Do you support that most of the causes of world wars are religious?

Hmm i would replace the rubber term religion (religare vs. institutional blind faith) with with the word paradigms or world few or weltbild or zeitgeist since there is a war between nihilistic monism and theism as well ... the paradigms are the root cause of the political perspectives ... as mentioned in my book

People will use statements like that to discredit religion, nevertheless, the deadliest wars fought throughout the history of humanity weren't religious wars. That way, it's been confirmed that two of the leaders that killed more people in war were Stalin and Mao. None of both was religion oriented rather the opposite, secular leaders.

So on the contrary, I will argue that what really causes world wars are not religions but lack of faith and weakness, power and desire craving and the lack of wanting to find and adhere to a unique guidance for humanity.

No me parece que podemos generalizar; se sabe muy bien que el caso israelí-palestino tIene dicho trasfondo, no podemos señalar que así ocurra con los otros conflictos bélicos. El caso ruso-ukrano es un ejemplo.

Indeed.................but the use of the concept of religions...

Most of it were ideology, religy, and country which lead to the economy and

The Baha'i Faith's highest Body, the "Universal House of Justice" has written: "Religious strife, throughout history, has been the cause of innumerable wars and conflicts, a major blight to progress, and is increasingly abhorrent to the people of all faiths and no faith. In the worsening world situation, fraught with pain of war, violence and the sudden uprooting of long-established institutions, can be seen the fulfilment of the prophecies of Bahá'u'lláh and the oft-repeated warnings of [His son, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the "Master"] and the beloved Guardian [Shoghi Effendi] about the inevitable fate of a lamentably defective social system, an unenlightened leadership and a rebellious and unbelieving humanity. Governments and peoples of both the developed and developing nations, and other human institutions, secular and religious, finding themselves helpless to reverse the trend of the catastrophic events of the day, stand bewildered and overpowered by the magnitude and complexity of the problems facing them. At this fateful hour in human history many, unfortunately, seem content to stand aside and wring their hands in despair or else join in the babel of shouting and protestation which loudly objects, but offers no solution to the woes and afflictions plaguing our age (p. 153). Followers of all religions must be willing to face the basic questions which this strife raises, and to arrive at clear answers. How are the differences between them to be resolved, both in theory and in practice? The challenge facing the religious leaders of mankind is to contemplate, with hearts filled with the spirit of compassion and a desire for truth, the plight of humanity, and to ask themselves whether they cannot, in humility before their Almighty Creator, submerge their theological differences in a great spirit of mutual forbearance that will enable them to work together for the advancement of human understanding and peace" (p. 688). However the greatest wars, the world wars, and wars for independence or recent civil wars were not (in most cases) religious in origin. The Universal House of Justice has further written: "Elaborating the implications of this pivotal principle, Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, commented in 1931 that: "Far from aiming at the subversion of the existing foundations of society, [the Bahá'í Faith] seeks to broaden its basis, to remould its institutions in a manner consonant with the needs of an ever-changing world. It can conflict with no legitimate allegiances, nor can it undermine essential loyalties. Its purpose is neither to stifle the flame of a sane and intelligent patriotism in men's hearts, nor to abolish the system of national autonomy so essential if the evils of excessive centralization are to be avoided. It does not ignore, nor does it attempt to suppress, the diversity of ethnical origins, of climate, of history, of language and tradition, of thought and habit, that differentiate the peoples and nations of the world. It calls for a wider loyalty, for a larger aspiration than any that has animated the human race. It insists upon the subordination of national impulses and interests to the imperative claims of a unified world. It repudiates excessive centralization on one hand, and disclaims all attempts at uniformity on the other. Its watchword is 'unity in diversity'. ... The achievement of such ends requires several stages in the adjustment of national political attitudes, which now verge on anarchy in the absence of clearly defined laws or universally accepted and enforceable principles regulating the relationships between nations. The League of Nations, the United Nations, and the many organizations and agreements produced by them have unquestionably been helpful in attenuating some of the negative effects of international conflicts, but they have shown themselves incapable of preventing war. Indeed, there have been scores of wars since the end of the Second World War; many are yet raging. ... The predominant aspects of this problem had already emerged in the nineteenth century when Bahá'u'lláh first advanced his proposals for the establishment of world peace. The principle of collective security was propounded by him in statements addressed to the rulers of the world. Shoghi Effendi commented on His meaning: "What else could these weighty words signify," he wrote, "if they did not point to the inevitable curtailment of unfettered national sovereignty as an indispensable preliminary to the formation of the future Commonwealth of all the nations of the world? Some form of a world super-state must needs be evolved, in whose favour all the nations of the world will have willingly ceded every claim to make war, certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments, except for purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective dominions. Such a state will have to include within its orbit an international executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on every recalcitrant member of the commonwealth; a world parliament whose members shall be elected by the people in their respective countries and whose election shall be confirmed by their respective governments; and a supreme tribunal whose judgement will have a binding effect even in such cases where the parties concerned did not voluntarily agree to submit their case to its consideration."... "A world community in which all economic barriers will have been permanently demolished and the interdependence of Capital and Labour definitely recognized; in which the clamour of religious fanaticism and strife will have been forever stilled; in which the flame of racial animosity will have been finally extinguished; in which a single code of international law -- the product of the considered judgement of the world's federated representatives -- shall have as its sanction the instant and coercive intervention of the combined forces of the federated units; and finally a world community in which the fury of a capricious and militant nationalism will have been transmuted into an abiding consciousness of world citizenship -- such indeed, appears, in its broadest outline, the Order anticipated by Bahá'u'lláh, an Order that shall come to be regarded as the fairest fruit of a slowly maturing age" ([F774. WOB, pp. 41-42., F775. WOB, p. 41.] The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 153, p. 688, p. 691).

No

Indeed they are.

I do not hold this opinion. Religion plays a major part in some conflicts such as the Crusades, wars during the Counter-Reformation, the Taiping Rebellion and the many Arab-Israeli wars, but any review of history tends to show that territorial claims, real or perceived threats from groups or nations hostile to one's own, access to resources and geopolitical circumstances stand out as primary causes of conflicts.

يستغل الدين في الصراع لاغراض سياسية لان إثارة العاطفة الدينية امر ميسور بالنسبة للقيادات تجاه جماهيرها فالقيادات تخوض الحرب على اسس المصالح والشعوب تخوض الحروب تبعا لعواطفها الدينية المستثارة من قبل الزعامات

وغالبا ما يكون الدين احد وسائل احكام النفوذ بالنسبة للسلطة فالمجتمع ذو الاتجاه الواحد أيسر القيادات من المجتمع متعدد الاتجاهات

وهذا ما يفسر الابادة المذهبية التي قام بها النورين والايبيون والصهناجيون والعثمانيون في الموصل والشام ومصر وأفريقيا

While it may be tempting to argue that religious differences are the main cause of world wars, it is important to recognize that the root causes of wars are complex and multifaceted. Religion can play a role in conflicts, but it is not always the sole or primary factor. Often, the underlying causes of wars include political, economic, territorial, and ideological disputes.

That being said, religious intolerance has certainly contributed to conflicts throughout history. Many people struggle to tolerate religious differences, and some feel their religion is the only true path. For example, in several countries where Islam is the majority religion, minority religions such as Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, and Hinduism have faced persecution and oppression. You can find information on this by researching cases of religious persecution around the world.

In contrast, in countries where Christianity or Catholicism is the dominant religion, there tends to be less open conflict with minority religions, although intolerance and prejudice still exist in some areas. While differences in religious beliefs are natural, the key to peaceful coexistence lies in mutual respect and understanding. It is crucial that people from all faiths recognize the value in supporting one another and embracing diversity.

Rather than viewing religion as a cause for conflict, we should aim to respect and appreciate each other’s beliefs, understanding that all religions have their own unique teachings and practices. This attitude fosters a more harmonious and peaceful world. Yousif Sami Farhan

Buen día, escribiré en español, un disculpa por ello. En México, tenemos todavía el tema de la laicidad, que permite una convivencia pacífica por las convicciones de toda índole. Me parece algo apropiado al tema de las guerras, porque la religión involucra, como todos los aspectos de una cultura e ideología, independientemente de las iglesias y asociaciones religiosas, con el "modus vivendi" y en especial en México, se ha logrado la diversidad en ciertos aspectos. Claro es entonces, que la religión cruza otros esferas o sistemas o subsitemas de la sociedad, pero no es el único elemento, es un intrincado de relaciones, no obstante la religión tiene una función también, y ella, es entre otros aspectos darle un sentido a la existencia, por ello tiene que ver con la Guerra, pues es supresión de vidas.

The propaganda merger of religion and politics, e.g. the current trend towards religious nationalisms, can definitely cause territorial war. However, with respect to the last 2WW, Yousif Sami Farhan , the 1st WW was a world trade war, while the 2nd WW was an ideological war between democracy (market principles) vs. dictatorships (Führermodels). The current global tendency towards authoritarian state capitalist regimes is, imo, a logical consequence of neo-classical economics as applied and dominating policy since the collapse of the state commanded economies (1989).

___________________________

“In the long run, war and the preservation of the market economy are incompatible. Capitalism is essentially a scheme for peaceful nations.... The market economy, subject to the sovereignty of the individual consumers, turns out products which make the individual’s life more agreeable. It caters to the individual’s demand for more comfort. It is this that made capitalism despicable in the eyes of the apostles of violence. They worshiped the ‘hero,’ the destroyer and killer, and despised the bourgeois and his ‘peddler mentality’ (Sombart). Now mankind is reaping the fruits which ripened from the seeds sown by these men.” Ludwig von Mises (1949) Human Action: The Scholar’s Edition (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1999), p. 824.

“The market economy involves peaceful cooperation. It bursts asunder when the citizens turn into warriors and, instead of exchanging commodities and services, fight one another.”

So Ludwig von Mises begins a short chapter in Human Action called “The Economics of War.”

Dear Yousif Sami Farhan ,

While religion has influenced some historical conflicts, the primary causes of the world wars were largely political, economic, ideological, and territorial. Factors such as nationalism, militarism, imperial ambitions, and economic struggles played a more significant role. Although religious elements were sometimes used in propaganda, the wars themselves were not fundamentally driven by religious disputes.

Best,

Zylfije Tahiri

Not at all,..

The holy wars, or crusades were namely holy,.,

The were men aggressions to greed and pride,..

Albadr and trench were different, they neither were caused for religion,. Yes, they were fought for defence and right of protecting faith,.. why still not religions was because cause was not planned in the name of Religion, battles were fought to defend the rights of religion and the religions groups ,..

Overall they were political battles,. Might and Right show,..

Fatema Miah