Well, since you bring up the "Religion of Peace", it is also worth reminding that when discussing this, people should agree on the definition of the word. Otherwise, you talk past each other.
As Bassam Tibi points out:
"Both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms, these mean different things to each of them. The word peace, for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam -- or House of Islam -- to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought. Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or House of Peace."
That's a very good point - and I didn't know that about islam; it reminds me of the socialist view of peace: that the entire world must become socialist in order for peace to come about. Given such a means, the Nazis could be said to be peaceful.
Where I see aikido differing from these perspectives is that you accept others - you accept the way things are, and do not resist: you yield to them; I think this is the same in prinicple as Zen, and the reason why so much is made of the similarity between the two. And for me, this is the correct approach: I spent so much time as a youth struggling to reconcile reality with ideals, and manufactured notions of what is just, what is right, and how things should be; I finally realised that regardless of the way things should be, they will always be whatever they are (viz., contrary to what makes sense/is seen to be just).
And this is where a lot of the reproaches against these religions - such as Christianity and islam - which have given us millennia of war, persecution, and genocide are aimed: at their lack of acceptance, and focus on denial and repression.
Peace through such a system seems a bleak prospect (especially if it is achieved via the eradication of 'unpeaceful' others/anybody different).