The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Edited by Hugh LaFollette, print pages 3653–3663.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/ 9781444367072.wbiee324

1

Nonviolence in ReligionsAaron J. Hahn Tapper

The twentieth century saw more human-perpetrated death and destruction –

violence – than any previous period in history. Simultaneously, it saw the rise and

spread of new developments in the field of nonviolence, arguably a more powerful

force. But since it was birthed, “nonviolence” has had numerous incarnations; it

has not had any single meaning. Commonly used as a synonym for peace, this

religio-political notion is incredibly complex, having been associated with the

following ideas, for example: ahimsa, satyagraha, truth, peace, salam, shalom, love,

civil disobedience, pacifism, and passive resistance (see love; civil disobedience;

pacifism). This essay briefly examines how “nonviolence” is understood in the

Hindu (see hindu ethics), Buddhist (see buddhist ethics), Jain (see jain

ethics), Jewish, Islamic (see islamic ethics), and Christian (see early christian

ethics) religious traditions. Though there is no doubt that important figures such

as the Dalai Lama (the spiritual leader of the Tibetan Buddhist community), Guru

Nanak (the founder of Sikhism), and Confucius (the founder of Confucianism; see

confucian ethics), among others, should likewise be included in this essay, their

approaches to nonviolence have been omitted for reasons unrelated to their

supreme importance to this topic.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first time that “nonviolence”

materialized in print was on March 11, 1914, appearing in an article written by

Mohandas Gandhi (1914), the most famous Hindu of the modern era and arguably

the most famous practitioner of nonviolence in history. Gandhi did not claim he

had coined a new term, only that he was offering a new word for an ancient religious

idea. “I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as

the hills” (Kripalani 1995: i). He explained that the word nonviolence was an

English translation of the ancient Sanskrit term ahimsa, an idea found in the

Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain traditions.

For Gandhi, ahimsa and himsa – nonviolence and violence, respectively – are

terms which manifest in relation to their opposites. But unlike other languages,

including Arabic, English, and Hebrew, adding the prefix “a” to a Sanskrit word does

not necessarily imply that the word’s original meaning is being changed to its oppo-

site. Rather it can mean that a negative idea is concealing its actual nature, a hidden

value that was always there. In other words, Gandhi maintained that human beings

exist in a natural state of nonviolence (ahimsa), not violence (himsa).

Ahimsa is traditionally defined as noninjury, nonkilling, or harmlessness, also

connoting “the renunciation of the will to kill and of the intention to hurt any living

thing, the abstention from hostile thought, word, and act” (Iyer 1973: 178). Though

Gandhi focused much of his writings on this pre-existent Sanskrit word, he diverged

2

from normative usages of ahimsa in a number of ways. Prior to this point, Jains and

Hindus maintained that ahimsa could only be practiced by saints, while Buddhists

claimed that it could be only be performed by monks (Iyer 1973: 179). Gandhi

extended the practice of ahimsa to include the masses, a ritual practice anyone could

engage in regardless of caste or being a saint or monk. Partially because his theology

was also rooted in central Hindu texts such as the Bhagavad Gita, his new under-

standing quickly spread throughout India, gaining widespread acceptance in a heav-

ily populated Hindu-majority country (Chatterjee 1983: 7–13).

Jains, who have an extreme religious devotion to nonviolence, define himsa based

on whether a violent act is intentional or unintentional, and whether a violent act is

carried out due to one’s professional or domestic responsibilities, or is an act of self-

defense (Chatterjee 1983: 83; Iyer 1973: 178–9). Though Gandhi was versed in the

foundational aspects of Jainism, he primarily drew from his own religious tradition,

Hinduism, when re-examining ahimsa’s meaning, rarely writing about violence

(himsa), despite his numerous essays offering thoughts on nonviolence (i.e., ahimsa)

(Chatterjee 1983: 32–3; Gandhi 1933–4). For Gandhi, contrary to Jainist thought,

violence does not occur de facto. Acts have an equal potential to be violent or

nonviolent. Nonviolence is something one strives for with the awareness that one

will continuously fail and engage in violence nonetheless (Juergensmeyer 2002:

135–48). One habitually has the opportunity to engage in nonviolence through

everyday interactions with others.

For a practitioner of ahimsa, enemies do not exist, only friends do (Chatterjee

1983: 79–80, 90; Dalton 1996: 133–5; Iyer 1993: 285, 320–4). There is no binary of

an ally and foe because the world only has a single interconnected reality. Separation

is an illusion. As found in Buddhist, Jain, and Hindu religious traditions, the ultimate

sin is that of attavada, separateness, separating reality from itself, separating people

into categories such as “positive” and “negative” (Iyer 1973: 181). This is why Gandhi

contended that one can only achieve success when defeating a foe if the so-called

enemy is transformed into a friend (Juergensmeyer 2002: 59).

Breaking the oneness of the world into categories begins with people’s percep-

tions, their thoughts. Through this process, violent thoughts are as potentially

harmful as violent actions. “So, it is held that we may not harbour an evil thought

even in connection with such persons” (Iyer 1993: 285). For this reason, a practi-

tioner of ahimsa is not permitted to engage in evil thoughts, what Gandhi refers to

as “mental violence” (Gandhi 1914). Thus, a practitioner of nonviolence must com-

mit both her thoughts and her actions to ahimsa. “(1) [Nonviolent opposition]

implies not wishing ill. (2) It includes total refusal to cooperate with or participate in

activities of the unjust group, even to eating food that comes from them. (3) It is of

no avail to those without living faith in the God of love and love for all mankind. (4)

He who practices it must be ready to sacrifice everything except his honor. (5) It

must pervade everything and not be applied merely to isolated acts” (Merton 1965:

64, emphasis in original).

For Gandhi, one cannot understand ahimsa without simultaneously looking at

satyagraha, a term coined in 1908 by a Gujarati living with Gandhi in South Africa

3

(Chatterjee 1983: 74; Iyer 1993: 308). Gandhi explained that satyagraha means the

“relentless search for truth” or “truth-force,” a state one attains only through the

practice of nonviolence (Iyer 1973: 426). Ahimsa, he added, is the most important

key to unlocking this truth. “Without ahimsa it is not possible to seek and find

Truth. Ahimsa and Truth are so intertwined that it is practically impossible to disen-

tangle and separate them. They are like the two sides of a coin, or rather of a smooth

unstamped metallic disc. Who can say which is the obverse and which is the reverse?

Nevertheless, ahimsa is the means and Truth is the end. Means to be means must

always be within our reach, and so ahimsa becomes our supreme duty and Truth

becomes God for us” (Dalton 1996: 45). Gandhi compared satyagraha to a banyan

tree whose trunk is made-up of satya (i.e., truth) and ahimsa (Dalton 1996: 35).

But it is not enough to meditate on satya, said Gandhi. One is also obligated to

engage with other people utilizing ahimsa and satyagraha as practices to strive

toward truth. “We have to live a life of ahimsa in the midst of a world full of himsa,

and so we can do so only if we cling to Truth. That is why I can derive ahimsa from

truth” (Iyer 1993: 227). Nonviolence derives from that which is satya (truth), while

it is simultaneously the means to obtain satyagraha. “But Truth cannot be, never will

be, reached except through non-violence” (Iyer 1993: 242). Because satyagraha and

ahimsa are so intertwined, Gandhi noted that, even when ahimsa is truly embodied,

it extends beyond being a mere means to truth but also becomes the end of truth

itself. “Non-violence is the law of life for human beings. For me it is both a means

and an end” (Iyer 1993: 244).

Similar to the Gandhian notion that nonviolence (ahimsa) is the means and peace

(satyagraha) is the end, in both Judaism and Islam nonviolence is also the means to

the end of peace. And just as Gandhi only understood nonviolence in terms of its

relationship to other ideas (i.e., satyagraha, peace, and truth), in order to appropriately

explore the idea of nonviolence within these two religions we must examine the words

shalom and salam, as these are the primary signifiers that Jews and Muslims, respec-

tively, have used to discuss the concept of nonviolence throughout their histories.

In the Hebrew Bible, the core sacred text of Judaism, the word shalom appears 164

times (Kohlenberger 1991: 989–90; see ethics in the hebrew bible). The first

occasion we are introduced to shalom is in Genesis 15:15, when God instructs

Abraham (then Abram), “As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace.” Yet there

is no single definition for this biblical term. Though it is commonly accepted that

the three-letter root for shalom, slm, means whole or complete, there are a variety of

biblical usages for shalom, each connoting different ideas and appearing in a diverse

range of contexts (Hartman 1963: 1782–5). Scholars note that, in the Hebrew Bible,

shalom usually means “the tranquility of death, a state of restful calm, predicated of

godly people,” a “sense of tranquility, or a state of calm without anxiety or stress,” a

feeling or emotion of kindness or well-being, and/or “‘prosperity’ in a material

sense” (Hartman 1963: 1782; Renn 2005: 719).

In post-biblical texts, shalom took on new meanings. Jewish texts written during

the rabbinic period, when sacred books such as the Mishnah and Talmud first

appeared, expanded upon the biblical word shalom to include less explicit notions of

4

peace, such as those known in contemporary parlance as nonviolence. In particular,

rabbis in this time added new understandings of shalom. These new interpretations

aside, perhaps the most poignant thing to note here is that texts from this era

demonstrated innovative understandings of peace, interpretations that point to

ways to achieve peace as opposed to merely describing peace. Many of these examples

reflect nonviolent action, the practice of nonviolence for the sake of transforming

the “other” into a friend, and nonviolent dealings that have the potential to lead to

peace.

Take, for example, the following rabbinic commentary on a verse from Genesis

11:1 (from Gen. Rab. 38:3): “Rabbi Yochanan began, ‘Evil will never depart from the

house of he who repays good with evil’ (Prov. 17:13). … Rabbi Simeon ben Abba

said not only one who repays good but even one who repays evil for evil, ‘evil will

never depart from the house.’ Rabbi Alexandri commented on the verse, adding,

‘who repays good with evil’ – the Torah states, ‘when you see the ass of your enemy

lying under its burden and refrain from raising it[’s burden], you must nevertheless

raise it with him’ (Ex. 23:5).” From a contemporary perspective, this passage illus-

trates the Gandhian notion of transforming an enemy into a friend. And though the

rabbis do not use the word shalom in this particular text, it is clear that the idea

expressed here is an example of a nonviolent encounter, knowingly helping one’s

enemy with the goal to change one’s enemy into an ally.

Similar to Judaism, the term “nonviolence” has never existed among the central

tenets of Islam. Yet, the central Muslim sacred text, the Qur’ān, has a number of dif-

ferent words for peace, including the following: sakīnah, salam, salām, salm, silm,

sallama, and ṣulḥ (Kassis 1983: 1415). Of these seven words, four have the same

three-letter root, slm, and so are linguistically linked. All seven words appear in the

Qur’ān multiple times, each addressing different attributes of the idea of peace.

Sakīnah appears in the Qur’ān six times and is used to mean “God-inspired peace,”

a “peace of reassurance,” “security,” and “calm” (Kassis 1983: 1072). Salam appears

five times and means “surrender” and “submission” (Kassis 1983: 1077). Salām

appears 42 times, reflecting “soundness,” “well-being,” “un-impairedness,” “security,”

“safety,” “a greeting,” and is used to describe God as “the All-peaceable” or the one

who is “Perfect” (Kassis 1983: 1077–8; Osman 1997: 927). Salm is found twice and

means “peace” (Kassis 1983: 1078). Silm appears only once, used to mean “submis-

sion” (Kassis 1983: 1078). Sallama appears 12 times and, due to its various linguistic

Qur’ānic forms, means a variety of things, including “to save,” “to preserve,” “to hand

over intact,” “to surrender,” “to salute,” “to greet,” “to pray for someone to receive

peace,” and “to submit” or “to hand over something” (Ambros 2004: 137; Kassis

1983: 1079). Finally, the word ṣulḥ appears twice and means “reconciliation,” “settle-

ment,” “compromise,” and “to be righteous or pious” (Ambros 2004: 163; Kassis

1983: 1189). All in all, the seven words that are used for peace in the Qur’ān appear

a total of 70 times.

Some of the less common usages for “peace” in the Qur’ān, such as “to preserve,”

“security,” “submission,” and “to surrender,” directly relate to one of Islam’s core

beliefs, full obedience to God (Esposito 1998: 23–8; Sachedina 2001: 32–9, 89–90).

5

As noted by scholars and laypeople alike, the name of this religious tradition itself,

Islam, is the verbal noun of aslāma, whereas the term “Muslim” is the active partici-

ple of this same verb (i.e., meaning submission to God’s will, seeking or establishing

peace, etc.) (Sachedina 2001: 68–9). Further, as Muslim doctrine maintains that God

is the ultimate symbol of wholeness – in other words, peace – only by submitting to

God can a practitioner arrive at peace. In this sense, when any of the seven words

above are used in the Qur’ān to connote one’s surrender to God, the preservation of

God’s law, or upholding security, all of these ideas imply the same thing: in obeying

Islamic law, or shari’a, one is carrying out God’s will, moving the world toward God’s

goal of peace (Aslan 2005: 162–70).

Aside from the Qur’ān, the Hadīth are the core foundational texts upon which

shari’a is based, a vast collection of writings that attribute specific sayings and/or

customs to the Prophet Muhammed. Due to their authoritative nature, and because

the Qur’ān does not sufficiently explain all of the details of an individual’s or com-

munity’s life, Muslims look to Hadīth for day-to-day guidance. Yet, like the Qur’ān,

Hadīth do not have a single way of discussing peace. Similar to the extrapolation of

the Hebrew Bible through talmudic and midrashic texts, Hadīth expand upon the

various Qur’ānic words for peace to include less explicit notions of this idea, such as

those known in contemporary vernacular as “nonviolence.”

Some Hadīth recount episodes that illustrate Muhammed’s behavior, exemplify-

ing how Muslims should act. Others relate aphorisms attributed to Muhammed that

convey Islamic truths, such as those focusing on peace. Here are a few examples:

“Ibn Umar relates that someone asked the Prophet, ‘Who is the best Muslim?’ He

replied, ‘The one whose hand and tongue leave other Muslims in peace’” (Abu-

Nimer 2003: 61); “The Prophet said, ‘There is a sadaqah to be given for every joint

of the human body; and for everyday on which the sun rises there is a reward of

sadaqah for the one who establishes justice among people’” (Abu-Nimer 2003: 56);

“The Prophet said, ‘Power resides not in being able to strike another, but in being

able to keep the self under control when anger arises’” (Abu-Nimer 2003: 72);

“Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba: That she heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘He who

makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good

things, is not a liar’” (Sahih al-Bukhari). All four of these Hadīth communicate ideas

that fall under the Gandhian notion of nonviolence. Each of these morays expresses

a nonviolent ethic, despite only one of them actually using the word “peace.” (The

most important twentieth-century Muslim practitioner of nonviolence was Ghaffar

Abdul Khan [Easwaran 1999; Khan 1969].)

As for Christianity, this tradition’s core text, the New Testament, does not use the

contemporary term “nonviolence” either. Rather, it uses the term “peace,” similar to

the Hebrew Bible and the Qur’ān, describing the same ethos as nonviolence but

using a different word. Perhaps the most famous verse from this Christian text is

Jesus’ teaching to “turn the other cheek,” found in the renowned Sermon on the

Mount. “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek,

turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let

6

him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two

miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants

to borrow from you” (Matt. 5:38–42). A similar notion is found in Luke 6:27–31.

As Jesus’ teachings were based upon the Hebrew Bible, some scholars have noted

that the notion of turning the other cheek is based upon the passage from Lev. 19:18,

“You will not exact vengeance on, or bear any sort of grudge against, the members of

your people, but will love your fellow as yourself.” Such arguments lend credence to

the idea that Christian understandings of nonviolence are also integrally connected

to the notion of love (Brown 1989: 65–74; Kittel 1964; Malamat 1990: 50–1).

Three of the more prominent contemporary Christian theologians who discussed

nonviolence were Reinhold Niebuhr (see niebuhr, reinhold), Thomas Merton,

and Martin Luther King, Jr. (see king, jr., martin luther), individuals who further

developed this idea in profound ways. For this discussion, what is perhaps most

important is the terminology these leaders utilized in their writings. For example,

though Niebuhr referred to his nonviolent ideology as a form of “pacifism,” Merton

and King used the Gandhian term “nonviolence.” Niebuhr also differed from Merton

and King in that he eventually changed his perspective to defend the use of force,

diverging from his original opinion that pacifism is the only just alternative to

violence. Nation-states, he asserted, need to use violence (i.e., force) in order

to  protect themselves and their citizens (Childress 1982: 31). Further, he added

that  love (i.e., peace) between nation-states is unrealistic. The pragmatic notion

of  self-defense ensures that the political sphere supersedes ethical concerns

(Childress 1982: 71–6).

It is important to note that Niebuhr is far from the first Christian theologian to

defend the use of force (Childress 1982: 256). The Christian idea of jus in bello, or

justice in war, dates back to as early as the third century ce, when the Christian

figure Origen argued that the use of force is justifiable for soldiers but not for

“Christian disciples” (Marrin 1971: 31–3). Saint Augustine also supported “just war,”

as did Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, and Martin Luther, among

others (Dyson 2001: 161–2, 367–8, 371–6; Marrin 1971: 68–83, 101–7). The Catholic

Church aside, which maintains a de jure stance in favor of nonviolence regarding a

number of issues, “just war” supporters can be found throughout the vast canon of

Christian thought. Further, the idea of religiously sanctified violence can also be

found in Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam as well.

In contrast to Neibuhr, Thomas Merton was absolutist in his support of non-

violence. Like Gandhi, Merton believed in the singularity of humankind, a oneness

that is intrinsically connected to God. Human beings cannot be separated into

hierarchical categories because this lends to a devaluation of human life. In Merton’s

own words, “Christian nonviolence is not built on a presupposed division, but on

the basic unity of man. … The nonviolent resister is not fighting simply for his ‘truth’

or for ‘his’ pure conscience, or for the right that is on ‘his side.’ On the contrary, both

his strength and his weakness come from the fact that he is fighting for the truth,

common to him and to the adversary, the right which is objective and universal. He

is fighting for everybody” (Merton 1961: 209, emphasis in original). For Merton,

7

nonviolence is a practice that must be carried out selflessly, especially by those who

have disproportionate control over a given societal population. “The nonviolence

resistance of the Christian who belongs to one of the powerful nations and who is

himself in some sense a privileged member of world society will have to be clearly

not for himself but for others, that is for the poor and underprivileged” (Merton 1961:

212, emphasis in original). Like Gandhi, Merton had an acute awareness of the ways

that the self can get in the way of performing nonviolent acts.

In opposition to Niebuhr, Merton was also explicit in claiming that nonviolence is

rooted in the Christian notion of forgiveness, the idea that sinners need to be given

the opportunity to repent. “To forgive others and to forget their offense is to enter

with them into the healing mystery of death and resurrection in Christ, to return to

the source of the Spirit which is the Heart of Christ. And by this forgiveness we are

ourselves cleansed” (Merton 1965: 18). Though Gandhi’s understanding of

nonviolence was not rooted in this Christian ethos, Merton and Gandhi agreed on

many things, including the thought that nonviolence is not to be used to denigrate

an oppressor, but rather to transform her into an ally.

Perhaps Merton’s greatest addition to “nonviolence” was his argument that

prayer, or contemplative meditation, is an important part of the process of engag-

ing in nonviolence. In fact, Merton argued that a practitioner of nonviolence must

begin with a metaphysical foundation before moving into her practical applica-

tion of this ethos. “The fully consistent practice of nonviolence demands a solid

metaphysical and religious basis both in being and in God. This comes before

subjective good intentions and sincerity” (Merton 1967: 18–22, emphasis in orig-

inal). By meditating on God, one deepens her understanding of the human “other,”

a process that leads to the acceptance of a nonviolent worldview. In other words,

the act of internal contemplation is an extremely important element of one’s

nonviolent practice.

Similar to Merton, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was also an advocate of absolute

nonviolence. Like Merton, King asserted that his theology was based upon ideas put

forward by Jesus Christ and Gandhi: “Christ gave us the goals and Mahatma Gandhi

gave us the tactics” (King 1981: 7). King commonly integrated passages from the

New Testament into his speeches as well. As early as January 1953, King told a

“crowd of angry blacks to refrain from retaliatory violence: ‘We must meet violence

with nonviolence. Remember the words of Jesus: “He who lives by the sword shall

perish by the sword” ’ ” (Colaiaco 1993: 13). Some scholars maintain that King’s

readings of Gandhian literature, specifically Gandhi’s interpretation of the New

Testament, are what helped him re-examine Jesus’ teachings in the first place. As one

scholar noted, “King’s study of Gandhi taught him that Christianity did not mean

nonresistance to evil, but nonviolent resistance to evil. … King pointed to his reading

of Gandhi as the source of his belief that nonviolence was ‘the only morally and

practically sound method open to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom’ ”

(Colaiaco 1993: 25).

In one of King’s most famous books, Why We Can’t Wait, he refers to Jesus, Jesus’

disciples, and other important Christian figures when underscoring how his belief

8

in nonviolence is ensconced in Christian theology. In one of these texts, “Letter from

a Birmingham Jail,” he said, “But though I was initially disappointed at being catego-

rized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a

measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: ‘Love  your

enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for

them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.’ Was not Amos an extremist for

justice: ‘Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing

stream.’ Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: ‘I bear in my body the

marks of my lord Jesus.’ Was not Martin Luther an extremist: ‘Here I stand; I cannot

do otherwise so help me God’. … Jesus Christ was an extremist for love, truth, and

goodness, and thereby rose above his environment” (King 2000: 76–7). This passage

is not unique in the context of King’s other works, as he often credits his ideas as

principles first taught by Jesus.

One of the few times that King did not use this literary device was in his most

famous speech, “I Have a Dream.” Delivered in 1963, this 1,550-word speech, one of

the most well-known English speeches of the twentieth century, did not use the

name Jesus Christ even once (King: /mlkihaveadream). King called for a time in

which “children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by

the color of their skin but by the content of their character. … a situation where little

black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white

girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.” By asking Americans to engage in

nonviolent action for the sake of improving civil rights for people worldwide,

regardless of skin color, King made it clear that his fight was for “all of God’s chil-

dren, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics.” Like

Gandhi, King’s understanding of non violence aimed at achieving equality for all of

humankind.

Even King’s last speech, delivered on April 3, 1968, embraced a universalistic

message, focusing on humankind rather than Black Americans alone. Repeatedly

referring to “God’s children,” and citing individuals from Plato to Martin Luther

to Abraham Lincoln to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, King framed his ideas within

the human collective. His message of nonviolence emanated from his profound

belief that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere,” an idea found

throughout this final sermon (King 2000: 65). In the speech’s last sentences, King

mentioned his awareness that he was not worried about dying, touching on an

idea discussed by Merton and Gandhi and embodied in the religious idea of

Jesus’ crucifixion. In King’s mind, suffering – even dying – for the sake of non-

violence was one of the deepest sacrifices one could make (King /mlkivebeento-

themountaintop).

See also: buddhist ethics; civil disobedience; confucian ethics; early

christian ethics; ethics in the hebrew bible; hindu ethics; islamic

ethics; jain ethics; king, jr., martin luther; love; niebuhr, reinhold;

pacifism

9

REFERENCES

Abu-Nimer, Mohammed 2003. Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam: Theory and Practice.

Miami: University Press of Florida.

Ambros, Arne A. (ed.) 2004. A Concise Dictionary of Koranic Arabic. Vienna: Reichert Verlag

Wiesbaden.

Aslan, Reza 2005. No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. New York:

Random House.

Brown, Douglas E. 1989. “Turn the Other Cheek,” Restoration Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 2,

pp. 65–74.

Chatterjee, Margaret 1983. Gandhi’s Religious Thought. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre

Dame Press.

Childress, James F. 1982. “Reinhold Niebhur’s Realistic Critique of Pacifism,” Moral

Responsibility in Conflicts: Essays on Nonviolence, War, and Conscience. Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University Press.

Colaiaco, James A. 1993. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Apostle of Militant Nonviolence. New York:

St. Martin’s Press.

Dalton, Dennis (ed.) 1996. Mahatma Gandhi: Selected Political Writings. Indianapolis:

Hackett.

Dyson, R. W. (ed.) 2001. Augustine: The City of God Against the Pagans. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Easwaran, Eknath 1999. Nonviolent Soldier of Islam. Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press.

Esposito, John L. 1998. Islam: The Straight Path. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gandhi, Mohandas 1914. “102: Letter to Chhaganlal Gandhi,” The Collected Works of

Mahatma Gandhi, Volume XIV: December 26, 1913 – May 20, 1915. India: Government

of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Publications Division, p. 113. At

www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL014.PDF, accessed September 14, 2010.

Gandhi, Mohandas 1933–4. “110: A Teacher’s Doubts,” The Collected Works of Mahatma

Gandhi, Volume 62: October 8, 1933 – January 17, 1934. India: Government of India,

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Publications Division, p. 93. At www.

gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL062.PDF, accessed September 14, 2010.

Hartman, Louis F. (ed.) 1963. Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Iyer, Raghavan 1973. The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Iyer, Raghavan (ed.) 1993. The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Juergensmeyer, Mark 2002. Gandhi’s Way: A Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Los Angeles:

University of California Press.

Kassis, Hanna E. (ed.) 1983. A Concordance of the Qur’ān. Los Angeles: University of Berkeley

Press.

Khan, Abdul Ghaffar 1969. My Life and Struggle. Delhi: Hind Pocket Books.

King, Jr., Martin Luther. At www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm,

accessed September 14, 2010.

King, Jr., Martin Luther. At www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.

htm, accessed September 14, 2010.

King, Jr., Martin Luther 1981. Strength to Love. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

King, Jr., Martin Luther 2000. Why We Can’t Wait. New York: Signet Classic.

10

Kittel, G. (ed.) 1964. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:

Wm. B. Erdmans vol. I, pp. 21–34, vol. IX, p. 116.

Kohlenberger III, John R. (ed.) 1991. The NRSV Concordance Unabridged. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Kripalani, Krishna (ed.) 1995. All Men Are Brothers: Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as

Told in His Own Words. Ahmedabad: Navajivan.

Malamat, Abraham 1990. “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself,” Biblical Archaeological Review,

July/August, pp. 111–51.

Marrin, Albert (ed.) 1971. War and the Christian Conscience: From Augustine to Martin

Luther King, Jr. Chicago: Henry Regnery.

Merton, Thomas 1961. New Seeds of Contemplation. New York: New Directions.

Merton, Thomas (ed.) 1965. Gandhi on Non-Violence. New York: New Directions.

Merton, Thomas 1967. “Blessed Are the Meek: The Roots of Christian Nonviolence,”

Fellowship, vol. 33, May, pp. 18–22.

Osman, Fathi 1997. Concepts of the Qur’ān. Los Angeles: MVI Publications.

Renn, Stephen D. (ed.) 2005. Expository Dictionary of Bible Words. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson.

Sachedina, Abdulaziz 2001. The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Sahih al-Bukhari. Volume III, Bk. 49, No. 857. At www.usc.edu/cgi-bin/msasearch, accessed

August 1, 2007.

FURTHER READINGS

Ackerman, Peter, and Jack DuVall 2000. A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent

Conflict. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Al Fadl, Khaled Abou 2002. “Peaceful Jihad,” in Michael Wolfe (ed.), Taking Back Islam:

American Muslims Reclaim Their Faith. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.

Arendt, Hannah 1970. On Violence. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Benjamin, Walter. “Critique of Violence,” in Peter Demetz (ed.), Reflections. New York:

Schocken Books.

Buber, Martin 1958. I and Thou, trans. Ronald Gregor Smith. New York: Macmillan.

Clayton, Ed 1968. Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Peaceful Warrior. New York: Pocket Books.

Esack, Farid 2002. Qur’ān, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious

Solidarity against Oppression. Oxford: One World.

Freire, Paulo 2006. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Friedman, Maurice S. 1960. Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue. New York: Harper &

Brothers.

Galtung, Johan 1965. “On the Meaning of Nonviolence,” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 2,

no. 3, pp. 228–57.

Heschel, Abraham Joshua 1995. Man Is Not Alone: A Philosophy of Religion. New York: Farrar,

Straus, & Giroux.

Heschel, Abraham Joshua 2001. The Prophets. New York: Harper Perennial.

Heschel, Susannah (ed.) 1997. Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity. New York: Farrar,

Straus, & Giroux.

Johansen, Robert C. 1997. “Radical Islam and Nonviolence: A Case Study of Religious

Empowerment and Constraint Among Pashtuns,” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 34, p. 1.

11

Merton, Thomas 1989. Passion for Peace: The Social Essays of Thomas Merton, ed. William H.

Shannon. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

Said, Abdul Aziz, Nathan C. Funk, and Ayse S. Kadayifci (eds.) 2001. Peace and Conflict

Resolution in Islam: Precept and Practice. New York: University Press of America.

Shariati, Ali 1979. “Reflections of a Concerned Muslim: On the Plight of Oppressed Peoples,”

Race and Class, vol. 21, pp. 31–40. Also in Richard Falk, Samuel S. Kim, and Saul H.

Mendlovitz (eds.) 1982. Toward a Just World Order. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sharp, Gene 1973. The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Parts One, Two, and Three. Boston:

Porter Sargent.

Tapper, Aaron J. 2005. “Hamas Pacifists and Settler Islamophiles: Defining Nonviolence in

the Holy Land,” Tikkun, vol. 20, no. 4 (July/August).

Thoreau, Henry David 1983. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York: Penguin.