1

Nonviolence in Religions
Aaron 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 words original meaning is being changed to its opposite. 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
The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Edited by Hugh LaFollette, print pages 36533663.
2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/ 9781444367072.wbiee324

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 understanding quickly spread throughout India, gaining widespread acceptance in a heavily populated Hindu-majority country (Chatterjee 1983: 713).
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 ones professional or domestic responsibilities, or is an act of selfdefense (Chatterjee 1983: 83; Iyer 1973: 1789). Though Gandhi was versed in the
foundational aspects of Jainism, he primarily drew from his own religious tradition,
Hinduism, when re-examining ahimsas meaning, rarely writing about violence
(himsa), despite his numerous essays offering thoughts on nonviolence (i.e., ahimsa)
(Chatterjee 1983: 323; Gandhi 19334). 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:
13548). 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: 7980, 90; Dalton 1996: 1335; Iyer 1993: 285, 3204). 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 peoples perceptions, 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 practitioner 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 commit 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

(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 disentangle 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, respectively, 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: 98990; 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: 17825). 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

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 illustrates 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 ones
enemy with the goal to change ones 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 Qurn, has a number of different words for peace, including the following: saknah, salam, salm, salm, silm,
sallama, and ul (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
Qurn multiple times, each addressing different attributes of the idea of peace.
Saknah appears in the Qurn 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). Salm
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: 10778; Osman 1997: 927). Salm is found twice and
means peace (Kassis 1983: 1078). Silm appears only once, used to mean submission (Kassis 1983: 1078). Sallama appears 12 times and, due to its various linguistic
Qurnic 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 ul appears twice and means reconciliation, settlement, 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 Qurn appear
a total of 70 times.
Some of the less common usages for peace in the Qurn, such as to preserve,
security, submission, and to surrender, directly relate to one of Islams core
beliefs, full obedience to God (Esposito 1998: 238; Sachedina 2001: 329, 8990).

As noted by scholars and laypeople alike, the name of this religious tradition itself,
Islam, is the verbal noun of aslma, whereas the term Muslim is the active participle of this same verb (i.e., meaning submission to Gods will, seeking or establishing
peace, etc.) (Sachedina 2001: 689). 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 Qurn to connote ones surrender to God, the preservation of
Gods law, or upholding security, all of these ideas imply the same thing: in obeying
Islamic law, or sharia, one is carrying out Gods will, moving the world toward Gods
goal of peace (Aslan 2005: 16270).
Aside from the Qurn, the Hadth are the core foundational texts upon which
sharia 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 Qurn does not sufficiently explain all of the details of an individuals or communitys life, Muslims look to Hadth for day-to-day guidance. Yet, like the Qurn,
Hadth do not have a single way of discussing peace. Similar to the extrapolation of
the Hebrew Bible through talmudic and midrashic texts, Hadth expand upon the
various Qurnic words for peace to include less explicit notions of this idea, such as
those known in contemporary vernacular as nonviolence.
Some Hadth recount episodes that illustrate Muhammeds behavior, exemplifying 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 (AbuNimer 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 Allahs 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 Hadth 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 traditions 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 Qurn, 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

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. 5:3842). A similar notion is found in Luke 6:2731.
AsJesus 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: 6574; Kittel 1964; Malamat 1990: 501).
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: 716).
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: 313). Saint Augustine also supported just war,
as did Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, and Martin Luther,among
others (Dyson 2001: 1612, 3678, 3716; Marrin 1971: 6883, 1017). 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 nonviolence. 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 Mertons
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,

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 Gandhis 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 Mertons greatest addition to nonviolence was his argument that
prayer, or contemplative meditation, is an important part of the process of engaging in nonviolence. In fact, Merton argued that a practitioner of nonviolence must
begin with a metaphysical foundation before moving into her practical application 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: 1822, emphasis in original). 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 ones
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 Kings
readings of Gandhian literature, specifically Gandhis interpretation of the New
Testament, are what helped him re-examine Jesus teachings in the first place. As one
scholar noted, Kings 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 Kings most famous books, Why We Cant Wait, he refers to Jesus, Jesus
disciples, and other important Christian figures when underscoring how his belief

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 categorized 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: 767). This passage
is not unique in the context of Kings 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
thecolor 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 Gods children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics. Like
Gandhi, Kings understanding of nonviolence aimed at achieving equality for all of
humankind.
Even Kings last speech, delivered on April 3, 1968, embraced a universalistic
message, focusing on humankind rather than Black Americans alone. Repeatedly
referring to Gods 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 speechs 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 Kings mind, suffering even dying for the sake of nonviolence was one of the deepest sacrifices one could make (King /mlkivebeentothemountaintop).
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.6574.
Chatterjee, Margaret 1983. Gandhis Religious Thought. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press.
Childress, James F. 1982. Reinhold Niebhurs 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. Martins 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 19334. 110: A Teachers 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. Gandhis Way: A Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Kassis, Hanna E. (ed.) 1983. A Concordance of the Qurn. 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 Cant 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. 2134, 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. 11151.
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. 1822.
Osman, Fathi 1997. Concepts of the Qurn. 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. Qurn, 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. 22857.
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. 3140. 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.