005), The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, Revised and Expanded Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-531588-2, p. 635
47.Jump up ^ Freedom of Religion and Religious Symbols in the Public Sphere. 2.2.2 Headcoverings. Parliament of Canada. Publication No. 2011-60-E. Published 2011-07-25. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
48.Jump up ^ "A/RES/36/55. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief". United Nations. 25 November 1981. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
49.Jump up ^ "CCPR General Comment 22: 30/07/93 on ICCPR Article 18". Minorityrights.org.
50.^ Jump up to: a b c International Federation for Human Rights (1 August 2003). "Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran" (PDF). fdih.org. Retrieved 3 March 2009.
51.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H. "The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right" (PDF). Retrieved 3 March 2009.
52.Jump up ^ "The Constitution Guarantees Freedom From Religion". Freedom From Religion Foundation. August 28, 2000. Retrieved December 27, 2012.
53.Jump up ^ Elena Garcia, Atheist Billboard Hits Idaho, 10 March 2009, The Christian Post.
54.Jump up ^ Smith, Adam (1776), Wealth of Nations, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p.643-649
55.Jump up ^ Smith, Adam (1776), Wealth of Nations, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p.647
56.^ Jump up to: a b "Hindu Beliefs". religionfacts.com.
57.Jump up ^ "Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Global restrictions on Religion (2009" http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/12/restrictions-fullreport1.pdf
58.Jump up ^ "Police arrest 5 women at Western Wall for wearing tallitot" Jerusalem Post (Apr 11, 2013)
59.Jump up ^ "Maltz, Judy 'Non-Orthodox Jews prohibited from praying in Knesset synagogue' (Nov 26, 2014) Haaretz" http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.628571
60.^ Jump up to: a b c "Declaration on religious freedom – Dignitatis humanae". Vatican.va. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
61.Jump up ^ Pope Pius IX. "THE SYLLABUS". Global Catholic Neetwork.
62.Jump up ^ "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may", the eleventh Article of Faith.
63.Jump up ^ Mutua, Makau. 2004. Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
64.Jump up ^ J. D. Van der Vyver; John Witte (1996). Religious human rights in global perspective: legal perspectives 2. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. [1]. ISBN 90-411-0177-2.
65.Jump up ^ Introduction | Breaking India
66.Jump up ^ Joel H. Spring (2001). Globalization and educational rights: an intercivilizational analysis. Routledge. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-8058-3882-4.
67.Jump up ^ United States of America, Department of State. "2010 International Religious Freedom Report". International Religious Freedom Report. US Department of State. Retrieved 15 February 2012.
68.Jump up ^ Islam and Belief: At Home with Religious Freedom, Abdullah Saeed (2014): 8.
69.Jump up ^ Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (2007). "A Faith Denied: The Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran" (PDF). Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-11-27. Retrieved 3 March 2007.
70.Jump up ^ Mayton, Joseph (19 December 2006). "Egypt's Bahais denied citizenship rights". Middle East Times. Archived from the original on 2009-04-06. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
71.Jump up ^ Otterman, Sharon (17 December 2006). "Court denies Bahai couple document IDs". The Washington Times. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
72.^ Jump up to: a b c Nkrumah, Gamal (21 December 2006). "Rendered faithless and stateless". Al-Ahram weekly. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
73.Jump up ^ "US State Department report on Greece". State.gov. 8 November 2005. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
74.Jump up ^ Mutua, Makau (2004). Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief. p. 652. ISBN 978-90-04-13783-7.
75.Jump up ^ Sanu, Sankrant (2006). "Re-examining Religious Freedom" (PDF). Manushi. Retrieved 26 July 2008.
76.Jump up ^ "No place to call home" (PDF). Christian Solidarity Worldwide. 29 April 2008.
77.Jump up ^ [2] from "Leaving Islam: Apostates speak out" by Ibn Warraq
78.^ Jump up to: a b Heffening, W. "Murtadd". In P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Encyclopaedia of Islam Online Edition. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912.
79.Jump up ^ Adbul Qadir Oudah (1999). Kitab Bhavan. New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan. ISBN 81-7151-273-9., Volume II. pp. 258–262; Volume IV. pp. 19–21
80.Jump up ^ S. A. Rahman (2007). "Summary and Conclusions". Punishment of Apostasy in Islam. The Other Press. pp. 132–142. ISBN 978-983-9541-49-6.
81.Jump up ^ Pencovic v. Pencovic, 45 Cal. 2d 67 (1955).
82.Jump up ^ Criminal Law and Procedure, Daniel E. Hall. Cengage Learning, July 2008. p. 266. [3]
83.Jump up ^ "Gesetz über die religiöse Kindererziehung". Bundesrecht.juris.de. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
84.Jump up ^ Bundesgesetz 1985 über die religiöse Kindererziehung (pdf)
85.Jump up ^ "Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch Art 303: Religiöse Erziehung". Gesetze.ch. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
86.Jump up ^ Margery Post Abbott (2011). Historical Dictionary of the Friends (Quakers). Scarecrow Press. pp. 102. ISBN 978-0-8108-7088-8.
87.Jump up ^ Religious Freedom Day, 2006 – A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America, Religious Freedom Day, 2001 – Proclamation by the President of the United States of America 15 January 2001
88.Jump up ^ "US commission names 14 worst violators of religious freedom". Christianity Today. 29 April 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
 ^ "USCIRF Identifies World's Worst Religious Freedom Violators: Egypt Cited for First Time" (Press release). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 28 April 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
 ^ Annual Report 2011 (PDF) (Report). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. May 2011. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
89.Jump up ^ "France Passes Religious Symbol Ban". Christianity Today. 9 February 2004. Retrieved 29 April 2011.
90.Jump up ^ "The Islamic veil across Europe". BBC News. 17 November 2006. Retrieved 2 December 2006.
91.Jump up ^ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Retrieved 4 July 2009.
92.^ Jump up to: a b "Global Restrictions on Religion (Executive summary)". The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. December 2009. Retrieved 29 December 2009.
93.^ Jump up to: a b "Global Restrictions on Religion (Full report)" (PDF). The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. December 2009. Retrieved 12 September 2013.
94.^ Jump up to: a b "Latest Trends in Religious Restrictions and Hostilities". Pew Forum. 26 Feb 2015.
95.Jump up ^ Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion (Report). Pew Research Center. September 20, 2012.
96.Jump up ^ "Table: Social Hostilities Index by country" (PDF). Pew Research Center. 2012.
Further reading[edit]
Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark David Hall. The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Press, 2009).
Barzilai, Gad (2007). Law and Religion. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2494-3.
Beneke, Chris (20 September 2006). Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-530555-8.
Curry, Thomas J. (19 December 1989). Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (19 December 1989). ISBN 0-19-505181-5.
Frost, J. William (1990) A Perfect Freedom: Religious Liberty in Pennsylvania (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press).
Gaustad, Edwin S. (2004, 2nd ed.) Faith of the Founders: Religion and the New Nation, 1776–1826 (Waco: Baylor University Press).
Hamilton, Marci A. (17 June 2005). God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law. Edward R. Becker (Foreword). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85304-4.
Hanson, Charles P. (1998). Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1794-8.
Hasson, Kevin 'Seamus', The Right to be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America, Encounter Books, 2005, ISBN 1-59403-083-9
McLoughlin, William G. (1971). New England Dissent: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State (2 VOLS.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Murphy, Andrew R. (July 2001). Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02105-5.
Mutua, Makau (2004). Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
Stokes, Anson Phelps (1950) Church and State in the United States, Historic Development and Contemporary Problems of Religious Freedom under the Constitution, 3 Volumes (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers).
Stokes, DaShanne (In Press). Legalized Segregation and the Denial of Religious Freedom at the Wayback Machine (archived October 27, 2009)
Stüssi Marcel, MODELS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: Switzerland, the United States, and Syria by Analytical, Methodological, and Eclectic Representation, 375 ff. (Lit 2012)., by Marcel Stüssi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.
Associated Press (2002). Appeals court upholds man's use of eagle feathers for religious practices
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)
Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious
Ban on Minarets: On the Validity of a Controversial Swiss Popular Initiative (2008), , by Marcel Stuessi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.
"Religious Liberty: The legal framework in selected OSCE countries." (PDF). Law Library, U.S. Library of Congress. May 2000. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 June 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2007.
Utt, Walter C. (1964). "Brickbats and Dead Cats" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 59 (4, July–August): 18–21. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
Utt, Walter C. (1960). "A Plea for the Somewhat Disorganized Man" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 55 (4, July–August): 15, 16, 29. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
Utt, Walter C. (1974). "Toleration is a Nasty Word" (PDF). Liberty (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 69 (2, March–April): 10–13. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
Zippelius, Reinhold (2009). Staat und Kirche, ch.13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-150016-9.
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Freedom of religion
Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations.
The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of "Religion" in International Law Harvard Human Rights Journal article from the President and Fellows of Harvard College (2003)
Human Rights Brief No. 3, Freedom Of Religion and Belief Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)
U.S. State Department country reports
Institute for Global Engagement
Institute for Religious Freedom


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Liberty













Liberty



































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Substantive human rights






























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity and politics

















































Authority control
GND: 4125186-6 ·
 NDL: 00571078
 

  


Categories: Freedom of religion























Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Alemannisch
العربية
Беларуская
Български
བོད་ཡིག
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Føroyskt
Français
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Қазақша
Kiswahili
Latina
Magyar
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پښتو
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 June 2015, at 16:50.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion










Toleration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religious tolerance)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Tolerate" redirects here. For other uses, see Tolerance.



[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.




This article possibly contains original research.  (May 2011)


Globe icon

The examples and perspective in this article or section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions.  (May 2011)


Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[show]





















































Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   



 Sculpture Für Toleranz ("for tolerance") by Volkmar Kühn, Gera, Germany


 The cross of the war memorial and the Menorah for Jewish people coexist in Oxford.


 Minerva as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions (Daniel Chodowiecki, 1791)
Toleration is "the practice of deliberately allowing or permitting a thing of which one disapproves. One can meaningfully speak of tolerating—i.e., of allowing or permitting—only if one is in a position to disallow." It has also been defined as "to bear or endure" or "to nourish, sustain or preserve." Toleration may signify "no more than forbearance and the permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to exist, even though the latter are looked on with disapproval as inferior, mistaken, or harmful."[1]
There is only one verb 'to tolerate' and one adjective 'tolerant,' but the two nouns 'tolerance' and 'toleration' have evolved slightly different meanings. Tolerance is an attitude of mind that implies non-judgmental acceptance of different lifestyles or beliefs,[2] whereas toleration implies putting up with something that one disapproves of.[3]
Historically, most incidents and writings pertaining to toleration involve the status of minority and dissenting viewpoints in relation to a dominant state religion. In the twentieth century and after, analysis of the doctrine of toleration has been expanded to include political and ethnic groups, homosexuals and other minorities, and human rights embodies the principle of legally enforced toleration.


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 In antiquity
3 Biblical sources of toleration
4 In the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Reformation 4.1 Tolerance of the Jews
4.2 Vladimiri
4.3 Erasmus
4.4 More
4.5 Reformation
4.6 Castellio
4.7 Bodin
4.8 Montaigne
4.9 Edict of Torda
4.10 Maximilian II
4.11 The Warsaw Confederation
4.12 Edict of Nantes
5 In the Enlightenment 5.1 Milton
5.2 Rudolph II
5.3 In the American colonies
5.4 Spinoza
5.5 Locke
5.6 Bayle
5.7 Act of Toleration
5.8 Voltaire
5.9 Lessing
5.10 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen
5.11 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
6 In the nineteenth century 6.1 Roman Catholic Relief Act
6.2 Mill
6.3 Renan
7 In the twentieth century
8 In other religions 8.1 Hindu religion
8.2 Islam
8.3 Buddhism
9 Modern analyses and critiques of toleration 9.1 Modern definition
9.2 Toleration of homosexuality
9.3 Tolerating the intolerant
9.4 Other criticisms and issues
10 See also
11 References
12 Further reading
13 External links

Etymology[edit]
The word tolerance was first used in the 15th century.[4]
The word is derived from endurance and fortitude, used in the 14th century. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word was first used to describe having permission from authorities in the 1530s.[5]
In antiquity[edit]
As reported in the Old Testament, the Persian king Cyrus the Great was believed to have released the Jews from captivity in 539–530 BC, and permitted their return to their homeland.[6]
The Hellenistic city of Alexandria, founded 331 BC, contained a large Jewish community which lived in peace with equivalently sized Greek and Egyptian populations. According to Michael Walzer, the city provided "a useful example of what we might think of as the imperial version of multiculturalism."[7]
The Roman Empire encouraged conquered peoples to continue worshipping their own gods. "An important part of Roman propaganda was its invitation to the gods of conquered territories to enjoy the benefits of worship within the imperium."[8] Christians were singled out for persecution because of their own rejection of Roman pantheism and refusal to honor the emperor as a god.[9] In 311 AD, Roman Emperor Galerius issued a general edict of toleration of Christianity, in his own name and in those of Licinius and Constantine I (who converted to Christianity the following year).[10]
Biblical sources of toleration[edit]
In the Old Testament, the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy make similar statements about the treatment of strangers. For example, Exodus 22:21 says: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt".These texts are frequently used in sermons to plead for compassion and tolerance of those who are different from us and less powerful.[11] Julia Kristeva elucidated a philosophy of political and religious toleration based on all of our mutual identities as strangers.[12]
The New Testament Parable of the Tares, which speaks of the difficulty of distinguishing wheat from weeds before harvest time, has also been invoked in support of religious toleration. In his "Letter to Bishop Roger of Chalons", Bishop Wazo of Liege (c. 985–1048 AD) relied on the parable[13] to argue that "the church should let dissent grow with orthodoxy until the Lord comes to separate and judge them".[14]
Roger Williams, a Baptist theologian and founder of Rhode Island, used this parable to support government toleration of all of the "weeds" (heretics) in the world, because civil persecution often inadvertently hurts the "wheat" (believers) too. Instead, Williams believed it was God's duty to judge in the end, not man's. This parable lent further support to Williams' Biblical philosophy of a wall of separation between church and state as described in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[15]
In the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Reformation[edit]
In the Middle Ages, there were instances of toleration of particular groups. The Latin concept tolerantia was a "highly-developed political and judicial concept in mediaeval scholastic theology and canon law."[16] Tolerantia was used to "denote the self-restraint of a civil power in the face of" outsiders, like infidels, Muslims or Jews, but also in the face of social groups like prostitutes and lepers.[17] Heretics such as the Cathari, Waldensians, Jan Hus, and his followers, the Hussites, were persecuted.[18][19] Later theologians belonging or reacting to the Protestant Reformation began discussion of the circumstances under which dissenting religious thought should be permitted. Toleration "as a government-sanctioned practice" in Christian countries, "the sense on which most discussion of the phenomenon relies—is not attested before the sixteenth century".[20]
Tolerance of the Jews[edit]
In Poland in 1264, the Statute of Kalisz was issued, guaranteeing freedom of religion for the Jews in the country.
In 1348, Pope Clement VI (1291–1352) issued a bull pleading with Catholics not to murder Jews, whom they blamed for the Black Death. He noted that Jews died of the plague like anyone else, and that the disease also flourished in areas where there were no Jews. Christians who blamed and killed Jews had been "seduced by that liar, the Devil". He took Jews under his personal protection at Avignon, but his calls for other clergy to do so failed to be heeded.[21]
Johann Reuchlin (1455–1522) was a German humanist and a scholar of Greek and Hebrew who opposed efforts by Johannes Pfefferkorn, backed by the Dominicans of Cologne, to confiscate all religious texts from the Jews as a first step towards their forcible conversion to the Catholic religion.[22]
Despite occasional spontaneous episodes of pogroms and killings, as during the Black Death, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was a relatively tolerant home for the Jews in the medieval period. In 1264, the Statute of Kalisz guaranteed safety, personal liberties, freedom of religion, trade, and travel to Jews. By the mid-16th century, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was home to 80% of the world's Jewish population. Jewish worship was officially recognized, with a Chief Rabbi originally appointed by the monarch. Jewish property ownership was also protected for much of the period, and Jews entered into business partnerships with members of the nobility.[23]
Vladimiri[edit]
Paulus Vladimiri (ca. 1370–1435) was a Polish scholar and rector who at the Council of Constance in 1414, presented a thesis, Tractatus de potestate papae et imperatoris respectu infidelium (Treatise on the Power of the Pope and the Emperor Respecting Infidels). In it he argued that pagan and Christian nations could coexist in peace and criticized the Teutonic Order for its wars of conquest of native non-Christian peoples in Prussia and Lithuania. Vladimiri strongly supported the idea of conciliarism and pioneered the notion of peaceful coexistence among nations – a forerunner of modern theories of human rights. Throughout his political, diplomatic and university career, he expressed the view that a world guided by the principles of peace and mutual respect among nations was possible and that pagan nations had a right to peace and to possession of their own lands.
Erasmus[edit]
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466–1536), was a Dutch Renaissance humanist and Catholic whose works laid a foundation for religious toleration. For example, in De libero arbitrio, opposing certain views of Martin Luther, Erasmus noted that religious disputants should be temperate in their language, "because in this way the truth, which is often lost amidst too much wrangling may be more surely perceived." Gary Remer writes, "Like Cicero, Erasmus concludes that truth is furthered by a more harmonious relationship between interlocutors."[24] Although Erasmus did not oppose the punishment of heretics, in individual cases he generally argued for moderation and against the death penalty. He wrote, "It is better to cure a sick man than to kill him."[25]
More[edit]
Saint Thomas More (1478–1535), Catholic Lord Chancellor of King Henry VIII and author, described a world of almost complete religious toleration in Utopia (1516), in which the Utopians "can hold various religious beliefs without persecution from the authorities."[26] However, More's work is subject to various interpretations, and it is not clear that he felt that earthly society should be conducted the same way as in Utopia. Thus, in his three years as Lord Chancellor, More actively approved of the persecution of those who sought to undermine the Catholic faith in England.[27]
Reformation[edit]
At the Diet of Worms (1521), Martin Luther refused to recant his beliefs citing freedom of conscience as his justification.[28] According to Historian Hermann August Winkler, the individual's freedom of conscience became the hallmark of Protestantism.[29] Luther was convinced that faith in Jesus Christ was the free gift of the Holy Spirit and could therefore not be forced on a person. Heresies could not be met with force, but with preaching the gospel revealed in the Bible. Luther: "Heretics should not be overcome with fire, but with written sermons." In Luther's view, the worldly authorities were entitled to expel heretics. Only if they undermine the public order, should they be executed.[30] Later proponents of tolerance such as Sebastian Franck and Sebastian Castellio cited Luther's position. He had overcome, at least for the Protestant territories and countries, the violent medieval criminal procedures of dealing with heretics. But Luther remained rooted in the Middle Ages insofar as he considered the Anabaptists' refusal to take oaths, do military service, and the rejection of private property by some Anabaptist groups to be a political threat to the public order which would inevitably lead to anarchy and chaos.[31] So Anabaptists were persecuted not only in Catholic but also in Lutheran and Reformed territories. However, a number of Protestant theologians such as John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Capito, and Johannes Brenz as well as Landgrave Philip of Hesse opposed the execution of Anabaptists.[32] Ulrich Zwingli demanded the expulsion of persons who did not accept the Reformed beliefs, in some cases the execution of Anabaptist leaders. The young Michael Servetus also defended tolerance since 1531, in his letters to Johannes Oecolampadius, but during those years some Protestant theologians such as Bucer and Capito publicly expressed they thought he should be persecuted.[33] The trial against Servetus, an Antitrinitarian, in Geneva was not a case of church discipline but a criminal procedure based on the legal code of the Holy Roman Empire. Denying the Trinity doctrine was long considered to be the same as atheism in all churches. The Anabaptists made a considerable contribution to the development of tolerance in the early-modern era by incessantly demanding freedom of conscience and standing up for it with their patient suffering.[34]
Castellio[edit]
Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563) was a French Protestant theologian who in 1554 published under a pseudonym the pamphlet Whether heretics should be persecuted (De haereticis, an sint persequendi) criticizing John Calvin's execution of Michael Servetus: "When Servetus fought with reasons and writings, he should have been repulsed by reasons and writings." Castellio concluded: "We can live together peacefully only when we control our intolerance. Even though there will always be differences of opinion from time to time, we can at any rate come to general understandings, can love one another, and can enter the bonds of peace, pending the day when we shall attain unity of faith."[35] Castellio is remembered for the often quoted statement, "To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man.[36]
Bodin[edit]
Jean Bodin (1530–1596) was a French Catholic jurist and political philosopher. His Latin work Colloquium heptaplomeres de rerum sublimium arcanis abditis ("The Colloqium of the Seven") portrays a conversation about the nature of truth between seven cultivated men from diverse religious or philosophical backgrounds: a natural philosopher, a Calvinist, a Muslim, a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, a Jew, and a skeptic. All agree to live in mutual respect and tolerance.
Montaigne[edit]
Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592), French Catholic essayist and statesman, moderated between the Catholic and Protestant sides in the Wars of Religion. Montaigne's theory of skepticism led to the conclusion that we cannot precipitously decide the error of other's views. Montaigne wrote in his famous "Essais": "It is putting a very high value on one's conjectures, to have a man roasted alive because of them...To kill people, there must be sharp and brilliant clarity."[37]
Edict of Torda[edit]
In 1568, King John II Sigismund of Hungary, encouraged by his Unitarian Minister Francis David (Dávid Ferenc), issued the Edict of Torda decreeing religious toleration.
Maximilian II[edit]
In 1571, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II granted religious toleration to the nobles of Lower Austria, their families and workers.[38]
The Warsaw Confederation[edit]



 Original act of the Warsaw Confederation 1573. The beginning of religious freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth has a long tradition of religious freedom. The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. the Commonwealth kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe.[39]
The Warsaw Confederation of 1573 was a private compact signed by representatives of all the major religions in Polish and Lithuanian society, in which they pledged each other mutual support and tolerance. The confederation was incorporated into the Henrican articles, which constituted a virtual Polish–Lithuanian constitution.
Edict of Nantes[edit]
The Edict of Nantes, issued on April 13, 1598, by Henry IV of France, granted Protestants – notably Calvinist Huguenots – substantial rights in a nation where Catholicism was the state religion. The main concern was civil unity;[40] The Edict separated civil law from religious rights, treated non-Catholics as more than mere schismatics and heretics for the first time, and opened a path for secularism and tolerance. In offering general freedom of conscience to individuals, the edict offered many specific concessions to the Protestants, such as amnesty and the reinstatement of their civil rights, including the right to work in any field or for the State, and to bring grievances directly to the king. The edict marked the end of the religious wars in France that tore apart the population during the second half of the 16th century.
The Edict of Nantes was revoked in 1685 by King Louis XIV with the Edict of Fontainebleau, leading to renewed persecution of Protestants in France. Although strict enforcement of the revocation was relaxed during the reign of Louis XV, it was not until 102 years later, in 1787, when Louis XVI signed the Edict of Versailles – known as the Edict of Tolerance – that civil status and rights to form congregations by Protestants were restored.[41]
In the Enlightenment[edit]
Beginning in the Enlightenment commencing in the 1600s, politicians and commentators began formulating theories of religious toleration and basing legal codes on the concept. A distinction began to develop between civil tolerance, concerned with "the policy of the state towards religious dissent".,[42] and ecclesiastical tolerance, concerned with the degree of diversity tolerated within a particular church.[43]
Milton[edit]
John Milton (1608–1674), English Protestant poet and essayist, called in the Aeropagitica for "the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties" (applied, however, only to the conflicting Protestant denominations, and not to atheists, Jews, Moslems or even Catholics). "Milton argued for disestablishment as the only effective way of achieving broad toleration. Rather than force a man's conscience, government should recognize the persuasive force of the gospel."[44]
Rudolph II[edit]
In 1609, Rudolph II decreed religious toleration in Bohemia.[45]
In the American colonies[edit]



 The Maryland Toleration Act, passed in 1649.
In 1636, Roger Williams and companions at the foundation of Rhode Island entered into a compact binding themselves "to be obedient to the majority only in civil things". Lucian Johnston writes, "Williams' intention was to grant an infinitely greater religious liberty than then existed anywhere in the world outside of the Colony of Maryland". In 1663, Charles II granted the colony a charter guaranteeing complete religious toleration.[46]
In 1649 Maryland passed the Maryland Toleration Act, also known as the Act Concerning Religion, a law mandating religious tolerance for Trinitarian Christians only (excluding Nontrinitarian faiths). Passed on September 21, 1649 by the assembly of the Maryland colony, it was the first law requiring religious tolerance in the British North American colonies. The Calvert family sought enactment of the law to protect Catholic settlers and some of the other denominations that did not conform to the dominant Anglicanism of England and her colonies.
In 1657, New Amsterdam granted religious toleration to Jews.[47]
Spinoza[edit]
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) was a Dutch Jewish philosopher. He published the Theological-Political Treatise anonymously in 1670, arguing (according to the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) that "the freedom to philosophize can not only be granted without injury to piety and the peace of the Commonwealth, but that the peace of the Commonwealth and Piety are endangered by the suppression of this freedom", and defending, "as a political ideal, the tolerant, secular, and democratic polity". After interpreting certain Biblical texts, Spinoza opted for tolerance and freedom of thought in his conclusion that "every person is in duty bound to adapt these religious dogmas to his own understanding and to interpret them for himself in whatever way makes him feel that he can the more readily accept them with full confidence and conviction."[48]
Locke[edit]
English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) published A Letter Concerning Toleration in 1689. Locke's work appeared amidst a fear that Catholicism might be taking over England, and responds to the problem of religion and government by proposing religious toleration as the answer. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, who saw uniformity of religion as the key to a well-functioning civil society, Locke argued that more religious groups actually prevent civil unrest. In his opinion, civil unrest results from confrontations caused by any magistrate's attempt to prevent different religions from being practiced, rather than tolerating their proliferation. However, Locke denies religious tolerance for Catholics, for political reasons, and also for atheists because 'Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist'. A passage Locke later added to the Essay concerning Human Understanding, questioned whether atheism was necessarily inimical to political obedience.
Bayle[edit]
Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) was a French Protestant scholar and philosopher who went into exile in Holland. In his "Dictionnaire historique and critique" and "Commentaire Philosophique" he advanced arguments for religious toleration (though, like some others of his time, he was not anxious to extend the same protection to Catholics he would to differing Protestant sects). Among his arguments were that every church believes it is the right one so "a heretical church would be in a position to persecute the true church". Bayle wrote that "the erroneous conscience procures for error the same rights and privileges that the orthodox conscience procures for truth."[49]
Bayle was repelled by the use of scripture to justify coercion and violence: "One must transcribe almost the whole New Testament to collect all the Proofs it affords us of that Gentleness and Long-suffering, which constitute the distinguishing and essential Character of the Gospel." He did not regard toleration as a danger to the state, but to the contrary: "If the Multiplicity of Religions prejudices the State, it proceeds from their not bearing with one another but on the contrary endeavoring each to crush and destroy the other by methods of Persecution. In a word, all the Mischief arises not from Toleration, but from the want of it."[50]
Act of Toleration[edit]
The Act of Toleration, adopted by the British Parliament in 1689, allowed freedom of worship to Nonconformists who had pledged to the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and rejected transubstantiation. The Nonconformists were Protestants who dissented from the Church of England such as Baptists and Congregationalists. They were allowed their own places of worship and their own teachers, if they accepted certain oaths of allegiance.
The Act did not apply to Catholics and non-trinitarians and continued the existing social and political disabilities for Dissenters, including their exclusion from political office and also from universities.
Voltaire[edit]
François-Marie Arouet, the French writer, historian and philosopher known as Voltaire (1694–1778) published his "Treatise on Toleration" in 1763. In it he attacked religious views, but also said, "It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?"[51] On the other hand, Voltaire in his writings on religion was spiteful and intolerant of the practice of the Christian religion, and rabbi Joseph Telushkin has claimed that the most significant of Enlightenment hostility against Judaism was found in Voltaire.[52]
Lessing[edit]
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781), German dramatist and philosopher, trusted in a "Christianity of Reason", in which human reason (initiated by criticism and dissent) would develop, even without help by divine revelation. His plays about Jewish characters and themes, such as "Die Juden" and "Nathan der Weise", "have usually been considered impressive pleas for social and religious toleration".[53] The latter work contains the famous parable of the three rings, in which three sons represent the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Each son believes he has the one true ring passed down by their father, but judgment on which is correct is reserved to God.[54]
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen[edit]
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), adopted by the National Constituent Assembly during the French Revolution, states in Article 10: "No-one shall be interfered with for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their practice doesn't disturb public order as established by the law." ("Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, mêmes religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre public établi par la loi.")[55]
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, included the following words:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in which he said: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[56]
In the nineteenth century[edit]
The process of legislating religious toleration went forward, while philosophers continued to discuss the underlying rationale.
Roman Catholic Relief Act[edit]
The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 adopted by the Parliament in 1829 repealed the last of the criminal laws (TEST ACTS) aimed at Catholic citizens of Great Britain.
Mill[edit]
John Stuart Mill's arguments in "On Liberty" (1859) in support of the freedom of speech were phrased to include a defense of religious toleration:

Let the opinions impugned be the belief of God and in a future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality... But I must be permitted to observe that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. And I denounce and reprobate this pretension not the less if it is put forth on the side of my most solemn convictions.[57]
Renan[edit]
In his 1882 essay "What is a Nation?", French historian and philosopher Ernest Renan proposed a definition of nationhood based on "a spiritual principle" involving shared memories, rather than a common religious, racial or linguistic heritage. Thus members of any religious group could participate fully in the life of the nation. ""You can be French, English, German, yet Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or practicing no religion".[58]
In the twentieth century[edit]
In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance[59]
Even though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or influenced many national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights including the freedom of religion.
In 1965, The Roman Catholic Church Vatican II Council issued the decree Dignitatis humanae (Religious Freedom) that states that all people must have the right to religious freedom.[60]
In 1986, the first World Day of Prayer for Peace was held in Assisi. Representatives of one hundred and twenty different religions came together for prayer to their God or gods.[61]
In 1988, in the spirit of Glasnost, Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev promised increased religious toleration.[62]
In other religions[edit]
Other major world religions also have texts or practices supporting the idea of religious toleration.
Hindu religion[edit]
The Rigveda says Ekam Sath Viprah Bahudha Vadanti which translates to "The truth is One, but sages call it by different Names".[63] Consistent with this tradition, India chose to be a secular country even though it was divided partitioning on religious lines. Whatever intolerance, Hindu scholars displayed towards other religions was subtle and symbolic and most likely was done to present a superior argument in defence of their own faith. Traditionally, Hindus showed their intolerance by withdrawing and avoiding contact with those whom they held in contempt, instead of using violence and aggression to strike fear in their hearts. Hinduism is perhaps the only religion in the world which showed remarkable tolerance towards other religions in difficult times and under testing conditions. Even Buddhism, which spread in India mostly through negative campaigns against Hinduism, cannot claim that credit. Criticizing other religions and showing them in poor light to attract converts to its own fold was never an approved practice in Hinduism.[64]
Pluralism and tolerance of diversity are built into Hindu theology India's long history is a testimony to its tolerance of religious diversity. Christianity came to India with St. Thomas in the first century A.D., long before it became popular in the West. Judaism came to India after the Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. and the Jews were expelled from their homeland. In a recent book titled "Who are the Jews of India?" (University of California Press, 2000), author Nathan Katz observes that India is the only country where the Jews were not persecuted. The Indian chapter is one of the happiest of the Jewish Diaspora. Both Christians and Jews have existed in a predominant Hindu India for centuries without being persecuted. Zoroastrians from Persia (present day Iran) entered India in the 7th century to flee Islamic conquest. They are known as Parsis in India. The Parsis are an affluent community in the city of Mumbai without a sense of having been persecuted through the centuries. Among the richest business families in India are the Parsis; for example, the Tata family controls a huge industrial empire in various parts of the country. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the powerful Prime Minister of India (1966–77; 1980–84), was married to Feroz Gandhi, a Parsi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi). [65]
Islam[edit]
See also: Al-Baqara 256
The name ‘the Tolerant (al-Ḥalīm)’ is one of the names of Allāh.[citation needed]
Circa 622, Muhammed established the Constitution of Medina, which incorporated religious freedom for Christians and Jews.[citation needed]
Certain verses of the Qu'ran were interpreted to create a specially tolerated status for People of the Book, Jewish and Christian believers in the Old and New Testaments considered to have been a basis for Islamic religion:

Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.[66]
Under Islamic law, Jews and Christians were considered dhimmis, a legal status inferior to that of a Muslim but superior to that of other non-Muslims.
Jewish communities in the Ottoman Empire held a protected status and continued to practice their own religion, as did Christians. Yitzhak Sarfati, born in Germany, became the Chief Rabbi of Edirne and wrote a letter inviting European Jews to settle in the Ottoman Empire, in which he asked:: "Is it not better for you to live under Muslims than under Christians?".[67] Sultan Beyazid II (1481–1512), issued a formal invitation to the Jews expelled from Catholic Spain and Portugal, leading to a wave of Jewish immigration.
According to Michael Walzer:

The established religion of the [Ottoman] empire was Islam, but three other religious communities—Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, and Jewish—were permitted to form autonomous organizations. These three were equal among themselves, without regard to their relative numerical strength. They were subject to the same restrictions vis-à-vis Muslims—with regard to dress, proselytizing, and intermarriage, for example—and were allowed the same legal control over their own members.[68]
Buddhism[edit]
Although the Buddha preached that "the path to the supreme goal of the holy life is made known only in his own teaching", according to Bhikkhu Boddhi, Buddhists have nevertheless shown significant tolerance for other religions: "Buddhist tolerance springs from the recognition that the dispositions and spiritual needs of human beings are too vastly diverse to be encompassed by any single teaching, and thus that these needs will naturally find expression in a wide variety of religious forms."[69] James Freeman Clarke said in Ten Great Religions (1871): "The Buddhists have founded no Inquisition; they have combined the zeal which converted kingdoms with a toleration almost inexplicable to our Western experience."[70]
The Edicts of Ashoka issued by King Ashoka the Great (269–231 BCE), a Buddhist, declared ethnic and religious tolerance. His Edict XII, engraved in stone, stated: "The faiths of others all deserve to be honored for one reason or another. By honoring them, one exalts one's own faith and at the same time performs a service to the faith of others."[71]
However, Buddhism has also had controversies regarding toleration. See Dorje Shugden Controversy. In addition, the question of possible intolerance among Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Myanmar has been raised by Paul Fuller.[72]
Modern analyses and critiques of toleration[edit]
Contemporary commentators have highlighted situations in which toleration conflicts with widely held moral standards, national law, the principles of national identity, or other strongly held goals. Michael Walzer notes that the British in India tolerated the Hindu practice of suttee (ritual burning of a widow) until 1829. On the other hand, the United States declined to tolerate the Mormon practice of polygamy.[73] The French head scarf controversy represents a conflict between religious practice and the French secular ideal.[74] Toleration of the Romani people in European countries is a continuing issue.[75]
Modern definition[edit]
Historian Alexandra Walsham notes that the modern understanding of the word "toleration" may be very different from its historic meaning.[76] Toleration in modern parlance has been analyzed as a component of a liberal or libertarian view of human rights. Hans Oberdiek writes, "As long as no one is harmed or no one's fundamental rights are violated, the state should keep hands off, tolerating what those controlling the state find disgusting, deplorable or even debased. This for a long time has been the most prevalent defense of toleration by liberals... It is found, for example, in the writings of American philosophers John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Ronald Dworkin, Brian Barry, and a Canadian, Will Kymlicka, among others."[77]
Isaiah Berlin attributes to Herbert Butterfield the notion that "toleration... implies a certain disrespect. I tolerate your absurd beliefs and your foolish acts, though I know them to be absurd and foolish. Mill would, I think, have agreed."[78]
John Gray states that "When we tolerate a practice, a belief or a character trait, we let something be that we judge to be undesirable, false or at least inferior; our toleration expresses the conviction that, despite its badness, the object of toleration should be left alone."[79] However, according to Gray, "new liberalism—the liberalism of Rawls, Dworkin, Ackerman and suchlike" seems to imply that "it is wrong for government to discriminate in favour of, or against, any form of life animated by a definite conception of the good."[80]
John Rawls' "theory of 'political liberalism' conceives of toleration as a pragmatic response to the fact of diversity." Diverse groups learn to tolerate one another by developing "what Rawls calls 'overlapping consensus': individuals and groups with diverse metaphysical views or 'comprehensive schemes' will find reasons to agree about certain principles of justice that will include principles of toleration."[81]
Herbert Marcuse wrote "Repressive Tolerance" in 1965 where he argued that the "pure tolerance" that permits all favors totalitarianism, democracy, and tyranny of the majority, and insisted the "repressive tolerance" against them.
Toleration of homosexuality[edit]
As a result of his public debate with Baron Devlin on the role of the criminal law in enforcing moral norms, British legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart wrote Law, Liberty and Morality (1963) and The Morality of the Criminal Law (1965). His work on the relationship between law and morality had a significant effect on the laws of Great Britain, helping bring about the decriminalization of homosexuality. But it was Jeremy Bentham that defended the rights for homosexuality with his essay "Offence against One's Self"[82] but could not be published until in 1978.
Tolerating the intolerant[edit]
Main article: Paradox of tolerance
Walzer, Karl Popper[83] and John Rawls[84] have discussed the paradox of tolerating intolerance. Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects.[85] Rawls argues that an intolerant sect should be tolerated in a tolerant society unless the sect directly threatens the security of other members of the society. He links this principle to the stability of a tolerant society, in which members of an intolerant sect in a tolerant society will, over time, acquire the tolerance of the wider society.
Other criticisms and issues[edit]
Toleration has been described as undermining itself via moral relativism: "either the claim self-referentially undermines itself or it provides us with no compelling reason to believe it. If we are skeptical about knowledge, then we have no way of knowing that toleration is good."[86]
Ronald Dworkin argues that in exchange for toleration, minorities must bear with the criticisms and insults which are part of the freedom of speech in an otherwise tolerant society.[87] Dworkin has also questioned whether the United States is a "tolerant secular" nation, or is re-characterizing itself as a "tolerant religious" nation, based on the increasing re-introduction of religious themes into conservative politics. Dworkin concludes that "the tolerant secular model is preferable, although he invited people to use the concept of personal responsibility to argue in favor of the tolerant religious model."[88]
In The End of Faith, Sam Harris asserts that society should be unwilling to tolerate unjustified religious beliefs about morality, spirituality, politics, and the origin of humanity, especially beliefs which promote violence.
See also[edit]
Anekantavada
Christian debate on persecution and toleration
International Day for Tolerance
Islam and other religions
Multifaith space
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Religious discrimination
Religious intolerance
Religious liberty
Religious persecution
Religious pluralism
Repressive Tolerance
Secular state
Separation of church and state
Status of religious freedom by country
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Perez Zagorin, How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2003) ISBN 0-691-09270-2 , pp. 5–6, quoting D.D. Raphael et al.
2.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-03-07.
3.Jump up ^ "Toleration". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-03-07.
4.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-04-07.
5.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2012-04-07.
6.Jump up ^ "Book of Ezra | King James Bible". Kingjamesbibletrust.org. Retrieved March 21, 201. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)1
7.Jump up ^ Walzer, Michael (1997). On Toleration. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-300-07600-2.
8.Jump up ^ Witte, John Jr. and Johan D. van de Vyver, Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective (The Hague: Kluwer 1996) p. 74 ISBN 90-411-0176-4
9.Jump up ^ Logan, Donald F., A history of the church in the Middle Ages (New York:Routledge, 2002) ISBN 0-415-13289-4, p. 8
10.Jump up ^ "Valerius Maximianus Galerius", Karl Hoeber, Catholic Encyclopedia 1909 Ed, retrieved 1 June 2007.
11.Jump up ^ February 5, 2008 posting by Rabbi David Kominsky ...For You Were Strangers in the Land of Egypt. Accessed January 25, 2011
12.Jump up ^ Walzer, Michael On Toleration (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) pp. 80–81
13.Jump up ^ Richard Landes (2000). "The Birth of Heresy: A Millennial Phenomenon". Journal of Religious History 24 (1): 26–43. doi:10.1111/1467-9809.00099.
14.Jump up ^ Jeffrey Burton Russell, Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority (New York: Twayne Publishers 1992), p. 23
15.Jump up ^ James P. Byrd (2002). The challenges of Roger Williams: religious liberty, violent persecution, and the Bible. Mercer University Press. ISBN 978-0-86554-771-1. Retrieved 15 June 2011.
16.Jump up ^ Walsham 2006: 234.
17.Jump up ^ name="Walsham06-234"
18.Jump up ^ Ellwood, Robert S. and Gregory D. Alles, eds. (2007), The Encyclopedia of World Religions, New York, N.Y., p. 431
19.Jump up ^ Fudge, Thomas A. (2013), The Trial of Jan Hus. Medieval Heresy and Criminal Procedures, Oxford University Press, New <York, N.Y.
20.Jump up ^ Drake, H. A. (November 1996). "Lambs into Lions: Explaining Early Christian Intolerance". Past & Present 153: 3–36. doi:10.1093/past/153.1.3. JSTOR 651134.
21.Jump up ^ Tuchman, Barbara, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1978), p. 113
22.Jump up ^ Rummel, Erika, "The case against Johann Reuchlin" (pp. iv–xv) University of Toronto Press, 2002 ISBN 0-8020-8484-2, ISBN 978-0-8020-8484-2.
23.Jump up ^ Poland. Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
24.Jump up ^ Remer, Gary, Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration (University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press 1996) p. 95 ISBN 0-271-02811-4
25.Jump up ^ James Anthony Froude; Desiderius Erasmus (1894). Life and letters of Erasmus: lectures delivered at Oxford 1893-4. Longmans, Green. pp. 359–. Retrieved 15 June 2011.
26.Jump up ^ Marius, Richard Thomas More: a biography (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University press, 1999) p. 175 ISBN 0-674-88525-2
27.Jump up ^ Marius, Richard Thomas More: a biography (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University press, 1999) p. 386 ISBN 0-674-88525-2
28.Jump up ^ Olmstead, Clifton E. (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., p. 5
29.Jump up ^ Winkler, Hermann August (2012), Geschichte des Westens. Von den Anfängen in der Antike bis zum 20. Jahrhundert, Third, Revised Edition, Munich (Germany), p. 152
30.Jump up ^ Ohst, Martin (2005), Toleranz/ Intoleranz, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Fourth Edition, Tübingen (Germany), Volume 8, col. 463
31.Jump up ^ Heinrich Bornkamm (1962), Toleranz. In der Geschichte des Christentums, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Third Edition, Tübingen (Germany), Vol. VI, col. 937-938
32.Jump up ^ Karl Heussi (1957), Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, Eleventh Edition, Tübingen (Germany), p. 316, 328
33.Jump up ^ Gonzalez Echeverría,Fco Javier (2012)- El Amor a la Verdad. Vida y Obra de Miguel Servet p256 :"Inherent of human condition is the sickness of believing the rest are impostors and heathen, and not ourselves, because nobody recognizes his own mistakes[..]If one must condemn everyone that misses in a particular point then every mortal would have to be burnt a thousand times. The apostles and Luther himself have been mistaken[..] If I have taken the word, by any reason, it has been because I think it is grave to kill men, under the pretext that they are mistaken on the interpretation of some point, for we know that even the chosen ones are not exempt from sometimes being wrong”(Michael Servetus)
34.Jump up ^ Heinrich Bornkamm (1962), col. 939
35.Jump up ^ Zweig, Stefan (1951). Erasmus; The Right to Heresy: Castellio against Calvin. London: Cassell. p. 312. OCLC 24340377.
36.Jump up ^ Sebastian Castellio, Contra libellum, # 77, Vaticanus.
37.Jump up ^ E.M. Curley, "Skepticism and Toleration: the Case of Montaigne", Accessed February 27, 2011
38.Jump up ^ Grossman, Walter (1979). "Toleration—Exercitium Religionis Privatum". Journal of the History of Ideas 40 (1): 129–34. doi:10.2307/2709265. JSTOR 2709265.
39.Jump up ^ Zamoyski, Adam. The Polish Way. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987
40.Jump up ^ In 1898 the tricentennial celebrated the Edict as the foundation of the coming Age of Toleration; the 1998 anniversary, by contrast, was commemorated with a book of essays under the evocatively ambivalent title, Coexister dans l'intolérance (Michel Grandjean and Bernard Roussel, editors, Geneva, 1998).
41.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Ideals, Edict of Versailles (1787), downloaded 29 January 2012
42.Jump up ^ John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689. Longman Publishing Group (2000). ISBN 0-582-30465-2. p. 11
43.Jump up ^ Coffey, p. 12
44.Jump up ^ Hunter, William Bridges A Milton Encyclopedia, Volume 8(East Brunswick, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1980) pp. 71, 72 ISBN 0-8387-1841-8
45.Jump up ^ "Rudolph II", Encyclopædia Britannica 15 Edition, retrieved 1 June 2007.
46.Jump up ^ Johnston, Lucian, Religious Liberty in Maryland and Rhode Island (Brooklyn: International Catholic Truth Society, 1903), p. 30, 38
47.Jump up ^ Hasia R. Diner, The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000, 2004, University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-24848-1, pp. 13–15
48.Jump up ^ "Barcuch Spinoza", revised June 2008, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed February 25, 2011
49.Jump up ^ "Pierre Bayle", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, updated August 19, 2008. Accessed March 6, 2011
50.Jump up ^ Joseph LoConte, "The Golden Rule of Toleration". Accessed March 6, 2011
51.Jump up ^ Voltaire A Treatise on Toleration (1763)
52.Jump up ^ Prager, D; Telushkin, J. Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983. page 128-9.
53.Jump up ^ R. Robertson, (1998). "'Dies Hohe Lied der Duldung'? The Ambiguities of Toleration in Lessing's Die Juden and Nathan der Weise". The Modern language Review 93 (1): 105–120. doi:10.2307/3733627. JSTOR 3733627.
54.Jump up ^ Dirk Martin Grube, "Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's Ring Parable: An Enlightenment Voice on Religious Tolerance", in Boeve, Lieven, Faith in the Enlightenment? The critique of the Enlightenment revisited (New York:Rodopi 2006) p. 39ff ISBN 978-90-420-2067-2
55.Jump up ^ "Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen de 1789". Accessed March 22, 2011
56.Jump up ^ Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) – Library of Congress Information Bulletin. Loc.gov. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
57.Jump up ^ John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) “On Liberty” 1859. ed. Gertrude Himmelfarb, UK: Penguin, 1985, pp.83–84
58.Jump up ^ Ernest Renan, "Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?", conference faite en Sorbonne, le 11 Mars 1882. Accessed January 13, 2011
59.Jump up ^ "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", United Nations 1948, retrieved 1 June 2007.
60.Jump up ^ Dignitatis humanae, Decree on Religious Freedom, 1965, retrieved 1 June 2007.
61.Jump up ^ "ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNITIES AND OF THE WORLD RELIGIONS" (1986) retrieved 1 June 2007.
62.Jump up ^ "Russia", Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
63.Jump up ^ "Hinduism – a general introduction". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
64.Jump up ^ "evidence of tolerance". Jayaram V/Aniket Patil. Retrieved 2014-08-17.
65.Jump up ^ "RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AND HINDUISM" (PDF). Dr. M. Lal Goel/Aniket. Retrieved 2014-08-17.
66.Jump up ^ Quran 2:62
67.Jump up ^ B. Lewis, "The Jews of Islam", New York (1984), pp. 135–136
68.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997) ISBN 0300076002 p. 17
69.Jump up ^ Bhikkhu Bodhi, "Tolerance and Diversity". Access to Insight, 5 June 2010. Accessed March 6, 2011
70.Jump up ^ Tweed, Thomas, The American Encounter with Buddhism, 1844–1912 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 2000) p. 101 ISBN 0-8078-4906-5
71.Jump up ^ Kristin Scheible, "Towards a Buddhist Policy of Tolerance: the case of King Ashoka" in Neusner, Jacob, ed. Religious Tolerance in World Religions (West Conshohocken, PA, Templeton Foundation Prsss 2008) p. 323
72.Jump up ^ http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2146000,00.html
73.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) p. 61 ISBN 0-300-07600-2
74.Jump up ^ John Bowen, "Muslims and Citizens", The Boston Review February–March 2004. Accessed January 25, 2011
75.Jump up ^ "Romanies: A long road", The Economist September 16, 2010. Accessed March 22, 2011
76.Jump up ^ Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700. Manchester University Press (2006) ISBN 0-7190-5239-4 p. 233.
77.Jump up ^ Oberdiek, Hans, Tolerance: between forebearance and acceptance (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001) p. vi ISBN 0-8476-8785-6
78.Jump up ^ Isaiah Berlin, "Four Essays on Liberty," London, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1969, p.184.
79.Jump up ^ John Gray, "Enlightenment's Wake," London and New York: Routledge, p.19.
80.Jump up ^ Gray (1995), p.20.
81.Jump up ^ "Toleration", The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed March 21, 2011
82.Jump up ^ "Offence against One's Self". Columbia.edu. 2010-06-11. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
83.Jump up ^ Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4.
84.Jump up ^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 216.
85.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) pp. 80-81 ISBN 0-300-07600-2
86.Jump up ^ "Toleration", The Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed March 21, 2011
87.Jump up ^ Ronald Dworkin, "Even bigots and Holocaust deniers must have their say", The Guardian, February 14, 2006. retrieved March 21, 2011
88.Jump up ^ "Dworkin Explores Secular, Religious Models for Society", Virginia Law School News and Events, April 18, 2008. accessed March 21, 2011
Further reading[edit]
Barzilai, Gad (2007). Law and Religion. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2494-3.
Beneke, Chris (September 2006). Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-530555-8.
Coffey, John (2000). Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689. Longman Publishing Group. ISBN 0-582-30465-2.
Curry, Thomas J. (1989-12-19). Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (December 19, 1989). ISBN 0-19-505181-5.
Grell, Ole Peter, and Roy Porter, ed. (2000). Toleration in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-65196-7.
Hamilton, Marci A. (2005-06-17). God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law. Edward R. Becker (Foreword). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85304-4.
Hanson, Charles P. (1998). Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1794-8.
Kaplan, Benjamin J. (2007). Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-02430-3.
Laursen, John Christian and Nederman, Cary, ed. (December 1997). Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment. University of Pennsylvania Press (December 1997). ISBN 0-8122-3331-X.
Murphy, Andrew R. (July 2001). Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02105-5.
Oberdiek, Hans (2001). Tolerance: between forebearance and acceptance. Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8785-6.
Tønder, Lars (September 2013). Tolerance: A Sensorial Orientation to Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199315802.
Walsham, Alexandra (September 2006). Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-5239-4.
Zagorin, Perez (2003). How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12142-7.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Tolerance.
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Toleration
 Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: God and Religious Toleration
Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations
Background to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Text of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Jehovah's witnesses: European Court of Human rights, Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Association in Europe
"Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance". Various information on sensible religious topics. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.
Religious Tolerance at DMOZ
History of Religious Tolerance
Outline for a Discussion on Toleration (Karen Barkey)
The Foundation against Intolerance of Religious Minorities
Teaching Tolerance


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity and politics

















































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal




Authority control
GND: 4060355-6 ·
 NDL: 00565000
 

  


Categories: Religion and politics
Secularism
Human rights by issue
Dutch Golden Age












Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
বাংলা
Български
Bosanski
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Қазақша
Latina
Lietuvių
Magyar
مصرى
Mirandés
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
West-Vlams
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 17 June 2015, at 12:02.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration











Toleration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religious tolerance)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Tolerate" redirects here. For other uses, see Tolerance.



[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.




This article possibly contains original research.  (May 2011)


Globe icon

The examples and perspective in this article or section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions.  (May 2011)


Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[show]





















































Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   



 Sculpture Für Toleranz ("for tolerance") by Volkmar Kühn, Gera, Germany


 The cross of the war memorial and the Menorah for Jewish people coexist in Oxford.


 Minerva as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions (Daniel Chodowiecki, 1791)
Toleration is "the practice of deliberately allowing or permitting a thing of which one disapproves. One can meaningfully speak of tolerating—i.e., of allowing or permitting—only if one is in a position to disallow." It has also been defined as "to bear or endure" or "to nourish, sustain or preserve." Toleration may signify "no more than forbearance and the permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to exist, even though the latter are looked on with disapproval as inferior, mistaken, or harmful."[1]
There is only one verb 'to tolerate' and one adjective 'tolerant,' but the two nouns 'tolerance' and 'toleration' have evolved slightly different meanings. Tolerance is an attitude of mind that implies non-judgmental acceptance of different lifestyles or beliefs,[2] whereas toleration implies putting up with something that one disapproves of.[3]
Historically, most incidents and writings pertaining to toleration involve the status of minority and dissenting viewpoints in relation to a dominant state religion. In the twentieth century and after, analysis of the doctrine of toleration has been expanded to include political and ethnic groups, homosexuals and other minorities, and human rights embodies the principle of legally enforced toleration.


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 In antiquity
3 Biblical sources of toleration
4 In the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Reformation 4.1 Tolerance of the Jews
4.2 Vladimiri
4.3 Erasmus
4.4 More
4.5 Reformation
4.6 Castellio
4.7 Bodin
4.8 Montaigne
4.9 Edict of Torda
4.10 Maximilian II
4.11 The Warsaw Confederation
4.12 Edict of Nantes
5 In the Enlightenment 5.1 Milton
5.2 Rudolph II
5.3 In the American colonies
5.4 Spinoza
5.5 Locke
5.6 Bayle
5.7 Act of Toleration
5.8 Voltaire
5.9 Lessing
5.10 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen
5.11 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
6 In the nineteenth century 6.1 Roman Catholic Relief Act
6.2 Mill
6.3 Renan
7 In the twentieth century
8 In other religions 8.1 Hindu religion
8.2 Islam
8.3 Buddhism
9 Modern analyses and critiques of toleration 9.1 Modern definition
9.2 Toleration of homosexuality
9.3 Tolerating the intolerant
9.4 Other criticisms and issues
10 See also
11 References
12 Further reading
13 External links

Etymology[edit]
The word tolerance was first used in the 15th century.[4]
The word is derived from endurance and fortitude, used in the 14th century. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word was first used to describe having permission from authorities in the 1530s.[5]
In antiquity[edit]
As reported in the Old Testament, the Persian king Cyrus the Great was believed to have released the Jews from captivity in 539–530 BC, and permitted their return to their homeland.[6]
The Hellenistic city of Alexandria, founded 331 BC, contained a large Jewish community which lived in peace with equivalently sized Greek and Egyptian populations. According to Michael Walzer, the city provided "a useful example of what we might think of as the imperial version of multiculturalism."[7]
The Roman Empire encouraged conquered peoples to continue worshipping their own gods. "An important part of Roman propaganda was its invitation to the gods of conquered territories to enjoy the benefits of worship within the imperium."[8] Christians were singled out for persecution because of their own rejection of Roman pantheism and refusal to honor the emperor as a god.[9] In 311 AD, Roman Emperor Galerius issued a general edict of toleration of Christianity, in his own name and in those of Licinius and Constantine I (who converted to Christianity the following year).[10]
Biblical sources of toleration[edit]
In the Old Testament, the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy make similar statements about the treatment of strangers. For example, Exodus 22:21 says: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt".These texts are frequently used in sermons to plead for compassion and tolerance of those who are different from us and less powerful.[11] Julia Kristeva elucidated a philosophy of political and religious toleration based on all of our mutual identities as strangers.[12]
The New Testament Parable of the Tares, which speaks of the difficulty of distinguishing wheat from weeds before harvest time, has also been invoked in support of religious toleration. In his "Letter to Bishop Roger of Chalons", Bishop Wazo of Liege (c. 985–1048 AD) relied on the parable[13] to argue that "the church should let dissent grow with orthodoxy until the Lord comes to separate and judge them".[14]
Roger Williams, a Baptist theologian and founder of Rhode Island, used this parable to support government toleration of all of the "weeds" (heretics) in the world, because civil persecution often inadvertently hurts the "wheat" (believers) too. Instead, Williams believed it was God's duty to judge in the end, not man's. This parable lent further support to Williams' Biblical philosophy of a wall of separation between church and state as described in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[15]
In the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Reformation[edit]
In the Middle Ages, there were instances of toleration of particular groups. The Latin concept tolerantia was a "highly-developed political and judicial concept in mediaeval scholastic theology and canon law."[16] Tolerantia was used to "denote the self-restraint of a civil power in the face of" outsiders, like infidels, Muslims or Jews, but also in the face of social groups like prostitutes and lepers.[17] Heretics such as the Cathari, Waldensians, Jan Hus, and his followers, the Hussites, were persecuted.[18][19] Later theologians belonging or reacting to the Protestant Reformation began discussion of the circumstances under which dissenting religious thought should be permitted. Toleration "as a government-sanctioned practice" in Christian countries, "the sense on which most discussion of the phenomenon relies—is not attested before the sixteenth century".[20]
Tolerance of the Jews[edit]
In Poland in 1264, the Statute of Kalisz was issued, guaranteeing freedom of religion for the Jews in the country.
In 1348, Pope Clement VI (1291–1352) issued a bull pleading with Catholics not to murder Jews, whom they blamed for the Black Death. He noted that Jews died of the plague like anyone else, and that the disease also flourished in areas where there were no Jews. Christians who blamed and killed Jews had been "seduced by that liar, the Devil". He took Jews under his personal protection at Avignon, but his calls for other clergy to do so failed to be heeded.[21]
Johann Reuchlin (1455–1522) was a German humanist and a scholar of Greek and Hebrew who opposed efforts by Johannes Pfefferkorn, backed by the Dominicans of Cologne, to confiscate all religious texts from the Jews as a first step towards their forcible conversion to the Catholic religion.[22]
Despite occasional spontaneous episodes of pogroms and killings, as during the Black Death, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was a relatively tolerant home for the Jews in the medieval period. In 1264, the Statute of Kalisz guaranteed safety, personal liberties, freedom of religion, trade, and travel to Jews. By the mid-16th century, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was home to 80% of the world's Jewish population. Jewish worship was officially recognized, with a Chief Rabbi originally appointed by the monarch. Jewish property ownership was also protected for much of the period, and Jews entered into business partnerships with members of the nobility.[23]
Vladimiri[edit]
Paulus Vladimiri (ca. 1370–1435) was a Polish scholar and rector who at the Council of Constance in 1414, presented a thesis, Tractatus de potestate papae et imperatoris respectu infidelium (Treatise on the Power of the Pope and the Emperor Respecting Infidels). In it he argued that pagan and Christian nations could coexist in peace and criticized the Teutonic Order for its wars of conquest of native non-Christian peoples in Prussia and Lithuania. Vladimiri strongly supported the idea of conciliarism and pioneered the notion of peaceful coexistence among nations – a forerunner of modern theories of human rights. Throughout his political, diplomatic and university career, he expressed the view that a world guided by the principles of peace and mutual respect among nations was possible and that pagan nations had a right to peace and to possession of their own lands.
Erasmus[edit]
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466–1536), was a Dutch Renaissance humanist and Catholic whose works laid a foundation for religious toleration. For example, in De libero arbitrio, opposing certain views of Martin Luther, Erasmus noted that religious disputants should be temperate in their language, "because in this way the truth, which is often lost amidst too much wrangling may be more surely perceived." Gary Remer writes, "Like Cicero, Erasmus concludes that truth is furthered by a more harmonious relationship between interlocutors."[24] Although Erasmus did not oppose the punishment of heretics, in individual cases he generally argued for moderation and against the death penalty. He wrote, "It is better to cure a sick man than to kill him."[25]
More[edit]
Saint Thomas More (1478–1535), Catholic Lord Chancellor of King Henry VIII and author, described a world of almost complete religious toleration in Utopia (1516), in which the Utopians "can hold various religious beliefs without persecution from the authorities."[26] However, More's work is subject to various interpretations, and it is not clear that he felt that earthly society should be conducted the same way as in Utopia. Thus, in his three years as Lord Chancellor, More actively approved of the persecution of those who sought to undermine the Catholic faith in England.[27]
Reformation[edit]
At the Diet of Worms (1521), Martin Luther refused to recant his beliefs citing freedom of conscience as his justification.[28] According to Historian Hermann August Winkler, the individual's freedom of conscience became the hallmark of Protestantism.[29] Luther was convinced that faith in Jesus Christ was the free gift of the Holy Spirit and could therefore not be forced on a person. Heresies could not be met with force, but with preaching the gospel revealed in the Bible. Luther: "Heretics should not be overcome with fire, but with written sermons." In Luther's view, the worldly authorities were entitled to expel heretics. Only if they undermine the public order, should they be executed.[30] Later proponents of tolerance such as Sebastian Franck and Sebastian Castellio cited Luther's position. He had overcome, at least for the Protestant territories and countries, the violent medieval criminal procedures of dealing with heretics. But Luther remained rooted in the Middle Ages insofar as he considered the Anabaptists' refusal to take oaths, do military service, and the rejection of private property by some Anabaptist groups to be a political threat to the public order which would inevitably lead to anarchy and chaos.[31] So Anabaptists were persecuted not only in Catholic but also in Lutheran and Reformed territories. However, a number of Protestant theologians such as John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Capito, and Johannes Brenz as well as Landgrave Philip of Hesse opposed the execution of Anabaptists.[32] Ulrich Zwingli demanded the expulsion of persons who did not accept the Reformed beliefs, in some cases the execution of Anabaptist leaders. The young Michael Servetus also defended tolerance since 1531, in his letters to Johannes Oecolampadius, but during those years some Protestant theologians such as Bucer and Capito publicly expressed they thought he should be persecuted.[33] The trial against Servetus, an Antitrinitarian, in Geneva was not a case of church discipline but a criminal procedure based on the legal code of the Holy Roman Empire. Denying the Trinity doctrine was long considered to be the same as atheism in all churches. The Anabaptists made a considerable contribution to the development of tolerance in the early-modern era by incessantly demanding freedom of conscience and standing up for it with their patient suffering.[34]
Castellio[edit]
Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563) was a French Protestant theologian who in 1554 published under a pseudonym the pamphlet Whether heretics should be persecuted (De haereticis, an sint persequendi) criticizing John Calvin's execution of Michael Servetus: "When Servetus fought with reasons and writings, he should have been repulsed by reasons and writings." Castellio concluded: "We can live together peacefully only when we control our intolerance. Even though there will always be differences of opinion from time to time, we can at any rate come to general understandings, can love one another, and can enter the bonds of peace, pending the day when we shall attain unity of faith."[35] Castellio is remembered for the often quoted statement, "To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man.[36]
Bodin[edit]
Jean Bodin (1530–1596) was a French Catholic jurist and political philosopher. His Latin work Colloquium heptaplomeres de rerum sublimium arcanis abditis ("The Colloqium of the Seven") portrays a conversation about the nature of truth between seven cultivated men from diverse religious or philosophical backgrounds: a natural philosopher, a Calvinist, a Muslim, a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, a Jew, and a skeptic. All agree to live in mutual respect and tolerance.
Montaigne[edit]
Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592), French Catholic essayist and statesman, moderated between the Catholic and Protestant sides in the Wars of Religion. Montaigne's theory of skepticism led to the conclusion that we cannot precipitously decide the error of other's views. Montaigne wrote in his famous "Essais": "It is putting a very high value on one's conjectures, to have a man roasted alive because of them...To kill people, there must be sharp and brilliant clarity."[37]
Edict of Torda[edit]
In 1568, King John II Sigismund of Hungary, encouraged by his Unitarian Minister Francis David (Dávid Ferenc), issued the Edict of Torda decreeing religious toleration.
Maximilian II[edit]
In 1571, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II granted religious toleration to the nobles of Lower Austria, their families and workers.[38]
The Warsaw Confederation[edit]



 Original act of the Warsaw Confederation 1573. The beginning of religious freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth has a long tradition of religious freedom. The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. the Commonwealth kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe.[39]
The Warsaw Confederation of 1573 was a private compact signed by representatives of all the major religions in Polish and Lithuanian society, in which they pledged each other mutual support and tolerance. The confederation was incorporated into the Henrican articles, which constituted a virtual Polish–Lithuanian constitution.
Edict of Nantes[edit]
The Edict of Nantes, issued on April 13, 1598, by Henry IV of France, granted Protestants – notably Calvinist Huguenots – substantial rights in a nation where Catholicism was the state religion. The main concern was civil unity;[40] The Edict separated civil law from religious rights, treated non-Catholics as more than mere schismatics and heretics for the first time, and opened a path for secularism and tolerance. In offering general freedom of conscience to individuals, the edict offered many specific concessions to the Protestants, such as amnesty and the reinstatement of their civil rights, including the right to work in any field or for the State, and to bring grievances directly to the king. The edict marked the end of the religious wars in France that tore apart the population during the second half of the 16th century.
The Edict of Nantes was revoked in 1685 by King Louis XIV with the Edict of Fontainebleau, leading to renewed persecution of Protestants in France. Although strict enforcement of the revocation was relaxed during the reign of Louis XV, it was not until 102 years later, in 1787, when Louis XVI signed the Edict of Versailles – known as the Edict of Tolerance – that civil status and rights to form congregations by Protestants were restored.[41]
In the Enlightenment[edit]
Beginning in the Enlightenment commencing in the 1600s, politicians and commentators began formulating theories of religious toleration and basing legal codes on the concept. A distinction began to develop between civil tolerance, concerned with "the policy of the state towards religious dissent".,[42] and ecclesiastical tolerance, concerned with the degree of diversity tolerated within a particular church.[43]
Milton[edit]
John Milton (1608–1674), English Protestant poet and essayist, called in the Aeropagitica for "the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties" (applied, however, only to the conflicting Protestant denominations, and not to atheists, Jews, Moslems or even Catholics). "Milton argued for disestablishment as the only effective way of achieving broad toleration. Rather than force a man's conscience, government should recognize the persuasive force of the gospel."[44]
Rudolph II[edit]
In 1609, Rudolph II decreed religious toleration in Bohemia.[45]
In the American colonies[edit]



 The Maryland Toleration Act, passed in 1649.
In 1636, Roger Williams and companions at the foundation of Rhode Island entered into a compact binding themselves "to be obedient to the majority only in civil things". Lucian Johnston writes, "Williams' intention was to grant an infinitely greater religious liberty than then existed anywhere in the world outside of the Colony of Maryland". In 1663, Charles II granted the colony a charter guaranteeing complete religious toleration.[46]
In 1649 Maryland passed the Maryland Toleration Act, also known as the Act Concerning Religion, a law mandating religious tolerance for Trinitarian Christians only (excluding Nontrinitarian faiths). Passed on September 21, 1649 by the assembly of the Maryland colony, it was the first law requiring religious tolerance in the British North American colonies. The Calvert family sought enactment of the law to protect Catholic settlers and some of the other denominations that did not conform to the dominant Anglicanism of England and her colonies.
In 1657, New Amsterdam granted religious toleration to Jews.[47]
Spinoza[edit]
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) was a Dutch Jewish philosopher. He published the Theological-Political Treatise anonymously in 1670, arguing (according to the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) that "the freedom to philosophize can not only be granted without injury to piety and the peace of the Commonwealth, but that the peace of the Commonwealth and Piety are endangered by the suppression of this freedom", and defending, "as a political ideal, the tolerant, secular, and democratic polity". After interpreting certain Biblical texts, Spinoza opted for tolerance and freedom of thought in his conclusion that "every person is in duty bound to adapt these religious dogmas to his own understanding and to interpret them for himself in whatever way makes him feel that he can the more readily accept them with full confidence and conviction."[48]
Locke[edit]
English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) published A Letter Concerning Toleration in 1689. Locke's work appeared amidst a fear that Catholicism might be taking over England, and responds to the problem of religion and government by proposing religious toleration as the answer. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, who saw uniformity of religion as the key to a well-functioning civil society, Locke argued that more religious groups actually prevent civil unrest. In his opinion, civil unrest results from confrontations caused by any magistrate's attempt to prevent different religions from being practiced, rather than tolerating their proliferation. However, Locke denies religious tolerance for Catholics, for political reasons, and also for atheists because 'Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist'. A passage Locke later added to the Essay concerning Human Understanding, questioned whether atheism was necessarily inimical to political obedience.
Bayle[edit]
Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) was a French Protestant scholar and philosopher who went into exile in Holland. In his "Dictionnaire historique and critique" and "Commentaire Philosophique" he advanced arguments for religious toleration (though, like some others of his time, he was not anxious to extend the same protection to Catholics he would to differing Protestant sects). Among his arguments were that every church believes it is the right one so "a heretical church would be in a position to persecute the true church". Bayle wrote that "the erroneous conscience procures for error the same rights and privileges that the orthodox conscience procures for truth."[49]
Bayle was repelled by the use of scripture to justify coercion and violence: "One must transcribe almost the whole New Testament to collect all the Proofs it affords us of that Gentleness and Long-suffering, which constitute the distinguishing and essential Character of the Gospel." He did not regard toleration as a danger to the state, but to the contrary: "If the Multiplicity of Religions prejudices the State, it proceeds from their not bearing with one another but on the contrary endeavoring each to crush and destroy the other by methods of Persecution. In a word, all the Mischief arises not from Toleration, but from the want of it."[50]
Act of Toleration[edit]
The Act of Toleration, adopted by the British Parliament in 1689, allowed freedom of worship to Nonconformists who had pledged to the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and rejected transubstantiation. The Nonconformists were Protestants who dissented from the Church of England such as Baptists and Congregationalists. They were allowed their own places of worship and their own teachers, if they accepted certain oaths of allegiance.
The Act did not apply to Catholics and non-trinitarians and continued the existing social and political disabilities for Dissenters, including their exclusion from political office and also from universities.
Voltaire[edit]
François-Marie Arouet, the French writer, historian and philosopher known as Voltaire (1694–1778) published his "Treatise on Toleration" in 1763. In it he attacked religious views, but also said, "It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?"[51] On the other hand, Voltaire in his writings on religion was spiteful and intolerant of the practice of the Christian religion, and rabbi Joseph Telushkin has claimed that the most significant of Enlightenment hostility against Judaism was found in Voltaire.[52]
Lessing[edit]
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781), German dramatist and philosopher, trusted in a "Christianity of Reason", in which human reason (initiated by criticism and dissent) would develop, even without help by divine revelation. His plays about Jewish characters and themes, such as "Die Juden" and "Nathan der Weise", "have usually been considered impressive pleas for social and religious toleration".[53] The latter work contains the famous parable of the three rings, in which three sons represent the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Each son believes he has the one true ring passed down by their father, but judgment on which is correct is reserved to God.[54]
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen[edit]
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), adopted by the National Constituent Assembly during the French Revolution, states in Article 10: "No-one shall be interfered with for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their practice doesn't disturb public order as established by the law." ("Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, mêmes religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre public établi par la loi.")[55]
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, included the following words:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in which he said: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[56]
In the nineteenth century[edit]
The process of legislating religious toleration went forward, while philosophers continued to discuss the underlying rationale.
Roman Catholic Relief Act[edit]
The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 adopted by the Parliament in 1829 repealed the last of the criminal laws (TEST ACTS) aimed at Catholic citizens of Great Britain.
Mill[edit]
John Stuart Mill's arguments in "On Liberty" (1859) in support of the freedom of speech were phrased to include a defense of religious toleration:

Let the opinions impugned be the belief of God and in a future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality... But I must be permitted to observe that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. And I denounce and reprobate this pretension not the less if it is put forth on the side of my most solemn convictions.[57]
Renan[edit]
In his 1882 essay "What is a Nation?", French historian and philosopher Ernest Renan proposed a definition of nationhood based on "a spiritual principle" involving shared memories, rather than a common religious, racial or linguistic heritage. Thus members of any religious group could participate fully in the life of the nation. ""You can be French, English, German, yet Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or practicing no religion".[58]
In the twentieth century[edit]
In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance[59]
Even though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or influenced many national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights including the freedom of religion.
In 1965, The Roman Catholic Church Vatican II Council issued the decree Dignitatis humanae (Religious Freedom) that states that all people must have the right to religious freedom.[60]
In 1986, the first World Day of Prayer for Peace was held in Assisi. Representatives of one hundred and twenty different religions came together for prayer to their God or gods.[61]
In 1988, in the spirit of Glasnost, Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev promised increased religious toleration.[62]
In other religions[edit]
Other major world religions also have texts or practices supporting the idea of religious toleration.
Hindu religion[edit]
The Rigveda says Ekam Sath Viprah Bahudha Vadanti which translates to "The truth is One, but sages call it by different Names".[63] Consistent with this tradition, India chose to be a secular country even though it was divided partitioning on religious lines. Whatever intolerance, Hindu scholars displayed towards other religions was subtle and symbolic and most likely was done to present a superior argument in defence of their own faith. Traditionally, Hindus showed their intolerance by withdrawing and avoiding contact with those whom they held in contempt, instead of using violence and aggression to strike fear in their hearts. Hinduism is perhaps the only religion in the world which showed remarkable tolerance towards other religions in difficult times and under testing conditions. Even Buddhism, which spread in India mostly through negative campaigns against Hinduism, cannot claim that credit. Criticizing other religions and showing them in poor light to attract converts to its own fold was never an approved practice in Hinduism.[64]
Pluralism and tolerance of diversity are built into Hindu theology India's long history is a testimony to its tolerance of religious diversity. Christianity came to India with St. Thomas in the first century A.D., long before it became popular in the West. Judaism came to India after the Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. and the Jews were expelled from their homeland. In a recent book titled "Who are the Jews of India?" (University of California Press, 2000), author Nathan Katz observes that India is the only country where the Jews were not persecuted. The Indian chapter is one of the happiest of the Jewish Diaspora. Both Christians and Jews have existed in a predominant Hindu India for centuries without being persecuted. Zoroastrians from Persia (present day Iran) entered India in the 7th century to flee Islamic conquest. They are known as Parsis in India. The Parsis are an affluent community in the city of Mumbai without a sense of having been persecuted through the centuries. Among the richest business families in India are the Parsis; for example, the Tata family controls a huge industrial empire in various parts of the country. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the powerful Prime Minister of India (1966–77; 1980–84), was married to Feroz Gandhi, a Parsi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi). [65]
Islam[edit]
See also: Al-Baqara 256
The name ‘the Tolerant (al-Ḥalīm)’ is one of the names of Allāh.[citation needed]
Circa 622, Muhammed established the Constitution of Medina, which incorporated religious freedom for Christians and Jews.[citation needed]
Certain verses of the Qu'ran were interpreted to create a specially tolerated status for People of the Book, Jewish and Christian believers in the Old and New Testaments considered to have been a basis for Islamic religion:

Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.[66]
Under Islamic law, Jews and Christians were considered dhimmis, a legal status inferior to that of a Muslim but superior to that of other non-Muslims.
Jewish communities in the Ottoman Empire held a protected status and continued to practice their own religion, as did Christians. Yitzhak Sarfati, born in Germany, became the Chief Rabbi of Edirne and wrote a letter inviting European Jews to settle in the Ottoman Empire, in which he asked:: "Is it not better for you to live under Muslims than under Christians?".[67] Sultan Beyazid II (1481–1512), issued a formal invitation to the Jews expelled from Catholic Spain and Portugal, leading to a wave of Jewish immigration.
According to Michael Walzer:

The established religion of the [Ottoman] empire was Islam, but three other religious communities—Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, and Jewish—were permitted to form autonomous organizations. These three were equal among themselves, without regard to their relative numerical strength. They were subject to the same restrictions vis-à-vis Muslims—with regard to dress, proselytizing, and intermarriage, for example—and were allowed the same legal control over their own members.[68]
Buddhism[edit]
Although the Buddha preached that "the path to the supreme goal of the holy life is made known only in his own teaching", according to Bhikkhu Boddhi, Buddhists have nevertheless shown significant tolerance for other religions: "Buddhist tolerance springs from the recognition that the dispositions and spiritual needs of human beings are too vastly diverse to be encompassed by any single teaching, and thus that these needs will naturally find expression in a wide variety of religious forms."[69] James Freeman Clarke said in Ten Great Religions (1871): "The Buddhists have founded no Inquisition; they have combined the zeal which converted kingdoms with a toleration almost inexplicable to our Western experience."[70]
The Edicts of Ashoka issued by King Ashoka the Great (269–231 BCE), a Buddhist, declared ethnic and religious tolerance. His Edict XII, engraved in stone, stated: "The faiths of others all deserve to be honored for one reason or another. By honoring them, one exalts one's own faith and at the same time performs a service to the faith of others."[71]
However, Buddhism has also had controversies regarding toleration. See Dorje Shugden Controversy. In addition, the question of possible intolerance among Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Myanmar has been raised by Paul Fuller.[72]
Modern analyses and critiques of toleration[edit]
Contemporary commentators have highlighted situations in which toleration conflicts with widely held moral standards, national law, the principles of national identity, or other strongly held goals. Michael Walzer notes that the British in India tolerated the Hindu practice of suttee (ritual burning of a widow) until 1829. On the other hand, the United States declined to tolerate the Mormon practice of polygamy.[73] The French head scarf controversy represents a conflict between religious practice and the French secular ideal.[74] Toleration of the Romani people in European countries is a continuing issue.[75]
Modern definition[edit]
Historian Alexandra Walsham notes that the modern understanding of the word "toleration" may be very different from its historic meaning.[76] Toleration in modern parlance has been analyzed as a component of a liberal or libertarian view of human rights. Hans Oberdiek writes, "As long as no one is harmed or no one's fundamental rights are violated, the state should keep hands off, tolerating what those controlling the state find disgusting, deplorable or even debased. This for a long time has been the most prevalent defense of toleration by liberals... It is found, for example, in the writings of American philosophers John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Ronald Dworkin, Brian Barry, and a Canadian, Will Kymlicka, among others."[77]
Isaiah Berlin attributes to Herbert Butterfield the notion that "toleration... implies a certain disrespect. I tolerate your absurd beliefs and your foolish acts, though I know them to be absurd and foolish. Mill would, I think, have agreed."[78]
John Gray states that "When we tolerate a practice, a belief or a character trait, we let something be that we judge to be undesirable, false or at least inferior; our toleration expresses the conviction that, despite its badness, the object of toleration should be left alone."[79] However, according to Gray, "new liberalism—the liberalism of Rawls, Dworkin, Ackerman and suchlike" seems to imply that "it is wrong for government to discriminate in favour of, or against, any form of life animated by a definite conception of the good."[80]
John Rawls' "theory of 'political liberalism' conceives of toleration as a pragmatic response to the fact of diversity." Diverse groups learn to tolerate one another by developing "what Rawls calls 'overlapping consensus': individuals and groups with diverse metaphysical views or 'comprehensive schemes' will find reasons to agree about certain principles of justice that will include principles of toleration."[81]
Herbert Marcuse wrote "Repressive Tolerance" in 1965 where he argued that the "pure tolerance" that permits all favors totalitarianism, democracy, and tyranny of the majority, and insisted the "repressive tolerance" against them.
Toleration of homosexuality[edit]
As a result of his public debate with Baron Devlin on the role of the criminal law in enforcing moral norms, British legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart wrote Law, Liberty and Morality (1963) and The Morality of the Criminal Law (1965). His work on the relationship between law and morality had a significant effect on the laws of Great Britain, helping bring about the decriminalization of homosexuality. But it was Jeremy Bentham that defended the rights for homosexuality with his essay "Offence against One's Self"[82] but could not be published until in 1978.
Tolerating the intolerant[edit]
Main article: Paradox of tolerance
Walzer, Karl Popper[83] and John Rawls[84] have discussed the paradox of tolerating intolerance. Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects.[85] Rawls argues that an intolerant sect should be tolerated in a tolerant society unless the sect directly threatens the security of other members of the society. He links this principle to the stability of a tolerant society, in which members of an intolerant sect in a tolerant society will, over time, acquire the tolerance of the wider society.
Other criticisms and issues[edit]
Toleration has been described as undermining itself via moral relativism: "either the claim self-referentially undermines itself or it provides us with no compelling reason to believe it. If we are skeptical about knowledge, then we have no way of knowing that toleration is good."[86]
Ronald Dworkin argues that in exchange for toleration, minorities must bear with the criticisms and insults which are part of the freedom of speech in an otherwise tolerant society.[87] Dworkin has also questioned whether the United States is a "tolerant secular" nation, or is re-characterizing itself as a "tolerant religious" nation, based on the increasing re-introduction of religious themes into conservative politics. Dworkin concludes that "the tolerant secular model is preferable, although he invited people to use the concept of personal responsibility to argue in favor of the tolerant religious model."[88]
In The End of Faith, Sam Harris asserts that society should be unwilling to tolerate unjustified religious beliefs about morality, spirituality, politics, and the origin of humanity, especially beliefs which promote violence.
See also[edit]
Anekantavada
Christian debate on persecution and toleration
International Day for Tolerance
Islam and other religions
Multifaith space
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Religious discrimination
Religious intolerance
Religious liberty
Religious persecution
Religious pluralism
Repressive Tolerance
Secular state
Separation of church and state
Status of religious freedom by country
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Perez Zagorin, How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2003) ISBN 0-691-09270-2 , pp. 5–6, quoting D.D. Raphael et al.
2.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-03-07.
3.Jump up ^ "Toleration". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-03-07.
4.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 2012-04-07.
5.Jump up ^ "Tolerance". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2012-04-07.
6.Jump up ^ "Book of Ezra | King James Bible". Kingjamesbibletrust.org. Retrieved March 21, 201. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)1
7.Jump up ^ Walzer, Michael (1997). On Toleration. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-300-07600-2.
8.Jump up ^ Witte, John Jr. and Johan D. van de Vyver, Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective (The Hague: Kluwer 1996) p. 74 ISBN 90-411-0176-4
9.Jump up ^ Logan, Donald F., A history of the church in the Middle Ages (New York:Routledge, 2002) ISBN 0-415-13289-4, p. 8
10.Jump up ^ "Valerius Maximianus Galerius", Karl Hoeber, Catholic Encyclopedia 1909 Ed, retrieved 1 June 2007.
11.Jump up ^ February 5, 2008 posting by Rabbi David Kominsky ...For You Were Strangers in the Land of Egypt. Accessed January 25, 2011
12.Jump up ^ Walzer, Michael On Toleration (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) pp. 80–81
13.Jump up ^ Richard Landes (2000). "The Birth of Heresy: A Millennial Phenomenon". Journal of Religious History 24 (1): 26–43. doi:10.1111/1467-9809.00099.
14.Jump up ^ Jeffrey Burton Russell, Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority (New York: Twayne Publishers 1992), p. 23
15.Jump up ^ James P. Byrd (2002). The challenges of Roger Williams: religious liberty, violent persecution, and the Bible. Mercer University Press. ISBN 978-0-86554-771-1. Retrieved 15 June 2011.
16.Jump up ^ Walsham 2006: 234.
17.Jump up ^ name="Walsham06-234"
18.Jump up ^ Ellwood, Robert S. and Gregory D. Alles, eds. (2007), The Encyclopedia of World Religions, New York, N.Y., p. 431
19.Jump up ^ Fudge, Thomas A. (2013), The Trial of Jan Hus. Medieval Heresy and Criminal Procedures, Oxford University Press, New <York, N.Y.
20.Jump up ^ Drake, H. A. (November 1996). "Lambs into Lions: Explaining Early Christian Intolerance". Past & Present 153: 3–36. doi:10.1093/past/153.1.3. JSTOR 651134.
21.Jump up ^ Tuchman, Barbara, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1978), p. 113
22.Jump up ^ Rummel, Erika, "The case against Johann Reuchlin" (pp. iv–xv) University of Toronto Press, 2002 ISBN 0-8020-8484-2, ISBN 978-0-8020-8484-2.
23.Jump up ^ Poland. Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
24.Jump up ^ Remer, Gary, Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration (University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press 1996) p. 95 ISBN 0-271-02811-4
25.Jump up ^ James Anthony Froude; Desiderius Erasmus (1894). Life and letters of Erasmus: lectures delivered at Oxford 1893-4. Longmans, Green. pp. 359–. Retrieved 15 June 2011.
26.Jump up ^ Marius, Richard Thomas More: a biography (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University press, 1999) p. 175 ISBN 0-674-88525-2
27.Jump up ^ Marius, Richard Thomas More: a biography (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University press, 1999) p. 386 ISBN 0-674-88525-2
28.Jump up ^ Olmstead, Clifton E. (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., p. 5
29.Jump up ^ Winkler, Hermann August (2012), Geschichte des Westens. Von den Anfängen in der Antike bis zum 20. Jahrhundert, Third, Revised Edition, Munich (Germany), p. 152
30.Jump up ^ Ohst, Martin (2005), Toleranz/ Intoleranz, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Fourth Edition, Tübingen (Germany), Volume 8, col. 463
31.Jump up ^ Heinrich Bornkamm (1962), Toleranz. In der Geschichte des Christentums, in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Third Edition, Tübingen (Germany), Vol. VI, col. 937-938
32.Jump up ^ Karl Heussi (1957), Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, Eleventh Edition, Tübingen (Germany), p. 316, 328
33.Jump up ^ Gonzalez Echeverría,Fco Javier (2012)- El Amor a la Verdad. Vida y Obra de Miguel Servet p256 :"Inherent of human condition is the sickness of believing the rest are impostors and heathen, and not ourselves, because nobody recognizes his own mistakes[..]If one must condemn everyone that misses in a particular point then every mortal would have to be burnt a thousand times. The apostles and Luther himself have been mistaken[..] If I have taken the word, by any reason, it has been because I think it is grave to kill men, under the pretext that they are mistaken on the interpretation of some point, for we know that even the chosen ones are not exempt from sometimes being wrong”(Michael Servetus)
34.Jump up ^ Heinrich Bornkamm (1962), col. 939
35.Jump up ^ Zweig, Stefan (1951). Erasmus; The Right to Heresy: Castellio against Calvin. London: Cassell. p. 312. OCLC 24340377.
36.Jump up ^ Sebastian Castellio, Contra libellum, # 77, Vaticanus.
37.Jump up ^ E.M. Curley, "Skepticism and Toleration: the Case of Montaigne", Accessed February 27, 2011
38.Jump up ^ Grossman, Walter (1979). "Toleration—Exercitium Religionis Privatum". Journal of the History of Ideas 40 (1): 129–34. doi:10.2307/2709265. JSTOR 2709265.
39.Jump up ^ Zamoyski, Adam. The Polish Way. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987
40.Jump up ^ In 1898 the tricentennial celebrated the Edict as the foundation of the coming Age of Toleration; the 1998 anniversary, by contrast, was commemorated with a book of essays under the evocatively ambivalent title, Coexister dans l'intolérance (Michel Grandjean and Bernard Roussel, editors, Geneva, 1998).
41.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Ideals, Edict of Versailles (1787), downloaded 29 January 2012
42.Jump up ^ John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689. Longman Publishing Group (2000). ISBN 0-582-30465-2. p. 11
43.Jump up ^ Coffey, p. 12
44.Jump up ^ Hunter, William Bridges A Milton Encyclopedia, Volume 8(East Brunswick, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1980) pp. 71, 72 ISBN 0-8387-1841-8
45.Jump up ^ "Rudolph II", Encyclopædia Britannica 15 Edition, retrieved 1 June 2007.
46.Jump up ^ Johnston, Lucian, Religious Liberty in Maryland and Rhode Island (Brooklyn: International Catholic Truth Society, 1903), p. 30, 38
47.Jump up ^ Hasia R. Diner, The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000, 2004, University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-24848-1, pp. 13–15
48.Jump up ^ "Barcuch Spinoza", revised June 2008, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed February 25, 2011
49.Jump up ^ "Pierre Bayle", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, updated August 19, 2008. Accessed March 6, 2011
50.Jump up ^ Joseph LoConte, "The Golden Rule of Toleration". Accessed March 6, 2011
51.Jump up ^ Voltaire A Treatise on Toleration (1763)
52.Jump up ^ Prager, D; Telushkin, J. Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983. page 128-9.
53.Jump up ^ R. Robertson, (1998). "'Dies Hohe Lied der Duldung'? The Ambiguities of Toleration in Lessing's Die Juden and Nathan der Weise". The Modern language Review 93 (1): 105–120. doi:10.2307/3733627. JSTOR 3733627.
54.Jump up ^ Dirk Martin Grube, "Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's Ring Parable: An Enlightenment Voice on Religious Tolerance", in Boeve, Lieven, Faith in the Enlightenment? The critique of the Enlightenment revisited (New York:Rodopi 2006) p. 39ff ISBN 978-90-420-2067-2
55.Jump up ^ "Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen de 1789". Accessed March 22, 2011
56.Jump up ^ Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) – Library of Congress Information Bulletin. Loc.gov. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
57.Jump up ^ John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) “On Liberty” 1859. ed. Gertrude Himmelfarb, UK: Penguin, 1985, pp.83–84
58.Jump up ^ Ernest Renan, "Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?", conference faite en Sorbonne, le 11 Mars 1882. Accessed January 13, 2011
59.Jump up ^ "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", United Nations 1948, retrieved 1 June 2007.
60.Jump up ^ Dignitatis humanae, Decree on Religious Freedom, 1965, retrieved 1 June 2007.
61.Jump up ^ "ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNITIES AND OF THE WORLD RELIGIONS" (1986) retrieved 1 June 2007.
62.Jump up ^ "Russia", Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved on 2011-06-15.
63.Jump up ^ "Hinduism – a general introduction". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
64.Jump up ^ "evidence of tolerance". Jayaram V/Aniket Patil. Retrieved 2014-08-17.
65.Jump up ^ "RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AND HINDUISM" (PDF). Dr. M. Lal Goel/Aniket. Retrieved 2014-08-17.
66.Jump up ^ Quran 2:62
67.Jump up ^ B. Lewis, "The Jews of Islam", New York (1984), pp. 135–136
68.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997) ISBN 0300076002 p. 17
69.Jump up ^ Bhikkhu Bodhi, "Tolerance and Diversity". Access to Insight, 5 June 2010. Accessed March 6, 2011
70.Jump up ^ Tweed, Thomas, The American Encounter with Buddhism, 1844–1912 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 2000) p. 101 ISBN 0-8078-4906-5
71.Jump up ^ Kristin Scheible, "Towards a Buddhist Policy of Tolerance: the case of King Ashoka" in Neusner, Jacob, ed. Religious Tolerance in World Religions (West Conshohocken, PA, Templeton Foundation Prsss 2008) p. 323
72.Jump up ^ http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2146000,00.html
73.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) p. 61 ISBN 0-300-07600-2
74.Jump up ^ John Bowen, "Muslims and Citizens", The Boston Review February–March 2004. Accessed January 25, 2011
75.Jump up ^ "Romanies: A long road", The Economist September 16, 2010. Accessed March 22, 2011
76.Jump up ^ Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700. Manchester University Press (2006) ISBN 0-7190-5239-4 p. 233.
77.Jump up ^ Oberdiek, Hans, Tolerance: between forebearance and acceptance (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001) p. vi ISBN 0-8476-8785-6
78.Jump up ^ Isaiah Berlin, "Four Essays on Liberty," London, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1969, p.184.
79.Jump up ^ John Gray, "Enlightenment's Wake," London and New York: Routledge, p.19.
80.Jump up ^ Gray (1995), p.20.
81.Jump up ^ "Toleration", The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed March 21, 2011
82.Jump up ^ "Offence against One's Self". Columbia.edu. 2010-06-11. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
83.Jump up ^ Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4.
84.Jump up ^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 216.
85.Jump up ^ Michael Walzer, On Toleration, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) pp. 80-81 ISBN 0-300-07600-2
86.Jump up ^ "Toleration", The Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed March 21, 2011
87.Jump up ^ Ronald Dworkin, "Even bigots and Holocaust deniers must have their say", The Guardian, February 14, 2006. retrieved March 21, 2011
88.Jump up ^ "Dworkin Explores Secular, Religious Models for Society", Virginia Law School News and Events, April 18, 2008. accessed March 21, 2011
Further reading[edit]
Barzilai, Gad (2007). Law and Religion. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2494-3.
Beneke, Chris (September 2006). Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-530555-8.
Coffey, John (2000). Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689. Longman Publishing Group. ISBN 0-582-30465-2.
Curry, Thomas J. (1989-12-19). Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (December 19, 1989). ISBN 0-19-505181-5.
Grell, Ole Peter, and Roy Porter, ed. (2000). Toleration in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-65196-7.
Hamilton, Marci A. (2005-06-17). God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law. Edward R. Becker (Foreword). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85304-4.
Hanson, Charles P. (1998). Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1794-8.
Kaplan, Benjamin J. (2007). Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe. Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-02430-3.
Laursen, John Christian and Nederman, Cary, ed. (December 1997). Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment. University of Pennsylvania Press (December 1997). ISBN 0-8122-3331-X.
Murphy, Andrew R. (July 2001). Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02105-5.
Oberdiek, Hans (2001). Tolerance: between forebearance and acceptance. Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8785-6.
Tønder, Lars (September 2013). Tolerance: A Sensorial Orientation to Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199315802.
Walsham, Alexandra (September 2006). Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-5239-4.
Zagorin, Perez (2003). How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12142-7.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Tolerance.
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Toleration
 Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: God and Religious Toleration
Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations
Background to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Text of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Jehovah's witnesses: European Court of Human rights, Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Association in Europe
"Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance". Various information on sensible religious topics. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.
Religious Tolerance at DMOZ
History of Religious Tolerance
Outline for a Discussion on Toleration (Karen Barkey)
The Foundation against Intolerance of Religious Minorities
Teaching Tolerance


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity and politics

















































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal




Authority control
GND: 4060355-6 ·
 NDL: 00565000
 

  


Categories: Religion and politics
Secularism
Human rights by issue
Dutch Golden Age












Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
বাংলা
Български
Bosanski
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Қазақша
Latina
Lietuvių
Magyar
مصرى
Mirandés
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
West-Vlams
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 17 June 2015, at 12:02.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration










Religious pluralism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about religious pluralism. For other uses of the term, see Pluralism (disambiguation).



 Catholic church, Mosque and Serbian Orthodox Church in Bosanska Krupa


 Roadside sign in the Nubra Valley, Ladkah, India
Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society. It can indicate one or more of the following:
As the name of the worldview according to which one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.
As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid. This may be considered a form of either toleration (a concept that arose as a result of the European wars of religion) or moral relativism.
The understanding that the exclusive claims of different religions turn out, upon closer examination, to be variations of universal truths that have been taught since time immemorial. This is called Perennialism (based on the concept of philosophia perennis) or Traditionalism.
Sometimes as a synonym for ecumenism, i.e., the promotion of some level of unity, co-operation, and improved understanding between different religions or different denominations within a single religion.
As term for the condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.
As a social norm and not merely a synonym for religious diversity.[1]


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition and scope
2 History
3 Buddhism
4 Classical Greek and Roman paganism
5 Christianity 5.1 Classical Christian views
5.2 Modern Christian views
6 Hinduism
7 Islam 7.1 Acceptability of religious pluralism in Islam
7.2 Unacceptability of religious pluralism in Islam
7.3 In modern practice
7.4 Sufism
7.5 Ahmadiyya
7.6 Bahá'í Faith
8 Jainism
9 Judaism
10 Sikhism
11 Religious pluralism and human service professions
12 See also
13 References 13.1 Works cited
14 Further reading
15 External links 15.1 Buddhism
15.2 Christianity
15.3 Hinduism
15.4 Islam
15.5 Judaism


Definition and scope[edit]



Temple of All Religions in Kazan, Russia


 Congress of Parliament of the World's Religions, Chicago, 1893
Main article: Religious tolerance
Religious pluralism, to paraphrase the title of a recent academic work, goes beyond mere toleration. Chris Beneke, in Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism, explains the difference between religious tolerance and religious pluralism by pointing to the situation in the late 18th century United States. By the 1730s, in most colonies religious minorities had obtained what contemporaries called religious toleration:[2] "The policy of toleration relieved religious minorities of some physical punishments and some financial burdens, but it did not make them free from the indignities of prejudice and exclusion. Nor did it make them equal. Those 'tolerated' could still be barred from civil offices, military positions, and university posts."[2] In short, religious toleration is only the absence of religious persecution, and does not necessarily preclude religious discrimination. However, in the following decades something extraordinary happened in the Thirteen Colonies, at least if one views the events from "a late eighteenth-century perspective".[3] Gradually the colonial governments expanded the policy of religious toleration, but then, between the 1760s and the 1780s, they replaced it with "something that is usually called religious liberty".[2] Mark Silka, in "Defining Religious Pluralism in America: A Regional Analysis", states that Religious pluralism "enables a country made up of people of different faiths to exist without sectarian warfare or the persecution of religious minorities. Understood differently in different times and places, it is a cultural construct that embodies some shared conception of how a country's various religious communities relate to each other and to the larger nation whole." [1]
Religious pluralism can be defined as "respecting the otherness of others". Freedom of religion encompasses all religions acting within the law in a particular region. Exclusivist religions teach that theirs is the only way to salvation and to religious truth, and some of them would even argue that it is necessary to suppress the falsehoods taught by other religions. Some Protestant sects argue fiercely against Roman Catholicism, and fundamentalist Christians of all kinds teach that religious practices like those of paganism and witchcraft are pernicious. This was a common historical attitude prior to the Enlightenment, and has appeared as governmental policy into the present day under systems like Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which destroyed the ancient Buddhas of Bamyan.
Giving one religion or denomination special rights that are denied to others can weaken religious pluralism. This situation was observed in Europe through the Lateran Treaty and Church of England. In modern era, many Islamic countries have laws that criminalize the act of leaving Islam to someone born in Muslim family, forbid entry to non-Muslims into Mosques, and forbid construction of Church, Synagogue or Temples inside their countries.[4]
Relativism, the belief that all religions are equal in their value and that none of the religions give access to absolute truth, is an extreme form of inclusivism.[5] Likewise, syncretism, the attempt to take over creeds of practices from other religions or even to blend practices or creeds from different religions into one new faith is an extreme form of inter-religious dialogue. Syncretism must not be confused with ecumenism, the attempt to bring closer and eventually reunite different denominations of one religion that have a common origin but were separated by a schism.
History[edit]
Main article: History of religious pluralism
Cultural and religious pluralism has a long history and development that reaches from antiquity to contemporary trends in post-modernity.
Feuerbauch and Ernst Troeltsch concluded that Asian religious traditions, in particular Hinduism and Buddhism were earliest proponents of religious pluralism and granting of freedom to the individual to choose the faith and develop a personal religious construct within it.[6][7] Jainism, another ancient Indian religion, as well as Daoism have also always been inclusively flexible and have long favored religious pluralism for those who disagree with their religious viewpoints.[6] The Age of Enlightenment in Europe triggered a sweeping transformation about religion, segregation of state and religion, with rising acceptance of religious pluralism. These pluralist trends in Western thought, particularly since the 18th century, brought mainstream Christianity and Judaism closer to the Asian traditions of philosophical pluralism, states Chad Meister.[6]
Buddhism[edit]
The earliest reference to Buddhist views on religious pluralism in a political sense is found in the Edicts of Emperor Ashoka:

All religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. Rock Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)

Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions. Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika)
When asked, "Don’t all religions teach the same thing? Is it possible to unify them?" the Dalai Lama said:[8]

People from different traditions should keep their own, rather than change. However, some Tibetan may prefer Islam, so he can follow it. Some Spanish prefer Buddhism; so follow it. But think about it carefully. Don’t do it for fashion. Some people start Christian, follow Islam, then Buddhism, then nothing.
In the United States I have seen people who embrace Buddhism and change their clothes! Like the New Age. They take something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something… That is not healthy.
For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. Several truths, several religions, is contradictory.
I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, [Islam] is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend. If by unifying you mean mixing, that is impossible; useless.
Classical Greek and Roman paganism[edit]
See also: Syncretism
Ancient Greeks employed Interpretatio Graeca whereby the gods of other religions were equated with those of their own pantheon. The Romans easily accomplished this task by subsuming the entire set of gods from other faiths into their own religion. This was done on rare occasion by adding a new god to their own pantheon; on most occasions they identified another religion's gods with their own.
Because divinity was the basis for the mandate of the state, atheism was considered a capital crime in both ancient Greece and Rome.[citation needed] This was further solidified as the status quo following the installation of the Roman imperial cult of deification of sitting emperors, and Roman pluralism was not officially extended to Christianity until the Edict of Milan in 313 CE.
Christianity[edit]
Main article: Christianity and other religions
See also: Ecumenism
Some Christians[9] have argued that religious pluralism is an invalid or self-contradictory concept. Maximal forms of religious pluralism claim that all religions are equally true, or that one religion can be true for some and another for others. Some Christians hold this idea to be logically impossible from the Principle of contradiction.[10]
Other Christians have held that there can be truth value and salvific value in other faith traditions. John Macquarrie, described in the Handbook of Anglican Theologians (1998) as "unquestionably Anglicanism's most distinguished systematic theologian in the second half of the twentieth century",[11] wrote that "there should be an end to proselytizing but that equally there should be no syncretism of the kind typified by the Baha'i movement" (p. 2[12]). In discussing 9 founders of major faith traditions (Moses, Zoroaster, Lao-zu, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Krishna, Jesus, and Muhammad), which he called "mediators between the human and the divine", Macquarrie wrote that:

I do not deny for a moment that the truth of God has reached others through other channels - indeed, I hope and pray that it has. So while I have a special attachment to one mediator, I have respect for them all. (p. 12[12])
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also teaches a form of religious pluralism, that there is at least some truth in almost all religions and philosophies.[13]
Classical Christian views[edit]
Before the Great Schism, mainstream Christianity confessed "one holy catholic and apostolic church", in the words of the Nicene Creed. Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Episcopalians and most Protestant Christian denominations still maintain this belief.
Church unity was something very visible and tangible, and schism was just as serious an offense as heresy. Following the Great Schism, Roman Catholicism sees and recognizes the Orthodox Sacraments as valid. Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the concept of "validity" when applied to Sacraments, but it considers the form of Roman Catholic Sacraments to be acceptable, if still devoid of actual spiritual content. Both generally regard each other as "heterodox" and "schismatic", while continuing to recognize each other as Christian. (See ecumenicism).
Modern Christian views[edit]
Some Protestants hold that only believers who believe in certain fundamental doctrines know the true pathway to salvation. The core of this doctrine is that Jesus Christ was a perfect man, is the Son of God and that he died and rose again for the wrongdoing of those who will accept the gift of salvation. They continue to believe in "one" church, believing in fundamental issues there is unity and non-fundamental issues there is liberty. Some evangelicals are doubtful if Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are still valid manifestations of the Church and usually reject religious (typically restorationist) movements rooted in 19th century American Christianity, such as Mormonism, Christian Science, or Jehovah's Witnesses as not distinctly Christian. See here
Hinduism[edit]
See also: Hinduism and other religions
Hinduism is naturally pluralistic. A well-known Rig Vedic hymn says: "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously" (Ékam sat vipra bahudā vadanti).[14] Similarly, in the Bhagavad Gītā (4:11), God, manifesting as an incarnation, states: "As people approach me, so I receive them. All paths lead to me" (ye yathā māṃ prapadyante tāṃs tathāiva bhajāmyaham mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ).[15] The Hindu religion has no theological difficulties in accepting degrees of truth in other religions. Hinduism emphasizes that everyone actually worships the same God, whether one knows it or not.[16] Just as Hindus worshiping Ganesh is seen as valid by those worshiping Vishnu, so someone worshiping Jesus or Allah is accepted. Many foreign deities become assimilated into Hinduism, and some Hindus may sometimes offer prayers to Jesus along with their traditional forms of God.
Islam[edit]

Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2015)
Main article: Islam and other religions
Religious pluralism is a controversial subject in Islam. The primary sources that guide Islam, namely Quran and Hadiths, offer contradictory positions on religious pluralism.[17][18] Some verses support religious pluralism, while others discourage it. The acceptability of religious pluralism within Islam remains a topic of active debate.
Acceptability of religious pluralism in Islam[edit]
In several Surah, Quran asks Muslims to remain steadfast with Islam, and not yield to the vain desires of other religions and unbelievers. These verses have been interpreted to imply pluralism in religions. For example, Surah Al-Ma'idah verses 47 through 49 state:

Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are no better than those who rebel. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious. (Quran 5:47–49)
Surah Al-Ankabut verse 45 through 47 state:

Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee, and establish regular Prayer: for Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds; and remembrance of Allah is the greatest thing in life without doubt. And Allah knows the deeds that ye do. And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better than mere disputation, unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow in Islam." And thus it is that We have sent down the Book to thee. So the People of the Book believe therein, as also do some of these pagan Arabs: and none but Unbelievers reject our signs. (Quran 29:45–47)
Surah Al-E-Imran verses 62 through 66 state:

This is the true account: There is no god except Allah; and Allah-He is indeed the Exalted in Power, the Wise. But if they turn back, Allah hath full knowledge of those who do mischief. Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we at least are Muslims bowing to Allah's Will. Ye People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel Were not revealed Till after him? Have ye no understanding? Ah! Ye are those who fell to disputing even in matters of which ye had some knowledge! but why dispute ye in matters of which ye have no knowledge? It is Allah Who knows, and ye who know not! (Quran 3:62–66)
Surah Al-Kafiroon verse 1 through 6 state:

Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (Quran 109:1–6)
Unacceptability of religious pluralism in Islam[edit]
In several Surah, the Quran asks Muslims to persecute the unbelievers: Christians, Jews, pagans (idol worshippers, polytheists), apostates and those who reject Islam. These verses have been interpreted to imply that Islam rejects religious pluralism. For example, Surah Al-Tawba verse 1 through 5 commands the Muslim to slay the pagans (with verse 9.5 called the 'sword verse' in scholarly literature,[18]):

A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran 9:1–5)
In Surah Al-Tawba, verse 29 demands Muslims to fight all those who do not believe in Islam, including Christians and Jews (People of the Book), until they pay the Jizya, a discriminatory tax, with willing submission.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Quran 9:29)
In Surah Al-Nisa, verse 89 demands Muslims to slay the apostates.

They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah from what is forbidden. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. (Quran 4:89)
In Surah Al-Bayyina verses 6 through 7 calls People of the Book and Polytheists who reject truth revealed by Islam, the worst of creatures:

Those who reject Truth [Islam], among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein for aye. They are the worst of creatures. Those who have faith and do righteous deeds - they are the best of creatures. (Quran 98:6–7)
In modern practice[edit]
Religious pluralism is a contested issue in modern Islamic countries. Twenty three (23) Islamic countries have laws, as of 2014, which make it a crime, punishable with death penalty or prison, for a Muslim, by birth or conversion, to leave Islam or convert to another religion.[19][20][21] In Muslim countries such as Algeria, it is illegal to preach, persuade or attempt to convert a Muslim to another religion.[22] Saudi Arabia and several Islamic nations have strict laws against the construction of Christian Church, Jewish Synagogue, Hindu Temple and Buddhist Stupa anywhere inside the country, by anyone including minorities working there.[4] Brunei in southeast Asia adopted Sharia law in 2013 that prescribes a death penalty for any Muslim who converts from Islam to another religion.[19] Other Islamic scholars state Sharia does not allow non-Muslim minorities to enjoy religious freedoms in a Muslim-majority nation.[23][24]
Sufism[edit]
The Sufis were practitioners of the esoteric mystic traditions within an Islam at a certain point. Sufism is defined by the Sufi master or Pir (Sufism) or fakeer or Wali in the language of the people by dancing and singing and incorporating various philosophies, theologies, ideologies and religions together (e.g., Christiainity, Judaism, Paganism, Platonism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and so forth with time). Famous Sufi masters are Rumi, Shadhili, Sheikh Farid, Bulleh Shah, Shah Hussain, Shams Tabrizi, Waris Shah, Ghazali, Mian Mir, Attar of Nishapur, Amir Khusrow, Salim Chishti. See many more famous Sufis at the List of Sufis. The Sufis were considered by many to have divine revelations with messages of peace, tolerance, equality, pluarism, love for all and hate for no one, humanitarians, philosophers, psychologists and much more. Many had the teaching if you want to change the world, change yourself and you will change the whole world. The views of the Sufi poets, philosophers and theologians have inspired multiple forms of modern day academia as well as philosophers of other religions. See also Blind men and an elephant.
Persian poet Rumi says:

I looked for God. I went to a temple, and I didn't find him there. Then I went to a church, and I didn't find him there. And then I went to a mosque, and I didn't find him there. And then finally I looked in my heart, and there he was.
Rumi also says:

How many paths are there to God? There are as many paths to God as there are souls on the Earth.
Rumi also says:

A true Lover doesn't follow any one religion, be sure of that. Since in the religion of Love, there is no irreverence or faith. When in Love, body, mind, heart and soul don't even exist. Become this, fall in Love, and you will not be separated again.
The Sufi platform was considered by exoteric dogmatic Muslims as a trojan horse ideology executing doctrine of deception (see Taqiyya) to convert others while others considered it outright heresy, blasphemy, innovation (biddah), kuffar, apostasy, haram. Many Sufis have gone under persecutions and executions for apostasy and treason charges at which point many tended to have supernatural events taking place similar to Jesus crucifixion. For example, many Sufis throughout their lives display religious healing, miracles and supernatural events which seem as if God has connected with the Sufis similar to the Vedic and Buddhist enlightenment. For more details see Fana (Sufism), Baqaa, Yaqeen, Kashf, Manzil, Haqiqa, Sufi metaphysics, Sufi philosophy.
Ahmadiyya[edit]
See also: Prophethood (Ahmadiyya)
Ahmadis recognize many founders of world religions to be from God, who all brought teaching and guidance from God to all peoples. According to the Ahmadiyya understanding of the Quran, every nation in the history of mankind has been sent a prophet, as the Quran states: And there is a guide for every people. Though the Quran mentions only 24 prophets, the founder of Islam, Muhammad states that the world has seen 124,000 prophets. Thus other than the prophets mentioned in the Quran, Ahmadis, with support from theological study also recognize Buddha, Krishna, founders of Chinese religions to be divinely appointed individuals.
The Second Khalifatul Maish of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community writes: "According to this teaching there has not been a single people at any time in history or anywhere in the world who have not had a warner from God, a teacher, a prophet. According to the Quran there have been prophets at all times and in all countries. India, China, Russia, Afghanistan, parts of Africa, Europe, America—all had prophets according to the theory of divine guidance taught by the Quran. When, therefore, Muslims hear about prophets of other peoples or other countries, they do not deny them. They do not brand them as liars. Muslims believe that other peoples have had their teachers. If other peoples have had prophets, books, and laws, these constitute no difficulty for Islam."[25]
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community wrote in his book A Message of Peace: "Our God has never discriminated between one people and another. This is illustrated by the fact that all the potentials and capabilities (Prophets) which have been granted to the Aryans (Hindus) have also been granted to the races inhabiting Arabia, Persia, Syria, China, Japan, Europe and America." [26]
Bahá'í Faith[edit]
Main article: Bahá'í Faith and the unity of religion
Bahá'u'lláh, founder of Bahá'í Faith, a religion that developed in Persia, though not a sect of Islam,[27] urged the elimination of religious intolerance. He taught that God is one, and has manifested himself to humanity through several historic messengers. Bahá'u'lláh taught that Bahá'ís must associate with peoples of all religions, showing the love of God in relations with them, whether this is reciprocated or not.
Bahá'í's refer to the concept of Progressive revelation, which means that God's will is revealed to mankind progressively as mankind matures and is better able to comprehend the purpose of God in creating humanity. In this view, God's word is revealed through a series of messengers: Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh (the founder of the Bahá'í Faith) among them. In the Kitáb-i-Íqán (Book of Certitude), Bahá'u'lláh explains that messengers of God have a twofold station, one of divinity and one of an individual. According to Bahá'í writings, there will not be another messenger for many hundreds of years. There is also a respect for the religious traditions of the native peoples of the planet who may have little other than oral traditions as a record of their religious figures.
Jainism[edit]
Main article: Anekantavada
Anekāntavāda, the principle of relative pluralism, is one of the basic principles of Jainism. In this view, the truth or the reality is perceived differently from different points of view, and no single point of view is the complete truth.[28][29] Jain doctrine states that an object has infinite modes of existence and qualities and they cannot be completely perceived in all its aspects and manifestations, due to inherent limitations of the humans. Only the Kevalins—the omniscient beings—can comprehend the object in all its aspects and manifestations, and all others are capable of knowing only a part of it.[30] Consequently, no one view can claim to represent the absolute truth. Jains compare all attempts to proclaim absolute truth with andhgajnyaya or the "maxim of the blind men and elephant", wherein all the blind men claimed to explain the true appearance of the elephant, but could only partly succeed due to their narrow perspective.[31]
Judaism[edit]
Main article: Jewish views on religious pluralism
The Mosaic law categorically warns the Jews to refrain from polytheism. First and the second commandment, you shall not have another God except me, worship your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Throughout the Hebrew Bible the sovereignty of Yahweh as the only God is the key pillar of a chosen community of Israel.
Sikhism[edit]
The Sikh Gurus (religious leaders) have propagated the message of "many paths" leading to the one God and ultimate salvation for all souls who treading on the path of righteousness. They have supported the view that proponents of all faiths, by doing good and virtuous deeds and by remembering the Lord, can certainly achieve salvation. Sikhs are told to accept all leading faiths as possible vehicles for attaining spiritual enlightenment, provided the faithful study, ponder and practice the teachings of their prophets and leaders. Sikhism had many interactions with Sufism as well as Hinduism, influenced them and was influenced by them. See Islam and Sikhism and Hinduism and Sikhism.
The holy book of the Sikhs (the Sri Guru Granth Sahib) says:

Do not say that the Vedas and the Koran (semitic books i.e. Bible, Torah and Q'uran) are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false. (Guru Granth Sahib page 1350)[32]
As well as:

Some call the Lord "Ram, Ram", and some "Khuda". Some serve Him as "Gusain", others as "Allah". He is the Cause of causes, and Generous. He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. Some pilgrims bathe at sacred shrines, others go on Hajj to Mecca. Some do devotional worship, whilst others bow their heads in prayer. Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran. Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu. Some yearn for paradise, and others long for heaven. Says Nanak, one who realizes the Hukam of God's Will, knows the secrets of his Lord Master. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Page:885)[33]

One who recognizes that all spiritual paths lead to the One shall be emancipated. One who speaks lies shall fall into hell and burn. In all the world, the most blessed and sanctified are those who remain absorbed in Truth. (SGGS Ang 142)[34]

The seconds, minutes, and hours, days, weeks and months and various seasons originate from One Sun; O nanak, in just the same way, the many forms originate from the Creator. (Guru Granth Sahib page 12,13)
The Guru Granth Sahib also says that Bhagat Namdev and Bhagat Kabir, who were both believed to be Hindus, both attained salvation though they were born before Sikhism took root and were clearly not Sikhs. This highlights and reinforces the Guru's saying that "peoples of other faiths" can join with God as true and also at the same time signify that Sikhism is not the exclusive path for liberation.
Additionally the Guru Granth Sahib says:

First, Allah (God) created the Light; then, by His Creative Power, He made all mortal beings. From the One Light, the entire universe welled up. So who is good, and who is bad? ||1|| [35]
Again, the Guru Granth Sahib Ji provides this verse:

Naam Dayv the printer, and Kabeer the weaver, obtained salvation through the Perfect Guru. Those who know God and recognize His Shabad ("word") lose their ego and class consciousness. (Guru Granth Sahib page 67)[36]
Most of the 15 Sikh Bhagats who are mentioned in their holy book were non-Sikhs and belonged to Hindu and Muslim faiths, which were the most prevalent religions of this region.
The pluralistic dialogue of Sikhism began with the founder of Sikhism Guru Nanak after becoming enlightened saying the words Na koi hindu na koi musalman - "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim". He recognised that religious labels held no value and it is the deeds of human that will be judged in the hereafter what we call ourselves religiously holds no value.
Sikhs have been considered eager exponents of interfaith dialogue and will not only accept the right of others to practice their faith but have in the past fought and laid down their lives to protect this right for others. See the sacrifice of the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadar who on the final desperate and heart-rending pleas of the Kashmiri Pandit, agreed to put up a fight for their right to practice their religion. He was executed so another religion besides his own could have the freedom to practice their religion against the tyrannic Moghul empire that were forcing people to accept Islam.
Religious pluralism and human service professions[edit]
The concept of religious pluralism is also relevant to human service professions, such as psychology and social work, as well as medicine and nursing, in which trained professionals may interact with clients from diverse faith traditions.[37][38][39] For example, psychologist Kenneth Pargament[37] has described four possible stances toward client religious and spiritual beliefs, which he called rejectionist, exclusivist, constructivist, and pluralist. Unlike the constructivist stance, the pluralist stance:

...recognizes the existence of a religious or spiritual absolute reality but allows for multiple interpretations and paths toward it. In contrast to the exclusivist who maintains that there is a single path "up the mountain of God," the pluralist recognizes many paths as valid. Although both the exclusivist and the pluralist may agree on the existence of religious or spiritual reality, the pluralist recognizes that this reality is expressed in different cultures and by different people in different ways. Because humans are mortal and limited, a single human religious system cannot encompass all of the religious or spiritual absolute reality.... (p. 167[38])
Importantly, "the pluralistic therapist can hold personal religious beliefs while appreciating those of a client with different religious beliefs. The pluralist recognizes that religious value differences can and will exist between counselors and clients without adversely affecting therapy" (p. 168).[38] The stances implied by these four helping orientations on several key issues, such as "should religious issues be discussed in counseling?", have also been presented in tabular form (p. 362, Table 12.1).[37]
The profession of chaplaincy, a religious profession, must also deal with issues of pluralism and the relevance of a pluralistic stance. For example, Friberg (2001) argues: "With growing populations of immigrants and adherents of religions not previously seen in significant numbers in North America, spiritual care must take religion and diversity seriously. Utmost respect for the residents' spiritual and religious histories and orientations is imperative" (p. 182).[39]
See also[edit]
See also: Category:Catholic ecumenical and interfaith relations.
Comparative religion
Freedom of religion
Global Centre for Pluralism
Indifferentism
Interreligious organization
Institute for Interreligious Dialogue
Multifaith space
Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Progressive Christianity
Projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs
Unitarian Universalism
United Religions Initiative
Universalism
World Council of Churches
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Silk, Mark (July 2007), Defining Religious Pluralism in America: A Regional Analysis 612, pp. 64–81
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Beneke 2006: 6.
3.Jump up ^ Beneke 2006: 5.
4.^ Jump up to: a b Chad Meister (2010), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195340136, pp 32-57
5.Jump up ^ http://carm.org/what-relativism
6.^ Jump up to: a b c Chad Meister (2010), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195340136, pp 62-72
7.Jump up ^ Roof & McKinney (1985), Denominational America and the new religious pluralism, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 480(1), pp. 24-38
8.Jump up ^ Dalai Lama Asks West Not to Turn Buddhism Into a "Fashion", Zenit, 2003-10-08, retrieved 2009-06-18.
9.Jump up ^ Why Jesus? Article stating that Jesus is the saviour and not Mohammed or Buddha—see second part of this article.
10.Jump up ^ Defending Salvation Through Christ Alone By Jason Carlson, Christian Ministries International
11.Jump up ^ p. 168, Timothy Bradshaw (1998), "John Macquarrie," in: Alister E. McGrath (ed). The SPCK Handbook of Anglican Theologians (pp. 167-168). London: SPCK. ISBN 978-0-281-05145-8
12.^ Jump up to: a b John Macquarrie (1996). Mediators between human and divine: From Moses to Muhammad. New York: Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-1170-3
13.Jump up ^ Gerald E. Jones (October 1977). "Respect for Other People’s Beliefs". Ensign. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
14.Jump up ^ Rig Veda 1.164.46
15.Jump up ^ Page 194 in Eknath Easwaran (2008). Timeless wisdom: Passages for meditation from the world's saints & sages (see article). Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press. ISBN 1-58638-027-3. Similar to Eknath Easwaran (2007). The Bhagavad Gita, 2nd ed. Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press, p. 117. ISBN 1586380192 (which substitutes "they" for "people"). Transliteration from Winthrop Sargeant (1984). The Bhagavad Gita. Albany: State University of New York Press, p. 211. ISBN 0-87395-831-4, which translates the same passage as "They who, in whatever way, take refuge in Me, them I reward."
16.Jump up ^ See Swami Bhaskarananda, Essentials of Hinduism (Viveka Press 2002) ISBN 1-884852-04-1
17.Jump up ^ Cole & Hammond (1974), Religious pluralism, legal development, and societal complexity: rudimentary forms of civil religion, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 177-189
18.^ Jump up to: a b Michael Bonner (2008), Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0691138381, pp. 23-31
19.^ Jump up to: a b Laws Criminalizing Apostasy in Selected Jurisdictions Library of Congress, US Government (May 2014)
20.Jump up ^ Laws Criminalizing Apostasy Library of Congress (2014)
21.Jump up ^ Doi, Abdur Rahman (1984), Shari`a: The Islamic Law; Taha Publishers; London UK
22.Jump up ^ Law No. 02-06 (bis), al Jarida al Rasmiyya, vol.12, 1 March 2006
23.Jump up ^ Mawdudi, S. Abul `Ala (1982), The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic State, Islamic Publications, LTD. Lahore, Pakistan
24.Jump up ^ Abdullah, Najih Ibrahim Bin (1988), The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State, Balagh Magazine, Cairo, Egypt, Volume 944, May 29, 1988; Also see June 5 1988 article by the same author
25.Jump up ^ "Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an" by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad. Part 2, Argument 4 Section labeled “A Grand Conception”
26.Jump up ^ "A Message of Peace" by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, pg. 6)
27.Jump up ^ Islam and the Baha'i Faith
28.Jump up ^ Dundas (2002) p.231
29.Jump up ^ Koller, John M. (July, 2000) pp.400-7
30.Jump up ^ Jaini, Padmanabh (1998) p.91
31.Jump up ^ Hughes, Marilynn (2005) p.590-1
32.Jump up ^ Sriganth.org Guru Granth Sahib page 1350
33.Jump up ^ "sggs ram khudha people pray to there god". sggs ram khudha people pray to there god. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
34.Jump up ^ "pluarism in sggs". pluarism in sggs. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
35.Jump up ^ "aval allah". aval allah.
36.Jump up ^ Srigranth.org Guru Granth Sahib page 67
37.^ Jump up to: a b c Kenneth I. Pargament (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York: Guilford. ISBN 978-1-57230-664-6
38.^ Jump up to: a b c Brian J. Zinnbauer & Kenneth I. Pargament (2000). Working with the sacred: Four approaches to religious and spiritual issues in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, v78 n2, pp162-171. ISSN 0748-9633
39.^ Jump up to: a b Nils Friberg (2001). The role of the chaplain in spiritual care. In David O. Moberg, Aging and spirituality: spiritual dimensions of aging theory, research (p. 177-190). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7890-0939-5 (NB: The quotation is discussing residents in nursing homes)
Works cited[edit]
Beneke, Chris (2006) Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism (New York: Oxford University Press).
Eck, Diane (2001) A New Religious America: How a "Christian Country" Has Become the World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation (San Francisco: Harper).
Emet Ve-Emunah: Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism, Robert Gordis et al., Jewish Theological Seminary and the Rabbinical Assembly, 1988.
Ashk Dahlén, Sirat al-mustaqim: One or Many? Religious Pluralism Among Muslim Intellectuals in Iran in The Blackwell Companion to Contemporary Islamic Thought, ed. Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Oxford, 2006.
Ground Rules for a Christian-Jewish Dialogue in The Root and the Branch, Robert Gordis, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962
Hutchison, William R. (2003) Religious Pluralism in America: The Contentious History of a Founding Ideal (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Kalmin, Richard (1994), Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 87(2), p. 155-169.
Toward a Theological Encounter: Jewish Understandings of Christiantiy Ed. Leon Klenicki, Paulist Press / Stimulus, 1991
Momen, M. (1997). A Short Introduction to the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: One World Publications. ISBN 1-85168-209-0.
Monecal, Maria Rosa (2002),The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company)
People of God, Peoples of God Ed. Hans Ucko, WCC Publications, 1996
Kenneth Einar Himma, “Finding a High Road: The Moral Case for Salvific Pluralism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 52, no. 1 (August 2002), 1-33
Further reading[edit]
Ankerl, Guy (2000) [2000]. Global communication without universal civilization. INU societal research. Vol.1: Coexisting contemporary civilizations : Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. Geneva: INU Press. ISBN 2-88155-004-5.
Albanese, Catherine, America: Religions and Religion. Belmont: WADSWORTH PUBLISHING, 1998, ISBN 0-534-50457-4
External links[edit]
 Wikiversity has learning materials about Religious Toleration
Global Centre for Pluralism
Council on Foreign Relations Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative
The Pluralism Project: Researching Religious Diversity in the United States
A New Religious America: Managing Religious Diversity in a Democracy: Challenges and Prospects for the 21st Century by Diana Eck, retrieved 2009-07-16.
The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue
Elijah Interfaith Institute: Inter Religious Dialogue
Buddhism[edit]
Standing Up for the Middle Way: A Buddhist Perspective on Religious Freedom
Christianity[edit]
Nostra Aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Catholic Church to Non-Christian Religions
World Council of Churches Bibliography of Works on Religious Pluralism
Hinduism[edit]
Big Picture TV Video of Ela Gandhi, granddaughter of Mahatma Gandhi, talking about religious pluralism
Islam[edit]
Islam and Religious Pluralism by Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari
Spiritual Education Lesson Plans for Children dead link
Judaism[edit]
The imperative of Religious Pluralism: A Conservative Jewish View
Darbu Emet: A Jewish Statement About Christianity


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religious pluralism
















































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Dharma Wheel.svgBuddhism portal
 P christianity.svgChristianity portal
 Om.svgHinduism portal
 Allah-green.svgIslam portal
 Star of David.svgJudaism portal
 



Authority control
NDL: 01151885
 

  


Categories: Religious pluralism







Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Afrikaans
العربية
Čeština
Español
فارسی
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Bahasa Melayu
日本語
Português
Русский
Slovenščina
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 12 June 2015, at 21:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism










Religious pluralism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about religious pluralism. For other uses of the term, see Pluralism (disambiguation).



 Catholic church, Mosque and Serbian Orthodox Church in Bosanska Krupa


 Roadside sign in the Nubra Valley, Ladkah, India
Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society. It can indicate one or more of the following:
As the name of the worldview according to which one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.
As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid. This may be considered a form of either toleration (a concept that arose as a result of the European wars of religion) or moral relativism.
The understanding that the exclusive claims of different religions turn out, upon closer examination, to be variations of universal truths that have been taught since time immemorial. This is called Perennialism (based on the concept of philosophia perennis) or Traditionalism.
Sometimes as a synonym for ecumenism, i.e., the promotion of some level of unity, co-operation, and improved understanding between different religions or different denominations within a single religion.
As term for the condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.
As a social norm and not merely a synonym for religious diversity.[1]


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition and scope
2 History
3 Buddhism
4 Classical Greek and Roman paganism
5 Christianity 5.1 Classical Christian views
5.2 Modern Christian views
6 Hinduism
7 Islam 7.1 Acceptability of religious pluralism in Islam
7.2 Unacceptability of religious pluralism in Islam
7.3 In modern practice
7.4 Sufism
7.5 Ahmadiyya
7.6 Bahá'í Faith
8 Jainism
9 Judaism
10 Sikhism
11 Religious pluralism and human service professions
12 See also
13 References 13.1 Works cited
14 Further reading
15 External links 15.1 Buddhism
15.2 Christianity
15.3 Hinduism
15.4 Islam
15.5 Judaism


Definition and scope[edit]



Temple of All Religions in Kazan, Russia


 Congress of Parliament of the World's Religions, Chicago, 1893
Main article: Religious tolerance
Religious pluralism, to paraphrase the title of a recent academic work, goes beyond mere toleration. Chris Beneke, in Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism, explains the difference between religious tolerance and religious pluralism by pointing to the situation in the late 18th century United States. By the 1730s, in most colonies religious minorities had obtained what contemporaries called religious toleration:[2] "The policy of toleration relieved religious minorities of some physical punishments and some financial burdens, but it did not make them free from the indignities of prejudice and exclusion. Nor did it make them equal. Those 'tolerated' could still be barred from civil offices, military positions, and university posts."[2] In short, religious toleration is only the absence of religious persecution, and does not necessarily preclude religious discrimination. However, in the following decades something extraordinary happened in the Thirteen Colonies, at least if one views the events from "a late eighteenth-century perspective".[3] Gradually the colonial governments expanded the policy of religious toleration, but then, between the 1760s and the 1780s, they replaced it with "something that is usually called religious liberty".[2] Mark Silka, in "Defining Religious Pluralism in America: A Regional Analysis", states that Religious pluralism "enables a country made up of people of different faiths to exist without sectarian warfare or the persecution of religious minorities. Understood differently in different times and places, it is a cultural construct that embodies some shared conception of how a country's various religious communities relate to each other and to the larger nation whole." [1]
Religious pluralism can be defined as "respecting the otherness of others". Freedom of religion encompasses all religions acting within the law in a particular region. Exclusivist religions teach that theirs is the only way to salvation and to religious truth, and some of them would even argue that it is necessary to suppress the falsehoods taught by other religions. Some Protestant sects argue fiercely against Roman Catholicism, and fundamentalist Christians of all kinds teach that religious practices like those of paganism and witchcraft are pernicious. This was a common historical attitude prior to the Enlightenment, and has appeared as governmental policy into the present day under systems like Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which destroyed the ancient Buddhas of Bamyan.
Giving one religion or denomination special rights that are denied to others can weaken religious pluralism. This situation was observed in Europe through the Lateran Treaty and Church of England. In modern era, many Islamic countries have laws that criminalize the act of leaving Islam to someone born in Muslim family, forbid entry to non-Muslims into Mosques, and forbid construction of Church, Synagogue or Temples inside their countries.[4]
Relativism, the belief that all religions are equal in their value and that none of the religions give access to absolute truth, is an extreme form of inclusivism.[5] Likewise, syncretism, the attempt to take over creeds of practices from other religions or even to blend practices or creeds from different religions into one new faith is an extreme form of inter-religious dialogue. Syncretism must not be confused with ecumenism, the attempt to bring closer and eventually reunite different denominations of one religion that have a common origin but were separated by a schism.
History[edit]
Main article: History of religious pluralism
Cultural and religious pluralism has a long history and development that reaches from antiquity to contemporary trends in post-modernity.
Feuerbauch and Ernst Troeltsch concluded that Asian religious traditions, in particular Hinduism and Buddhism were earliest proponents of religious pluralism and granting of freedom to the individual to choose the faith and develop a personal religious construct within it.[6][7] Jainism, another ancient Indian religion, as well as Daoism have also always been inclusively flexible and have long favored religious pluralism for those who disagree with their religious viewpoints.[6] The Age of Enlightenment in Europe triggered a sweeping transformation about religion, segregation of state and religion, with rising acceptance of religious pluralism. These pluralist trends in Western thought, particularly since the 18th century, brought mainstream Christianity and Judaism closer to the Asian traditions of philosophical pluralism, states Chad Meister.[6]
Buddhism[edit]
The earliest reference to Buddhist views on religious pluralism in a political sense is found in the Edicts of Emperor Ashoka:

All religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. Rock Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)

Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions. Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika)
When asked, "Don’t all religions teach the same thing? Is it possible to unify them?" the Dalai Lama said:[8]

People from different traditions should keep their own, rather than change. However, some Tibetan may prefer Islam, so he can follow it. Some Spanish prefer Buddhism; so follow it. But think about it carefully. Don’t do it for fashion. Some people start Christian, follow Islam, then Buddhism, then nothing.
In the United States I have seen people who embrace Buddhism and change their clothes! Like the New Age. They take something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something… That is not healthy.
For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. Several truths, several religions, is contradictory.
I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, [Islam] is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend. If by unifying you mean mixing, that is impossible; useless.
Classical Greek and Roman paganism[edit]
See also: Syncretism
Ancient Greeks employed Interpretatio Graeca whereby the gods of other religions were equated with those of their own pantheon. The Romans easily accomplished this task by subsuming the entire set of gods from other faiths into their own religion. This was done on rare occasion by adding a new god to their own pantheon; on most occasions they identified another religion's gods with their own.
Because divinity was the basis for the mandate of the state, atheism was considered a capital crime in both ancient Greece and Rome.[citation needed] This was further solidified as the status quo following the installation of the Roman imperial cult of deification of sitting emperors, and Roman pluralism was not officially extended to Christianity until the Edict of Milan in 313 CE.
Christianity[edit]
Main article: Christianity and other religions
See also: Ecumenism
Some Christians[9] have argued that religious pluralism is an invalid or self-contradictory concept. Maximal forms of religious pluralism claim that all religions are equally true, or that one religion can be true for some and another for others. Some Christians hold this idea to be logically impossible from the Principle of contradiction.[10]
Other Christians have held that there can be truth value and salvific value in other faith traditions. John Macquarrie, described in the Handbook of Anglican Theologians (1998) as "unquestionably Anglicanism's most distinguished systematic theologian in the second half of the twentieth century",[11] wrote that "there should be an end to proselytizing but that equally there should be no syncretism of the kind typified by the Baha'i movement" (p. 2[12]). In discussing 9 founders of major faith traditions (Moses, Zoroaster, Lao-zu, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Krishna, Jesus, and Muhammad), which he called "mediators between the human and the divine", Macquarrie wrote that:

I do not deny for a moment that the truth of God has reached others through other channels - indeed, I hope and pray that it has. So while I have a special attachment to one mediator, I have respect for them all. (p. 12[12])
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also teaches a form of religious pluralism, that there is at least some truth in almost all religions and philosophies.[13]
Classical Christian views[edit]
Before the Great Schism, mainstream Christianity confessed "one holy catholic and apostolic church", in the words of the Nicene Creed. Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Episcopalians and most Protestant Christian denominations still maintain this belief.
Church unity was something very visible and tangible, and schism was just as serious an offense as heresy. Following the Great Schism, Roman Catholicism sees and recognizes the Orthodox Sacraments as valid. Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the concept of "validity" when applied to Sacraments, but it considers the form of Roman Catholic Sacraments to be acceptable, if still devoid of actual spiritual content. Both generally regard each other as "heterodox" and "schismatic", while continuing to recognize each other as Christian. (See ecumenicism).
Modern Christian views[edit]
Some Protestants hold that only believers who believe in certain fundamental doctrines know the true pathway to salvation. The core of this doctrine is that Jesus Christ was a perfect man, is the Son of God and that he died and rose again for the wrongdoing of those who will accept the gift of salvation. They continue to believe in "one" church, believing in fundamental issues there is unity and non-fundamental issues there is liberty. Some evangelicals are doubtful if Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are still valid manifestations of the Church and usually reject religious (typically restorationist) movements rooted in 19th century American Christianity, such as Mormonism, Christian Science, or Jehovah's Witnesses as not distinctly Christian. See here
Hinduism[edit]
See also: Hinduism and other religions
Hinduism is naturally pluralistic. A well-known Rig Vedic hymn says: "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously" (Ékam sat vipra bahudā vadanti).[14] Similarly, in the Bhagavad Gītā (4:11), God, manifesting as an incarnation, states: "As people approach me, so I receive them. All paths lead to me" (ye yathā māṃ prapadyante tāṃs tathāiva bhajāmyaham mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ).[15] The Hindu religion has no theological difficulties in accepting degrees of truth in other religions. Hinduism emphasizes that everyone actually worships the same God, whether one knows it or not.[16] Just as Hindus worshiping Ganesh is seen as valid by those worshiping Vishnu, so someone worshiping Jesus or Allah is accepted. Many foreign deities become assimilated into Hinduism, and some Hindus may sometimes offer prayers to Jesus along with their traditional forms of God.
Islam[edit]

Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2015)
Main article: Islam and other religions
Religious pluralism is a controversial subject in Islam. The primary sources that guide Islam, namely Quran and Hadiths, offer contradictory positions on religious pluralism.[17][18] Some verses support religious pluralism, while others discourage it. The acceptability of religious pluralism within Islam remains a topic of active debate.
Acceptability of religious pluralism in Islam[edit]
In several Surah, Quran asks Muslims to remain steadfast with Islam, and not yield to the vain desires of other religions and unbelievers. These verses have been interpreted to imply pluralism in religions. For example, Surah Al-Ma'idah verses 47 through 49 state:

Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are no better than those who rebel. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious. (Quran 5:47–49)
Surah Al-Ankabut verse 45 through 47 state:

Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee, and establish regular Prayer: for Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds; and remembrance of Allah is the greatest thing in life without doubt. And Allah knows the deeds that ye do. And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better than mere disputation, unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow in Islam." And thus it is that We have sent down the Book to thee. So the People of the Book believe therein, as also do some of these pagan Arabs: and none but Unbelievers reject our signs. (Quran 29:45–47)
Surah Al-E-Imran verses 62 through 66 state:

This is the true account: There is no god except Allah; and Allah-He is indeed the Exalted in Power, the Wise. But if they turn back, Allah hath full knowledge of those who do mischief. Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we at least are Muslims bowing to Allah's Will. Ye People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel Were not revealed Till after him? Have ye no understanding? Ah! Ye are those who fell to disputing even in matters of which ye had some knowledge! but why dispute ye in matters of which ye have no knowledge? It is Allah Who knows, and ye who know not! (Quran 3:62–66)
Surah Al-Kafiroon verse 1 through 6 state:

Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (Quran 109:1–6)
Unacceptability of religious pluralism in Islam[edit]
In several Surah, the Quran asks Muslims to persecute the unbelievers: Christians, Jews, pagans (idol worshippers, polytheists), apostates and those who reject Islam. These verses have been interpreted to imply that Islam rejects religious pluralism. For example, Surah Al-Tawba verse 1 through 5 commands the Muslim to slay the pagans (with verse 9.5 called the 'sword verse' in scholarly literature,[18]):

A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran 9:1–5)
In Surah Al-Tawba, verse 29 demands Muslims to fight all those who do not believe in Islam, including Christians and Jews (People of the Book), until they pay the Jizya, a discriminatory tax, with willing submission.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Quran 9:29)
In Surah Al-Nisa, verse 89 demands Muslims to slay the apostates.

They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah from what is forbidden. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. (Quran 4:89)
In Surah Al-Bayyina verses 6 through 7 calls People of the Book and Polytheists who reject truth revealed by Islam, the worst of creatures:

Those who reject Truth [Islam], among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein for aye. They are the worst of creatures. Those who have faith and do righteous deeds - they are the best of creatures. (Quran 98:6–7)
In modern practice[edit]
Religious pluralism is a contested issue in modern Islamic countries. Twenty three (23) Islamic countries have laws, as of 2014, which make it a crime, punishable with death penalty or prison, for a Muslim, by birth or conversion, to leave Islam or convert to another religion.[19][20][21] In Muslim countries such as Algeria, it is illegal to preach, persuade or attempt to convert a Muslim to another religion.[22] Saudi Arabia and several Islamic nations have strict laws against the construction of Christian Church, Jewish Synagogue, Hindu Temple and Buddhist Stupa anywhere inside the country, by anyone including minorities working there.[4] Brunei in southeast Asia adopted Sharia law in 2013 that prescribes a death penalty for any Muslim who converts from Islam to another religion.[19] Other Islamic scholars state Sharia does not allow non-Muslim minorities to enjoy religious freedoms in a Muslim-majority nation.[23][24]
Sufism[edit]
The Sufis were practitioners of the esoteric mystic traditions within an Islam at a certain point. Sufism is defined by the Sufi master or Pir (Sufism) or fakeer or Wali in the language of the people by dancing and singing and incorporating various philosophies, theologies, ideologies and religions together (e.g., Christiainity, Judaism, Paganism, Platonism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and so forth with time). Famous Sufi masters are Rumi, Shadhili, Sheikh Farid, Bulleh Shah, Shah Hussain, Shams Tabrizi, Waris Shah, Ghazali, Mian Mir, Attar of Nishapur, Amir Khusrow, Salim Chishti. See many more famous Sufis at the List of Sufis. The Sufis were considered by many to have divine revelations with messages of peace, tolerance, equality, pluarism, love for all and hate for no one, humanitarians, philosophers, psychologists and much more. Many had the teaching if you want to change the world, change yourself and you will change the whole world. The views of the Sufi poets, philosophers and theologians have inspired multiple forms of modern day academia as well as philosophers of other religions. See also Blind men and an elephant.
Persian poet Rumi says:

I looked for God. I went to a temple, and I didn't find him there. Then I went to a church, and I didn't find him there. And then I went to a mosque, and I didn't find him there. And then finally I looked in my heart, and there he was.
Rumi also says:

How many paths are there to God? There are as many paths to God as there are souls on the Earth.
Rumi also says:

A true Lover doesn't follow any one religion, be sure of that. Since in the religion of Love, there is no irreverence or faith. When in Love, body, mind, heart and soul don't even exist. Become this, fall in Love, and you will not be separated again.
The Sufi platform was considered by exoteric dogmatic Muslims as a trojan horse ideology executing doctrine of deception (see Taqiyya) to convert others while others considered it outright heresy, blasphemy, innovation (biddah), kuffar, apostasy, haram. Many Sufis have gone under persecutions and executions for apostasy and treason charges at which point many tended to have supernatural events taking place similar to Jesus crucifixion. For example, many Sufis throughout their lives display religious healing, miracles and supernatural events which seem as if God has connected with the Sufis similar to the Vedic and Buddhist enlightenment. For more details see Fana (Sufism), Baqaa, Yaqeen, Kashf, Manzil, Haqiqa, Sufi metaphysics, Sufi philosophy.
Ahmadiyya[edit]
See also: Prophethood (Ahmadiyya)
Ahmadis recognize many founders of world religions to be from God, who all brought teaching and guidance from God to all peoples. According to the Ahmadiyya understanding of the Quran, every nation in the history of mankind has been sent a prophet, as the Quran states: And there is a guide for every people. Though the Quran mentions only 24 prophets, the founder of Islam, Muhammad states that the world has seen 124,000 prophets. Thus other than the prophets mentioned in the Quran, Ahmadis, with support from theological study also recognize Buddha, Krishna, founders of Chinese religions to be divinely appointed individuals.
The Second Khalifatul Maish of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community writes: "According to this teaching there has not been a single people at any time in history or anywhere in the world who have not had a warner from God, a teacher, a prophet. According to the Quran there have been prophets at all times and in all countries. India, China, Russia, Afghanistan, parts of Africa, Europe, America—all had prophets according to the theory of divine guidance taught by the Quran. When, therefore, Muslims hear about prophets of other peoples or other countries, they do not deny them. They do not brand them as liars. Muslims believe that other peoples have had their teachers. If other peoples have had prophets, books, and laws, these constitute no difficulty for Islam."[25]
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community wrote in his book A Message of Peace: "Our God has never discriminated between one people and another. This is illustrated by the fact that all the potentials and capabilities (Prophets) which have been granted to the Aryans (Hindus) have also been granted to the races inhabiting Arabia, Persia, Syria, China, Japan, Europe and America." [26]
Bahá'í Faith[edit]
Main article: Bahá'í Faith and the unity of religion
Bahá'u'lláh, founder of Bahá'í Faith, a religion that developed in Persia, though not a sect of Islam,[27] urged the elimination of religious intolerance. He taught that God is one, and has manifested himself to humanity through several historic messengers. Bahá'u'lláh taught that Bahá'ís must associate with peoples of all religions, showing the love of God in relations with them, whether this is reciprocated or not.
Bahá'í's refer to the concept of Progressive revelation, which means that God's will is revealed to mankind progressively as mankind matures and is better able to comprehend the purpose of God in creating humanity. In this view, God's word is revealed through a series of messengers: Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh (the founder of the Bahá'í Faith) among them. In the Kitáb-i-Íqán (Book of Certitude), Bahá'u'lláh explains that messengers of God have a twofold station, one of divinity and one of an individual. According to Bahá'í writings, there will not be another messenger for many hundreds of years. There is also a respect for the religious traditions of the native peoples of the planet who may have little other than oral traditions as a record of their religious figures.
Jainism[edit]
Main article: Anekantavada
Anekāntavāda, the principle of relative pluralism, is one of the basic principles of Jainism. In this view, the truth or the reality is perceived differently from different points of view, and no single point of view is the complete truth.[28][29] Jain doctrine states that an object has infinite modes of existence and qualities and they cannot be completely perceived in all its aspects and manifestations, due to inherent limitations of the humans. Only the Kevalins—the omniscient beings—can comprehend the object in all its aspects and manifestations, and all others are capable of knowing only a part of it.[30] Consequently, no one view can claim to represent the absolute truth. Jains compare all attempts to proclaim absolute truth with andhgajnyaya or the "maxim of the blind men and elephant", wherein all the blind men claimed to explain the true appearance of the elephant, but could only partly succeed due to their narrow perspective.[31]
Judaism[edit]
Main article: Jewish views on religious pluralism
The Mosaic law categorically warns the Jews to refrain from polytheism. First and the second commandment, you shall not have another God except me, worship your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Throughout the Hebrew Bible the sovereignty of Yahweh as the only God is the key pillar of a chosen community of Israel.
Sikhism[edit]
The Sikh Gurus (religious leaders) have propagated the message of "many paths" leading to the one God and ultimate salvation for all souls who treading on the path of righteousness. They have supported the view that proponents of all faiths, by doing good and virtuous deeds and by remembering the Lord, can certainly achieve salvation. Sikhs are told to accept all leading faiths as possible vehicles for attaining spiritual enlightenment, provided the faithful study, ponder and practice the teachings of their prophets and leaders. Sikhism had many interactions with Sufism as well as Hinduism, influenced them and was influenced by them. See Islam and Sikhism and Hinduism and Sikhism.
The holy book of the Sikhs (the Sri Guru Granth Sahib) says:

Do not say that the Vedas and the Koran (semitic books i.e. Bible, Torah and Q'uran) are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false. (Guru Granth Sahib page 1350)[32]
As well as:

Some call the Lord "Ram, Ram", and some "Khuda". Some serve Him as "Gusain", others as "Allah". He is the Cause of causes, and Generous. He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. Some pilgrims bathe at sacred shrines, others go on Hajj to Mecca. Some do devotional worship, whilst others bow their heads in prayer. Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran. Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu. Some yearn for paradise, and others long for heaven. Says Nanak, one who realizes the Hukam of God's Will, knows the secrets of his Lord Master. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Page:885)[33]

One who recognizes that all spiritual paths lead to the One shall be emancipated. One who speaks lies shall fall into hell and burn. In all the world, the most blessed and sanctified are those who remain absorbed in Truth. (SGGS Ang 142)[34]

The seconds, minutes, and hours, days, weeks and months and various seasons originate from One Sun; O nanak, in just the same way, the many forms originate from the Creator. (Guru Granth Sahib page 12,13)
The Guru Granth Sahib also says that Bhagat Namdev and Bhagat Kabir, who were both believed to be Hindus, both attained salvation though they were born before Sikhism took root and were clearly not Sikhs. This highlights and reinforces the Guru's saying that "peoples of other faiths" can join with God as true and also at the same time signify that Sikhism is not the exclusive path for liberation.
Additionally the Guru Granth Sahib says:

First, Allah (God) created the Light; then, by His Creative Power, He made all mortal beings. From the One Light, the entire universe welled up. So who is good, and who is bad? ||1|| [35]
Again, the Guru Granth Sahib Ji provides this verse:

Naam Dayv the printer, and Kabeer the weaver, obtained salvation through the Perfect Guru. Those who know God and recognize His Shabad ("word") lose their ego and class consciousness. (Guru Granth Sahib page 67)[36]
Most of the 15 Sikh Bhagats who are mentioned in their holy book were non-Sikhs and belonged to Hindu and Muslim faiths, which were the most prevalent religions of this region.
The pluralistic dialogue of Sikhism began with the founder of Sikhism Guru Nanak after becoming enlightened saying the words Na koi hindu na koi musalman - "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim". He recognised that religious labels held no value and it is the deeds of human that will be judged in the hereafter what we call ourselves religiously holds no value.
Sikhs have been considered eager exponents of interfaith dialogue and will not only accept the right of others to practice their faith but have in the past fought and laid down their lives to protect this right for others. See the sacrifice of the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadar who on the final desperate and heart-rending pleas of the Kashmiri Pandit, agreed to put up a fight for their right to practice their religion. He was executed so another religion besides his own could have the freedom to practice their religion against the tyrannic Moghul empire that were forcing people to accept Islam.
Religious pluralism and human service professions[edit]
The concept of religious pluralism is also relevant to human service professions, such as psychology and social work, as well as medicine and nursing, in which trained professionals may interact with clients from diverse faith traditions.[37][38][39] For example, psychologist Kenneth Pargament[37] has described four possible stances toward client religious and spiritual beliefs, which he called rejectionist, exclusivist, constructivist, and pluralist. Unlike the constructivist stance, the pluralist stance:

...recognizes the existence of a religious or spiritual absolute reality but allows for multiple interpretations and paths toward it. In contrast to the exclusivist who maintains that there is a single path "up the mountain of God," the pluralist recognizes many paths as valid. Although both the exclusivist and the pluralist may agree on the existence of religious or spiritual reality, the pluralist recognizes that this reality is expressed in different cultures and by different people in different ways. Because humans are mortal and limited, a single human religious system cannot encompass all of the religious or spiritual absolute reality.... (p. 167[38])
Importantly, "the pluralistic therapist can hold personal religious beliefs while appreciating those of a client with different religious beliefs. The pluralist recognizes that religious value differences can and will exist between counselors and clients without adversely affecting therapy" (p. 168).[38] The stances implied by these four helping orientations on several key issues, such as "should religious issues be discussed in counseling?", have also been presented in tabular form (p. 362, Table 12.1).[37]
The profession of chaplaincy, a religious profession, must also deal with issues of pluralism and the relevance of a pluralistic stance. For example, Friberg (2001) argues: "With growing populations of immigrants and adherents of religions not previously seen in significant numbers in North America, spiritual care must take religion and diversity seriously. Utmost respect for the residents' spiritual and religious histories and orientations is imperative" (p. 182).[39]
See also[edit]
See also: Category:Catholic ecumenical and interfaith relations.
Comparative religion
Freedom of religion
Global Centre for Pluralism
Indifferentism
Interreligious organization
Institute for Interreligious Dialogue
Multifaith space
Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Progressive Christianity
Projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs
Unitarian Universalism
United Religions Initiative
Universalism
World Council of Churches
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Silk, Mark (July 2007), Defining Religious Pluralism in America: A Regional Analysis 612, pp. 64–81
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Beneke 2006: 6.
3.Jump up ^ Beneke 2006: 5.
4.^ Jump up to: a b Chad Meister (2010), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195340136, pp 32-57
5.Jump up ^ http://carm.org/what-relativism
6.^ Jump up to: a b c Chad Meister (2010), The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195340136, pp 62-72
7.Jump up ^ Roof & McKinney (1985), Denominational America and the new religious pluralism, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 480(1), pp. 24-38
8.Jump up ^ Dalai Lama Asks West Not to Turn Buddhism Into a "Fashion", Zenit, 2003-10-08, retrieved 2009-06-18.
9.Jump up ^ Why Jesus? Article stating that Jesus is the saviour and not Mohammed or Buddha—see second part of this article.
10.Jump up ^ Defending Salvation Through Christ Alone By Jason Carlson, Christian Ministries International
11.Jump up ^ p. 168, Timothy Bradshaw (1998), "John Macquarrie," in: Alister E. McGrath (ed). The SPCK Handbook of Anglican Theologians (pp. 167-168). London: SPCK. ISBN 978-0-281-05145-8
12.^ Jump up to: a b John Macquarrie (1996). Mediators between human and divine: From Moses to Muhammad. New York: Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-1170-3
13.Jump up ^ Gerald E. Jones (October 1977). "Respect for Other People’s Beliefs". Ensign. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
14.Jump up ^ Rig Veda 1.164.46
15.Jump up ^ Page 194 in Eknath Easwaran (2008). Timeless wisdom: Passages for meditation from the world's saints & sages (see article). Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press. ISBN 1-58638-027-3. Similar to Eknath Easwaran (2007). The Bhagavad Gita, 2nd ed. Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press, p. 117. ISBN 1586380192 (which substitutes "they" for "people"). Transliteration from Winthrop Sargeant (1984). The Bhagavad Gita. Albany: State University of New York Press, p. 211. ISBN 0-87395-831-4, which translates the same passage as "They who, in whatever way, take refuge in Me, them I reward."
16.Jump up ^ See Swami Bhaskarananda, Essentials of Hinduism (Viveka Press 2002) ISBN 1-884852-04-1
17.Jump up ^ Cole & Hammond (1974), Religious pluralism, legal development, and societal complexity: rudimentary forms of civil religion, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 177-189
18.^ Jump up to: a b Michael Bonner (2008), Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0691138381, pp. 23-31
19.^ Jump up to: a b Laws Criminalizing Apostasy in Selected Jurisdictions Library of Congress, US Government (May 2014)
20.Jump up ^ Laws Criminalizing Apostasy Library of Congress (2014)
21.Jump up ^ Doi, Abdur Rahman (1984), Shari`a: The Islamic Law; Taha Publishers; London UK
22.Jump up ^ Law No. 02-06 (bis), al Jarida al Rasmiyya, vol.12, 1 March 2006
23.Jump up ^ Mawdudi, S. Abul `Ala (1982), The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic State, Islamic Publications, LTD. Lahore, Pakistan
24.Jump up ^ Abdullah, Najih Ibrahim Bin (1988), The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State, Balagh Magazine, Cairo, Egypt, Volume 944, May 29, 1988; Also see June 5 1988 article by the same author
25.Jump up ^ "Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an" by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad. Part 2, Argument 4 Section labeled “A Grand Conception”
26.Jump up ^ "A Message of Peace" by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, pg. 6)
27.Jump up ^ Islam and the Baha'i Faith
28.Jump up ^ Dundas (2002) p.231
29.Jump up ^ Koller, John M. (July, 2000) pp.400-7
30.Jump up ^ Jaini, Padmanabh (1998) p.91
31.Jump up ^ Hughes, Marilynn (2005) p.590-1
32.Jump up ^ Sriganth.org Guru Granth Sahib page 1350
33.Jump up ^ "sggs ram khudha people pray to there god". sggs ram khudha people pray to there god. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
34.Jump up ^ "pluarism in sggs". pluarism in sggs. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
35.Jump up ^ "aval allah". aval allah.
36.Jump up ^ Srigranth.org Guru Granth Sahib page 67
37.^ Jump up to: a b c Kenneth I. Pargament (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York: Guilford. ISBN 978-1-57230-664-6
38.^ Jump up to: a b c Brian J. Zinnbauer & Kenneth I. Pargament (2000). Working with the sacred: Four approaches to religious and spiritual issues in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, v78 n2, pp162-171. ISSN 0748-9633
39.^ Jump up to: a b Nils Friberg (2001). The role of the chaplain in spiritual care. In David O. Moberg, Aging and spirituality: spiritual dimensions of aging theory, research (p. 177-190). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7890-0939-5 (NB: The quotation is discussing residents in nursing homes)
Works cited[edit]
Beneke, Chris (2006) Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism (New York: Oxford University Press).
Eck, Diane (2001) A New Religious America: How a "Christian Country" Has Become the World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation (San Francisco: Harper).
Emet Ve-Emunah: Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism, Robert Gordis et al., Jewish Theological Seminary and the Rabbinical Assembly, 1988.
Ashk Dahlén, Sirat al-mustaqim: One or Many? Religious Pluralism Among Muslim Intellectuals in Iran in The Blackwell Companion to Contemporary Islamic Thought, ed. Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Oxford, 2006.
Ground Rules for a Christian-Jewish Dialogue in The Root and the Branch, Robert Gordis, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962
Hutchison, William R. (2003) Religious Pluralism in America: The Contentious History of a Founding Ideal (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Kalmin, Richard (1994), Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 87(2), p. 155-169.
Toward a Theological Encounter: Jewish Understandings of Christiantiy Ed. Leon Klenicki, Paulist Press / Stimulus, 1991
Momen, M. (1997). A Short Introduction to the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: One World Publications. ISBN 1-85168-209-0.
Monecal, Maria Rosa (2002),The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company)
People of God, Peoples of God Ed. Hans Ucko, WCC Publications, 1996
Kenneth Einar Himma, “Finding a High Road: The Moral Case for Salvific Pluralism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 52, no. 1 (August 2002), 1-33
Further reading[edit]
Ankerl, Guy (2000) [2000]. Global communication without universal civilization. INU societal research. Vol.1: Coexisting contemporary civilizations : Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. Geneva: INU Press. ISBN 2-88155-004-5.
Albanese, Catherine, America: Religions and Religion. Belmont: WADSWORTH PUBLISHING, 1998, ISBN 0-534-50457-4
External links[edit]
 Wikiversity has learning materials about Religious Toleration
Global Centre for Pluralism
Council on Foreign Relations Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative
The Pluralism Project: Researching Religious Diversity in the United States
A New Religious America: Managing Religious Diversity in a Democracy: Challenges and Prospects for the 21st Century by Diana Eck, retrieved 2009-07-16.
The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue
Elijah Interfaith Institute: Inter Religious Dialogue
Buddhism[edit]
Standing Up for the Middle Way: A Buddhist Perspective on Religious Freedom
Christianity[edit]
Nostra Aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Catholic Church to Non-Christian Religions
World Council of Churches Bibliography of Works on Religious Pluralism
Hinduism[edit]
Big Picture TV Video of Ela Gandhi, granddaughter of Mahatma Gandhi, talking about religious pluralism
Islam[edit]
Islam and Religious Pluralism by Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari
Spiritual Education Lesson Plans for Children dead link
Judaism[edit]
The imperative of Religious Pluralism: A Conservative Jewish View
Darbu Emet: A Jewish Statement About Christianity


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religious pluralism
















































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Dharma Wheel.svgBuddhism portal
 P christianity.svgChristianity portal
 Om.svgHinduism portal
 Allah-green.svgIslam portal
 Star of David.svgJudaism portal
 



Authority control
NDL: 01151885
 

  


Categories: Religious pluralism







Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Afrikaans
العربية
Čeština
Español
فارسی
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Bahasa Melayu
日本語
Português
Русский
Slovenščina
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 12 June 2015, at 21:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism









Religious intolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2015)
Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[show]





















































Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
This article is about intolerance by or between religious communities or by communities of specific practices.For intolerance of religion itself, see Antireligion, Irreligion, and State atheism.
Religious intolerance is intolerance against another's religious beliefs or practices or lack thereof.


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition
2 Historical perspectives
3 Contemporary attitude and practice
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links

Definition[edit]
The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs are incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance (i.e., ideological intolerance).
Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (e.g., a society, religious group, non-religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds (i.e., intolerance in practice).
Historical perspectives[edit]
According to the 19th century British historian Arnold Toynbee, for a religious establishment to persecute another religion for being "wrong" ironically puts the persecuting religion in the wrong, undermining its own legitimacy.[1]
Contemporary attitude and practice[edit]


 This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (June 2009)
The constitutions of some countries contain provisions expressly forbidding the state from engaging in certain acts of religious intolerance or preference within its own borders; examples include The First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Other examples are Article 4 of the Basic Law of Germany, Article 44.2.1 of the Constitution of The Republic of Ireland, Article 40 of the Estonian Constitution,[2] Article 24 of the Constitution of Turkey and Article 36 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, and Article 3 Section 5 of the Constitution of the Philippines.[3]
Other states, whilst not containing constitutional provisions directly related to religion, nonetheless contain provisions forbidding discrimination on religious grounds (see, for example, Article 1 of the French Constitution, article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and article 40 of the Constitution of Egypt). These constitutional provisions do not necessarily guarantee that all elements of the state remain free from religious intolerance at all times, and practice can vary widely from country to country.
Other countries, meanwhile, may allow for religious preference, for instance through the establishment of one or more state religions, but not for religious intolerance. Finland, for example, has the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and Finnish Orthodox Church as its official state religions, yet upholds the right of free expression of religion in article 11 of its constitution.
Some countries retain laws forbidding defamation of religious belief. Some retain laws forbidding all forms of blasphemy (e.g., Germany where, in 2006, Manfred van H. was convicted of blasphemy against Islam). This is seen by some as official endorsement of religious intolerance, amounting to the criminalization of religious views. The connection between intolerance and blasphemy laws is closest when the laws apply to only one religion. In Pakistan blasphemy directed against either the tenets of the Qur'an or the Prophet Mohammed is punishable by either life imprisonment or death. Apostasy, the rejection of one's old religion, is also criminalized in a number of countries, notably Afghanistan with Abdul Rahman being the first to face the death penalty for converting to Christianity.
The United Nations upholds the right to free expression of religious belief in articles and 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights while article 2 forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. Article 18 also allows for the freedom to change religion. The Declaration is not legally binding, however the United States chose in 1998 to pass the International Religious Freedom Act, creating the Commission on International Religious Freedom, and mandating that the United States government take action against any country found to violate the religious freedoms outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[4] The European Convention on Human Rights, which is legally binding on all European Union states (following the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the United Kingdom), makes restricting the rights of an individual to practice or change their religion illegal in article 9, and discrimination on the basis of religion illegal in article 14.
In its 2000 annual report on international religious freedom, the U.S. State Department cited China, Myanmar, Iran, Iraq and Sudan for persecuting people for their religious faith and practices. The report, which covers July 1999 through June 2000, details U.S. policy toward countries where religious freedom is violated in the view of the U.S. State Department.[5]
The advocacy group Freedom House produced a report entitled "Religious Freedom in the World" in 2000 which ranked countries according to their religious freedom. The countries receiving a score of 7, indicating those where religious freedom was least respected, were Turkmenistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Myanmar and North Korea. China was given a score of 6 overall, however Tibet was listed separately in the 7 category. Those countries receiving a score of 1, indicating the highest level of religious freedom, were Estonia, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and the United States.
Within those countries that openly advocate religious tolerance there remain debates as to the limits of tolerance. Some individuals and religious groups, for example, retain beliefs or practices which involve acts contrary to established law, such as the use of cannabis by members of the Rastafari movement, the religious use of eagle feathers by non-Native Americans (contrary to the eagle feather law, 50 CFR 22), or the practice of polygamy amongst the LDS Church in the 19th century.[6]
The precise definition of "religion", and to which groups it applies, can also cause controversy, for example the case of Scientologists who have all rights of religious freedom in the U.S. but complain that the highest court decided not to grant the status of a Non-profit organization in several U.S. states. Attempts to legislate against acts of religious intolerance amongst citizens frequently come up against issues regarding the freedom of speech; whilst in France being convicted of incitement to religious hatred can carry a maximum of 18 months in prison. An attempt to pass a similar law by Tony Blair's Labour government in the United Kingdom had to be dropped in April, 2006 after criticism that it restricted free speech. In Victoria, Australia the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 makes illegal "conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons" on the grounds of religious belief.[citation needed]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Religion portal
Portal icon Human rights portal
Antireligion
Antitheism
Demonization
Fundamentalism
Heterosexism
Homophobia
Religious controversies
Religious discrimination
Religious freedom
Religious paranoia
Religious tolerance
Toleration
Violence against LGBT people
Specific religions
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-cult movement
Anti-Hinduism
Anti-Judaism
Anti-Mormonism
Anti-Semitism
Christianophobia
Islamophobia
Persecution of Baha'is
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Toynbee, Arnold (1947). "Failure of Self-Determination". In Dorothea Grace Somervell. A Study of History: Abridgment of Volumes I - VI. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 300. ISBN 0-19-505081-9.
2.Jump up ^ "Estonia - Constitution", ICL Document 28 June 1992, retrieved 25 May 2007.
3.Jump up ^ 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, CorpusJuris, retrieved 24 September 2009
4.Jump up ^ "International Religious Freedom Act of 1998", 27 January 1998, retrieved 25 May 2007.
5.Jump up ^ "United States Commission on International Freedom of Religion", Press Releases 2000, retrieved 25 May 2007.
6.Jump up ^ "Official Declaration", Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 October 1890, retrieved 25 May 2007.
Further reading[edit]
Garth Blake, "Promoting Religious Tolerance in a Multifaith Society: Religious Vilification Legislation in Australia and the UK." The Australian Law Journal, 81 (2007): 386-405.
Chopra, R.M., "A Study of Religions", 2015, Anuradha Prakashan, New Delhi, ISBN 978-93-82339-94-6
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Religious persecution.
"New Effort to Ban Religious Hate", BBC News, 11 June 2005 retrieved 25 May 2007


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religious persecution and discrimination





























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Segregation in countries by type



















































































Category


Commons page


  


Categories: Religious discrimination
Religious persecution
Religion and society









Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Español
فارسی
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Українська
Edit links
This page was last modified on 17 June 2015, at 09:39.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_intolerance









Religious intolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2015)
Part of a series on
Discrimination


General forms[show]



















Specific forms
 

Social[show]







































Manifestations[show]





















































Policies[show]































Other forms[show]








Countermeasures[show]














Related topics[show]




















Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
This article is about intolerance by or between religious communities or by communities of specific practices.For intolerance of religion itself, see Antireligion, Irreligion, and State atheism.
Religious intolerance is intolerance against another's religious beliefs or practices or lack thereof.


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition
2 Historical perspectives
3 Contemporary attitude and practice
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links

Definition[edit]
The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs are incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance (i.e., ideological intolerance).
Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (e.g., a society, religious group, non-religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds (i.e., intolerance in practice).
Historical perspectives[edit]
According to the 19th century British historian Arnold Toynbee, for a religious establishment to persecute another religion for being "wrong" ironically puts the persecuting religion in the wrong, undermining its own legitimacy.[1]
Contemporary attitude and practice[edit]


 This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (June 2009)
The constitutions of some countries contain provisions expressly forbidding the state from engaging in certain acts of religious intolerance or preference within its own borders; examples include The First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Other examples are Article 4 of the Basic Law of Germany, Article 44.2.1 of the Constitution of The Republic of Ireland, Article 40 of the Estonian Constitution,[2] Article 24 of the Constitution of Turkey and Article 36 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, and Article 3 Section 5 of the Constitution of the Philippines.[3]
Other states, whilst not containing constitutional provisions directly related to religion, nonetheless contain provisions forbidding discrimination on religious grounds (see, for example, Article 1 of the French Constitution, article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and article 40 of the Constitution of Egypt). These constitutional provisions do not necessarily guarantee that all elements of the state remain free from religious intolerance at all times, and practice can vary widely from country to country.
Other countries, meanwhile, may allow for religious preference, for instance through the establishment of one or more state religions, but not for religious intolerance. Finland, for example, has the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and Finnish Orthodox Church as its official state religions, yet upholds the right of free expression of religion in article 11 of its constitution.
Some countries retain laws forbidding defamation of religious belief. Some retain laws forbidding all forms of blasphemy (e.g., Germany where, in 2006, Manfred van H. was convicted of blasphemy against Islam). This is seen by some as official endorsement of religious intolerance, amounting to the criminalization of religious views. The connection between intolerance and blasphemy laws is closest when the laws apply to only one religion. In Pakistan blasphemy directed against either the tenets of the Qur'an or the Prophet Mohammed is punishable by either life imprisonment or death. Apostasy, the rejection of one's old religion, is also criminalized in a number of countries, notably Afghanistan with Abdul Rahman being the first to face the death penalty for converting to Christianity.
The United Nations upholds the right to free expression of religious belief in articles and 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights while article 2 forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. Article 18 also allows for the freedom to change religion. The Declaration is not legally binding, however the United States chose in 1998 to pass the International Religious Freedom Act, creating the Commission on International Religious Freedom, and mandating that the United States government take action against any country found to violate the religious freedoms outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[4] The European Convention on Human Rights, which is legally binding on all European Union states (following the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the United Kingdom), makes restricting the rights of an individual to practice or change their religion illegal in article 9, and discrimination on the basis of religion illegal in article 14.
In its 2000 annual report on international religious freedom, the U.S. State Department cited China, Myanmar, Iran, Iraq and Sudan for persecuting people for their religious faith and practices. The report, which covers July 1999 through June 2000, details U.S. policy toward countries where religious freedom is violated in the view of the U.S. State Department.[5]
The advocacy group Freedom House produced a report entitled "Religious Freedom in the World" in 2000 which ranked countries according to their religious freedom. The countries receiving a score of 7, indicating those where religious freedom was least respected, were Turkmenistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Myanmar and North Korea. China was given a score of 6 overall, however Tibet was listed separately in the 7 category. Those countries receiving a score of 1, indicating the highest level of religious freedom, were Estonia, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and the United States.
Within those countries that openly advocate religious tolerance there remain debates as to the limits of tolerance. Some individuals and religious groups, for example, retain beliefs or practices which involve acts contrary to established law, such as the use of cannabis by members of the Rastafari movement, the religious use of eagle feathers by non-Native Americans (contrary to the eagle feather law, 50 CFR 22), or the practice of polygamy amongst the LDS Church in the 19th century.[6]
The precise definition of "religion", and to which groups it applies, can also cause controversy, for example the case of Scientologists who have all rights of religious freedom in the U.S. but complain that the highest court decided not to grant the status of a Non-profit organization in several U.S. states. Attempts to legislate against acts of religious intolerance amongst citizens frequently come up against issues regarding the freedom of speech; whilst in France being convicted of incitement to religious hatred can carry a maximum of 18 months in prison. An attempt to pass a similar law by Tony Blair's Labour government in the United Kingdom had to be dropped in April, 2006 after criticism that it restricted free speech. In Victoria, Australia the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 makes illegal "conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons" on the grounds of religious belief.[citation needed]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Religion portal
Portal icon Human rights portal
Antireligion
Antitheism
Demonization
Fundamentalism
Heterosexism
Homophobia
Religious controversies
Religious discrimination
Religious freedom
Religious paranoia
Religious tolerance
Toleration
Violence against LGBT people
Specific religions
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-cult movement
Anti-Hinduism
Anti-Judaism
Anti-Mormonism
Anti-Semitism
Christianophobia
Islamophobia
Persecution of Baha'is
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Toynbee, Arnold (1947). "Failure of Self-Determination". In Dorothea Grace Somervell. A Study of History: Abridgment of Volumes I - VI. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 300. ISBN 0-19-505081-9.
2.Jump up ^ "Estonia - Constitution", ICL Document 28 June 1992, retrieved 25 May 2007.
3.Jump up ^ 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, CorpusJuris, retrieved 24 September 2009
4.Jump up ^ "International Religious Freedom Act of 1998", 27 January 1998, retrieved 25 May 2007.
5.Jump up ^ "United States Commission on International Freedom of Religion", Press Releases 2000, retrieved 25 May 2007.
6.Jump up ^ "Official Declaration", Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 October 1890, retrieved 25 May 2007.
Further reading[edit]
Garth Blake, "Promoting Religious Tolerance in a Multifaith Society: Religious Vilification Legislation in Australia and the UK." The Australian Law Journal, 81 (2007): 386-405.
Chopra, R.M., "A Study of Religions", 2015, Anuradha Prakashan, New Delhi, ISBN 978-93-82339-94-6
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Religious persecution.
"New Effort to Ban Religious Hate", BBC News, 11 June 2005 retrieved 25 May 2007


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religious persecution and discrimination





























































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Discrimination



































































































































































































Category
Portal




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Segregation in countries by type



















































































Category


Commons page


  


Categories: Religious discrimination
Religious persecution
Religion and society









Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Español
فارسی
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Українська
Edit links
This page was last modified on 17 June 2015, at 09:39.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_intolerance









Religious violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religion and violence)
Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2015)



 The Crusades were a series of a military campaigns fought mainly between Christian Europe and Muslims. Shown here is a battle scene from the First Crusade.
Religious violence is a term that covers phenomena where religion is either the subject or object of violent behavior.[1] Religious violence is, specifically, violence that is motivated by or in reaction to religious precepts, texts, or doctrines. This includes violence against religious institutions, people, objects, or when the violence is motivated to some degree by some religious aspect of the target or precept of the attacker. Religious violence does not refer exclusively to acts committed by religious groups, but also includes acts committed by secular groups against religious groups.
Religious violence, like all violence, is an inherently cultural process whose meanings are context-dependent. Religious violence often tends to place great emphasis on the symbolic aspect of the act. Religious violence is primarily the domain of the violent "actor", which may be distinguished between individual and collective forms of violence. Overall, religious violence is perpetrated for a wide variety of ideological reasons and is generally only one of the contributing social and political factors that leads to unrest.


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition of violence
2 Relationships between religion and violence
3 Criticism of religion as being violent
4 Secularism as a response
5 Challenges to the concept 5.1 Interpretation of Holy Texts
5.2 Arguments against mutual exclusivity of the religious and the secular
6 Secular violence 6.1 Religious-secular congruency and overlap
7 Abrahamic religions 7.1 Christianity 7.1.1 Mormonism
7.2 Islam 7.2.1 Terrorism and Islam
7.3 Judaism
8 Other religions 8.1 Buddhism
8.2 Hinduism
8.3 Sikhism
9 Conflicts and Wars
10 Ritual violence
11 See also
12 References
13 Further reading
14 External links

Definition of violence[edit]
Ralph Tanner cites the definition of violence in the Oxford English Dictionary as going "far beyond (the infliction of) pain and the shedding of blood". He argues that, although violence clearly encompasses injury to persons or property, it also includes "the forcible interference with personal freedom, violent or passionate conduct or language (and) finally passion or fury".[2] Similarly, Abhijit Nayak writes:

The word "violence" can be defined to extend far beyond pain and shedding blood. It carries the meaning of physical force, violent language, fury and, more importantly, forcible interference.[3]
Terence Fretheim writes:

For many people, ... only physical violence truly qualifies as violence. But, certainly, violence is more than killing people, unless one includes all those words and actions that kill people slowly. The effect of limitation to a “killing fields” perspective is the widespread neglect of many other forms of violence. We must insist that violence also refers to that which is psychologically destructive, that which demeans, damages, or depersonalizes others. In view of these considerations, violence may be defined as follows: any action, verbal or nonverbal, oral or written, physical or psychical, active or passive, public or private, individual or institutional/societal, human or divine, in whatever degree of intensity, that abuses, violates, injures, or kills. Some of the most pervasive and most dangerous forms of violence are those that are often hidden from view (against women and children, especially); just beneath the surface in many of our homes, churches, and communities is abuse enough to freeze the blood. Moreover, many forms of systemic violence often slip past our attention because they are so much a part of the infrastructure of life (e.g., racism, sexism, ageism).[4]
Relationships between religion and violence[edit]
Charles Selengut characterizes the phrase "religion and violence" as "jarring", asserting that "religion is thought to be opposed to violence and a force for peace and reconciliation. He acknowledges, however, that "the history and scriptures of the world's religions tell stories of violence and war even as they speak of peace and love."[5]
According to Matthew Rowley, scholars have claimed at least three hundred contributing causes of religious violence: "violence in the name of God is a complex phenomenon and oversimplification further jeopardizes peace because it obscures many of the causal factors".[6] [7]
Ralph Tanner similarly describes the combination of religion and violence as "uncomfortable", asserting that religious thinkers generally avoid the conjunction of the two and argue that religious violence is "only valid in certain circumstances which are invariably one-sided".[8]
While religion can be used as a means of rallying support for violence, religious leaders regularly denounce such manipulations as contrary to the teachings of their belief.[9][10]
Criticism of religion as being violent[edit]
Tanner asserts that many who have no particular religious beliefs would even argue that violence is a highly likely if not inevitable consequence of the "irrationality" of religious precepts.[8] Similarly, Hector Avalos argues that religions claim "scarce resources" for themselves over and against other groups. Consequently, this may lead to violence because conflicting claims to superiority are based on unverifiable appeals to the supernatural which cannot be adjudicated objectively.[11]
Some general critics of religion and polemics such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins go farther and argue that religions do tremendous harm to society in three ways:[12][page needed][13][page needed]
Religions sometimes use war, violence, and terrorism to promote their religious goals,
Religious leaders contribute to secular wars and terrorism by endorsing or supporting the violence, and
Religious fervor is exploited by secular leaders to support war and terrorism.
Amartya Sen adds that political leaders frequently use religious differences to initiate or perpetuate violence: [14]
Secularism as a response[edit]
Byron Bland asserts that one of the most prominent reasons for the "rise of the secular in Western thought" was the reaction against the religious violence of the 16th and 17th centuries. He asserts that "(t)he secular was a way of living with the religious differences that had produced so much horror. Under secularity, political entities have a warrant to make decisions independent from the need to enforce particular versions of religious orthodoxy. Indeed, they may run counter to certain strongly held beliefs if made in the interest of common welfare. Thus, one of the important goals of the secular is to limit violence."[15]
Challenges to the concept[edit]
Interpretation of Holy Texts[edit]
One idea that many fail to consider when reading holy texts is the concept of translation. The Bible itself has been translated from Hebrew and Greek and retranslated into hundreds of languages. Certain words have changed meaning and others do not directly translate, so there is a large amount of estimation. The original text may have been clear and easy to understand, but that original language will never be able to be actually heard. Plus, the Bible was written down after going through years of oral tradition, so there could be a substantial amount of story lost or gained along the way. The Quran is a newer text and is generally read in Arabic. Those stories too were belayed from Allah to Mohammad to scribes, so it is entirely possible that there were mix-ups and different additions. Even with the translation discrepancies, it seems that all religions boil down to analysis. Interpretation of holy texts is highly important to consider when reading about religious violence. Depending on one’s point of view, aspects of any religion can appear to be violent or peaceful. For both the Bible and the Quran, there are accounts of peace and conflict. It is up to the person reading the passages to judge what they see. The world is a changing entity. To keep these texts relevant and away from the extremities, interpretation must flow along with society.[citation needed]
Arguments against mutual exclusivity of the religious and the secular[edit]
Others such as William Cavanaugh have argued that it is unreasonable to attempt to differentiate "religious violence" and "secular violence" as separate categories. Cavanaugh asserts that "the idea that religion has a tendency to promote violence is part of the conventional wisdom of Western societies and it underlies many of our institutions and policies, from limits on the public role of churches to efforts to promote liberal democracy in the Middle East." Cavanaugh challenges this conventional wisdom, arguing that there is a "myth of religious violence", basing his argument on the assertion that "attempts to separate religious and secular violence are incoherent".[16] Cavanaugh asserts:
Religion is not a universal and transhistorical phenomenon. What counts as "religious" or "secular" in any context is a function of configurations of power both in the West and lands colonized by the West. The distinctions of "Religious/Secular" and "Religious/Political" are modern Western inventions.
The invention of the concept of "religious violence" helps the West reinforce superiority of Western social orders to "nonsecular" social orders, namely Muslims at the time of publication.
The concept of "religious violence" can be and is used to legitimate violence against non-Western "Others".
Peace depends on a balanced view of violence and recognition that so-called secular ideologies and institutions can be just as prone to absolutism, divisiveness, and irrationality.
Anthropologist Jack David Eller asserts that religion is not inherently violent, arguing "religion and violence are clearly compatible, but they are not identical." He asserts that "violence is neither essential to nor exclusive to religion" and that " virtually every form of religious violence has its nonreligious corollary."[17][18] Moreover, he argues that religion "may be more a marker of the [conflicting] groups than an actual point of contention between them".[19] John Teehan takes a position that integrates the two opposing sides of this debate. He describes the traditional response in defense of religion as "draw(ing) a distinction between the religion and what is done in the name of that religion or its faithful." Teehan argues, "this approach to religious violence may be understandable but it is ultimately untenable and prevents us from gaining any useful insight into either religion or religious violence." He takes the position that "violence done in the name of religion is not a perversion of religious belief... but flows naturally from the moral logic inherent in many religious systems, particularly monotheistic religions...." However, Teehan acknowledges that "religions are also powerful sources of morality." He asserts, "religious morality and religious violence both spring from the same source, and this is the evolutionary psychology underlying religious ethics."[20]
Secular violence[edit]
Religious-secular congruency and overlap[edit]
Tanner notes that secular regimes and leaders have used violence to promote their own agendas.[21] Violence committed by secular governments and people, including the anti-religious, have been documented including violence or persecutions focused on religious believers and those who believe in the supernatural.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] For example, in the 20th century, over 25 million believers perished from the antireligious violence which occurred in many atheist states.[31] Non-religious ideological fervour is commonly and regularly exploited to support war and other aggressive acts. People who wish to wage war and terror will find diverse ways to gather support. Secular ideologies have and will likely continue to use violence, oppression, and manipulation to further their own objectives, with or without the availability of religion as a tool. Wars that are secular in nature need no specifically religious endorsement and regularly operate with and without the support of non-religious ideologies. In addition, there exist few examples of wars waged for specifically religious reasons.[28][32] Examples of violence and conflict that have been secular include World War I, World War II, many civil wars (American, El Salvador, Russia, Sri Lanka, China etc.), revolutionary wars (American, French, Russian, etc.), Vietnam War, Korean War, War on Terrorism, and common conflicts such as gang and drug wars (e.g. Mexican Drug War). In the 'Encyclopedia of Wars' by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod, there were 1763 wars listed overall,[32] of which some have identified only 123 (7%) as having been primarily religiously motivated.[28][33][34] Talal Asad, an anthropologist, notes that equating institutional religion with violence and fanaticism is incorrect and that devastating cruelties and atrocities done by non-religious institutions in the 20th century should not be overlooked. He also notes that nationalism has been argued as being a secularized religion.[35]
Historians such as Jonathan Kirsch have made links between the European inquisitions, for example, and Stalin's persecutions in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, McCarthy blacklists, and other secular events as being the same type of phenomenon as the inquisitions.[36]
Others, such as Robert Pape, a political scientist who specializes in suicide terrorism, have made a case for secular motivations and reasons as being foundations of most suicide attacks that are oftentimes labeled as "religious".[37] Pape compiled the first complete database of every documented suicide bombing during 1980–2003. He argues that the news reports about suicide attacks are profoundly misleading — "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions". After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, he concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem fundamentally from political conflict, not religion.[38]
Abrahamic religions[edit]



 The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of French Protestants in 1572
Some critics of religion such as Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argue that all monotheistic religions are inherently violent. For example, Nelson-Pallmeyer writes that "Judaism, Christianity and Islam will continue to contribute to the destruction of the world until and unless each challenges violence in "sacred texts" and until each affirms nonviolent power of God."[39]
Hector Avalos argues that, because religions claim divine favor for themselves, over and against other groups, this sense of righteousness leads to violence because conflicting claims to superiority, based on unverifiable appeals to God, cannot be adjudicated objectively.[40]
Similarly, Eric Hickey writes, "(t)he history of religious violence in the West is as long as the historical record of its three major religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with their involved mutual antagonisms and struggles to adapt and survive the secular forces that threaten their continued existence."[41]
Regina Schwartz argues that all monotheistic religions, including Christianity, are inherently violent because of an exclusivism that inevitably fosters violence against those that are considered outsiders.[42] Lawrence Wechsler asserts that Schwartz isn't just arguing that Abrahamic religions have a violent legacy, but that the legacy is actually genocidal in nature.[43]
Bruce Feiler writes that "Jews and Christians who smugly console themselves that Islam is the only violent religion are willfully ignoring their past. Nowhere is the struggle between faith and violence described more vividly, and with more stomach-turning details of ruthlessness, than in the Hebrew Bible".[44]
However Tom O'Golo declares that religious fundamentalists that use violence to further their cause contravene the root truth of all faiths:

A genuine fundamentalist is also a radical, someone who tries to get the root of the matter. A major weakness with many or perhaps most radicals is not that they don't dig, but that they don't dig deep enough. Consequently many fundamentalists end up defending or acting upon beliefs which are not really at the heart of their doctrine. For example any religious fundamentalist who harms others in the pursuit of his or her radicalism is strictly out of order as no true religion ever encounters anything but love, tolerance and understanding. 'Thou shalt not kill' is at the heart of all genuine faiths, certainly the three based upon Abraham and God. That trio comprehensively condemns intentional harm to others (and to the self as well) for what ever reason. Dying to protect one's faith is acceptable; killing to promote it isn't. Arguably, it is blasphemous to say that God needs an earthly army to fight Its battles, or perform Its revenge. God is quite capable of fighting Its own battles.[45]
Christianity[edit]
Main article: Christianity and violence
See also: Sectarian violence among Christians, Crusade and Christian terrorism



I Believe in the Sword and Almighty God (1914) by Boardman Robinson.
The relationship between Christianity and violence is the subject of controversy because one view is that Christianity advocates peace, love and compassion while it is also viewed as a violent religion.[40][42][46] Peace, compassion and forgiveness of wrongs done by others are key elements of Christian teaching. However, Christians have struggled since the days of the Church fathers with the question of when the use of force is justified (e.g. the Just war theory of Saint Augustine). Such debates have led to concepts such as just war theory. Throughout history, certain teachings from the Old Testament, the New Testament and Christian theology have been used to justify the use of force against heretics, sinners and external enemies. Heitman and Hagan identify the Inquisitions, Crusades, wars of religion, and antisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence".[47] To this list J. Denny Weaver adds "warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men".[improper synthesis?] Weaver employs a broader definition of violence that extends the meaning of the word to cover "harm or damage", not just physical violence per se. Thus, under his definition, Christian violence includes "forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism".[48]
Another Christian thought is of opposition to the use of force and violence. Sects that have emphasized pacificism as a central tenet of faith have resulted from the latter thought. However, Christians have also engaged in violence against those that they classify as heretics and non-believers specifically to enforce orthodoxy of their faith.
Christian theologians point to a strong doctrinal and historical imperative within Christianity against violence, particularly Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which taught nonviolence and "love of enemies". For example, Weaver asserts that Jesus' pacifism was "preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism".[48]
Many authors highlight the ironical contradiction between Christianity's claims to be centered on "love and peace" while, at the same time, harboring a "violent side". For example, Mark Juergensmeyer argues: "that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity—like most traditions—has always had a violent side. The bloody history of the tradition has provided images as disturbing as those provided by Islam or Sikhism, and violent conflict is vividly portrayed in the Bible. This history and these biblical images have provided the raw material for theologically justifying the violence of contemporary Christian groups. For example, attacks on abortion clinics have been viewed not only as assaults on a practice that Christians regard as immoral, but also as skirmishes in a grand confrontation between forces of evil and good that has social and political implications.",[49]:19–20 sometimes referred to as Spiritual warfare. The statement attributed to Jesus "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by some as a call to arms to Christians.[49]
Maurice Bloch also argues that Christian faith fosters violence because Christian faith is a religion, and religions are by their very nature violent; moreover, he argues that religion and politics are two sides of the same coin—power.[50] Others have argued that religion and the exercise of force are deeply intertwined, but that religion may pacify, as well as channel and heighten violent impulses [51]



Forward with God! (1915) by Boardman Robinson.
In response to criticism that Christianity and violence are intertwined, Christian apologists such as Miroslav Volf and J. Denny Weaver reject charges that Christianity is a violent religion, arguing that certain aspects of Christianity might be misused to support violence but that a genuine interpretation of its core elements would not sanction human violence but would instead resist it. Among the examples that are commonly used to argue that Christianity is a violent religion, J. Denny Weaver lists "(the) crusades, the multiple blessings of wars, warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men". Weaver characterizes the counter-argument as focusing on "Jesus, the beginning point of Christian faith,... whose Sermon on the Mount taught nonviolence and love of enemies,; who faced his accusers nonviolent death;whose nonviolent teaching inspired the first centuries of pacifist Christian history and was subsequently preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism."[48]
Miroslav Volf acknowledges that "many contemporaries see religion as a pernicious social ill that needs aggressive treatment rather than a medicine from which cure is expected." However, Volf contests this claim that "(the) Christian faith, as one of the major world religions, predominantly fosters violence." Instead of this negative assessment, Volf argues that Christianity "should be seen as a contributor to more peaceful social environments".[52] Volf examines the question of whether Christianity fosters violence, and has identified four main arguments that it does: that religion by its nature is violent, which occurs when people try to act as "soldiers of God"; that monotheism entails violence, because a claim of universal truth divides people into "us versus them"; that creation, as in the Book of Genesis, is an act of violence; and that the intervention of a "new creation", as in the Second Coming, generates violence.[46] Writing about the latter, Volf says: "Beginning at least with Constantine's conversion, the followers of the Crucified have perpetrated gruesome acts of violence under the sign of the cross. Over the centuries, the seasons of Lent and Holy Week were, for the Jews, times of fear and trepidation; Christians have perpetrated some of the worst pogroms as they remembered the crucifixion of Christ, for which they blamed the Jews. Muslims also associate the cross with violence; crusaders' rampages were undertaken under the sign of the cross."[53] In each case, Volf concluded that the Christian faith was misused in justifying violence. Volf argues that "thin" readings of Christianity might be used mischievously to support the use of violence. He counters, however, by asserting that "thick" readings of Christianity's core elements will not sanction human violence and would, in fact, resist it.[46]
Volf asserts that Christian churches suffer from a "confusion of loyalties". He asserts that "rather than the character of the Christian faith itself, a better explanation of why Christian churches are either impotent in the face of violent conflicts or actively participate in them derives from the proclivities of its adherents which are at odds with the character of the Christian faith." Volf observes that "(although) explicitly giving ultimate allegiance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, many Christians in fact seem to have an overriding commitment to their respective cultures and ethnic groups."[54]
Mormonism[edit]
Main article: Mormonism and violence
Mormonism had an early history of violence. This began with religious persecution by well respected citizens, law enforcement, and government officials. Ultimately such persecution lead to several historically well-known acts of violence. These range from attacks on early Mormons, such as the Haun's Mill massacre following the Mormon Extermination Order to one of the most controversial and well-known cases of retaliation violence, the Mountain Meadows massacre. This was the result of an unprovoked response to religious persecution whereby an innocent party traveling through Mormon occupied territory was attacked on September 11, 1857. Since this turbulent beginning, most conflicts in relation to Mormonism have been isolated and have little or no historical significance.
Islam[edit]
Main article: Islam and violence
See also: Islamic terrorism, Islamism, Jihad and Mujahideen



 Sketch by an eye-witness of the massacre of Armenians in Sasun in 1894
Islam has been associated with violence in a variety of contexts, including Jihads (holy wars), violent acts by Muslims against perceived enemies of Islam, violence against women ostensibly supported by Islam's tenets, references to violence in the Qur'an, and acts of terrorism motivated and/or justified by Islam. Muslims, including clerics and leaders have used Islamic ideas, concepts, texts, and themes to justify violence, especially against non-Muslims.
Jihad is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates into English as "struggle". Jihad appears in the Qur'an and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[55][56] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[57] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the ten Practices of the Religion. Islamic extremists have used jihad to condone acts of terror, claiming the support of their religion’s followers and Allah himself. Jihad has also been used by non-Muslims to explain the so-called “insanity” of the Islamic faith.[citation needed] For some the Quran seem to endorse unequivocally to violence.[58] (see Quran and violence) On the other hand, some scholars argue that such verses of the Quran are interpreted out of context,[59][60]
Muslims use the word in a religious context to refer to three types of struggles: an internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve the Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war.[61] The prominent British orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that in the Qur'an and the ahadith jihad implies warfare in the large majority of cases.[62] In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that "one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct".[63]



 Indonesian military forces evacuate refugees from Ambon during the Maluku sectarian conflict in 1999
Terrorism and Islam[edit]
See also: Islamic terrorism
In western societies the term jihad is often translated as "holy war".[64][65] Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous.[66] Muslim authors, in particular, tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[67][68]
Terrorism refers to terrorism by Muslim[citation needed] or individuals and motivated by either politics, religion or both. Terrorist acts have included airline hijacking, kidnapping, assassination, suicide bombing, and mass murder.[69][70][71] As an ideology in the 20th century, only Communism, with its murder and mass killings, is responsible for more deaths and violence than is Islam. In terms of Islamic violence, both ancient and modern history are replete with Islamic intolerance and ensuing violence against every other ideology, such as modern violence against Western institutions, as well as historical violence against Hindus, and perpetual violence against Christians.[72][73][74] are a few examples.
The tension reached a climax on September 11th, 2001 when Islamic terrorists flew hijacked commercial airplanes into the World Trade Center in New York City. The “War on Terror” has caused anti-Muslim sentiments throughout Christianity and the rest of the world. Al-Qaeda is one of the most well known Islamic extremist groups, created by Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden. The goal of al-Qaeda was to spread the “purest” form of Islam and Islamic law. For bin Laden, in order to do “good” by the Quran, he had to inflict terror upon millions. Following the terror attacks on September 11, bin Laden praised the suicide bombers in his statement: “the great action you did which was first and foremost by the grace of Allah. This is the guidance of Allah and the blessed fruit of jihad”. What was sacrifice to Osama bin Laden and his followers is terror to the American people and the rest of the world, furthering the fear of Islam that many people possess. Despite the few severe sects, Islam is not a fundamentally violent religion. Certain groups hold that the Quran should be interpreted literally, while others believe that with the changing course of history, interpretation should change too.[original research?][citation needed]
There are controversies surrounding the subject include whether the terrorist act is self-defense or aggression, national self-determination or Islamic supremacy; whether Islam can ever condone the targeting of non-combatants; whether some attacks described as Islamic terrorism are merely terrorist acts committed by Muslims or motivated by nationalism; whether Zionism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict is the root of Islamic terrorism, or simply one cause; how much support there is in the Muslim world for Islamic terrorism[75] and whether support for terror is a temporary phenomenon, a "bubble", now fading away.[76]
Judaism[edit]
Main article: Judaism and violence
Burggraeve and Vervenne describe the Old Testament as full of violence and as evidence of both a violent society and a violent god. They write that, "(i)n numerous Old Testament texts the power and glory of Israel's God is described in the language of violence." They assert that more than one thousand passages refer to YHWH as acting violently or supporting the violence of humans and that more than one hundred passages involve divine commands to kill humans.[77]
On the basis of these passages in the Old Testament, some Christian churches and theologians argue that Judaism is a violent religion and that the god of Israel is a violent god. Reuven Firestone asserts that these assertions are usually made in the context of claims that Christianity is a religion of peace and that the god of Christianity is one that expresses only love.[78]
Some scholars such as Deborah Weissman readily acknowledge that "normative Judaism is not pacifist" and that "violence is condoned in the service of self-defense."[79] J. Patout Burns asserts that, although Judaism condones the use of violence in certain cases, Jewish tradition clearly posits the principle of minimization of violence. This principle can be stated as "(wherever) Jewish law allows violence to keep an evil from occurring, it mandates that the minimal amount of violence be used to accomplish one's goal."[80]
The love of peace and the pursuit of peace, as well as laws requiring the eradication of evil, sometimes using violent means, co-exist in the Jewish tradition.[81][82]
The Hebrew Bible contains instances of religiously mandated wars[83] which often contain explicit instructions from God to the Israelites to exterminate other tribes, as in Deut 7:1–2 orDeut 20:16-18. Examples include the story of Amalekites (Deut 25:17–19, 1 Sam 15:1-6),[84] the story of the Midianites (Numbers 31:1–18),[85] and the battle of Jericho (Joshua 6:1–27).[86]
These wars of extermination have been characterized as "genocide" by several authorities,[87] because the Torah states that the Israelites annihilated entire ethnic groups or tribes: the Israelites killed all Amalekites, including men, women, and children (1 Samuel 15:1–20 ); the Israelites killed all men, women, and children in the battle of Jericho(Joshua 6:15–21), and the Israelites killed all men, women and children of several Canaanite tribes (Joshua 10:28–42).[88] However, some scholars[who?] believe that these accounts in the Torah are exaggerated or metaphorical.[citation needed]
Zionist leaders sometimes used religious references as justification for the violent treatment of Arabs in Palestine.[89] Palestinians have been several times associated with a Biblical antagonists, Amalekites. For example, rabbi Israel Hess has recommended to kill Palestinians, basing on biblical verses such as 1 Samuel 15.[90] Shulamit Aloni, a member of the Israeli Knesset indicated in 2003 that Jewish children in Israel were being taught in religious schools that Palestinians were Amalek, and therefore an act of total genocide was a religious obligation.[91]
Other religions[edit]



Thuggee was a secret cult of assassins who were both Hindus and Muslims.
[icon] This section requires expansion. (May 2015)
Buddhism[edit]
Main articles: Sohei, 969 Movement and Buddhism and violence
Hinduism[edit]
Main article: Hindu extremism
Sikhism[edit]
Main article: Sikh extremism
Conflicts and Wars[edit]



 Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople by Gustave Doré (1832–1883)
Main article: Religious war
It has been noted that "religious" conflicts are not based on religious beliefs exclusively and instead should be seen as clashes of communities, identities, and interests that are secular-religious or at least very much secular.[19][28][37]
Some have asserted that attacks are carried out by those with very strong religious convictions such as terrorists in the context of global religious war.[92] Robert Pape, a political scientist who specializes in suicide terroism argues that much of the modern Muslim suicide terrorism is secular based.[37] Although the causes of terrorism are complex, it may be that terrorists are partially reassured by their religious views that God is on their side and will reward them in heaven for punishing unbelievers.[93][94]
These conflicts are among the most difficult to resolve, particularly where both sides believe that God is on their side and has endorsed the moral righteousness of their claims.[93] One of the most infamous quotes associated with religious fanaticism was made in 1209 during the siege of Béziers, a Crusader asked the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric how to tell Catholics from Cathars when the city was taken, to which Amalric replied: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius," or "Kill them all; God will recognize his."[95]
Ritual violence[edit]
Further information: ritual slaughter, human sacrifice and animal sacrifice
Ritual violence may be directed against victims (human sacrifice) or self-inflicted (religious self-flagellation).
According to the hunting hypothesis, created by Walter Burkert in Homo Necans, carnivorous behavior is considered a form of violence. Burkett suggests that the anthropological phenomenon of religion itself grew out of rituals connected with hunting and the feelings of guilt associated with the violence involved.[96]
See also[edit]
List of countries by discrimination and violence against minorities
Witch-hunt
Hundred Years' War
Religion and peacebuilding
Religious fanaticism
Pacifism and religion
Taliban
Religions for Peace
Peace in Islamic philosophy
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Wellman, James; Tokuno, Kyoko (2004). "Is Religious Violence Inevitable?". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion) 43 (3): 291. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2004.00234.x.
2.Jump up ^ Ralph E.S. Tanner (2007). Violence and religion: cross-cultural opinions and consequences. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 5–6. ISBN 9788180693762.
3.Jump up ^ Nayak, Abhijit (July–October 2008). "Crusade Violence: Understanding and Overcoming the Impact of Mission Among Muslims". International Review of Mission (World Council of Churches) 97 (386–387): 273–291. doi:10.1111/j.1758-6631.2008.tb00645.x. Retrieved 2010-11-23.
4.Jump up ^ Freitheim, Terence (Winter 2004). "God and Violence in the Old Testament" (PDF). Word & World 24 (1). Retrieved 2010-11-21.
5.Jump up ^ Selengut, Charles (2008-04-28). Sacred fury: understanding religious violence. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-7425-6084-0.
6.Jump up ^ Matthew Rowley, ‘What Causes Religious Violence? Three Hundred Claimed Contributing Causes’ Journal of Religion and Violence 2 (2014): 361–402.
7.Jump up ^ http://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=jrv&id=jrv_2014_0002_0003_0361_0402
8.^ Jump up to: a b Tanner, Ralph E. S. (2007). Violence and religion: cross-cultural opinions and consequences. Concept Publishing Company. p. 1. ISBN 9788180693762.
9.Jump up ^ Ralph E.S. Tanner (2011-10-28). "Pope Benedict apologises for Christian violence through the ages after condemning terrorism in the name of religion". London: Daily Mail.
10.Jump up ^ Ralph E.S. Tanner (2011). "Vatican: Pope speaks out against 'violence in God's name". Adn Kronos International.
11.Jump up ^ Avalos, Hector (2005). Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-284-3.
12.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great. Twelve. ISBN 0-446-57980-7.
13.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Books. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0.
14.Jump up ^ Sen, Amartya (21 November 2001). "A World Not Neatly Divided". New York Times. p. 23.
15.Jump up ^ Bland, Byron (May 2003). "Evil Enemies: The Convergence of Religion and Politics" (PDF). p. 4.
16.Jump up ^ Cavanaugh, William (2009). The Myth of Religious Violence. Oxford University Press US,. p. 4.
17.Jump up ^ Eller, Jack David (2010). Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence: Religious Violence Across Culture and History. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-61614-218-6. "As we have insisted previously, religion is not inherently and irredeemably violent; it certainly is not the essence and source of all violence."
18.Jump up ^ Eller, Jack David (2010). Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence: Religious Violence Across Culture and History. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-61614-218-6. "Religion and violence are clearly compatible, but they are not identical. Violence is one phenomenon in human (and natural existence), religion is another, and it is inevitable that the two would become intertwined. Religion is complex and modular, and violence is one of the modules—not universal, but recurring. As a conceptual and behavioral module, violence is by no means exclusive to religion. There are plenty of other groups, institutions, interests, and ideologies to promote violence. Violence is, therefore, neither essential to nor exclusive to religion. Nor is religious violence all alike... And virtually every form of religious violence has its nonreligious corollary."
19.^ Jump up to: a b Eller, Jack David (2007). Introducing Anthropology of Religion. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-40896-7. "When a pure or hybrid religious group and/or its interests are threatened, or merely blocked from achieving its interests by another group, conflict and violence may ensue. In such cases, although religion is part of the issue and religious groups form the competitors, or combatants, it would be simplistic or wrong to assume the religion is the "cause" of the trouble or that the parties are "fighting about religion". Religion in the circumstances may be more a marker of the groups than an actual point of contention between them."
20.Jump up ^ Teehan, John (2010). In the Name of God: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Ethics and Violence. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 145–147.
21.Jump up ^ Ralph E.S. Tanner (2011). "The Harmful Secular Ideologies". Ames Tribune.
22.Jump up ^ Rummel, Rudolph J. (1994). Death By Government. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56000-927-6.
23.Jump up ^ Rummel, Rudolph J. (1997). Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900. Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-8258-4010-5.
24.Jump up ^ Froese, Paul (2008). The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25529-6.
25.Jump up ^ Gabel, Paul (2005). And God Created Lenin: Marxism Vs. Religion in Russia, 1917–1929. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-306-7.
26.Jump up ^ Kiernan, Ben (2008). The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-79. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-14434-5.
27.Jump up ^ Peris, Daniel (1998). Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-3485-3.
28.^ Jump up to: a b c d Day, Vox (2008). The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens. BenBella Books. ISBN 978-1-933771-36-6.
29.Jump up ^ Bantjes, Adrian (1997). "Idolatry and Iconoclasm in Revolutionary Mexico: The De-Christianization. Campaigns, 1929–1940". Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 13 (1): 87–121.
30.Jump up ^ Meisner, Maurice (1999). Mao's China and After: A History of the People's Republic. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-684-85635-3.
31.Jump up ^ Nelson, James M. (2009-02-27). Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality. Springer. p. 427. ISBN 9780387875729. Retrieved 2012-12-19.
32.^ Jump up to: a b Charles Phillips, Alan Axelrod (2005). The Encyclopaedia of War.
33.Jump up ^ Sheiman, Bruce (2009). An Atheist Defends Religion : Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion than Without It. Alpha Books. pp. 117–118. ISBN 1592578543.
34.Jump up ^ Lurie, Alan. "Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?". Huffington Post.
35.Jump up ^ Asad, Talal (2003). Formations of the Secular : Christianity, Islam, Modernity (10. printing. ed.). Stanford University Press. pp. 100, 187–190. ISBN 0804747687.
36.Jump up ^ Kirsch, Jonathan (2009). The Grand Inquisitor's Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God. HarperOne. ISBN 978-0-06-173276-8.
37.^ Jump up to: a b c Pape, Robert (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Random House. ISBN 978-0-8129-7338-9.
38.Jump up ^ Pape 2005.
39.Jump up ^ Nelson-Pallmeyer, Jack (2005). Is religion killing us?: violence in the Bible and the Quran. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 136. ISBN 9780826417794.
40.^ Jump up to: a b Avalos, Hector (2005). Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
41.Jump up ^ Hickey, Eric W. (2003). Encyclopedia of murder and violent crime. SAGE. p. 217. ISBN 978-0-7619-2437-1.
42.^ Jump up to: a b Regina M. Schwartz (1998). The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. University of Chicago Press.
43.Jump up ^ Wechsler, Lawrence. "Mayhem and Monotheism" (PDF).
44.Jump up ^ Feiler, Bruce S. (2005). Where God was born: a journey by land to the roots of religion. HarperCollins. p. 4. ISBN 9780060574871.
45.Jump up ^ Tom O'Golo (2011). Christ? No! Jesus? Yes!: A radical reappraisal of a very important life. p. 105.
46.^ Jump up to: a b c Volf, Miroslav (2008). "Christianity and Violence". In Hess, Richard S.; Martens, E.A. War in the Bible and terrorism in the twenty-first century. Eisenbrauns. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-1-57506-803-9. Retrieved June 1, 2010.
47.Jump up ^ International encyclopedia of violence research, Volume 2. Springer. 2003. ISBN 9781402014666.
48.^ Jump up to: a b c J. Denny Weaver (2001). "Violence in Christian Theology". Cross Currents. Retrieved 2010-10-27. "I am using broad definitions of the terms "violence" and "nonviolence". "Violence" means harm or damage, which obviously includes the direct violence of killing -- in war, capital punishment, murder --but also covers the range of forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism. "Nonviolence" also covers a spectrum of attitudes and actions, from the classic Mennonite idea of passive nonresistance through active nonviolence and nonviolent resistance that would include various kinds of social action, confrontations and posing of alternatives that do not do bodily harm or injury."
49.^ Jump up to: a b Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24011-1.
50.Jump up ^ Bloch, Maurice (1992). Prey into Hunter. The Politics of Religious Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.Jump up ^ Andrew McKinnon. 'Religion and the Civilizing Process: The Pax Dei Movement and the Christianization of Violence in the Process of Feudalization'. in A McKinnon & M Trzebiatowska (eds), Sociological Theory and the Question of Religion. Ashgate, 2014 [1].
52.Jump up ^ Volf, Miroslav (2002). "Christianity and Violence". Retrieved 2010-10-27.
53.Jump up ^ Volf 2008, p. 13
54.Jump up ^ Volf, Miroslav. "The Social Meaning of Reconciliation" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-17.
55.Jump up ^ Wendy Doniger, ed. (1999). Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions. Merriam-Webster. ISBN 0-87779-044-2.,Jihad, p. 571
56.Jump up ^ Josef W. Meri, ed. (2005). Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-96690-6., Jihad, p. 419
57.Jump up ^ John Esposito(2005), Islam: The Straight Path, p. 93
58.Jump up ^ Sam Harris Who Are the Moderate Muslims?
59.Jump up ^ Sohail H. Hashmi, David Miller, Boundaries and Justice: diverse ethical perspectives, Princeton University Press, p.197
60.Jump up ^ Khaleel Muhammad, professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, states, regarding his discussion with the critic Robert Spencer, that "when I am told ... that Jihad only means war, or that I have to accept interpretations of the Quran that non-Muslims (with no good intentions or knowledge of Islam) seek to force upon me, I see a certain agendum developing: one that is based on hate, and I refuse to be part of such an intellectual crime."[2]
61.Jump up ^ "Jihad". BBC. 2009-08-03.
62.Jump up ^ Lewis, Bernard (1988). The Political Language of Islam. University of Chicago Press. p. 72. ISBN 0226476928. Cf. Watt, William M. (1976). "Islamic Conceptions of the Holy War". In Murphy, Thomas P. The Holy War. Ohio State University Press. p. 143. ISBN 978-0814202456.
63.Jump up ^ Shaykh Hisham Kabbani; Shaykh Seraj Hendricks; Shaykh Ahmad Hendricks. "Jihad—A Misunderstood Concept from Islam". The Muslim Magazine. Retrieved 16 August 2006.
64.Jump up ^ cf. e.g. BBC news article "Libya's Gaddafi urges 'holy war' against Switzerland". BBC News. 26 February 2010. Retrieved 30 September 2012.
65.Jump up ^ Peters, Rudolph (1977). Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam. Brill Academic Pub. p. 3. ISBN 978-9004048546.
66.Jump up ^ Crone, Patricia (2005). Medieval Islamic Political Thought. Edinburgh University. p. 363. ISBN 978-0748621941.
67.Jump up ^ Jihad and the Islamic Law of War. Jordan: The Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought. 2009.
68.Jump up ^ Peters, Rudolph (1979). Islam and colonialism: the doctrine of Jihad in modern history. Mouton Publishers. p. 118. ISBN 9027933472.
69.Jump up ^ "Captured Iraqi Terrorist Ramzi Hashem Abed: Zarqawi Participated in the Plot to Assassinate Baqer Al-Hakim. We Bombed Jalal Talabani's Headquarters, the Turkish Embassy, and the Red Cross, Took Drugs, Raped University Students Who "Collaborated with the Americans"". The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). (login required)
70.Jump up ^ "Abductions of and Assaults on Women". The Massacre in Mazar-I Sharif. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved September 30, 2012.
71.Jump up ^ Youssef M. Ibrahim (14 April 1988). "Algeria to Permit Abortions for Rape Victims". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 September 2012.
72.Jump up ^ "Time to Air Muslim Violence Against Christians", Real Clear Politics, March 23, 2012 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/23/time_to_air_muslim_violence_against_christians_113595.html
73.Jump up ^ "37 Muslim nations persecuting Christians", WND Faith, Published: 01/11/2014, http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/37-muslim-nations-persecuting-christians/
74.Jump up ^ "The Existential Elephant in the ‘Christian Persecution’ Room", By Raymond Ibrahim on January 17, 2014 in Muslim Persecution of Christians, http://www.raymondibrahim.com/muslim-persecution-of-christians/the-existential-elephant-in-the-christian-persecution-room/
75.Jump up ^ Tony Blair, "Speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council", http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page9948.asp
76.Jump up ^ Thomas L. Friedman (April 20, 2003). "The Third Bubble". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 September 2012.
77.Jump up ^ Burggraeve, Roger; Vervenne, Marc (1991). Swords into plowshares: theological reflections on peace. Peeters Publishers. pp. 82,109. ISBN 9789068313727.
78.Jump up ^ Heft, James, ed. (2004). Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Fordham University Press. ISBN 9780823223350.
79.Jump up ^ "The Co-existence of Violence and Non-Violence in Judaism". Retrieved 2010-12-09.
80.Jump up ^ Burns, J. Patout (1996). War and its discontents: pacifism and quietism in the Abrahamic traditions. Georgetown University Press. p. 18.
81.Jump up ^ Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition. Michael J. Broyde, 1998, p. 1
82.Jump up ^ *Reuven Firestone (2004), "Judaism on Violence and Reconciliation: An examination of key sources" in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Fordham University Press, 2004, pp. 77, 81. Goldsmith (Ed.), Emanuel S. (1991). Dynamic Judaism: the essential writings of Mordecai M. Kaplan. Fordham University Press. p. 181. ISBN 0-8232-1310-2.
Spero, Shubert (1983). Morality, Halakha, and the Jewish Tradition. Ktav Publishing House, Inc. pp. 137–318. ISBN 0-87068-727-1.
83.Jump up ^ Salaita, Steven George (2006). The Holy Land in transit: colonialism and the quest for Canaan. Syracuse University Press. p. 54. ISBN 0-8156-3109-X.
Lustick, Ian (1988). For the Land and the Lord: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel. Council on Foreign Relations. pp. 131–132. ISBN 0-87609-036-6.
Armstrong, Karen (2007). The Bible: a biography. Atlantic Monthly Press. pp. 211–216. ISBN 0-87113-969-3.
84.Jump up ^ A. G. Hunter "Denominating Amalek: Racist stereotyping in the Bible and the Justification of Discrimination", in Sanctified aggression: legacies of biblical and post biblical vocabularies of violence, Jonneke Bekkenkamp, Yvonne Sherwood (Eds.). 2003, Continuum Internatio Publishing Group, pp. 92–108
85.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 245. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
86.Jump up ^ Carl. S. Ehrlich (1999) "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill. p. 117–124.
Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion', pp. 289–296
Hitchens, Christopher, God is Not Great p. 117
Selengut, Charles, Sacred fury: understanding religious violence, p. 20
Cowles, C. S., Show them no mercy: 4 views on God and Canaanite genocide, p. 79
87.Jump up ^ Kravitz, Leonard, "What is Crime?", in Crime and punishment in Jewish law: essays and responsa, Editors Walter Jacob, Moshe Zemer Berghahn Books, 1999, p. 31
Cohn, Robert L, "Before Israel: The Canaanites as Other in Biblical Tradition", in The Other in Jewish thought and history: constructions of Jewish culture and identity, Laurence Jay Silberstein, (Ed.), NYU Press, 1994, pp. 76-77
Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity By Ra'anan S. Boustan, pp. 3-5
88.Jump up ^ The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses, p. 242
89.Jump up ^ Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.), Springer, p. 78:
".. the Zionist movement, which claims to be secular, found it necessary to embrace the idea of 'the promised land' of Old Testament prophecy, to justify the confiscation of land and the expulsion of the Palestinians. For example, the speeches and letter of Chaim Weizman, the secular Zionist leader, are filled with references to the biblical origins of the Jewish claim to Palestine, which he often mixes liberally with more pragmatic and nationalistic claims. By the use of this premise, embraced in 1937, Zionists alleged that the Palestinians were usurpers in the Promised Land, and therefore their expulsion and death was justified. The Jewish-American writer Dan Kurzman, in his book Genesis 1948 ... describes the view of one of the Deir Yassin's killers: 'The Sternists followed the instructions of the Bible more rigidly than others. They honored the passage (Exodus 22:2): 'If a thief be found ...' This meant, of course, that killing a thief was not really murder. And were not the enemies of Zionism thieves, who wanted to steal from the Jews what God had granted them?' Carl. S. Ehrlich (1999) "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill. pp. 117–124.
90.Jump up ^ Masalha, Nur, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: the politics of expansion, Pluto Press, 2000, pp. 129–131.
"Frequently Jewish fundamentalists refer to the Palestinians as the 'Amalekites' ... of today.... According to the Old Testament, the Amalek ... were regarded as the Israelites' inveterate foe, whose 'annihilation' became a sacred duty and against whom war should be waged until their 'memory be blotted out' forever (Ex 17:16; Deut 25:17–19).... Some of the [modern] political messianics insist on giving the biblical commandment to 'blot out the memory of the Amalek' an actual contemporary relevance in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. In February 1980, Rabbi Israel Hess ... published an article [titled] 'The Genocide Commandment in the Torah' ... which ends with the following: 'The day is not far when we shall all be called to this holy war, this commandment of the annihilation of the Amalek'. Hess quotes the biblical commandment ... 'Do not spare him, but kill man and woman, baby and suckling, ox and sheep, camel, and donkey'.... In his book On the Lord's Side Danny Rubinstein has shown that this notion permeates the Gush Emunim movement's bulletins [one of which] carried an article ... which reads 'In every generation there is an Amalek.... The Amalekism of our generation finds expression in the deep Arab hatred towards our national revival ...'... Professor Uriel Tal ... conducted his study in the early 1980s ... and pointed out that the totalitarian political messianic stream refers to the Palestinian Arabs in three stages or degrees: ... [stage] (3) the implementation of the commandment of Amalek, as expressed in Rabbi Hess's article 'The Commandment of Genocide in the Torah', in other words 'annihilating' the Palestinian Arabs'".See also Hunter, p. 103
Also describing Palestinians as targets of violence due to association with Amalek is: Geaves, Ron, Islam and the West post 9/11, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004, p. 30
91.Jump up ^ Murder Under the Cover of Righteousness - CounterPunch
92.Jump up ^ Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' accessed may 24, 2007
93.^ Jump up to: a b Juergensmeyer, Mark (2001-09-21). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Updated edition. University of California Press.
94.Jump up ^ Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ
95.Jump up ^ "Kill Them All; For The Lord Knoweth Them That Are His Steve Locks (Reply) (9-00)". Retrieved 2007-08-18.
96.Jump up ^ Burkert, Walter. 1983. Homo Necans: the Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Further reading[edit]
AcademicAppleby, R. Scott (2000) The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Avalos, Hector (2005) Fighting Words: the Origins of Religious Violence. New York: Prometheus.
Burkert, Walter. (1983). Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Berkeley: University of California Press
Crocket, Clayton (ed.) (2006) Religion and Violence in a Secular World: Toward a New Political Theology. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Flood, Derek (2012) The way of peace and grace. Sojourners Magazine. Jan 2012.
Girard, René. (1977) Violence et le Sacré (eng. Violence and the Sacred). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. (ed.) (1987) Violent Origins: Walter Burkert, René Girard and Jonathan Z. Smith on Ritual Killing and Cultural Formation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Juergensmeyer, Mark. (2000) Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Berkeley: University of California Press.
McKinnon, A. (2014). 'Religion and the Civilizing Process: The Pax Dei Movement and the Christianization of Violence in the Process of Feudalization'; in A. McKinnon & M, Trzebiatowska (eds), Sociological Theory and the Question of Religion. Ashgate [3].
Pedahzur, Ami and Weinberg, Leonard (eds.) (2004) Religious Fundamentalism and Political Extremism. New York: Routledge.
Pape, Robert (2005) Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism Random House LLC
Regina M. Schwartz (1998). The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. University of Chicago Press.
Rowley, Matthew (2014) ‘What Causes Religious Violence? Three Hundred Claimed Contributing Causes’ Journal of Religion and Violence 2: 361–402.
Selengut, C. (2003) Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Steffen, Lloyd. (2007) Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Takim, Liyakat (2011) Peace and war in the Qur'an and juridical literature: A comparative perspective. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 38 (2) (06): 137-57.
Venkatraman, Amritha( 2007) Religious basis for islamic terrorism: The quran and its interpretations. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 30 (3) (03): 229-48.
ScriptureAli, Abdullah Yusuf. The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary. Elmhurst, NY: Published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, 2001. Print.
Coogan, Michael David, Marc Zvi Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
OtherNelson-Pallmeyer, Jack (2003) Is Religion Killing Us? Harrisburg: Trinity Press International ISBN 1-56338-408-6
Stern, Jessica. (2004) Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. New York: Harper Perennial.
Perry, Simon (2011). All Who Came Before. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock. ISBN 978-1-60899-659-9.
External links[edit]
William T. Cavanaugh Resources from Jesus Radicals
Myth of Religious conflict in Africa
Interview with William Cavanaugh


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religious persecution and discrimination



























































































  


Categories: Religion and violence
Dispute resolution

















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Català
Eesti
Español
فارسی
Italiano
Simple English
Slovenčina
Suomi
தமிழ்
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 28 May 2015, at 23:25.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence










Religious violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religion and violence)
Jump to: navigation, search



 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2015)



 The Crusades were a series of a military campaigns fought mainly between Christian Europe and Muslims. Shown here is a battle scene from the First Crusade.
Religious violence is a term that covers phenomena where religion is either the subject or object of violent behavior.[1] Religious violence is, specifically, violence that is motivated by or in reaction to religious precepts, texts, or doctrines. This includes violence against religious institutions, people, objects, or when the violence is motivated to some degree by some religious aspect of the target or precept of the attacker. Religious violence does not refer exclusively to acts committed by religious groups, but also includes acts committed by secular groups against religious groups.
Religious violence, like all violence, is an inherently cultural process whose meanings are context-dependent. Religious violence often tends to place great emphasis on the symbolic aspect of the act. Religious violence is primarily the domain of the violent "actor", which may be distinguished between individual and collective forms of violence. Overall, religious violence is perpetrated for a wide variety of ideological reasons and is generally only one of the contributing social and political factors that leads to unrest.


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition of violence
2 Relationships between religion and violence
3 Criticism of religion as being violent
4 Secularism as a response
5 Challenges to the concept 5.1 Interpretation of Holy Texts
5.2 Arguments against mutual exclusivity of the religious and the secular
6 Secular violence 6.1 Religious-secular congruency and overlap
7 Abrahamic religions 7.1 Christianity 7.1.1 Mormonism
7.2 Islam 7.2.1 Terrorism and Islam
7.3 Judaism
8 Other religions 8.1 Buddhism
8.2 Hinduism
8.3 Sikhism
9 Conflicts and Wars
10 Ritual violence
11 See also
12 References
13 Further reading
14 External links

Definition of violence[edit]
Ralph Tanner cites the definition of violence in the Oxford English Dictionary as going "far beyond (the infliction of) pain and the shedding of blood". He argues that, although violence clearly encompasses injury to persons or property, it also includes "the forcible interference with personal freedom, violent or passionate conduct or language (and) finally passion or fury".[2] Similarly, Abhijit Nayak writes:

The word "violence" can be defined to extend far beyond pain and shedding blood. It carries the meaning of physical force, violent language, fury and, more importantly, forcible interference.[3]
Terence Fretheim writes:

For many people, ... only physical violence truly qualifies as violence. But, certainly, violence is more than killing people, unless one includes all those words and actions that kill people slowly. The effect of limitation to a “killing fields” perspective is the widespread neglect of many other forms of violence. We must insist that violence also refers to that which is psychologically destructive, that which demeans, damages, or depersonalizes others. In view of these considerations, violence may be defined as follows: any action, verbal or nonverbal, oral or written, physical or psychical, active or passive, public or private, individual or institutional/societal, human or divine, in whatever degree of intensity, that abuses, violates, injures, or kills. Some of the most pervasive and most dangerous forms of violence are those that are often hidden from view (against women and children, especially); just beneath the surface in many of our homes, churches, and communities is abuse enough to freeze the blood. Moreover, many forms of systemic violence often slip past our attention because they are so much a part of the infrastructure of life (e.g., racism, sexism, ageism).[4]
Relationships between religion and violence[edit]
Charles Selengut characterizes the phrase "religion and violence" as "jarring", asserting that "religion is thought to be opposed to violence and a force for peace and reconciliation. He acknowledges, however, that "the history and scriptures of the world's religions tell stories of violence and war even as they speak of peace and love."[5]
According to Matthew Rowley, scholars have claimed at least three hundred contributing causes of religious violence: "violence in the name of God is a complex phenomenon and oversimplification further jeopardizes peace because it obscures many of the causal factors".[6] [7]
Ralph Tanner similarly describes the combination of religion and violence as "uncomfortable", asserting that religious thinkers generally avoid the conjunction of the two and argue that religious violence is "only valid in certain circumstances which are invariably one-sided".[8]
While religion can be used as a means of rallying support for violence, religious leaders regularly denounce such manipulations as contrary to the teachings of their belief.[9][10]
Criticism of religion as being violent[edit]
Tanner asserts that many who have no particular religious beliefs would even argue that violence is a highly likely if not inevitable consequence of the "irrationality" of religious precepts.[8] Similarly, Hector Avalos argues that religions claim "scarce resources" for themselves over and against other groups. Consequently, this may lead to violence because conflicting claims to superiority are based on unverifiable appeals to the supernatural which cannot be adjudicated objectively.[11]
Some general critics of religion and polemics such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins go farther and argue that religions do tremendous harm to society in three ways:[12][page needed][13][page needed]
Religions sometimes use war, violence, and terrorism to promote their religious goals,
Religious leaders contribute to secular wars and terrorism by endorsing or supporting the violence, and
Religious fervor is exploited by secular leaders to support war and terrorism.
Amartya Sen adds that political leaders frequently use religious differences to initiate or perpetuate violence: [14]
Secularism as a response[edit]
Byron Bland asserts that one of the most prominent reasons for the "rise of the secular in Western thought" was the reaction against the religious violence of the 16th and 17th centuries. He asserts that "(t)he secular was a way of living with the religious differences that had produced so much horror. Under secularity, political entities have a warrant to make decisions independent from the need to enforce particular versions of religious orthodoxy. Indeed, they may run counter to certain strongly held beliefs if made in the interest of common welfare. Thus, one of the important goals of the secular is to limit violence."[15]
Challenges to the concept[edit]
Interpretation of Holy Texts[edit]
One idea that many fail to consider when reading holy texts is the concept of translation. The Bible itself has been translated from Hebrew and Greek and retranslated into hundreds of languages. Certain words have changed meaning and others do not directly translate, so there is a large amount of estimation. The original text may have been clear and easy to understand, but that original language will never be able to be actually heard. Plus, the Bible was written down after going through years of oral tradition, so there could be a substantial amount of story lost or gained along the way. The Quran is a newer text and is generally read in Arabic. Those stories too were belayed from Allah to Mohammad to scribes, so it is entirely possible that there were mix-ups and different additions. Even with the translation discrepancies, it seems that all religions boil down to analysis. Interpretation of holy texts is highly important to consider when reading about religious violence. Depending on one’s point of view, aspects of any religion can appear to be violent or peaceful. For both the Bible and the Quran, there are accounts of peace and conflict. It is up to the person reading the passages to judge what they see. The world is a changing entity. To keep these texts relevant and away from the extremities, interpretation must flow along with society.[citation needed]
Arguments against mutual exclusivity of the religious and the secular[edit]
Others such as William Cavanaugh have argued that it is unreasonable to attempt to differentiate "religious violence" and "secular violence" as separate categories. Cavanaugh asserts that "the idea that religion has a tendency to promote violence is part of the conventional wisdom of Western societies and it underlies many of our institutions and policies, from limits on the public role of churches to efforts to promote liberal democracy in the Middle East." Cavanaugh challenges this conventional wisdom, arguing that there is a "myth of religious violence", basing his argument on the assertion that "attempts to separate religious and secular violence are incoherent".[16] Cavanaugh asserts:
Religion is not a universal and transhistorical phenomenon. What counts as "religious" or "secular" in any context is a function of configurations of power both in the West and lands colonized by the West. The distinctions of "Religious/Secular" and "Religious/Political" are modern Western inventions.
The invention of the concept of "religious violence" helps the West reinforce superiority of Western social orders to "nonsecular" social orders, namely Muslims at the time of publication.
The concept of "religious violence" can be and is used to legitimate violence against non-Western "Others".
Peace depends on a balanced view of violence and recognition that so-called secular ideologies and institutions can be just as prone to absolutism, divisiveness, and irrationality.
Anthropologist Jack David Eller asserts that religion is not inherently violent, arguing "religion and violence are clearly compatible, but they are not identical." He asserts that "violence is neither essential to nor exclusive to religion" and that " virtually every form of religious violence has its nonreligious corollary."[17][18] Moreover, he argues that religion "may be more a marker of the [conflicting] groups than an actual point of contention between them".[19] John Teehan takes a position that integrates the two opposing sides of this debate. He describes the traditional response in defense of religion as "draw(ing) a distinction between the religion and what is done in the name of that religion or its faithful." Teehan argues, "this approach to religious violence may be understandable but it is ultimately untenable and prevents us from gaining any useful insight into either religion or religious violence." He takes the position that "violence done in the name of religion is not a perversion of religious belief... but flows naturally from the moral logic inherent in many religious systems, particularly monotheistic religions...." However, Teehan acknowledges that "religions are also powerful sources of morality." He asserts, "religious morality and religious violence both spring from the same source, and this is the evolutionary psychology underlying religious ethics."[20]
Secular violence[edit]
Religious-secular congruency and overlap[edit]
Tanner notes that secular regimes and leaders have used violence to promote their own agendas.[21] Violence committed by secular governments and people, including the anti-religious, have been documented including violence or persecutions focused on religious believers and those who believe in the supernatural.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] For example, in the 20th century, over 25 million believers perished from the antireligious violence which occurred in many atheist states.[31] Non-religious ideological fervour is commonly and regularly exploited to support war and other aggressive acts. People who wish to wage war and terror will find diverse ways to gather support. Secular ideologies have and will likely continue to use violence, oppression, and manipulation to further their own objectives, with or without the availability of religion as a tool. Wars that are secular in nature need no specifically religious endorsement and regularly operate with and without the support of non-religious ideologies. In addition, there exist few examples of wars waged for specifically religious reasons.[28][32] Examples of violence and conflict that have been secular include World War I, World War II, many civil wars (American, El Salvador, Russia, Sri Lanka, China etc.), revolutionary wars (American, French, Russian, etc.), Vietnam War, Korean War, War on Terrorism, and common conflicts such as gang and drug wars (e.g. Mexican Drug War). In the 'Encyclopedia of Wars' by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod, there were 1763 wars listed overall,[32] of which some have identified only 123 (7%) as having been primarily religiously motivated.[28][33][34] Talal Asad, an anthropologist, notes that equating institutional religion with violence and fanaticism is incorrect and that devastating cruelties and atrocities done by non-religious institutions in the 20th century should not be overlooked. He also notes that nationalism has been argued as being a secularized religion.[35]
Historians such as Jonathan Kirsch have made links between the European inquisitions, for example, and Stalin's persecutions in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, McCarthy blacklists, and other secular events as being the same type of phenomenon as the inquisitions.[36]
Others, such as Robert Pape, a political scientist who specializes in suicide terrorism, have made a case for secular motivations and reasons as being foundations of most suicide attacks that are oftentimes labeled as "religious".[37] Pape compiled the first complete database of every documented suicide bombing during 1980–2003. He argues that the news reports about suicide attacks are profoundly misleading — "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions". After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, he concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem fundamentally from political conflict, not religion.[38]
Abrahamic religions[edit]



 The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of French Protestants in 1572
Some critics of religion such as Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argue that all monotheistic religions are inherently violent. For example, Nelson-Pallmeyer writes that "Judaism, Christianity and Islam will continue to contribute to the destruction of the world until and unless each challenges violence in "sacred texts" and until each affirms nonviolent power of God."[39]
Hector Avalos argues that, because religions claim divine favor for themselves, over and against other groups, this sense of righteousness leads to violence because conflicting claims to superiority, based on unverifiable appeals to God, cannot be adjudicated objectively.[40]
Similarly, Eric Hickey writes, "(t)he history of religious violence in the West is as long as the historical record of its three major religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with their involved mutual antagonisms and struggles to adapt and survive the secular forces that threaten their continued existence."[41]
Regina Schwartz argues that all monotheistic religions, including Christianity, are inherently violent because of an exclusivism that inevitably fosters violence against those that are considered outsiders.[42] Lawrence Wechsler asserts that Schwartz isn't just arguing that Abrahamic religions have a violent legacy, but that the legacy is actually genocidal in nature.[43]
Bruce Feiler writes that "Jews and Christians who smugly console themselves that Islam is the only violent religion are willfully ignoring their past. Nowhere is the struggle between faith and violence described more vividly, and with more stomach-turning details of ruthlessness, than in the Hebrew Bible".[44]
However Tom O'Golo declares that religious fundamentalists that use violence to further their cause contravene the root truth of all faiths:

A genuine fundamentalist is also a radical, someone who tries to get the root of the matter. A major weakness with many or perhaps most radicals is not that they don't dig, but that they don't dig deep enough. Consequently many fundamentalists end up defending or acting upon beliefs which are not really at the heart of their doctrine. For example any religious fundamentalist who harms others in the pursuit of his or her radicalism is strictly out of order as no true religion ever encounters anything but love, tolerance and understanding. 'Thou shalt not kill' is at the heart of all genuine faiths, certainly the three based upon Abraham and God. That trio comprehensively condemns intentional harm to others (and to the self as well) for what ever reason. Dying to protect one's faith is acceptable; killing to promote it isn't. Arguably, it is blasphemous to say that God needs an earthly army to fight Its battles, or perform Its revenge. God is quite capable of fighting Its own battles.[45]
Christianity[edit]
Main article: Christianity and violence
See also: Sectarian violence among Christians, Crusade and Christian terrorism



I Believe in the Sword and Almighty God (1914) by Boardman Robinson.
The relationship between Christianity and violence is the subject of controversy because one view is that Christianity advocates peace, love and compassion while it is also viewed as a violent religion.[40][42][46] Peace, compassion and forgiveness of wrongs done by others are key elements of Christian teaching. However, Christians have struggled since the days of the Church fathers with the question of when the use of force is justified (e.g. the Just war theory of Saint Augustine). Such debates have led to concepts such as just war theory. Throughout history, certain teachings from the Old Testament, the New Testament and Christian theology have been used to justify the use of force against heretics, sinners and external enemies. Heitman and Hagan identify the Inquisitions, Crusades, wars of religion, and antisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence".[47] To this list J. Denny Weaver adds "warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men".[improper synthesis?] Weaver employs a broader definition of violence that extends the meaning of the word to cover "harm or damage", not just physical violence per se. Thus, under his definition, Christian violence includes "forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism".[48]
Another Christian thought is of opposition to the use of force and violence. Sects that have emphasized pacificism as a central tenet of faith have resulted from the latter thought. However, Christians have also engaged in violence against those that they classify as heretics and non-believers specifically to enforce orthodoxy of their faith.
Christian theologians point to a strong doctrinal and historical imperative within Christianity against violence, particularly Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which taught nonviolence and "love of enemies". For example, Weaver asserts that Jesus' pacifism was "preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism".[48]
Many authors highlight the ironical contradiction between Christianity's claims to be centered on "love and peace" while, at the same time, harboring a "violent side". For example, Mark Juergensmeyer argues: "that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity—like most traditions—has always had a violent side. The bloody history of the tradition has provided images as disturbing as those provided by Islam or Sikhism, and violent conflict is vividly portrayed in the Bible. This history and these biblical images have provided the raw material for theologically justifying the violence of contemporary Christian groups. For example, attacks on abortion clinics have been viewed not only as assaults on a practice that Christians regard as immoral, but also as skirmishes in a grand confrontation between forces of evil and good that has social and political implications.",[49]:19–20 sometimes referred to as Spiritual warfare. The statement attributed to Jesus "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by some as a call to arms to Christians.[49]
Maurice Bloch also argues that Christian faith fosters violence because Christian faith is a religion, and religions are by their very nature violent; moreover, he argues that religion and politics are two sides of the same coin—power.[50] Others have argued that religion and the exercise of force are deeply intertwined, but that religion may pacify, as well as channel and heighten violent impulses [51]



Forward with God! (1915) by Boardman Robinson.
In response to criticism that Christianity and violence are intertwined, Christian apologists such as Miroslav Volf and J. Denny Weaver reject charges that Christianity is a violent religion, arguing that certain aspects of Christianity might be misused to support violence but that a genuine interpretation of its core elements would not sanction human violence but would instead resist it. Among the examples that are commonly used to argue that Christianity is a violent religion, J. Denny Weaver lists "(the) crusades, the multiple blessings of wars, warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men". Weaver characterizes the counter-argument as focusing on "Jesus, the beginning point of Christian faith,... whose Sermon on the Mount taught nonviolence and love of enemies,; who faced his accusers nonviolent death;whose nonviolent teaching inspired the first centuries of pacifist Christian history and was subsequently preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism."[48]
Miroslav Volf acknowledges that "many contemporaries see religion as a pernicious social ill that needs aggressive treatment rather than a medicine from which cure is expected." However, Volf contests this claim that "(the) Christian faith, as one of the major world religions, predominantly fosters violence." Instead of this negative assessment, Volf argues that Christianity "should be seen as a contributor to more peaceful social environments".[52] Volf examines the question of whether Christianity fosters violence, and has identified four main arguments that it does: that religion by its nature is violent, which occurs when people try to act as "soldiers of God"; that monotheism entails violence, because a claim of universal truth divides people into "us versus them"; that creation, as in the Book of Genesis, is an act of violence; and that the intervention of a "new creation", as in the Second Coming, generates violence.[46] Writing about the latter, Volf says: "Beginning at least with Constantine's conversion, the followers of the Crucified have perpetrated gruesome acts of violence under the sign of the cross. Over the centuries, the seasons of Lent and Holy Week were, for the Jews, times of fear and trepidation; Christians have perpetrated some of the worst pogroms as they remembered the crucifixion of Christ, for which they blamed the Jews. Muslims also associate the cross with violence; crusaders' rampages were undertaken under the sign of the cross."[53] In each case, Volf concluded that the Christian faith was misused in justifying violence. Volf argues that "thin" readings of Christianity might be used mischievously to support the use of violence. He counters, however, by asserting that "thick" readings of Christianity's core elements will not sanction human violence and would, in fact, resist it.[46]
Volf asserts that Christian churches suffer from a "confusion of loyalties". He asserts that "rather than the character of the Christian faith itself, a better explanation of why Christian churches are either impotent in the face of violent conflicts or actively participate in them derives from the proclivities of its adherents which are at odds with the character of the Christian faith." Volf observes that "(although) explicitly giving ultimate allegiance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, many Christians in fact seem to have an overriding commitment to their respective cultures and ethnic groups."[54]
Mormonism[edit]
Main article: Mormonism and violence
Mormonism had an early history of violence. This began with religious persecution by well respected citizens, law enforcement, and government officials. Ultimately such persecution lead to several historically well-known acts of violence. These range from attacks on early Mormons, such as the Haun's Mill massacre following the Mormon Extermination Order to one of the most controversial and well-known cases of retaliation violence, the Mountain Meadows massacre. This was the result of an unprovoked response to religious persecution whereby an innocent party traveling through Mormon occupied territory was attacked on September 11, 1857. Since this turbulent beginning, most conflicts in relation to Mormonism have been isolated and have little or no historical significance.
Islam[edit]
Main article: Islam and violence
See also: Islamic terrorism, Islamism, Jihad and Mujahideen



 Sketch by an eye-witness of the massacre of Armenians in Sasun in 1894
Islam has been associated with violence in a variety of contexts, including Jihads (holy wars), violent acts by Muslims against perceived enemies of Islam, violence against women ostensibly supported by Islam's tenets, references to violence in the Qur'an, and acts of terrorism motivated and/or justified by Islam. Muslims, including clerics and leaders have used Islamic ideas, concepts, texts, and themes to justify violence, especially against non-Muslims.
Jihad is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates into English as "struggle". Jihad appears in the Qur'an and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[55][56] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[57] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the ten Practices of the Religion. Islamic extremists have used jihad to condone acts of terror, claiming the support of their religion’s followers and Allah himself. Jihad has also been used by non-Muslims to explain the so-called “insanity” of the Islamic faith.[citation needed] For some the Quran seem to endorse unequivocally to violence.[58] (see Quran and violence) On the other hand, some scholars argue that such verses of the Quran are interpreted out of context,[59][60]
Muslims use the word in a religious context to refer to three types of struggles: an internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve the Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war.[61] The prominent British orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that in the Qur'an and the ahadith jihad implies warfare in the large majority of cases.[62] In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that "one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct".[63]



 Indonesian military forces evacuate refugees from Ambon during the Maluku sectarian conflict in 1999
Terrorism and Islam[edit]
See also: Islamic terrorism
In western societies the term jihad is often translated as "holy war".[64][65] Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous.[66] Muslim authors, in particular, tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[67][68]
Terrorism refers to terrorism by Muslim[citation needed] or individuals and motivated by either politics, religion or both. Terrorist acts have included airline hijacking, kidnapping, assassination, suicide bombing, and mass murder.[69][70][71] As an ideology in the 20th century, only Communism, with its murder and mass killings, is responsible for more deaths and violence than is Islam. In terms of Islamic violence, both ancient and modern history are replete with Islamic intolerance and ensuing violence against every other ideology, such as modern violence against Western institutions, as well as historical violence against Hindus, and perpetual violence against Christians.[72][73][74] are a few examples.
The tension reached a climax on September 11th, 2001 when Islamic terrorists flew hijacked commercial airplanes into the World Trade Center in New York City. The “War on Terror” has caused anti-Muslim sentiments throughout Christianity and the rest of the world. Al-Qaeda is one of the most well known Islamic extremist groups, created by Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden. The goal of al-Qaeda was to spread the “purest” form of Islam and Islamic law. For bin Laden, in order to do “good” by the Quran, he had to inflict terror upon millions. Following the terror attacks on September 11, bin Laden praised the suicide bombers in his statement: “the great action you did which was first and foremost by the grace of Allah. This is the guidance of Allah and the blessed fruit of jihad”. What was sacrifice to Osama bin Laden and his followers is terror to the American people and the rest of the world, furthering the fear of Islam that many people possess. Despite the few severe sects, Islam is not a fundamentally violent religion. Certain groups hold that the Quran should be interpreted literally, while others believe that with the changing course of history, interpretation should change too.[original research?][citation needed]
There are controversies surrounding the subject include whether the terrorist act is self-defense or aggression, national self-determination or Islamic supremacy; whether Islam can ever condone the targeting of non-combatants; whether some attacks described as Islamic terrorism are merely terrorist acts committed by Muslims or motivated by nationalism; whether Zionism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict is the root of Islamic terrorism, or simply one cause; how much support there is in the Muslim world for Islamic terrorism[75] and whether support for terror is a temporary phenomenon, a "bubble", now fading away.[76]
Judaism[edit]
Main article: Judaism and violence
Burggraeve and Vervenne describe the Old Testament as full of violence and as evidence of both a violent society and a violent god. They write that, "(i)n numerous Old Testament texts the power and glory of Israel's God is described in the language of violence." They assert that more than one thousand passages refer to YHWH as acting violently or supporting the violence of humans and that more than one hundred passages involve divine commands to kill humans.[77]
On the basis of these passages in the Old Testament, some Christian churches and theologians argue that Judaism is a violent religion and that the god of Israel is a violent god. Reuven Firestone asserts that these assertions are usually made in the context of claims that Christianity is a religion of peace and that the god of Christianity is one that expresses only love.[78]
Some scholars such as Deborah Weissman readily acknowledge that "normative Judaism is not pacifist" and that "violence is condoned in the service of self-defense."[79] J. Patout Burns asserts that, although Judaism condones the use of violence in certain cases, Jewish tradition clearly posits the principle of minimization of violence. This principle can be stated as "(wherever) Jewish law allows violence to keep an evil from occurring, it mandates that the minimal amount of violence be used to accomplish one's goal."[80]
The love of peace and the pursuit of peace, as well as laws requiring the eradication of evil, sometimes using violent means, co-exist in the Jewish tradition.[81][82]
The Hebrew Bible contains instances of religiously mandated wars[83] which often contain explicit instructions from God to the Israelites to exterminate other tribes, as in Deut 7:1–2 orDeut 20:16-18. Examples include the story of Amalekites (Deut 25:17–19, 1 Sam 15:1-6),[84] the story of the Midianites (Numbers 31:1–18),[85] and the battle of Jericho (Joshua 6:1–27).[86]
These wars of extermination have been characterized as "genocide" by several authorities,[87] because the Torah states that the Israelites annihilated entire ethnic groups or tribes: the Israelites killed all Amalekites, including men, women, and children (1 Samuel 15:1–20 ); the Israelites killed all men, women, and children in the battle of Jericho(Joshua 6:15–21), and the Israelites killed all men, women and children of several Canaanite tribes (Joshua 10:28–42).[88] However, some scholars[who?] believe that these accounts in the Torah are exaggerated or metaphorical.[citation needed]
Zionist leaders sometimes used religious references as justification for the violent treatment of Arabs in Palestine.[89] Palestinians have been several times associated with a Biblical antagonists, Amalekites. For example, rabbi Israel Hess has recommended to kill Palestinians, basing on biblical verses such as 1 Samuel 15.[90] Shulamit Aloni, a member of the Israeli Knesset indicated in 2003 that Jewish children in Israel were being taught in religious schools that Palestinians were Amalek, and therefore an act of total genocide was a religious obligation.[91]
Other religions[edit]



Thuggee was a secret cult of assassins who were both Hindus and Muslims.
[icon] This section requires expansion. (May 2015)
Buddhism[edit]
Main articles: Sohei, 969 Movement and Buddhism and violence
Hinduism[edit]
Main article: Hindu extremism
Sikhism[edit]
Main article: Sikh extremism
Conflicts and Wars[edit]



 Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople by Gustave Doré (1832–1883)
Main article: Religious war
It has been noted that "religious" conflicts are not based on religious beliefs exclusively and instead should be seen as clashes of communities, identities, and interests that are secular-religious or at least very much secular.[19][28][37]
Some have asserted that attacks are carried out by those with very strong religious convictions such as terrorists in the context of global religious war.[92] Robert Pape, a political scientist who specializes in suicide terroism argues that much of the modern Muslim suicide terrorism is secular based.[37] Although the causes of terrorism are complex, it may be that terrorists are partially reassured by their religious views that God is on their side and will reward them in heaven for punishing unbelievers.[93][94]
These conflicts are among the most difficult to resolve, particularly where both sides believe that God is on their side and has endorsed the moral righteousness of their claims.[93] One of the most infamous quotes associated with religious fanaticism was made in 1209 during the siege of Béziers, a Crusader asked the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric how to tell Catholics from Cathars when the city was taken, to which Amalric replied: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius," or "Kill them all; God will recognize his."[95]
Ritual violence[edit]
Further information: ritual slaughter, human sacrifice and animal sacrifice
Ritual violence may be directed against victims (human sacrifice) or self-inflicted (religious self-flagellation).
According to the hunting hypothesis, created by Walter Burkert in Homo Necans, carnivorous behavior is considered a form of violence. Burkett suggests that the anthropological phenomenon of religion itself grew out of rituals connected with hunting and the feelings of guilt associated with the violence involved.[96]
See also[edit]
List of countries by discrimination and violence against minorities
Witch-hunt
Hundred Years' War
Religion and peacebuilding
Religious fanaticism
Pacifism and religion
Taliban
Religions for Peace
Peace in Islamic philosophy
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Wellman, James; Tokuno, Kyoko (2004). "Is Religious Violence Inevitable?". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion) 43 (3): 291. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2004.00234.x.
2.Jump up ^ Ralph E.S. Tanner (2007). Violence and religion: cross-cultural opinions and consequences. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 5–6. ISBN 9788180693762.
3.Jump up ^ Nayak, Abhijit (July–October 2008). "Crusade Violence: Understanding and Overcoming the Impact of Mission Among Muslims". International Review of Mission (World Council of Churches) 97 (386–387): 273–291. doi:10.1111/j.1758-6631.2008.tb00645.x. Retrieved 2010-11-23.
4.Jump up ^ Freitheim, Terence (Winter 2004). "God and Violence in the Old Testament" (PDF). Word & World 24 (1). Retrieved 2010-11-21.
5.Jump up ^ Selengut, Charles (2008-04-28). Sacred fury: understanding religious violence. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-7425-6084-0.
6.Jump up ^ Matthew Rowley, ‘What Causes Religious Violence? Three Hundred Claimed Contributing Causes’ Journal of Religion and Violence 2 (2014): 361–402.
7.Jump up ^ http://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=jrv&id=jrv_2014_0002_0003_0361_0402
8.^ Jump up to: a b Tanner, Ralph E. S. (2007). Violence and religion: cross-cultural opinions and consequences. Concept Publishing Company. p. 1. ISBN 9788180693762.
9.Jump up ^ Ralph E.S. Tanner (2011-10-28). "Pope Benedict apologises for Christian violence through the ages after condemning terrorism in the name of religion". London: Daily Mail.
10.Jump up ^ Ralph E.S. Tanner (2011). "Vatican: Pope speaks out against 'violence in God's name". Adn Kronos International.
11.Jump up ^ Avalos, Hector (2005). Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-284-3.
12.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great. Twelve. ISBN 0-446-57980-7.
13.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Books. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0.
14.Jump up ^ Sen, Amartya (21 November 2001). "A World Not Neatly Divided". New York Times. p. 23.
15.Jump up ^ Bland, Byron (May 2003). "Evil Enemies: The Convergence of Religion and Politics" (PDF). p. 4.
16.Jump up ^ Cavanaugh, William (2009). The Myth of Religious Violence. Oxford University Press US,. p. 4.
17.Jump up ^ Eller, Jack David (2010). Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence: Religious Violence Across Culture and History. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-61614-218-6. "As we have insisted previously, religion is not inherently and irredeemably violent; it certainly is not the essence and source of all violence."
18.Jump up ^ Eller, Jack David (2010). Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence: Religious Violence Across Culture and History. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-61614-218-6. "Religion and violence are clearly compatible, but they are not identical. Violence is one phenomenon in human (and natural existence), religion is another, and it is inevitable that the two would become intertwined. Religion is complex and modular, and violence is one of the modules—not universal, but recurring. As a conceptual and behavioral module, violence is by no means exclusive to religion. There are plenty of other groups, institutions, interests, and ideologies to promote violence. Violence is, therefore, neither essential to nor exclusive to religion. Nor is religious violence all alike... And virtually every form of religious violence has its nonreligious corollary."
19.^ Jump up to: a b Eller, Jack David (2007). Introducing Anthropology of Religion. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-40896-7. "When a pure or hybrid religious group and/or its interests are threatened, or merely blocked from achieving its interests by another group, conflict and violence may ensue. In such cases, although religion is part of the issue and religious groups form the competitors, or combatants, it would be simplistic or wrong to assume the religion is the "cause" of the trouble or that the parties are "fighting about religion". Religion in the circumstances may be more a marker of the groups than an actual point of contention between them."
20.Jump up ^ Teehan, John (2010). In the Name of God: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Ethics and Violence. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 145–147.
21.Jump up ^ Ralph E.S. Tanner (2011). "The Harmful Secular Ideologies". Ames Tribune.
22.Jump up ^ Rummel, Rudolph J. (1994). Death By Government. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56000-927-6.
23.Jump up ^ Rummel, Rudolph J. (1997). Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900. Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-8258-4010-5.
24.Jump up ^ Froese, Paul (2008). The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25529-6.
25.Jump up ^ Gabel, Paul (2005). And God Created Lenin: Marxism Vs. Religion in Russia, 1917–1929. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-306-7.
26.Jump up ^ Kiernan, Ben (2008). The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-79. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-14434-5.
27.Jump up ^ Peris, Daniel (1998). Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-3485-3.
28.^ Jump up to: a b c d Day, Vox (2008). The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens. BenBella Books. ISBN 978-1-933771-36-6.
29.Jump up ^ Bantjes, Adrian (1997). "Idolatry and Iconoclasm in Revolutionary Mexico: The De-Christianization. Campaigns, 1929–1940". Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 13 (1): 87–121.
30.Jump up ^ Meisner, Maurice (1999). Mao's China and After: A History of the People's Republic. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-684-85635-3.
31.Jump up ^ Nelson, James M. (2009-02-27). Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality. Springer. p. 427. ISBN 9780387875729. Retrieved 2012-12-19.
32.^ Jump up to: a b Charles Phillips, Alan Axelrod (2005). The Encyclopaedia of War.
33.Jump up ^ Sheiman, Bruce (2009). An Atheist Defends Religion : Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion than Without It. Alpha Books. pp. 117–118. ISBN 1592578543.
34.Jump up ^ Lurie, Alan. "Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?". Huffington Post.
35.Jump up ^ Asad, Talal (2003). Formations of the Secular : Christianity, Islam, Modernity (10. printing. ed.). Stanford University Press. pp. 100, 187–190. ISBN 0804747687.
36.Jump up ^ Kirsch, Jonathan (2009). The Grand Inquisitor's Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God. HarperOne. ISBN 978-0-06-173276-8.
37.^ Jump up to: a b c Pape, Robert (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Random House. ISBN 978-0-8129-7338-9.
38.Jump up ^ Pape 2005.
39.Jump up ^ Nelson-Pallmeyer, Jack (2005). Is religion killing us?: violence in the Bible and the Quran. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 136. ISBN 9780826417794.
40.^ Jump up to: a b Avalos, Hector (2005). Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
41.Jump up ^ Hickey, Eric W. (2003). Encyclopedia of murder and violent crime. SAGE. p. 217. ISBN 978-0-7619-2437-1.
42.^ Jump up to: a b Regina M. Schwartz (1998). The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. University of Chicago Press.
43.Jump up ^ Wechsler, Lawrence. "Mayhem and Monotheism" (PDF).
44.Jump up ^ Feiler, Bruce S. (2005). Where God was born: a journey by land to the roots of religion. HarperCollins. p. 4. ISBN 9780060574871.
45.Jump up ^ Tom O'Golo (2011). Christ? No! Jesus? Yes!: A radical reappraisal of a very important life. p. 105.
46.^ Jump up to: a b c Volf, Miroslav (2008). "Christianity and Violence". In Hess, Richard S.; Martens, E.A. War in the Bible and terrorism in the twenty-first century. Eisenbrauns. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-1-57506-803-9. Retrieved June 1, 2010.
47.Jump up ^ International encyclopedia of violence research, Volume 2. Springer. 2003. ISBN 9781402014666.
48.^ Jump up to: a b c J. Denny Weaver (2001). "Violence in Christian Theology". Cross Currents. Retrieved 2010-10-27. "I am using broad definitions of the terms "violence" and "nonviolence". "Violence" means harm or damage, which obviously includes the direct violence of killing -- in war, capital punishment, murder --but also covers the range of forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism. "Nonviolence" also covers a spectrum of attitudes and actions, from the classic Mennonite idea of passive nonresistance through active nonviolence and nonviolent resistance that would include various kinds of social action, confrontations and posing of alternatives that do not do bodily harm or injury."
49.^ Jump up to: a b Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24011-1.
50.Jump up ^ Bloch, Maurice (1992). Prey into Hunter. The Politics of Religious Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.Jump up ^ Andrew McKinnon. 'Religion and the Civilizing Process: The Pax Dei Movement and the Christianization of Violence in the Process of Feudalization'. in A McKinnon & M Trzebiatowska (eds), Sociological Theory and the Question of Religion. Ashgate, 2014 [1].
52.Jump up ^ Volf, Miroslav (2002). "Christianity and Violence". Retrieved 2010-10-27.
53.Jump up ^ Volf 2008, p. 13
54.Jump up ^ Volf, Miroslav. "The Social Meaning of Reconciliation" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-17.
55.Jump up ^ Wendy Doniger, ed. (1999). Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions. Merriam-Webster. ISBN 0-87779-044-2.,Jihad, p. 571
56.Jump up ^ Josef W. Meri, ed. (2005). Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-96690-6., Jihad, p. 419
57.Jump up ^ John Esposito(2005), Islam: The Straight Path, p. 93
58.Jump up ^ Sam Harris Who Are the Moderate Muslims?
59.Jump up ^ Sohail H. Hashmi, David Miller, Boundaries and Justice: diverse ethical perspectives, Princeton University Press, p.197
60.Jump up ^ Khaleel Muhammad, professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, states, regarding his discussion with the critic Robert Spencer, that "when I am told ... that Jihad only means war, or that I have to accept interpretations of the Quran that non-Muslims (with no good intentions or knowledge of Islam) seek to force upon me, I see a certain agendum developing: one that is based on hate, and I refuse to be part of such an intellectual crime."[2]
61.Jump up ^ "Jihad". BBC. 2009-08-03.
62.Jump up ^ Lewis, Bernard (1988). The Political Language of Islam. University of Chicago Press. p. 72. ISBN 0226476928. Cf. Watt, William M. (1976). "Islamic Conceptions of the Holy War". In Murphy, Thomas P. The Holy War. Ohio State University Press. p. 143. ISBN 978-0814202456.
63.Jump up ^ Shaykh Hisham Kabbani; Shaykh Seraj Hendricks; Shaykh Ahmad Hendricks. "Jihad—A Misunderstood Concept from Islam". The Muslim Magazine. Retrieved 16 August 2006.
64.Jump up ^ cf. e.g. BBC news article "Libya's Gaddafi urges 'holy war' against Switzerland". BBC News. 26 February 2010. Retrieved 30 September 2012.
65.Jump up ^ Peters, Rudolph (1977). Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam. Brill Academic Pub. p. 3. ISBN 978-9004048546.
66.Jump up ^ Crone, Patricia (2005). Medieval Islamic Political Thought. Edinburgh University. p. 363. ISBN 978-0748621941.
67.Jump up ^ Jihad and the Islamic Law of War. Jordan: The Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought. 2009.
68.Jump up ^ Peters, Rudolph (1979). Islam and colonialism: the doctrine of Jihad in modern history. Mouton Publishers. p. 118. ISBN 9027933472.
69.Jump up ^ "Captured Iraqi Terrorist Ramzi Hashem Abed: Zarqawi Participated in the Plot to Assassinate Baqer Al-Hakim. We Bombed Jalal Talabani's Headquarters, the Turkish Embassy, and the Red Cross, Took Drugs, Raped University Students Who "Collaborated with the Americans"". The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). (login required)
70.Jump up ^ "Abductions of and Assaults on Women". The Massacre in Mazar-I Sharif. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved September 30, 2012.
71.Jump up ^ Youssef M. Ibrahim (14 April 1988). "Algeria to Permit Abortions for Rape Victims". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 September 2012.
72.Jump up ^ "Time to Air Muslim Violence Against Christians", Real Clear Politics, March 23, 2012 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/23/time_to_air_muslim_violence_against_christians_113595.html
73.Jump up ^ "37 Muslim nations persecuting Christians", WND Faith, Published: 01/11/2014, http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/37-muslim-nations-persecuting-christians/
74.Jump up ^ "The Existential Elephant in the ‘Christian Persecution’ Room", By Raymond Ibrahim on January 17, 2014 in Muslim Persecution of Christians, http://www.raymondibrahim.com/muslim-persecution-of-christians/the-existential-elephant-in-the-christian-persecution-room/
75.Jump up ^ Tony Blair, "Speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council", http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page9948.asp
76.Jump up ^ Thomas L. Friedman (April 20, 2003). "The Third Bubble". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 September 2012.
77.Jump up ^ Burggraeve, Roger; Vervenne, Marc (1991). Swords into plowshares: theological reflections on peace. Peeters Publishers. pp. 82,109. ISBN 9789068313727.
78.Jump up ^ Heft, James, ed. (2004). Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Fordham University Press. ISBN 9780823223350.
79.Jump up ^ "The Co-existence of Violence and Non-Violence in Judaism". Retrieved 2010-12-09.
80.Jump up ^ Burns, J. Patout (1996). War and its discontents: pacifism and quietism in the Abrahamic traditions. Georgetown University Press. p. 18.
81.Jump up ^ Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition. Michael J. Broyde, 1998, p. 1
82.Jump up ^ *Reuven Firestone (2004), "Judaism on Violence and Reconciliation: An examination of key sources" in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Fordham University Press, 2004, pp. 77, 81. Goldsmith (Ed.), Emanuel S. (1991). Dynamic Judaism: the essential writings of Mordecai M. Kaplan. Fordham University Press. p. 181. ISBN 0-8232-1310-2.
Spero, Shubert (1983). Morality, Halakha, and the Jewish Tradition. Ktav Publishing House, Inc. pp. 137–318. ISBN 0-87068-727-1.
83.Jump up ^ Salaita, Steven George (2006). The Holy Land in transit: colonialism and the quest for Canaan. Syracuse University Press. p. 54. ISBN 0-8156-3109-X.
Lustick, Ian (1988). For the Land and the Lord: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel. Council on Foreign Relations. pp. 131–132. ISBN 0-87609-036-6.
Armstrong, Karen (2007). The Bible: a biography. Atlantic Monthly Press. pp. 211–216. ISBN 0-87113-969-3.
84.Jump up ^ A. G. Hunter "Denominating Amalek: Racist stereotyping in the Bible and the Justification of Discrimination", in Sanctified aggression: legacies of biblical and post biblical vocabularies of violence, Jonneke Bekkenkamp, Yvonne Sherwood (Eds.). 2003, Continuum Internatio Publishing Group, pp. 92–108
85.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 245. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
86.Jump up ^ Carl. S. Ehrlich (1999) "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill. p. 117–124.
Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion', pp. 289–296
Hitchens, Christopher, God is Not Great p. 117
Selengut, Charles, Sacred fury: understanding religious violence, p. 20
Cowles, C. S., Show them no mercy: 4 views on God and Canaanite genocide, p. 79
87.Jump up ^ Kravitz, Leonard, "What is Crime?", in Crime and punishment in Jewish law: essays and responsa, Editors Walter Jacob, Moshe Zemer Berghahn Books, 1999, p. 31
Cohn, Robert L, "Before Israel: The Canaanites as Other in Biblical Tradition", in The Other in Jewish thought and history: constructions of Jewish culture and identity, Laurence Jay Silberstein, (Ed.), NYU Press, 1994, pp. 76-77
Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity By Ra'anan S. Boustan, pp. 3-5
88.Jump up ^ The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses, p. 242
89.Jump up ^ Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.), Springer, p. 78:
".. the Zionist movement, which claims to be secular, found it necessary to embrace the idea of 'the promised land' of Old Testament prophecy, to justify the confiscation of land and the expulsion of the Palestinians. For example, the speeches and letter of Chaim Weizman, the secular Zionist leader, are filled with references to the biblical origins of the Jewish claim to Palestine, which he often mixes liberally with more pragmatic and nationalistic claims. By the use of this premise, embraced in 1937, Zionists alleged that the Palestinians were usurpers in the Promised Land, and therefore their expulsion and death was justified. The Jewish-American writer Dan Kurzman, in his book Genesis 1948 ... describes the view of one of the Deir Yassin's killers: 'The Sternists followed the instructions of the Bible more rigidly than others. They honored the passage (Exodus 22:2): 'If a thief be found ...' This meant, of course, that killing a thief was not really murder. And were not the enemies of Zionism thieves, who wanted to steal from the Jews what God had granted them?' Carl. S. Ehrlich (1999) "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill. pp. 117–124.
90.Jump up ^ Masalha, Nur, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: the politics of expansion, Pluto Press, 2000, pp. 129–131.
"Frequently Jewish fundamentalists refer to the Palestinians as the 'Amalekites' ... of today.... According to the Old Testament, the Amalek ... were regarded as the Israelites' inveterate foe, whose 'annihilation' became a sacred duty and against whom war should be waged until their 'memory be blotted out' forever (Ex 17:16; Deut 25:17–19).... Some of the [modern] political messianics insist on giving the biblical commandment to 'blot out the memory of the Amalek' an actual contemporary relevance in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. In February 1980, Rabbi Israel Hess ... published an article [titled] 'The Genocide Commandment in the Torah' ... which ends with the following: 'The day is not far when we shall all be called to this holy war, this commandment of the annihilation of the Amalek'. Hess quotes the biblical commandment ... 'Do not spare him, but kill man and woman, baby and suckling, ox and sheep, camel, and donkey'.... In his book On the Lord's Side Danny Rubinstein has shown that this notion permeates the Gush Emunim movement's bulletins [one of which] carried an article ... which reads 'In every generation there is an Amalek.... The Amalekism of our generation finds expression in the deep Arab hatred towards our national revival ...'... Professor Uriel Tal ... conducted his study in the early 1980s ... and pointed out that the totalitarian political messianic stream refers to the Palestinian Arabs in three stages or degrees: ... [stage] (3) the implementation of the commandment of Amalek, as expressed in Rabbi Hess's article 'The Commandment of Genocide in the Torah', in other words 'annihilating' the Palestinian Arabs'".See also Hunter, p. 103
Also describing Palestinians as targets of violence due to association with Amalek is: Geaves, Ron, Islam and the West post 9/11, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004, p. 30
91.Jump up ^ Murder Under the Cover of Righteousness - CounterPunch
92.Jump up ^ Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' accessed may 24, 2007
93.^ Jump up to: a b Juergensmeyer, Mark (2001-09-21). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Updated edition. University of California Press.
94.Jump up ^ Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ
95.Jump up ^ "Kill Them All; For The Lord Knoweth Them That Are His Steve Locks (Reply) (9-00)". Retrieved 2007-08-18.
96.Jump up ^ Burkert, Walter. 1983. Homo Necans: the Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Further reading[edit]
AcademicAppleby, R. Scott (2000) The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Avalos, Hector (2005) Fighting Words: the Origins of Religious Violence. New York: Prometheus.
Burkert, Walter. (1983). Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Berkeley: University of California Press
Crocket, Clayton (ed.) (2006) Religion and Violence in a Secular World: Toward a New Political Theology. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Flood, Derek (2012) The way of peace and grace. Sojourners Magazine. Jan 2012.
Girard, René. (1977) Violence et le Sacré (eng. Violence and the Sacred). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. (ed.) (1987) Violent Origins: Walter Burkert, René Girard and Jonathan Z. Smith on Ritual Killing and Cultural Formation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Juergensmeyer, Mark. (2000) Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Berkeley: University of California Press.
McKinnon, A. (2014). 'Religion and the Civilizing Process: The Pax Dei Movement and the Christianization of Violence in the Process of Feudalization'; in A. McKinnon & M, Trzebiatowska (eds), Sociological Theory and the Question of Religion. Ashgate [3].
Pedahzur, Ami and Weinberg, Leonard (eds.) (2004) Religious Fundamentalism and Political Extremism. New York: Routledge.
Pape, Robert (2005) Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism Random House LLC
Regina M. Schwartz (1998). The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. University of Chicago Press.
Rowley, Matthew (2014) ‘What Causes Religious Violence? Three Hundred Claimed Contributing Causes’ Journal of Religion and Violence 2: 361–402.
Selengut, C. (2003) Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Steffen, Lloyd. (2007) Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Takim, Liyakat (2011) Peace and war in the Qur'an and juridical literature: A comparative perspective. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 38 (2) (06): 137-57.
Venkatraman, Amritha( 2007) Religious basis for islamic terrorism: The quran and its interpretations. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 30 (3) (03): 229-48.
ScriptureAli, Abdullah Yusuf. The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary. Elmhurst, NY: Published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, 2001. Print.
Coogan, Michael David, Marc Zvi Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
OtherNelson-Pallmeyer, Jack (2003) Is Religion Killing Us? Harrisburg: Trinity Press International ISBN 1-56338-408-6
Stern, Jessica. (2004) Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. New York: Harper Perennial.
Perry, Simon (2011). All Who Came Before. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock. ISBN 978-1-60899-659-9.
External links[edit]
William T. Cavanaugh Resources from Jesus Radicals
Myth of Religious conflict in Africa
Interview with William Cavanaugh


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religious persecution and discrimination



























































































  


Categories: Religion and violence
Dispute resolution

















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Català
Eesti
Español
فارسی
Italiano
Simple English
Slovenčina
Suomi
தமிழ்
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 28 May 2015, at 23:25.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence









Christianity and violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




 The Crusades were a series of military campaigns fought mainly between European Christians and Muslims. Shown here is a battle scene from the First Crusade.
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Christianity has holy texts and traditions that promote violence as well as love, and Christian institutions and individuals have acted violently as well as peacefully.[1] The relationship between Christianity and violence is the subject of controversy because some of its teachings advocate peace, love, and compassion, whereas other teachings have been used to justify violence and hatred.[2][3][4]


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition of violence
2 Religion and violence
3 Bible and violence
4 Christian violence 4.1 Holy war
4.2 Christian terrorism
4.3 Forced conversions
4.4 Support of slavery
4.5 Violence against Jews
5 Christian opposition to violence
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
9 Further reading

Definition of violence[edit]
Abhijit Nayak writes that:

The word "violence" can be defined to extend far beyond pain and shedding blood. It carries the meaning of physical force, violent language, fury and, more importantly, forcible interference.[5]
Terence Fretheim writes:

For many people, ... only physical violence truly qualifies as violence. But, certainly, violence is more than killing people, unless one includes all those words and actions that kill people slowly. The effect of limitation to a “killing fields” perspective is the widespread neglect of many other forms of violence. We must insist that violence also refers to that which is psychologically destructive, that which demeans, damages, or depersonalizes others. In view of these considerations, violence may be defined as follows: any action, verbal or nonverbal, oral or written, physical or psychical, active or passive, public or private, individual or institutional/societal, human or divine, in whatever degree of intensity, that abuses, violates, injures, or kills. Some of the most pervasive and most dangerous forms of violence are those that are often hidden from view (against women and children, especially); just beneath the surface in many of our homes, churches, and communities is abuse enough to freeze the blood. Moreover, many forms of systemic violence often slip past our attention because they are so much a part of the infrastructure of life (e.g., racism, sexism, ageism).[6]
Heitman and Hagan identify the Inquisition, Crusades, Wars of Religion and antisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence".[7] To this list, J. Denny Weaver adds, "warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men." Weaver employs a broader definition of violence that extends the meaning of the word to cover "harm or damage", not just physical violence per se. Thus, under his definition, Christian violence includes "forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism."[8]
Religion and violence[edit]
Main article: Religious violence



Having Their Fling (1917) by Art Young
Religious critic Christopher Hitchens has argued that all religions promote violence; namely that religions have sometimes used war, violence, and terrorism to promote their religious goals, that religious leaders have contributed to secular wars and terrorism by endorsing or supporting the violence, and that religious fervor has been exploited by secular leaders to support war and terrorism.[9][page needed][10][page needed]
Regina Schwartz, scholar of religion and English, has written that religions that promote exclusivity inevitably foster violence against those who are considered outsiders.[11][page needed]

Miroslav Volf says that his religion, Christianity, is intrinsically nonviolent, but has suffered from a "confusion of loyalties". He proposes that "rather than the character of the Christian faith itself, a better explanation of why Christian churches are either impotent in the face of violent conflicts or actively participate in them derives from the proclivities of its adherents which are at odds with the character of the Christian faith." He believes that "(although) explicitly giving ultimate allegiance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, many Christians in fact seem to have an overriding commitment to their respective cultures and ethnic groups."[12]
John Teehan says that "this approach to religious violence may be understandable but it is ultimately untenable and prevents us from gaining any useful insight into either religion or religious violence." He takes the position that "violence done in the name of religion is not a perversion of religious belief... but flows naturally from the moral logic inherent in many religious systems, particularly monotheistic religions..." However, Teehan acknowledges that "religions are also powerful sources of morality." He asserts that "religious morality and religious violence both spring from the same source, and this is the evolutionary psychology underlying religious ethics."[13]
Bible and violence[edit]
Main article: Bible and violence
Ra'anan S. Boustan states that "(v)iolence can be found throughout the pages of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament."[14] Philip Jenkins describes the Bible as overflowing with "texts of terror".[15]
Supersessionist Christians focus on violence in the Old Testament while ignoring or giving little attention to violence in the New Testament.[16]
Christian violence[edit]



I Believe in the Sword and Almighty God (1914) by Boardman Robinson
Among common examples of violence in Christianity, J. Denny Weaver lists "(the) crusades, the multiple blessings of wars, warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men".[17] In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[18]
Miroslav Volf has identified the intervention of a "new creation", as in the Second Coming, as a particular aspect of Christianity that generates violence.[2] Writing about the latter, Volf says: "Beginning at least with Constantine's conversion, the followers of the Crucified have perpetrated gruesome acts of violence under the sign of the cross. Over the centuries, the seasons of Lent and Holy Week were, for the Jews, times of fear and trepidation; Christians have perpetrated some of the worst pogroms as they remembered the crucifixion of Christ, for which they blamed the Jews. Muslims also associate the cross with violence; crusaders' rampages were undertaken under the sign of the cross."[19]
The statement attributed to Jesus "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by some as a call to arms for Christians.[20] Mark Juergensmeyer argues that "despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity—like most traditions—has always had a violent side. The bloody history of the tradition has provided images as disturbing as those provided by Islam or Sikhism, and violent conflict is vividly portrayed in the Bible. This history and these biblical images have provided the raw material for theologically justifying the violence of contemporary Christian groups. For example, attacks on abortion clinics have been viewed not only as assaults on a practice that Christians regard as immoral, but also as skirmishes in a grand confrontation between forces of evil and good that has social and political implications."[20]:19–20, sometimes referred to as Spiritual warfare.
Historically, according to René Girard, Christianity embraced violence when it became the state religion of Rome: "Beginning with Constantine, Christianity triumphed at the level of the state and soon began to cloak with its authority persecutions similar to those in which the early Christians were victims."[21]
Holy war[edit]
Main article: Just war theory
Further information: Holy war § Christianity



 Saint Augustine of Hippo, a seminal thinker on the concept of just war
The Biblical account of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho has been used to justify genocidal Holy war, including war waged on one Christian sect by another.[22]:3 Chirot also interprets 1 Samuel 15:1-3 as "the sentiment, so clearly expressed, that because a historical wrong was committed, justice demands genocidal retribution."[22]:7–8 Just war theory, on the other hand, is a doctrine of military ethics of Roman philosophical and Catholic origin[23][24] studied by moral theologians, ethicists, and international policy makers, that holds that a conflict can and ought to meet the criteria of philosophical, religious or political justice, provided it follows certain conditions.
In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II declared that some wars could be deemed as not only a bellum iustum ("just war"), but could, in certain cases, rise to the level of a bellum sacrum (holy war).[25] Jill Claster characterizes this as a "remarkable transformation in the ideology of war", shifting the justification of war from being not only "just" but "spiritually beneficial".[26] Thomas Murphy examined the Christian concept of Holy War, asking "how a culture formally dedicated to fulfilling the injunction to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' could move to a point where it sanctioned the use of violence against the alien both outside and inside society". The religious sanctioning of the concept of "holy war" was a turning point in Christian attitudes towards violence; "Pope Gregory VII made the Holy War possible by drastically altering the attitude of the church towards war... Hitherto a knight could obtain remission of sins only by giving up arms, but Urban invited him to gain forgiveness 'in and through the exercise of his martial skills'." A holy war was defined by the Roman Catholic Church as "war that is not only just, but justifying; that is, a war that confers positive spiritual merit on those who fight in it".[27][28]
In the 12th century, Bernard of Clairvaux wrote: "'The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls.... When he inflicts death, it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain."[29]



Forward with God! (1915) by Boardman Robinson
In Ulrich Luz's formulation; "After Constantine, the Christians too had a responsibility for war and peace. Already Celsus asked bitterly whether Christians, by aloofness from society, wanted to increase the political power of wild and lawless barbarians. His question constituted a new actuality; from now on, Christians and churches had to choose between the testimony of the gospel, which included renunciation of violence, and responsible participation in political power, which was understood as an act of love toward the world." Augustine's Epistle to Marcellinus (Ep 138) is the most influential example of the "new type of interpretation."[30]
Just war theorists combine both a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid to determining whether resorting to arms is morally permissible. Just War theories are attempts "to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces"; they attempt "to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice."[31]
The just war tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force (the concern of jus ad bellum) and what is acceptable in using such force (the concern of jus in bello).[32] In more recent years, a third category — jus post bellum — has been added, which governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the prosecution of war criminals.
The concept of justification for war under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero.[33] However its importance is connected to Christian medieval theory beginning from Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.[34] According to Jared Diamond, Saint Augustine played a critical role in delineating Christian thinking about what constitutes a just war, and about how to reconcile Christian teachings of peace with the need for war in certain situations.[35]
Jonathan Riley Smith writes,

The consensus among Christians on the use of violence has changed radically since the crusades were fought. The just war theory prevailing for most of the last two centuries — that violence is an evil which can in certain situations be condoned as the lesser of evils — is relatively young. Although it has inherited some elements (the criteria of legitimate authority, just cause, right intention) from the older war theory that first evolved around a.d. 400, it has rejected two premises that underpinned all medieval just wars, including crusades: first, that violence could be employed on behalf of Christ's intentions for mankind and could even be directly authorized by him; and second, that it was a morally neutral force which drew whatever ethical coloring it had from the intentions of the perpetrators.[36]
W.E. Addis et al. have written that Christianity has always had a place for violence: "There have been sects, notably the Quakers, which have denied altogether the lawfulness of war, partly because they believe it to be prohibited by Christ (Mt. v. 39, etc), partly on humanitarian grounds. On the Scriptural ground they are easily refuted; the case of the soldiers instructed by in their duties by St. John the Baptist, and that of the military men whom Christ and His Apostles loved and familiarly conversed with (Lk 3:14, Acts 10, Mt 8:5), without a word to imply that their calling was unlawful, sufficiently prove the point."[37]
Christian terrorism[edit]
Main article: Christian terrorism
Christian terrorism' comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who use Christian motivations or goals for their actions. As with other forms of religious terrorism, Christian terrorists have relied on interpretations of the tenets of faith – in this case, the Bible. Such groups have cited Old Testament and New Testament scriptures to justify violence and killing or to seek to bring about the "end times" described in the New Testament.[38]
Forced conversions[edit]
Main article: Forcible conversion to Christianity
After the Constantinian shift, Christianity became entangled with government. While anthropologists have shown that throughout history the relationship between religion and politics has been complex, there is no doubt that religious institutions, including Christian ones, have been used coercively by governments, and have themselves used coercion.[39] Examples include: during the Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I,[40] forced conversions of pagan tribes in medieval Europe,[41] the Inquisition, including its manifestations in Goa, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain, forced conversion of indigenous children in North American[42] and Australia,[43] and, since 1992, against Hindus in Northeast India.[44]
Support of slavery[edit]
Main article: Criticism of Christianity § Slavery
Early Christianity variously opposed, accepted, or ignored slavery.[45] The early Christian perspectives of slavery were formed in the contexts of Christianity's roots in Judaism, and as part of the wider culture of the Roman Empire. Both the Old and New Testaments recognize that the institution of slavery existed.
The earliest surviving Christian teachings about slavery are from Paul the Apostle, who frequently referred to himself as a "Slave of Christ", perhaps implying that he was a slave and Jesus was his master, although it may have just been an expression. Paul did not renounce the institution of slavery. Conversely, he taught that Christian slaves ought to serve their masters wholeheartedly.[Eph. 6:5-8]
Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century recognised slavery, within specific Biblical limitations, as consistent with Christian theology. In early Medieval times, the Church discouraged slavery throughout Europe, largely eliminating it.[46] That changed in 1452, when Pope Nicholas V instituted the hereditary slavery of captured Muslims and pagans, regarding all non-Christians as "enemy of christ."[47]
Genesis 9:25-27, the Curse of Ham, says: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem." This verse has been used to justify racialized slavery, since "Christians and even some Muslims eventually identified Ham's descendents as black Africans".[48][45] Anthony Pagden argued that "This reading of the Book of Genesis merged easily into a medieval iconographic tradition in which devils were always depicted as black. Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an unassailable argument—rooted in whatever the most persuasive contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or natural science—why one part of the human race should live in perpetual indebtedness to another."[49]
Rodney Stark makes the argument in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,[50] that Christianity helped to end slavery worldwide, as does Lamin Sanneh in Abolitionists Abroad.[51] These authors point out that Christians who viewed slavery as wrong on the basis of their religious convictions spearheaded abolitionism, and many of the early campaigners for the abolition of slavery were driven by their Christian faith and a desire to realize their view that all people are equal under God.[52]
Many modern Christians are united in the condemnation of slavery as wrong and contrary to God's will. Only peripheral groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and other Christian hate groups on the racist fringes of the Christian Reconstructionist and Christian Identity movements advocate the reinstitution of slavery.[45] Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[53][54][55] With these exceptions, all Christian faith groups now condemn slavery, and see the practice as incompatible with basic Christian principles.[45][46]
Violence against Jews[edit]
Main article: Christian antisemitism
A strain of hostility among Christians to Judaism and the Jewish people developed from the early years of Christianity and persisted over the ensuing centuries, driven by numerous factors including theological differences, the Christian drive for converts[56] decreed by the Great Commission, misunderstanding of Jewish beliefs and practices, and a perceived Jewish hostility toward Christians, and culminated in the Holocaust, which has driven many within Christianity to reflect on the relationship between theology, practices, and that genocide.[57]
These attitudes were reinforced in Christian preaching, art and popular teaching over the centuries containing contempt for Jews.[58]
Modern Antisemitism has been described as primarily hatred against Jews as a race with its modern expression rooted in 18th century racial theories, while anti-Judaism is described as hostility to Jewish religion, but in Western Christianity it effectively merged into antisemitism during the 12th century.[59]
Christian opposition to violence[edit]
Main articles: Christian pacifism and Peace churches
Historian Roland Bainton described the early church as pacifist - a period that ended with the accession of Constantine.[60]
In the first few centuries of Christianity, many Christians refused to engage in military combat. In fact, there were a number of famous examples of soldiers who became Christians and refused to engage in combat afterward. They were subsequently executed for their refusal to fight.[61] The commitment to pacifism and rejection of military service is attributed by Allman and Allman to two principles: "(1) the use of force (violence) was seen as antithetical to Jesus' teachings and service in the Roman military required worship of the emperor as a god which was a form of idolatry."[62]



The Deserter by Boardman Robinson, The Masses, 1916
In the 3rd century, Origen wrote: "Christians could never slay their enemies. For the more that kings, rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more Christians have increased in number and grown in strength."[63] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins."[64][65] Tertullian argued forcefully against all forms of violence, considering abortion, warfare and even judicial death penalties to be forms of murder.[66][67]



 The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., a prominent advocate of Christian nonviolence
Pacifist and violence-resisting traditions have continued into contemporary times.[68][69][70]
Several present-day Christian churches and communities were established specifically with nonviolence, including conscientious objection to military service, as foundations of their beliefs.[71]
In the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr. adapted the nonviolent ideas of Gandhi to a Baptist theology and politics.[72]
In the 21st century, Christian feminist thinkers have drawn attention to opposing violence against women.[73]

See also[edit]
Christofascism
Crusades
Heresy
Moral absolutism
Religious intolerance
Medieval inquisition
Persecution of traditional African religion
Christianity and capital punishment
Christians in the military
Christianity and domestic violence
God's Army (revolutionary group)
Iron Guard
Islam and violence
Islamic terrorism
Jewish terrorism
Lord's Resistance Army
Mormonism and violence
National-Christian Defense League
Religious hate groups
Religious terrorism
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Selengut, Charles (2008-04-28). Sacred fury: understanding religious violence. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-7425-6084-0.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Volf, Miroslav (2008). "Christianity and Violence". In Hess, Richard S.; Martens, E.A. War in the Bible and terrorism in the twenty-first century. Eisenbrauns. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-1-57506-803-9. Retrieved June 1, 2010.
3.Jump up ^ Avalos, Hector (2005). Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
4.Jump up ^ Schwartz, Regina M. (1997). The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. The University of Chicago Press.
5.Jump up ^ Nayak, Abhijit (July–October 2008). "Crusade Violence: Understanding and Overcoming the Impact of Mission Among Muslims". International Review of Mission (World Council of Churches) 97 (386–387): 273–291. doi:10.1111/j.1758-6631.2008.tb00645.x. Retrieved 2012-11-27.
6.Jump up ^ Freitheim, Terence (Winter 2004). "God and Violence in the Old Testament" (PDF). Word & World 24 (1). Retrieved 2010-11-21.
7.Jump up ^ International encyclopedia of violence research, Volume 2. Springer. 2003.
8.Jump up ^ J. Denny Weaver (2001). "Violence in Christian Theology". Cross Currents. Retrieved 2010-10-27. "I am using broad definitions of the terms "violence" and "nonviolence." "Violence" means harm or damage, which obviously includes the direct violence of killing -- in war, capital punishment, murder -- but also covers the range of forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism. "Nonviolence" also covers a spectrum of attitudes and actions, from the classic Mennonite idea of passive nonresistance through active nonviolence and nonviolent resistance that would include various kinds of social action, confrontations and posing of alternatives that do not do bodily harm or injury."
9.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great. Twelve.
10.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Books.
11.Jump up ^ The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism By Regina M. Schwartz. University of Chicago Press. 1998.
12.Jump up ^ Volf, Miroslav. "The Social Meaning of Reconciliation" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-17.
13.Jump up ^ Teehan, John (2010). In the Name of God: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Ethics and Violence. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 145–147.
14.Jump up ^ Boustan, Ra'anan S. (2010). Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity. BRILL.
15.Jump up ^ Jenkins, Philip (March 8, 2009). "Dark Passages". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2010-11-26. "the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. … If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery."
16.Jump up ^ Gibson, Leigh; Matthews, Shelly (2005). Violence in the New Testament. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 3.
17.Jump up ^ J. Denny Weaver (2001). "Violence in Christian Theology". Cross Currents. Retrieved 2010-10-27.
18.Jump up ^ see e.g.: John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p.22
19.Jump up ^ Volf 2008, p. 13
20.^ Jump up to: a b Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24011-1.
21.Jump up ^ Girard, Rene. The Scapegoat. p. 204.
22.^ Jump up to: a b Daniel Chirot. Why Some Wars Become Genocidal and Others Don't (PDF). Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington.[dead link]
23.Jump up ^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ The first philosophers of just war were Aristotle and Cicero, and the first theologians St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas
24.Jump up ^ "Just War Theory [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]". Iep.utm.edu. 2009-02-10. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
25.Jump up ^ "Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ".
26.Jump up ^ Claster, Jill N. (2009). Sacred violence: the European crusades to the Middle East, 1095-1396. University of Toronto Press. pp. xvii–xviii. ISBN 978-1-4426-0060-7.
27.Jump up ^ E. Randolph Daniel; Murphy, Thomas Patrick (1978). "The Holy War (review)". Speculum 53 (3): 602–603. doi:10.2307/2855169. JSTOR 2855169.
28.Jump up ^ Thomas Patrick Murphy, editor (1976). The holy war. Conference on Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Ohio State University Press.
29.Jump up ^ Bernard of Clairvaux, In Praise Of The New Knighthood, ca. 1135
30.Jump up ^ Ulrich Luz, Matthew in History, Fortress Press, 1994, p26-27
31.Jump up ^ "JustWarTheory.com". JustWarTheory.com. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
32.Jump up ^ "Home > Publications >". Eppc.org. 1998-09-01. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
33.Jump up ^ "Religion & Ethics - Just War Theory -introduction". BBC. Retrieved 2010-03-16.[dead link]
34.Jump up ^ Christians and War: Thomas Aquinas refines the "Just War" Theory[dead link]
35.Jump up ^ Diamond, Jared (2008). 1000 Events That Shaped the World. National Geographic Society. p. 74. ISBN 1-4262-0314-4.
36.Jump up ^ Smith, Jonathan R. "Rethinking the Crusades". Catholic Education Resource Center.
37.Jump up ^ War, A Catholic Dictionary: Containing some Account of the Doctrine, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Councils, and Religious Orders of the Catholic Church, W. E Addis, T. Arnold, Revised T. B Scannell and P. E Hallett, 15th Edition, Virtue & Co, 1953, Nihil Obstat: Reginaldus Philips, Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, 2 October 1950, "In the Name of God : Violence and Destruction in the World's Religions", M. Jordan, 2006, p. 40
38.Jump up ^ B. Hoffman, "Inside Terrorism", Columbia University Press, 1999, pp. 105–120. ISBN 978-0231126991
39.Jump up ^ Firth, Raymond (1981) Spiritual Aroma: Religion and Politics. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 582–601
40.Jump up ^ "Paganism and Rome". Penelope.uchicago.edu. Retrieved 2012-11-13.
41.Jump up ^ Bernard Hamilton, The Crusades, Sutton Publishing, United Kingdom, 1998. See Chapter 9: Later Crusades
42.Jump up ^ "Soul Wound: The Legacy of Native American Schools". Amnesty International USA. Retrieved February 8, 2006.
43.Jump up ^ Read, Peter (1981). The Stolen Generations:(bringing them home) The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969 (PDF). Department of Aboriginal Affairs (New South Wales government). ISBN 0-646-46221-0.
44.Jump up ^ Bhaumik, Subhir (April 18, 2000). "'Church backing Tripura rebels'". BBC News. Retrieved 2006-08-26.
45.^ Jump up to: a b c d Robinson, B. A. (2006). "Christianity and slavery". Retrieved 2007-01-03.
46.^ Jump up to: a b Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
47.Jump up ^ "Africans and Native Americans", by Jack D. Forbes, p.27
48.Jump up ^ Curp, T. David. "A Necessary Bondage? When the Church Endorsed Slavery".
49.Jump up ^ Pagden, Anthony (1997-12-22). "The Slave Trade, Review of Hugh Thomas' Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade". The New Republic.
50.Jump up ^ Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery ISBN 978-0-691-11436-1 (2003)
51.Jump up ^ Lamin Sanneh, Abolitionists Abroad: American Blacks and the Making of Modern West Africa, Harvard University Press ISBN 978-0-674-00718-5 (2001)
52.Jump up ^ Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
53.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
54.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
55.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
56.Jump up ^ Nancy Calvert Koyzis (2004). Paul, monotheism and the people of God : the significance of Abraham traditions for early Judaism and Christianity. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0-567-08378-0.
57.Jump up ^ Heschel, Susannah, The Aryan Jesus: Christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, p. 20, Princeton University Press, 2008
58.Jump up ^ http://jcpa.org/article/the-origins-of-christian-anti-semitism/
59.Jump up ^ "After the evil: Christianity and Judaism in the shadow of the Holocaust", Richard Harries, p. 16, Oxford University Press, 2003
60.Jump up ^ Roland Bainton, quoted in Robin Gill, A Textbook of Christian Ethics, 3rd ed, Continuum, 2006, ISBN 0-567-03112-8, p. 194.
61.Jump up ^ "No known Christian author from the first centuries approved of Christian participation in battle; citations advocating pacifism are found in → Tertullian, → Origen, Lactantius, and others, and in the testimonies of the martyrs Maximilian and Marcellus, who were executed for refusing to serve in the Roman army. Grounds for opposition to military service included fear of idolatry and the oath of loyalty to Caesar, as well as the basic objection to shedding blood on the battlefield.", Fahlbusch, E., & Bromiley, G. W. (2005). Vol. 4: The encyclopedia of Christianity (2). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill.
62.Jump up ^ Allman, Mark; Allman, Mark J. (2008). Who Would Jesus Kill?: War, Peace, and the Christian Tradition. Saint Mary's Press.
63.Jump up ^ Origen: Contra Celsus, Book 7 (Roberts-Donaldson)
64.Jump up ^ The Early Church on Violence « Rachel Stanton
65.Jump up ^ Clement of Alexandria: Fragments
66.Jump up ^ Osborn, Eric (2003). Tertullian, First Theologian of the West. Cambridge University Press. p. 230. ISBN 978-0-521-52495-7. "Tertullian rejects all violence, even killing by soldiers or by courts of law, any form of abortion, and even attendance at the amphitheatre."
67.Jump up ^ Nicholson, Helen J. (2004). Medieval warfare: theory and practice of war in Europe, 300-1500. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 24. "At the beginning of the third century, Tertullian recorded that some Christians did fight, but indicated that he did not approve. He argued that God's command not to fight overrode Paul's command to obey the authorities that God had appointed. Tertullian observed that one of the last words of Christ before he was led away to be crucified was when he instructed Simon Peter to put away his sword."
68.Jump up ^ "Members of several small Christian sects who try to literally follow the precepts of Jesus Christ have refused to participate in military service in many nations and have been willing to suffer the criminal or civil penalties that followed."Encyclopædia Britannica 2004 CD Rom Edition — Pacifism.
69.Jump up ^ Evangelium Vitae
70.Jump up ^ Orthodoxy and Capital Punishment
71.Jump up ^ Speicher, Sara and Durnbaugh, Donald F. (2003), Ecumenical Dictionary:Historic Peace Churches
72.Jump up ^ King, Jr., Martin Luther; Clayborne Carson; Peter Holloran; Ralph Luker; Penny A. Russell (1992). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-07950-7.
73.Jump up ^ Hood, Helen (2003). "Speaking Out and Doing Justice: It’s No Longer a Secret but What are the Churches Doing about Overcoming Violence against Women?" (PDF). EBSCO Publishing. pp. 216–225. Retrieved May 19, 2010.[dead link]
References[edit]
Avalos, Hector. Fighting Words. The Origins of Religious Violence. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005.
Schwartz, Regina M. The Curse of Cain. The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.
Further reading[edit]
Bekkenkamp, Jonneke and Sherwood, Yvonne, ed. Sanctified Aggression. Legacies of Biblical and Postbiblical Vocabularies of Violence. London/New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2003.
Collins, John J. Does the Bible Justify Violence? Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.
Hedges, Chris. 2007. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. Free Press.
Lea, Henry Charles. 1961. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages. Abridged. New York: Macmillan.
MacMullen, Ramsay, 1989 "Christianizing the Roman Empire: AD 100-400"
MacMullen, Ramsay, 1997, "Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries"
Mason, Carol. 2002. Killing for Life: The Apocalyptic Narrative of Pro-Life Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
McTernan, Oliver J. 2003. Violence in God's name: religion in an age of conflict. Orbis Books.
Thiery, Daniel E. Polluting the Sacred: Violence, Faith and the Civilizing of Parishioners in Late Medieval England. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Tyerman, Christopher. 2006. God's War: A New History of the Crusades. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap.
Zeskind, Leonard. 1987. The ‘Christian Identity’ Movement, [booklet]. Atlanta, Georgia: Center for Democratic Renewal/Division of Church and Society, National Council of Churches.
Robert Spencer (author) Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, Regnery Publishing, 2007, ISBN 1-59698-515-1
Rodney Stark God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, HarperOne, 2010,


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam ·
 Jainism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Judaism ·
 Latter Day Saint movement ·
 Monotheism ·
 Catholic ·
 Scientology ·
 Seventh-day Adventist ·
 Sikhism ·
 Twelver Shi’ism ·
 Unification Church
 

Religious texts
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 

Religious figures
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Charles Taze Russell ·
 Ellen White
 

Religion and violence
Violence ·
 Terrorism ·
 Persecution ·
 War ·
 Sectarian violence ·
 Christianity ·
 Mormonism ·
 Judaism ·
 Islam ·
 India
 

Books
Atheist Manifesto ·
 Christianity Unveiled ·
 God in the Age of Science? ·
 God Is Not Great ·
 Letter to a Christian Nation ·
 The Age of Reason ·
 The End of Faith ·
 The God Delusion ·
 The Rage Against God ·
 Why I Am Not a Christian ·
 Why I Am Not a Muslim
 

Movements
Antitheism ·
 Atheism ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Cārvāka ·
 Church of the SubGenius ·
 Flying Spaghetti Monster ·
 Invisible Pink Unicorn ·
 Nontheistic religions
 

People
Dan Barker ·
 George Carlin ·
 Pat Condell ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Daniel Dennett ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Sigmund Freud ·
 Annie Laurie Gaylor ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Walter Kaufman ·
 Bill Maher ·
 Karl Marx ·
 PZ Myers ·
 Taslima Nasrin ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Madalyn Murray O'Hair ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Penn & Teller ·
 Periyar E. V. Ramasamy ·
 Herman Philipse ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 James Randi ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Carl Sagan ·
 André Servier ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Michael Shermer ·
 David Silverman ·
 Robert Spencer ·
 Greydon Square ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Socrates ·
 Mark Twain ·
 Voltaire ·
 Ibn Warraq ·
 Frank Zappa
 

  


Categories: Christian ethics
Christianity and violence








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
فارسی
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 4 June 2015, at 11:03.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence









Christianity and violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




 The Crusades were a series of military campaigns fought mainly between European Christians and Muslims. Shown here is a battle scene from the First Crusade.
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Christianity has holy texts and traditions that promote violence as well as love, and Christian institutions and individuals have acted violently as well as peacefully.[1] The relationship between Christianity and violence is the subject of controversy because some of its teachings advocate peace, love, and compassion, whereas other teachings have been used to justify violence and hatred.[2][3][4]


Contents  [hide]
1 Definition of violence
2 Religion and violence
3 Bible and violence
4 Christian violence 4.1 Holy war
4.2 Christian terrorism
4.3 Forced conversions
4.4 Support of slavery
4.5 Violence against Jews
5 Christian opposition to violence
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
9 Further reading

Definition of violence[edit]
Abhijit Nayak writes that:

The word "violence" can be defined to extend far beyond pain and shedding blood. It carries the meaning of physical force, violent language, fury and, more importantly, forcible interference.[5]
Terence Fretheim writes:

For many people, ... only physical violence truly qualifies as violence. But, certainly, violence is more than killing people, unless one includes all those words and actions that kill people slowly. The effect of limitation to a “killing fields” perspective is the widespread neglect of many other forms of violence. We must insist that violence also refers to that which is psychologically destructive, that which demeans, damages, or depersonalizes others. In view of these considerations, violence may be defined as follows: any action, verbal or nonverbal, oral or written, physical or psychical, active or passive, public or private, individual or institutional/societal, human or divine, in whatever degree of intensity, that abuses, violates, injures, or kills. Some of the most pervasive and most dangerous forms of violence are those that are often hidden from view (against women and children, especially); just beneath the surface in many of our homes, churches, and communities is abuse enough to freeze the blood. Moreover, many forms of systemic violence often slip past our attention because they are so much a part of the infrastructure of life (e.g., racism, sexism, ageism).[6]
Heitman and Hagan identify the Inquisition, Crusades, Wars of Religion and antisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence".[7] To this list, J. Denny Weaver adds, "warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men." Weaver employs a broader definition of violence that extends the meaning of the word to cover "harm or damage", not just physical violence per se. Thus, under his definition, Christian violence includes "forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism."[8]
Religion and violence[edit]
Main article: Religious violence



Having Their Fling (1917) by Art Young
Religious critic Christopher Hitchens has argued that all religions promote violence; namely that religions have sometimes used war, violence, and terrorism to promote their religious goals, that religious leaders have contributed to secular wars and terrorism by endorsing or supporting the violence, and that religious fervor has been exploited by secular leaders to support war and terrorism.[9][page needed][10][page needed]
Regina Schwartz, scholar of religion and English, has written that religions that promote exclusivity inevitably foster violence against those who are considered outsiders.[11][page needed]

Miroslav Volf says that his religion, Christianity, is intrinsically nonviolent, but has suffered from a "confusion of loyalties". He proposes that "rather than the character of the Christian faith itself, a better explanation of why Christian churches are either impotent in the face of violent conflicts or actively participate in them derives from the proclivities of its adherents which are at odds with the character of the Christian faith." He believes that "(although) explicitly giving ultimate allegiance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, many Christians in fact seem to have an overriding commitment to their respective cultures and ethnic groups."[12]
John Teehan says that "this approach to religious violence may be understandable but it is ultimately untenable and prevents us from gaining any useful insight into either religion or religious violence." He takes the position that "violence done in the name of religion is not a perversion of religious belief... but flows naturally from the moral logic inherent in many religious systems, particularly monotheistic religions..." However, Teehan acknowledges that "religions are also powerful sources of morality." He asserts that "religious morality and religious violence both spring from the same source, and this is the evolutionary psychology underlying religious ethics."[13]
Bible and violence[edit]
Main article: Bible and violence
Ra'anan S. Boustan states that "(v)iolence can be found throughout the pages of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament."[14] Philip Jenkins describes the Bible as overflowing with "texts of terror".[15]
Supersessionist Christians focus on violence in the Old Testament while ignoring or giving little attention to violence in the New Testament.[16]
Christian violence[edit]



I Believe in the Sword and Almighty God (1914) by Boardman Robinson
Among common examples of violence in Christianity, J. Denny Weaver lists "(the) crusades, the multiple blessings of wars, warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men".[17] In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[18]
Miroslav Volf has identified the intervention of a "new creation", as in the Second Coming, as a particular aspect of Christianity that generates violence.[2] Writing about the latter, Volf says: "Beginning at least with Constantine's conversion, the followers of the Crucified have perpetrated gruesome acts of violence under the sign of the cross. Over the centuries, the seasons of Lent and Holy Week were, for the Jews, times of fear and trepidation; Christians have perpetrated some of the worst pogroms as they remembered the crucifixion of Christ, for which they blamed the Jews. Muslims also associate the cross with violence; crusaders' rampages were undertaken under the sign of the cross."[19]
The statement attributed to Jesus "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by some as a call to arms for Christians.[20] Mark Juergensmeyer argues that "despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity—like most traditions—has always had a violent side. The bloody history of the tradition has provided images as disturbing as those provided by Islam or Sikhism, and violent conflict is vividly portrayed in the Bible. This history and these biblical images have provided the raw material for theologically justifying the violence of contemporary Christian groups. For example, attacks on abortion clinics have been viewed not only as assaults on a practice that Christians regard as immoral, but also as skirmishes in a grand confrontation between forces of evil and good that has social and political implications."[20]:19–20, sometimes referred to as Spiritual warfare.
Historically, according to René Girard, Christianity embraced violence when it became the state religion of Rome: "Beginning with Constantine, Christianity triumphed at the level of the state and soon began to cloak with its authority persecutions similar to those in which the early Christians were victims."[21]
Holy war[edit]
Main article: Just war theory
Further information: Holy war § Christianity



 Saint Augustine of Hippo, a seminal thinker on the concept of just war
The Biblical account of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho has been used to justify genocidal Holy war, including war waged on one Christian sect by another.[22]:3 Chirot also interprets 1 Samuel 15:1-3 as "the sentiment, so clearly expressed, that because a historical wrong was committed, justice demands genocidal retribution."[22]:7–8 Just war theory, on the other hand, is a doctrine of military ethics of Roman philosophical and Catholic origin[23][24] studied by moral theologians, ethicists, and international policy makers, that holds that a conflict can and ought to meet the criteria of philosophical, religious or political justice, provided it follows certain conditions.
In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II declared that some wars could be deemed as not only a bellum iustum ("just war"), but could, in certain cases, rise to the level of a bellum sacrum (holy war).[25] Jill Claster characterizes this as a "remarkable transformation in the ideology of war", shifting the justification of war from being not only "just" but "spiritually beneficial".[26] Thomas Murphy examined the Christian concept of Holy War, asking "how a culture formally dedicated to fulfilling the injunction to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' could move to a point where it sanctioned the use of violence against the alien both outside and inside society". The religious sanctioning of the concept of "holy war" was a turning point in Christian attitudes towards violence; "Pope Gregory VII made the Holy War possible by drastically altering the attitude of the church towards war... Hitherto a knight could obtain remission of sins only by giving up arms, but Urban invited him to gain forgiveness 'in and through the exercise of his martial skills'." A holy war was defined by the Roman Catholic Church as "war that is not only just, but justifying; that is, a war that confers positive spiritual merit on those who fight in it".[27][28]
In the 12th century, Bernard of Clairvaux wrote: "'The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls.... When he inflicts death, it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain."[29]



Forward with God! (1915) by Boardman Robinson
In Ulrich Luz's formulation; "After Constantine, the Christians too had a responsibility for war and peace. Already Celsus asked bitterly whether Christians, by aloofness from society, wanted to increase the political power of wild and lawless barbarians. His question constituted a new actuality; from now on, Christians and churches had to choose between the testimony of the gospel, which included renunciation of violence, and responsible participation in political power, which was understood as an act of love toward the world." Augustine's Epistle to Marcellinus (Ep 138) is the most influential example of the "new type of interpretation."[30]
Just war theorists combine both a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid to determining whether resorting to arms is morally permissible. Just War theories are attempts "to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces"; they attempt "to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice."[31]
The just war tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force (the concern of jus ad bellum) and what is acceptable in using such force (the concern of jus in bello).[32] In more recent years, a third category — jus post bellum — has been added, which governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the prosecution of war criminals.
The concept of justification for war under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero.[33] However its importance is connected to Christian medieval theory beginning from Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.[34] According to Jared Diamond, Saint Augustine played a critical role in delineating Christian thinking about what constitutes a just war, and about how to reconcile Christian teachings of peace with the need for war in certain situations.[35]
Jonathan Riley Smith writes,

The consensus among Christians on the use of violence has changed radically since the crusades were fought. The just war theory prevailing for most of the last two centuries — that violence is an evil which can in certain situations be condoned as the lesser of evils — is relatively young. Although it has inherited some elements (the criteria of legitimate authority, just cause, right intention) from the older war theory that first evolved around a.d. 400, it has rejected two premises that underpinned all medieval just wars, including crusades: first, that violence could be employed on behalf of Christ's intentions for mankind and could even be directly authorized by him; and second, that it was a morally neutral force which drew whatever ethical coloring it had from the intentions of the perpetrators.[36]
W.E. Addis et al. have written that Christianity has always had a place for violence: "There have been sects, notably the Quakers, which have denied altogether the lawfulness of war, partly because they believe it to be prohibited by Christ (Mt. v. 39, etc), partly on humanitarian grounds. On the Scriptural ground they are easily refuted; the case of the soldiers instructed by in their duties by St. John the Baptist, and that of the military men whom Christ and His Apostles loved and familiarly conversed with (Lk 3:14, Acts 10, Mt 8:5), without a word to imply that their calling was unlawful, sufficiently prove the point."[37]
Christian terrorism[edit]
Main article: Christian terrorism
Christian terrorism' comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who use Christian motivations or goals for their actions. As with other forms of religious terrorism, Christian terrorists have relied on interpretations of the tenets of faith – in this case, the Bible. Such groups have cited Old Testament and New Testament scriptures to justify violence and killing or to seek to bring about the "end times" described in the New Testament.[38]
Forced conversions[edit]
Main article: Forcible conversion to Christianity
After the Constantinian shift, Christianity became entangled with government. While anthropologists have shown that throughout history the relationship between religion and politics has been complex, there is no doubt that religious institutions, including Christian ones, have been used coercively by governments, and have themselves used coercion.[39] Examples include: during the Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I,[40] forced conversions of pagan tribes in medieval Europe,[41] the Inquisition, including its manifestations in Goa, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain, forced conversion of indigenous children in North American[42] and Australia,[43] and, since 1992, against Hindus in Northeast India.[44]
Support of slavery[edit]
Main article: Criticism of Christianity § Slavery
Early Christianity variously opposed, accepted, or ignored slavery.[45] The early Christian perspectives of slavery were formed in the contexts of Christianity's roots in Judaism, and as part of the wider culture of the Roman Empire. Both the Old and New Testaments recognize that the institution of slavery existed.
The earliest surviving Christian teachings about slavery are from Paul the Apostle, who frequently referred to himself as a "Slave of Christ", perhaps implying that he was a slave and Jesus was his master, although it may have just been an expression. Paul did not renounce the institution of slavery. Conversely, he taught that Christian slaves ought to serve their masters wholeheartedly.[Eph. 6:5-8]
Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century recognised slavery, within specific Biblical limitations, as consistent with Christian theology. In early Medieval times, the Church discouraged slavery throughout Europe, largely eliminating it.[46] That changed in 1452, when Pope Nicholas V instituted the hereditary slavery of captured Muslims and pagans, regarding all non-Christians as "enemy of christ."[47]
Genesis 9:25-27, the Curse of Ham, says: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem." This verse has been used to justify racialized slavery, since "Christians and even some Muslims eventually identified Ham's descendents as black Africans".[48][45] Anthony Pagden argued that "This reading of the Book of Genesis merged easily into a medieval iconographic tradition in which devils were always depicted as black. Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an unassailable argument—rooted in whatever the most persuasive contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or natural science—why one part of the human race should live in perpetual indebtedness to another."[49]
Rodney Stark makes the argument in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,[50] that Christianity helped to end slavery worldwide, as does Lamin Sanneh in Abolitionists Abroad.[51] These authors point out that Christians who viewed slavery as wrong on the basis of their religious convictions spearheaded abolitionism, and many of the early campaigners for the abolition of slavery were driven by their Christian faith and a desire to realize their view that all people are equal under God.[52]
Many modern Christians are united in the condemnation of slavery as wrong and contrary to God's will. Only peripheral groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and other Christian hate groups on the racist fringes of the Christian Reconstructionist and Christian Identity movements advocate the reinstitution of slavery.[45] Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[53][54][55] With these exceptions, all Christian faith groups now condemn slavery, and see the practice as incompatible with basic Christian principles.[45][46]
Violence against Jews[edit]
Main article: Christian antisemitism
A strain of hostility among Christians to Judaism and the Jewish people developed from the early years of Christianity and persisted over the ensuing centuries, driven by numerous factors including theological differences, the Christian drive for converts[56] decreed by the Great Commission, misunderstanding of Jewish beliefs and practices, and a perceived Jewish hostility toward Christians, and culminated in the Holocaust, which has driven many within Christianity to reflect on the relationship between theology, practices, and that genocide.[57]
These attitudes were reinforced in Christian preaching, art and popular teaching over the centuries containing contempt for Jews.[58]
Modern Antisemitism has been described as primarily hatred against Jews as a race with its modern expression rooted in 18th century racial theories, while anti-Judaism is described as hostility to Jewish religion, but in Western Christianity it effectively merged into antisemitism during the 12th century.[59]
Christian opposition to violence[edit]
Main articles: Christian pacifism and Peace churches
Historian Roland Bainton described the early church as pacifist - a period that ended with the accession of Constantine.[60]
In the first few centuries of Christianity, many Christians refused to engage in military combat. In fact, there were a number of famous examples of soldiers who became Christians and refused to engage in combat afterward. They were subsequently executed for their refusal to fight.[61] The commitment to pacifism and rejection of military service is attributed by Allman and Allman to two principles: "(1) the use of force (violence) was seen as antithetical to Jesus' teachings and service in the Roman military required worship of the emperor as a god which was a form of idolatry."[62]



The Deserter by Boardman Robinson, The Masses, 1916
In the 3rd century, Origen wrote: "Christians could never slay their enemies. For the more that kings, rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more Christians have increased in number and grown in strength."[63] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins."[64][65] Tertullian argued forcefully against all forms of violence, considering abortion, warfare and even judicial death penalties to be forms of murder.[66][67]



 The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., a prominent advocate of Christian nonviolence
Pacifist and violence-resisting traditions have continued into contemporary times.[68][69][70]
Several present-day Christian churches and communities were established specifically with nonviolence, including conscientious objection to military service, as foundations of their beliefs.[71]
In the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr. adapted the nonviolent ideas of Gandhi to a Baptist theology and politics.[72]
In the 21st century, Christian feminist thinkers have drawn attention to opposing violence against women.[73]

See also[edit]
Christofascism
Crusades
Heresy
Moral absolutism
Religious intolerance
Medieval inquisition
Persecution of traditional African religion
Christianity and capital punishment
Christians in the military
Christianity and domestic violence
God's Army (revolutionary group)
Iron Guard
Islam and violence
Islamic terrorism
Jewish terrorism
Lord's Resistance Army
Mormonism and violence
National-Christian Defense League
Religious hate groups
Religious terrorism
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Selengut, Charles (2008-04-28). Sacred fury: understanding religious violence. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-7425-6084-0.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Volf, Miroslav (2008). "Christianity and Violence". In Hess, Richard S.; Martens, E.A. War in the Bible and terrorism in the twenty-first century. Eisenbrauns. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-1-57506-803-9. Retrieved June 1, 2010.
3.Jump up ^ Avalos, Hector (2005). Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
4.Jump up ^ Schwartz, Regina M. (1997). The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. The University of Chicago Press.
5.Jump up ^ Nayak, Abhijit (July–October 2008). "Crusade Violence: Understanding and Overcoming the Impact of Mission Among Muslims". International Review of Mission (World Council of Churches) 97 (386–387): 273–291. doi:10.1111/j.1758-6631.2008.tb00645.x. Retrieved 2012-11-27.
6.Jump up ^ Freitheim, Terence (Winter 2004). "God and Violence in the Old Testament" (PDF). Word & World 24 (1). Retrieved 2010-11-21.
7.Jump up ^ International encyclopedia of violence research, Volume 2. Springer. 2003.
8.Jump up ^ J. Denny Weaver (2001). "Violence in Christian Theology". Cross Currents. Retrieved 2010-10-27. "I am using broad definitions of the terms "violence" and "nonviolence." "Violence" means harm or damage, which obviously includes the direct violence of killing -- in war, capital punishment, murder -- but also covers the range of forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism. "Nonviolence" also covers a spectrum of attitudes and actions, from the classic Mennonite idea of passive nonresistance through active nonviolence and nonviolent resistance that would include various kinds of social action, confrontations and posing of alternatives that do not do bodily harm or injury."
9.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great. Twelve.
10.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Books.
11.Jump up ^ The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism By Regina M. Schwartz. University of Chicago Press. 1998.
12.Jump up ^ Volf, Miroslav. "The Social Meaning of Reconciliation" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-17.
13.Jump up ^ Teehan, John (2010). In the Name of God: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Ethics and Violence. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 145–147.
14.Jump up ^ Boustan, Ra'anan S. (2010). Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity. BRILL.
15.Jump up ^ Jenkins, Philip (March 8, 2009). "Dark Passages". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2010-11-26. "the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. … If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery."
16.Jump up ^ Gibson, Leigh; Matthews, Shelly (2005). Violence in the New Testament. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 3.
17.Jump up ^ J. Denny Weaver (2001). "Violence in Christian Theology". Cross Currents. Retrieved 2010-10-27.
18.Jump up ^ see e.g.: John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p.22
19.Jump up ^ Volf 2008, p. 13
20.^ Jump up to: a b Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24011-1.
21.Jump up ^ Girard, Rene. The Scapegoat. p. 204.
22.^ Jump up to: a b Daniel Chirot. Why Some Wars Become Genocidal and Others Don't (PDF). Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington.[dead link]
23.Jump up ^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ The first philosophers of just war were Aristotle and Cicero, and the first theologians St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas
24.Jump up ^ "Just War Theory [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]". Iep.utm.edu. 2009-02-10. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
25.Jump up ^ "Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ".
26.Jump up ^ Claster, Jill N. (2009). Sacred violence: the European crusades to the Middle East, 1095-1396. University of Toronto Press. pp. xvii–xviii. ISBN 978-1-4426-0060-7.
27.Jump up ^ E. Randolph Daniel; Murphy, Thomas Patrick (1978). "The Holy War (review)". Speculum 53 (3): 602–603. doi:10.2307/2855169. JSTOR 2855169.
28.Jump up ^ Thomas Patrick Murphy, editor (1976). The holy war. Conference on Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Ohio State University Press.
29.Jump up ^ Bernard of Clairvaux, In Praise Of The New Knighthood, ca. 1135
30.Jump up ^ Ulrich Luz, Matthew in History, Fortress Press, 1994, p26-27
31.Jump up ^ "JustWarTheory.com". JustWarTheory.com. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
32.Jump up ^ "Home > Publications >". Eppc.org. 1998-09-01. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
33.Jump up ^ "Religion & Ethics - Just War Theory -introduction". BBC. Retrieved 2010-03-16.[dead link]
34.Jump up ^ Christians and War: Thomas Aquinas refines the "Just War" Theory[dead link]
35.Jump up ^ Diamond, Jared (2008). 1000 Events That Shaped the World. National Geographic Society. p. 74. ISBN 1-4262-0314-4.
36.Jump up ^ Smith, Jonathan R. "Rethinking the Crusades". Catholic Education Resource Center.
37.Jump up ^ War, A Catholic Dictionary: Containing some Account of the Doctrine, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Councils, and Religious Orders of the Catholic Church, W. E Addis, T. Arnold, Revised T. B Scannell and P. E Hallett, 15th Edition, Virtue & Co, 1953, Nihil Obstat: Reginaldus Philips, Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, 2 October 1950, "In the Name of God : Violence and Destruction in the World's Religions", M. Jordan, 2006, p. 40
38.Jump up ^ B. Hoffman, "Inside Terrorism", Columbia University Press, 1999, pp. 105–120. ISBN 978-0231126991
39.Jump up ^ Firth, Raymond (1981) Spiritual Aroma: Religion and Politics. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 582–601
40.Jump up ^ "Paganism and Rome". Penelope.uchicago.edu. Retrieved 2012-11-13.
41.Jump up ^ Bernard Hamilton, The Crusades, Sutton Publishing, United Kingdom, 1998. See Chapter 9: Later Crusades
42.Jump up ^ "Soul Wound: The Legacy of Native American Schools". Amnesty International USA. Retrieved February 8, 2006.
43.Jump up ^ Read, Peter (1981). The Stolen Generations:(bringing them home) The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969 (PDF). Department of Aboriginal Affairs (New South Wales government). ISBN 0-646-46221-0.
44.Jump up ^ Bhaumik, Subhir (April 18, 2000). "'Church backing Tripura rebels'". BBC News. Retrieved 2006-08-26.
45.^ Jump up to: a b c d Robinson, B. A. (2006). "Christianity and slavery". Retrieved 2007-01-03.
46.^ Jump up to: a b Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
47.Jump up ^ "Africans and Native Americans", by Jack D. Forbes, p.27
48.Jump up ^ Curp, T. David. "A Necessary Bondage? When the Church Endorsed Slavery".
49.Jump up ^ Pagden, Anthony (1997-12-22). "The Slave Trade, Review of Hugh Thomas' Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade". The New Republic.
50.Jump up ^ Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery ISBN 978-0-691-11436-1 (2003)
51.Jump up ^ Lamin Sanneh, Abolitionists Abroad: American Blacks and the Making of Modern West Africa, Harvard University Press ISBN 978-0-674-00718-5 (2001)
52.Jump up ^ Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
53.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
54.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
55.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
56.Jump up ^ Nancy Calvert Koyzis (2004). Paul, monotheism and the people of God : the significance of Abraham traditions for early Judaism and Christianity. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0-567-08378-0.
57.Jump up ^ Heschel, Susannah, The Aryan Jesus: Christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, p. 20, Princeton University Press, 2008
58.Jump up ^ http://jcpa.org/article/the-origins-of-christian-anti-semitism/
59.Jump up ^ "After the evil: Christianity and Judaism in the shadow of the Holocaust", Richard Harries, p. 16, Oxford University Press, 2003
60.Jump up ^ Roland Bainton, quoted in Robin Gill, A Textbook of Christian Ethics, 3rd ed, Continuum, 2006, ISBN 0-567-03112-8, p. 194.
61.Jump up ^ "No known Christian author from the first centuries approved of Christian participation in battle; citations advocating pacifism are found in → Tertullian, → Origen, Lactantius, and others, and in the testimonies of the martyrs Maximilian and Marcellus, who were executed for refusing to serve in the Roman army. Grounds for opposition to military service included fear of idolatry and the oath of loyalty to Caesar, as well as the basic objection to shedding blood on the battlefield.", Fahlbusch, E., & Bromiley, G. W. (2005). Vol. 4: The encyclopedia of Christianity (2). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill.
62.Jump up ^ Allman, Mark; Allman, Mark J. (2008). Who Would Jesus Kill?: War, Peace, and the Christian Tradition. Saint Mary's Press.
63.Jump up ^ Origen: Contra Celsus, Book 7 (Roberts-Donaldson)
64.Jump up ^ The Early Church on Violence « Rachel Stanton
65.Jump up ^ Clement of Alexandria: Fragments
66.Jump up ^ Osborn, Eric (2003). Tertullian, First Theologian of the West. Cambridge University Press. p. 230. ISBN 978-0-521-52495-7. "Tertullian rejects all violence, even killing by soldiers or by courts of law, any form of abortion, and even attendance at the amphitheatre."
67.Jump up ^ Nicholson, Helen J. (2004). Medieval warfare: theory and practice of war in Europe, 300-1500. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 24. "At the beginning of the third century, Tertullian recorded that some Christians did fight, but indicated that he did not approve. He argued that God's command not to fight overrode Paul's command to obey the authorities that God had appointed. Tertullian observed that one of the last words of Christ before he was led away to be crucified was when he instructed Simon Peter to put away his sword."
68.Jump up ^ "Members of several small Christian sects who try to literally follow the precepts of Jesus Christ have refused to participate in military service in many nations and have been willing to suffer the criminal or civil penalties that followed."Encyclopædia Britannica 2004 CD Rom Edition — Pacifism.
69.Jump up ^ Evangelium Vitae
70.Jump up ^ Orthodoxy and Capital Punishment
71.Jump up ^ Speicher, Sara and Durnbaugh, Donald F. (2003), Ecumenical Dictionary:Historic Peace Churches
72.Jump up ^ King, Jr., Martin Luther; Clayborne Carson; Peter Holloran; Ralph Luker; Penny A. Russell (1992). The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-07950-7.
73.Jump up ^ Hood, Helen (2003). "Speaking Out and Doing Justice: It’s No Longer a Secret but What are the Churches Doing about Overcoming Violence against Women?" (PDF). EBSCO Publishing. pp. 216–225. Retrieved May 19, 2010.[dead link]
References[edit]
Avalos, Hector. Fighting Words. The Origins of Religious Violence. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005.
Schwartz, Regina M. The Curse of Cain. The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.
Further reading[edit]
Bekkenkamp, Jonneke and Sherwood, Yvonne, ed. Sanctified Aggression. Legacies of Biblical and Postbiblical Vocabularies of Violence. London/New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2003.
Collins, John J. Does the Bible Justify Violence? Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.
Hedges, Chris. 2007. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. Free Press.
Lea, Henry Charles. 1961. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages. Abridged. New York: Macmillan.
MacMullen, Ramsay, 1989 "Christianizing the Roman Empire: AD 100-400"
MacMullen, Ramsay, 1997, "Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries"
Mason, Carol. 2002. Killing for Life: The Apocalyptic Narrative of Pro-Life Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
McTernan, Oliver J. 2003. Violence in God's name: religion in an age of conflict. Orbis Books.
Thiery, Daniel E. Polluting the Sacred: Violence, Faith and the Civilizing of Parishioners in Late Medieval England. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Tyerman, Christopher. 2006. God's War: A New History of the Crusades. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap.
Zeskind, Leonard. 1987. The ‘Christian Identity’ Movement, [booklet]. Atlanta, Georgia: Center for Democratic Renewal/Division of Church and Society, National Council of Churches.
Robert Spencer (author) Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, Regnery Publishing, 2007, ISBN 1-59698-515-1
Rodney Stark God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, HarperOne, 2010,


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam ·
 Jainism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Judaism ·
 Latter Day Saint movement ·
 Monotheism ·
 Catholic ·
 Scientology ·
 Seventh-day Adventist ·
 Sikhism ·
 Twelver Shi’ism ·
 Unification Church
 

Religious texts
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 

Religious figures
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Charles Taze Russell ·
 Ellen White
 

Religion and violence
Violence ·
 Terrorism ·
 Persecution ·
 War ·
 Sectarian violence ·
 Christianity ·
 Mormonism ·
 Judaism ·
 Islam ·
 India
 

Books
Atheist Manifesto ·
 Christianity Unveiled ·
 God in the Age of Science? ·
 God Is Not Great ·
 Letter to a Christian Nation ·
 The Age of Reason ·
 The End of Faith ·
 The God Delusion ·
 The Rage Against God ·
 Why I Am Not a Christian ·
 Why I Am Not a Muslim
 

Movements
Antitheism ·
 Atheism ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Cārvāka ·
 Church of the SubGenius ·
 Flying Spaghetti Monster ·
 Invisible Pink Unicorn ·
 Nontheistic religions
 

People
Dan Barker ·
 George Carlin ·
 Pat Condell ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Daniel Dennett ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Sigmund Freud ·
 Annie Laurie Gaylor ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Walter Kaufman ·
 Bill Maher ·
 Karl Marx ·
 PZ Myers ·
 Taslima Nasrin ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Madalyn Murray O'Hair ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Penn & Teller ·
 Periyar E. V. Ramasamy ·
 Herman Philipse ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 James Randi ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Carl Sagan ·
 André Servier ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Michael Shermer ·
 David Silverman ·
 Robert Spencer ·
 Greydon Square ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Socrates ·
 Mark Twain ·
 Voltaire ·
 Ibn Warraq ·
 Frank Zappa
 

  


Categories: Christian ethics
Christianity and violence








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
فارسی
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 4 June 2015, at 11:03.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence










Judaism and violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (February 2015)
Not to be confused with Judaism and warfare or Judaism and peace.
Judaism's doctrines and texts have sometimes been associated with violence. Laws requiring the eradication of evil, sometimes using violent means, exist in the Jewish tradition. Judaism also contains peaceful doctrines.[1][2] This article deals with the juxtaposition of Judaic law and theology to violence and non-violence by groups and individuals. Attitudes and laws towards both peace and violence exist within the Jewish tradition.[1] Throughout history, Judaism's religious texts or precepts have been used to promote[3][4][5] as well as oppose violence.[6]


Contents  [hide]
1 General claims
2 Normative Judaism 2.1 Nonviolence
3 Warfare
4 Retribution and punishment 4.1 Eye for an eye
4.2 Capital and corporal punishment
5 Purim and the Book of Esther
6 Modern violence 6.1 Radical Zionists and settlers 6.1.1 Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin
6.2 Extremist organizations
6.3 Views on Violence against Islam
7 See also
8 Bibliography
9 Footnotes

General claims[edit]
Some critics of religion such as Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argue that all monotheistic religions are inherently violent. For example, Nelson-Pallmeyer writes that "Judaism, Christianity and Islam will continue to contribute to the destruction of the world until and unless each challenges violence in "sacred texts" and until each affirms nonviolent power of God".[7]
Bruce Feiler writes that "Jews and Christians who smugly console themselves that Islam is the only violent religion are willfully ignoring their past. Nowhere is the struggle between faith and violence described more vividly, and with more stomach-turning details of ruthlessness, than in the Hebrew Bible".[8] Similarly, Burggraeve and Vervenne describe the Old Testament as full of violence and evidence of both a violent society and a violent god. They write that, "[i]n numerous Old Testament texts the power and glory of Israel's God is described in the language of violence." They assert that more than one thousand passages refer to YHWH as acting violently or supporting the violence of humans and that more than one hundred passages involve divine commands to kill humans.[9]
Supersessionist Christian churches and theologians argue that Judaism is a violent religion and the god of Israel is a violent god, while Christianity is a religion of peace and that the god of Christianity is one that expresses only love.[10] While this view has been common throughout the history of Christianity and remains a common assumption among Christians, it has been rejected by mainstream Christian theologians and denominations since the Holocaust.[11]:1-5
Normative Judaism[edit]
Main article: Judaism and peace
Normative Judaism is not pacifist and violence is condoned in the service of self-defense.[12] J. Patout Burns asserts that Jewish tradition clearly posits the principle of minimization of violence. This principle can be stated as "(wherever) Jewish law allows violence to keep an evil from occurring, it mandates that the minimal amount of violence be used to accomplish one's goal."[13][14]
Nonviolence[edit]
Judaism's religious texts endorse compassion and peace, and the Hebrew Bible contains the well-known commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself".[2] According to the 1947 Columbus Platform of Reform Judaism, "Judaism, from the days of the prophets, has proclaimed to mankind the ideal of universal peace, striving for spiritual and physical disarmament of all nations. Judaism rejects violence and relies upon moral education, love and sympathy."[6]
The philosophy of nonviolence has roots in Judaism, going back to the Jerusalem Talmud of the middle 3rd century. While absolute nonviolence is not a requirement of Judaism, the religion so sharply restricts the use of violence, that nonviolence often becomes the only way to fulfilling a life of truth, justice and peace, which Judaism considers to be the three tools for the preservation of the world.[15]:242
Warfare[edit]
Main article: Judaism and warfare



Jean Fouquet: The Taking of Jericho, c. 1452–1460
While some biblical texts call for and justify offensive war and have had deep impact in Western culture,[16] these texts have been repudiated by mainstream Jewish tradition.[17] However, some strains of radical Zionism promote aggressive war and justify them with biblical texts.[18][19]
Contemporary warfare conducted by the State of Israel is governed by Israeli law and regulation, which includes a Purity of arms code that is based in part on Jewish tradition; the 1992 IDF Code of Conduct combines international law, Israeli law, Jewish heritage and the IDF's own traditional ethical code.[20] Tension between actions of the Israeli government, and Jewish traditions and halakha on the conduct of war, have caused controversy within Israel and have provided a basis for criticisms of Israel.[21]
Retribution and punishment[edit]
Eye for an eye[edit]
Main article: Eye for an eye
While the principle of lex talionis ("an eye for an eye") is clearly stated in the Bible, in Judaism it is not literally applied, and was interpreted to provide a basis for financial compensation for injuries.[22][23] Pasachoff and Littman point to the reinterpretation of the lex talionis as an example of the ability of Pharisaic Judaism to "adapt to changing social and intellectual ideas."[24] Stephen Wylen asserts that the lex talionis is "proof of the unique value of each individual" and that it teaches "equality of all human beings for law."[25]
Capital and corporal punishment[edit]
Main article: Capital and corporal punishment (Judaism)
While the Bible and the Talmud specify many violent punishments, including death by stoning, decapitation, burning, and strangulation for some crimes,[26] these punishments were substantially modified during the rabbinic era, primarily by adding additional requirements for conviction.[27] As a consequence, the death penalty was very rarely applied, and it became more of a principle than a practice. The Talmud states that a court that executes one person in seven years is considered bloodthirsty (Makkot 1:10). The 12th-century Jewish legal scholar Maimonides stated that "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."[27] Whether Jewish communities ever enforced capital punishment or whether the Rabbis ever supported its use is still heavily debated.[28]
Purim and the Book of Esther[edit]
The Book of Esther, one of the books of the Jewish Bible, is a story of palace intrigue centered on a plot to kill all Jews which was thwarted by Esther, a Jewish queen of Persia. Instead of being victims, the Jews killed "all the people who wanted to kill them."[29] The king gave the Jews the ability to defend themselves against their enemies who tried to kill them.[30] numbering 75,000 (Esther 9:16) including Haman, an Amalekite that led the plot to kill the Jews. The annual Purim festival celebrates this event, and includes the recitation of the biblical instruction to "blot out the remembrance [or name] of Amalek". Scholars - including Ian Lustick, Marc Gopin, and Steven Bayme - state that the violence described in the Book of Esther has inspired and incited violent acts and violent attitudes in the post-biblical era, continuing into modern times, often centered on the festival of Purim.[31][4]:2–19, 107–146, 187–212, 213–247[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
Other scholars, including Jerome Auerbach, state that evidence for Jewish violence on Purim through the centuries is "exceedingly meager", including occasional episodes of stone throwing, the spilling of rancid oil on a Jewish convert, and a total of three recorded Purim deaths inflicted by Jews in a span of more than 1,000 years.[41] In a review of historian Elliot Horowitz's book Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence , Hillel Halkin pointed out that the incidences of Jewish violence against non-Jews through the centuries are extraordinarily few in number and that the connection between them and Purim is tenuous.[42]
Rabbi Arthur Waskow and historian Elliot Horowitz state that Baruch Goldstein, perpetrator of the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, may have been motivated by the Book of Esther, because the massacre was carried out on the day of Purim[4]:4, 11, 315[43] [44] [45] [46] but other scholars point out that the association with Purim is circumstantial because Goldstein never explicitly made such a connection.[47]
Modern violence[edit]
Radical Zionists and settlers[edit]
The motives for violence by extremist Jewish settlers in the West Bank directed at Palestinians are complex and varied. While religious motivations have been documented,[48][49][50][51] the use of non-defensive violence is outside of mainstream Judaism and mainstream Zionism.[52][53][54][55]
Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Mandate Palestine, urged that Jewish settlement of the land should proceed by peaceful means only.[56] Contemporary settler movements, follow Kook’s son Tzvi Yehuda Kook (1891–1982), who also did not advocate aggressive conquest.[56] Critics claim that Gush Emunim and followers of Tzvi Yehuda Kook advocate violence based on Judaism's religious precepts.[57] Ian Lustick, Benny Morris, and Nur Masalha assert that radical Zionist leaders relied on religious doctrines for justification for the violent treatment of Arabs in Palestine, citing examples where pre-state Jewish militia used verses from the Bible to justify their violent acts, which included expulsions and massacres such as the one at Deir Yassin.[58]
After Baruch Goldstein carried out the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in 1994, his actions were widely interpreted to based on the radical Zionist ideology of the Kach movement, and was condemned as such by mainstream religious and secular Jews and praised as such by radical Zionists.[4]:6-11[59][60][61][62] Dov Lior, Chief Rabbi of Hebron and Kiryat Arba in the southern West Bank and head of the "Council of Rabbis of Judea and Samaria" has made speeches legitimizing the killing of non-Jews and praising Goldstein as a saint and martyr. Lior also said "a thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail".[63][64] Lior publicly gave permission to spill blood of Arab persons and has publicly supported extreme right-wing Jewish terrorists.[65]
In July 2010, Yitzhak Shapira who heads Dorshei Yihudcha yeshiva in the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar, was arrested by Israeli police for writing a book that encourages the killing of non-Jews. In his book "The King's Torah" (Torat Hamelech) he wrote that under Torah and Jewish Law it is legal to kill Gentiles and even in some cases to kill the babies of enemy forces.[66][67] Later in August 2010 police arrested rabbi Yosef Elitzur-Hershkowitz - co-author of Shapira's book - on the grounds of incitement to racial violence, possession of a racist text, and possession of material that incites to violence. While the book has been endorsed by radical Zionist leaders like Dov Lior[48] and Yaakov Yosef[68] it has been widely condemned by mainstream secular and religious Jews.[48]
Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin[edit]
The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir was motivated by Amir’s personal political views and his understanding of Judaism's religious law of moiser (the duty to eliminate a Jew who intends to turn another Jew in to non-Jewish authorities, thus putting a Jew's life in danger[69]) and rodef (a bystander can kill a one who is pursuing another to murder him or her if he cannot otherwise be stopped).[5]:91 Amir’s interpretation has been described as "a gross distortion of Jewish law and tradition"[70] and the mainstream Jewish view is that Rabin's assassin had no Halachic basis to shoot Prime Minister Rabin.[14]
Extremist organizations[edit]
See also: Jewish religious terrorism
In the course of history there have been some organizations and individuals that endorsed or advocated violence based on their interpretation to Jewish religious principles. Such instances of violence are considered by mainstream Judaism to be extremist aberrations, and not representative of the tenets of Judaism.[71][72]
Kach (defunct) and Kahane Chai [73][74][75]
Gush Emunim Underground (defunct): formed by members of Gush Emunim.[76]
Brit HaKanaim (defunct): an organisation operating in Israel from 1950 to 1953 with the objective of imposing Jewish religious law in the country and establishing a Halakhic state.[77]
The Jewish Defense League (JDL): founded in 1969 by Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City, with the declared purpose of protecting Jews from harassment and antisemitism.[78] FBI statistics show that, from 1980 to 1985, 15 terrorist attacks were attempted in the U.S. by members of the JDL.[79] The FBI’s Mary Doran described the JDL in 2004 Congressional testimony as "a proscribed terrorist group".[80] The National Consortium for the Study of Terror and Responses to Terrorism states that, during the JDL's first two decades of activity, it was an "active terrorist organization.".[78][81] Kahanist groups are banned in Israel.[82][83][84]
Views on Violence against Islam[edit]
While Judaism contains commandments to exterminate idol worship, according to all rabbinic authorities, Islam contains no trace of idolatry.[85] Rabbi Hayim David HaLevi stated that in modern times no one matches the biblical definition of an idolater, and therefore ruled that Jews in Israel have a moral responsibility to treat all citizens with the highest standards of humanity.[85]
Following an arson incident in 2010, in which a mosque in Yasuf village was desecrated, apparently by settlers from the nearby Gush Etzion settlement bloc,[85][86][87] the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger condemned the attack and equated the arson to Kristallnacht, he said: "This is how the Holocaust began, the tragedy of the Jewish people of Europe."[88] Rabbi Menachem Froman, a well-known peace activist, visited the mosque and replaced the burnt Koran with new copies.[89] The rabbi stated: "This visit is to say that although there are people who oppose peace, he who opposes peace is opposed to God" and "Jewish law also prohibits damaging a holy place." He also remarked that arson in a mosque is an attempt to sow hatred between Jews and Arabs.[88][90]
See also[edit]
Jewish religious terrorism
Forcible conversion to Judaism
Jewish ethics
Zionist political violence
Judaism and peace
Persecution of Jews
Religious violence Christianity and violence Mormonism and violence
Islam and violence
Buddhism and violence

Bibliography[edit]
Berger, Michael S., "Taming the Beast: Rabbinic Pacification of Second-Century Jewish Nationalism", in Belief and bloodshed: religion and violence across time and tradition, James K. Wellman (Ed.), Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, pp 47–62
Boustan, Ra'anan S., "Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity", in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity, Ra'anan S. Boustan, Alex P. Jassen, Calvin J. Roetzel (Eds), BRILL, 2010 pp 1–12
Chilton, Bruce, Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Doubleday, 2009
Chomsky, Noam, World orders, old and new, Columbia University Press, 1996
Ehrlich, Carl. S, "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill. pp 117–124.
Ellens, J. Harold (Ed.), The destructive power of religion: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007
Esber, Rosemarie M., Under the Cover of War: The Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians, Arabicus Books & Media, LLC, 2009
Feldman, Louis H., "Remember Amalek!": vengeance, zealotry, and group destruction in the Bible according to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus, Hebrew Union College Press, 2004
Firestone, Reuven, "Judaism on Violence and Reconciliation: An Examination of Key Sources", in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, James Heft (Ed.), Fordham Univ Press, 2004, pp 74–87
Glick, Leonard B., "Religion and Genocide", in The Widening circle of genocide, Alan L. Berger (Ed). Transaction Publishers, 1994, pp 43–74
Gopin, Marc, Between Eden and Armageddon: the future of world religions, violence, and peacemaking, Oxford University Press US, 2000.
Harkabi, Yehoshafat, Arab attitudes to Israel, John Wiley and Sons, 1974
Heft, James (Ed.), Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Fordham Univ Press, 2004
Hirst, David, The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East, Nation Books, 2003
Hoffman, R. Joseph, The just war and jihad: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Prometheus Books, 2006
Horowitz, Elliott S., Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence, Princeton University Press, 2006
Jacobs, Steven Leonard, "The Last Uncomfortable Religious Question? Monotheistic Exclusivism and Textual Superiority in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as Sources of Hate and Genocide", in Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Steven L. Jacobs (Ed.), Lexington Books, 2009, pp 35–46
Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence, University of California Press, 2003
Kuper, Leo, "Theological Warrants for Genocide: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity", in Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Steven L. Jacobs (Ed.), Lexington Books, 2009, pp 3–34
Lustick, Ian, For the land and the Lord: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988
Masalha, Nur, The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-colonialism in Palestine-Israel, Zed Books, 2007
Morris, Benny, The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited, Cambridge University Press, 2004
Niditch, Susan, War in the Hebrew Bible: a study in the ethics of violence, Oxford University Press US, 1995
Pappe, Ilan, The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld, 2007
Pedahzur, Ami, Jewish terrorism in Israel, Columbia University Press, Columbia University Press, 2009
Perliger, Arie and Weinberg, Leonard, "Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions", in Religious fundamentalism and political extremism, Perliger, Arie (Ed.), Taylor & Francis, 2004, pp 91–118
Phillips, Gary A., "More Than the Jews … His Blood Be Upon All the Children: Biblical Violence, Genocide and Responsible Reading", in Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Steven L. Jacobs (Ed.), Lexington Books, 2009, pp 77–87
Pitkanen, Pekka, "Memory, Witnesses, and Genocide in the Book of Joshua", in Reading the law: studies in honour of Gordon J. Wenham, J. Gordon McConville, Karl Möller (Eds), Continuum International Publishing Group, 2007, pp 267–282
Prior, Michael P., The Bible and colonialism: a moral critique, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Quigley, John B., Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice, Duke University Press, 1990
Saleh Abd al-Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.), Springer, 2007
Selengut, Charles, Sacred fury: understanding religious violence, Rowman & Littlefield, 2008
Shahak, Israel, Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, Pluto Press, 1999
Sprinzak, Ehud, Brother against brother: violence and extremism in Israeli politics from Altalena to the Rabin assassination, Simon and Schuster, 1999
Van Wees, Hans, "Genocide in the Ancient World", in The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses (Eds), Oxford University Press US, 2010, pp 239–258.
Weisburd, David, Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985
Whitelam, Keith W., The invention of ancient Israel: the silencing of Palestinian history, Routledge, 1996
Footnotes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition. Michael J. Broyde, 1998, p. 1
2.^ Jump up to: a b *Reuven Firestone (2004), "Judaism on Violence and Reconciliation: An examination of key sources" in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Fordham Univ Press, 2004, pp 77, 81. Goldsmith (Ed.), Emanuel S. (1991). Dynamic Judaism: the essential writings of Mordecai M. Kaplan. Fordham Univ Press. p. 181. ISBN 0823213102.
Spero, Shubert (1983). Morality, halakha, and the Jewish tradition. KTAV Publishing House, Inc. pp. 137–318. ISBN 0870687271.
3.Jump up ^ Carl. S. Ehrlich (1999) "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill.
4.^ Jump up to: a b c d Horowitz, Elliott S. (2006). Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691124914.
5.^ Jump up to: a b Stern, Jessica (2004). Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill, Jessica Stern. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-050533-8.
6.^ Jump up to: a b The Columbus Platform: The Guiding Principles of Reform Judaism, 1937
7.Jump up ^ Nelson-Pallmeyer, Jack (2005). Is religion killing us?: violence in the Bible and the Quran. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 136.
8.Jump up ^ Feiler, Bruce S. (2005). Where God was born: a journey by land to the roots of religion. HarperCollins. p. 4.
9.Jump up ^ Burggraeve, Roger; Vervenne, Marc (1991). Swords into plowshares: theological reflections on peace. Peeters Publishers. pp. 82,109.
10.Jump up ^ Heft, James, ed. (2004). Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Fordham Univ Press.
11.Jump up ^ R. Kendall Soulen. The God of Israel and Christian Theology Fortress Press (June 11, 1996) ISBN 978-0800628833
12.Jump up ^ "The Co-existence of Violence and Non-Violence in Judaism". Retrieved 2010-12-09.
13.Jump up ^ Burns, J. Patout (1996). War and its discontents: pacifism and quietism in the Abrahamic traditions. Georgetown University Press. p. 18.
14.^ Jump up to: a b Halacha File: The Halacha of Rodef and the Rabin Shooting. Koltorah.org (2004-11-20). Retrieved on 2010-10-27.
15.Jump up ^ Sandra L. Bloom, Michael Reichert, Bearing witness: violence and collective responsibility. Routledge, 1998. ISBN 978-0789004789
16.Jump up ^ Lemche, Niels Peter, The Old Testament between theology and history: a critical survey, Westminster John Knox Press, 2008,pp 315–316:"The [Biblical] story of the 'morally supreme people' that defeats and exterminates another, inferior, nation was part of the ideological baggage of European imperialists and colonizers throughout the nineteenth century. It was also carried by European Jews who,... migrated to Palestine to inherit their ancestral country … In this modern version of the biblical narrative, the Palestinian population turned into 'Canaanites', supposed to be morally inferior to the Jews, and of course the Arabs were never considered their equals … The Bible was the instrument used to suppress the enemy".
17.Jump up ^ Greenberg, Moshe, "On the Political User of the Bible in Modern Israel: An Engaged Critique", in Pomegranates and golden bells: studies in biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern ritual, law, and literature, EISENBRAUNS, 1995, p 467-469: "No 'national' commandment such as that of 'conquest and settling the land' occurs in any of these [Judaic] summaries [of the Torah]… [arguments for applying herem to modern Israel] introduces a distinction that Scripture does not recognize; nowhere are the obligations referred to in the summaries contingent on the achievement of the land-taking or the destruction of Israel's enemies. To suppose that they may be set aside or suspended for the accomplishment of national ends is a leap far beyond scripture…. The [biblical] injunctions to take the land are embedded in narrative and give the appearance of being addressed to a specific generation, like the commandment to annihilate or expel the natives of Canaan, which refers specifically to the seven Canaanite nations… Now, had there ben any inclination to generalize the law [of extermination], it would have been easy for the talmudic sages to [do so]. But in fact the sages left the ancient herem law as they found it: applying to seven extinct nations."
18.Jump up ^ Kravitz, Leonard, "What is Crime?", in Crime and punishment in Jewish law: essays and responsa, Editors Walter Jacob, Moshe Zemer Berghahn Books, 1999, p 31: Quote: "Sin has changed [since biblical times]; crime has changed. We bring a different sensibility to our reading of the sacred texts of the past, even the Torah. There are passages in it which to our modern minds command crimes, the kind of crimes which our age would call 'crimes against humanity' … I think of the problematic section in the Mattot [Numbers 31] which contains the commandment to exact revenge against the Midianites by slaying every male and every female old enough to engage in sexual intercourse…. I used to think that were they [Midianites] suddenly to appear, no Jew would be willing to carry out such a commandment. Then Baruch Goldstein appeared on the scene, and he was followed by Yigal Amir and now I am not sure…. I find the commandment to commit genocide against the Midianite unacceptable. To accept the commandment to do the same to 'the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Peruzzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites' seems to me to make permissible the Holocaust, the attempted genocide of the Jewish people."
19.Jump up ^ Lustick, Ian, For the land and the Lord: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988.
20.Jump up ^ "Ethics – The IDF Spirit". IDF Spokesperson's Unit. Retrieved 10 June 2010.
21.Jump up ^ Chomsky, Noam (1999). Fateful triangle: the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (2nd Ed, revised). South End Press. pp. 153–154. ISBN 0896086011.
22.Jump up ^ Lewis, Harry Samuel (1915). Liberal Judaism and social service. Bloch Pub. Co. p. 37.
23.Jump up ^ Kalimi, Isaac; Haas, Peter J. (2006). Biblical interpretation in Judaism and Christianity. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 2.
24.Jump up ^ Pasachoff, Naomi E.; Littman, Robert J. (2005). A concise history of the Jewish people. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 64.
25.Jump up ^ Wylen, Stephen M. (2005). The seventy faces of Torah: the Jewish way of reading the Sacred Scriptures. Paulist Press. p. 20.
26.Jump up ^ Sanhedrin 11:1 specifies strangulation
Neusner, Jacob, Comparing religions through law: Judaism and Islam,
page 107-111
27.^ Jump up to: a b Goldstein, Warren (2006). Defending the human spirit: Jewish law's vision for a moral society. Feldheim Publishers. p. 269. ISBN 978-1-58330-732-8. Retrieved 22 October 2010.
28.Jump up ^ Jacobs, Jill. There Shall Be No Needy: Pursuing Social Justice Through Jewish Law & Tradition. Woodstock, Vt: Jewish Lights, 2009.
29.Jump up ^ Free Bible Version...
30.Jump up ^ Megilat Esther - the Jewish Magazine
31.Jump up ^ Lustick, Ian, For the land and the Lord: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988. Quote: "Of decisive importance to Jewish fundamentalists is their belief that contemporary political developments are part of an unfolding cosmic drama that will determine, depending on the willingness of Jews to act decisively on its behalf, whether God's redemption of his people Israel, and of the whole world, will or will not soon reach its completion…. The massacre in the Hebron mosque on the Jewish holiday of Purim is a tragic, but telling, example. Preceded by a rash of killings of Jewish settlers by Muslim fundamentalists … it is not in the least a coincidence that the massacre took place on the Jewish holiday of Purim. For most Jews Purim means listening to .. the Book of Esther .. .It is an occasion for merry-making, games, charity and the exchange of gifts. But as Goldstein sat reading that same book on Purim even in 1994, it is almost certain he identified Yasir Arafat with Haman, the arch-enemy of the Jews of ancient Persia, and the killing of Jewish settlers over the previous months with Haman's murderous designs. Accordingly, he [Goldstein] focused on often-ignored verses at the end of the book [of Esther] which, for Jewish fundamentalists, capture the essence of the story under contemporary circumstances and contain a divine imperative to act. According to the Book of Esther the Jews are saved by the king who reverses Haman's evil decree and declares instead that Jews may do unto their enemies what their enemies had intended to do unto them 'to stand up for themselves, to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might assault them, with their little ones and women' (Esther 8:11)….By mowing down Arabs he believed wanted to kill Jews, Goldstein was re-enacting part of the Purim story." (pp ix-xi.)
32.Jump up ^ Quotes from Horowitz 2006 page 16: "This book deals not only with the theme of Amalek and responses - Christian as well as Jewish - to the book of Esther over the centuries, but also with Jewish violence connected with the holiday of Purim, from the early fifth century to the late twentieth."page 19: "The first [part of this book] is devoted .. to the book of Esther … Was it a book that promoted cruel vengeance…? Since according to Jewish law the Amalekites, including women and children, had to be utterly destroyed, thinking about Amalek involved … thinking about the possibilities of, and justifications for, Jewish violence. [The second part of this book includes discussion of] one specific form of Jewish violence over many centuries - the descration of the cross and other Christian images…. [chapter 8 is] devoted to violence against Christians, sometimes within the context of the Purim festiviy, in the 5th-7th centuries. Chapter 9 carries the subject of Purim violence into the medieval and early modern Europe, especially against the background of the often violent rites of Carnival."
33.Jump up ^ Bayme, Steven, "Saddam, Haman, and Amalek", in Jewish arguments and counterarguments: essays and addresses, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 2002: Quote: "For many centuries Purim has been a source of both joy and embarrassment for Jews. … Still others have challenged the doctrine of violence associated with the holiday… Martin Luther, for one, accused the Jews of bloodthirsty and vengeful spirit in the Book of Esther… [Luther] reflect[s] the close association of Purim with the biblical doctrine of war against the Amalek. The theme of Jewish violence against Haman and his supporters, the doctrine of Amalek, has caused Jews the greatest discomfort with the Book of Esther and the holiday with which it is associated…. Judaism teaches that violence is justified under certain circumstances - particularly defense against aggression … Amalek, the rabbis argue, is the eternally irreconcilable enemy who represents a value system that promotes murder … Herein lies the enduring relevance of Purim. Aggression must be stopped and evil eliminated…. The meaning of Purim is relevant to the question of the war in the Persian Gulf today [2002]…. [Saddam Hussein's] unprovoked Scud missile attacks against entirely civilian targets in Israel are reminiscent of Amaleks's treacherous attacks upon the … Israelites...." (pp 75–80)
34.Jump up ^ The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition Michael David Coogan (Ed). Quote:"Jews and Christians have also been troubled by the story's [Book of Esther] enthusiastic account of the violence of the Jewish community's response to their enemies, which involved not only self defense but also the slaughter of women and children, including the sons of Haman. The bloodthirsty language, however, derives from the story's symmetric pattern of reversals.." (p 708)
35.Jump up ^ Gopin, Marc, Between Eden and Armageddon: the future of world religions, violence, and peacemaking, Oxford University Press US, 2000. Quote :"I have known many Orthodox rabbis, for example, who would be happy to ensure that a holiday such as Purim, with its obligatory reading of the Book of Esther, which cluminates with the slaughter of the people - including their children - who tried to exterminate the Jewish people, would never be used to justify the killing of anyone today. They certainly are deeply ashamed by Baruch Goldstein's mass murder at the Hebron mosque, which was inspired in part by Purim…. They can and do give moralistic sermons, and they can and do interpret the story in less violent terms…. The hermeneutic give and take of Purim is but one example of the way in which a deeply embedded tradition will not disappear even when many people reject its implicit message of violence…. It is not likely [that Purim would diminish in importance] in the current climate of religious revivalism, but it is possible that the violence of the story could be overshadowed with time by the numerous benevolent characteristics of the holiday, such as aiding the poor…. Jewish empowerment allows for a new hermeneutic that could centralize the violence of the story. If the political situation were to rapidly deteriorate, it is conceivable that Purim could become for radical Jews what Ramadan has become for radical Muslims in Algeria, a killing season…. Even the most radically pacifist Jews that I know do not eliminate this holiday, although they do not really know what to do with sacralized violence yet, and are now only evolving a spiritual and ritual reworking of traumatic and violent episodes." (pp 52–53)
36.Jump up ^ Nirenberg, David, Communities of violence: persecution of minorities in the Middle Ages, Princeton University Press, 1998. Quote:"There is evidence … that Jews could use ritual violence to criticize the Christians in whose lands they dwelled An obvious example is Purim, on which see E. Horowitz, The Rite to Be Reckless ..; and for a late medieval Iberian example, S. Levy, "Notas sobre el 'Purrim de Zaragoza", Anuario do Filologia 5 (1979): 203-217." (page 220)
37.Jump up ^ Gonen, Jay Y., Yahweh versus Yahweh: the enigma of Jewish history, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2005. Quote :"In 1994, on Purim day, Jewish physician Baruch Goldstein burst into an Arab Mosque in Hebron … and sprayed Arab worshipers who were kneeling in prayer with bullets from an automatic weapon. Twenty-nine Palestinians were killed before the enraged crowd tore him to pieces. It was a shameful day in Jewish history, the memory of which should be injected into all future Purim celebrations as a sober reminder of the potential barbarism that is hidden within the old myths of vengeance wrought by the Sons of Israel upon their enemies…. [Baruch's] memorial plaque affirmed that 'he was murdered for the sanctification of the Name…'. In this manipulative phrasing the old Jewish ethos of martyrdom, the sanctification of the Name, was given new meaning - messianic, activist, and murderous…. Purim celebrations in Israel in 2001 were again blotted by ugly incidents. As Jewish hotheadedness increased … harassments of Palestinians took place. During Purim it was a mitzvah, or good deed, to sock it to the modern Amalekites… In Jerusalem dozens of Jews gathered in the Sabath Square, pelted cars with stones, tried to set a minibus on fire, and threw various objects at residents of the Arab quarter. In Zion Gate Jews beat up Palestinians, calling them 'dirty Arabs' and 'terrorists'. One drunken Jew who wounded an Arab in the eye subsequently attacked the police as he was arrested. There was no loss of life in these incidents, but this cannot be said about the Baruch Goldstein precedence of violence that was deliberately injected into the Purim ritual. And if it has become a Purim commandment to drink and then attack Arabs, how should the Arabs react?" (pp 63–64)
38.Jump up ^ Robins, Robert S. and Post, Jerrold M., Political paranoia: the psychopolitics of hatred, Yale University Press, 1997. Quote: "On February 25, 1994, when Dr. Baruch Goldstein walked into the mosque atop the Tomb of the patriarchs in Hebron and fired his automatic weapon into the worshipping Muslims, killing or wounding at least 130 of them … Also on the night before … Goldstein had read … from the Book of Esther which tells the story of the Jewish festival of Purim…. Purim [Baruch's] friend explained 'is a holiday to kill the people who are trying to kill the Jews'" … For most Jews Purim is a joyous celebration of deliverance. But for some it is a celebration of violence, commemorating an uprising of the Jews against their enemies, a day of righteous wrath when 'the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword and with slaughter and destruction, and did what they would unto them that hated them' (Esther 9:1)." (pp 162–163)
39.Jump up ^ Hunter, Alastair G. "Denominating Amalek: Racist stereotyping in the Bible and the Justification of Discrimination" in Sanctified aggression: legacies of biblical and post biblical vocabularies, Jonneke Bekkenkamp, Yvonne Sherwood (Eds), Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003. Quote: Hunter quotes Arthur Waskow on p 103: "on hearing of the murderous attack by Baruch Goldstein": "I know at once that this is no isolated crazy, this 'Baruch Goldstein' who has murdered forty of my cousins. I know at once, he has decided on this Purim to 'blot out the memory of the Amalek' not with a noise maker but with a machine gun… So then, in our generation, for some Jews the Palestinians become Amalek."
40.Jump up ^ Boustan, Ra'anan S., Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity, BRILL, 2010. Quote: "..Christians had grown apprehensive at what they perceived, not without reason, as the ill-will that Jews harbored against the Christian Church… Such concerns are already reflected in the legislation passed in 408 CE against the alleged Jewish practice of burning Haman in effigy on 'a form made to resemble the sainted cross' during the festival of Purim, which the authorities suspected was a gesture of ridicule aimed at the Savior himself…. And, indeed, a verse parody in Jewish Aramaic .. .which features Jesus Christ amid a host of Israel's enemies … justifying the punishment of Haman and bewailing their own cruel fates, may suggest that the dim view of Purim taken by Christian authorities was far from baseless." (p.218)
41.Jump up ^ Hebron Jews: memory and conflict in the land of Israel, by Jerold S. Auerbach, p 137 "Aside form an alleged 'great slaughter' of local Christians by Galilee Jews after the Persian invasion of Jerusalem in 614 CE, which other scholars believed to be dubious, evidence for repetitive Jewish violence on Purim through the centuries was exceedingly meager: occasional episodes of stone throwing, the spilling of 'rancid oil' on a Jewish convert, mockery of the Christian cross, and a total of three recorded Purim deaths inflicted by Jews in a span of more than 1,000 years…. Then, during the annual Purim parade in Hebron five years later [in 1986] a Jewish settler placed a keffiyah on an effigy of Haman, infuriating local Arabs."
42.Jump up ^ Abby Wisse Schachter, The Problem with Purim, February 2010, Commentary Magazine
43.Jump up ^ Quote from Horowitz 2006 Page 4: "On [Purim in 1994] Dr. Baruch Goldstein .. opened fire, with his army-issued semi-automatic rifle, on dozens of Muslims who were praying inside the mosque at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, killing twenty nine. At the time [I was writing] a Hebrew version of an article about the history of Purim violence … as I saw the raucous celebrations in the center of Jerusalem continuing unabated, that there was a clear connection between past Purims and the present one was both exhilarating and disturbing… And the Sabbath before Purim … opens with the command to 'remember what th Amalek did' and concludes with .. the … exhortation to 'blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven'.
44.Jump up ^ Hunter, Alastair G. "Denominating Amalek: Racist stereotyping in the Bible and the Justification of Discrimination" in Sanctified aggression: legacies of biblical and post biblical vocabularies, Jonneke Bekkenkamp, Yvonne Sherwood (Eds), Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003. Hunter quotes Arthur Waskow on page 103: "on hearing of the murderous attack by Baruch Goldstein": "I know at once that this is no isolated crazy, this 'Baruch Goldstein' who has murdered forty of my cousins. I know at once, he has decided on this Purim to 'blot out the memory of the Amalek' not with a noise maker but with a machine gun… So then, in our generation, for some Jews the Palestinians become Amalek."
45.Jump up ^ Gopin, Marc, Between Eden and Armageddon: the future of world religions, violence, and peacemaking, Oxford University Press US, 2000, pp 52-53.
46.Jump up ^ New, David S. Holy war: the rise of militant Christian, Jewish, and Islamic fundamentalism, McFarland, 2002, pp 147-148
47.Jump up ^ Auerbach, Jerold S, Hebron Jews: memory and conflict in the land of Israel, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009, p 137
48.^ Jump up to: a b c Daniel Estrin for the Forward and HaAretz Jan. 22, 2010 The King's Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?
49.Jump up ^ Weisburd, Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985, pp 20-52
50.Jump up ^ Lustick, Ian, "Israel's Dangerous Fundamentalists", Foreign Policy, 68 (Fall 1987), pp 118-139
51.Jump up ^ Tessler, Mark, "Religion and Politics in the Jewish State of Israel", in Religious resurgence and politics in the contemporary world, (Emile Sahliyeh, Ed). SUNY Press, 1990 pp 263-296.
52.Jump up ^ Haberman, Clyde (1994-03-01). "West Bank Massacre: The Overview; Rabin Urges the Palestinians To Put Aside Anger and Talk". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
53.Jump up ^ Rabbi slams Jewish 'hooligans' - Israel News, Ynetnews. Ynetnews.com (1995-06-20). Retrieved on 2010-10-27.
54.Jump up ^ The ethics of war in Asian civilizations: a comparative perspective By Torkel Brekke, Routledge, 2006, p.44
55.Jump up ^ Morris 2008, pp. 126–128.
56.^ Jump up to: a b Judaism and the ethics of war, Norman Solomon. International Review of the Red Cross. Volume 87 Number 858 June 2005
57.Jump up ^ Weisburd, David (1985). Jewish Settler Violence. Penn State Press. p. 65. ISBN 0271026731.
Bruce, Steve (2008). Fundamentalism. Polity. p. 4. ISBN 0745640753.
Ehud Sprinzak, "From Messianic Pioneering to Vigilante Terrorism: The Case of the Gush Emunim Underground", in Inside terrorist organizations David C. Rappoport (Ed.), Routledge, 2001. p. 194-214.
58.Jump up ^ Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.), Springer, p. 78:
".. the Zionist movement, which claims to be secular, found it necessary to embrace the idea of 'the promised land' of Old Testament prophecy, to justify the confiscation of land and the expulsion of the Palestinians. For example, the speeches and letter of Chaim Weizman, the secular Zionist leader, are filled with references to the biblical origins of the Jewish claim to Palestine, which he often mixes liberally with more pragmatic and nationalistic claims. By the use of this premise, embraced in 1937, Zionists alleged that the Palestinians were usurpers in the Promised Land, and therefore their expulsion and death was justified. The Jewish-American writer Dan Kurzman, in his book Genesis 1948 … describes the view of one of the Deir Yassin's killers: 'The Sternists followed the instructions of the Bible more rigidly than others. They honored the passage (Exodus 22:2): 'If a thief be found …' This meant, of course, that killing a thief was not really murder. And were not the enemies of Zionism thieves, who wanted to steal from the Jews what God had granted them?' Carl. S. Ehrlich (1999) "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill. p 117-124.
59.Jump up ^ Rayner, John D. (1997). An understanding of Judaism. p. 57. ISBN 1571819711.
60.Jump up ^ Tuman, Joseph S. (2003). Communicating Terror: The Rhetorical Dimensions of Terrorism. Sage Publications, Inc. p. 93. ISBN 1-4129-7324-4. Retrieved 2010-03-13. "Although Goldstein did not say anything during his attack to explain his actions, it is known that the night before his assault he had attended a service at the Jewish side of the Cave of the Patriarchs where after listening to the traditional reading from the Scroll of Esther, he told others there that they should all behave like Esther. The timing of his attack the next day at the same site hardly seems the product of happenstance or coincidence. It was the day of Purim. Moreover, although his actions seemed to be the product of a mind that had snapped or become depraved, there did not seem to be any sign that he was suffering from a mental disorder. His actions were deliberate and intentional. Goldstein was troubled by the ongoing peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in Oslo and openly concerned that a Palestinian state was about to be created. His attack on Muslim worshippers at the same site, while Purim coincided with Ramadan, was an attempt to cast himself symbolically in the story as Mordecai. Indeed that was exactly the way his actions were interpreted by other settlers at Kiryat Arba, and in the years to come after 1994, there would be numerous instances in which the settlers would celebrate Purim by also invoking Goldstein's memory and image in a provocative manner."
61.Jump up ^ "When Fury Rules". Time. March 7, 1994. Retrieved 2010-04-28. (non-free webpage)
62.Jump up ^ Settlers remember gunman Goldstein; Hebron riots continue. Avi Issacharoff and Chaim Levinson, Haaretz, 28 February 2010
63.Jump up ^ Khalid Amayreh (20 May 2004). "Rabbi supports killings in Rafah". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
64.Jump up ^ "The List: The World’s Worst Religious Leaders". foreignpolicy.com. April 2008 (original article no longer available online). Copies are cached at Google.com and reproduced on richarddawkins.net. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
65.Jump up ^ Haaretz, 2010 Aug. 23, "Those Noisy Barbarians, Dov Lior, the Chief Rabbi of Hebron, Doesn't Want Jews to Take on Boogie-Woogie from the Jungle," http://www.haaretz.com/culture/arts-leisure/those-noisy-barbarians-1.309629
66.Jump up ^ "Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira is the alleged author of a book which deems as legal, according to 'Jewish law,' the killing of non-Jews" by Chaim Levinson. Haaretz.
67.Jump up ^ "Yitzhar rabbi suspected of incitement" by Ben Hartman. Jpost.com.
68.Jump up ^ "Yitzhar rabbi detained by police". Investigators suspect Elitzur-Hershkowitz of racial incitement by Yaakov Lappin.Jpost.com.
69.Jump up ^ Free Judaism and religion in Israel. Free Judaism in association with Milan Press. 1999. p. 47. ISBN 978-965-7111-00-0.
70.Jump up ^ Rabbi Arthur Waskow, The Shalom Center, 14 November 2005 Rabbinic response: Jewish Law on the Killing of Yitzhak Rabin. Quote: "First of all, the law of the pursuer only applies to a spontaneous act, whereas Yigal Amir planned this assassination for two years. Secondly, the law of the pursuer is only intended to save a potential victim from imminent death. There is absolutely no proof that withdrawing from certain territories will directly lead to the death of any Jews. On the contrary, Prime Minister Rabin, over half the members of the Knesset, and over half the population of Israel believe exactly the opposite - that it will save Jewish lives. Lastly, this law does not refer to elected representatives, for if Yitzhak Rabin was really a pursuer, then so are all his followers and that would mean that Amir should have killed over half the population of Israel! In other words, even according to the law of the pursuer, this act was totally futile and senseless since the peace process will continue."
71.Jump up ^ Weiss, Steven I. (2010-02-26). "The Ghosts of Purim Past: The holiday's violent beginnings—and what they mean for the Jewish future".
72.Jump up ^ "Violence and Vengeance: Purim and Good Friday". Dialogika (Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations). 1998-03-28.
73.Jump up ^ U.S. Dept. of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 2004. April 2005
74.Jump up ^ U.S. Appeals Court Affirms Designation of Kahane Chai, Kach as Terrorist Groups Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
75.Jump up ^ Kach, Kahane Chai (Israel, extremists) Council for Foreign Relations, 20 March 2008
76.Jump up ^ Lustick For The Land and The Lord: The Evolution of Gush Emunim, by Ian S. Lustick
77.Jump up ^ Pedahzur, Ami, and Arie Perliger (2009). Jewish Terrorism in Israel. Columbia University Press. pg 33-36
78.^ Jump up to: a b Anti-Defamation League on JDL
79.Jump up ^ Bohn, Michael K. (2004). The Achille Lauro Hijacking: Lessons in the Politics and Prejudice of Terrorism. Brassey's Inc. p. 67. ISBN 1-57488-779-3.
80.Jump up ^ Federal Bureau of Investigation - Congressional Testimony
81.Jump up ^ JDL group profile from National Consortium for the Study of Terror and Responses to Terrorism
82.Jump up ^ Kahane Chai (KACH) Public Safety Canada
83.Jump up ^ Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) U.S. Department of State, 11 October 2005
84.Jump up ^ Council Decision of 21 December 2005 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/848/EC Official Journal of the European Union, 23 December 2005
85.^ Jump up to: a b c "Does the Torah back burning mosques?" by Rabbi Gideon Sylvester. The Jewish Chronicle Online. 22 october 2010.
86.Jump up ^ "Palestinian mosque torched in suspected 'price tag' operation by settlers." by Avi Issacharoff. Haaretz.
87.Jump up ^ "Arsonists torch mosque in West Bank village" by Diaa Hadid. Associated Press.
88.^ Jump up to: a b "Chief rabbi: Palestinian mosque burning harkens to Kristallnacht" by Anshel Pfeffer. Haaretz.
89.Jump up ^ "Settlers replace Korans burnt in West Bank mosque attack". Reuters.
90.Jump up ^ "Board slams West Bank mosque arson". The Jewish Chronicles Online. October 7, 2010.


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam ·
 Jainism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Judaism ·
 Latter Day Saint movement ·
 Monotheism ·
 Catholic ·
 Scientology ·
 Seventh-day Adventist ·
 Sikhism ·
 Twelver Shi’ism ·
 Unification Church
 

Religious texts
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 

Religious figures
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Charles Taze Russell ·
 Ellen White
 

Religion and violence
Violence ·
 Terrorism ·
 Persecution ·
 War ·
 Sectarian violence ·
 Christianity ·
 Mormonism ·
 Judaism ·
 Islam ·
 India
 

Books
Atheist Manifesto ·
 Christianity Unveiled ·
 God in the Age of Science? ·
 God Is Not Great ·
 Letter to a Christian Nation ·
 The Age of Reason ·
 The End of Faith ·
 The God Delusion ·
 The Rage Against God ·
 Why I Am Not a Christian ·
 Why I Am Not a Muslim
 

Movements
Antitheism ·
 Atheism ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Cārvāka ·
 Church of the SubGenius ·
 Flying Spaghetti Monster ·
 Invisible Pink Unicorn ·
 Nontheistic religions
 

People
Dan Barker ·
 George Carlin ·
 Pat Condell ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Daniel Dennett ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Sigmund Freud ·
 Annie Laurie Gaylor ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Walter Kaufman ·
 Bill Maher ·
 Karl Marx ·
 PZ Myers ·
 Taslima Nasrin ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Madalyn Murray O'Hair ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Penn & Teller ·
 Periyar E. V. Ramasamy ·
 Herman Philipse ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 James Randi ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Carl Sagan ·
 André Servier ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Michael Shermer ·
 David Silverman ·
 Robert Spencer ·
 Greydon Square ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Socrates ·
 Mark Twain ·
 Voltaire ·
 Ibn Warraq ·
 Frank Zappa
 

  


Categories: Criticism of Judaism
Judaism and violence
Antisemitic canards






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 2 June 2015, at 15:50.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_violence










Judaism and violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Unbalanced scales.svg
 The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (February 2015)
Not to be confused with Judaism and warfare or Judaism and peace.
Judaism's doctrines and texts have sometimes been associated with violence. Laws requiring the eradication of evil, sometimes using violent means, exist in the Jewish tradition. Judaism also contains peaceful doctrines.[1][2] This article deals with the juxtaposition of Judaic law and theology to violence and non-violence by groups and individuals. Attitudes and laws towards both peace and violence exist within the Jewish tradition.[1] Throughout history, Judaism's religious texts or precepts have been used to promote[3][4][5] as well as oppose violence.[6]


Contents  [hide]
1 General claims
2 Normative Judaism 2.1 Nonviolence
3 Warfare
4 Retribution and punishment 4.1 Eye for an eye
4.2 Capital and corporal punishment
5 Purim and the Book of Esther
6 Modern violence 6.1 Radical Zionists and settlers 6.1.1 Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin
6.2 Extremist organizations
6.3 Views on Violence against Islam
7 See also
8 Bibliography
9 Footnotes

General claims[edit]
Some critics of religion such as Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argue that all monotheistic religions are inherently violent. For example, Nelson-Pallmeyer writes that "Judaism, Christianity and Islam will continue to contribute to the destruction of the world until and unless each challenges violence in "sacred texts" and until each affirms nonviolent power of God".[7]
Bruce Feiler writes that "Jews and Christians who smugly console themselves that Islam is the only violent religion are willfully ignoring their past. Nowhere is the struggle between faith and violence described more vividly, and with more stomach-turning details of ruthlessness, than in the Hebrew Bible".[8] Similarly, Burggraeve and Vervenne describe the Old Testament as full of violence and evidence of both a violent society and a violent god. They write that, "[i]n numerous Old Testament texts the power and glory of Israel's God is described in the language of violence." They assert that more than one thousand passages refer to YHWH as acting violently or supporting the violence of humans and that more than one hundred passages involve divine commands to kill humans.[9]
Supersessionist Christian churches and theologians argue that Judaism is a violent religion and the god of Israel is a violent god, while Christianity is a religion of peace and that the god of Christianity is one that expresses only love.[10] While this view has been common throughout the history of Christianity and remains a common assumption among Christians, it has been rejected by mainstream Christian theologians and denominations since the Holocaust.[11]:1-5
Normative Judaism[edit]
Main article: Judaism and peace
Normative Judaism is not pacifist and violence is condoned in the service of self-defense.[12] J. Patout Burns asserts that Jewish tradition clearly posits the principle of minimization of violence. This principle can be stated as "(wherever) Jewish law allows violence to keep an evil from occurring, it mandates that the minimal amount of violence be used to accomplish one's goal."[13][14]
Nonviolence[edit]
Judaism's religious texts endorse compassion and peace, and the Hebrew Bible contains the well-known commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself".[2] According to the 1947 Columbus Platform of Reform Judaism, "Judaism, from the days of the prophets, has proclaimed to mankind the ideal of universal peace, striving for spiritual and physical disarmament of all nations. Judaism rejects violence and relies upon moral education, love and sympathy."[6]
The philosophy of nonviolence has roots in Judaism, going back to the Jerusalem Talmud of the middle 3rd century. While absolute nonviolence is not a requirement of Judaism, the religion so sharply restricts the use of violence, that nonviolence often becomes the only way to fulfilling a life of truth, justice and peace, which Judaism considers to be the three tools for the preservation of the world.[15]:242
Warfare[edit]
Main article: Judaism and warfare



Jean Fouquet: The Taking of Jericho, c. 1452–1460
While some biblical texts call for and justify offensive war and have had deep impact in Western culture,[16] these texts have been repudiated by mainstream Jewish tradition.[17] However, some strains of radical Zionism promote aggressive war and justify them with biblical texts.[18][19]
Contemporary warfare conducted by the State of Israel is governed by Israeli law and regulation, which includes a Purity of arms code that is based in part on Jewish tradition; the 1992 IDF Code of Conduct combines international law, Israeli law, Jewish heritage and the IDF's own traditional ethical code.[20] Tension between actions of the Israeli government, and Jewish traditions and halakha on the conduct of war, have caused controversy within Israel and have provided a basis for criticisms of Israel.[21]
Retribution and punishment[edit]
Eye for an eye[edit]
Main article: Eye for an eye
While the principle of lex talionis ("an eye for an eye") is clearly stated in the Bible, in Judaism it is not literally applied, and was interpreted to provide a basis for financial compensation for injuries.[22][23] Pasachoff and Littman point to the reinterpretation of the lex talionis as an example of the ability of Pharisaic Judaism to "adapt to changing social and intellectual ideas."[24] Stephen Wylen asserts that the lex talionis is "proof of the unique value of each individual" and that it teaches "equality of all human beings for law."[25]
Capital and corporal punishment[edit]
Main article: Capital and corporal punishment (Judaism)
While the Bible and the Talmud specify many violent punishments, including death by stoning, decapitation, burning, and strangulation for some crimes,[26] these punishments were substantially modified during the rabbinic era, primarily by adding additional requirements for conviction.[27] As a consequence, the death penalty was very rarely applied, and it became more of a principle than a practice. The Talmud states that a court that executes one person in seven years is considered bloodthirsty (Makkot 1:10). The 12th-century Jewish legal scholar Maimonides stated that "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."[27] Whether Jewish communities ever enforced capital punishment or whether the Rabbis ever supported its use is still heavily debated.[28]
Purim and the Book of Esther[edit]
The Book of Esther, one of the books of the Jewish Bible, is a story of palace intrigue centered on a plot to kill all Jews which was thwarted by Esther, a Jewish queen of Persia. Instead of being victims, the Jews killed "all the people who wanted to kill them."[29] The king gave the Jews the ability to defend themselves against their enemies who tried to kill them.[30] numbering 75,000 (Esther 9:16) including Haman, an Amalekite that led the plot to kill the Jews. The annual Purim festival celebrates this event, and includes the recitation of the biblical instruction to "blot out the remembrance [or name] of Amalek". Scholars - including Ian Lustick, Marc Gopin, and Steven Bayme - state that the violence described in the Book of Esther has inspired and incited violent acts and violent attitudes in the post-biblical era, continuing into modern times, often centered on the festival of Purim.[31][4]:2–19, 107–146, 187–212, 213–247[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
Other scholars, including Jerome Auerbach, state that evidence for Jewish violence on Purim through the centuries is "exceedingly meager", including occasional episodes of stone throwing, the spilling of rancid oil on a Jewish convert, and a total of three recorded Purim deaths inflicted by Jews in a span of more than 1,000 years.[41] In a review of historian Elliot Horowitz's book Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence , Hillel Halkin pointed out that the incidences of Jewish violence against non-Jews through the centuries are extraordinarily few in number and that the connection between them and Purim is tenuous.[42]
Rabbi Arthur Waskow and historian Elliot Horowitz state that Baruch Goldstein, perpetrator of the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, may have been motivated by the Book of Esther, because the massacre was carried out on the day of Purim[4]:4, 11, 315[43] [44] [45] [46] but other scholars point out that the association with Purim is circumstantial because Goldstein never explicitly made such a connection.[47]
Modern violence[edit]
Radical Zionists and settlers[edit]
The motives for violence by extremist Jewish settlers in the West Bank directed at Palestinians are complex and varied. While religious motivations have been documented,[48][49][50][51] the use of non-defensive violence is outside of mainstream Judaism and mainstream Zionism.[52][53][54][55]
Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Mandate Palestine, urged that Jewish settlement of the land should proceed by peaceful means only.[56] Contemporary settler movements, follow Kook’s son Tzvi Yehuda Kook (1891–1982), who also did not advocate aggressive conquest.[56] Critics claim that Gush Emunim and followers of Tzvi Yehuda Kook advocate violence based on Judaism's religious precepts.[57] Ian Lustick, Benny Morris, and Nur Masalha assert that radical Zionist leaders relied on religious doctrines for justification for the violent treatment of Arabs in Palestine, citing examples where pre-state Jewish militia used verses from the Bible to justify their violent acts, which included expulsions and massacres such as the one at Deir Yassin.[58]
After Baruch Goldstein carried out the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in 1994, his actions were widely interpreted to based on the radical Zionist ideology of the Kach movement, and was condemned as such by mainstream religious and secular Jews and praised as such by radical Zionists.[4]:6-11[59][60][61][62] Dov Lior, Chief Rabbi of Hebron and Kiryat Arba in the southern West Bank and head of the "Council of Rabbis of Judea and Samaria" has made speeches legitimizing the killing of non-Jews and praising Goldstein as a saint and martyr. Lior also said "a thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail".[63][64] Lior publicly gave permission to spill blood of Arab persons and has publicly supported extreme right-wing Jewish terrorists.[65]
In July 2010, Yitzhak Shapira who heads Dorshei Yihudcha yeshiva in the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar, was arrested by Israeli police for writing a book that encourages the killing of non-Jews. In his book "The King's Torah" (Torat Hamelech) he wrote that under Torah and Jewish Law it is legal to kill Gentiles and even in some cases to kill the babies of enemy forces.[66][67] Later in August 2010 police arrested rabbi Yosef Elitzur-Hershkowitz - co-author of Shapira's book - on the grounds of incitement to racial violence, possession of a racist text, and possession of material that incites to violence. While the book has been endorsed by radical Zionist leaders like Dov Lior[48] and Yaakov Yosef[68] it has been widely condemned by mainstream secular and religious Jews.[48]
Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin[edit]
The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir was motivated by Amir’s personal political views and his understanding of Judaism's religious law of moiser (the duty to eliminate a Jew who intends to turn another Jew in to non-Jewish authorities, thus putting a Jew's life in danger[69]) and rodef (a bystander can kill a one who is pursuing another to murder him or her if he cannot otherwise be stopped).[5]:91 Amir’s interpretation has been described as "a gross distortion of Jewish law and tradition"[70] and the mainstream Jewish view is that Rabin's assassin had no Halachic basis to shoot Prime Minister Rabin.[14]
Extremist organizations[edit]
See also: Jewish religious terrorism
In the course of history there have been some organizations and individuals that endorsed or advocated violence based on their interpretation to Jewish religious principles. Such instances of violence are considered by mainstream Judaism to be extremist aberrations, and not representative of the tenets of Judaism.[71][72]
Kach (defunct) and Kahane Chai [73][74][75]
Gush Emunim Underground (defunct): formed by members of Gush Emunim.[76]
Brit HaKanaim (defunct): an organisation operating in Israel from 1950 to 1953 with the objective of imposing Jewish religious law in the country and establishing a Halakhic state.[77]
The Jewish Defense League (JDL): founded in 1969 by Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City, with the declared purpose of protecting Jews from harassment and antisemitism.[78] FBI statistics show that, from 1980 to 1985, 15 terrorist attacks were attempted in the U.S. by members of the JDL.[79] The FBI’s Mary Doran described the JDL in 2004 Congressional testimony as "a proscribed terrorist group".[80] The National Consortium for the Study of Terror and Responses to Terrorism states that, during the JDL's first two decades of activity, it was an "active terrorist organization.".[78][81] Kahanist groups are banned in Israel.[82][83][84]
Views on Violence against Islam[edit]
While Judaism contains commandments to exterminate idol worship, according to all rabbinic authorities, Islam contains no trace of idolatry.[85] Rabbi Hayim David HaLevi stated that in modern times no one matches the biblical definition of an idolater, and therefore ruled that Jews in Israel have a moral responsibility to treat all citizens with the highest standards of humanity.[85]
Following an arson incident in 2010, in which a mosque in Yasuf village was desecrated, apparently by settlers from the nearby Gush Etzion settlement bloc,[85][86][87] the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger condemned the attack and equated the arson to Kristallnacht, he said: "This is how the Holocaust began, the tragedy of the Jewish people of Europe."[88] Rabbi Menachem Froman, a well-known peace activist, visited the mosque and replaced the burnt Koran with new copies.[89] The rabbi stated: "This visit is to say that although there are people who oppose peace, he who opposes peace is opposed to God" and "Jewish law also prohibits damaging a holy place." He also remarked that arson in a mosque is an attempt to sow hatred between Jews and Arabs.[88][90]
See also[edit]
Jewish religious terrorism
Forcible conversion to Judaism
Jewish ethics
Zionist political violence
Judaism and peace
Persecution of Jews
Religious violence Christianity and violence Mormonism and violence
Islam and violence
Buddhism and violence

Bibliography[edit]
Berger, Michael S., "Taming the Beast: Rabbinic Pacification of Second-Century Jewish Nationalism", in Belief and bloodshed: religion and violence across time and tradition, James K. Wellman (Ed.), Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, pp 47–62
Boustan, Ra'anan S., "Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity", in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity, Ra'anan S. Boustan, Alex P. Jassen, Calvin J. Roetzel (Eds), BRILL, 2010 pp 1–12
Chilton, Bruce, Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Doubleday, 2009
Chomsky, Noam, World orders, old and new, Columbia University Press, 1996
Ehrlich, Carl. S, "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill. pp 117–124.
Ellens, J. Harold (Ed.), The destructive power of religion: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007
Esber, Rosemarie M., Under the Cover of War: The Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians, Arabicus Books & Media, LLC, 2009
Feldman, Louis H., "Remember Amalek!": vengeance, zealotry, and group destruction in the Bible according to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus, Hebrew Union College Press, 2004
Firestone, Reuven, "Judaism on Violence and Reconciliation: An Examination of Key Sources", in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, James Heft (Ed.), Fordham Univ Press, 2004, pp 74–87
Glick, Leonard B., "Religion and Genocide", in The Widening circle of genocide, Alan L. Berger (Ed). Transaction Publishers, 1994, pp 43–74
Gopin, Marc, Between Eden and Armageddon: the future of world religions, violence, and peacemaking, Oxford University Press US, 2000.
Harkabi, Yehoshafat, Arab attitudes to Israel, John Wiley and Sons, 1974
Heft, James (Ed.), Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Fordham Univ Press, 2004
Hirst, David, The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East, Nation Books, 2003
Hoffman, R. Joseph, The just war and jihad: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Prometheus Books, 2006
Horowitz, Elliott S., Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence, Princeton University Press, 2006
Jacobs, Steven Leonard, "The Last Uncomfortable Religious Question? Monotheistic Exclusivism and Textual Superiority in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as Sources of Hate and Genocide", in Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Steven L. Jacobs (Ed.), Lexington Books, 2009, pp 35–46
Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence, University of California Press, 2003
Kuper, Leo, "Theological Warrants for Genocide: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity", in Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Steven L. Jacobs (Ed.), Lexington Books, 2009, pp 3–34
Lustick, Ian, For the land and the Lord: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988
Masalha, Nur, The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-colonialism in Palestine-Israel, Zed Books, 2007
Morris, Benny, The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited, Cambridge University Press, 2004
Niditch, Susan, War in the Hebrew Bible: a study in the ethics of violence, Oxford University Press US, 1995
Pappe, Ilan, The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld, 2007
Pedahzur, Ami, Jewish terrorism in Israel, Columbia University Press, Columbia University Press, 2009
Perliger, Arie and Weinberg, Leonard, "Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions", in Religious fundamentalism and political extremism, Perliger, Arie (Ed.), Taylor & Francis, 2004, pp 91–118
Phillips, Gary A., "More Than the Jews … His Blood Be Upon All the Children: Biblical Violence, Genocide and Responsible Reading", in Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Steven L. Jacobs (Ed.), Lexington Books, 2009, pp 77–87
Pitkanen, Pekka, "Memory, Witnesses, and Genocide in the Book of Joshua", in Reading the law: studies in honour of Gordon J. Wenham, J. Gordon McConville, Karl Möller (Eds), Continuum International Publishing Group, 2007, pp 267–282
Prior, Michael P., The Bible and colonialism: a moral critique, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Quigley, John B., Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice, Duke University Press, 1990
Saleh Abd al-Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.), Springer, 2007
Selengut, Charles, Sacred fury: understanding religious violence, Rowman & Littlefield, 2008
Shahak, Israel, Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, Pluto Press, 1999
Sprinzak, Ehud, Brother against brother: violence and extremism in Israeli politics from Altalena to the Rabin assassination, Simon and Schuster, 1999
Van Wees, Hans, "Genocide in the Ancient World", in The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses (Eds), Oxford University Press US, 2010, pp 239–258.
Weisburd, David, Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985
Whitelam, Keith W., The invention of ancient Israel: the silencing of Palestinian history, Routledge, 1996
Footnotes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition. Michael J. Broyde, 1998, p. 1
2.^ Jump up to: a b *Reuven Firestone (2004), "Judaism on Violence and Reconciliation: An examination of key sources" in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Fordham Univ Press, 2004, pp 77, 81. Goldsmith (Ed.), Emanuel S. (1991). Dynamic Judaism: the essential writings of Mordecai M. Kaplan. Fordham Univ Press. p. 181. ISBN 0823213102.
Spero, Shubert (1983). Morality, halakha, and the Jewish tradition. KTAV Publishing House, Inc. pp. 137–318. ISBN 0870687271.
3.Jump up ^ Carl. S. Ehrlich (1999) "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill.
4.^ Jump up to: a b c d Horowitz, Elliott S. (2006). Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691124914.
5.^ Jump up to: a b Stern, Jessica (2004). Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill, Jessica Stern. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-050533-8.
6.^ Jump up to: a b The Columbus Platform: The Guiding Principles of Reform Judaism, 1937
7.Jump up ^ Nelson-Pallmeyer, Jack (2005). Is religion killing us?: violence in the Bible and the Quran. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 136.
8.Jump up ^ Feiler, Bruce S. (2005). Where God was born: a journey by land to the roots of religion. HarperCollins. p. 4.
9.Jump up ^ Burggraeve, Roger; Vervenne, Marc (1991). Swords into plowshares: theological reflections on peace. Peeters Publishers. pp. 82,109.
10.Jump up ^ Heft, James, ed. (2004). Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Fordham Univ Press.
11.Jump up ^ R. Kendall Soulen. The God of Israel and Christian Theology Fortress Press (June 11, 1996) ISBN 978-0800628833
12.Jump up ^ "The Co-existence of Violence and Non-Violence in Judaism". Retrieved 2010-12-09.
13.Jump up ^ Burns, J. Patout (1996). War and its discontents: pacifism and quietism in the Abrahamic traditions. Georgetown University Press. p. 18.
14.^ Jump up to: a b Halacha File: The Halacha of Rodef and the Rabin Shooting. Koltorah.org (2004-11-20). Retrieved on 2010-10-27.
15.Jump up ^ Sandra L. Bloom, Michael Reichert, Bearing witness: violence and collective responsibility. Routledge, 1998. ISBN 978-0789004789
16.Jump up ^ Lemche, Niels Peter, The Old Testament between theology and history: a critical survey, Westminster John Knox Press, 2008,pp 315–316:"The [Biblical] story of the 'morally supreme people' that defeats and exterminates another, inferior, nation was part of the ideological baggage of European imperialists and colonizers throughout the nineteenth century. It was also carried by European Jews who,... migrated to Palestine to inherit their ancestral country … In this modern version of the biblical narrative, the Palestinian population turned into 'Canaanites', supposed to be morally inferior to the Jews, and of course the Arabs were never considered their equals … The Bible was the instrument used to suppress the enemy".
17.Jump up ^ Greenberg, Moshe, "On the Political User of the Bible in Modern Israel: An Engaged Critique", in Pomegranates and golden bells: studies in biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern ritual, law, and literature, EISENBRAUNS, 1995, p 467-469: "No 'national' commandment such as that of 'conquest and settling the land' occurs in any of these [Judaic] summaries [of the Torah]… [arguments for applying herem to modern Israel] introduces a distinction that Scripture does not recognize; nowhere are the obligations referred to in the summaries contingent on the achievement of the land-taking or the destruction of Israel's enemies. To suppose that they may be set aside or suspended for the accomplishment of national ends is a leap far beyond scripture…. The [biblical] injunctions to take the land are embedded in narrative and give the appearance of being addressed to a specific generation, like the commandment to annihilate or expel the natives of Canaan, which refers specifically to the seven Canaanite nations… Now, had there ben any inclination to generalize the law [of extermination], it would have been easy for the talmudic sages to [do so]. But in fact the sages left the ancient herem law as they found it: applying to seven extinct nations."
18.Jump up ^ Kravitz, Leonard, "What is Crime?", in Crime and punishment in Jewish law: essays and responsa, Editors Walter Jacob, Moshe Zemer Berghahn Books, 1999, p 31: Quote: "Sin has changed [since biblical times]; crime has changed. We bring a different sensibility to our reading of the sacred texts of the past, even the Torah. There are passages in it which to our modern minds command crimes, the kind of crimes which our age would call 'crimes against humanity' … I think of the problematic section in the Mattot [Numbers 31] which contains the commandment to exact revenge against the Midianites by slaying every male and every female old enough to engage in sexual intercourse…. I used to think that were they [Midianites] suddenly to appear, no Jew would be willing to carry out such a commandment. Then Baruch Goldstein appeared on the scene, and he was followed by Yigal Amir and now I am not sure…. I find the commandment to commit genocide against the Midianite unacceptable. To accept the commandment to do the same to 'the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Peruzzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites' seems to me to make permissible the Holocaust, the attempted genocide of the Jewish people."
19.Jump up ^ Lustick, Ian, For the land and the Lord: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988.
20.Jump up ^ "Ethics – The IDF Spirit". IDF Spokesperson's Unit. Retrieved 10 June 2010.
21.Jump up ^ Chomsky, Noam (1999). Fateful triangle: the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (2nd Ed, revised). South End Press. pp. 153–154. ISBN 0896086011.
22.Jump up ^ Lewis, Harry Samuel (1915). Liberal Judaism and social service. Bloch Pub. Co. p. 37.
23.Jump up ^ Kalimi, Isaac; Haas, Peter J. (2006). Biblical interpretation in Judaism and Christianity. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 2.
24.Jump up ^ Pasachoff, Naomi E.; Littman, Robert J. (2005). A concise history of the Jewish people. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 64.
25.Jump up ^ Wylen, Stephen M. (2005). The seventy faces of Torah: the Jewish way of reading the Sacred Scriptures. Paulist Press. p. 20.
26.Jump up ^ Sanhedrin 11:1 specifies strangulation
Neusner, Jacob, Comparing religions through law: Judaism and Islam,
page 107-111
27.^ Jump up to: a b Goldstein, Warren (2006). Defending the human spirit: Jewish law's vision for a moral society. Feldheim Publishers. p. 269. ISBN 978-1-58330-732-8. Retrieved 22 October 2010.
28.Jump up ^ Jacobs, Jill. There Shall Be No Needy: Pursuing Social Justice Through Jewish Law & Tradition. Woodstock, Vt: Jewish Lights, 2009.
29.Jump up ^ Free Bible Version...
30.Jump up ^ Megilat Esther - the Jewish Magazine
31.Jump up ^ Lustick, Ian, For the land and the Lord: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988. Quote: "Of decisive importance to Jewish fundamentalists is their belief that contemporary political developments are part of an unfolding cosmic drama that will determine, depending on the willingness of Jews to act decisively on its behalf, whether God's redemption of his people Israel, and of the whole world, will or will not soon reach its completion…. The massacre in the Hebron mosque on the Jewish holiday of Purim is a tragic, but telling, example. Preceded by a rash of killings of Jewish settlers by Muslim fundamentalists … it is not in the least a coincidence that the massacre took place on the Jewish holiday of Purim. For most Jews Purim means listening to .. the Book of Esther .. .It is an occasion for merry-making, games, charity and the exchange of gifts. But as Goldstein sat reading that same book on Purim even in 1994, it is almost certain he identified Yasir Arafat with Haman, the arch-enemy of the Jews of ancient Persia, and the killing of Jewish settlers over the previous months with Haman's murderous designs. Accordingly, he [Goldstein] focused on often-ignored verses at the end of the book [of Esther] which, for Jewish fundamentalists, capture the essence of the story under contemporary circumstances and contain a divine imperative to act. According to the Book of Esther the Jews are saved by the king who reverses Haman's evil decree and declares instead that Jews may do unto their enemies what their enemies had intended to do unto them 'to stand up for themselves, to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might assault them, with their little ones and women' (Esther 8:11)….By mowing down Arabs he believed wanted to kill Jews, Goldstein was re-enacting part of the Purim story." (pp ix-xi.)
32.Jump up ^ Quotes from Horowitz 2006 page 16: "This book deals not only with the theme of Amalek and responses - Christian as well as Jewish - to the book of Esther over the centuries, but also with Jewish violence connected with the holiday of Purim, from the early fifth century to the late twentieth."page 19: "The first [part of this book] is devoted .. to the book of Esther … Was it a book that promoted cruel vengeance…? Since according to Jewish law the Amalekites, including women and children, had to be utterly destroyed, thinking about Amalek involved … thinking about the possibilities of, and justifications for, Jewish violence. [The second part of this book includes discussion of] one specific form of Jewish violence over many centuries - the descration of the cross and other Christian images…. [chapter 8 is] devoted to violence against Christians, sometimes within the context of the Purim festiviy, in the 5th-7th centuries. Chapter 9 carries the subject of Purim violence into the medieval and early modern Europe, especially against the background of the often violent rites of Carnival."
33.Jump up ^ Bayme, Steven, "Saddam, Haman, and Amalek", in Jewish arguments and counterarguments: essays and addresses, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 2002: Quote: "For many centuries Purim has been a source of both joy and embarrassment for Jews. … Still others have challenged the doctrine of violence associated with the holiday… Martin Luther, for one, accused the Jews of bloodthirsty and vengeful spirit in the Book of Esther… [Luther] reflect[s] the close association of Purim with the biblical doctrine of war against the Amalek. The theme of Jewish violence against Haman and his supporters, the doctrine of Amalek, has caused Jews the greatest discomfort with the Book of Esther and the holiday with which it is associated…. Judaism teaches that violence is justified under certain circumstances - particularly defense against aggression … Amalek, the rabbis argue, is the eternally irreconcilable enemy who represents a value system that promotes murder … Herein lies the enduring relevance of Purim. Aggression must be stopped and evil eliminated…. The meaning of Purim is relevant to the question of the war in the Persian Gulf today [2002]…. [Saddam Hussein's] unprovoked Scud missile attacks against entirely civilian targets in Israel are reminiscent of Amaleks's treacherous attacks upon the … Israelites...." (pp 75–80)
34.Jump up ^ The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition Michael David Coogan (Ed). Quote:"Jews and Christians have also been troubled by the story's [Book of Esther] enthusiastic account of the violence of the Jewish community's response to their enemies, which involved not only self defense but also the slaughter of women and children, including the sons of Haman. The bloodthirsty language, however, derives from the story's symmetric pattern of reversals.." (p 708)
35.Jump up ^ Gopin, Marc, Between Eden and Armageddon: the future of world religions, violence, and peacemaking, Oxford University Press US, 2000. Quote :"I have known many Orthodox rabbis, for example, who would be happy to ensure that a holiday such as Purim, with its obligatory reading of the Book of Esther, which cluminates with the slaughter of the people - including their children - who tried to exterminate the Jewish people, would never be used to justify the killing of anyone today. They certainly are deeply ashamed by Baruch Goldstein's mass murder at the Hebron mosque, which was inspired in part by Purim…. They can and do give moralistic sermons, and they can and do interpret the story in less violent terms…. The hermeneutic give and take of Purim is but one example of the way in which a deeply embedded tradition will not disappear even when many people reject its implicit message of violence…. It is not likely [that Purim would diminish in importance] in the current climate of religious revivalism, but it is possible that the violence of the story could be overshadowed with time by the numerous benevolent characteristics of the holiday, such as aiding the poor…. Jewish empowerment allows for a new hermeneutic that could centralize the violence of the story. If the political situation were to rapidly deteriorate, it is conceivable that Purim could become for radical Jews what Ramadan has become for radical Muslims in Algeria, a killing season…. Even the most radically pacifist Jews that I know do not eliminate this holiday, although they do not really know what to do with sacralized violence yet, and are now only evolving a spiritual and ritual reworking of traumatic and violent episodes." (pp 52–53)
36.Jump up ^ Nirenberg, David, Communities of violence: persecution of minorities in the Middle Ages, Princeton University Press, 1998. Quote:"There is evidence … that Jews could use ritual violence to criticize the Christians in whose lands they dwelled An obvious example is Purim, on which see E. Horowitz, The Rite to Be Reckless ..; and for a late medieval Iberian example, S. Levy, "Notas sobre el 'Purrim de Zaragoza", Anuario do Filologia 5 (1979): 203-217." (page 220)
37.Jump up ^ Gonen, Jay Y., Yahweh versus Yahweh: the enigma of Jewish history, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2005. Quote :"In 1994, on Purim day, Jewish physician Baruch Goldstein burst into an Arab Mosque in Hebron … and sprayed Arab worshipers who were kneeling in prayer with bullets from an automatic weapon. Twenty-nine Palestinians were killed before the enraged crowd tore him to pieces. It was a shameful day in Jewish history, the memory of which should be injected into all future Purim celebrations as a sober reminder of the potential barbarism that is hidden within the old myths of vengeance wrought by the Sons of Israel upon their enemies…. [Baruch's] memorial plaque affirmed that 'he was murdered for the sanctification of the Name…'. In this manipulative phrasing the old Jewish ethos of martyrdom, the sanctification of the Name, was given new meaning - messianic, activist, and murderous…. Purim celebrations in Israel in 2001 were again blotted by ugly incidents. As Jewish hotheadedness increased … harassments of Palestinians took place. During Purim it was a mitzvah, or good deed, to sock it to the modern Amalekites… In Jerusalem dozens of Jews gathered in the Sabath Square, pelted cars with stones, tried to set a minibus on fire, and threw various objects at residents of the Arab quarter. In Zion Gate Jews beat up Palestinians, calling them 'dirty Arabs' and 'terrorists'. One drunken Jew who wounded an Arab in the eye subsequently attacked the police as he was arrested. There was no loss of life in these incidents, but this cannot be said about the Baruch Goldstein precedence of violence that was deliberately injected into the Purim ritual. And if it has become a Purim commandment to drink and then attack Arabs, how should the Arabs react?" (pp 63–64)
38.Jump up ^ Robins, Robert S. and Post, Jerrold M., Political paranoia: the psychopolitics of hatred, Yale University Press, 1997. Quote: "On February 25, 1994, when Dr. Baruch Goldstein walked into the mosque atop the Tomb of the patriarchs in Hebron and fired his automatic weapon into the worshipping Muslims, killing or wounding at least 130 of them … Also on the night before … Goldstein had read … from the Book of Esther which tells the story of the Jewish festival of Purim…. Purim [Baruch's] friend explained 'is a holiday to kill the people who are trying to kill the Jews'" … For most Jews Purim is a joyous celebration of deliverance. But for some it is a celebration of violence, commemorating an uprising of the Jews against their enemies, a day of righteous wrath when 'the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword and with slaughter and destruction, and did what they would unto them that hated them' (Esther 9:1)." (pp 162–163)
39.Jump up ^ Hunter, Alastair G. "Denominating Amalek: Racist stereotyping in the Bible and the Justification of Discrimination" in Sanctified aggression: legacies of biblical and post biblical vocabularies, Jonneke Bekkenkamp, Yvonne Sherwood (Eds), Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003. Quote: Hunter quotes Arthur Waskow on p 103: "on hearing of the murderous attack by Baruch Goldstein": "I know at once that this is no isolated crazy, this 'Baruch Goldstein' who has murdered forty of my cousins. I know at once, he has decided on this Purim to 'blot out the memory of the Amalek' not with a noise maker but with a machine gun… So then, in our generation, for some Jews the Palestinians become Amalek."
40.Jump up ^ Boustan, Ra'anan S., Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity, BRILL, 2010. Quote: "..Christians had grown apprehensive at what they perceived, not without reason, as the ill-will that Jews harbored against the Christian Church… Such concerns are already reflected in the legislation passed in 408 CE against the alleged Jewish practice of burning Haman in effigy on 'a form made to resemble the sainted cross' during the festival of Purim, which the authorities suspected was a gesture of ridicule aimed at the Savior himself…. And, indeed, a verse parody in Jewish Aramaic .. .which features Jesus Christ amid a host of Israel's enemies … justifying the punishment of Haman and bewailing their own cruel fates, may suggest that the dim view of Purim taken by Christian authorities was far from baseless." (p.218)
41.Jump up ^ Hebron Jews: memory and conflict in the land of Israel, by Jerold S. Auerbach, p 137 "Aside form an alleged 'great slaughter' of local Christians by Galilee Jews after the Persian invasion of Jerusalem in 614 CE, which other scholars believed to be dubious, evidence for repetitive Jewish violence on Purim through the centuries was exceedingly meager: occasional episodes of stone throwing, the spilling of 'rancid oil' on a Jewish convert, mockery of the Christian cross, and a total of three recorded Purim deaths inflicted by Jews in a span of more than 1,000 years…. Then, during the annual Purim parade in Hebron five years later [in 1986] a Jewish settler placed a keffiyah on an effigy of Haman, infuriating local Arabs."
42.Jump up ^ Abby Wisse Schachter, The Problem with Purim, February 2010, Commentary Magazine
43.Jump up ^ Quote from Horowitz 2006 Page 4: "On [Purim in 1994] Dr. Baruch Goldstein .. opened fire, with his army-issued semi-automatic rifle, on dozens of Muslims who were praying inside the mosque at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, killing twenty nine. At the time [I was writing] a Hebrew version of an article about the history of Purim violence … as I saw the raucous celebrations in the center of Jerusalem continuing unabated, that there was a clear connection between past Purims and the present one was both exhilarating and disturbing… And the Sabbath before Purim … opens with the command to 'remember what th Amalek did' and concludes with .. the … exhortation to 'blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven'.
44.Jump up ^ Hunter, Alastair G. "Denominating Amalek: Racist stereotyping in the Bible and the Justification of Discrimination" in Sanctified aggression: legacies of biblical and post biblical vocabularies, Jonneke Bekkenkamp, Yvonne Sherwood (Eds), Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003. Hunter quotes Arthur Waskow on page 103: "on hearing of the murderous attack by Baruch Goldstein": "I know at once that this is no isolated crazy, this 'Baruch Goldstein' who has murdered forty of my cousins. I know at once, he has decided on this Purim to 'blot out the memory of the Amalek' not with a noise maker but with a machine gun… So then, in our generation, for some Jews the Palestinians become Amalek."
45.Jump up ^ Gopin, Marc, Between Eden and Armageddon: the future of world religions, violence, and peacemaking, Oxford University Press US, 2000, pp 52-53.
46.Jump up ^ New, David S. Holy war: the rise of militant Christian, Jewish, and Islamic fundamentalism, McFarland, 2002, pp 147-148
47.Jump up ^ Auerbach, Jerold S, Hebron Jews: memory and conflict in the land of Israel, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009, p 137
48.^ Jump up to: a b c Daniel Estrin for the Forward and HaAretz Jan. 22, 2010 The King's Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?
49.Jump up ^ Weisburd, Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985, pp 20-52
50.Jump up ^ Lustick, Ian, "Israel's Dangerous Fundamentalists", Foreign Policy, 68 (Fall 1987), pp 118-139
51.Jump up ^ Tessler, Mark, "Religion and Politics in the Jewish State of Israel", in Religious resurgence and politics in the contemporary world, (Emile Sahliyeh, Ed). SUNY Press, 1990 pp 263-296.
52.Jump up ^ Haberman, Clyde (1994-03-01). "West Bank Massacre: The Overview; Rabin Urges the Palestinians To Put Aside Anger and Talk". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
53.Jump up ^ Rabbi slams Jewish 'hooligans' - Israel News, Ynetnews. Ynetnews.com (1995-06-20). Retrieved on 2010-10-27.
54.Jump up ^ The ethics of war in Asian civilizations: a comparative perspective By Torkel Brekke, Routledge, 2006, p.44
55.Jump up ^ Morris 2008, pp. 126–128.
56.^ Jump up to: a b Judaism and the ethics of war, Norman Solomon. International Review of the Red Cross. Volume 87 Number 858 June 2005
57.Jump up ^ Weisburd, David (1985). Jewish Settler Violence. Penn State Press. p. 65. ISBN 0271026731.
Bruce, Steve (2008). Fundamentalism. Polity. p. 4. ISBN 0745640753.
Ehud Sprinzak, "From Messianic Pioneering to Vigilante Terrorism: The Case of the Gush Emunim Underground", in Inside terrorist organizations David C. Rappoport (Ed.), Routledge, 2001. p. 194-214.
58.Jump up ^ Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.), Springer, p. 78:
".. the Zionist movement, which claims to be secular, found it necessary to embrace the idea of 'the promised land' of Old Testament prophecy, to justify the confiscation of land and the expulsion of the Palestinians. For example, the speeches and letter of Chaim Weizman, the secular Zionist leader, are filled with references to the biblical origins of the Jewish claim to Palestine, which he often mixes liberally with more pragmatic and nationalistic claims. By the use of this premise, embraced in 1937, Zionists alleged that the Palestinians were usurpers in the Promised Land, and therefore their expulsion and death was justified. The Jewish-American writer Dan Kurzman, in his book Genesis 1948 … describes the view of one of the Deir Yassin's killers: 'The Sternists followed the instructions of the Bible more rigidly than others. They honored the passage (Exodus 22:2): 'If a thief be found …' This meant, of course, that killing a thief was not really murder. And were not the enemies of Zionism thieves, who wanted to steal from the Jews what God had granted them?' Carl. S. Ehrlich (1999) "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill. p 117-124.
59.Jump up ^ Rayner, John D. (1997). An understanding of Judaism. p. 57. ISBN 1571819711.
60.Jump up ^ Tuman, Joseph S. (2003). Communicating Terror: The Rhetorical Dimensions of Terrorism. Sage Publications, Inc. p. 93. ISBN 1-4129-7324-4. Retrieved 2010-03-13. "Although Goldstein did not say anything during his attack to explain his actions, it is known that the night before his assault he had attended a service at the Jewish side of the Cave of the Patriarchs where after listening to the traditional reading from the Scroll of Esther, he told others there that they should all behave like Esther. The timing of his attack the next day at the same site hardly seems the product of happenstance or coincidence. It was the day of Purim. Moreover, although his actions seemed to be the product of a mind that had snapped or become depraved, there did not seem to be any sign that he was suffering from a mental disorder. His actions were deliberate and intentional. Goldstein was troubled by the ongoing peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in Oslo and openly concerned that a Palestinian state was about to be created. His attack on Muslim worshippers at the same site, while Purim coincided with Ramadan, was an attempt to cast himself symbolically in the story as Mordecai. Indeed that was exactly the way his actions were interpreted by other settlers at Kiryat Arba, and in the years to come after 1994, there would be numerous instances in which the settlers would celebrate Purim by also invoking Goldstein's memory and image in a provocative manner."
61.Jump up ^ "When Fury Rules". Time. March 7, 1994. Retrieved 2010-04-28. (non-free webpage)
62.Jump up ^ Settlers remember gunman Goldstein; Hebron riots continue. Avi Issacharoff and Chaim Levinson, Haaretz, 28 February 2010
63.Jump up ^ Khalid Amayreh (20 May 2004). "Rabbi supports killings in Rafah". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
64.Jump up ^ "The List: The World’s Worst Religious Leaders". foreignpolicy.com. April 2008 (original article no longer available online). Copies are cached at Google.com and reproduced on richarddawkins.net. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
65.Jump up ^ Haaretz, 2010 Aug. 23, "Those Noisy Barbarians, Dov Lior, the Chief Rabbi of Hebron, Doesn't Want Jews to Take on Boogie-Woogie from the Jungle," http://www.haaretz.com/culture/arts-leisure/those-noisy-barbarians-1.309629
66.Jump up ^ "Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira is the alleged author of a book which deems as legal, according to 'Jewish law,' the killing of non-Jews" by Chaim Levinson. Haaretz.
67.Jump up ^ "Yitzhar rabbi suspected of incitement" by Ben Hartman. Jpost.com.
68.Jump up ^ "Yitzhar rabbi detained by police". Investigators suspect Elitzur-Hershkowitz of racial incitement by Yaakov Lappin.Jpost.com.
69.Jump up ^ Free Judaism and religion in Israel. Free Judaism in association with Milan Press. 1999. p. 47. ISBN 978-965-7111-00-0.
70.Jump up ^ Rabbi Arthur Waskow, The Shalom Center, 14 November 2005 Rabbinic response: Jewish Law on the Killing of Yitzhak Rabin. Quote: "First of all, the law of the pursuer only applies to a spontaneous act, whereas Yigal Amir planned this assassination for two years. Secondly, the law of the pursuer is only intended to save a potential victim from imminent death. There is absolutely no proof that withdrawing from certain territories will directly lead to the death of any Jews. On the contrary, Prime Minister Rabin, over half the members of the Knesset, and over half the population of Israel believe exactly the opposite - that it will save Jewish lives. Lastly, this law does not refer to elected representatives, for if Yitzhak Rabin was really a pursuer, then so are all his followers and that would mean that Amir should have killed over half the population of Israel! In other words, even according to the law of the pursuer, this act was totally futile and senseless since the peace process will continue."
71.Jump up ^ Weiss, Steven I. (2010-02-26). "The Ghosts of Purim Past: The holiday's violent beginnings—and what they mean for the Jewish future".
72.Jump up ^ "Violence and Vengeance: Purim and Good Friday". Dialogika (Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations). 1998-03-28.
73.Jump up ^ U.S. Dept. of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 2004. April 2005
74.Jump up ^ U.S. Appeals Court Affirms Designation of Kahane Chai, Kach as Terrorist Groups Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
75.Jump up ^ Kach, Kahane Chai (Israel, extremists) Council for Foreign Relations, 20 March 2008
76.Jump up ^ Lustick For The Land and The Lord: The Evolution of Gush Emunim, by Ian S. Lustick
77.Jump up ^ Pedahzur, Ami, and Arie Perliger (2009). Jewish Terrorism in Israel. Columbia University Press. pg 33-36
78.^ Jump up to: a b Anti-Defamation League on JDL
79.Jump up ^ Bohn, Michael K. (2004). The Achille Lauro Hijacking: Lessons in the Politics and Prejudice of Terrorism. Brassey's Inc. p. 67. ISBN 1-57488-779-3.
80.Jump up ^ Federal Bureau of Investigation - Congressional Testimony
81.Jump up ^ JDL group profile from National Consortium for the Study of Terror and Responses to Terrorism
82.Jump up ^ Kahane Chai (KACH) Public Safety Canada
83.Jump up ^ Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) U.S. Department of State, 11 October 2005
84.Jump up ^ Council Decision of 21 December 2005 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/848/EC Official Journal of the European Union, 23 December 2005
85.^ Jump up to: a b c "Does the Torah back burning mosques?" by Rabbi Gideon Sylvester. The Jewish Chronicle Online. 22 october 2010.
86.Jump up ^ "Palestinian mosque torched in suspected 'price tag' operation by settlers." by Avi Issacharoff. Haaretz.
87.Jump up ^ "Arsonists torch mosque in West Bank village" by Diaa Hadid. Associated Press.
88.^ Jump up to: a b "Chief rabbi: Palestinian mosque burning harkens to Kristallnacht" by Anshel Pfeffer. Haaretz.
89.Jump up ^ "Settlers replace Korans burnt in West Bank mosque attack". Reuters.
90.Jump up ^ "Board slams West Bank mosque arson". The Jewish Chronicles Online. October 7, 2010.


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam ·
 Jainism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Judaism ·
 Latter Day Saint movement ·
 Monotheism ·
 Catholic ·
 Scientology ·
 Seventh-day Adventist ·
 Sikhism ·
 Twelver Shi’ism ·
 Unification Church
 

Religious texts
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 

Religious figures
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Charles Taze Russell ·
 Ellen White
 

Religion and violence
Violence ·
 Terrorism ·
 Persecution ·
 War ·
 Sectarian violence ·
 Christianity ·
 Mormonism ·
 Judaism ·
 Islam ·
 India
 

Books
Atheist Manifesto ·
 Christianity Unveiled ·
 God in the Age of Science? ·
 God Is Not Great ·
 Letter to a Christian Nation ·
 The Age of Reason ·
 The End of Faith ·
 The God Delusion ·
 The Rage Against God ·
 Why I Am Not a Christian ·
 Why I Am Not a Muslim
 

Movements
Antitheism ·
 Atheism ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Cārvāka ·
 Church of the SubGenius ·
 Flying Spaghetti Monster ·
 Invisible Pink Unicorn ·
 Nontheistic religions
 

People
Dan Barker ·
 George Carlin ·
 Pat Condell ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Daniel Dennett ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Sigmund Freud ·
 Annie Laurie Gaylor ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Walter Kaufman ·
 Bill Maher ·
 Karl Marx ·
 PZ Myers ·
 Taslima Nasrin ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Madalyn Murray O'Hair ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Penn & Teller ·
 Periyar E. V. Ramasamy ·
 Herman Philipse ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 James Randi ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Carl Sagan ·
 André Servier ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Michael Shermer ·
 David Silverman ·
 Robert Spencer ·
 Greydon Square ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Socrates ·
 Mark Twain ·
 Voltaire ·
 Ibn Warraq ·
 Frank Zappa
 

  


Categories: Criticism of Judaism
Judaism and violence
Antisemitic canards






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links
This page was last modified on 2 June 2015, at 15:50.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_violence










Islam and violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.


Question book-new.svg

This article relies too much on references to primary sources.  (October 2013)




This article contains too many or too-lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry.  (October 2013)




This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them.  (June 2015)


Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Islam's doctrines and texts have in some cases been associated with violence. This article deals with the juxtaposition in Islamic law and theology of violence and non-violence by groups and individuals. Attitudes and laws towards both violence and peace exist within the Islamic tradition.
Pacifism in Islam is primarily associated with the Ahmadiyya, Alevi, Mouride, and Sufi sects.[citation needed] Mainstream Islamic law stipulates detailed regulations for the use of violence, including the use of violence within the family or household, the use of corporal or capital punishment, as well as how and when to wage war.
Research continues on the Quran, but the beliefs of Muslims around the world and further related data is also emerging. For instance, the majority of Muslim political leaders and organizations have flatly condemned the attacks of September 11, included the leaders of Egypt (Hosni Mubarak), the Palestinian Authority (Yasser Arafat), Libya (Muammar Gaddafi), Syria (Bashar al-Assad), Iran (Mohamed Khatami) and Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf) among others.[1][2][3] Early Gallup Poll data suggested that 6.5% of Muslims worldwide thought the 9/11 attacks were mostly justified, while 55.4% thought the attacks were not justified at all.[4] More recently, the Pew Research Center's 2013 poll showed that the majority of Muslims in most Muslim countries oppose terrorism.[5]


Contents  [hide]
1 Perception of Islam 1.1 Western perceptions
1.2 Islamic views on violence
2 Islamic sources 2.1 Qur'an
2.2 Jihad 2.2.1 Qur'anic verses in favor of violence
2.2.2 Scholars' comment in favor of Jihad
2.2.3 Hadiths about Jihad
2.3 Domestic violence
3 Modern violence 3.1 Ayatollah
3.2 Mujahedin
3.3 Taliban
3.4 Saddam Hussein
3.5 Laskar Jihad
3.6 Hezbollah
3.7 Omar al-Bashir
3.8 Wahabbists
4 Terrorism 4.1 World domination
5 Muslim violence and belief statistics 5.1 Gallup poll
6 See also
7 References

Perception of Islam[edit]
Western perceptions[edit]
Philip W. Sutton and Stephen Vertigans describe Western views on Islam as based on a stereotype of it as an inherently violent religion, characterizing it as a 'religion of the sword'. They characterize the image of Islam in the Western world as "dominated by conflict, aggression, 'fundamentalism', and global-scale violent terrorism."[6]
Juan Eduardo Campo writes that, "Europeans (have) viewed Islam in various ways: sometimes as a backward, violent religion; sometimes as an Arabian Nights fantasy; and sometimes as a complex and changing product of history and social life."[7] Robert Gleave writes that, "at the centre of popular conceptions of Islam as a violent religion are the punishments carried out by regimes hoping to bolster both their domestic and international Islamic credentials."[8]
The 9/11 attack on the US has led many non-Muslims to indict Islam as a violent religion.[9] According to Corrigan and Hudson, "some conservative Christian leaders (have) complained that Islam (is) incompatible with what they believed to be a Christian America."[10] Examples of conservative Christians who have expressed such sentiments include Franklin Graham, an American Christian evangelist and missionary, and Pat Robertson, an American media mogul, executive chairman, and a former Southern Baptist minister.[11] According to a survey conducted by LifeWay Research, a research group affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, said that two out of three Protestant pastors believe that Islam is a "dangerous" religion. Ed Stetzer, President of LifeWay, said "It's important to note our survey asked whether pastors viewed Islam as 'dangerous,' but that does not necessarily mean 'violent." [12]
Islamic views on violence[edit]
In response to these charges, Ram Puniyani assert that, "Islam does not condone violence but, like other religions, does believe in self-defence".[13]
Mark Juergensmeyer describes the teachings of Islam as ambiguous about violence. He asserts that, like all religions, Islam occasionally allows for force while stressing that the main spiritual goal is one of nonviolence and peace.[14] Hood, Hill and Spika write that "(a)lthough it would be a mistake to think that Islam is inherently a violent religion, it would be equally inappropriate to fail to understand the conditions under which believers might feel justified in acting violently against those whom their tradition feels should be opposed."[15]
Similarly, Chandra Muzaffar, a political scientist and an Islamic reformist and activist, asserts that, "(t)he Quranic exposition on resisting aggression, oppression and injustice lays down the parameters within which fighting or the use of violence is legitimate. What this means is that one can use the Quran as the criterion for when violence is legitimate and when it is not."[16]
Islamic sources[edit]
Qur'an[edit]
Main article: Qur'an and violence
Islamic Doctrines teachings on matters of wars and loves and peace have become topics of heated discussion in recent years. The Qur'an says, "Fight in the name of your religion with those who fight against you."[17] On the other hand, other scholars argue that such verses of the Qur'an are interpreted out of context,[18][19] and argue that when the verses are read in context it clearly appears that the Qur'an prohibits aggression,[20][21][22] and allows fighting only in self-defense.[23][24]
Jihad[edit]
Main article: Jihad
Jihad, an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates as "struggle". Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[25][26][27]
Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[28] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
There is controversy regarding the extent of correlation between jihad and violence, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[29]
Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists (specialists in the hadith) understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[30] Furthermore, Lewis maintains that for most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.[31] Although some Islamic scholars have different perspectives on the implementation of Jihad, there is strong consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against what they see as persecution and oppression.[32][33]
Qur'anic verses in favor of violence[edit]
Main article: Quran and violence
Quran in chapter 9 says,

"Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.[1]

So travel freely (O Mushrikun) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.[2]

And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah — the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (to Muhammad) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve.[3]

Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious — see V.2:2).[4]

Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat(charity), then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.[5]
And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Quran), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.[6]"
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 9:1-6

"O you who believe (in Allah's Oneness and in His Messenger (Muhammad)! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. [28]
Fight against those who
(1) believe not in Allah,(2) nor in the Last Day,(3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger(4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [29]And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! [30]"
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 9:28-30
Quran chapter 8 says,

"(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."[12]
 This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.[13]"
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 8:12-13

"Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning).[38]
 And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.[39]"
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 8:38-39
In his tafsir, Ibn Kathir, a Sunni scholar of the Shafi'i school, explains the verses further:

"Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said:

(...until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

Allah's statement:
 (...and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.' It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari said: "The Prophet was asked, `O Allah's Messenger! A man fights out of bravery, and another fights to show off, which of them fights in the cause of Allah' The Prophet said:
 (He who fights so that Allah's Word is superior, then he fights in Allah's cause.) In addition, it is reported in the Two Sahihs:
(I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. Whoever said it, then he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law, and their account will be with Allah.)"
—Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
Ayatollah Syed Kamal Faqih Imani wrote regarding Jihad (holy struggle) in his Tafsir of the Quran:

As long as the hypocrites have not initiated war and have not plotted against Islam, similar to the enemy foreign nonbelievers, holy struggle upon them should be done only by tongue.
—Tafsir Noor Al-Quran, Volume 6, Page 470
Scholars' comment in favor of Jihad[edit]
Imam Al-Suyuti (c. 1445-1505 AD), a famous Egyptian writer, religious scholar, juristic expert, teacher and one of the latter-day authorities of the Sunni Shafi'i School, wrote:

"Fight those who don't believe in God nor in the Last Day [Unless they believe in the Prophet God bless him and grant him peace] nor hold what is forbidden that which God and His emissary have forbidden [e.g., wine] nor embrace the true faith [which is firm, and abrogates other faiths, i.e., the Islamic religion] from among [for distinguishing] those who were given the Book [i.e., the Jews and Christians] unless they give the head-tax [i.e., the annual taxes imposed on them] (/'an yadin/) humbly submissive, and obedient to Islam's rule."
—Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur (Beirut Edition), vol. 3, p. 228
About Jihad, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, a Sunni Islamic scholar and theologian and founding member of al-Qaeda,[34] wrote:

"Jihad Against the Kuffar is of two Types: Offensive Jihad (where the enemy is attacked in his own territory) ... [and] Defensive Jihad. This is expelling the Kuffar from our land, and it is Fard Ayn [personal religious obligation on Muslim individuals], a compulsory duty upon all ... ...Where the Kuffar [infidels] are not gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya [religious obligation on Muslim society] with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of the Imam (Caliph) to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin.- And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: " Jihad is Daw'ah [Islamic preaching] with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam."
—A. Y. Azzam, Offensive Jihad Vs. Defensive Jihad
Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī (d. 1624) was an Islamic scholar, a Hanafi jurist, and a prominent member of the Naqshbandī Sufi order. He is regarded as having rejuvenated Islam, due to which he is commonly called "Mujaddid Alf Thānī", meaning "revival of the second millennium". He wrote,

"Shariat can be fostered through the sword.
Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and co-existences between these two contradictory faiths in unthinkable.
The honor of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects kafirs, dishonors the Muslims. To respect them does not merely mean honouring them and assigning them a seat of honor in any assembly, but it also implies keeping company with them or showing considerations to them. They should be kept at an arm's length like dogs. ... If some worldly business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a minimum of contact should be established with them but without taking them into confidence. The highest Islamic sentiment asserts that it is better to forego that worldly business and that no relationship should be established with the kafirs.
The real purpose in levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honor and might of Islam. . . .
Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam"
—A. Sirhindi, Excerpted from Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Agra, Lucknow: Agra University, Balkrishna Book Co., 1965), pp.247-50; and Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity[dead link] (Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, 1971), pp. 73-74.
Hadiths about Jihad[edit]

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:8:387 and Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:2:24 see also Sahih Muslim, 1:30,Sahih Muslim, 1:31,Sahih Muslim, 1:32,Sahih Muslim, 1:33,Sahih Muslim, 1:34

On the day of Al-Ahzab (i.e. clans) the Prophet said, (After this battle) we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:435 see also Sahih Muslim, 19:4294

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:46 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4646

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause)."
Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it. A place in Paradise as small as the bow or lash of one of you is better than all the world and whatever is in it. And if a houri from Paradise appeared to the people of the earth, she would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever is in it."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:53 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:50, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:54

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite. 'Abdullah b. Mubarak said: We think the hadith pertained to the time of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)
— Sahih Muslim, 20:4696 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4631, Sahih Muslim, 20:4634, Sahih Muslim, 20:4635

A man whose face was covered with an iron mask (i.e. clad in armor) came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first? "The Prophet said, "Embrace Islam first and then fight." So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah's Apostle said, A Little work, but a great reward. "(He did very little (after embracing Islam), but he will be rewarded in abundance)."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:63 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4639

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abi Aufa: Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:73 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:72

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Somebody asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Who is the best among the people?" Allah's Apostle replied "A believer who strives his utmost in Allah's Cause with his life and property." They asked, "Who is next?" He replied, "A believer who stays in one of the mountain paths worshipping Allah and leaving the people secure from his mischief."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:45 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4652,Sahih Muslim, 20:4653

Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:65 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:48

Narrated Abu Huraira: A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:44 see also Sahih Muslim, 19:4315, Sahih Muslim, 19:4314

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: "Allah's Apostle said, "A time will come upon the people, when a group of people will wage a holy war and it will be said, 'Is there amongst you anyone who has accompanied Allah's Apostle?' They will say, 'Yes.' And so victory will be bestowed on them. Then a time will come upon the people when a group of people will wage a holy war, and it will be said, "Is there amongst you a none who has accompanied the companions of Allah's Apostle?' They will say, 'Yes.' And so victory will be bestowed on them. Then a time will come upon the people when a group of people will wage a holy war, and it will be said, "Is there amongst you anyone who has been in the company of the companions of the companions of Allah's Apostle ?' They will say, 'Yes.' And victory will be bestowed on them."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:57:1 see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6904,Sahih Muslim, 20:4717,Sahih Muslim, 20:4712

It has been narrated on the authority of Zaid b. Kbalid al-Juhani that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Anybody who equips a warrior (going to fight) in the way of Allah (is like one who actually) fights. And anybody who looks well after his family in his absence (is also like one who actually) fights.
— Sahih Muslim, 20:4668 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4669

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Ishaq, that he heard Bara' talking about the Qur'anic verse:" Those who sit (at home) from among the believers and those who go out for Jihad in the way of Allah are not aqual" (iv. 95). (He said that) the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered Zaid (to write the verse). He brought a shoulder-blade (of a slaughtered camel) and inscribed it (the verse) thereon. The son of Umm Maktum complained of his blindness to the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him). (At this) descended the revelation:" Those of the believers who sit (at home) without any trouble (illness, incapacity, disability)" (iv. 95). The tradition has been handed down through two other chains of transmitters.
— Sahih Muslim, 20:4676 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4677
As with all scripture taken out of context, the above quotations require educated interpretation for those believers who are not fundamentalists. Verses of the Qu'ran and Hadith may contradict, qualify, or nullify these verses.[citation needed]



Domestic violence[edit]
Main article: Islam and domestic violence
The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed. These ideas are somewhat justified with reference to the Qur'an, in one Surah, An-Nisa, 34, which discusses forms of beating in certain circumstances. The passage reads, "Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great." Regarding this verse, a hadith from Muhammad explains: "If avoiding her in bed doesn’t work, then hit her gently, and never cut her flesh or break her bones."[35]
Another hadith[clarification needed] says:

"Whoever harshly beats his wife has indeed rebelled against God and His Prophet.”[36]
Some of the scholars[who?] allowing "beating" stress that it is a last resort, discountenanced, and must be done lightly so much so not to cause pain or injury.[37][dead link] Whether this fully justifies striking women remains controversial.
Modern violence[edit]


 This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can. (June 2011)
See also: Criticism of Islam
According to Islamic scholar Khaleel Mohammed, throughout the world, Muslim intellectuals are punished for criticizing various aspects of traditional and contemporary Islam, citing the case of Muhammad Sa'id al-'Ashmawi, who is being held in Egypt under house arrest for his own protection; Abdel Karim Soroush who was beaten in Iran for raising the voice of inquiry, and Mahmoud Tahawho was killed in Sudan. Rifat Hassan, Fatima Mernissi, Abdallah an-Na'im, Mohammed Arkoun, and Amina Wadud were all vilified by the imams for asking Muslims to use their intellect.[38]
Other examples:
Hashem Aghajari, an Iranian university professor, was initially sentenced to death because of a speech that criticized some of the present Islamic practices in Iran being in contradiction with the original practices and ideology of Islam, and particularly for stating that Muslims were not "monkeys" and "should not blindly follow" the clerics. The sentence was later commuted to three years in jail, and he was released in 2004 after serving two years of that sentence.[39][40][41]
Christoph Luxenberg feels compelled to work under a pseudonym to protect himself because of fears that a new book on the origins of the Qur'an,[42][43] may make him a target for violence.[44][45] he goes/went by this assumed name in order to protect himself.[46]
In recent times fatwas calling for execution have been issued against novelist Salman Rushdie and activist Taslima Nasreen for pejorative comments on Islam.[47]
On 2 November 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was assassinated by Dutch-born Mohammed Bouyeri for producing the 10-minute film Submission critical of the abusive treatment of women by Muslims. A letter threatening the author of the screenplay, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was pinned to his body by a knife. Hirsi Ali entered into hiding immediately following the assassination, and now is protected by bodyguards.[48]
On 30 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published editorial cartoons, many of which caricatured the Islamic prophet Mohammed. The publication was intended to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship;[49] objectives which manifested themselves in the public outcry from Muslim communities within Denmark and the subsequent apology by the paper. However, the controversy deepened when further examples of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries. This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence, including setting fire to the Norwegian and Danish Embassies in Syria, and the storming of European buildings and desecration of the Danish and German flags in Gaza City.[50] Globally, at least 139 people were killed and 823 injured.[51]
On 19 September 2006 French writer and philosophy teacher Robert Redeker wrote an editorial for Le Figaro, a French conservative newspaper, in which he attacked Islam and Muhammad, writing: "Pitiless war leader, pillager, butcher of Jews and polygamous, this is how Mohammed is revealed by the Qur'an." He received death threats and went into hiding.[52] The teacher was forced into hiding after describing the Qu'ran as a "book of extraordinary violence" and Islam as "a religion which ... exalts violence and hate."[53]
On 4 August 2007, Ehsan Jami was attacked in his hometown of Voorburg, Netherlands by three men. The attack is widely believed to be linked to his activities for the Central Committee for Ex-Muslims. The national anti-terrorism coordinator's office, the public prosecution department and the police decided during a meeting on 6 August that "additional measures" were necessary for the protection of Jami, who subsequently received extra security.[54]
Ayatollah[edit]
"Perhaps the most resounding call to jihad in modern times occurred on 21 January 1979," suggest authors, as the Ayatollah Khomeini announced a Jihad against the United States. "The people have absolute confidence in their victory in this holy war (jihad-e moqaddas)," said the Islamic icon.[55]
Ayatollah Khomeini's "Radical Islamic Revolution executed and killed hundreds of thousands of people in the name of Radical Islam."[56]
Iran, under the Ayatollah Khomeini, categorized the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war as a 'Holy war'.[57] "Khomeini's call to jihad incited thousands of Iranian teenagers to volunteer for martyrdom missions."[55] The Basiji movement 'created' child and adult sacrifice as "holy soldiers,"[58] Blessed by Iranian mullahs' regime.[59]
The Basiji ideology enjoys a revival under Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,[58] who is a member.[60] The movement has a nominal strength of 12.6 million, and has been present in schools since it was first created in 1979 by the Ayatollah.[61] Basijis were used in crackdowns in 1999, in 2003[62] and in the brutality of 2009 on protesters in Iran.[63]
The group demands in training intense Quran studies, it calls for "Basij Ethics and Etiquette" and "Major Islamic Commandments." The Basijis have been known to act in defending a strict Islamic conduct.[64] and enforcing Sharia law.[65] often "merging" with Ansar-e Hezbollah men in enforcing Sharia law.[62] In one example, Human rights activists charged that Basiji Islamic militiamen have raped and murdered 26 year old Elnaz Babazadeh for wearing an improper dress.[66]
On 19 August 1979 the Ayatollah declared a jihad against the Kurds in Iran. "Once jihad is declared, all males over 15 must join the fight, the enemy's property is open to confiscation."[67]
"Ayatollah Khomeini played on the messianic overtones of this belief during the Iranian revolution." The ideology of "Twelver" in Shiite Islam (return of the 12th Imam — belief) was invoked by many who believed that the Ayatollah will "return" as their Mahdi (Islamic Messiah). Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refocuses this belief of the Mahdi's return by public statements and various symbolic actions, Iraq's Shiite al-Sadr's army is called the Mahdi army.[68]
Mujahedin[edit]
In 1979 Afghanistan, local Muslim rebels began fighting the Soviets army, calling themselves Mujahideen, they used guerrilla war.[69]
Author of the book Holy war Wilhelm Dietl accounted how one Mujahed fighter told him en route to an armed attack in Herat: "We love to kill Russians and to be killed."[70]
Taliban[edit]
Some of the Taliban have fought against the Soviets in the 1980s. They battle to conquer the country.[71] Many Madrassas endorse Jihad in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.[72]
In the 1980s, the Afghan jihad had been financed by Saudi Arabia[73] as well as other countries including the United States of America.[citation needed]
Saddam Hussein[edit]
Saddam Hussein warned of a jihad against the United States in 1991.[74] In 2003, after the March 20 US, British led invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein called for a holy war against "an aggression on the land of Islam." (invoking the Quranic theme: "Fight them everywhere...")[75] The statement accused the coalition forces of waging a war against Islam. His information Minister concluding: "Therefore, jihad is a duty in confronting them... Those who are martyred will be rewarded in heaven. Seize the opportunity, my brothers."[76]
Laskar Jihad[edit]
The paramilitary organisation Laskar Jihad called "to wage a jihad or holy war" into Indonesia's Moluccan islands, and carried out anti-Christian attacks in Sulawesi,[77] the same group was involved in the 1999 violence against Christians and Chinese[78] in East Timor.[79] It has been categorized as "Indonesia's Dirty Little Holy War Holy Terror."[77]
Hezbollah[edit]
Hezbollah's spiritual guide, Sheik Muhammed Hussein Fadlallah, about whom a witnessing journalist said was behind the hostage crisis in Lebanon in the 1980s,[80] said: "We see ourselves as mujihadeen who fight a Holy War." Justifying bombings, kidnapping, murder.[81]
However British journalist Robert Fisk disputes these claims about Fadlallah:

The Americans put it about that he had blessed the suicide bomber who struck the US marine base in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 service personnel. Fadlallah always denied this to me and I believe him. Suicide bombers, however insane we regard them, don't need to be blessed; they think they are doing God's duty without any help from a marja like Fadlallah.
[82]
Omar al-Bashir[edit]
"In the present conflict in Darfur, jihad is usually interpreted as holy war by the government in Khartoum."[83] The Sudanese National Islamic Front declared in 1992 a jihad, or holy war, against all in the Nuba Mountains who supported the SPLA.[84][85]
Sudan's leader Omar Al-Bashir, in 1997 "declared a jihad (holy war) against" Ethiopia.[86] Accused of genocide he threatened in 2007 "to mount a jihad against United Nations peacekeepers."[87]
Wahabbists[edit]
The Wahabbists have a long history of fundamentalism and jihad, declaring holy wars on others, to force them into accepting their purified version of Islam[88]
In 2010, a 'Glut of fatwas spurred Saudi king to impose curbs,' Saudi political analyst explaining: "If you endorse jihad, it means you are searching for a war with the rest of the world."[89]
Some militant Islamic movements cite Saudi Wahhabi clerics to justify violence.[90]
Saudi Grand Mufti Ibn Baz repudiated violence. He stated:

From that which is known to everyone who has the slightest bit of common sense is that hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the innocent; the total effect of which none can comprehend except Allaah.
[91]
Terrorism[edit]
Main article: Islam and terrorism
Islamic terrorism is terrorism[92] committed by Islamists, and aimed at achieving varying political ends[93] and the advancement of Islamist goals; for example, Osama bin Laden's stated goal of ending American military presence in the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula,[94][95] overthrowing Arab regimes he considers corrupt and insufficiently religious,[94] and stopping American support for Israel.[96] Bombing in London 7/7 are said to be in retaliation for UK's support in the war in Iraq that began in 2003, though it can't be linked as a motive for Islamic terror plots on London, December, 2001.[97][98] The Islamic terrorism attack in Madrid were "explained" as "inspired by al-Qaeda's call to punish Spain's government for supporting the Iraq war," another motive was given that Spain holds a strong appeal to Islamic militants because the southern region of Andalucia was under Muslim control for almost 800 years, and "Al-Qaeda has called on jihadists to reconquer Spain as part of a broader Muslim caliphate, or kingdom under Islamic rule."[99][100]
At the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Islamic terrorists were told by their handlers in Pakistan "that the lives of Jews were worth 50 times those of non-Jews."[101]
The Qur'an: (8:12): "...cast terror in their hearts and strike upon their necks."[102] The commanded to terrorize the disbelievers have been cited in motivation of Jihadi terror.[103][104][105][106]
Abdullah el-Faisal said:

"Another aim and objective of jihad is to drive terror in the hearts of the [infidels]. To terrorize them. Did you know that we were commanded in the Qur'an with terrorism? ...Allah said, and prepare for them to the best of your ability with power, and with horses of war. To drive terror in the hearts of my enemies, Allah's enemies, and your enemies. And other enemies which you don't know, only Allah knows them... So we were commanded to drive terror into the hearts of the [infidels], to prepare for them with the best of our abilities with power. Then the Prophet said, nay, the power is your ability to shoot. The power which you are commanded with here, is your ability to shoot. Another aim and objective of jihad is to kill the [infidels], to lessen the population of the [infidels]... it is not right for a Prophet to have captives until he makes the Earth warm with blood... so, you should always seek to lessen the population of the [infidels]."[107]
Observers have also argued that the attacks are aimed at propagating Islamic culture, society and values in opposition to perceived political, imperialistic, and/or cultural influences of non-Muslims, and the Western world in particular.[108][109]
There are also historical dimensions to the phenomenon, and the history of Western influence and control after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, is a common stated reason used within some terrorist groups to justify and explain its use of violence as resistive and retributive against western influences.
World domination[edit]
The strive to an 'Islamic Caliphate.' Caliph is translated from the Arabic Khalifa (خليفة ẖalīfä) meaning "successor", "substitute", or "lieutenant". It is used in the Qur'an to establish Adam's role as representative of Allah on earth. Kalifa is also used to describe the belief that man's role, in his real nature, is as khalifa or viceroy to Allah.[110] The word is also most commonly used for the Islamic leader of the Ummah; starting with Muhammad and his line of successors.
Indeed, domination is the ultimate goal of jihadists.[111][112] Al-Qaeda revealed its grand plan towards an Islamic caliphate,[113] - global domination.[114] Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has released a statement in which it explains the reasons for its terror campaign:

"We are not fighting to chase out the occupier or to save national unity and keep the borders outlined by the infidels intact," [...] "We are fighting because it is a religious duty to do it, just as it is a duty to take the Sharia [Islamic law] to the government and create an Islamic state."[115]
"Al-Qaeda has called on jihadists to reconquer Spain as part of a broader Muslim caliphate, or kingdom under Islamic rule."[99] Explaining why even Hamas has an eye on Spain.[100] In the early 1990s, the GIA Algerian Armed Islamist Group, which is "well known for its radical positions and the barbaric violence of its operations, announced the restoration of the caliphate and the appointment of a caliph."[116] With Palestinian Islamic party Hamas victory in the 2007 election, a mass gathering followed with Hamas' spokesman calling for a Caliphate.[117] The official said Hamas seeks to create an "Islamic caliphate" in the land.[118][119]
Muslim violence and belief statistics[edit]
Pew research in 2010 found that in Jordan, Lebanon, and Nigeria, roughly 50% of Muslims had favourable views of Hezbollah, and that Hamas also saw similar support.[120] Counter-terrorism researchers suggests that support for suicide bombings is rooted in opposition to real or perceived foreign military occupation, rather than Islam, according to a Department of Defense-funded study by University of Chicago researcher Robert Pape.[121]
Writing for the National Post, Barbara Kay stated that honor killing is not strictly a Muslim phenomenon and that it is enabled by factors including sexism, dowries and a lack of a dependable legal system. Nevertheless, Kay says that the murders are a Muslim phenomenon in the West, where 95% of honor killings are perpetrated by "Muslim fathers and brothers or their proxies". Kay warns that females do not dissent as one might expect either: The women may describe victims of honor killing as having needed punishment.[122]
The Pew Research Center also found that support for the death penalty as punishment for "people who leave the Muslim religion" was 86% in Jordan, 84% in Egypt, 76% in Pakistan, 51% in Nigeria (all very large Muslim populations) and yet lower in some other countries.[120] The different factors at play (e.g. sectarianism, poverty, etc.) and their relative impacts are not clarified.
According to 2006 data, Pew says that 46% of Nigerian Muslims, 29% of Jordan Muslims, 28% of Egyptian Muslims, 15% of British Muslims, and 8% of American Muslims thought suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.[123] The figure was unchanged - still 8% - for American Muslims by 2011.[124]
Polls have found Muslim-Americans to report less violent views than any other religious group in America. 89% of Muslim-Americans claimed that the killing of civilians is never justified, compared to only 71% of Catholics and Protestants, 75% of Jews, and 76% of atheists and non-religious groups.[125]
Pew polls in 2013 show most Muslims oppose terrorism.Ishaan Tharoor (1 July 2014). "Study: Muslims hate terrorism, too". Washington Post. Retrieved 21 June 2015.
Gallup poll[edit]
Gallup poll collected extensive data in a project called "Who Speaks for Islam?". John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed present data relevant to Islamic views on peace, and more, in their book Who Speaks for Islam? The book reports Gallup poll data from random samples in over 35 countries using Gallup's various research techniques (e.g. pairing male and female interviewers, testing the questions beforehand, communicating with local leaders when approval is necessary, travelling by foot if that is the only way to reach a region, etc.) [4]
There was a great deal of data. It suggests, firstly, that individuals who dislike America and consider the September 11 attacks to be "perfectly justified" form a statistically distinct group, with much more extreme views. The authors call this 7% of Muslims "Politically Radicalized".[4] They chose that title "because of their radical political orientation" and clarify "we are not saying that all in this group commit acts of violence. However, those with extremist views are a potential source for recruitment or support for terrorist groups."[126] The data also indicates that poverty is not simply to blame for the comparatively radical views of this 7% of Muslims, who tend to be better educated than moderates.[126]
The authors say that, contrary to what the media may indicate, most Muslims believe that the September 11 attacks cannot actually be justified at all. The authors called this 55% of Muslims "Moderates". Included in that category were an additional 12% who said the attacks almost cannot be justified at all (thus 67% of Muslims were classified as Moderates). 26% of Muslims were neither moderates nor radicals, leaving the remaining 7% called "Politically Radicalized". Esposito and Mogahed explain that the labels should not be taken as being perfectly definitive. Because there may be individuals who would generally not be considered radical, although they believe the attacks were justified, or vice versa.[4]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Islam portal
Islam and war
Forcible conversion to Islam
Religion and peacebuilding Pacifism in Islam
Islamic Jihad
Islamic terrorism
Islam and capital punishment



References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "CrescentLife – Muslim Reactions to September 11". Archived from the original on 2002-12-18. Retrieved October 9, 2014.
2.Jump up ^ Webmanship. "International Reaction – The 09-11-2001 Attacks on the USA With Archived News, Images, Photos, & Newspapers from the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on New York City & the Pentagon". September 11 News.com. Retrieved September 11, 2011.
3.Jump up ^ "Attacks draw mixed response in Mideast". CNN. September 12, 2001. Archived from the original on 2007-08-13. Retrieved May 22, 2010.
4.^ Jump up to: a b c d "FAQs: Who Speaks for Islam?". gallup.com. Archived from the original on 2009-03-07.
5.Jump up ^ "Concerns about Islamic Extremism on the Rise in Middle East". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. 1 July 2014. Retrieved 4 February 2015.
6.Jump up ^ Sutton, Philip W.; Vertigans, Stephen (2005). Resurgent Islam: a sociological approach. Polity. p. 7. "Stereotypical views which portray Islam as an inherently violent religion, a 'religion of the sword' and an increasing global threat have thus been reinforced and even extended over recent years."
7.Jump up ^ Campo, Juan Eduardo (2009). Encyclopedia of Islam. Infobase Publishing. p. 374.
8.Jump up ^ Hinnells, John R.; King, Richard (2007). Religion and violence in South Asia: theory and practice. Taylor & Francis. p. 79.
9.Jump up ^ Puniyani, Ram (2005). Religion, power & violence: expression of politics in contemporary times. SAGE. pp. 97–98.
10.Jump up ^ Corrigan, John; Hudson, Winthrop Still (2004). Religion in America: an historical account of the development of American religious life. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 444.
11.Jump up ^ "A Nation Challenged: The Religious Right; Islam Is Violent in Nature, Pat Robertson Says". New York Times. 23 February 2002. "The religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has described Islam as a"violent religion that wants to 'dominate and then, if need be, destroy'.""
12.Jump up ^ "Survey: Two-thirds of Protestant pastors consider Islam 'dangerous'". USA Today. 21 December 2009. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
13.Jump up ^ Puniyani, Ram (2005). Religion, power & violence: expression of politics in contemporary times. SAGE. p. 98.
14.Jump up ^ Juergensmeyer, Mark (2003). Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence. University of California Press. p. 80.
15.Jump up ^ Hood, Ralph W.; Hill, Peter C.; Spilka, Bernard (2009). The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. Guilford Press. p. 257.
16.Jump up ^ Muzaffar, Chandra (2002). Rights, religion and reform: enhancing human dignity through spiritual and moral transformation. Taylor & Francis. p. 345.
17.Jump up ^ Sam Harris Who Are the Moderate Muslims?
18.Jump up ^ Sohail H. Hashmi, David Miller, Boundaries and Justice: diverse ethical perspectives, Princeton University Press, p.197
19.Jump up ^ Khaleel Muhammad, professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, states, regarding his discussion with the critic Robert Spencer, that "when I am told ... that Jihad only means war, or that I have to accept interpretations of the Qur'an that non-Muslims (with no good intentions or knowledge of Islam) seek to force upon me, I see a certain agendum developing: one that is based on hate, and I refuse to be part of such an intellectual crime." [1]
20.Jump up ^ Ali, Maulana Muhammad; The Religion of Islam (6th Edition), Ch V "Jihad" Page 414 "When shall war cease". Published by The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement [2]
21.Jump up ^ Sadr-u-Din, Maulvi. "Qur'an and War", page 8. Published by The Muslim Book Society, Lahore, Pakistan.[3]
22.Jump up ^ Article on Jihad by Dr. G. W. Leitner (founder of The Oriental Institute, UK) published in Asiatic Quarterly Review, 1886. ("Jihad, even when explained as a righteous effort of waging war in self-defense against the grossest outrage on one's religion, is strictly limited..")
23.Jump up ^ The Qur'anic Commandments Regarding War/Jihad An English rendering of an Urdu article appearing in Basharat-e-Ahmadiyya Vol. I, p. 228-232, by Dr. Basharat Ahmad; published by the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam
24.Jump up ^ Ali, Maulana Muhammad; The Religion of Islam (6th Edition), Ch V "Jihad" Pages 411-413. Published by The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement [4]
25.Jump up ^ Morgan, Diane (2010). Essential Islam: a comprehensive guide to belief and practice. ABC-CLIO. p. 87. ISBN 0-313-36025-1. Retrieved 5 January 2011.
26.Jump up ^ Wendy Doniger, ed. (1999). Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions. Merriam-Webster. ISBN 0-87779-044-2., Jihad, p.571
27.Jump up ^ Josef W. Meri, ed. (2005). Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-96690-6., Jihad, p.419
28.Jump up ^ John Esposito(2005), Islam: The Straight Path, pp.93
29.Jump up ^ What Does Jihad Mean? "For example, Yasir Arafat's May 1994 call in Johannesburg for a "jihad to liberate Jerusalem" was a turning point in the peace process; Israelis heard him speak about using violence to gain political ends and questioned his peaceable intentions. Both Arafat himself and his aides then clarified that he was speaking about a "peaceful jihad" for Jerusalem."
30.Jump up ^ Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 72.
31.Jump up ^ Lewis, Bernard, The Crisis of Islam, 2001 Chapter 2
32.Jump up ^ Ghamidi, Javed (2001). "The Islamic Law of Jihad". Mizan. Dar ul-Ishraq.
33.Jump up ^ Cook, David (2001). Understanding Jihad. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-520-93187-4. "'Warfare with spiritual significance' is the primary and root meaning of the term as it has been defined by classical' Muslim jurists and legal scholars and as it was practiced by Muslims during the premodern period.
 This meaning is sustained in the standard definition given in the new edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam: “In law, according to general doctrine and in historical tradition, the jihad consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam and, if need be, of its defense." This terse summary of Muslim law and history is the standard, scholarly one. Nonetheless, many Muslims, seeking to distance themselves and their religion from associations with violence and conquest, maintain that the word’s significance is exclusively spiritual. According to some of the most prominent Muslim leaders in the United States, jihad is entirely peaceable and represents the exertion of spiritual warfare waged by the faithful against the lower, or evil, soul."
34.Jump up ^ "Bill Moyers Journal. A Brief History of Al Qaeda". PBS.com. July 27, 2007. Retrieved 2012-03-31.
35.Jump up ^ Tafsir Al-Safi, Volume 1, Page 448
36.Jump up ^ Irshad Al-Qulub, Volume 1, Page 175
37.Jump up ^ Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi's viewpoint on man beating disobedient wife and the original Persian Q&A article.
38.Jump up ^ Mohammed, Khaleel (6 March 2007). "To My Fellow Muslims: We Are Our Own Enemies". Ottawa Citizen.
39.Jump up ^ "Profile: Hashem Aghajari". BBC News. 9 July 2003.
40.Jump up ^ "Iran Frees Professor Set to Die for Speech". The New York Times. 2004-08-01. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
41.Jump up ^ "From monkey to man: A call for Islamic Protestantism". The Iranian. 4 December 2002.
42.Jump up ^ Scholars Are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran Alexander Stille, NYTimes.com, 2 March 2002
43.Jump up ^ Op-Ed Columnist - Islam, Virgins and Grapes Nicholas D. Kristof, NYTimes.com 22 April 2009
44.Jump up ^ Caldwell, Christopher (2009). Reflections on the revolution in Europe: immigration, Islam, and the West. Random House, Inc.,. p. 254. ISBN 0-385-51826-9.
45.Jump up ^ Tom Heneghan (11 November 2004). "Low profile for German expert challenging the Koran". wwrn.org. Retrieved 21 June 2015.
46.Jump up ^ Sim, Stuart (2006). Empires of belief: why we need more scepticism and doubt in the twenty-first century. Edinburgh University Press. p. 144. ISBN 0-7486-2326-4.
47.Jump up ^ Davis, Thulani (2002-11-12). "Taslima Nasrin Speaks (Still)". The Village Voice. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
48.Jump up ^ "Muslim row filmmaker 'murdered'". CNN.com. 2 November 2004. Archived from the original on 26 January 2007. Retrieved 20 July 2007.
49.Jump up ^ Rose, Flemming (19 February 2006). "Why I Published Those Cartoons". Washington Post. Retrieved 10 September 2008.
50.Jump up ^ "Storm grows over Mohammad cartoons". CNN.com. 3 February 2006. Archived from the original on 15 May 2007. Retrieved 20 July 2007.
51.Jump up ^ "Cartoon Body Count". Web. 2 March 2006. Archived from the original on 26 March 2006. Retrieved 17 June 2008.
52.Jump up ^ Arnold, Martin (29 September 2006). "Teacher in hiding after attacking Islam". Financial Times. Retrieved 17 October 2006.
53.Jump up ^ Teacher forced into hiding after attacking Islam Sunday Times, 29 September 2006
54.Jump up ^ Extra security for Ehsan Jami, Expatica.com, 7 August 2007.
55.^ Jump up to: a b Rawshandil, Jalīl; Sharon Chadha (2006). Jihad and international security. Macmillan. p. 10. ISBN 1-4039-7192-7.
56.Jump up ^ Mandaville, Michael (2009). Citizen-Soldier Handbook: 101 Ways Every American Can Fight Terrorism. Dog Ear Publishing. p. 46. ISBN 1-59858-671-8.
57.Jump up ^ Endings: a sociology of death and dying, Michael C. Kearl (1989) p. 187
58.^ Jump up to: a b "Ahmadinejad's Demons, A Child of the Revolution Takes Over," Matthias Küntzel The New Republic, 24 April 2006
59.Jump up ^ "Children at war," Peter Warren Singer, University of California Press, 2006, ISBN 0-520-24876-7, p. 22AFT - A Union of Professionals - Child Soldiers(Ian Brown, Khomeini's Forgotten Sons: The Story of Iran's Boy Soldiers, London: Grey Seal, 1990, p. 2. Quoted in Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God, New York: Knopf, 2000, pp. 327–328)
60.Jump up ^ Glucklich, Ariel (2009). Dying for Heaven: Holy Pleasure and Suicide Bombers-Why the Best Qualities of Religion Are Also Its Most Dangerous. HarperCollins. p. p. 20. ISBN 0-06-143081-1.
61.Jump up ^ How Schoolchildren Are Brainwashed In Iran, by Hossein Aryan Rferl, 27 May 2010
62.^ Jump up to: a b Mohajerinejad, Reza (2010). Live Generation: Iran's 1999 Student Uprising that Opened the Door for Secular Democracy. iUniverse. p. p. 10. ISBN 1-4502-3796-7.
63.Jump up ^ Feared Basij militia has deep history in Iranian conflict CNN, 22 June 2009
64.Jump up ^ Iran riots drive stealth militia into the light Neill MacFarquhar, The New York Times, 19 June 2009
65.Jump up ^ The Ideological-Political Training of Iran's Basij [5] Saeid Golca] Crown Center for Middle East Studies, September 2010
66.Jump up ^ IRAN: Judiciary official says woman to be stoned for husband's murder not just adultey.... LATimes, July 2010
67.Jump up ^ "Covertaction information bulletin": Issue 37, Covert Action Publications, Inc, 1984 (Original from the University of California) p. 56
68.Jump up ^ Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age NYtimes, 29 October 2006
69.Jump up ^ Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. SAGE. p. 560. ISBN 1-4129-7059-8.
70.Jump up ^ Dietl, Wilhelm (1984). Holy war. Macmillan. p. 10. ISBN 0-02-531530-7.
71.Jump up ^ Rashid, Ahmed (2002). Taliban: Islam, oil and the new great game in central Asia. I.B.Tauris. p. 1. ISBN 1-86064-830-4.
72.Jump up ^ In the Land of the Taliban NYTimes.com 22 October 2006
73.Jump up ^ Glles, Kepel (2006). Jihad: the trail of political Islam. I.B. Tauris. p. http://books.google.com/books?id=OLvTNk75hUoC&pg=PA205. ISBN 1-84511-257-1.
74.Jump up ^ CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; More on the Gulf NYtimes, 12 January 1991, "Iraqi Leader Warns Of Plan for Holy War," 12 January 1991
Iraqi Leader Warns Of Plan for Holy War President Saddam Hussein told a conference of Islamic leaders that he was preparing for a holy war against the American-led military alliance in the Persian Gulf that could be averted only if greater priority was given to solving the Palestinian issue.
75.Jump up ^ "Saddam Hussein calls for holy war". Mail Online.
76.Jump up ^ NewsHour Extra: Statement from Saddam Hussein Calls for Jihad PBS, 1 April 2003
77.^ Jump up to: a b Simon Elegant Poso (17 December 2001). "Indonesia's Dirty Little Holy War". Time.com. Retrieved 1 May 2012.
78.Jump up ^ "My Jakarta Diary --II". Archived from the original on 2010-06-13.
79.Jump up ^ "Who are the Laskar Jihad?". BBC News. 20 June 2000. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
80.Jump up ^ "Sheikh Fadlallah was the terrorist mastermind behind the Lebanon hostage crisis". News - Telegraph Blogs.
81.Jump up ^ Hoffman, Bruce (2006). Inside terrorism. Columbia University Press. p. 314. ISBN 0-231-12699-9.
82.Jump up ^ "Robert Fisk: CNN was wrong about Ayatollah Fadlallah". The Independent.
83.Jump up ^ Frey, Rebecca Joyce (2009). Genocide and international justice Global issues. Infobase Publishing. p. 365. ISBN 0-8160-7310-4.
84.Jump up ^ Reeves, Eric (2008-09-13). ""Chaos by Design": Khartoum's Patterns of Violence in Darfur, 2008". sudanreeves.org. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
85.Jump up ^ Genocide in Sudan: The Role of Oil Exploration and the Entitlement James E. Rogers College of Law
86.Jump up ^ Europa World Year Book 2, Taylor & Francis Group 2004, p. 3966
87.Jump up ^ Sudanese Leader Mounts Charm Offensive NYTimes.com 24 July 2008
88.Jump up ^ World Civilizations, Philip J. Adler, Randall Lee Pouwels, Cengage Learning (2005) ISBN 0-534-59933-8, p. 502
89.Jump up ^ Glut of fatwas spurs Saudi king to impose curbs - World news MSNBC, 10 October 2010
90.Jump up ^ Saudi Arabia - Terrorism Jcpa, 1 October 2003
91.Jump up ^ "Shaikh Ibn Baz and Shaikh Ibn Jibreen on Hijacking and Kidnapping" (PDF). salafipublications.com. 14 September 2001. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
92.Jump up ^ "the Russian counterterrorism law defines terrorism as "the ideology of violence and practice of exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies"" pp. 28, Terrorism in asymmetrical conflict: ideological and structural aspects, by Ekaterina Stepanova, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Oxford University Press US, 2008 ISBN 978-0-19-953355-8. 186 pages).
93.Jump up ^ Scheuer, Michael (2004). Imperial Hubris. Dulles, Virginia: Brassey's, Inc. p. 9. ISBN 0-9655139-4-7. "The focused and lethal threat posed to U.S. national security arises not from Muslims being offended by what America is, but rather from their plausible perception that the things they most love and value—God, Islam, their brethren, and Muslim lands—are being attacked by America."
94.^ Jump up to: a b "Online NewsHour: Al Qaeda's 1998 Fatwa". archive.org. Archived from the original on 2001-10-31.
95.Jump up ^ "Online NewsHour: Bin Laden's Fatwa". archive.org. Archived from the original on 2001-10-31.
96.Jump up ^ "Al-Qaeda Blames 9/11 on US Support for Israel – Defense/Middle East – Israel News – Israel National News." Web. 16 April 2010.
97.Jump up ^ "Al-Qaeda note suggests 'attack on London'". BBC News. 2001-12-16. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
98.Jump up ^ London 9/11 plotter jailed - World - Times Online Sunday Times
99.^ Jump up to: a b Sills, Ben (2007-10-31). "Spanish Court to Deliver Verdict in Madrid Train Bombing Case". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
100.^ Jump up to: a b "FrontPage Magazine - HAMAS Targets Spain". frontpagemag.com.
101.Jump up ^ Mumbai terror attacks: And then they came for the Jews... Times Online Sunday Times
102.Jump up ^ Warrant for terror: fatwās of radical Islam and the duty of jihād, p. 68, Shmuel Bar, 2006
103.Jump up ^ The Osama bin Laden I know: an oral history of al-Qaeda's leader, p. 303, Peter L. Bergen, 2006
104.Jump up ^ Jihad and international security, p. 90, Jalīl Rawshandil, Sharon Chadha, 2006
105.Jump up ^ "Homegrown Terror". cnn.com. 12 December 2009.
106.Jump up ^ "Commanded to terrorize South Park?". The Vancouver Sun. 2010-04-30. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
107.Jump up ^ "Counterterrorism Blog: Jamaican Cleric Shaykh Abdullah al-Faisal Alleged To Have Inspired Times Square Suspect". counterterrorismblog.org.
108.Jump up ^ Dar al-Harb
109.Jump up ^ See ref:"purpose" and ref:"justification"
110.Jump up ^ "Khalifah". oxfordislamicstudies.com.
111.Jump up ^ Jihad and Jew-hatred.
112.Jump up ^ p. 262
113.Jump up ^ Al-Qaeda reveals grand plan as it tries to rein in Sheikh of Slaughter Sunday Times, 13 October 2005
114.Jump up ^ Al-Qaeda chiefs reveal world domination design theage.com.au, The Age 2005-08-24
115.Jump up ^ "Iraq: We Are Fighting For An Islamic State, Says Al-Qaeda In Iraq". adnki.com. 18 October 2005. Archived from the original on 2005-12-23.
116.Jump up ^ Charfi, Mohamed; Patrick Camiller (2005). Islam and liberty: the historical misunderstanding G — Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Zed Books. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-84277-511-0. ISBN 1-84277-511-1.
117.Jump up ^ "Over 10,000 Palestinians Attend West Bank Rally to Restore Islamic Caliphate". IHT. 11 August 2007. Archived from the original on 2008-02-20.
118.Jump up ^ ABU TOAMEH, KHALED (2006-08-24). "Fatah leaders meet to discuss Hamas". WorldNetDaily. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
119.Jump up ^ Thompson, Damian (2007-08-24). "Towards a global caliphate". The Daily telegraph. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
120.^ Jump up to: a b "Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. 2 December 2010.
121.Jump up ^ Rozen, Laura (2010-10-11). "Researcher: Suicide terrorism linked to military occupation - Laura Rozen". Politico.Com. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
122.Jump up ^ [Continue calling ‘honour killings’ by its rightful name, Barbara Kay, September 21, 2011, Full comment, National Post.]
123.Jump up ^ "Muslim Americans - Middle class and mostly mainstream" (PDF). Pew Research Center. 22 May 2007. p. 60. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
124.Jump up ^ "Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism". Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 30 August 2011.
125.Jump up ^ Nicole Naurath (2 August 2011). "Most Muslim Americans See No Justification for Violence". gallup.com. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
126.^ Jump up to: a b Gallup Inc. "What Makes a Radical?". Gallup.com.


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion
































































































































  


Categories: Criticism of Islam
Islam-related controversies
History of Islam
Violence
Islam and violence
























Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
فارسی
Bahasa Melayu
Edit links
This page was last modified on 21 June 2015, at 02:53.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence









Islam and violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.


Question book-new.svg

This article relies too much on references to primary sources.  (October 2013)




This article contains too many or too-lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry.  (October 2013)




This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them.  (June 2015)


Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Islam)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert G. Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayananda Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Islam's doctrines and texts have in some cases been associated with violence. This article deals with the juxtaposition in Islamic law and theology of violence and non-violence by groups and individuals. Attitudes and laws towards both violence and peace exist within the Islamic tradition.
Pacifism in Islam is primarily associated with the Ahmadiyya, Alevi, Mouride, and Sufi sects.[citation needed] Mainstream Islamic law stipulates detailed regulations for the use of violence, including the use of violence within the family or household, the use of corporal or capital punishment, as well as how and when to wage war.
Research continues on the Quran, but the beliefs of Muslims around the world and further related data is also emerging. For instance, the majority of Muslim political leaders and organizations have flatly condemned the attacks of September 11, included the leaders of Egypt (Hosni Mubarak), the Palestinian Authority (Yasser Arafat), Libya (Muammar Gaddafi), Syria (Bashar al-Assad), Iran (Mohamed Khatami) and Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf) among others.[1][2][3] Early Gallup Poll data suggested that 6.5% of Muslims worldwide thought the 9/11 attacks were mostly justified, while 55.4% thought the attacks were not justified at all.[4] More recently, the Pew Research Center's 2013 poll showed that the majority of Muslims in most Muslim countries oppose terrorism.[5]


Contents  [hide]
1 Perception of Islam 1.1 Western perceptions
1.2 Islamic views on violence
2 Islamic sources 2.1 Qur'an
2.2 Jihad 2.2.1 Qur'anic verses in favor of violence
2.2.2 Scholars' comment in favor of Jihad
2.2.3 Hadiths about Jihad
2.3 Domestic violence
3 Modern violence 3.1 Ayatollah
3.2 Mujahedin
3.3 Taliban
3.4 Saddam Hussein
3.5 Laskar Jihad
3.6 Hezbollah
3.7 Omar al-Bashir
3.8 Wahabbists
4 Terrorism 4.1 World domination
5 Muslim violence and belief statistics 5.1 Gallup poll
6 See also
7 References

Perception of Islam[edit]
Western perceptions[edit]
Philip W. Sutton and Stephen Vertigans describe Western views on Islam as based on a stereotype of it as an inherently violent religion, characterizing it as a 'religion of the sword'. They characterize the image of Islam in the Western world as "dominated by conflict, aggression, 'fundamentalism', and global-scale violent terrorism."[6]
Juan Eduardo Campo writes that, "Europeans (have) viewed Islam in various ways: sometimes as a backward, violent religion; sometimes as an Arabian Nights fantasy; and sometimes as a complex and changing product of history and social life."[7] Robert Gleave writes that, "at the centre of popular conceptions of Islam as a violent religion are the punishments carried out by regimes hoping to bolster both their domestic and international Islamic credentials."[8]
The 9/11 attack on the US has led many non-Muslims to indict Islam as a violent religion.[9] According to Corrigan and Hudson, "some conservative Christian leaders (have) complained that Islam (is) incompatible with what they believed to be a Christian America."[10] Examples of conservative Christians who have expressed such sentiments include Franklin Graham, an American Christian evangelist and missionary, and Pat Robertson, an American media mogul, executive chairman, and a former Southern Baptist minister.[11] According to a survey conducted by LifeWay Research, a research group affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, said that two out of three Protestant pastors believe that Islam is a "dangerous" religion. Ed Stetzer, President of LifeWay, said "It's important to note our survey asked whether pastors viewed Islam as 'dangerous,' but that does not necessarily mean 'violent." [12]
Islamic views on violence[edit]
In response to these charges, Ram Puniyani assert that, "Islam does not condone violence but, like other religions, does believe in self-defence".[13]
Mark Juergensmeyer describes the teachings of Islam as ambiguous about violence. He asserts that, like all religions, Islam occasionally allows for force while stressing that the main spiritual goal is one of nonviolence and peace.[14] Hood, Hill and Spika write that "(a)lthough it would be a mistake to think that Islam is inherently a violent religion, it would be equally inappropriate to fail to understand the conditions under which believers might feel justified in acting violently against those whom their tradition feels should be opposed."[15]
Similarly, Chandra Muzaffar, a political scientist and an Islamic reformist and activist, asserts that, "(t)he Quranic exposition on resisting aggression, oppression and injustice lays down the parameters within which fighting or the use of violence is legitimate. What this means is that one can use the Quran as the criterion for when violence is legitimate and when it is not."[16]
Islamic sources[edit]
Qur'an[edit]
Main article: Qur'an and violence
Islamic Doctrines teachings on matters of wars and loves and peace have become topics of heated discussion in recent years. The Qur'an says, "Fight in the name of your religion with those who fight against you."[17] On the other hand, other scholars argue that such verses of the Qur'an are interpreted out of context,[18][19] and argue that when the verses are read in context it clearly appears that the Qur'an prohibits aggression,[20][21][22] and allows fighting only in self-defense.[23][24]
Jihad[edit]
Main article: Jihad
Jihad, an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates as "struggle". Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[25][26][27]
Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[28] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
There is controversy regarding the extent of correlation between jihad and violence, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[29]
Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists (specialists in the hadith) understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[30] Furthermore, Lewis maintains that for most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.[31] Although some Islamic scholars have different perspectives on the implementation of Jihad, there is strong consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against what they see as persecution and oppression.[32][33]
Qur'anic verses in favor of violence[edit]
Main article: Quran and violence
Quran in chapter 9 says,

"Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.[1]

So travel freely (O Mushrikun) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.[2]

And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah — the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (to Muhammad) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve.[3]

Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious — see V.2:2).[4]

Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat(charity), then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.[5]
And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Quran), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.[6]"
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 9:1-6

"O you who believe (in Allah's Oneness and in His Messenger (Muhammad)! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. [28]
Fight against those who
(1) believe not in Allah,(2) nor in the Last Day,(3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger(4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [29]And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! [30]"
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 9:28-30
Quran chapter 8 says,

"(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."[12]
 This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.[13]"
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 8:12-13

"Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning).[38]
 And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.[39]"
—Muhsin khan translated Quran, verse 8:38-39
In his tafsir, Ibn Kathir, a Sunni scholar of the Shafi'i school, explains the verses further:

"Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said:

(...until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

Allah's statement:
 (...and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.' It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari said: "The Prophet was asked, `O Allah's Messenger! A man fights out of bravery, and another fights to show off, which of them fights in the cause of Allah' The Prophet said:
 (He who fights so that Allah's Word is superior, then he fights in Allah's cause.) In addition, it is reported in the Two Sahihs:
(I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. Whoever said it, then he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law, and their account will be with Allah.)"
—Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
Ayatollah Syed Kamal Faqih Imani wrote regarding Jihad (holy struggle) in his Tafsir of the Quran:

As long as the hypocrites have not initiated war and have not plotted against Islam, similar to the enemy foreign nonbelievers, holy struggle upon them should be done only by tongue.
—Tafsir Noor Al-Quran, Volume 6, Page 470
Scholars' comment in favor of Jihad[edit]
Imam Al-Suyuti (c. 1445-1505 AD), a famous Egyptian writer, religious scholar, juristic expert, teacher and one of the latter-day authorities of the Sunni Shafi'i School, wrote:

"Fight those who don't believe in God nor in the Last Day [Unless they believe in the Prophet God bless him and grant him peace] nor hold what is forbidden that which God and His emissary have forbidden [e.g., wine] nor embrace the true faith [which is firm, and abrogates other faiths, i.e., the Islamic religion] from among [for distinguishing] those who were given the Book [i.e., the Jews and Christians] unless they give the head-tax [i.e., the annual taxes imposed on them] (/'an yadin/) humbly submissive, and obedient to Islam's rule."
—Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur (Beirut Edition), vol. 3, p. 228
About Jihad, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, a Sunni Islamic scholar and theologian and founding member of al-Qaeda,[34] wrote:

"Jihad Against the Kuffar is of two Types: Offensive Jihad (where the enemy is attacked in his own territory) ... [and] Defensive Jihad. This is expelling the Kuffar from our land, and it is Fard Ayn [personal religious obligation on Muslim individuals], a compulsory duty upon all ... ...Where the Kuffar [infidels] are not gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya [religious obligation on Muslim society] with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of the Imam (Caliph) to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin.- And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: " Jihad is Daw'ah [Islamic preaching] with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam."
—A. Y. Azzam, Offensive Jihad Vs. Defensive Jihad
Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī (d. 1624) was an Islamic scholar, a Hanafi jurist, and a prominent member of the Naqshbandī Sufi order. He is regarded as having rejuvenated Islam, due to which he is commonly called "Mujaddid Alf Thānī", meaning "revival of the second millennium". He wrote,

"Shariat can be fostered through the sword.
Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and co-existences between these two contradictory faiths in unthinkable.
The honor of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects kafirs, dishonors the Muslims. To respect them does not merely mean honouring them and assigning them a seat of honor in any assembly, but it also implies keeping company with them or showing considerations to them. They should be kept at an arm's length like dogs. ... If some worldly business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a minimum of contact should be established with them but without taking them into confidence. The highest Islamic sentiment asserts that it is better to forego that worldly business and that no relationship should be established with the kafirs.
The real purpose in levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honor and might of Islam. . . .
Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam"
—A. Sirhindi, Excerpted from Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Agra, Lucknow: Agra University, Balkrishna Book Co., 1965), pp.247-50; and Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity[dead link] (Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, 1971), pp. 73-74.
Hadiths about Jihad[edit]

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:8:387 and Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:2:24 see also Sahih Muslim, 1:30,Sahih Muslim, 1:31,Sahih Muslim, 1:32,Sahih Muslim, 1:33,Sahih Muslim, 1:34

On the day of Al-Ahzab (i.e. clans) the Prophet said, (After this battle) we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:435 see also Sahih Muslim, 19:4294

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:46 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4646

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause)."
Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it. A place in Paradise as small as the bow or lash of one of you is better than all the world and whatever is in it. And if a houri from Paradise appeared to the people of the earth, she would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever is in it."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:53 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:50, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:54

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite. 'Abdullah b. Mubarak said: We think the hadith pertained to the time of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)
— Sahih Muslim, 20:4696 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4631, Sahih Muslim, 20:4634, Sahih Muslim, 20:4635

A man whose face was covered with an iron mask (i.e. clad in armor) came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first? "The Prophet said, "Embrace Islam first and then fight." So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah's Apostle said, A Little work, but a great reward. "(He did very little (after embracing Islam), but he will be rewarded in abundance)."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:63 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4639

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abi Aufa: Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:73 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:72

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Somebody asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Who is the best among the people?" Allah's Apostle replied "A believer who strives his utmost in Allah's Cause with his life and property." They asked, "Who is next?" He replied, "A believer who stays in one of the mountain paths worshipping Allah and leaving the people secure from his mischief."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:45 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4652,Sahih Muslim, 20:4653

Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:65 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:48

Narrated Abu Huraira: A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:44 see also Sahih Muslim, 19:4315, Sahih Muslim, 19:4314

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: "Allah's Apostle said, "A time will come upon the people, when a group of people will wage a holy war and it will be said, 'Is there amongst you anyone who has accompanied Allah's Apostle?' They will say, 'Yes.' And so victory will be bestowed on them. Then a time will come upon the people when a group of people will wage a holy war, and it will be said, "Is there amongst you a none who has accompanied the companions of Allah's Apostle?' They will say, 'Yes.' And so victory will be bestowed on them. Then a time will come upon the people when a group of people will wage a holy war, and it will be said, "Is there amongst you anyone who has been in the company of the companions of the companions of Allah's Apostle ?' They will say, 'Yes.' And victory will be bestowed on them."
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:57:1 see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6904,Sahih Muslim, 20:4717,Sahih Muslim, 20:4712

It has been narrated on the authority of Zaid b. Kbalid al-Juhani that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Anybody who equips a warrior (going to fight) in the way of Allah (is like one who actually) fights. And anybody who looks well after his family in his absence (is also like one who actually) fights.
— Sahih Muslim, 20:4668 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4669

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Ishaq, that he heard Bara' talking about the Qur'anic verse:" Those who sit (at home) from among the believers and those who go out for Jihad in the way of Allah are not aqual" (iv. 95). (He said that) the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered Zaid (to write the verse). He brought a shoulder-blade (of a slaughtered camel) and inscribed it (the verse) thereon. The son of Umm Maktum complained of his blindness to the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him). (At this) descended the revelation:" Those of the believers who sit (at home) without any trouble (illness, incapacity, disability)" (iv. 95). The tradition has been handed down through two other chains of transmitters.
— Sahih Muslim, 20:4676 see also Sahih Muslim, 20:4677
As with all scripture taken out of context, the above quotations require educated interpretation for those believers who are not fundamentalists. Verses of the Qu'ran and Hadith may contradict, qualify, or nullify these verses.[citation needed]



Domestic violence[edit]
Main article: Islam and domestic violence
The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed. These ideas are somewhat justified with reference to the Qur'an, in one Surah, An-Nisa, 34, which discusses forms of beating in certain circumstances. The passage reads, "Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great." Regarding this verse, a hadith from Muhammad explains: "If avoiding her in bed doesn’t work, then hit her gently, and never cut her flesh or break her bones."[35]
Another hadith[clarification needed] says:

"Whoever harshly beats his wife has indeed rebelled against God and His Prophet.”[36]
Some of the scholars[who?] allowing "beating" stress that it is a last resort, discountenanced, and must be done lightly so much so not to cause pain or injury.[37][dead link] Whether this fully justifies striking women remains controversial.
Modern violence[edit]


 This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can. (June 2011)
See also: Criticism of Islam
According to Islamic scholar Khaleel Mohammed, throughout the world, Muslim intellectuals are punished for criticizing various aspects of traditional and contemporary Islam, citing the case of Muhammad Sa'id al-'Ashmawi, who is being held in Egypt under house arrest for his own protection; Abdel Karim Soroush who was beaten in Iran for raising the voice of inquiry, and Mahmoud Tahawho was killed in Sudan. Rifat Hassan, Fatima Mernissi, Abdallah an-Na'im, Mohammed Arkoun, and Amina Wadud were all vilified by the imams for asking Muslims to use their intellect.[38]
Other examples:
Hashem Aghajari, an Iranian university professor, was initially sentenced to death because of a speech that criticized some of the present Islamic practices in Iran being in contradiction with the original practices and ideology of Islam, and particularly for stating that Muslims were not "monkeys" and "should not blindly follow" the clerics. The sentence was later commuted to three years in jail, and he was released in 2004 after serving two years of that sentence.[39][40][41]
Christoph Luxenberg feels compelled to work under a pseudonym to protect himself because of fears that a new book on the origins of the Qur'an,[42][43] may make him a target for violence.[44][45] he goes/went by this assumed name in order to protect himself.[46]
In recent times fatwas calling for execution have been issued against novelist Salman Rushdie and activist Taslima Nasreen for pejorative comments on Islam.[47]
On 2 November 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was assassinated by Dutch-born Mohammed Bouyeri for producing the 10-minute film Submission critical of the abusive treatment of women by Muslims. A letter threatening the author of the screenplay, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was pinned to his body by a knife. Hirsi Ali entered into hiding immediately following the assassination, and now is protected by bodyguards.[48]
On 30 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published editorial cartoons, many of which caricatured the Islamic prophet Mohammed. The publication was intended to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship;[49] objectives which manifested themselves in the public outcry from Muslim communities within Denmark and the subsequent apology by the paper. However, the controversy deepened when further examples of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries. This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence, including setting fire to the Norwegian and Danish Embassies in Syria, and the storming of European buildings and desecration of the Danish and German flags in Gaza City.[50] Globally, at least 139 people were killed and 823 injured.[51]
On 19 September 2006 French writer and philosophy teacher Robert Redeker wrote an editorial for Le Figaro, a French conservative newspaper, in which he attacked Islam and Muhammad, writing: "Pitiless war leader, pillager, butcher of Jews and polygamous, this is how Mohammed is revealed by the Qur'an." He received death threats and went into hiding.[52] The teacher was forced into hiding after describing the Qu'ran as a "book of extraordinary violence" and Islam as "a religion which ... exalts violence and hate."[53]
On 4 August 2007, Ehsan Jami was attacked in his hometown of Voorburg, Netherlands by three men. The attack is widely believed to be linked to his activities for the Central Committee for Ex-Muslims. The national anti-terrorism coordinator's office, the public prosecution department and the police decided during a meeting on 6 August that "additional measures" were necessary for the protection of Jami, who subsequently received extra security.[54]
Ayatollah[edit]
"Perhaps the most resounding call to jihad in modern times occurred on 21 January 1979," suggest authors, as the Ayatollah Khomeini announced a Jihad against the United States. "The people have absolute confidence in their victory in this holy war (jihad-e moqaddas)," said the Islamic icon.[55]
Ayatollah Khomeini's "Radical Islamic Revolution executed and killed hundreds of thousands of people in the name of Radical Islam."[56]
Iran, under the Ayatollah Khomeini, categorized the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war as a 'Holy war'.[57] "Khomeini's call to jihad incited thousands of Iranian teenagers to volunteer for martyrdom missions."[55] The Basiji movement 'created' child and adult sacrifice as "holy soldiers,"[58] Blessed by Iranian mullahs' regime.[59]
The Basiji ideology enjoys a revival under Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,[58] who is a member.[60] The movement has a nominal strength of 12.6 million, and has been present in schools since it was first created in 1979 by the Ayatollah.[61] Basijis were used in crackdowns in 1999, in 2003[62] and in the brutality of 2009 on protesters in Iran.[63]
The group demands in training intense Quran studies, it calls for "Basij Ethics and Etiquette" and "Major Islamic Commandments." The Basijis have been known to act in defending a strict Islamic conduct.[64] and enforcing Sharia law.[65] often "merging" with Ansar-e Hezbollah men in enforcing Sharia law.[62] In one example, Human rights activists charged that Basiji Islamic militiamen have raped and murdered 26 year old Elnaz Babazadeh for wearing an improper dress.[66]
On 19 August 1979 the Ayatollah declared a jihad against the Kurds in Iran. "Once jihad is declared, all males over 15 must join the fight, the enemy's property is open to confiscation."[67]
"Ayatollah Khomeini played on the messianic overtones of this belief during the Iranian revolution." The ideology of "Twelver" in Shiite Islam (return of the 12th Imam — belief) was invoked by many who believed that the Ayatollah will "return" as their Mahdi (Islamic Messiah). Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refocuses this belief of the Mahdi's return by public statements and various symbolic actions, Iraq's Shiite al-Sadr's army is called the Mahdi army.[68]
Mujahedin[edit]
In 1979 Afghanistan, local Muslim rebels began fighting the Soviets army, calling themselves Mujahideen, they used guerrilla war.[69]
Author of the book Holy war Wilhelm Dietl accounted how one Mujahed fighter told him en route to an armed attack in Herat: "We love to kill Russians and to be killed."[70]
Taliban[edit]
Some of the Taliban have fought against the Soviets in the 1980s. They battle to conquer the country.[71] Many Madrassas endorse Jihad in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.[72]
In the 1980s, the Afghan jihad had been financed by Saudi Arabia[73] as well as other countries including the United States of America.[citation needed]
Saddam Hussein[edit]
Saddam Hussein warned of a jihad against the United States in 1991.[74] In 2003, after the March 20 US, British led invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein called for a holy war against "an aggression on the land of Islam." (invoking the Quranic theme: "Fight them everywhere...")[75] The statement accused the coalition forces of waging a war against Islam. His information Minister concluding: "Therefore, jihad is a duty in confronting them... Those who are martyred will be rewarded in heaven. Seize the opportunity, my brothers."[76]
Laskar Jihad[edit]
The paramilitary organisation Laskar Jihad called "to wage a jihad or holy war" into Indonesia's Moluccan islands, and carried out anti-Christian attacks in Sulawesi,[77] the same group was involved in the 1999 violence against Christians and Chinese[78] in East Timor.[79] It has been categorized as "Indonesia's Dirty Little Holy War Holy Terror."[77]
Hezbollah[edit]
Hezbollah's spiritual guide, Sheik Muhammed Hussein Fadlallah, about whom a witnessing journalist said was behind the hostage crisis in Lebanon in the 1980s,[80] said: "We see ourselves as mujihadeen who fight a Holy War." Justifying bombings, kidnapping, murder.[81]
However British journalist Robert Fisk disputes these claims about Fadlallah:

The Americans put it about that he had blessed the suicide bomber who struck the US marine base in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 service personnel. Fadlallah always denied this to me and I believe him. Suicide bombers, however insane we regard them, don't need to be blessed; they think they are doing God's duty without any help from a marja like Fadlallah.
[82]
Omar al-Bashir[edit]
"In the present conflict in Darfur, jihad is usually interpreted as holy war by the government in Khartoum."[83] The Sudanese National Islamic Front declared in 1992 a jihad, or holy war, against all in the Nuba Mountains who supported the SPLA.[84][85]
Sudan's leader Omar Al-Bashir, in 1997 "declared a jihad (holy war) against" Ethiopia.[86] Accused of genocide he threatened in 2007 "to mount a jihad against United Nations peacekeepers."[87]
Wahabbists[edit]
The Wahabbists have a long history of fundamentalism and jihad, declaring holy wars on others, to force them into accepting their purified version of Islam[88]
In 2010, a 'Glut of fatwas spurred Saudi king to impose curbs,' Saudi political analyst explaining: "If you endorse jihad, it means you are searching for a war with the rest of the world."[89]
Some militant Islamic movements cite Saudi Wahhabi clerics to justify violence.[90]
Saudi Grand Mufti Ibn Baz repudiated violence. He stated:

From that which is known to everyone who has the slightest bit of common sense is that hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the innocent; the total effect of which none can comprehend except Allaah.
[91]
Terrorism[edit]
Main article: Islam and terrorism
Islamic terrorism is terrorism[92] committed by Islamists, and aimed at achieving varying political ends[93] and the advancement of Islamist goals; for example, Osama bin Laden's stated goal of ending American military presence in the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula,[94][95] overthrowing Arab regimes he considers corrupt and insufficiently religious,[94] and stopping American support for Israel.[96] Bombing in London 7/7 are said to be in retaliation for UK's support in the war in Iraq that began in 2003, though it can't be linked as a motive for Islamic terror plots on London, December, 2001.[97][98] The Islamic terrorism attack in Madrid were "explained" as "inspired by al-Qaeda's call to punish Spain's government for supporting the Iraq war," another motive was given that Spain holds a strong appeal to Islamic militants because the southern region of Andalucia was under Muslim control for almost 800 years, and "Al-Qaeda has called on jihadists to reconquer Spain as part of a broader Muslim caliphate, or kingdom under Islamic rule."[99][100]
At the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Islamic terrorists were told by their handlers in Pakistan "that the lives of Jews were worth 50 times those of non-Jews."[101]
The Qur'an: (8:12): "...cast terror in their hearts and strike upon their necks."[102] The commanded to terrorize the disbelievers have been cited in motivation of Jihadi terror.[103][104][105][106]
Abdullah el-Faisal said:

"Another aim and objective of jihad is to drive terror in the hearts of the [infidels]. To terrorize them. Did you know that we were commanded in the Qur'an with terrorism? ...Allah said, and prepare for them to the best of your ability with power, and with horses of war. To drive terror in the hearts of my enemies, Allah's enemies, and your enemies. And other enemies which you don't know, only Allah knows them... So we were commanded to drive terror into the hearts of the [infidels], to prepare for them with the best of our abilities with power. Then the Prophet said, nay, the power is your ability to shoot. The power which you are commanded with here, is your ability to shoot. Another aim and objective of jihad is to kill the [infidels], to lessen the population of the [infidels]... it is not right for a Prophet to have captives until he makes the Earth warm with blood... so, you should always seek to lessen the population of the [infidels]."[107]
Observers have also argued that the attacks are aimed at propagating Islamic culture, society and values in opposition to perceived political, imperialistic, and/or cultural influences of non-Muslims, and the Western world in particular.[108][109]
There are also historical dimensions to the phenomenon, and the history of Western influence and control after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, is a common stated reason used within some terrorist groups to justify and explain its use of violence as resistive and retributive against western influences.
World domination[edit]
The strive to an 'Islamic Caliphate.' Caliph is translated from the Arabic Khalifa (خليفة ẖalīfä) meaning "successor", "substitute", or "lieutenant". It is used in the Qur'an to establish Adam's role as representative of Allah on earth. Kalifa is also used to describe the belief that man's role, in his real nature, is as khalifa or viceroy to Allah.[110] The word is also most commonly used for the Islamic leader of the Ummah; starting with Muhammad and his line of successors.
Indeed, domination is the ultimate goal of jihadists.[111][112] Al-Qaeda revealed its grand plan towards an Islamic caliphate,[113] - global domination.[114] Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has released a statement in which it explains the reasons for its terror campaign:

"We are not fighting to chase out the occupier or to save national unity and keep the borders outlined by the infidels intact," [...] "We are fighting because it is a religious duty to do it, just as it is a duty to take the Sharia [Islamic law] to the government and create an Islamic state."[115]
"Al-Qaeda has called on jihadists to reconquer Spain as part of a broader Muslim caliphate, or kingdom under Islamic rule."[99] Explaining why even Hamas has an eye on Spain.[100] In the early 1990s, the GIA Algerian Armed Islamist Group, which is "well known for its radical positions and the barbaric violence of its operations, announced the restoration of the caliphate and the appointment of a caliph."[116] With Palestinian Islamic party Hamas victory in the 2007 election, a mass gathering followed with Hamas' spokesman calling for a Caliphate.[117] The official said Hamas seeks to create an "Islamic caliphate" in the land.[118][119]
Muslim violence and belief statistics[edit]
Pew research in 2010 found that in Jordan, Lebanon, and Nigeria, roughly 50% of Muslims had favourable views of Hezbollah, and that Hamas also saw similar support.[120] Counter-terrorism researchers suggests that support for suicide bombings is rooted in opposition to real or perceived foreign military occupation, rather than Islam, according to a Department of Defense-funded study by University of Chicago researcher Robert Pape.[121]
Writing for the National Post, Barbara Kay stated that honor killing is not strictly a Muslim phenomenon and that it is enabled by factors including sexism, dowries and a lack of a dependable legal system. Nevertheless, Kay says that the murders are a Muslim phenomenon in the West, where 95% of honor killings are perpetrated by "Muslim fathers and brothers or their proxies". Kay warns that females do not dissent as one might expect either: The women may describe victims of honor killing as having needed punishment.[122]
The Pew Research Center also found that support for the death penalty as punishment for "people who leave the Muslim religion" was 86% in Jordan, 84% in Egypt, 76% in Pakistan, 51% in Nigeria (all very large Muslim populations) and yet lower in some other countries.[120] The different factors at play (e.g. sectarianism, poverty, etc.) and their relative impacts are not clarified.
According to 2006 data, Pew says that 46% of Nigerian Muslims, 29% of Jordan Muslims, 28% of Egyptian Muslims, 15% of British Muslims, and 8% of American Muslims thought suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.[123] The figure was unchanged - still 8% - for American Muslims by 2011.[124]
Polls have found Muslim-Americans to report less violent views than any other religious group in America. 89% of Muslim-Americans claimed that the killing of civilians is never justified, compared to only 71% of Catholics and Protestants, 75% of Jews, and 76% of atheists and non-religious groups.[125]
Pew polls in 2013 show most Muslims oppose terrorism.Ishaan Tharoor (1 July 2014). "Study: Muslims hate terrorism, too". Washington Post. Retrieved 21 June 2015.
Gallup poll[edit]
Gallup poll collected extensive data in a project called "Who Speaks for Islam?". John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed present data relevant to Islamic views on peace, and more, in their book Who Speaks for Islam? The book reports Gallup poll data from random samples in over 35 countries using Gallup's various research techniques (e.g. pairing male and female interviewers, testing the questions beforehand, communicating with local leaders when approval is necessary, travelling by foot if that is the only way to reach a region, etc.) [4]
There was a great deal of data. It suggests, firstly, that individuals who dislike America and consider the September 11 attacks to be "perfectly justified" form a statistically distinct group, with much more extreme views. The authors call this 7% of Muslims "Politically Radicalized".[4] They chose that title "because of their radical political orientation" and clarify "we are not saying that all in this group commit acts of violence. However, those with extremist views are a potential source for recruitment or support for terrorist groups."[126] The data also indicates that poverty is not simply to blame for the comparatively radical views of this 7% of Muslims, who tend to be better educated than moderates.[126]
The authors say that, contrary to what the media may indicate, most Muslims believe that the September 11 attacks cannot actually be justified at all. The authors called this 55% of Muslims "Moderates". Included in that category were an additional 12% who said the attacks almost cannot be justified at all (thus 67% of Muslims were classified as Moderates). 26% of Muslims were neither moderates nor radicals, leaving the remaining 7% called "Politically Radicalized". Esposito and Mogahed explain that the labels should not be taken as being perfectly definitive. Because there may be individuals who would generally not be considered radical, although they believe the attacks were justified, or vice versa.[4]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Islam portal
Islam and war
Forcible conversion to Islam
Religion and peacebuilding Pacifism in Islam
Islamic Jihad
Islamic terrorism
Islam and capital punishment



References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "CrescentLife – Muslim Reactions to September 11". Archived from the original on 2002-12-18. Retrieved October 9, 2014.
2.Jump up ^ Webmanship. "International Reaction – The 09-11-2001 Attacks on the USA With Archived News, Images, Photos, & Newspapers from the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on New York City & the Pentagon". September 11 News.com. Retrieved September 11, 2011.
3.Jump up ^ "Attacks draw mixed response in Mideast". CNN. September 12, 2001. Archived from the original on 2007-08-13. Retrieved May 22, 2010.
4.^ Jump up to: a b c d "FAQs: Who Speaks for Islam?". gallup.com. Archived from the original on 2009-03-07.
5.Jump up ^ "Concerns about Islamic Extremism on the Rise in Middle East". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. 1 July 2014. Retrieved 4 February 2015.
6.Jump up ^ Sutton, Philip W.; Vertigans, Stephen (2005). Resurgent Islam: a sociological approach. Polity. p. 7. "Stereotypical views which portray Islam as an inherently violent religion, a 'religion of the sword' and an increasing global threat have thus been reinforced and even extended over recent years."
7.Jump up ^ Campo, Juan Eduardo (2009). Encyclopedia of Islam. Infobase Publishing. p. 374.
8.Jump up ^ Hinnells, John R.; King, Richard (2007). Religion and violence in South Asia: theory and practice. Taylor & Francis. p. 79.
9.Jump up ^ Puniyani, Ram (2005). Religion, power & violence: expression of politics in contemporary times. SAGE. pp. 97–98.
10.Jump up ^ Corrigan, John; Hudson, Winthrop Still (2004). Religion in America: an historical account of the development of American religious life. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 444.
11.Jump up ^ "A Nation Challenged: The Religious Right; Islam Is Violent in Nature, Pat Robertson Says". New York Times. 23 February 2002. "The religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has described Islam as a"violent religion that wants to 'dominate and then, if need be, destroy'.""
12.Jump up ^ "Survey: Two-thirds of Protestant pastors consider Islam 'dangerous'". USA Today. 21 December 2009. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
13.Jump up ^ Puniyani, Ram (2005). Religion, power & violence: expression of politics in contemporary times. SAGE. p. 98.
14.Jump up ^ Juergensmeyer, Mark (2003). Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence. University of California Press. p. 80.
15.Jump up ^ Hood, Ralph W.; Hill, Peter C.; Spilka, Bernard (2009). The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. Guilford Press. p. 257.
16.Jump up ^ Muzaffar, Chandra (2002). Rights, religion and reform: enhancing human dignity through spiritual and moral transformation. Taylor & Francis. p. 345.
17.Jump up ^ Sam Harris Who Are the Moderate Muslims?
18.Jump up ^ Sohail H. Hashmi, David Miller, Boundaries and Justice: diverse ethical perspectives, Princeton University Press, p.197
19.Jump up ^ Khaleel Muhammad, professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, states, regarding his discussion with the critic Robert Spencer, that "when I am told ... that Jihad only means war, or that I have to accept interpretations of the Qur'an that non-Muslims (with no good intentions or knowledge of Islam) seek to force upon me, I see a certain agendum developing: one that is based on hate, and I refuse to be part of such an intellectual crime." [1]
20.Jump up ^ Ali, Maulana Muhammad; The Religion of Islam (6th Edition), Ch V "Jihad" Page 414 "When shall war cease". Published by The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement [2]
21.Jump up ^ Sadr-u-Din, Maulvi. "Qur'an and War", page 8. Published by The Muslim Book Society, Lahore, Pakistan.[3]
22.Jump up ^ Article on Jihad by Dr. G. W. Leitner (founder of The Oriental Institute, UK) published in Asiatic Quarterly Review, 1886. ("Jihad, even when explained as a righteous effort of waging war in self-defense against the grossest outrage on one's religion, is strictly limited..")
23.Jump up ^ The Qur'anic Commandments Regarding War/Jihad An English rendering of an Urdu article appearing in Basharat-e-Ahmadiyya Vol. I, p. 228-232, by Dr. Basharat Ahmad; published by the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam
24.Jump up ^ Ali, Maulana Muhammad; The Religion of Islam (6th Edition), Ch V "Jihad" Pages 411-413. Published by The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement [4]
25.Jump up ^ Morgan, Diane (2010). Essential Islam: a comprehensive guide to belief and practice. ABC-CLIO. p. 87. ISBN 0-313-36025-1. Retrieved 5 January 2011.
26.Jump up ^ Wendy Doniger, ed. (1999). Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions. Merriam-Webster. ISBN 0-87779-044-2., Jihad, p.571
27.Jump up ^ Josef W. Meri, ed. (2005). Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-96690-6., Jihad, p.419
28.Jump up ^ John Esposito(2005), Islam: The Straight Path, pp.93
29.Jump up ^ What Does Jihad Mean? "For example, Yasir Arafat's May 1994 call in Johannesburg for a "jihad to liberate Jerusalem" was a turning point in the peace process; Israelis heard him speak about using violence to gain political ends and questioned his peaceable intentions. Both Arafat himself and his aides then clarified that he was speaking about a "peaceful jihad" for Jerusalem."
30.Jump up ^ Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 72.
31.Jump up ^ Lewis, Bernard, The Crisis of Islam, 2001 Chapter 2
32.Jump up ^ Ghamidi, Javed (2001). "The Islamic Law of Jihad". Mizan. Dar ul-Ishraq.
33.Jump up ^ Cook, David (2001). Understanding Jihad. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-520-93187-4. "'Warfare with spiritual significance' is the primary and root meaning of the term as it has been defined by classical' Muslim jurists and legal scholars and as it was practiced by Muslims during the premodern period.
 This meaning is sustained in the standard definition given in the new edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam: “In law, according to general doctrine and in historical tradition, the jihad consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam and, if need be, of its defense." This terse summary of Muslim law and history is the standard, scholarly one. Nonetheless, many Muslims, seeking to distance themselves and their religion from associations with violence and conquest, maintain that the word’s significance is exclusively spiritual. According to some of the most prominent Muslim leaders in the United States, jihad is entirely peaceable and represents the exertion of spiritual warfare waged by the faithful against the lower, or evil, soul."
34.Jump up ^ "Bill Moyers Journal. A Brief History of Al Qaeda". PBS.com. July 27, 2007. Retrieved 2012-03-31.
35.Jump up ^ Tafsir Al-Safi, Volume 1, Page 448
36.Jump up ^ Irshad Al-Qulub, Volume 1, Page 175
37.Jump up ^ Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi's viewpoint on man beating disobedient wife and the original Persian Q&A article.
38.Jump up ^ Mohammed, Khaleel (6 March 2007). "To My Fellow Muslims: We Are Our Own Enemies". Ottawa Citizen.
39.Jump up ^ "Profile: Hashem Aghajari". BBC News. 9 July 2003.
40.Jump up ^ "Iran Frees Professor Set to Die for Speech". The New York Times. 2004-08-01. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
41.Jump up ^ "From monkey to man: A call for Islamic Protestantism". The Iranian. 4 December 2002.
42.Jump up ^ Scholars Are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran Alexander Stille, NYTimes.com, 2 March 2002
43.Jump up ^ Op-Ed Columnist - Islam, Virgins and Grapes Nicholas D. Kristof, NYTimes.com 22 April 2009
44.Jump up ^ Caldwell, Christopher (2009). Reflections on the revolution in Europe: immigration, Islam, and the West. Random House, Inc.,. p. 254. ISBN 0-385-51826-9.
45.Jump up ^ Tom Heneghan (11 November 2004). "Low profile for German expert challenging the Koran". wwrn.org. Retrieved 21 June 2015.
46.Jump up ^ Sim, Stuart (2006). Empires of belief: why we need more scepticism and doubt in the twenty-first century. Edinburgh University Press. p. 144. ISBN 0-7486-2326-4.
47.Jump up ^ Davis, Thulani (2002-11-12). "Taslima Nasrin Speaks (Still)". The Village Voice. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
48.Jump up ^ "Muslim row filmmaker 'murdered'". CNN.com. 2 November 2004. Archived from the original on 26 January 2007. Retrieved 20 July 2007.
49.Jump up ^ Rose, Flemming (19 February 2006). "Why I Published Those Cartoons". Washington Post. Retrieved 10 September 2008.
50.Jump up ^ "Storm grows over Mohammad cartoons". CNN.com. 3 February 2006. Archived from the original on 15 May 2007. Retrieved 20 July 2007.
51.Jump up ^ "Cartoon Body Count". Web. 2 March 2006. Archived from the original on 26 March 2006. Retrieved 17 June 2008.
52.Jump up ^ Arnold, Martin (29 September 2006). "Teacher in hiding after attacking Islam". Financial Times. Retrieved 17 October 2006.
53.Jump up ^ Teacher forced into hiding after attacking Islam Sunday Times, 29 September 2006
54.Jump up ^ Extra security for Ehsan Jami, Expatica.com, 7 August 2007.
55.^ Jump up to: a b Rawshandil, Jalīl; Sharon Chadha (2006). Jihad and international security. Macmillan. p. 10. ISBN 1-4039-7192-7.
56.Jump up ^ Mandaville, Michael (2009). Citizen-Soldier Handbook: 101 Ways Every American Can Fight Terrorism. Dog Ear Publishing. p. 46. ISBN 1-59858-671-8.
57.Jump up ^ Endings: a sociology of death and dying, Michael C. Kearl (1989) p. 187
58.^ Jump up to: a b "Ahmadinejad's Demons, A Child of the Revolution Takes Over," Matthias Küntzel The New Republic, 24 April 2006
59.Jump up ^ "Children at war," Peter Warren Singer, University of California Press, 2006, ISBN 0-520-24876-7, p. 22AFT - A Union of Professionals - Child Soldiers(Ian Brown, Khomeini's Forgotten Sons: The Story of Iran's Boy Soldiers, London: Grey Seal, 1990, p. 2. Quoted in Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God, New York: Knopf, 2000, pp. 327–328)
60.Jump up ^ Glucklich, Ariel (2009). Dying for Heaven: Holy Pleasure and Suicide Bombers-Why the Best Qualities of Religion Are Also Its Most Dangerous. HarperCollins. p. p. 20. ISBN 0-06-143081-1.
61.Jump up ^ How Schoolchildren Are Brainwashed In Iran, by Hossein Aryan Rferl, 27 May 2010
62.^ Jump up to: a b Mohajerinejad, Reza (2010). Live Generation: Iran's 1999 Student Uprising that Opened the Door for Secular Democracy. iUniverse. p. p. 10. ISBN 1-4502-3796-7.
63.Jump up ^ Feared Basij militia has deep history in Iranian conflict CNN, 22 June 2009
64.Jump up ^ Iran riots drive stealth militia into the light Neill MacFarquhar, The New York Times, 19 June 2009
65.Jump up ^ The Ideological-Political Training of Iran's Basij [5] Saeid Golca] Crown Center for Middle East Studies, September 2010
66.Jump up ^ IRAN: Judiciary official says woman to be stoned for husband's murder not just adultey.... LATimes, July 2010
67.Jump up ^ "Covertaction information bulletin": Issue 37, Covert Action Publications, Inc, 1984 (Original from the University of California) p. 56
68.Jump up ^ Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age NYtimes, 29 October 2006
69.Jump up ^ Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. SAGE. p. 560. ISBN 1-4129-7059-8.
70.Jump up ^ Dietl, Wilhelm (1984). Holy war. Macmillan. p. 10. ISBN 0-02-531530-7.
71.Jump up ^ Rashid, Ahmed (2002). Taliban: Islam, oil and the new great game in central Asia. I.B.Tauris. p. 1. ISBN 1-86064-830-4.
72.Jump up ^ In the Land of the Taliban NYTimes.com 22 October 2006
73.Jump up ^ Glles, Kepel (2006). Jihad: the trail of political Islam. I.B. Tauris. p. http://books.google.com/books?id=OLvTNk75hUoC&pg=PA205. ISBN 1-84511-257-1.
74.Jump up ^ CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; More on the Gulf NYtimes, 12 January 1991, "Iraqi Leader Warns Of Plan for Holy War," 12 January 1991
Iraqi Leader Warns Of Plan for Holy War President Saddam Hussein told a conference of Islamic leaders that he was preparing for a holy war against the American-led military alliance in the Persian Gulf that could be averted only if greater priority was given to solving the Palestinian issue.
75.Jump up ^ "Saddam Hussein calls for holy war". Mail Online.
76.Jump up ^ NewsHour Extra: Statement from Saddam Hussein Calls for Jihad PBS, 1 April 2003
77.^ Jump up to: a b Simon Elegant Poso (17 December 2001). "Indonesia's Dirty Little Holy War". Time.com. Retrieved 1 May 2012.
78.Jump up ^ "My Jakarta Diary --II". Archived from the original on 2010-06-13.
79.Jump up ^ "Who are the Laskar Jihad?". BBC News. 20 June 2000. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
80.Jump up ^ "Sheikh Fadlallah was the terrorist mastermind behind the Lebanon hostage crisis". News - Telegraph Blogs.
81.Jump up ^ Hoffman, Bruce (2006). Inside terrorism. Columbia University Press. p. 314. ISBN 0-231-12699-9.
82.Jump up ^ "Robert Fisk: CNN was wrong about Ayatollah Fadlallah". The Independent.
83.Jump up ^ Frey, Rebecca Joyce (2009). Genocide and international justice Global issues. Infobase Publishing. p. 365. ISBN 0-8160-7310-4.
84.Jump up ^ Reeves, Eric (2008-09-13). ""Chaos by Design": Khartoum's Patterns of Violence in Darfur, 2008". sudanreeves.org. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
85.Jump up ^ Genocide in Sudan: The Role of Oil Exploration and the Entitlement James E. Rogers College of Law
86.Jump up ^ Europa World Year Book 2, Taylor & Francis Group 2004, p. 3966
87.Jump up ^ Sudanese Leader Mounts Charm Offensive NYTimes.com 24 July 2008
88.Jump up ^ World Civilizations, Philip J. Adler, Randall Lee Pouwels, Cengage Learning (2005) ISBN 0-534-59933-8, p. 502
89.Jump up ^ Glut of fatwas spurs Saudi king to impose curbs - World news MSNBC, 10 October 2010
90.Jump up ^ Saudi Arabia - Terrorism Jcpa, 1 October 2003
91.Jump up ^ "Shaikh Ibn Baz and Shaikh Ibn Jibreen on Hijacking and Kidnapping" (PDF). salafipublications.com. 14 September 2001. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
92.Jump up ^ "the Russian counterterrorism law defines terrorism as "the ideology of violence and practice of exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies"" pp. 28, Terrorism in asymmetrical conflict: ideological and structural aspects, by Ekaterina Stepanova, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Oxford University Press US, 2008 ISBN 978-0-19-953355-8. 186 pages).
93.Jump up ^ Scheuer, Michael (2004). Imperial Hubris. Dulles, Virginia: Brassey's, Inc. p. 9. ISBN 0-9655139-4-7. "The focused and lethal threat posed to U.S. national security arises not from Muslims being offended by what America is, but rather from their plausible perception that the things they most love and value—God, Islam, their brethren, and Muslim lands—are being attacked by America."
94.^ Jump up to: a b "Online NewsHour: Al Qaeda's 1998 Fatwa". archive.org. Archived from the original on 2001-10-31.
95.Jump up ^ "Online NewsHour: Bin Laden's Fatwa". archive.org. Archived from the original on 2001-10-31.
96.Jump up ^ "Al-Qaeda Blames 9/11 on US Support for Israel – Defense/Middle East – Israel News – Israel National News." Web. 16 April 2010.
97.Jump up ^ "Al-Qaeda note suggests 'attack on London'". BBC News. 2001-12-16. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
98.Jump up ^ London 9/11 plotter jailed - World - Times Online Sunday Times
99.^ Jump up to: a b Sills, Ben (2007-10-31). "Spanish Court to Deliver Verdict in Madrid Train Bombing Case". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
100.^ Jump up to: a b "FrontPage Magazine - HAMAS Targets Spain". frontpagemag.com.
101.Jump up ^ Mumbai terror attacks: And then they came for the Jews... Times Online Sunday Times
102.Jump up ^ Warrant for terror: fatwās of radical Islam and the duty of jihād, p. 68, Shmuel Bar, 2006
103.Jump up ^ The Osama bin Laden I know: an oral history of al-Qaeda's leader, p. 303, Peter L. Bergen, 2006
104.Jump up ^ Jihad and international security, p. 90, Jalīl Rawshandil, Sharon Chadha, 2006
105.Jump up ^ "Homegrown Terror". cnn.com. 12 December 2009.
106.Jump up ^ "Commanded to terrorize South Park?". The Vancouver Sun. 2010-04-30. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
107.Jump up ^ "Counterterrorism Blog: Jamaican Cleric Shaykh Abdullah al-Faisal Alleged To Have Inspired Times Square Suspect". counterterrorismblog.org.
108.Jump up ^ Dar al-Harb
109.Jump up ^ See ref:"purpose" and ref:"justification"
110.Jump up ^ "Khalifah". oxfordislamicstudies.com.
111.Jump up ^ Jihad and Jew-hatred.
112.Jump up ^ p. 262
113.Jump up ^ Al-Qaeda reveals grand plan as it tries to rein in Sheikh of Slaughter Sunday Times, 13 October 2005
114.Jump up ^ Al-Qaeda chiefs reveal world domination design theage.com.au, The Age 2005-08-24
115.Jump up ^ "Iraq: We Are Fighting For An Islamic State, Says Al-Qaeda In Iraq". adnki.com. 18 October 2005. Archived from the original on 2005-12-23.
116.Jump up ^ Charfi, Mohamed; Patrick Camiller (2005). Islam and liberty: the historical misunderstanding G — Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Zed Books. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-84277-511-0. ISBN 1-84277-511-1.
117.Jump up ^ "Over 10,000 Palestinians Attend West Bank Rally to Restore Islamic Caliphate". IHT. 11 August 2007. Archived from the original on 2008-02-20.
118.Jump up ^ ABU TOAMEH, KHALED (2006-08-24). "Fatah leaders meet to discuss Hamas". WorldNetDaily. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
119.Jump up ^ Thompson, Damian (2007-08-24). "Towards a global caliphate". The Daily telegraph. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
120.^ Jump up to: a b "Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. 2 December 2010.
121.Jump up ^ Rozen, Laura (2010-10-11). "Researcher: Suicide terrorism linked to military occupation - Laura Rozen". Politico.Com. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
122.Jump up ^ [Continue calling ‘honour killings’ by its rightful name, Barbara Kay, September 21, 2011, Full comment, National Post.]
123.Jump up ^ "Muslim Americans - Middle class and mostly mainstream" (PDF). Pew Research Center. 22 May 2007. p. 60. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
124.Jump up ^ "Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism". Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 30 August 2011.
125.Jump up ^ Nicole Naurath (2 August 2011). "Most Muslim Americans See No Justification for Violence". gallup.com. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
126.^ Jump up to: a b Gallup Inc. "What Makes a Radical?". Gallup.com.


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion
































































































































  


Categories: Criticism of Islam
Islam-related controversies
History of Islam
Violence
Islam and violence
























Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
فارسی
Bahasa Melayu
Edit links
This page was last modified on 21 June 2015, at 02:53.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
  

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence










Extremism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religious extremism)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Political fringe" redirects here. For other political fringe groups, see Political fringe movements.
"Extremists" redirects here. For the DC Comics supervillain team, see Extremists (comics).
"Extremist" redirects here. For the 1992 instrumental rock album, see The Extremist. For the comic book series, see The Extremist (comics).


 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)
Part of the Politics series
Party politics

Political spectrum

Far-left/Radical left ·
 Left-wing

Centre-left
Centre/Radical centre

Centre-right
Right-wing ·
 Far-right/Radical right


Party platform

Extremist ·
 Radical

Reformist ·
 Moderate

Syncretic
Conservative ·
 Reactionary

Fundamentalist


Party system

Non-partisan ·
 Single-party

Dominant-party ·
 Two-party ·
 Multi-party


Coalition

Hung parliament ·
 Confidence and supply ·
 Minority government ·
 Rainbow coalition ·
 Grand coalition ·
 Full coalition
 National Unity government
Majority government

Lists
Political parties by country
Political parties by UN geoscheme
Political ideologies

Politics portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Extremism means, literally: driving (something) to the limit, to the extreme.
 Nowadays, the term is mostly being used in a political or religious sense, for an ideology that is considered (by the speaker) to be far outside the (acceptable) mainstream attitudes of society.[citation needed] But extremism can, for example, also be meant in an economic sense.
The term "extremism" is usually meant pejorative: to express (strong) disapproval, but it may also be meant in a more academic, purely descriptive, non-condemning sense.
Extremists are usually contrasted with centrists or moderates. For example, in contemporary discussions in Western countries of Islam or of Islamic political movements, the distinction between extremist (= 'bad') and moderate (= 'good') Muslims is typically stressed.
Political agendas perceived as extremist often include those from the far left or far right, as well as radicalism, reactionism, fundamentalism, and fanaticism.


Contents  [hide]
1 Problems with defining extremism
2 Radicalism or extremism?
3 Theories of extremism 3.1 Psychological
4 Uses of the term in "mainstream" politics
5 Other terms
6 See also
7 References 7.1 Cited publications
7.2 Further reading
8 External links

Problems with defining extremism[edit]
In different realms at different times were many different definitions of "extremism". Dr. Peter T. Coleman and Dr. Andrea Bartoli give short observation of definitions:[1]
“ Extremism is a complex phenomenon, although its complexity is often hard to see. Most simply, it can be defined as activities (beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, strategies) of a character far removed from the ordinary. In conflict settings it manifests as a severe form of conflict engagement. However, the labeling of activities, people, and groups as "extremist", and the defining of what is "ordinary" in any setting is always a subjective and political matter. Thus, we suggest that any discussion of extremism be mindful of the following: Typically, the same extremist act will be viewed by some as just and moral (such as pro-social "freedom fighting"), and by others as unjust and immoral (antisocial "terrorism") depending on the observer's values, politics, moral scope, and the nature of their relationship with the actor.
In addition, one's sense of the moral or immoral nature of a given act of extremism (such as Nelson Mandela's use of guerilla war tactics against the South African Government) may change as conditions (leadership, world opinion, crises, historical accounts, etc.) change. Thus, the current and historical context of extremist acts shapes our view of them.
Power differences also matter when defining extremism. When in conflict, the activities of members of low power groups tend to be viewed as more extreme than similar activities committed by members of groups advocating the status quo. In addition, extreme acts are more likely to be employed by marginalized people and groups who view more normative forms of conflict engagement as blocked for them or biased. However, dominant groups also commonly employ extreme activities (such as governmental sanctioning of violent paramilitary groups or the attack in Waco by the FBI in the U.S.).
Extremist acts often employ violent means, although extremist groups will differ in their preference for violent vs. non-violent tactics, in the level of violence they employ, and in the preferred targets of their violence (from infrastructure to military personnel to civilians to children). Again, low power groups are more likely to employ direct, episodic forms of violence (such as suicide bombings), whereas dominant groups tend to be associated with more structural or institutionalized forms (like the covert use of torture or the informal sanctioning of police brutality).
Although extremist individuals and groups (such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad) are often viewed as cohesive and consistently evil, it is important to recognize that they may be conflicted or ambivalent psychologically as individuals, or contain difference and conflict within their groups. For instance, individual members of Hamas may differ considerably in their willingness to negotiate their differences with the Palestinian Authority and, ultimately, with certain factions in Israel.
Ultimately, the core problem that extremism presents in situations of protracted conflict is less the severity of the activities (although violence, trauma, and escalation are obvious concerns) but more so the closed, fixed, and intolerant nature of extremist attitudes, and their subsequent imperviousness to change.
 ”
Radicalism or extremism?[edit]
The terms extremism or extremist are almost always exonymic—i.e., applied by others to a group rather than by a group labeling itself. Rather than labeling themselves extremist, those labeled as such might describe themselves as, for example, political radicals. There is no political party that calls itself "right-wing extremist" or "left-wing extremist", and there is no sect of any religion that calls itself "extremist" or which calls its doctrine "extremism".
The term extremist is used to describe groups and individuals who have become radicalized, in some way, even though the term radical originally meant to go to the root of a (social) problem. The term radical is one not normally regarded as pejorative (except perhaps in the United States of America) and, unlike extremist, is sometimes used by groups in their description of themselves.
The term extremist is often used with reference to those who use or advocate violence against the will of society at large, but it is also used by some to describe those who advocate or use violence to enforce the will of the social body, such as a government or majority constituency. Those described as extremist would in general not accept that what they practice or advocate constitutes violence and would instead speak in terms of acts of "resistance"or militant action or the use of force. The word violence cannot be regarded as value-neutral. Ideology and methodology often become inextricably linked under the single term extremism.
The notion that there is a philosophy which can be described as extremism is considered by some to be suspect. Within sociology, several academics who track (and are critical of) extreme right-wing groups have objected to the term extremist, which was popularized by centrist sociologists in the 1960s and 1970s. As Jerome Himmelstein states the case: "At best this characterization tells us nothing substantive about the people it labels; at worst it paints a false picture." (Himmelstein, p. 7). The act of labeling a person, group or action as extremist is sometimes claimed to be a technique to further a political goal—especially by governments seeking to defend the status quo, or political centrists. In any event, the term extremist—like the word violence—cannot be regarded as value-neutral.
Theories of extremism[edit]
Laird Wilcox identifies 21 alleged traits of a "political extremist", ranging from behaviour like "a tendency to character assassination", over hateful behaviour like "name calling and labelling", to general character traits like "a tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil", "a tendency to substitute intimidation for argument" or "groupthink".[2]



Al-Qaeda fighters in Yemen, 2014
Eric Hoffer and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. were two political writers during the mid-20th century who gave what purported to be accounts of "political extremism". Hoffer wrote books such as The True Believer and The Passionate State of Mind about the psychology and sociology of those who join "fanatical" mass movements. Schlesinger wrote books such as The Vital Center, championing a supposed "center" of politics within which "mainstream" political discourse takes place, and underscoring the alleged need for societies to draw definite lines regarding what falls outside of this acceptability.
Seymour Martin Lipset argued that besides the extremism of the left and right there is also an extremism of the center, and that it actually formed the base of fascism.[3]
Joining extremist groups has been seen to arise from beliefs about the acceptability of aggression towards the group's target. For example, in Pakistan, beliefs about the acceptability of aggression against Jews were shown to predict who would join an extremist anti-Semitic group.[4] Cultural differences in acceptability about aggression towards certain groups may explain extremism towards certain targets, and as these beliefs can be easily changed through intervention, this may offer a way in which extremism can be discouraged.[4]
"Extremism" is not a stand-alone characteristic. The attitude or behavior of an "extremist" may be represented as part of a spectrum which ranges from mild interest through "obsession" to "fanaticism" and "extremism". The alleged similarity between the "extreme left" and "extreme right", or perhaps between different religious "zealots", may mean only that all these are "unacceptable" from the standpoint of a supposed mainstream or majority.
Economist Ronald Wintrobe[5] argues that many extremist movements, even though having completely different ideologies share a common set of characteristics. As an example, he lists the following common characteristics between "Jewish fundamentalists" and "the extremists of Hamas":[6]
Both are against any compromise with the other side.
Both are entirely sure of their position.
Both advocate and sometimes use violence to achieve their ends.
Both are nationalistic.
Both are intolerant of dissent within their group.
Both demonize the other side
Psychological[edit]
Among the explanations for extremism is one that views it as a plague.[1] Arno Gruen said, "The lack of identity associated with extremists is the result of self-destructive self-hatred that leads to feelings of revenge toward life itself, and a compulsion to kill one's own humanness." Thus extremism is seen as not a tactic, nor an ideology, but as a pathological illness which feeds on the destruction of life.[1] Dr. Kathleen Taylor believes Muslim fundamentalism is a mental illness and that is "curable."[7]
Another view is that extremism is an emotional outlet for severe feelings stemming from "persistent experiences of oppression, insecurity, humiliation, resentment, loss, and rage" which are presumed to "lead individuals and groups to adopt conflict engagement strategies which "fit" or feel consistent with these experiences".[1]
Extremism is however seen by other researchers as a "rational strategy in a game over power".[1] See for instance the works of Eli Berman.
Uses of the term in "mainstream" politics[edit]
Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" at the 1964 Republican Convention in a sentence attributed to his speechwriter Karl Hess.
Robert F. Kennedy said, "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
Since the 1990s, in United States politics the term Sister Souljah moment has been used to describe a politician's public repudiation of an allegedly extremist person or group, statement, or position which might otherwise be associated with his own party.
In Russia laws prohibiting "extremist" content are used to suppress the freedom of speech through very broad and flexible interpretation.[8] Publications classified as "extremist" and thus prosecuded included protests against the court rulings in Bolotnaya Square case ("calling for illegal action"), criticism of overspending of local governor ("insult of the authorities") and publishing a poem in support of Ukraine ("inciting hatred")[9][10]
Main article: Freedom of press in Russia
Other terms[edit]
The term "subversive" was often used interchangeably, in the United States at least, with "extremist" during the Cold War period, although the two words are not synonymous.
See also[edit]
Consequentialism
Domestic Extremism Lexicon
False consensus effect
Political extremism in Japan
Political extremism in Switzerland
Sikh extremism
Islamic extremism
Jewish extremism Israeli settler violence#Settler extremism
Zionist extremism
Cumulative extremism
Terrorism
Vigilantism
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Dr. Peter T. Coleman and Dr. Andrea Bartoli: Addressing Extremism, pp. 3–4
2.Jump up ^ "Laird Wilcox on Extremist Traits". Lairdwilcox.com. Retrieved 2013-09-08.
3.Jump up ^ G. M. Tamás: On Post-Fascism, Boston Review, summer 2000
4.^ Jump up to: a b Amjad, N., & Wood, A. M. (2009). Identifying and changing the normative beliefs about aggression which lead young Muslim adults to join extremist anti-Semitic groups in Pakistan. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 514-519
5.Jump up ^ "Economics at Western". Economics.uwo.ca. Retrieved 2013-09-08.
6.Jump up ^ Wintrobe (2006), p. 5
7.Jump up ^ Bruxelles, Simon de (2013-05-30). "Science ‘may one day cure Islamic radicals'". The Times (London) (London). Retrieved 2013-05-31.
8.Jump up ^ Paul Goble (2015-03-29). "FSB Increasingly Involved in Misuse of 'Anti-Extremism' Laws, SOVA Says". The Interpreter Magazine. Retrieved 2015-04-01.
9.Jump up ^ "Examples of forbidden content". Zapretno.info. 2014. Retrieved 2014-10-29.
10.Jump up ^ Neef, Christian; Schepp, Matthias (2014-04-22). "The Propaganda War: Opposition Sings Kremlin Tune on Ukraine". Spiegel Online. Retrieved 2015-06-10.
Cited publications[edit]
George, John and Laird Wilcox. Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America  Prometheus Books, 1992. (ISBN 0-87975-680-2)
Himmelstein, Jerome L. All But Sleeping with the Enemy: Studying the Radical Right Up Close  ASA, San Francisco: 1988
Hoffer, Eric. The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Various editions, first published 1951.
Schlesinger, Arthur. The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom. Various editions, first published 1949.
Wilcox, Laird. "What Is Political Extremism", retrieved from The Voluntaryist newsletter #27, 1987
Ronald Wintrobe (2006). Rational extremism: the political economy of radicalism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85964-6.
Further reading[edit]
Nawaz, Maajid. Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism (Lyons Press, 2013)
Bibi van Ginkel, Engaging Civil Society in Countering Violent Extremism (ICCT – The Hague, 2012)
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Extremism
 Look up extremism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
America's Homegrown Extremists – slideshow by Life magazine
Political Islam: Religious or Extremist? from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
The M and S Collection at the Library of Congress contains materials on Extremist Movements.
  


Categories: Political spectrum
Political theories
Political ideologies
Extremism







Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Euskara
Français
한국어
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
עברית
ქართული
Қазақша
Кыргызча
മലയാളം
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
اردو
Edit links
This page was last modified on 10 June 2015, at 09:28.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism#Religious_extremism










Extremism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Religious extremism)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Political fringe" redirects here. For other political fringe groups, see Political fringe movements.
"Extremists" redirects here. For the DC Comics supervillain team, see Extremists (comics).
"Extremist" redirects here. For the 1992 instrumental rock album, see The Extremist. For the comic book series, see The Extremist (comics).


 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)
Part of the Politics series
Party politics

Political spectrum

Far-left/Radical left ·
 Left-wing

Centre-left
Centre/Radical centre

Centre-right
Right-wing ·
 Far-right/Radical right


Party platform

Extremist ·
 Radical

Reformist ·
 Moderate

Syncretic
Conservative ·
 Reactionary

Fundamentalist


Party system

Non-partisan ·
 Single-party

Dominant-party ·
 Two-party ·
 Multi-party


Coalition

Hung parliament ·
 Confidence and supply ·
 Minority government ·
 Rainbow coalition ·
 Grand coalition ·
 Full coalition
 National Unity government
Majority government

Lists
Political parties by country
Political parties by UN geoscheme
Political ideologies

Politics portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Extremism means, literally: driving (something) to the limit, to the extreme.
 Nowadays, the term is mostly being used in a political or religious sense, for an ideology that is considered (by the speaker) to be far outside the (acceptable) mainstream attitudes of society.[citation needed] But extremism can, for example, also be meant in an economic sense.
The term "extremism" is usually meant pejorative: to express (strong) disapproval, but it may also be meant in a more academic, purely descriptive, non-condemning sense.
Extremists are usually contrasted with centrists or moderates. For example, in contemporary discussions in Western countries of Islam or of Islamic political movements, the distinction between extremist (= 'bad') and moderate (= 'good') Muslims is typically stressed.
Political agendas perceived as extremist often include those from the far left or far right, as well as radicalism, reactionism, fundamentalism, and fanaticism.


Contents  [hide]
1 Problems with defining extremism
2 Radicalism or extremism?
3 Theories of extremism 3.1 Psychological
4 Uses of the term in "mainstream" politics
5 Other terms
6 See also
7 References 7.1 Cited publications
7.2 Further reading
8 External links

Problems with defining extremism[edit]
In different realms at different times were many different definitions of "extremism". Dr. Peter T. Coleman and Dr. Andrea Bartoli give short observation of definitions:[1]
“ Extremism is a complex phenomenon, although its complexity is often hard to see. Most simply, it can be defined as activities (beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, strategies) of a character far removed from the ordinary. In conflict settings it manifests as a severe form of conflict engagement. However, the labeling of activities, people, and groups as "extremist", and the defining of what is "ordinary" in any setting is always a subjective and political matter. Thus, we suggest that any discussion of extremism be mindful of the following: Typically, the same extremist act will be viewed by some as just and moral (such as pro-social "freedom fighting"), and by others as unjust and immoral (antisocial "terrorism") depending on the observer's values, politics, moral scope, and the nature of their relationship with the actor.
In addition, one's sense of the moral or immoral nature of a given act of extremism (such as Nelson Mandela's use of guerilla war tactics against the South African Government) may change as conditions (leadership, world opinion, crises, historical accounts, etc.) change. Thus, the current and historical context of extremist acts shapes our view of them.
Power differences also matter when defining extremism. When in conflict, the activities of members of low power groups tend to be viewed as more extreme than similar activities committed by members of groups advocating the status quo. In addition, extreme acts are more likely to be employed by marginalized people and groups who view more normative forms of conflict engagement as blocked for them or biased. However, dominant groups also commonly employ extreme activities (such as governmental sanctioning of violent paramilitary groups or the attack in Waco by the FBI in the U.S.).
Extremist acts often employ violent means, although extremist groups will differ in their preference for violent vs. non-violent tactics, in the level of violence they employ, and in the preferred targets of their violence (from infrastructure to military personnel to civilians to children). Again, low power groups are more likely to employ direct, episodic forms of violence (such as suicide bombings), whereas dominant groups tend to be associated with more structural or institutionalized forms (like the covert use of torture or the informal sanctioning of police brutality).
Although extremist individuals and groups (such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad) are often viewed as cohesive and consistently evil, it is important to recognize that they may be conflicted or ambivalent psychologically as individuals, or contain difference and conflict within their groups. For instance, individual members of Hamas may differ considerably in their willingness to negotiate their differences with the Palestinian Authority and, ultimately, with certain factions in Israel.
Ultimately, the core problem that extremism presents in situations of protracted conflict is less the severity of the activities (although violence, trauma, and escalation are obvious concerns) but more so the closed, fixed, and intolerant nature of extremist attitudes, and their subsequent imperviousness to change.
 ”
Radicalism or extremism?[edit]
The terms extremism or extremist are almost always exonymic—i.e., applied by others to a group rather than by a group labeling itself. Rather than labeling themselves extremist, those labeled as such might describe themselves as, for example, political radicals. There is no political party that calls itself "right-wing extremist" or "left-wing extremist", and there is no sect of any religion that calls itself "extremist" or which calls its doctrine "extremism".
The term extremist is used to describe groups and individuals who have become radicalized, in some way, even though the term radical originally meant to go to the root of a (social) problem. The term radical is one not normally regarded as pejorative (except perhaps in the United States of America) and, unlike extremist, is sometimes used by groups in their description of themselves.
The term extremist is often used with reference to those who use or advocate violence against the will of society at large, but it is also used by some to describe those who advocate or use violence to enforce the will of the social body, such as a government or majority constituency. Those described as extremist would in general not accept that what they practice or advocate constitutes violence and would instead speak in terms of acts of "resistance"or militant action or the use of force. The word violence cannot be regarded as value-neutral. Ideology and methodology often become inextricably linked under the single term extremism.
The notion that there is a philosophy which can be described as extremism is considered by some to be suspect. Within sociology, several academics who track (and are critical of) extreme right-wing groups have objected to the term extremist, which was popularized by centrist sociologists in the 1960s and 1970s. As Jerome Himmelstein states the case: "At best this characterization tells us nothing substantive about the people it labels; at worst it paints a false picture." (Himmelstein, p. 7). The act of labeling a person, group or action as extremist is sometimes claimed to be a technique to further a political goal—especially by governments seeking to defend the status quo, or political centrists. In any event, the term extremist—like the word violence—cannot be regarded as value-neutral.
Theories of extremism[edit]
Laird Wilcox identifies 21 alleged traits of a "political extremist", ranging from behaviour like "a tendency to character assassination", over hateful behaviour like "name calling and labelling", to general character traits like "a tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil", "a tendency to substitute intimidation for argument" or "groupthink".[2]



Al-Qaeda fighters in Yemen, 2014
Eric Hoffer and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. were two political writers during the mid-20th century who gave what purported to be accounts of "political extremism". Hoffer wrote books such as The True Believer and The Passionate State of Mind about the psychology and sociology of those who join "fanatical" mass movements. Schlesinger wrote books such as The Vital Center, championing a supposed "center" of politics within which "mainstream" political discourse takes place, and underscoring the alleged need for societies to draw definite lines regarding what falls outside of this acceptability.
Seymour Martin Lipset argued that besides the extremism of the left and right there is also an extremism of the center, and that it actually formed the base of fascism.[3]
Joining extremist groups has been seen to arise from beliefs about the acceptability of aggression towards the group's target. For example, in Pakistan, beliefs about the acceptability of aggression against Jews were shown to predict who would join an extremist anti-Semitic group.[4] Cultural differences in acceptability about aggression towards certain groups may explain extremism towards certain targets, and as these beliefs can be easily changed through intervention, this may offer a way in which extremism can be discouraged.[4]
"Extremism" is not a stand-alone characteristic. The attitude or behavior of an "extremist" may be represented as part of a spectrum which ranges from mild interest through "obsession" to "fanaticism" and "extremism". The alleged similarity between the "extreme left" and "extreme right", or perhaps between different religious "zealots", may mean only that all these are "unacceptable" from the standpoint of a supposed mainstream or majority.
Economist Ronald Wintrobe[5] argues that many extremist movements, even though having completely different ideologies share a common set of characteristics. As an example, he lists the following common characteristics between "Jewish fundamentalists" and "the extremists of Hamas":[6]
Both are against any compromise with the other side.
Both are entirely sure of their position.
Both advocate and sometimes use violence to achieve their ends.
Both are nationalistic.
Both are intolerant of dissent within their group.
Both demonize the other side
Psychological[edit]
Among the explanations for extremism is one that views it as a plague.[1] Arno Gruen said, "The lack of identity associated with extremists is the result of self-destructive self-hatred that leads to feelings of revenge toward life itself, and a compulsion to kill one's own humanness." Thus extremism is seen as not a tactic, nor an ideology, but as a pathological illness which feeds on the destruction of life.[1] Dr. Kathleen Taylor believes Muslim fundamentalism is a mental illness and that is "curable."[7]
Another view is that extremism is an emotional outlet for severe feelings stemming from "persistent experiences of oppression, insecurity, humiliation, resentment, loss, and rage" which are presumed to "lead individuals and groups to adopt conflict engagement strategies which "fit" or feel consistent with these experiences".[1]
Extremism is however seen by other researchers as a "rational strategy in a game over power".[1] See for instance the works of Eli Berman.
Uses of the term in "mainstream" politics[edit]
Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" at the 1964 Republican Convention in a sentence attributed to his speechwriter Karl Hess.
Robert F. Kennedy said, "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
Since the 1990s, in United States politics the term Sister Souljah moment has been used to describe a politician's public repudiation of an allegedly extremist person or group, statement, or position which might otherwise be associated with his own party.
In Russia laws prohibiting "extremist" content are used to suppress the freedom of speech through very broad and flexible interpretation.[8] Publications classified as "extremist" and thus prosecuded included protests against the court rulings in Bolotnaya Square case ("calling for illegal action"), criticism of overspending of local governor ("insult of the authorities") and publishing a poem in support of Ukraine ("inciting hatred")[9][10]
Main article: Freedom of press in Russia
Other terms[edit]
The term "subversive" was often used interchangeably, in the United States at least, with "extremist" during the Cold War period, although the two words are not synonymous.
See also[edit]
Consequentialism
Domestic Extremism Lexicon
False consensus effect
Political extremism in Japan
Political extremism in Switzerland
Sikh extremism
Islamic extremism
Jewish extremism Israeli settler violence#Settler extremism
Zionist extremism
Cumulative extremism
Terrorism
Vigilantism
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Dr. Peter T. Coleman and Dr. Andrea Bartoli: Addressing Extremism, pp. 3–4
2.Jump up ^ "Laird Wilcox on Extremist Traits". Lairdwilcox.com. Retrieved 2013-09-08.
3.Jump up ^ G. M. Tamás: On Post-Fascism, Boston Review, summer 2000
4.^ Jump up to: a b Amjad, N., & Wood, A. M. (2009). Identifying and changing the normative beliefs about aggression which lead young Muslim adults to join extremist anti-Semitic groups in Pakistan. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 514-519
5.Jump up ^ "Economics at Western". Economics.uwo.ca. Retrieved 2013-09-08.
6.Jump up ^ Wintrobe (2006), p. 5
7.Jump up ^ Bruxelles, Simon de (2013-05-30). "Science ‘may one day cure Islamic radicals'". The Times (London) (London). Retrieved 2013-05-31.
8.Jump up ^ Paul Goble (2015-03-29). "FSB Increasingly Involved in Misuse of 'Anti-Extremism' Laws, SOVA Says". The Interpreter Magazine. Retrieved 2015-04-01.
9.Jump up ^ "Examples of forbidden content". Zapretno.info. 2014. Retrieved 2014-10-29.
10.Jump up ^ Neef, Christian; Schepp, Matthias (2014-04-22). "The Propaganda War: Opposition Sings Kremlin Tune on Ukraine". Spiegel Online. Retrieved 2015-06-10.
Cited publications[edit]
George, John and Laird Wilcox. Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America  Prometheus Books, 1992. (ISBN 0-87975-680-2)
Himmelstein, Jerome L. All But Sleeping with the Enemy: Studying the Radical Right Up Close  ASA, San Francisco: 1988
Hoffer, Eric. The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Various editions, first published 1951.
Schlesinger, Arthur. The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom. Various editions, first published 1949.
Wilcox, Laird. "What Is Political Extremism", retrieved from The Voluntaryist newsletter #27, 1987
Ronald Wintrobe (2006). Rational extremism: the political economy of radicalism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85964-6.
Further reading[edit]
Nawaz, Maajid. Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism (Lyons Press, 2013)
Bibi van Ginkel, Engaging Civil Society in Countering Violent Extremism (ICCT – The Hague, 2012)
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Extremism
 Look up extremism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
America's Homegrown Extremists – slideshow by Life magazine
Political Islam: Religious or Extremist? from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
The M and S Collection at the Library of Congress contains materials on Extremist Movements.
  


Categories: Political spectrum
Political theories
Political ideologies
Extremism







Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Euskara
Français
한국어
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
עברית
ქართული
Қазақша
Кыргызча
മലയാളം
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
اردو
Edit links
This page was last modified on 10 June 2015, at 09:28.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
    
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism#Religious_extremism