http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/War-and-Non-violence-in-the-Bhagavadgita-2.aspx 
War And Non Violence In The Bhagavadgita
By Jeffery D Long, October 2009
War and the Gita       
Krishna-… reprimand[ed] Arjun for losing his nerve on the eve of battle. ‘Why this cowardice in a time of crisis, Arjuna? The coward is ignoble, shameful and foreign to the ways of heaven. Don’t yield to impotence! It is unnatural in you! Banish this petty weakness from your heart. Rise to the fight, Arjuna! It is precisely in order to console his friend and to inspire him to battle at hand that Krishna begins to engage Arjuna on the fundamental truths of Vedanta. At the end of the Gita we find Krishna has been successful. Arjuna leads the charge and the battle gets underway, almost as if the entire conversation that is the Gita had never happened.
Gandhi’s love for the book, and his well-known and heroic commitment to non-violence as an instrument for political and social change, which has inspired such non-violent revolutionaries as Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez, seem to be at odds. 
I would like to argue, however, that such responses are wide off the mark and, at least in some cases, more than a little hypocritical. When a modern Western reader picks up a copy of the Gita and begins the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna without any knowledge of what warfare meant in ancient India, prior to the large-scale arrival of Christianity or Islam, he will inevitably project onto the text his own, contemporary cultural assumptions, and be puzzled, and perhaps even outraged, by the advice that Krishna gives. 
But traditional Hindu warfare was a very different affair from modern warfare. If one is an attentive student of Hindu epic literature, one will find that the warfare depicted in the Ramayana and Mahabharata is strictly governed by a code of honor. The duty, dharma, of the kshatriya warrior, is quite well defined in these texts and in the Dharmashastras, Hindu legal literature. Whenever the characters in the heroes, run afoul of this code of honor, they are reprimanded. In some cases, they are even cursed. Not unlike the Christian conceptions of just war and Islamic conceptions of jihad, the war fought by the kshatriya must be fought for just reasons and must be fought only between combatants. Attacking on non-combatants, innocent civilians – is forbidden, and a matter of grave dishonor. The degree to which this code of honor is not merely literary device, but was actually observed in ancient Hindu society, is attested to in the story of a foreign traveler – the Greek ambassador, Megasthenes. Seeing two armies fighting a fierce battle, Megasthenes noticed, in the adjacent field only a few yards away, a farmer with his ox, ploughing his field, to all appearances completely unconcerned with the fierce battle raging nearby.9. The farmer was safe. As a non-combatant, he knew the fighting warriors were not interested in him. Nor, apparently, was he interested in them!
In keeping with the Dharma-shastras, it recognizes that different duties obtain for different people in different times and places.
Not only is Arjuna’s battle a far cry from modern warfare, it is also a far cry from that in the Hebrew Bible – the Christian Old Testament – in which God commands the armies of Israel to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in the cities of the promises land that he giving to them. 10 Arjuna is not being told by Krishna to slaughter unarmed men, women, children, and animals. He is being told to combat other armed warriors – some of whom, like the mighty Bhishma, are more than a match for him.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/287.htm 
Can Buddhists Justify War? 
The difference between a dog fight and a war or between two groups of people is only in its organization. 
Man should not pander to his aggressive instincts. Man should uphold the ethical teachings of the religious teachers and display justice with morality to enable peace to prevail. 
Treaties, pacts and peace formulae have been adopted and millions of words have been spoken by countless world leaders throughout the world who proclaim that they have found the way to maintain and promote peace on earth. But for all their efforts, they have not succeeded in removing the threat to man-kind. The reason is that we have all failed to educate our young to truly understand and respect the need for selfless service and the danger of selfishness. To guarantee true peace, we must use every method available to us to educate our young to practise love, goodwill and tolerance towards others. 
The Buddhist Attitude 
A Buddhist should not be the aggressor even in protecting his religion or anything else. He must try his best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes he may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of the brotherhood of man as taught by the Buddha. He may be called upon to defend his fellow men from aggression, and as long as he has not renounced the worldly life, he is duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, he cannot be blamed for his action in becoming a soldier or being involved in defence. However, if everyone were to follow the advice of the Buddha, there would be no reason for war to take place in this world. It is the duty of every cultured man to find all possible ways and means to settle disputes in a peaceful manner, without declaring war to kill his fellow men. The Buddha did not teach His followers to surrender to any form of evil power, be it man or supernatural being. 
We must realize that no one person, nor one nation is always wrong. To obtain peace, we must also share the richness of the earth, not necessarily with equality but at least with equity. There can never be absolute equality but surely there can be a greater degree of equity. 
It is simply inconceivable that five percent of the world's population should enjoy fifty percent of the its wealth, or that twenty-five percent of the world should be fairly well-fed and some overfed, while seventy-five percent of the world is always hungry. Peace will only come when nations are willing to share and share equitably, the rich to help the poor and the strong to help the weak, thus creating international goodwill. Only if and when these conditions are met, can we envision a world with no excuse for wars. 
All religions teach people not to kill; but unfortunately this important precept is conveniently ignored. Today, with modern armaments, man can kill millions within one second, that is, more than primitive tribes did in a century. 
'Verily, O monk,' said the Buddha, 'due to sensuous craving, kings fight with kings, princes with princes, priests with priests, citizens with citizens, the mother quarrels with the son, the son quarrels with the father, brother with brother, brother with sister, sister with brother, friend with friend.' (Majjhima Nikaya) 
We can happily say that for the last 2,500 years there has never been any serious discord or conflict created by Buddhists that led to war in the name of this religion. This is a result of the dynamic character of the concept of tolerance contained in the Buddha's teaching. 

http://www.mishkantorah.org/rabbi-jonathan-cohen/thinking-about-war-1 
Jewish tradition does not glorify war or extol the war-maker. King David himself was not permitted to build the Temple because his hands had spilled blood in battle. A talmudic story depicts God rebuking the angels of heaven for bursting into songs of joy when the Sea of Reeds closed on the drowning Egyptian pursuers: "My creatures are perishing and you want to sing praises!" (Megillah 10b). It is no accident that on the Sabbath during Chanukah, we recite the passage "Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit, says Adonai" (Zechariah 4:6).
Deuteronomy 20:10 states: When you approach a city to do battle with it you shall offer it terms of peace. And if they respond in peace and they open the city to you, then all the people in the city shall pay taxes to you and be subservient. But if they do not make peace with you, but choose to make war, you may besiege them.
Judaism further insists that even in the most clear cut case of self-defense against a precisely identified assailant, the use of excessive violence is not to be sanctioned. Even in a war that would be considered justified by the Jewish tradition, Jewish law considers killing another person an offense before God, and every soldier was required to bring a sin offering to the Temple.
It is interesting to note both the similarities and contrasts between Christian and Jewish just-war theory. 
Judaism requires that in an offensive war, there must be some check on the prerogative of the military or executive authority to wage war. 
Judaism maintains a less stringent standard: only that a good-faith effort must be made to avoid war. According to Maimonides, if the enemy responds favorably and agrees to abide by the seven Noahide commandments that govern all members of the world and form the basic groundwork for moral behavior, one may not go to war against them. These commandments are: acknowledging God; prohibiting idol worship; prohibition of murder; prohibition of theft; prohibition of incest and adultery; prohibition of eating the flesh of still living animals; and the obligation to establish the rule of law. 
The Jewish tradition is less concerned about proportion than it is with deciding which categories of targets are subject to attack and which are not. No force should be used against certain targets (such as innocent civilians and fruit-bearing trees) except in specified exceptional circumstances. Conversely, Judaism sets no limitation on force for appropriate targets
Fourth, Judaism is unique in its concern for non-human targets. In Deuteronomy 20:19, we are told to spare the enemy city's fruit trees for "are trees of the field human to withdraw before you into the besieged city?" This important law is called bal tashkhit, or "do not destroy In the military context, bal tashkhit forbids destroying anything indispensable to the renewal of civilian life. 

http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine 
This guide is a [Roman Catholic] primer on just war doctrine. 
THE ROOTS OF JUST WAR DOCTRINE
In the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us "blessed are the peacemakers" (Matt. 5:9). Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount he tells us "if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39). From such verses some have concluded that Christianity is a pacifist religion and that violence is never permitted.
But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force, telling the apostles, "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one" (Luke 22:36). How are these passages to be reconciled?
In broad terms, Christians must not love violence. They must promote peace whenever possible and be slow to resort to the use of arms. But they must not be afraid to do so when it is called for. Evil must not be allowed to remain unchecked.
Added weight is given to this realization when one recognizes that Scripture -- all of Scripture -- is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.
The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is "a time to kill" (Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for. Thus the psalmist exclaims, "how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be achieved without force, force must be used.
In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or "Peace of Rome," could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state "does not bear the sword in vain" but is "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4).
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
At one and the same time: 
•	the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
•	all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
•	there must be serious prospects of success;
•	the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Finally, the Catechism identifies those who have the burden of evaluating the conditions for whether a particular war is just: "those who have responsibility for the common good." In modern nation-states, this means the government.
Although these conditions can be formulated in different ways, they may be enumerated as follows: (1) the action itself must not be intrinsically evil; (2) the evil effect must not be an end in itself or a means to accomplishing the good effect (in other words, it must be a foreseen but undesired side-effect of the action); and (3) the evil effect must not outweigh the good effect. If these three conditions are met, the action may be taken in spite of the foreseen damage it will do.
The danger of war will never be completely removed prior to the Second Coming.
Christ's followers must be willing to meet this challenge. They must be willing to wage war when it is just and they must be willing to wage it in a just manner.
Simultaneously, they must work to establish a just and peaceful order among the nations. In so doing they seek to fulfill the words of the prophet, according to which the nations "shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (Is. 2:4).                    

http://www.islamandwar.com/ 
“The Qur’an and War: Observations on Islamic Just War”
by
Professor Joel Hayward
  
I have been struck by what I perceive to be the consensus opinion of my students: that although we westerners have a code of war based on restraint, chivalry and respect for civilians, the faith of Islam — from which “radical Islamists” gain their inspiration and permission, if not guidance — is more militant, aggressive and tolerant of violence. According to this view, Islam is indeed the religion of the sword.
Even a cursory reading of the Qur’an will draw the reader’s eyes to hundreds of scriptures extolling tolerance, conciliation, inclusiveness and peace, but also to a few scriptures that seem to be more aggressive. 
These writers tend to focus their attention on a few passages within the Qur’an which seem to suggest that Allāh encourages Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims, and even to take their lives if they refuse to yield. The critics especially like to quote Surah (Chapter) 9, Ayah (Verse) 5, which has become known as the “verse of the sword” (Ayat al-Sayf). This verse explicitly enjoins Muslims to kill “pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).”8 
[This is quoted out of context; it referred to a specific time and a specific situation, the pagans were given literally months of warning to get out of Mecca.  See http://www.islamandwar.com/ For details.]

Muhammad (in some ways like Moses) found himself not only the spiritual but also the political and legislative leader of a massive community that wanted to be moderate, just and inclusive but suffered organised warfare from other political entities which were committed to its destruction. His responsibilities (including the governance, sustenance and protection of tens of thousands of children, men and women) were very different.
There is another verse in the Qur’an — also from the later period of Muhammad’s life — which (using words virtually identical to the verse of the sword) also exhorted Muslims to “seize and slay” wrongdoers “wherever ye find them”. Yet this verse, Surah 4:89, is surrounded by so many other explanatory and qualifying verses that its superficially violent meaning is immediately moderated by its context of tolerance and understanding. First, it threatened violence in self-defense only against those people or groups who violated pacts of peace with the Muslims and attacked them….Secondly, it stated that, if those aggressors left the Muslims alone and free to practice their faith, and if they did not attack them, but offered them peaceful co-existence, then Allāh would not allow Muslims to harm them in any way 
The Qur’anic permission for defensive resistance to attacks or oppression does not mean that Muhammad enjoyed war, or took pleasure whatsoever in the fact that defensive warfare to protect his ummah from extinction or subjugation would involve the loss of even his enemies’ lives. He was no warmonger and forgave and pardoned mortal enemies whenever he could. This “reluctant warrior,” to quote one scholar, urged the use of nonviolent means when possible and, often against the advice of his companions, sought the early end of hostilities.45 At the same time, in accordance with the revelations he had received, he accepted that combat for the defence of Islam and Islamic interests would sometimes be unavoidable. 

There is no explicit statement within the Qur’an that defines the difference between combatants and non-combatants during war, so readers might think that any man of fighting age (children, women and the aged having been excluded) is considered fair game. The Qur’an does not allow this. The verses that talk of combat allow war only against those who are waging war; that is, those in combat. 
Despite some popular misperceptions that jihad is based on frustration or anger that many non-Muslims consciously reject the faith of Islam, the Qur’an is quite clear that Islam can be embraced only by those who willingly come to accept it. Islam cannot be imposed upon anyone who does not. Surah 2:256 is emphatic that there must be “no compulsion in religion.” …. The fate of individuals, based on the choice they make, is therefore Allāh’s alone to decide. The Qur’an repeats in several other verses that coerced religion would be pointless because the submission of the heart wanted by Allāh would be contrived and thus not accepted as genuine. Muhammad had preached years earlier. 
So what, then, is jihad and why does it seem so threatening? The answer is that jihad, far from meaning some type of fanatical holy war against all unbelievers, is the Arabic word for “exertion” or “effort” and it actually describes any Muslim’s struggle against the things that are ungodly within him or her and within the wider world. ….
Jihad is also used in the Qur’an to mean physical resistance to external ungodliness. 
The struggle against ego and personal vice is a greater, non-contextual and ever-required struggle, as Muhammad revealed. After returning from a battle he told his supporters: “You have come back from the smaller jihad to the greater jihad.” When asked what the greater jihad was, Muhammad replied: “The striving of Allāh’s servant against his desires” (“mujahadat al-‘abd lihawah”).77  
 
Moreover, all the verses mentioning armed struggle in defence of the Islamic people and polity are exhortative in nature: with pleas for effort, urgings of courage and a fighting spirit, assurances of victory and promises of eternal rewards for those who might die in the service of their community. This emphasis reveals that Muhammad recognised that wars were so unpalatable to his peace-loving community that, even though the causes of Muslim warfighting were just, he had to go to extra lengths … to exhort weary people to persevere, to believe in victory and to fight for it. 
Armed effort against any states that do those oppressive things is still permitted to this day, at least according to a fair reading of the Qur’an79 — just as it is within western Just War. 
[Terrorist’s] reprehensible actions, especially those that involve the taking of innocent lives, fall outside the behaviours permitted by a reasonable reading of the Qur’an.

http://bahai-library.com/taefi_just_war 
Just War from the Bahá'í Perspective
by Vargha Taefi
2006
It is true that religions are predominantly advocates of peace; nonetheless, they do not tend to stick to it by every means. They are to introduce a rational equilibrium of socio-individual life. A traditional grasp of religion may indicate war is condemned in any way, whereas the emergence of the religions to be dealing not only with morality and spirituality, but in a modern view also to meet requirements of an ever-advancing, inter-related world necessitates prescribing other means sometimes. This is the case especially for the Bahá'í faith as one of the heralds of the world governance. 
This recent war has proved to the world and the people that war is destruction while Universal Peace is construction; war is death while peace is life; war is rapacity and bloodthirstiness while peace is beneficence and humaneness; war is an appurtenance of the world of nature while peace is of the foundation of the religion of God; war is darkness upon darkness while peace is heavenly light; war is the destroyer of the edifice of mankind while peace is the everlasting life of the world of humanity; war is like a devouring wolf while peace is like the angels of heaven; war is the struggle for existence while peace is mutual aid and cooperation among the peoples of the world and the cause of the good-pleasure of the True One in the heavenly realm.[1] 
However, although “the Bahá’í faith aims to eliminate all war” and its fundamental purpose is unity and the establishment of Peace[3], as soon as it comes to the social life and we shift from the general individual advices to the principles on the necessities of this changing world, we see the other side of the coin. 
Despite the establishment of international standards for human rights, many nations cling to the view that respect for those rights should be granted or withheld at the discretion of national governments. This attitude ignores the operation of forces that are drawing the world together and paving the way for the establishment of a new order based on the recognition that what happens to one member of the human family happens to us all.[6] 
Bahá’ís recognize the right and duty of governments to use force for the maintenance of law and order and to protect their people. Thus, for a Bahá’í, the shedding of blood for such a purpose is not necessarily essentially wrong. The Bahá’í Faith draws a very definite distinction between the duty of an individual to forgive and 'to be killed rather than to kill' and the duty of society to uphold justice. This matter is explained by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in 'Some Answered Questions'. In the present condition of the world Bahá’ís try to keep themselves out of the internecine conflicts that are raging among their fellow men and to avoid shedding blood in struggles, but this does not mean that we are absolute pacifists.[7] 
With reference to the absolute pacifists, or conscientious objectors of war; their attitude, judged from the Bahá’í standpoint, is quite anti-social and due to its exaltation of the individual conscience leads inevitably to disorder and chaos in society. Extreme pacifists are thus very close to the anarchists, in the sense that both of these groups lay an undue emphasis on the rights and merits of the individual… 
The other main objection to the conscientious objectors is that their method of establishing peace is too negative. Non-co-operation is too passive a philosophy to become an effective way for social reconstruction. Their refusal to bear arms can never establish peace. There should first be a spiritual revitalization which nothing, except the cause of God, can effectively bring to every man's heart.[8] 

A conquest can be a praiseworthy thing, and there are times when war becomes the powerful basis of peace, and ruin the very means of reconstruction. If, for example, a high-minded sovereign marshals his troops to block the onset of the insurgent and the aggressor, or again, if he takes the field and distinguishes himself in a struggle to unify a divided state and people, if, in brief, he is ‘waging war for a righteous purpose’, then this seeming wrath is mercy itself, and this apparent tyranny the very substance of justice and this warfare the cornerstone of peace. Today, the task befitting great rulers is to establish universal peace, for in this lies the freedom of all peoples.[10] 
Today the ‘true duty’ of a powerful king is to establish a universal peace; for verily it signifies the freedom of all the people of the world. Some persons who are ignorant of the world of true humanity and its high ambitions for the general good, reckon such a glorious condition of life to be very difficult, nay rather impossible to compass. But it is not so, far from it.[12] 
The ideals of Peace must be nurtured and spread among the inhabitants of the world; they must be instructed in the school of Peace and the evils of war. First: The financiers and bankers must desist from lending money to any government contemplating to wage an ‘unjust war’ upon an innocent nation. Second: The presidents and managers of the railroads and steamship companies must refrain from transporting war ammunition, infernal engines, guns, cannons and powder from one country into another. Third: The soldiers must petition, through their representatives, the Ministers of War, the politicians, the Congressmen and the generals to put forth in a clear, intelligible language the reasons and the causes which have brought them to the brink of such a national calamity. [13]
When a thought of war comes, oppose it by a stronger thought of peace. A thought of hatred must be destroyed by a more powerful thought of love. Thoughts of war bring destruction to all harmony, well-being, restfulness and content.[15] 
The constitution of the communities depends upon justice, not upon forgiveness. Then what Christ meant by forgiveness and pardon is not that, when nations attack you, burn your homes, plunder your goods, assault your wives, children and relatives, and violate your honour, you should be submissive in the presence of these tyrannical foes and allow them to perform all their cruelties and oppressions. No, the words of Christ refer to the conduct of two individuals toward each other: if one person assaults another, the injured one should forgive him. But the communities must protect the rights of man.[16] 
In this all-embracing Pact the limits and frontiers of each and every nation should be clearly fixed, the principles underlying the relations of governments towards one another definitely laid down, and all international agreements and obligations ascertained. In like manner, the size of the armaments of every government should be strictly limited, for if the preparations for war and the military forces of any nation should be allowed to increase, they will arouse the suspicion of others. The fundamental principle underlying this solemn Pact should be so fixed that if any government later violate any one of its provisions, all the governments on earth should arise to reduce it to utter submission, nay the human race as a whole should resolve, with every power at its disposal, to destroy that government. Should this greatest of all remedies be applied to the sick body of the world, it will assuredly recover from its ills and will remain eternally safe and secure.[20]