Which Religion is most peaceful....

[Dukes Mangola]

All religions are peaceful so long as those who believe in it believes in Peace.

Sorry, but that is impossible from a theological point of view.

The Quran and Bible explicitly require adherents to persecute non-believers. A true Christian or Muslim is required to be non-peaceful towards non-believers - whether that take the form of active persecution or proselytism or both.

A Christian or Muslim who does not do so is not a true Christian or Muslim. They are not compatible with a plural society unless they abandon the teachings of their faith, in which case they are not Christians or Muslims. It is a paradox that they refuse to admit to. You cannot be both at the same time without being selective in which teachings you follow, and once you become selective, you are not a true Christian or Muslim. If my Muslim colleague at work does no try to convert me or become violent towards me then he is not a Muslim. He cannot refuse to follow the Quran and yet call himself a Muslim. Such is the depravity of Islam that a terrorist has a greater claim to being a Muslim than a "Muslim" who is tolerant of kaffirs. That is a fact no matter what the liberals of those religions try to deny. The only way for Christians and Muslims to become peaceful members of society is to abandon their faith. If the USA is peaceful now, it is only because their Muslims and Christians have been forced to become non adherents of their faith. They may consider themselves true Christians and Muslims, but they are not.

This paradox does not exist for Hindus because Hinduism does not require their practitioners to convert or prosecute non-believers. A true adherent to Dharma is 100% compatible with a peaceful multi-religious society without abandoning his faith. The fact that Dharma is a universal law applicable to anyone is what makes it so compatible with peace. The only element of violence prescribed by Sanatana Dharma is when adherents are required to act against the immoral (eg the war at Kurukshetra), irrespective of the religion of the immoral person(s). Dharma does not prescribe action against adherents of other faiths who happen to also be moral in their behaviour because of the belief in the one supreme Brahman.

Therefore it is only the tolerant non proselytising religions like Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism (and to an extent even Judaism) that allows it's followers to be both true believers as well as peaceful members of a plural society.

 

[SADAKHUSH]

What matters to me at the end of the day if I am peaceful in dealing with the most difficult person on a given day. I prefer to keep religion in my mind and heart and deal with the world as it comes to me.

 

[prohumanity]

I think ALL religions are peaceful IF interpreted correctly.

 

[Ray]

Sorry, but that is impossible from a theological point of view.

The Quran and Bible explicitly require adherents to persecute non-believers. A true Christian or Muslim is required to be non-peaceful towards non-believers - whether that take the form of active persecution or proselytism or both.

A Christian or Muslim who does not do so is not a true Christian or Muslim. They are not compatible with a plural society unless they abandon the teachings of their faith, in which case they are not Christians or Muslims. It is a paradox that they refuse to admit to. You cannot be both at the same time without being selective in which teachings you follow, and once you become selective, you are not a true Christian or Muslim. If my Muslim colleague at work does no try to convert me or become violent towards me then he is not a Muslim. He cannot refuse to follow the Quran and yet call himself a Muslim. Such is the depravity of Islam that a terrorist has a greater claim to being a Muslim than a "Muslim" who is tolerant of kaffirs. That is a fact no matter what the liberals of those religions try to deny. The only way for Christians and Muslims to become peaceful members of society is to abandon their faith. If the USA is peaceful now, it is only because their Muslims and Christians have been forced to become non adherents of their faith. They may consider themselves true Christians and Muslims, but they are not.

Therefore it is only the tolerant non proselytising religions like Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism (and to an extent even Judaism) that allows it's followers to be both true believers as well as peaceful members of a plural society.

While it maybe true that Abrahamic religions prescribe that conversion is a necessity, yet, in the modern interpretation, conversion is no longer pursued by Christianity as it had been doing in the past, excepting the American pastors and evangelists, who do so more for commercial interest than because of faith.

Jews do convert too. Rabbi Schindler in the 1990s became iconic with his conversion drive with ads in The Los Angeles Times. It had mixed reaction amongst Jews themselves, since tradition has it that anyone who wants to convert to become a Jew has to knock on the synagogue's door and the Rabbi is to turn him away not once but on three occasions so as to certify the seriousness of the person's intent.

Then there was the Reform Movement in 2001 where there was a drive to convert people to Judaism.

Hence, all Abrahamic religions do convert as a part and parcel of thier religion's holy duty.

However, the most active amongst them all, is Islam. Maybe since it is the newest of the Abrahamic religions and so the zeal has not diminished.

However, to compare them to Hinduism would not be correct since the fundamentals are totally different. It has no option but to be 'tolerant', even though of late a section of Hindu adeherents have been spooked to follow the path of the Abrahamic religion.

 

[Khagesh]

I don't think any section of the Hindus community has been spooked into following the Abrahmic path.

That is just a propaganda by those who till recently acted as the wise old men, the judge, the middle man (lets call them 'Seculars'), separating the uncouth but weak SDRE Hindus vs the sophisticated powerful TFTA Abrahmics. What the seculars forget is that their very existence is a testimony to the fact that the Hindus took the first step in confidence of their own capacity for being fair and just. However that still does not negate a militant aspect of Hinduism that is fully capable of laying an Indrajal for those who think they can act with impunity. There is perfect rationale for Lord Narasimha to have indulged in blood bath, for Raja Ram to have killed Vali with guile, for Krishna to have gotten every rotten imbecile killed by strategem. Remember all these were in different Yugs of Hindu itihaas. To conclude that people with such a past will allow themselves to be used and abused, is a choice not an analysis.

It is also only a grand claim that Christianity has stopped proselytizing. A hollow claim. By their very nature all Abrahamics have to keep bring out the new / improved / latest / sophisticated / advance whatever the hell. You can read and understand in detail Rajiv Malhotra for this property of Abrahamics. Today the proselytizing does not happen with a Bible/Quran in hand. The incessant wars, incessant propaganda of rootless/unevidenced values, constant blame games, constant titillation are all different techniques in this old game of trying to rob the Dhartiputras. Started probably with the invasions of Asurbanipal, kept up by Alexander and his imperialist successors and then the later abrahmics. Today it happens full on via the facility of media based under the protection of laws that are ostensibly meant to protect freedom of speech and expression. But just when these very same laws are sought to be used to protect free speech against these very same media people and abrahmics, all of a sudden everyone of their ilk discover peace and economic development. Every single day there is a Secular or an Abrahaimc 'advising' peace and economic development on TV and how for that hallowed purpose 'unreasonable' criticism should be avoided. Hindus by supporting their own Seculars had taken the first step in this direction. Hindus have steadfastly and with clear intent started their own journey towards economic development that has yielded noticable results. Is is, therefore obvious that Hindus are not the danger to this peace and economic development.

So who are? And what is that 'advise' if not a threat?

The 'Secular go to(s)' have for long been used to their Secular Jirga aka clubs of like minded individuals or institutions of state, acting as middlemen. Why would they leave their privileged positions. They will never say thank you to the large masses of Hindus who today have to share their Pitrbhoomi with people who somehow end up voting exactly the same, regardless of which side is trying to protect India and develop it.

I have great hope in the poor Hindus that have had the guts to leave muft ki bijli in favor of bharose ki bhijli to run their pump sets, to have their wards study. Anybody educated in english all through life would have a hard time understand these people. And let us see how great their capacity is. Because it is these people who will take the steps needed to take India to the next level. Those who chose to resist can keep trying. Their accumulated karma will have its own repercussions.

 

[Ray]

I don't think any section of the Hindus community has been spooked into following the Abrahmic path.

The path is of conversion.

OK, not Hindu, but Sanatan dharma.

I take it that VHP people are from Sanatan dharma..

What are they doing?

Christians have not stopped conversion, but it is Islamic organisation that has overtaken them and Christian evangelists are doing it for purely commercial reasons. More the conversion, greater is the booty.

 

[Jatt.Hindustan]

Vedic Dharam is as it does not bother others if they do not bother them.

All Hindu traditions incl Sikh, Bhudh, Jain, Vaishnoo Shiv, Aghor, fall under this umbrella.

The fact that all these exist in one land, while in the lands of Abraham it is one or two and the two are at war 100% of time, says enough.

VJKVJF||

 

[Khagesh]

The path is of conversion.

OK, not Hindu, but Sanatan dharma.

I take it that VHP people are from Sanatan dharma..

What are they doing?

Christians have not stopped conversion, but it is Islamic organisation that has overtaken them and Christian evangelists are doing it for purely commercial reasons. More the conversion, greater is the booty.

I think I didn't get the import of your post the first time, correctly. Then I think you didn't either.

In hindsight you are probably questioning why VHP is not being active to prevent conversions. Pls correct me if I am wrong. Nonetheless I think VHP is doing what it can considering the circumstances. Without considering the circumstances it would not be reasonable to cast a responsibility on them. The Ghar wapasi is a real program. Coupled with the standard line of RSS that all those who live off Hindustan are Hindus and the standard line of BJP that they are working for Sabka Saath and Sabka Vikas, I think it is clear how the Sangh leaders currently see the issue. They are essentially not treating this as the Islmaists and Evangelists do - ie. Hindus vs. Muslims vs. Christians. The current Sanghi stand is designed more to coopt the large minority populations in India, on what they see as fair terms. They are currently not aiming for a showdown. Whether they are right or wrong is for time (Mahakaal) to tell. And if they are wrong then I doubt if they will not correct their current stand.

My thrust was on the observation that conversion process itself has changed. Conversion does not need to be explicit and express. It can be sly and based on distraction/misdirection.

IMO, at the root a conversion is not wrong because a person is no longer interested in what is of this land. He has freedom to abandon. What is wrong is the sly propaganda to achieve the effects of conversion without even looking like it.

For example 'one innocent man hurt is like the whole world being hurt', is a standard line/credo of the proselytizer. Only that it is not followed by those who seek to say and repeat it. All they want is to have us run for this goal. Now to me it is quite clear that what happens to me is not necessarily because of the guy next door or even a lot of people in the metro station. My fate is my own. On the other hand the cooperation of these lots and lots of people does give me benefits by a simple process of division of labour. I am thankful for this. Now does it not look like the proselytizer's credo being a false one?
Also do these proselytizers even follow this themselves?
Now have you seen this proselytizer's credo not being deployed in the Main Stream Media?
If you have seen this tack being used in the Main Stream Media, then why should not the Main Stream Media be treated as a Proselytizing tool with same ambitions?

When I say 'Proselytizer' it implies both Islamics and Evangelists and the Main Stream Media. People who wish to alter the reality and present a Kejriwal like utopia. People who want to subvert the karma siddhaant and thus harm Dharma.

 

[Khagesh]

I hope you acknowledge that the Proselytizer's credo of 'one innocent man hurt is like the whole world being hurt' is a tack to draw a connect between the Prophets pains and the victimized mentality of the subject.

 

[Ray]

@Khagesh,

I am merely saying that conversion is not a religious duty, as it is for Abrahamic religions, as far as what I understand of Hinduism.

Conversions were very much active and encouraged during the Mohgul and the British Raj for their own religions and none could really stop the same as they were the rulers.

After Independence, and lately of now, conversion to Islam and Christianity has continued, even though a trifle abated in a sophisticated manner for the latter religion and even accepted by the non Christian elite who ruled the nation to include the Catholic influence and patronage of Sonia Gandhi.

But with Modi in Gujarat and now in the Centre, the VHP and others having got wise are doing their ghar wapasi. If that is not conversion or re-conversion, then what is? And I am told that conversion is not a part of the religious edict of Hinduism and so I am also told you have to be a born Hindu and you cannot be otherwise. I maybe wrong, but could you put me wise?

 

[warriorextreme]

@Khagesh,

I am merely saying that conversion is not a religious duty, as it is for Abrahamic religions, as far as what I understand of Hinduism.

Conversions were very much active and encouraged during the Mohgul and the British Raj for their own religions and none could really stop the same as they were the rulers.

After Independence, and lately of now, conversion to Islam and Christianity has continued, even though a trifle abated in a sophisticated manner for the latter religion and even accepted by the non Christian elite who ruled the nation to include the Catholic influence and patronage of Sonia Gandhi.

But with Modi in Gujarat and now in the Centre, the VHP and others having got wise are doing their ghar wapasi. If that is not conversion or re-conversion, then what is? And I am told that conversion is not a part of the religious edict of Hinduism and so I am also told you have to be a born Hindu and you cannot be otherwise. I maybe wrong, but could you put me wise?

You are right..Concept of conversion is not part of hinduism & as far as I know it is not part of any dharmic religion....it is something which abrahmic religions are built upon.

There is a concept of Shuddhikaran introduced in hinduism to bring back those who left hinduism by choice or by force...Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is known to have brought back one of his generals into hinduism who had converted to islam.

 

[jouni]

Christianity is the most peaceful. Even if the peace has sometimes been brought with the sword, ultimately Christianity has always prevailed and peace and stability brought to those who look for salvation.

One example is the fight between 3.5 million Christian Finns and 300 millions pagan Soviets. Finns prevailed even if sometimes armed only with cockade, belt and a knife.

Prime minister Cajander's name is remembered for "Model Cajander", the fashion of many Finnish soldiers in Winter War: the army was poorly equipped, so conscripts were given a utility belt, an cockade to be attached to the hat — to comply with the Hague Conventions — and, hopefully, a rifle. Otherwise, they had to use their own clothes and equipment.

 

[anupamsurey]

In my view, Jains and Parsis (Zoroastrians-in recent history) have been the most peaceful of religions. Jains have been peaceful because they shy away from power and do not interfere in any sort of politico-religious matter. Zoroastrians in India have kept to themselves and they are already a haunted religion. Buddhism would have been peaceful but it was hijacked by Baba ambedkar (though it was not his intention, but the dalits in India converted to Buddhism en mass) and his followers- they are perhaps the most violent mob in India after the followers of religion of peace.

 

[anupamsurey]

looks like you are mixing politics in religion, the entire world knows how christianity (the Vatican), in the name of god has tried to increase its political influence and in turn strengthen its economy. every time when the church couldn't control a state/ institution or a monarch, they launched the dirtiest propaganda and deadliest bloodshed (you can give it many names be it Friday the 13, or crusades, or the witch hunt).
Then again what is the peace which is achieved at the point of sword/Gun. it will always reek of blood, fear and Injustice. the Christians in general and church in particular cannot wash its bloody hands away with it.

Christianity is the most peaceful. Even if the peace has sometimes been brought with the sword, ultimately Christianity has always prevailed and peace and stability brought to those who look for salvation.

One example is the fight between 3.5 million Christian Finns and 300 millions pagan Soviets. Finns prevailed even if sometimes armed only with cockade, belt and a knife.

Prime minister Cajander's name is remembered for "Model Cajander", the fashion of many Finnish soldiers in Winter War: the army was poorly equipped, so conscripts were given a utility belt, an cockade to be attached to the hat — to comply with the Hague Conventions — and, hopefully, a rifle. Otherwise, they had to use their own clothes and equipment.

 

[jouni]

looks like you are mixing politics in religion, the entire world knows how christianity (the Vatican), in the name of god has tried to increase its political influence and in turn strengthen its economy. every time when the church couldn't control a state/ institution or a monarch, they launched the dirtiest propaganda and deadliest bloodshed (you can give it many names be it Friday the 13, or crusades, or the witch hunt).
Then again what is the peace which is achieved at the point of sword/Gun. it will always reek of blood, fear and Injustice. the Christians in general and church in particular cannot wash its bloody hands away with it.

Even Jesus talked about the "Army of heaven" which I think was kind of a model on which UN peacekeepers were formed.

 

[anupamsurey]

of course they do, and every religion has an army in heaven. even allah, yaweh, and devas have army in heaven.

Even Jesus talked about the "Army of heaven" which I think was kind of a model on which UN peacekeepers were formed.

 

[Khagesh]

@Khagesh,

I am merely saying that conversion is not a religious duty, as it is for Abrahamic religions, as far as what I understand of Hinduism.

Conversions were very much active and encouraged during the Mohgul and the British Raj for their own religions and none could really stop the same as they were the rulers.

After Independence, and lately of now, conversion to Islam and Christianity has continued, even though a trifle abated in a sophisticated manner for the latter religion and even accepted by the non Christian elite who ruled the nation to include the Catholic influence and patronage of Sonia Gandhi.

But with Modi in Gujarat and now in the Centre, the VHP and others having got wise are doing their ghar wapasi. If that is not conversion or re-conversion, then what is? And I am told that conversion is not a part of the religious edict of Hinduism and so I am also told you have to be a born Hindu and you cannot be otherwise. I maybe wrong, but could you put me wise?

If we are open to the belief epitomized by the saying, "Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides", then can we really be against the simultaneous belief of "Let our noble thoughts spread across the universe". If noble thoughts are to come to us then are they supposed to be coming to us for them dying in our bodies.

Moving on to a more pragmatic problem of how to go about implementing the above stance. 'Make the world, a place worthy of an arya' is recognized as a valid goal. A series of avtaras in many different yugas have shown that it must be done and in different times how it can be or has been done. Even today this is happening in the sense that almost all 1 billion Dharmics are concentrated into a small number of countries mostly at peace with each other and almost all the 2.5 billion Abrahmics are divided into scores of countries and almost all of them are into 'The Great Game'.

So to presume that Hinduism does not proselytize would not be a fair or justifiable position. Even if by words it may be true because there is no injunction supported by condemnatory law to mandate it. But that does not mean there is no necessity for the goal. As I see it the Hindu position is quite clear. Our current position whether bad/good, is because of our past and continuing karmas and the fruits of our actions are disbursed by God. For a man or a group of men the only control they have is over their own selves to execute the jobs that will entitle them to the desired goals. IOW it is Dharm that forces us to walk the route of Krinvanto visvam aryam.

Conversion is wrong because Dharma is abandoned but Ghar Vapasi is not a call for abandonment of Dharm. Rather it is about reminding oneself of the Dharmic position. Obviously Ghar Vapasi cannot be a forced one (violence, fraud, propaganda), since that would imply zero acceptances.

The equation with Dharma is very clear – Dharmo rakshati rakshitah, Dharmeva hato hanti. Thus nobody can avoid it, conversion notwithstanding. It is a statement of truth as seen by Hindu seers. If the Hindus think this statement is true then it implies that Dharm has a deterrent capacity and that Dharma will force us to act.

Dharma is not surviving because of Hindus. It is the other way round. Because there is Dharma due to the good karma of our ancestors, so Hindus of today are benefiting to the extent they are. And what is true for Hindus is necessarily true for non-Hindus also. Further, if we, currently alive Hindus do not protect by observation of Dharma then Dharma will also abandon us and the most valuable of all things, our progeny. In fact, in parts of India it is happening in exactly the way it happened in the past across the world with other peoples.

Ghar Vapasi is in the nature of abolition of Casteism. Just as Varna Vyavastha cannot be used to justify Casteism we cannot use an absence of injunctions in Hindu shastras as an injunction to not do it. Just as those who have been discriminated against due to casteism, should be given back what is rightfully theirs, in exactly those lines, we must also bring back our people back into our fold. If we don't then they remain vulnerable to terrorism (Islamism) and ethnic cleansing (Evangelical/modernization causes of Hutu-Tutusi clash) and underdevelopment (maosim).

Just my 2 cents.

 

[sgarg]

All religions are peaceful. Mullahs are destroying Islam, and right wingers are doing the same to Hinduism and Christianity. All in all, peace lies with Men.

"Peace" as you suggest is an artificial desire. This kind of "peace" has never been possible. Nations have always existed on the basis of ideology, and ideology has always started from religion.

"Religion" is the biggest political force in the world. This is the real truth.