Avec un titre pareil, je m'attendais à lire un témoignage très mystique sur le christianisme... Le Royaume des cieux est en vous est beaucoup plus pragmatique : Tolstoï montre admirablement bien comment la conscience chrétienne est politique, comment le christianisme enseigné par les Églises instituées est un mensonge qui éloigne les hommes de la Vérité, de l'Amour, de la Paix (et donc de l'avènement du Christ). Il déploie une argumentation brillante sur les contradictions intrinsèques entre la situation de la nation russe et la conscience chrétienne qui interdit la violence, physique (embrigadement dans l'Armée, oppression et enferment des pauvres et des étrangers...) et morale (impôt qui sert des intérêts contraires au bonheur de l'humanité, oppression financière, creuset entre pauvres et riches...). Il n'est pas nécessaire d'être chrétien pour recevoir sa pensée, c'est une pensée qui part d'un socle immuable à toute morale personnelle : la non violence. Tolstoï tire le fil de ce principe absolu de non violence pour se distinguer radicalement des luttes socialistes, communistes et anarchistes à l'oeuvre en Russie, qui passent souvent par l'émeute et le soulèvement populaire. Pour lui, l'homme devrait plutôt montrer l'inutilité de l'autorité en l'ignorant, en s'en passant, en refusant de participer au fonctionnement de l'État oppresseur de quelques façons. Une forme d'anarchisme chrétien, qu'on peut décliner en anarchisme pacifique, si on n'est pas croyant.
L'essai se poursuit très naturellement par une courte correspondance que Tolstoï (mourant) a tenu avec Gandhi, très impressionné par sa pensée.
J'ai adoré chaque paragraphe de cet essai, idéaliste, pur, puissant et construit, empreint de bonté et de sagesse. C'est une oeuvre terriblement intemporelle, une belle claque !

In this book, Tolstoy uses Jesus' Sermon on the Mount to makes a brave, impassioned argument for pacifism and the abolishment of all governments. He makes some great points, but his argument is utterly lacking in nuance. For example, the Bible commands us not to lie, but polite society would undoubtedly break down if, every time we said "nice to see you" to someone, we had to stop a moment and ascertain whether such was indeed actually the case. We can also reasonably assume that "turning the other cheek" wasn't meant to apply in the event you come face-to-face with a serial killer who wants to make you his next victim; and we can suppose that "Thou shalt not kill" goes out the window if you have a chance to take out a terrorist about to detonate a nuclear weapon. However, for Tolstoy, every Biblical imperative is rendered in complete black and white, and there is no such thing as mitigating circumstances regarding their implementation. Jesus' words were certainly the ideal by which to live, but, in the case of the terrorist, who do you apply the golden rule to--the murderer or the potential victims? Because, obviously, if you were the terrorist, you would want something completely different than if you were the victim. Tolstoy would say that, in such case, "do unto others" applies to the terrorist, and we, as a society, would best try to just absorb the damage as best we could. Tolstoy believes that there should be no government, no prisons, and no law enforcement of any kind, because such would violate Christ's call for us to be forgiving. But the idea of forgiveness doesn't always necessitate freedom from punishment, and forgiveness was never put forth as a licence to act with impunity. I think you can forgive someone for crashing into your car and yet still expect them to pay for the damages. Tolstoy argues that, through non-violent resistance, we can bring about heaven on earth (thus the title of the book, "The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You"). But Tolstoy is taking this verse out of context, and, in reality, humanity has little hope for true world peace until Christ returns. That's not to say we shouldn't try, and Tolstoy's book best serves as a wake-up call to remind us of our duty to our fellow man.
Then there's the presentation of the book itself, which is badly in need of a good editor (as noted in the introduction by the translator, who states that Tolstoy was much more careful about structuring his novels than his non-fiction works) and, in the case of my copy, a much better proofreader. It's fatally repetitive and a complete slog to get through, but parts of it are rewarding enough to make it worthwhile--though just barely so.

quaker book club pick lol

What a book! I may write a longer review at some point. For now, suffice to say I am more antiestablishment than I was before I read this, which will please my husband to no end and may have been the reason he mentioned the title in the first place.

“Human life is a combination of the animal life and the divine life. And the more this combination approaches to the divine life, the more life there is in it.”

Expected more from the author of War and Peace. Anyone who can organize and tell such a gripping, true-to-life tale ought to be able to frame an effective argument on any topic which he sincerely believes. Not so. Perhaps the circumstances of this book’s writing and publishing are partly to blame. Tolstoy wrote this in response to the criticism of his earlier work My Religion. This book was so critical of the established Russian Orthodox Church that he could not publish it in Russia.

“Physical coercion is not acceptable to moral regeneration. The sinful dispositions of men can be subdued only by love. There is great security in being gentle, long-suffering, and abundant in mercy.” William Lloyd Garrison, 1830

That said, today’s reader should skip the first two chapters, or read them last, as they are surveys of Americans--specifically, abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison and Adin Ballou, and the Quakers--who agreed with his doctrines of pacifism.

“The man who believes in the Church doctrine of the compatibility of warfare and capital punishment with Christianity cannot believe in the brotherhood of all men.”

This book also illustrates the danger of basing one’s entire theology on one verse. Tolstoy has a lot to say to Christians, but it is lost in his repetition of his main point. Reads like an extended pamphlet. (Being Tolstoy, the pamphlet exceeds 350 pages.)

“The significance of the Gospel is hidden from believers by the Church, and from unbelievers by science.”

Nonetheless, a provocative and thought-worthy work, said to have influenced Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Should we be assured or disturbed that for hundreds of years the same arguments and same verses have been used defending or attacking the “real” message of Jesus?

“Blessedness consists in progress toward perfection: to stand still in any condition whatever means the cessation of this blessedness.”

What does a nation established in Christ’s principles look like?

Does it wage war?
Does it maintain a standing army?
Does it manufacture nuclear weapons? Landmines? Assault rifles? Hand guns?

Does it torture people?
Waterboard people?
Imprison people?

Are there poor people in a Christian nation?
Are there rich people in a Christian nation?

Does a women die from hunger in a Christian nation?
Does she die from preventable disease?

Does anyone aspire to wealth in a Christian nation?
Does anyone aspire to power?

When you give these questions anything more than cursory thought, they’re troubling questions indeed. Leo Tolstoy (of War and Peace fame) found himself struggling with these questions at the end of the 19th century as the nations of Europe rattled sabers and amassed massive armies in the lead-up to the first world war. Germany, Russia, France, and England all considered themselves Christian nations, yet each rallied for war, ready to murder each other by the millions against the direct prohibition of their God.

Today the governor of Texas organizes public prayer for rain while also supporting the death penalty. A presidential candidate accentuate the words “under God,” while swearing allegiance not to that God but to a nation. With a cross pinned to his lapel, a politician fights to cut funding for services to the sick and to the poor. In this midst of this, the hard analysis that Tolstoy puts forth about what it truly means to be a Christian nation is more important than ever.

In imagining a Christian society, Tolstoy looks not to Deuteronomy or Leviticus whose strict legalism lends itself to the loophole-seeking of the Pharisees, but to the Sermon on the Mount. He looks to Jesus’s commandment to “love one another as I have loved you.” Rather than a legal code, Jesus commandments were appeals to the heart, statements that awoken men’s consciences to the suffering that they were causing one another so that they may truly repent of this injustice. This is the revelation of Truth, the opening of blind eyes.

To live in this Truth is not just to speak it, but to have it guide every action. This is easy enough when dealing with our families and sometimes even our neighbors. We can forgive insults, respond to hatred with love, and exhibit great generosity with our loved ones. Yet, as we expand outwards to social action, Christ’s true challenge becomes apparent. Referring to the opening questions, do I feel that there is a difference between Christ’s response and the practical response?

The great hypocrisy of war-mongering Christians deeply disturbed Tolstoy in his day, and it should likewise both every Christian of conscience today. Do we only follow Christ’s teaching in the small and convenient actions, the street-corner preaching and public acts of generosity that make us feel self-righteous, or do we follow it when it’s difficult?

It is not difficult to wave a picture of an aborted fetus in front of a Planned Parenthood building. It is difficult to provided a pregnant mother with the social and financial support she needs to continue the pregnancy. Which do we do?

It is not difficult for an American to preach an end to human rights abuses in Iran. It is difficult for an American to take a stand against torture carried out by our own government. Which do we do?

It is not difficult to wear TOMS shoes and Falling Whistles necklaces. It is difficult to quit your job at the corporation that profits from the exploitation of the poor and vulnerable. Which do we do?

Tolstoy’s thesis is that a veneer of Christianity does not make either a person or a nation Christian. It is the integration of Christ’s principles into every individual action in my life and the refusal to cooperate with anything that is counter to those principles.

It’s a bold proposition, indeed. When Mohandas Gandhi read The Kingdom of God Is Within You while he was in South Africa, it helped inspire his first Satyagraha campaign against the abuses of the British. What revolution is in store for America is we too could take this message to heart?

What happens when Christian consumers refuse to support businesses that exploit their workers, but support worker cooperatives instead?

What happens when Christian juries refuses to condemn drug addicts to jail, but open drug treatment programs instead?

What happens when Christian men and women refuse to join the military, but join interfaith groups to build bridges of understanding instead?

These are the questions that Tolstoy asks and they’re deeply challenging for those who prefer a convenient Christianity that asks nothing of its followers except a Sunday lip service and a cross hung around the neck. Christ’s Truth was revolutionary and he was hung on a cross between two revolutionaries for it. What happens when Christians take up that revolutionary charge today?

*4.5 Stars*
This is the one book that gives all the relevance to Tolstoy's later carrer, which was lacking in terms of profoundness and arguments that would fiercely dismantle the current order of things.

Because it would be less effective to just express his solution to the main issue,
Because if your aim is to truly exert change upon the *entire* humanity, It is necessary to gather nuanced feedback, knowledge, arguments of *each* social class, major thinker, etc, and then dismantle them one by one… in convincing ways.. to the point that they , *each*, fully share the wrongness of their ways…


Reading this, and everything Tolstoy has written in his later carreer will add more knowledge of his beautiful proposal for humanity. No wonder even Martin Luther King has been inspired by this work. I have felt the chains that covered my soul lose their grip the more I advanced in its pages; my arms felt more comfortable, Tolstoy's words gave me a new fiery will to free myself from this mental cage so ingrained in me by society;

The way the world functions makes us depressed without really knowing why. We are brought to live lives contrary to the lives conforming to our intrinsic personality… and as we judge our situation to be irremediable, we find ourselves carrying out to follow paths that we judge necessary; we believe it is a part of life to be endured with resilience.

What is the meaning of it?


When Tolstoy decides to exert his cries for all humanity, he is so saddened by our internal situation; he looks at us with pity, the knowledge that we are about to commit an act which we feel so unlike ourselves, but which ´society’ considers so common and necessary.

What is the meaning of it?

By chronicling to us historical situations relating the way in which the great social changes took place, the same solution persists:

The system against our conscience is only unchanging because we ourselves support it.

We need more actions similar to what this book did, following the Christian life, which serves as first act for one bee of the human race to fly and leave its toxic net, so other bees will follow, and so is the same for society.
This work starts by myself.


But my true love for this book comes from a very personnal case. I am in a some what same situation.
I am aware that my current professional career makes me depressed; but my fear of failing/being unable to know what awaits me if i choose another that i think i might like… scares me.

Tolstoy sees conditions such as mine as, being in a house that catches fire; and hid in a corner of the house when there is an exit door. And because I don't know where this door leads, I remain stuck in my fatal destiny to burn under the flames.

‘If we must be afraid let us be afraid of what is really alarming, and not what we imagine as alarming’


He is aware how scary he is to perform it, but after Tolstoy's thousands of illuminating words, after this book, I feel a much stronger will within me to pursue my true dreams; and that's what I'm about to do now with more truthfulness, that this voice and path is the only one that has the potential to make me happy, to pursue my aspiration as a writer. I love Tolstoy.


-The Kingdom of God is within You by Leo Tolstoy: 9/10

He is strongest when he makes the case that no one should be forced to violate his or her conscious. He is weakest when he is arguing that all people should embrace pacifism.

Asserts many unproven and seemingly wild claims about humanity and bases his arguments on those claims. Wish this was an article rather than a book. A few times it seemed like he was filling pages, not writing based on fleshed out arguments.

Working on review. Seriously.

"لدى الناس قابلية للقيام بأعمال تناقض قناعتهم وضمائرهم دون أن يروا ذالك"
يدور الكتاب حول "عدم مقاومة الشر بالعنف" باعتبارها من المبادئ الأساسية لموعظة الجبل، التي يجب أن يؤمن بها كل مسيحي ويوضح التناقض الواضح في دولة "مسيحية" تؤمن بالسلم ولكنها قائمة على العنف، وكنيسة تدعوا للمسيحية ولكنها داعمة للحروب مباركة لها.
يوضح التعارض البارز بين ما يُؤمن به المسيحي والقوانين ال��ي تجبره الدولة على اتباعها؛ عن طريق سلسلة من الترهيب، الرشوة، تخدير الشعب والجندية التي توجه اغلب الأحيان لترهيب الشعب نفسه أو نهب الشعوب الأخرى.
موضحاً أن الحلول الثورية التي تؤدي إلى تغير نظام بنظام أخر غير مجدية؛ لأن النظام الأخر لم ينال إعجاب الجميع وبالتالي سيحتاج إلى نفس أساليب الترهيب والتخدير، وإن الحل الوحيد يكمن في اتباع المسيحية ورفض ومقاومة أي شكل من أشكال الدولة المضادة لها، مع تحمل كل أشكال العذاب المتوقعة في سبيل ذالك بسلمية تامة.

“Whatever names we dignify ourselves with, whatever uniforms we wear, whatever priests we anoint ourselves before, however many millions we possess, however many guards are stationed along our road, however many policemen guard our wealth…there are two inevitable conditions of life, confronting all of us, which destroy its whole meaning; (1) death, which may at any moment pounce upon each of us; and (2) the transitoriness of all our works, which so soon pass away and leave no trace.”

A great and terrible book, from Tolstoy the man who bought you War and Peace and Christian Anarchism.

This was the book that directly inspired Gandhi to begin his non violent resistance movement, and for that reason alone it is worth reading. It is very inspiring, if anything it suffers from being too impassioned. It is a direct call for individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions. A very simple idea, but Tolstoy illustrates the power of it exceedingly well, his call centres on it being a Christian moral imperative, but I think it's easy to follow his arguments as an atheist.

His arguments are very perhaps too well illustrated, and become tragic in light of latter communist developments in Russia. Despite coming for an imperialist extremity the arguments are still uncomfortably appropriate for today's society, we have exported the peasant class, but we all have the unpleasant knowledge that families are enslaved across the world in growing us bananas and coffee, and in making our clothes and knick knacks. It is a knowledge we would rather not have. It is a responsibility we would rather not possess, but as Tolstoy beautifully argues the most damaging evil we can perpetrate is a hypocritical defence of these atrocities.

An important read.

It can be read on-line here: http://www.kingdomnow.org/withinyou.html