ユダヤの哲学者・教授であるメナケム・ケルナーのマイモニデスのテキストに関する研究(1991年)によれば、ゲル・トシャフは「正義の外国人」(ヘブライ語: גר צדק, ger tzedek、ゲル・ツェデク)、すなわちユダヤ教への完全な改宗者になるための過渡的な段階である可能性があるとされている[15]。マイモニデスによれば、完全なゲル・ツェデクだけがメシアの時代に発見されるだろうとケルナーは推測している[15]。
八紘一宇は「全世界を一つの家にすること」を意味する語句であり[39]、唯一神と天皇を同じ唯一者として信じるように、ムスリムに命令が下された[40]。大日本帝国は、ジャワ島のムスリムたちへ「メッカよりも東京に礼拝し、日本皇帝を唯一神として礼賛せよ、という日本軍の命令(the Japanese military orders to bow towards Tokyo rather than Mecca and to glorify the Japanese Emperor as God)」を伝えていた[40]。
Neil DeVotta(政治学准教授)によれば、マハーワンサの神話史は、「ダルマ(仏教の教義)を維持、保護、伝播するために必要であれば、非シンハラ人への非人道的行為を正当化する。さらに戦争が仏教を守るために行われるのであれば、正戦の教義を正当化する……また、シンハラ人がこの島に最初に住んだ人間であり(シンハラ人以前の人間は亜人であった)、真の「土の子」であると主張している[51]」。
異教徒の語源であるラテン語のpaganusには本来ユダヤ教は含まず、ギリシア・ローマ的な偶像崇拝・多神教徒を意味する言葉である。その為、古代末期以前までにおけるユダヤ教、原始キリスト教に関連する文脈では異教徒とは特にユダヤ・キリスト教以外の、それまで古代世界各地に散在した諸信仰およびそれらを元にインテルプレタテオ・ロマーナ(interpretatio Romana ≒ ローマ的解釈による信仰の統合)によって成立したローマ的多神教を意味する。その後、キリスト教が古代地中海世界において支配的地位を占める様になると、次第に単純に「キリスト教以外」を意味する事が多くなる。
^Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1986). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 3 (Fully Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. p. 1010. ISBN0-8028-3783-2. "In rabbinic literature the ger toshab was a Gentile who observed the Noachian commandments but was not considered a convert to Judaism because he did not agree to circumcision. [...] some scholars have made the mistake of calling the ger toshab a "proselyte" or "semiproselyte." But the ger toshab was really a resident alien in Israel. Some scholars have claimed that the term "those who fear God" (yir᾿ei Elohim/Shamayim) was used in rabbinic literature to denote Gentiles who were on the fringe of the synagogue. They were not converts to Judaism, although they were attracted to the Jewish religion and observed part of the law."
^ abJacobs, Joseph; Hirsch, Emil G. (1906). "Proselyte: Semi-Converts". Jewish Encyclopedia. Kopelman Foundation. 2012年5月31日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2020年11月9日閲覧。In order to find a precedent the rabbis went so far as to assume that proselytes of this order were recognized in Biblical law, applying to them the term "toshab" ("sojourner," "aborigine," referring to the Canaanites; see Maimonides' explanation in "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7; see Grätz, l.c. p. 15), in connection with "ger" (see Ex. xxv. 47, where the better reading would be "we-toshab"). Another name for one of this class was "proselyte of the gate" ("ger ha-sha'ar," that is, one under Jewish civil jurisdiction; comp. Deut. v. 14, xiv. 21, referring to the stranger who had legal claims upon the generosity and protection of his Jewish neighbors). In order to be recognized as one of these the neophyte had publicly to assume, before three "ḥaberim," or men of authority, the solemn obligation not to worship idols, an obligation which involved the recognition of the seven Noachian injunctions as binding ('Ab. Zarah 64b; "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7). [...] The more rigorous seem to have been inclined to insist upon such converts observing the entire Law, with the exception of the reservations and modifications explicitly made in their behalf. The more lenient were ready to accord them full equality with Jews as soon as they had solemnly forsworn idolatry. The "via media" was taken by those that regarded public adherence to the seven Noachian precepts as the indispensable prerequisite (Gerim iii.; 'Ab. Zarah 64b; Yer. Yeb. 8d; Grätz, l.c. pp. 19–20). The outward sign of this adherence to Judaism was the observance of the Sabbath (Grätz, l.c. pp. 20 et seq.; but comp. Ker. 8b).
^ abcFeldman, Rachel Z. (8 October 2017). “The Bnei Noah (Children of Noah)”. World Religions and Spirituality Project. 21 January 2020時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。10 November 2020閲覧。
^ abSinger, Isidore; Greenstone, Julius H. (1906). "Noachian Laws". Jewish Encyclopedia. Kopelman Foundation. 2012年2月5日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2020年11月10日閲覧。 "The Seven Laws. Laws which were supposed by the Rabbis to have been binding upon mankind at large even before the revelation at Sinai, and which are still binding upon non-Jews. The term Noachian indicates the universality of these ordinances, since the whole human race was supposed to be descended from the three sons of Noah, who alone survived the Flood. [...] Basing their views on the passage in Genesis 2:16, they declared that the following six commandments were enjoined upon Adam: (1) not to worship idols; (2) not to blaspheme the name of God; (3) to establish courts of justice; (4) not to kill; (5) not to commit adultery; and (6) not to rob (Gen. R. xvi. 9, xxiv. 5; Cant. R. i. 16; comp. Seder 'Olam Rabbah, ed. Ratner, ch. v. and notes, Wilna, 1897; Maimonides, "Yad," Melakim, ix. 1). A seventh commandment was added after the Flood—not to eat flesh that had been cut from a living animal (Genesis 9:4). [...] Thus, the Talmud frequently speaks of "the seven laws of the sons of Noah," which were regarded as obligatory upon all mankind, in contradistinction to those that were binding upon Israelites only (Tosef., 'Ab. Zarah, ix. 4; Sanh. 56a et seq.). [...] He who observed the seven Noachian laws was regarded as a domiciled alien, as one of the pious of the Gentiles, and was assured of a portion in the world to come (Tosef., Sanh. xiii. 1; Sanh. 105a; comp. ib. 91b; "Yad," l.c. viii. 11)."
^ abSpitzer, Jeffrey (2018年). “The Noahide Laws”. My Jewish Learning. 10 November 2020閲覧。
^ abKellner, Menachem (1991). Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish people. SUNY Series in Jewish Philosophy. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. p. 44. ISBN0-7914-0691-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=HBWiRKhun4oC&pg=PA44. "against my reading of Maimonides is strengthened by the fact that Maimonides himself says that the ger toshav is accepted only during the time that the Jubilee is practiced. The Jubilee year is no longer practiced in this dispensation [...]. Second, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Maimonides thought that the messianic conversion of the Gentiles would be a process that occurred in stages and that some or all Gentiles would go through the status of ger toshav on their way to the status of full convert, ger tzedek. But this question aside, there are substantial reasons why it is very unlikely that Maimonides foresaw a messianic era in which the Gentiles would become only semi-converts (ger toshav) and not full converts (ger tzedek). Put simply, semi-converts are not separate from the Jews but equal to them; their status is in every way inferior and subordinate to that of the Jews. They are separate and unequal."
^Darlington, Stephen (31 December 2018) (English). Pearson Edexcel Religious Studies A level/AS Student Guide: Christianity. Hodder Education. ISBN978-1-5104-3258-1
^“Chapter XXV THE VICTORY OF DUTTHAGAMANI”. lakdiva.org. 2016年2月20日閲覧。 “`From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts Unbelievers and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from thy heart, O ruler of men!”
^Grant, Patrick (2009-01-05). Buddhism and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka. SUNY Press. pp. 48–51. ISBN9780791493670. https://books.google.com/books?id=9XYNBQzYoYkC. ""The campaign against Elara is described at some length in the Mahavamsa, and it is clear that Dutthagamini does not move against Elara because the Tamil king was unjust, cruel, or tyrannical. The Mahavamsa points out that Elara was a good ruler, and, when he is killed, Dutthagamini has him cremated honorably, and erects a monument in his memory. In constructing the "Dutthagamini epic" as he does, Mahanama wants to make clear that the heroic task in hand is not the defeat of injustice but the restoration of Buddhism. The overthrow of the Tamil king is required first and foremost because Sri Lanka cannot be united unless the monarch is Buddhist. [...] The main point is the honor Dutthagamini brings "to the doctrine of the Buddha," and this greater good justifies the violence required to bring it about. [...] Mahanama's [author of the Mahavamsa] lesson for monarchs remains consistent: be as strong as you need to be to maintain the Buddhist state; be supportive of the Sangha and willing to defeat the enemy by force.""
Anagarika, Dharmapala (1965). Return to Righteousness: A Collection of Speeches, Essays and Letters of the Anagarika Dharmapala, ed. Ananda Guruge, The Anagarika Dharmapala. Birth Centenary Committee, Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs, Ceylon
DeVotta, Neil (2001). “The Utilisation of Religio-Linguistic Identities by the Sinhalese and Bengalis: Towards General Explanation”. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, Vol. 39, No. 1: 66–95.
DeVotta, Neil (2007). Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalist Ideology: Implications for Politics and Conflict Resolution in Sri Lanka. East-West Center Washington
Tennakoon, Vimalananda (1963). “Buddhism in Ceylon under the Christian powers"
Wijewardena (1953). The Revolt in the Temple. Sinha Publications
Bartholomeusz, Tessa (2005). In Defense of Dharma: Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism). Routledge
Deegalle, Maheenda (2006). Buddhism, Conflict and Violence in Modern Sri Lanka. Routledge