Buddhist response to Muslims

[Lazy_eye]

would we equate Christianity with violence as the Bible has injunctions to harm or kill others

I guess I might have to repeat this alot....here goes....
The bible is in two parts Part one (the Old Testament) is about the history that explains the cultural mileau which jesus was born in.....and part two (the New Testament) which is about the life and teaching of jesus. Christianity is based on the life and teachings of jesus and you will not find any instances of jesus promoting violence or killing with the exception of one incident where jesus used physical force to remove money changing businessmen from doing business in a temple....no blood was spilled as far as I know and certainly no one was killed. Jesus is "the prince of peace" who taught if struck on one cheek to turn the other cheek so they can strike it too (as opposed to striking back) and who taught to love your enemies as you love your self. Christianity has non-violence as a central theme.....but this is obviously not understood or followed by many christians....but I think it is important to know that christian scripture does not promote harm or killing or even hatred.....not in the least....none.....
chownah

Chownah, the problem here is that Christians consider the Old Testament legitimate scripture as well.

[Dhammanando]

I'd like to argue that the strongest antidote we have to violent Islam and terrorism in the West is moderate and peaceful Islam, and with the Imams and their communities that advocate peace, cooperation, and accountability for violent acts in the modern world.

Certainly one would like to think that this might be the case, hence my question to Ahura Mazda in this post.

But his reply, as you may have noticed, is pessimistic, as are those of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ibn Waraq, Anwar Shaikh, Taysir Abu Saada, Walid Shoebat, and so many other intelligent apostates who've applied themselves to the problem.

[Ahura Mazda]

My suggestions to those Muslims who can't stand sharia but want to believe in God is to embrace either Baha'i Faith or Sikhism. Both are strictly monotheistic and possess essentially the same philosophocal framework as Islam while at the same time not sharing it's faults. Both also recognize Muhammad as a messanger of God.

Baha'i Faith may be more suited for Arab and Iranian Muslims, Sikhism would be more appealing to Indo-Pak ones.

[Anagarika]

I'd like to argue that the strongest antidote we have to violent Islam and terrorism in the West is moderate and peaceful Islam, and with the Imams and their communities that advocate peace, cooperation, and accountability for violent acts in the modern world.

Certainly one would like to think that this might be the case, hence my question to Ahura Mazda in this post.

But his reply, as you may have noticed, is pessimistic, as are those of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ibn Waraq, Anwar Shaikh, Taysir Abu Saada, Walid Shoebat, and so many other intelligent apostates who've applied themselves to the problem.

Hi, Bhante. I hear you. When faced with the question, "is the glass half empty or half full?" the question becomes "am I pouring or drinking?" I'm persuaded that pessimism is not at the root of the Dhamma, and that somehow, with the Dhamma in mind, we must see the potential for good to overcome evil, for good people to overwhelm by numbers those that seek to do harm, for the ability of rational thought and a scientific approach to violence mitigation succeed over time. I'm an optimist, but base this optimism on the evidence that I see that, over time, the desire for all people to live in peace will overwhelm the desires of the few to cause harm. Islamic violence will likely get worse before it is mitigated. But I am hopeful for the long term. I am hopeful that young people in Muslim families see the violence and are repulsed by it. That these same young people experience friendships with Jews, Christians and understand that life is better lived in peace and cooperation, vs. a life committed to sectarian violence.

I watched this TED talk a few weeks ago, and while I am not trying to throw TED talks up to illustrate my point, this particular talk from the son of a Muslim terrorist does speak to my point:
https://www.ted.com/talks/zak_ebrahim_i ... hose_peace

[Sam Vara]

Sure, the problem is that evangelical types tend to focus their attention on the Old Testament and not the New Testament, so Jesus' teaching often gets lost.

A small technical point here. As apostolic gospel-centred Protestants, evangelicals will be much more focused on the New Testament than the Old. In many cases, they can come across as uncompromising and a bit scary, but this is because they differ from us as to the essential points about Jesus, rather than favouring earlier scriptures.

[Spiny Norman]

A small technical point here. As apostolic gospel-centred Protestants, evangelicals will be much more focused on the New Testament than the Old. In many cases, they can come across as uncompromising and a bit scary, but this is because they differ from us as to the essential points about Jesus, rather than favouring earlier scriptures.

So where does the homophobia come from? I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't say things like "Love your neighbour as yourself, but only if they're straight." or "Blessed are the heterosexuals, for they shall populate the earth."

[Sam Vara]

Chownah, the problem here is that Christians consider the Old Testament legitimate scripture as well.

I'm not sure whether by "here" you mean in your part of the world, or in this particular case. But if the latter, then things are not so bad. Many more liberal and reflective Christians consider the Old Testament to be "legitimate", but not in a "do likewise" sense. They might, for example, consider it to be a legitimate record of people's struggles to understand God, but completely superseded by Jesus' message of love and forgiveness. They at least try to read it critically and with insight, as a foil to the teachings of Christ.

I hope the Christians in your part of the world are more like that. They're nicer!

[Sam Vara]

A small technical point here. As apostolic gospel-centred Protestants, evangelicals will be much more focused on the New Testament than the Old. In many cases, they can come across as uncompromising and a bit scary, but this is because they differ from us as to the essential points about Jesus, rather than favouring earlier scriptures.

So where does the homophobia come from? I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't say things like "Love your neighbour as yourself, but only if they're straight." or "Blessed are the heterosexuals, for they shall populate the earth."

When they have scriptural backing for such prejudices, they do indeed have OT quotes to back them up. Jesus said nothing about sexuality. But the good news is that there are lots of evangelicals who are much more liberal and who consider the message of love to be paramount. They are perhaps less noisy than the conservative evangelicals, probably because (in the UK, at least!) they are on the winning side, thank goodness!

[ancientbuddhism]

I think it's our responsibility to educate these peace-loving "Muslims" that what they practice is not Islam but rather a strange concoction made of elements of Islam mixed with their own whims and wishes. They simply mistake their own humanistic values with their religion and wrongly believe that what they practice is Islam. The faster they realize it, the better for them and their whole community.

Does anyone here have experience in teaching Dhamma to Muslims, especially European ones?

Ahura, the question then becomes do we equate violence with Islam absolutely, and in doing so, would we equate Christianity with violence as the Bible has injunctions to harm or kill others, such as homosexuals? Would we say that Christianity is a religion of violence? Or, do we view these texts as imperfect, and allow practitioners to bring a nonviolent approach to their religion? Again, I feel it is overly aggressive and misguided to suggest that Islam is to be equated solely with violence, and that modern educated Muslims are directed by their religion to violence in the Quran.

I'm not an expert on the Quran, certainly. There are sources and scholars that try to make the case that violence is not a prescription of Islam. " According to Fawzy Abdelmalek, "many Muslim scholars speak of Islam as a religion of peace and not of violence. They say that the non-Muslims misunderstand the Quran verses about Jihad and the conduct of war in Islam."

Nissim Rejwan asserts that, "violence and cruelty are not in the spirit of the Quran, nor are they found in the life of the Prophet, nor in the lives of saintly Muslims."

According to Feisal Abdul Rauf, "the Quran expressly and unambiguously prohibits the use of coercion in faith because coercion would violate a fundamental human right—the right to a free conscience. A different belief system is not deemed a legitimate cause for violence or war under Islamic law. The Quran is categorical on this: "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256); "Say to the disbelievers [that is, atheists, or polytheists, namely those who reject God] "To you, your beliefs, to me, mine" (109:1-6)"

Like many religions, the governing texts include injunction to peace as well as mandates for violence. This may be one defining characteristic of the Abrahamic traditions. I feel that we need to parse out those that allow their scriptures to be viewed through a modern, peaceful lens, and those who take these hodgepodge scriptures literally and violently. For example:


Later edit; solid article on the issue: : http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =124494788" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

El-Ansary says we are seeing more religious violence from Muslims now because the Islamic world is far more religious than is the West. Still, Jenkins says Judeo-Christian cultures shouldn't be smug. The Bible has plenty of violence.

" In the end, the scholars can agree on one thing: The DNA of early Judaism, Christianity and Islam code for a lot of violence. Whether they can evolve out of it is another thing altogether. "

Again, a comparison of the hateful agenda of some fringe, cracker sects of Christianity to the present discussion of Islamic violence against non-Muslims is inappropriate, specious and intellectually dishonest, because Christianity finds no basis for such in the teachings of its founder to kill non-believers or to “…weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps…” as Islam does.

[Lazy_eye]

Again, a comparison of the hateful agenda of some fringe, cracker sects of Christianity to the present discussion of Islamic violence against non-Muslims is inappropriate, specious and intellectually dishonest, because Christianity finds no basis for such in the teachings of its founder to kill non-believers or to “…weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps…” as Islam does.

That's simply not correct, because as pointed out earlier, Christianity includes the Old Testament scriptures, which do provide rationales for violence.

Jesus also said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." While the meaning of the phrase is in dispute among Christians, it has certainly been utilized by some Christians to justify warfare and other violent means ("kill all the Muslims!"). Trust me, I have a few of these types in my extended family and social networks.

During the Balkan wars, Orthodox Christian paramilitary troops went out on killing missions with the direct sanction of the church. There's a notorious video showing a priest blessing a death squad before they rounded up men and boys at Srebrenica and took them away to be summarily shot. In that part of the world, Christianity has definitely been quite violent at times, and probably more so than the local flavors of Islam.

[ancientbuddhism]

Again, a comparison of the hateful agenda of some fringe, cracker sects of Christianity to the present discussion of Islamic violence against non-Muslims is inappropriate, specious and intellectually dishonest, because Christianity finds no basis for such in the teachings of its founder to kill non-believers or to “…weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps…” as Islam does.

That's simply not correct, because as pointed out earlier, Christianity includes the Old Testament scriptures, which do provide rationales for violence.

Jesus also said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." While the meaning of the phrase is in dispute among Christians, it has certainly been utilized by some Christians to justify warfare and other violent means ("kill all the Muslims!"). Trust me, I have a few of these types in my extended family and social networks.

During the Balkan wars, Orthodox Christian paramilitary troops went out on killing missions with the direct sanction of the church. There's a notorious video showing a priest blessing a death squad before they rounded up men and boys at Srebrenica and took them away to be summarily shot. In that part of the world, Christianity has definitely been quite violent at times, and probably more so than the local flavors of Islam.

But these are not the same things, are they? Christianity does not have a legal system and doctrine to support violence against others, does it? For you to offer...

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

... is just as misappropriated by you as of the thugs you mention. For you to say “Trust me, I have a few of these types in my extended family and social networks.” provides a context of nothing to compare to this discussion.

[Lazy_eye]

Here are the kind and compassionate words of Martin Luther, certainly a pivotal figure in the development of Christianity within Europe:

it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...

Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it...

More in the same vein:

They [rulers] must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did...

If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs.

As this website points out, the Nazis specifically cited Luther as a justification for their own violent policies against Jews, and Luther continues to be invoked by "race warriors" today.

Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance.... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp.

One of the subjects under discussion is whether Islam is compatible or not with the values of the secular, liberal West. It should be clear from the above that Protestantism also has some issues in this regard.

And that's to say nothing of Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

[ancientbuddhism]

Here are the kind and compassionate words of Martin Luther, certainly a pivotal figure in the development of Christianity within Europe:

it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...

Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it...

More in the same vein:

They [rulers] must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did...

If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs.

As this website points out, the Nazis specifically cited Luther as a justification for their own violent policies against Jews, and Luther continues to be invoked by "race warriors" today.

Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance.... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp.

One of the subjects under discussion is whether Islam is compatible or not with the values of the secular, liberal West. It should be clear from the above that Protestantism also has some issues in this regard.

And that's to say nothing of Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Still, the misappropriation of Christian themes by thugs; Nazis, Catholicism et al finds nothing of a direct command from Christ to violence against others. Does it?

[Ahura Mazda]

Why do all such discussions end up the same? It looks that not a single discussion about Islam vs Christianity can exist without someone at some point of time bringing up the topic of violence in the Old Testament, Crusades, Inquisition or something similar.

Even if someone proved that Jesus indeed was a violent man who taught about waging holy wars and slaughtering his opponents, that would still prove nothing about Islam.

The Old Testament does not contain any commands to fight all people until the entire world is converted to Judaism. There are only command to exterminate specific tribes, i.e. the seven tribes of Canaan + Amalekites. These commands were not included there to inspire future holy warriors for the sake of YHWH, but to give hope to the Jewish nation, to show Jews that once upon a time they were a mighty nation with a strong protector who would not leave them until the end of time. Thanks to these stories, Jews retained an unique, distinct identity and thanks to them they survived up to this day as an independent nation. Judaism since it's inception has been essentially a Jewish religion for Jews. It strongly discourages converting others.

[Spiny Norman]

Again, a comparison of the hateful agenda of some fringe, cracker sects of Christianity to the present discussion of Islamic violence against non-Muslims is inappropriate, specious and intellectually dishonest, because Christianity finds no basis for such in the teachings of its founder to kill non-believers or to “…weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps…” as Islam does.

Yes, and the discussion here about Christianity seems rather off topic anyway, somewhat diversionary.

So can we and should we try to build bridges with Islam, or is it better to let them sort out their own problems?

And meanwhile how do we feel about the kind of actions our own governments are taking and may take in response to these continuing outrages?