While the argument in favor of pacifism and non participation with the state is compelling, this is very hard to read and so rooted in a particular context that it is no longer a good argument for the current day. Clearly Tolstoy has a strong view that people will get better and better and that they genuinely do have the call of the spirit in them. It was a long slogging read for such a short book. I wish I had just read a summary of it. Fascinating to think of this famous author having these radical Christian views. I’m always on the lookout for Christian anarchists.

The book one may want to keep next to the Holy Bible at home. A book that one may not just 'read' but absorb, assimilate and learn to the core till he transforms himself into a wholly new being. Amazing read; probably the book to deserve the first place in my library.

Tolstoy in his own words: (selected passages)

"Not to speak of all the other contradictions between modern life and the conscience, the permanently armed conditions of Europe together with its profession of Christianity is alone enough to drive any man to despair, to doubt of the sanity of mankind, and to terminate an existence in this senseless and brutal world. This contradiction, which is a quintessence of all the other contradictions, is so terrible that to live and to take part in it is only possible if one does not think of it-if one is able to forget it."

"They (Governments) pretend to support temperance societies, while they are living principally on the drunkenness of the people; and pretend to encourage education, when their whole strength is based on ignorance; and to support constitutional freedom, when their strength rests on the absence of freedom; and to be anxious for the improvement of the condition of the working classes, when their very existence depends on their oppression; and to support Christianity, when Christianity destroys all government."
(More on this please visit http://kevmcn.wordpress.com/2014/04/1...

this is an amazing book. i'm not a religious person and i can't say i believe in god, but this book sort of made me believe in jesus. not the supernatural aspects of him, but in his philosophy. tolstoy rips into the Church and gives no quarter, saying that the clergy are no better than gangsters. his elucidation of the profound madness involved when "christians" march off to war made me jump out of my chair and say, "yes!" read this book.

‘Christian’ elements that Tolstoy rejected:

1. The Trinity doctrine
2. Christ's divinity and divine nature
3. The resurrection as a physical event
4. Original sin doctrine
5. The Atonement theology (Christ dying for humanity's sins)
6. Church hierarchy and ecclesiastical authority
7. Sacraments (baptism, communion, confession, etc.)
8. Church rituals and ceremonies
9. Icons and religious imagery
10. Prayer as supplication rather than reflection
11. Clerical celibacy
12. Church wealth and property
13. Reliance on miracles and supernatural elements
14. Church's alliance with state power
15. Religious justification for warfare
16. Religious justification for social inequality
17. The concept of salvation through faith alone
18. The concept of heaven and hell as literal places
19. Biblical infallibility in its entirety
20. Religious persecution of heretics or non-believers
21. Mystical interpretations of Christ's teachings
22. The concept of divine revelation as superior to reason
23. Church's monopoly on scriptural interpretation
24. Religious nationalism
25. Using religion to justify social hierarchies
26. Apostolic succession as a source of church authority
27. Monasticism and ascetic withdrawal from society
28. The intercession of saints
29. Papal infallibility and Roman Catholic Church authority
30. Religious oaths and vows
31. Predestination doctrine
32. The concept of the church as the "body of Christ"
33. Religious education that indoctrinates rather than encourages moral questioning
34. Church courts and religious legal systems
35. Religious justification for capital punishment
36. The doctrine of eternal punishment
37. Christian just war theory
38. Proxy faith (godparents, etc.) versus personal conviction
39. The concept of Christ's second coming
40. Formal liturgy and prescribed prayers
41. Church-sanctioned marriage as a sacrament
42. Religious titles and honorifics
43. Institutionalized almsgiving versus radical sharing
44. The division between clergy and laity
45. Church buildings as sacred spaces

Etc etc etc.

Theological similarities to Islam:

1. Tolstoy strips Christianity to its ethical core, rejecting trinitarian theology for strict monotheism
2. He emphasizes direct relationship with God without intermediaries (clergy)
3. His focus on scriptural truth (albeit reinterpreted) prioritizes text over tradition
4. Rejection of icons and religious imagery aligns with Islamic prohibition of idolatry
5. His emphasis on practical ethics over theological dogma reflects Islamic orthopraxy
6. Tolstoy's views on social justice and equality echo Islamic principles of economic fairness
7. His pacifism differs from Islam historically but aligns with Quranic emphasis on peace
8. Rejection of church hierarchy parallels Islam's lack of formal priesthood
9. Focus on this-worldly concerns rather than afterlife resembles Islam's balanced approach (sect-dependent, counter argument can easily be made)
10. Tolstoy's emphasis on personal moral responsibility mirrors Islamic concepts of individual accountability
11. His view of Jesus as prophet rather than deity aligns with Islamic Christology
12. Emphasis on submission to God's will (though understood differently) has parallels to the concept of "Islam" itself (submission)
13. Tolstoy's radical simplicity in lifestyle and focus on ethics has parallels with Muhammad's early community
14. His rejection of church authority mirrors Islam's direct relationship between believer and God
15. Tolstoy's rationalist approach to religion parallels Islamic emphasis on intellect and reason
16. His universal ethical framework transcending national boundaries resembles Islam's ummah concept
17. Rejection of religious hierarchies aligns with Islamic equality of believers before God
18. Tolstoy's belief in one universal moral law parallels the Islamic concept universality
19. His emphasis on scriptural interpretation by individuals rather than institutions has some parallels with Islamic tradition of ijtihad
20. Rejection of religious rituals as ends in themselves echoes Islamic concern with intention (niyyah) over formalism
21. Tolstoy's concern with right living over theological correctness mirrors Islam's emphasis on practice
22. His concept of non-resistance has some parallels with the Quranic emphasis on patience (sabr)
23. Tolstoy's focus on direct divine truths rather than church interpretations echoes the Islamic concept of tawhid (oneness)
24. His approach to charity and wealth reflects similar concerns in Islamic economic ethics
25. Tolstoy's rejection of religious nationalism aligns with Islam's traditional concept of religious community over national identity​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​.

Though significant differences remain in theological details and practical application, Tolstoy's path of rational monotheism, stripped of church tradition and focused on ethical practice in this world, shares notable conceptual similarities with Islamic approaches to religion.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Of course counter arguments to all similarities with Islam can be made. I am not saying he is some proto-muslim. But his many rejections of what is typically considered core Christian tenets are striking. And a lot harder hitting than showcased above. There is an almost Nietzschean rage against the church, the pope and the many dogmas. If Tolstoy didn’t start his ethical journey embedded deeply within a Christian system, it is unlikely that he would’ve landed anywhere near it. He emancipated himself as far as he could, given his starting point.

Tolstoy's radical religious path essentially creates a stripped-down monotheism that looks surprisingly Islamic in structure, though he never intended this outcome. By furiously rejecting almost everything institutional Christianity stands for—Trinity, church power, saints, sacraments, miracles—he landed on a framework that mirrors Islamic theology: one God, direct divine relationship, Jesus as teacher not deity, ethical practice over dogma, and universal moral law. This wasn't conversion but convergence. Tolstoy's religious emancipation shows that when you apply ruthless rational critique to Christianity and remove all its supernatural and institutional baggage, you end up in theological territory remarkably close to Islamic monotheism—different path, similar destination.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I have my own biases, but that’s how it looks to me. After his critique, what is he really left with?

El genio ruso sienta las bases del anarcocristianismo.

بيتكلم عن اعتقاداته زى أن الناس سواسية ورفضه للطبقية والراسمالية ونظام التجنيد اﻹجبارى وهكذا بقى دا ملخصه يعنى

I have read two of Tolstoy's other masterpieces in "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina." For all the brilliant prose in these two works of penultimate genius, to really understand the heart of the novelist writing about his society, these essays lend powerful insight. The essays begin as Tolstoy rides a train with soldiers sent to beat Russian peasants who have lodged a complaint against a rich landowner bent upon cutting down a forest, with which serfs had always enjoyed common rights, for the profit in the timber. After a judge's unjust verdict in favor of the landowner, after the serfs send packing the men who appeared to cut their timber, the landowner requests government troops to enforce the unjust verdict by beating the serfs to death with rods packed onboard the train. Tolstoy examines this great chain of injustice from the rich landowner's arrogance and greed, to the government judge's feeble acquiesence to power, to the soldiers' blind obedience to administer the famished serfs' inhumane punishment and asks why any of this must play out as it does. How often has this great chain of injustice perpetuated itself upon humanity? Does this chain not define and insitutionalize the greatest instances of inhumanity in the course of history? Tolstoy asks earnestly why each of the players in the administration of this injustice just doesn't try to make a true "moral effort." Why doesn't the rich landowner recognize his own arrogance and greed and duty to the serfs? Why doesn't the government intercede and stand up to the landowner's will to power? Why don't the soldiers refuse to administer mindlessly this injustice? Why must famished, diseased and half-dead peasants be beaten to death as they simply try to survive? Who wins in this oft repeated scenario? Not a dead soul. Tolstoy's argument is that we have the ethical wherewithal at every level to stand-up to such injustice and he makes the argument as a wealthy Russian landowner, former soldier and provincial adminsitrator with great influence upon the tsar. In other words he is fully qualified by virtue of experience to argue this case and he makes it with a profundity and simplicity which is inspiring. "There is one thing, and only one thing, in which it is granted to you to be free in life, all else being beyond your power: that is to recognize and profess the truth." Tolstoy's thesis is that the Power to do this exists within every person and that it is the divine responsibility of each of us to exercise this power for the good and happiness of humanity. Tolstoy sees a threefold relationship of man to truth: "Some truths have been so assimilated by them that they become the unconscious basis of action, others are just only on the point of being revealed and a third class, though not yet assimilated by him, have been revealed to him with sufficient clearness to force him to decide either to recognize them or refuse to recognize them." Tolstoy urges mankind simply to make a moral effort and he advises that the happiness open to mankind is available only if and when we do so. Why don't we make more of a moral effort? There is great wisdom in this work which I urge you, despite the daunting title, to read as it is wisdom from a century and a half ago, that no generation of humanity may need more than our own right now.

کتاب The kingdom of god in within you کتابی از تالستوی است که ترجمه ای از آن به فارسی نیست یا حداقل من پیدا نکردم. علت این که این کتابو برای خوندن انتخاب کردم این واقعیت بود که حرکت های بزرگانی که در سعادت بشر و بشریت نقش داشته اند همچون گاندی و مارتین لوترکینگ از خواندن این کتاب منشا گرفته است. جالبه نه!
حالا چیزی که کتاب میگه رو سعی میکنم خلاصه بگم، هرچند کامل نیست و باید خود کتاب یا خلاصه دقیق تری از کتاب خونده شه تا حرف تالستوی جا بیوفتد.
همه چیز از آن حرف مسیح منشا می‌گیره که گفته اگر کسی سیلی ‌ای به صورتان زد طرف دیگر صورت خود را پیش بیاوردید. با این کار نه تنها باعث تحریک خشونت بیشتر نمی شوید( پاسخ شر، شر نیست) بعلاوه باعث می‌شوید آن فرد متوجه اشتباه و کاری که می‌کند بشود.
تالستوی با تاثی از این حرف، ایده مقاومت بدون خشونت را مطرح می‌کند، هرچند او اولین کسی نیست که این ایده را پیش می کشید.
از نظر تالستوی یه مسیحی نباید در هیچ گونه خشونتی نقش داشته باشد. و از انجام دادن هر گونه خشونتی که از طرف حکومت و کلیسا ( سیستمی مغایر با تفکرات مسیحیت واقعی و جایی فاسد و در خدمت قدرت) درخواست می‌شود، خودداری کند. این خودداری ابعاد زیادی دارد؛ از پرداخت نکردن مالیاتی که صرف سازمان دهی ارتش و نیروی نظامی می‌شود گرفته تا خودداری از رفتن به خدمت سربازی اجباری.
تالستوی در این کتاب که منبع اصلی آنارشیست های مسیحی قلم داد می‌شود، به بیانی زیبا و تحلیلی بیان می‌دارد که نظم حال حاضر بسیار مضرتر از نبودنش است و ترس انسان ها از از بین رفتن این نظم باعث می‌شود تا انسان ها که در وجدانشان از خشونت بیزارند این حقیقت را نادیده بگیرد. افراد قدرتمند به دلیل سود بردن از این نظم همیشه آن را ضروری و غیر قابل جایگزین می‌دانند. ولی از نظر تالستوی یک جنگ که بخاطر زیاده خواهی یه یا چند نفر حکومتی به راه می‌افتد به تنهایی از آشوب هایی که در نتیجه این نبود نظم ممکن است به وجود بیاید بیشتر تلفات می‌دهد و چندین دلیل قابل بحث دیگر که تالستوی استفاده می‌کند تا لزوم برهم زدن این نظم را نشان دهد. از نظر او تصمیم هر فرد جامعه می‌تواند تغییر دهنده اصلی مناسبات باشد.
تالستوی در نهایت می‌گوید که عالی میشه اگر بتوانیم به عنوان صاحب ملک دارایی مون رو به کارگران ببخشیم، به عنوان سرباز از دستور شلیک و جنگ نافرمانی کنیم و ..... . اما اگر نمی‌توانیم حداقل کاری که می‌توانیم انجام بدیم این است که حقیقت را بپذیریم که سیستمی که ما در آن زندگی می‌کنیم چیزی نادرست است و در آن در حق دیگران ظلم می‌کنیم و مثلا نگوییم سرمایه داری و داشتن ارتش به صلاح مردم است.
در نهایت این تک تک‌انسان ها هستند که می‌توانند از بین برنده این نظام فاسد باشند. و انگیزه انجام چنین کاری و مقابله با این سیستم هم اجرای فرمان خداست.
با حرف های تالستوی تا حدود زیادی موافقم به خصوص در مورد مقاومت بدون خشونت و نه گفتن به چیزی های غیر انسانی اما درباره انگیزه انجام که خدا اجرای فرمان آن است تفکر زاویه داری دارم. یکی از نکات جالبی که از با کتاب موافق بودم این بود که انسان‌ها به عنوان انسان می‌توانند دل رحم باشند اما جایی که احساس کنند چیزی قرار است نظم موجودی که در آن زندگی می‌کنند را به هم بزند می‌تواند بسیار بی رحم شوند.
تالستوی در جواب این که اگر این نظر برچیده شود چه چیزی جایگزین آن میشود می‌گویید: اول این که اگر کریستف کلمب هم قبل از حرکت دنبال نقشه بود آمریکا پیدا نمی‌شد و دوم این که او در کل کتاب نشان می‌دهد ک نظم حال حاضر همچون ساختمانی در حال فرو ریختن است و ما چاره ای جز ساختن ساختمان جدید نداریم و وجود آموزه‌های درست همچون وجدان و آموزهای مسیحیت نشان دهنده وجود مصالح مناسب برای ساخت ساختمانی نو و بهتر است.
خیلی دوست داشتم حال تالستوی را وقتی بعد از اون جنگ های جهانی رخ دادند را هم ببینم. در پایان دیدن فیلمی در این‌باره خالی از لطف نیست، فیلم زندگی گاندی که برای آشنا شدن با گاندی و مقاومت بدون خشونت او مناسب است.
Gandhi 1982

It's only not a five stars because Tolstoy needed a serious editor to come in and cut at least 150 repetitive pages, as well as some sentences with too many clauses. But the main ideas here are absolutely golden. Feel like it would be better to hand this out (or at least the first four chapters and the very last) than Mere Christianity as a primer on the faith.

4,5

Tolgo mezza stellina perché Tolstoj è molto ripetitivo e perché la traduzione mantiene molti arcaismi che rendono la lettura poco scorrevole.

Detto ciò, da dove iniziare per parlare di questo capolavoro che fu scritto alla fine del XIX secolo ma è sotto molti punti di vista ancora attuale? Volevo leggere questo libro da quando lessi un'autobiografia di Gandhi in cui dice che iniziò una corrispondenza con Tolstoj scambiando opinioni sul concetto di non-violenza proprio dopo aver letto questo libro che lo toccò profondamente. Spesso si pensa che la non-violenza (ahimsa, ovvero assenza/astensione dal male) sia stata inventata da Gandhi, ma questo concetto si trova già negli Yoga Sutra di Patanjali (che rientra comunque nella tradizione ortodossa dell'induismo) e precisamente nei precetti etici e morali degli Yama (non-violenza, non mentire, non rubare, castità, non essere avidi). Ebbene, lo stesso concetto di non-violenza, ovvero la non-resistenza al male con la violenza (per intenderci il "ama anche il tuo nemico") viene espresso anche nel Sermone della Montagna. Ecco ciò che lega Tolstoj e Gandhi, ed ecco come sono arrivata alla decisione di cercare e leggere Il regno di Dio è in voi. Sembra un paradosso: battezzata e cresciuta in una cultura cattolica, mi ci è voluto lo Yoga e l'induismo per avvicinarmi di nuovo al cattolicesimo. Volevo aggiungere anche questo piccolo dettaglio perché Tolstoj parla anche del bigottismo che regna nel cristianesimo. Lo stesso bigottismo che aveva allontanato me dal cattolicesimo.

Se si inizia questo libro pensando di trovarvi una predica cristiana di Tolstoj, consigli su come ritrovare il regno di Dio in noi, si rimarrà delusi. Partendo dal concetto di non-resistenza al male con la violenza, Tolstoj fa un'analisi della società anche dal punto di vista politico. Anzi, si può considerare più un libro di politica che un sermone religioso. Parla delle ingiustizie della sua epoca, ma come accennato all'inizio della recensione, ciò che dice è ancora attuale: sono cambiati gli oppressori, ma gli oppressi ci sono ancora; sono cambiati i metodi per sottomettere, ingannare, derubare il popolo, ma i poveri e gli sfruttati ci sono ancora. Secondo Tolstoj, l'unico modo per cambiare radicalmente il mondo, è che tutti dovrebbero iniziare a seguire i precetti del Sermone della Montagna, soprattutto quello di non reagire al male con la violenza. Soltanto quando ogni essere umano sarà capace di vedere nel prossimo, anche nel nemico, un fratello, finiranno le oppressioni, lo sfruttamento e la mania di conquista e di potere.
Affronta anche il tema del bigottismo e ci va giù pesante con la Chiesa e con i preti che benedicevano anche gli eserciti che partivano per la guerra. Ce l'ha con chi si professa cristiano ma poi sfrutta il prossimo per arricchirsi, si arruola nell'esercito, condanna a morte o manda in prigione. Secondo Tolstoj ci hanno sempre fatto credere che le punizioni sono necessarie per vivere in una società più ordinata e civile, e noi continuiamo a farci ingannare mentre è sotto gli occhi di tutti che pena di morte o carcere non hanno eliminato assassini e ladri. Peggio ancora quando condanne e punizioni sono ingiuste e perpetrate verso innocenti. Secondo Tolstoj è più colpevole un giudice che si professa cristiano e condanna a morte piuttosto che uno squilibrato che uccide.
I ladri, gli assassini, i truffatori, che commettono degli atti riconosciuti come cattivi da loro stessi e da tutti gli altri uomini, sono l'esempio di ciò che non si deve fare. Invece, coloro che commettono gli stessi furti, violenze, uccisioni, dissimulandoli con ogni specie di giustificazioni religiose o scientifiche, come fanno tutti i proprietari, commercianti, fabbricanti e funzionari, provocano l'imitazione e fanno del male non solo a coloro che ne soffrono direttamente, ma anche a migliaia e milioni di uomini che pervertono e perdono, facendo sparire ogni distinzione fra il bene e il male.
Tolstoj affronta in modo dettagliato anche la questione della leva obbligatoria, di come questi ragazzi vengano mandati ad uccidere persone che non gli hanno mai fatto niente di male, e di come l'esercito venga utilizzato per far mantenere il potere e i privilegi a pochi potenti.
Un altro tema interessante è quello dei tre "piani" in cui si suddivide l'umanità. C'è il piano "naturale", selvaggio, in cui gli uomini non avevano ancora un ordinamento sociale; il piano "sociale", quello in cui viviamo anche noi ma dal quale dobbiamo affrancarci per costituire un piano superiore "divino" in cui si vive amando il prossimo e in cui non ci saranno più ingiustizie.
Il cristianesimo e i suoi valori, però, non possono essere imposti. Tolstoj crede che ogni essere umano, praticando questi valori, possa fare la differenza e dare l'esempio ad altri che si lamentano della situazione attuale ma non fanno niente per cambiarla perché convinti che una persona sola non può fare la differenza. E qui mi ricollego a Gandhi che disse Sii il cambiamento che vuoi vedere nel mondo.

È un libro veramente sostanzioso, e secondo me non è rivolto soltanto ai credenti. Ovvio, la soluzione di Tolstoj è quella di seguire le parole di Gesù, ma l'amore e il rispetto per il prossimo possono essere praticati da chiunque.

If Dostoevsky triggered the awakening of my consciousness...Somehow Tolstoy put words into it with this sublime book. Dostoevsky's philosophies enabled my mind to plunge deeper into the depths of my soul, the wisdom was attained yet it was difficult to articulate it into words, not until I came across this book, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You by Tolstoy. It reflects Tolstoy's belief that a society of peace, harmony and love is possible and only in our midst, if only we could learn to live in Jesus' teaching--nonresistance to evil by force--of TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK, of FORGIVENESS, which even in today's world, plagued with wars, greed, utter chaos, is apparently very much absent. In reality, it looks like Tolstoy fails to convey this simple and yet profound message during his time and up until now. Most people will perhaps just shrug their shoulders and move on upon reading the book and fail to see the penetrating light that the book gives. Not knowing fully that this book will enable them to awaken their consciousness thereby allowing them to see the way to life's true purpose. Nonresistance, non judgment are in simple word..FORGIVENESS..Often associated with weakness yet it is a true sign of strength. Through this, you open yourself to the Divine and instead of separating yourself from HIM, you include yourself to the Divine Whole and align yourself to the true universal destiny....Perhaps, resistance and violence that result to more sufferings, are also part of the Great Design since it is only through suffering, when we are on the brink of precipice, that we learn to change......

n  n    n  n

Tolstoy calls on all people to live by the Law of Jesus, primarily set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. For Tolstoy, living like this is what it means to be a Christian. Early on he makes it clear he has no love for the rest of the New Testament outside the Gospels. He finds the whole idea of sin and salvation by grace as really part of the problem. Thus, his view of being a Christian is quite different than the traditional view as he simply says - live like Jesus.

Of course, this begs the question - why should I live like Jesus? He was executed as a criminal and in the very same text where we find the Sermon on the Mount, we find him saying all kinds of crazy things. It makes me think of Lewis' famous argument that Jesus is either lunatic, liar or lord. Tolstoy takes Jesus as a teacher, arguing that we follow Jesus because he taught truth. But how do we separate the truth of what he taught, which Tolstoy likes, from the error?

That said, Tolstoy's work is extremely challenging. Too many Christians explain away some of Jesus' more challenging statements. Tolstoy will have none of this. For Tolstoy, when Jesus says love your enemies or forgive those who persecute you, he meant it. At one point Tolstoy asks why Christians have no problem literally accepting other parts of the sermon on the mount (such as the call to not look at a woman lustfully) but then explain away the nonviolent parts.

His critique of the church for its near unquestioning support of the state at times made me forget he was writing in 1890s Russia and not 2000s America.

So Tolstoy is challenging in this book. The problem is, other writers are equally challenging without sacrificing the rest of the Christian tradition. You can find people who put forth this radical ethic of following Jesus along with orthodox theology from the church fathers on to people like John Howard Yoder.

Finally, Tolstoy seems way too optimistic about human nature than he should be. In the 200s AD Origen wrote Against Celsus, replying to the criticisms of one of the great Roman writers. Celsus said that if everybody became like Christians, laying aside the sword, no one would be left to defend the empire. Tolstoy, like Origen, provides an answer to this question. For Tolstoy, if everyone became lived like Jesus the world would be at peace. Further, Tolstoy believes this will inevitably happen, he has a sort of postmillenial vibe at points, with the idea the world will get better and better. But does the reality of human sin and depravity allow such optimism? Tolstoy wrote at the end of the 19th century, leading into the bloodiest century humanity has known. The reality of human corruption makes it clear to me that we cannot hope everyone will simply live like Jesus.

Now, traditional Christianity, with trust in the indwelling and work of the Holy Spirit, can hope for these future things. But it is a bit more complex then humans simply living it; we need help.

Overall, I recommend this book as a classic of Christian ethics, despite the many shortcomings I see. I look at it this way: most Christians have no problem lifting up Calvin as a model of Christian orthodoxy despite his ethical failings (such as his role in the execution of Servetus) so why can't we lift up a Christian ethic despite its other theological failings?