Semiotics of nonviolence.
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE SIMILARITIES OF THE SEMIOTICS OF NONVIOLENCE AND CONFLICT RECONCILIATION AMONGST SIX RELIGIONS
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to stimulate dialogue in the area of the semiotics of nonviolence and conflict reconciliation. The paper will attempt to layout some of the similarities, the problems, and challenges of leadership development amongst religious leaders related to formation in nonviolence. In doing so, this paper will analyze evidence from scholarly documents with particular attention to the historical perspectives and contemporary practitioners in key traditions.
The overall goal of this study is to provide new insight through to the study of the semiotics of nonviolence and conflict reconciliation. This study will highlight some of the most important issues within the field of semiotic studies, especially the neglected areas such as training procedures and leadership development. Largely, the paper will present the case that more attention be paid to both the study of the semiotic of nonviolence and conflict reconciliation, and how to bridge the gap of contemporary leadership development to understand signs, symbols, and the use of language in conflict transformation.
Thesis Statement.
This study seeks to demonstrate the similarities, the problems, and challenges of leadership development on the semiotics of nonviolence and conflict reconciliation.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to explore the semiotic of nonviolence and conflict reconciliation and how a lack of a semiotic understanding of the similarities within the six religions impacts leadership development.
Outline the essay’s main components.
· Establish a foundational understanding of the similarities in the six religions
· Delineate adaptations that required the use of semiotic of nonviolence and conflict reconciliation amongst the six religions.
· Where applicable will evaluate successes and failures in my related fieldwork.
· I aim to show that the semiotics of nonviolence and conflict transformation amongst these six religions are similar in their understanding but dissimilar in some cases and most especially in their application. At some point, they stand in opposition to one another but on the overall they look similar and most especially when based on sign and symbolism.
Throughout history, the development of major religions shows that humans, themselves developed religious ideas into institutions with patterns of doctrines that saw each system as separate and unique. In The Meaning and End of Religion, Cantwell Smith shows how the institutions of religion developed as a clear and bounded historical phenomenon.
These six religions together make up well over two-third of the world's population. Without peace and justice between these religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace and conflict transformation in the world. The future of the world depends on a common understanding of nonviolence and conflict transformation
The basis for this semiotic understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of these faiths: love of the Divine, and love of the neighbor. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbor is thus the common ground between these faiths and it is obvious where love exist violence and conflict tend to disintegrate.
However, these religions have different symbolic systems that communicate similar meaning. These symbols are never completely arbitrary, suggesting they are a symbolic signifier that ses bonds. Semantically speaking, symbols can be things with such an important historical culture and meaning, such as the cross for Christians, the Star of David for the Jews, the Star and Crescent for Muslim’s, the Om or Aum for the Hindu's, the Parasol or Umbrella for the Buddhist, and the Khanda for the Sikh’s. All these symbols have one thing in common; they are tied to the history of each religion and play an important role in every society.
CHRISTIANITY
There has been quite some debate, recently about the practice of nonviolence amongst the early Christians. To this end, some scholars suggest how early Christians refused the Roman military service especially because of its religious requirements more than any hatred to killing. [1] Additionally, these scholars go on to describe how early Christian’s opposition boldly rejected the emperor's violent actions and accused Roman society of atheism, Their commitment to nonviolence was a threat to the Roman society which was rooted in the monotheism. Their refusal to honor the state gods, which were the essence of Roman identity, brought upon them great persecution. Religion and power have always been a tempting mix. Further, Christopher reiterates how several of the early Christian "martyrs who refused military service amounted to participation in a rival religion, a religion which mandated violent activities was martyred soon after proclaiming his clear perception of the connection of violence with nationalist religious zeal"[2].
On Christian nonviolence, Christopher cites the works of scholars like Engelhardt, who revealed how Christians in the fourth and fifth centuries responded to Christian nonviolence, is "the refusal to be moved by the flag and state [and] the refusal to participate in the liturgies of destruction and in the hymnic glorification of violence as national epic and identity.”[3] Besides the debate about the nonviolence of the earliest Christians, the same message of nonviolence is also reflected in the teaching of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. These scholars have shown that the Gospel teaching of Jesus of Nazareth on violence were consistent with both the Jewish and Hebrew emergence, such as quietism and a nonviolent ethos among the early teachers of Pharisaic Judaism[4].
The antiwar teaching of Jesus is very clear especially in the context of making ethnical decisions when it comes to participating in warfare per se. For instance, what was a non-question or issue for the Jews of Palestine who were in a territory occupied by Rome was "Shall we flight in the military”? Instead, for them, the question was about the strategies of resistance to the occupying power. In all of these Jesus' teaching about the notion of "loving enemies" and "praying for those who persecute you" applied to relations with the occupying power.[5]
For the Jews in Palestine at the time, to hear Jesus say, "Love your enemies" would arguably mean, "love the Romans; do not just the resistance movement. I say to you, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:48).
What is certainly obvious is the fact that all of Jesus’ teaching on nonviolence was quite understood by early Christians. For instance, when a disciple took a sword to defend Jesus himself, Jesus commanded that he put the sword back or away, for: “all who take up the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). It is undeniable clear; in the teaching of Jesus how His advocacy of peacemaking is tied to His view of the nature of the community He founded. For Christopher, the Christian nonviolence was not a general ethical maxim. It was a rule for the community of disciples and followers, directing them in the way they were to live in the midst of those who lived quite differently from them.[6]
ISLAM
According to Arvind Sharma, Islam founded by Muhammad a Prophet, who doubled as the Ruler, and Commander in chief. He was a native son of the Arabian Peninsula. Muhammad was the prophet who preached the word of Allah to the people and upon conversion, they become Muslim's. Mohammed became a prophet at the age of forty, on the claim, when God sent the angel Gabriel to him, and everything he heard from the Angle were written down, and it became the Quran. Islam is rarely associated with nonviolence and conflict transformation in the public minds. The word “Islam literally means peace and security which means that Islam attaches utmost significance to harmony, peace and a smooth running of society.”[7]
However, the perception of associating Islam with peace and harmony could be difficult to point seeing that most violence in Islam comes from the fact that Islam does not make a distinction between religion and state, thereby making, “Islamic church and an Islamic state has always been a controversial institution.”[8] The result of this action means Islam makes no distinction between the affairs of the world by differentiating it from religion, according to their teaching everything is interrelated.
In Islam, the use of the word “Jihad” does not necessary means holy war, “Jihad means inner struggle or effort. By a famous hadith of the Holy Prophet."[9] However, in today’s society the mere mention of that word Jihad has become synonymous with conflict and can be attributed to the radical Islamic portrayal and the use of the word, traditionally these words serve to show an outward struggle of "confronting social injustice"[10] which includes an actual pursuit of the teachings of peace.
Islam, literally meaning of the word is “peace and security”[11] thus simplified as Islam attaches itself to the “utmost significance to harmony, peace and the smooth running of society.”[12] It, therefore, seems appropriate to remind reader of the evidence that the name Allah is "the peace."[13] Always invoking the name in an appropriate time to connote the blessing and the mercy of the Almighty.
Here are some concepts of peace in Islam that have been misconstrued and thus serve to confirm the perception and notion that Allah is sanctioning conflict. Based on the belief that violence disturbs serenity and peace in society and Islam sanctioning of these three kind of violence have contributed in fuelling the association of Islam as violent, these are:
Although Islam’s objectives are aimed at promoting a moral value system and the protection of lives and properties of its members in society, for their claim, "life and properties of the citizen are regarded as sacred in Islam, and the murder of one is held tantamount to the massacre of all human beings".[14]
1. Jihad is just to oppose and combat those who disturbs the peace of society
2. Jihad is set to establish a way of securing peace in society, and the use of force could only be used for self-defense.
3. Jihad, as a way to establish a better way to understand the concepts of the Quran.[15]
"Thus, these three concept can be summarized like this, sanction is given to anyone who fights because they have been wronged... permission to fight in self-defense and not for hostility...the third is fighting is a legitimate means of defending the right of the oppressed"[16]
These attributes are to serve as a key factor for peace and security in the world. The Quran also require that whenever one speaks, one should speak justly and as the Almighty said, “O my servant! I have forbidden injustice for Myself and forbade it also for you. So avoid being unjust to one another."[17]
JUDAISM
It is of interest to note how nonviolence is expressed in Jewish texts. Christopher, in citing the works of Leibowitz (1982, 172), notes how the Hebrew bible itself does not explicitly demand a completely nonviolent lifestyle. However, it commands the love of one’s neighbor and sees love as the appropriate answer to situations of conflict that breed hatred and revenge. For instance, Christopher point to the fact that the Bible is clear when it says, “Do not hate your brother in your heart; reprove him, and be sinless. Do not take revenge or harbor a grudge, rather love your neighbor as yourself; I am YHWH” (Lev. 19:17-18).[18]
It is very clear; regarding nonviolence, the in the Bible desire has and still is to limit vengeance is specific in the institution of Cities of Refuge. For example, according to the Bible based on Christophers reading, "these places were created to protect the accidental murderer from being hunted down by avenging relatives. Capital punishment . . . is virtually eliminated in the first major post-biblical code of Jewish law.”[19]
As Scholars over the years claim, Judaism's long-standing denunciation of militarism of every age completely predominates in Jewish texts. According to Christopher, Deuteronomy 8:11-18 clearly “warns Israel against taking pride in its military successes and imagining them to be independently achieved; it sees these attitudes as the height of human pride and folly and dangerously close to idolatry”[20].
From the forgoing, it is obvious that God needed to fulfill the promise was made to the Patriarchs in Deuteronomy 9:5. So it would be quite a mistake, in fact, a great mistake, for Israel to begin to imagine that it was morally virtuous enough for her to claim that it merit its material inheritance. In my view, this form of anti-militarist attitude is best reflected by the noted verse from Zachariah which says "Not by force or by might, but by my spirit, says the Lord (Deuteronomy 4:6). This is at the core of the nineteenth-century Universalist, pre-Zionist understanding of Hanukkah. Deuteronomy 9:5 and the Deuteronomy 4:6 are yet examples of how a Bible passage sheds light on other. It is an example of how iron sharpened iron.[21]
The book of Exodus admonishes that: "If you build an altar to God do not use hewn stones, for your sword will have been raised on it, thereby defiling it" (Exodus 20:22). To this end, Rabbinic scholars like Simon ben Eleazar used to say that, “The altar is made to prolong the years of man and iron is made to shorten the years of man; it is not right for that which shortens life to be lifted up against that which prolongs life.”[22] The ideal of peace and nonviolence is evident here. It is clear here that iron in the form of a sword indeed has the capacity to shorten the years of man whenever it is raised up. The alternative to that is building an altar to God. The alternative to building an altar to God is a form of nonviolence. Nonviolence prolongs life; nonviolence does not delight in killing life but in preserving life.
It is important that we take a close look at the book of Isaiah as we discuss nonviolence. According to scholars, one can hardly try to outline the expressions of Isaiah 2:4 as it is the ideal of peace, and the age of peace and of nonviolence"He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."[23]
As I highlighted earlier, a close look into Isaiah 2:4 reveals that justice and peace are an integrally connected to each other. It is obvious that the order of justice and peace is very critical here. Based on these two elements, Christopher writes, first "justice is established, and only afterward does peace become a reality. The aggrieved party is not expected to give up his claim and be pacified; on the contrary, he has the right and the obligation to demand justice".[24]
In addition, Christopher contends peace without justice is surrender, which, when achieved under the guise of peace, is built on the flimsy foundations of falsehood. It only plants the seeds of future oppression. For Christopher, any attempts at reconciliation initiated before injustice is redressed can theoretically still lead to nonviolent conflict resolution.[25] There is no doubt at all that the Isaiah 2 texts indicate a clear perception of the importance of such sentiments in Jewish life. Therefore, in exercising a nonviolent alternative as far as the Jewish zealot were concerned is not to allow any one to carry either a sword or a bow, or a shield, or or a club, or a spear on the Sabbath.
BUDDHISM
Buddhism is the Religion, with the title Buddha meaning “the enlightened one”[26]. The founder was Siddharta Gautama, born in 560 B.C. in the village of Lumbini near the city of Lapilavastu, south of present day south of the Nepal border[27]. But did not until four centuries after Gautama’s death was the cannon of Buddhism written down.[28] Councils have characterized the Buddhist movement. “Gautama as the son of King Suddhodana and Queen Maha-Maya of the sakya clan, knew only luxury and protective care during his childhood”[29]. Gautama turned his back on all of these luxuries, pursuing a life as a wondering monk.
There is no doubt to the fact that over the last 2, 500 years ago the Buddhist society is often praised for its peace teachings and exceptional record for nonviolence. While the exceptional record for peace teaching on nonviolence by the Buddhist are justified. According to Christopher S. Queen, it is important to know that “Buddhism’s contribution lies not primarily in its commitment to peace, per se most world religions are committed to “peace” in some fashion but in the unique perspectives and techniques Buddhists have developed for achieving peace within and between individuals and groups”[30].
The Buddhist tradition has offered rich resources for peacemaking and the cultivation of nonviolence. This rich Buddhist source tradition for peacemaking, according to Queen, includes:
Its founding manifesto, the Four Noble Truths (Pali ariya sacca), offering relief from the causes of human suffering; its cardinal moral precept, to refrain from harming living beings (ahimsa); the practices of lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity (brahmaviharas); the doctrines of selflessness (anatta), interdependence (paticcasamuppada), and non-dualism (sunyata); the paradigm of enlightened beings (bodhisattvas) who employ skillful devices (upaya) to liberate others from suffering; and the image of the great “wheel-turner” (cakravartin) and moral leaders (dhammaraja) who conquer hearts and minds-not enemies and territories by their exceptional wisdom and kindness.”[31]
From the beginning, Buddhist formed followers into an order or Sangha. Urging new converts to affirm the following: Take refuge in the Buddha, take refuge in the Dharma, and take refuge in the order of the Sangha .[32] In light of the forgoing, I have no doubt that these Buddhist teachings have found ardent champions in every culture touched by the Buddhist dharma (Pali dhamma, “teaching,” “truth,” “path”), an example would be those of Japan, Korea, Tibet, China, Asia, Southeast, India and Sri Lanka.[33]
Furthermore, Queen claim that:
In the modern world, nonviolent struggles for human rights and social justice have found Buddhist supporters in Asia and the West, spawning a new “engaged” style of Buddhist activism. Perhaps most notably, the Nobel Peace Prize has twice been conferred on Buddhist leaders during the past decade for their tireless efforts to liberate their compatriots from totalitarian regimes: His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet in 1989 and Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma in 1991.[34]
From the above, it is obvious that Buddhist tradition has contributed a lot for preaching nonviolence and peacemaking.
Nonviolent activism in the Buddhist tradition is shown in the concept of the Peace Wheel. Clearly, with the tradition of the Buddha’s first sermon on “Turning of the Wheel of Law” (i.e. dharma-chaka-pravartana), spoke of the nation that Buddha transformed an ancient symbol of military conquest into a metaphor of nonviolence a Peace Wheel, was well established by the appearance of the first Buddhist art and architecture in the third century B.C.E. [35].
Nonviolence scholars believes that for centuries the radical shift in social values wrought by Buddha and Asoka from violence to reconciliation was symbolized in stone art and architecture, from the low-relief sculptures representing the Buddha himself as a Peace Wheel, revered by followers at stupa sites (giant reliquary mounds) at Sanchi and Bharhut (circa 100 B.C.E.), to the well-known Preaching Buddha, in which the sitting Buddha demonstrates the wheel-turning hand gesture, and how the Peace Wheel is venerated by the Lord’s disciples .[36]
Turning the Wheel of Peace is a core teaching in the Buddhist tradition. An Early study of the Buddhist literature reveals the fact that the concept of peace appears as the pivotal point in the Buddhist system of social ethics. While the nations of peace and nonviolence in Western cultures are generally identified with inter-group relations where the primary emphasis is on the individual aspect of peace, and its social consequences are held to follow only from the center of the individual's own psychology.[37]
As noted by Scholars, in the ancient world no less than today, the practice of non-injury as observed that the Buddhist tradition of nonviolence involved a complex calculus of intention and result. For instance, though there is the need for self-defense, law enforcement, and national defense toward living beings. The Buddhist approach was to practice the Middle Way of moderation, which means avoiding professions involving killing (hunting, butchering, military service), to practicing right livelihood, on the one hand, and the Jain extreme of protecting insects by wearing a mask and sweeping the ground ahead when walking, on the other.[38]
Another element of nonviolent in the Buddhist tradition is the Buddhist approach to non-harming was to stress the intention or state of mind of the actor. Animals were not hunted or slaughtered expressly. Similarly, a layperson might unintentionally harm another, say, in a household accident, without incurring the bad karma associated with premeditated assault or homicide.[39] In order words, nonviolence is seen as a way to attend nirvana.
According to Queen, the most important contributions of early Buddhism to the practice of nonviolence were its techniques to counter the three evil roots namely:
Hatred, greed, and delusion (dosa, lobha, moha) the seed of violent itself. Each of these reactions has its antidote: lovingkindness (metta) to counter hatred, generosity (dana) to counter greed, and wisdom (panna) to counter delusion. While it may be argued that greed and delusion are indeed equal partners with hatred in the instigation of violence, it is irrational anger and hatred toward other individuals and groups that most often fuels the flare-up of violence and mayhem.[40]
From the forgoing, Queen explains it is loving-kindness meditation (metta bhavana), cultivating goodwill toward oneself and others that may be called the root practice of Buddhist nonviolence. In a fashion similar to Christians endeavor meditative training as recommended for the cultivation of compassion, joy, and self-control. Also, to love others as one self, the Buddhist extend the wish for freedom from enmity, ill will, and distress, and for happiness to others.
The Buddhist approach to nonviolence, then, is grounded in a systematic attitude adjustment in which negative, reactive states such as hatred, greed, and delusion are transformed into active social orientations through meditative self-training. This reorientation to inner and outer peace has several paths. These paths are:
Right views that establish a conceptual framework for meditative and ethical practice, right aspiration and right effort that motivate and sustain the practice; right mindfulness, by which the new attitudes was applied to situations and relationships in moment-to-moment living; and right concentration, by which the practitioner moves from merely performance peace, as it were, to what the Vietnamese Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh calls being peace involuntarily exemplifying the enlightened mind of nirvana.[41]
The above highlights the most significant contributions of the early Buddhism to the practice of nonviolence over the years.
Another teaching of the Buddhist that has supported the ethics of nonviolence is that of dependent orientation. According to Queen, the "interdependence of all actions and beings in the cycle of rebirth, and thus the profound interconnectedness of the moral universe. It is the nations of selflessness and rebirth, it was developed in the later Buddhist philosophy in the teaching of emptiness".[42]
Although, there are different expressions of Buddhism but for the sake of this general introduction, this paper attempts to present the middle path and the general semiotics of nonviolence and conflict transformation. I am also sticking with the broad overview of Buddhism. And I will attempt to expound on the different expression of Buddhism such as Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Zen Buddhism, in my subsequent chapter.
SIKHISM
Sikhism is a Religion of uniqueness. It has beliefs from two other religions; Hinduism and Islam founded on the believe that “Hindus and Muslims did not have to live in an atmosphere of violence and hostility.”[43] The founder Guru Nanak (1469-1533) was born into a Hindu Punjabi family and was educated by a Muslim teacher. Nanak’s upbringing compel him to proclaim “there is no Muslim and there is no Hindu”.[44] For God as a supreme being and has universal powers and truth backed by compassion and good deeds resulting in Nanak’s preaching of unity for all of humanity.
Sikhism dates back to the 15th Century. Making it a more modern religion, , making it a minority group. The Sikhs are found around northwest India, or Punjab, but could also be located anywhere in the world. “It was said that Nanak wore a combination of Hindu and Muslim clothing as he preached his message throughout India.”[45] As a religion with the mixture of the two religions, this joining is known as syncretism but today one becomes Sikh by baptism, and congregational worship. Lay leaders lead men and women worship together as do members of different cast, although there is no priests, worship.
The authorities of the Sikh worship today comes from the Golden Temple Complex, which stands in stack contrast to Nanak’s pacifist concept from inception. Guru Gobin Sign introduced other styles of worship in (1675-1708). Gobin also introduce the five K’s.[46]
The five K’s are thus as follows:
Kesh; worn on an uncut hair, which is kept covered by a turban. The Kesh also serve as a traditional symbol of holiness, and the turban is man and some women to cover their long hair wear a symbol of leadership the Kesh.
Kirpan; is a ceremonial sword, symbolizing readiness to protect the weak, and defend against injustice and persecution. The kirpan is commonly worn on the shoulder strap in their garment and also, serve as a visible reminder of the warrior character of the Sikh.
Kanga; is a small wooden comb to act as a symbol od cleanliness and in one’s uncut hair to keep the hair clean, in combing their hair daily which also have spiritual symbol of wisdom
As a Sikh combs their hair daily, he or she should also comb their mind with the Guru's wisdom
Kachhera; is Cotton boxer shorts to symbolize self-control and chastity.
Kara; a bracelet made of steel to symbolizing strength and integrity. The symbolism stands for strength yet resilient under stress.[47]
The Sikhs have many of their beliefs but also the ones coming from Hinduism and Islam. The opening lines in their Holy Book, or Guru Nanak’s teaching are focused on unity and the uniqueness of God, the creator lord of the universe, who governs the world with commands based on two main principles of justice and grace.”[48] Therefore, there is one supreme eternal reality; the truth; immanent in all things; creator of all things; immanent in creation that has no fear and hatred; not subject to time; beyond birth and death; self-revealing. The summary on the faith praxis of the Sikhs is thus summarizes in their basic teachings as outlined in their holy book.
CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Religion is not merely a force that divides human affairs but stands to unite as well; in many instances it unites people across ethnic, racial, socio-economic, and political lines through a common allegiance to the ethos of that religion. Religious ties could, in fact, provide common ground between oppositions within national and ethnic interest groups.
Exploring the commonality that exists amongst these six religions has help me to understand the contributions each makes in advancing nonviolence and conflict transformation and can be used for positive good in today's environment of increasing disorder, the world can no longer afford to over look at the significant contributions made by the religious leaders and their adherents. Not only do they do theologies of some version of the golden rule, but also they also incorporate warrants of peacemaking.
Religious peace, properly trained and supported in the field of nonviolence and conflict transformation, can add an important dimension to the work of peacemaking amongst these six religions that could prove beyond the reach of the traditional diplomacy.
My ministry context allows me the opportunity to help communities and groups that seek to transform conflict through nonviolence. This process brings people from different religious tradition together to have a deep look and reflection on their spiritual and theological heritage, seeing that all six of this religions view peacemaking as a key tenet of their faith.
This study would enable people of different religion to develop friendship with one another, helping to end the prejudices and stereotypes that have plagued the 21st Century. Even if, you are a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, or a Sikh. If you seek to help transform conflict, there is a place for you to join this effort of attempting to identify the semiotics at work. Through this study, I have dismiss the myth that existed amongst the different religions, portraying the other as being violently driven which results in the denial that such religion does not contain in their teachings the tenets of peace and nonviolence. Also, the myth that religion divides than unite as I have sought to show the intersection that commonly exists amongst these faiths.
The application of this study should also help readers to understand the golden rule that each faith teaches on the importance of dealing rightly with other people or care for humanity, and this is a shared value that as shown throughout my study. As can be seen through these similar quotes in all of the six religions, Sikhs, “no one is my enemy, and no one is a stranger. I get along with everyone” (Sri Guru Grant Sahip1299).
Islam, “no one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself” (An-Nawami’s Forty Hadith, 13). And Judaism continued by saying “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man” (Talmud: Shabbat 13a).
Hinduism also states, “This is the sum of duty; do naught to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain.”(Mahabharata 5:1517) In the Christian tradition, “do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31) and lastly Buddhism make a similar claim, “Just as a mother would protect her only child with her life, even so let one cultivate a boundless love towards all beings”(Khuddaka Patha, from Metta Sutta).
In sum, these six religions, each with its distinction yet they all share the value of common humanity and although religious differences amongst them may cause war. The standard teaching they share in common is as followers of the ways of peace.
Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. Nonviolence and Peace Building in Islam: Theory and Practice. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2003.
Abu‐Nimer, Mohammed. Conflict resolution in an Islamic context: Some conceptual questions. Peace & Change 21, no. 1 1996: 22-40.
Armster, Michelle& Lorraine Stutzman Amstuz. Conflict Transformation and Restorative Justice Manual.Akron PA, 2008.
Arnold, Johann Christoph, and Karl Tiedemann. Seeking Peace. NorthStar Publishing Company, 1999.
Bauman, Zygmunt. Community: Seeking safety in an insecure world. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
Berndt, Hagen. Non-violence in the World Religions: Vision and Reality. London: SCM Press, 2000.
Berger, Arthur A. Signs in contemporary culture: An introduction to semiotics. Sheffield Publishing, Wisconsin,1998.
Berger, Arthur A. Seeing Is Believing: An Introduction to Visual Communication. Mayfield Publishing Company, California, 1989.
Burke, Kenneth. The rhetoric of religion: Studies in logology. Vol. 188. Univ of California Press, 1970
Childers, R. C. Art. VII.Khuddaka Páṭha, a Páli Text, with a Translation and Notes. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland New Series 4, no. 02
Corrington, Robert S. A semiotic theory of theology and philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
David E. Westbrook Comparative analysis of conflict resolution and nonviolent activism leading to an integrated model for peaceful social change, 2003.
David A. Rausch & Carl Herman Voss, World Religion Our Quest for Meaning, Trinity Press International, 1993.
Douglas Johnson and Cynthia Sampson, Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Dear, John. Seeds of nonviolence. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008.
Dear, John. The God of peace: Toward a theology of nonviolence. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005.
Douglass, Susan L., and Munir A. Shaikh. Defining Islamic Education: Differentiation and Applications. Current Issues in Comparative Education 7, no. 1 2004
Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Vol. 217. Indiana University Press, 1976
Galtung, Johan. Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of peace research 6, no. 3, 1969: 167-191.
Gandhi, Mahatma. All men are brothers: Autobiographical reflections. A&C Black, 1980.
Hastings, Tom H. The Lessons of Nonviolence: Theory and Practice in a World of Conflict. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2006.
Halverson, Jeffry R. Searching for a King: Muslim Nonviolence and the Future of Islam. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2012.
Katongole, Emmanuel, and Chris Rice. Reconciling all things: A Christian vision for justice, peace, and healing. InterVarsity Press, 2009.
Katongole, Emmanuel. Greeting Beyond Racial Reconciliation. The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics, 2004.
Kurlansky, Mark. Nonviolence: The history of a dangerous idea. Modern Library, 2009.
Lederach, John Paul. Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse University Press, 1995.
Lederach, John Paul. The moral imagination: The art and soul of building peace. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Lederach, John Paul. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. Clear articulation of the guiding principles by a pioneer in the field. Intercourse.PA, 2003.
Lippy, Charles H. Pluralism comes of age: American religious culture in the twentieth century. ME Sharpe, 2000.
McDaniel, Jay Byrd. Gandhi's Hope: Learning from Other Religions as a Path to Peace. Orbis Books, 2005.
MacNair, Rachel M. Religions and Nonviolence: The Rise of Effective Advocacy for Peace: The Rise of Effective Advocacy for Peace. ABC-CLIO, 2015.
McNeil, Brenda Salter. Roadmap to Reconciliation: Moving Communities Into Unity,Wholeness and Justice. InterVarsity Press, 2016.
Mackenzie, Don, Ted Falcon, and Sheikh Rahman. Getting to the Heart of Interfaith. Skylight Paths, Publishing, Woodstock, Vermont, 2010.
Mann, Gurinder Singh, Paul Numrich, and Raymond Williams. Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs in America: A Short History. Oxford University Press, 2007.
Moeschberger, Scott L., and Rebekah A. Phillips DeZalia. Symbols that Bind, Symbols that Divide. Springer Publishing Switzerland, 2014.
Moses, Rafael. The leader and the led: A dyadic relationship. The psychodynamics of international relationships 1, 1990: 205-217.
Myers, Joseph R. The search to belong: Rethinking intimacy, community, and small groups. Zondervan, 2003.
Pal, Amitabh. Islam Means Peace: Understanding the Muslim Principle of Nonviolence Today. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, 2011
Porter, Thomas W. The Spirit and Art of Conflict Transformation: Creating a Culture Of JustPeace. Upper Room Books, 2010.
Quinn, Robert E. Change the world: How ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things. Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Said, Abdul Aziz, Nathan C. Funk, and Ayse S. Kadayifci. Peace and conflict resolution in Islam: Precept and practice. Univ Pr of Amer, 2001.
Scott, Alex. Christian Semiotics and the Language of Faith. iUniverse Inc New York, 2007.
Schmidt-Leukel, Perry, ed. War and peace in world religions: the Gerald Weisfeld Lectures 2003. Vol. 2003. Scm Press, 2004.
Sharma, Arvind, ed. The World's Religions: A Contemporary Reader. Fortress Press, 2010.
Sharp, Gene, and Marina Finkelstein. The politics of nonviolent action. Vol. 3. Boston: P. Sargent Publisher, 1973.
Shilhav, Yosseph. Principles for the location of synagogues: symbolism and functionalism in a spatial context. The Professional Geographer 35, no. 3, 1983
Silverman, Kaja. The subject of semiotics. Oxford University Press, 1984.
Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. Subverting Hatred: The Challenge of Nonviolence in Religious Traditions. Faith Meets Faith. New York: Cambridge, MA: Orbis Books; in Association with Boston Research Center for the 21st Century, 2000.
Stassen, Glen H. Just Peacemaking as the New Paradigm for the Ethics of Peace and War. Formation for Life: Just Peacemaking and Twenty-First-Century Discipleship (2013)
Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Vol. 4. Vol. 4. Allied Publishers, 1962.
Thomas Matyok, Maureen Flaherty, Hamdesa Tuso, Jessica Senehi, and Sean Byrne, Peace on Earth, The role of Religion in Peace and Conflict Studies, Lexinton Books, 2014.
Thomas, Scott. The global resurgence of religion and the transformation of international relations: The struggle for the soul of the twenty-first century. Springer, 2005.
Wiesel, Elie. Against Silence; The Voice and Vision of Elie Wiesel. Edited by Irving Abrahamson. Holocaust Library, 1985.
Wink, Walter. Jesus and nonviolence: A third way. Fortress Press, 2003.
Yelle, Robert. Semiotics of Religion: signs of the sacred in history. A&C Black, 2012.
[1] Christopher-Smith, Daniel L. Subverting Hatred 2000, 144
[2] Ibid., 144
[3] Ibid., 145
[4] Ibid., 145
[5] Ibid., 146
[6] Ibid., 147
[7] Arvind Sharma, World Religion A Contemporary Reader.53
[8] Christopher-Smith, Daniel L. Subverting Hatred. 96
[9] Ibid., 96
[10] Ibid,. 96
[11] World religion. Our Quest for Meaning. 53
[12] Ibid., 53
[13] Ibid., 53
[14] Arvind Sharma, World Religion A Contemporary Reader. 54
[15] ibid., 55
[16] Ibid., 55
[17] Ibid,. 54
[18] Christopher-Smith, Daniel L. Subverting Hatred .128
[19] Ibid., 129
[20] Ibid., 130
[21] Ibid., 130
[22] Ibid., 131
[23] Ibid., 131
[24] Ibid., 132
[25] Ibid., 132
[26] Religion in a Changing World. 163
[27] Ibid,. 163
[28] Ibid., 165
[29] World religion quest for meaning, Our quest for meaning. 66
[30] Christopher-Smith, Daniel L. Subverting Hatred.25
[31] Ibid, 25-26
[32] Religion in a Changing World.167
[33] Christopher-Smith, Daniel L. Subverting Hatred.26
[34] Ibid., 26
[35] Ibid,. 27
[36] Ibid ., 28
[37] Ibid., 28
[38] Ibid,. 29-30
[39] Ibid,. 30
[40] Ibid., 30
[41] Ibid., 31
[42] Ibid,. 31
[43] David Rausch and Carl Voss, World Religion, our quest for meaning. 52
[44] Ibid., 52
[45] Ibid., 53
[46] Ibid., 53
[47] Ibid., 53
[48] Buddhist, Hindus, and Sikhs in America 99
