Convertion of muslims

Organisational work, teaching, Sunday school syllabus, charitable work, outreach, sharing of resources, artwork, etc.
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by pulga »

Bundokji wrote: To sum up: from theological point of view, the vast majority believe that Muslims who change their religion should be killed. Moderate Muslims dispute it and try to present Islam as peaceful. Many believe in it but don't act upon it.
Thank you. Once again you've provided the forum with information that is firsthand, concrete, and factual.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Caodemarte »

Being Muslim is often seen as the definition of being an ethnic Malay. It is a both a cause and an effect of ethnic rivalries.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Coëmgenu »

Caodemarte wrote:It may be interesting to note that for the first century or so after the early Islamic conquests conversion of non-Arabs to Islam was not allowed. At that time, Islam was seen as a religion for the conquering Arabs and Muslims had special tax breaks and privileges. Even after conversion was allowed it was not usually encouraged.
This is something that will be denied to the teeth if one speaks to someone brought up in dominant modern narratives about the conquest, despite being verifiable through numerous historical sources. Knowledge is a funny thing. If enough people just say "no" it becomes a lie, functionally speaking.

I recall an interview with a very upset Mor Nicodemus Daoud Sharaf, Archbishop of Mosul, just after Daesh had moved in. He was lamenting that his Christian forefathers had translated and preserved the wisdom of the Greeks, Egyptians, etc, into Arabic, giving the knowledge to the new hegemony, helping to precipitate the golden age of sorts for Islam.

Of course, if they hadn't, we wouldn't be able to read Boëthius today at all. He simply wouldn't exist (well, his works would have gone the way of the Confucian Classic of Music). And our society would be massively different. The Renaissance wouldn't have been the same, for certain.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Caodemarte »

Coëmgenu wrote:
Caodemarte wrote:It may be interesting to note that for the first century or so after the early Islamic conquests conversion of non-Arabs to Islam was not allowed. At that time, Islam was seen as a religion for the conquering Arabs and Muslims had special tax breaks and privileges. Even after conversion was allowed it was not usually encouraged.
This is something that will be denied to the teeth if one speaks to someone brought up in dominant modern narratives about the conquest, despite being verifiable through numerous historical sources. Knowledge is a funny thing. If enough people just say "no" it becomes a lie, functionally speaking.

I recall an interview with a very upset Mor Nicodemus Daoud Sharaf, Archbishop of Mosul, just after Daesh had moved in. He was lamenting that his Christian forefathers had translated and preserved the wisdom of the Greeks, Egyptians, etc, into Arabic, giving the knowledge to the new hegemony, helping to precipitate the golden age of sorts for Islam.

Of course, if they hadn't, we wouldn't be able to read Boëthius today at all. He simply wouldn't exist (well, his works would have gone the way of the Confucian Classic of Music). And our society would be massively different. The Renaissance wouldn't have been the same, for certain.

A lot of the idea that these were wars of religion comes from the medieval narratives. These often assumed that Muslim conquerors used the same claimed motivation that Europeans did ("the Cross or the Sword"). In Spain Jews and Christians would sometimes riot in order to turn over their cities to Muslims. They knew they would get a more tolerant ruler (not that anybody is claiming Arab invaders were proto-hippies, just often better than the alternative)
Garrib
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Garrib »

One of my favorite undergrad courses was a religious studies class about Islam - covering its history, beliefs, various practices, reform movements, and modern issues. The class was taught by one of my favorite professor's, a great political scientist/academic and also a practicing Muslim. There were many students at the school who were practicing muslims - many of the girls wearing hijabs. I never once had a negative interaction or experience with any muslim student or faculty member. In fact, I had many positive and friendly encounters. I did, however, (not infrequently) overhear non-muslims making derogatory and disparaging comments about Islam.

There is religious extremism in the world, and unfortunately a lot of violence is perpetrated by people who call themselves muslims- but let us not forget that most of the victims of that extremism are also muslims. And let us not lose sight of the fact that there are economic, ethnic, and political reasons for extremism as well religious ones.

It is one thing to disagree with certain views/beliefs/practices/values, or to offer a critique of religious ideas - but it is quite another thing to be bigoted against or to condemn an entire religion and all of its adherents; especially without considering the internal diversity of the religion and other factors.

I basically agree with the Bhikkhu's opinion, if it can be expressed in this way - there are places in the world where people who convert from Islam to another religion should be very careful about being open about their religious convictions. But this is not true in all cases - and we should not let the fact that it is true in others give rise to bigotry and enmity in our hearts.
Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Buddha Vacana »

In his documentary Hypernormalisation, Adam Curtis explains how the use of Muslim faith to radicalize and then use people as landmine fodder or kamikazes which is fueling islamophobia arose some time in the 70s.

It is a trite, but regarding the topic of this thread, religious freedom is an important if not fundamental part of general human well-being, and we can only wish that all human beings could enjoy it.
DooDoot wrote:If you don't want to be a Muslim in Malaysia then it might be wise & respectful to emigrate given societies do often require some kind of core culture to remain sustainable.
Are you suggesting that Malays who wish to stop being Muslims should move to some other country so as to maintain some (impossible) religious homogeneity in Malaysia?
SarathW
Posts: 21240
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by SarathW »

Islam is not the same as Buddhism because it does have a political component
Do you mean Buddhism is a political ideology like capitalism and communism
or
Islam is a political ideology like capitalism and communism?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by DooDoot »

SarathW wrote:Islam is a political ideology like capitalism and communism?
Capitalism and communism appear to be economic ideologies, which affect politics. Both appear to be forms of economic dictatorship because, when capitalism is unregulated, it leads to monopoly or oligarchy. 'Capitalism' is not necessarily 'free enterprise' or 'fair trade' or 'democracy'. The common correlation between capitalism & democracy I think is erroneous. The very formation of capitalism was from feudal dictatorship. That billionaires are now comprising of the US govt (rather than appointing puppets or proxies, such as Obama) shows how far the US is moving in the direction of economic dictatorship ('plutocracy'); where a president personally decides, on a whim of opinion based on tears from his daughter & the bliss of chocolate cake, to give an order to fire 59 missiles into another country. But capitalism and communism are not 100% political ideologies because they have no rules about crime & punishment in respect to non-economic human behaviour.

Islam is a political ideology because its tenants are about ruling a nation or society, including having laws about crime & punishment, the same as any other nation. All nations have legal systems with punishments for murder, theft, defamation, drug taking & drug trafficking and most used to have punishments for adultery, including fault in divorce. Buddhism only recommends certain behaviours and has no recommendations for punishment and no aspirations for national sovereignty. Therefore, Buddhism is not inherently a political system (even though its value can influence a political system).

I would speculate the original Muslims believed they were bringing a better civilisation to the world; which for many small groups was actually the reality (as has been posted by others on this thread). This is similar to the USA which claims to want to liberate nations (but actually destroys nations).
Buddha Vacana wrote:Are you suggesting that Malays who wish to stop being Muslims should move to some other country so as to maintain some (impossible) religious homogeneity in Malaysia?
Wasn't it your good self that recently wrote elsewhere that you & others appreciate a core & stable culture? I think it is religious or moral values (rather than race or superficial identity group) that historically create a stable culture. For example, when Trump won the election & the left-wing were rioting shows these people do not believe in democracy. They believe in a different culture. When I have travelled in Muslim cultures, I ensure I dress & behave in ways that are suitable to that culture. Generally, interest in Christianity (generally Protestant) by a Muslim is a sign of less moral values; similar to Christians who are interested in Western (liberal) Buddhism. Once core & universal morals break-down, societies break down. For example, when Buddhists lament the decline of Buddhism in Thailand or Sri Lanka, this is usually due to the introduction of new cultures (such Western corporate liberalism). At least this is how a conservative would view things.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Buddha Vacana »

DooDoot wrote: Wasn't it your good self that recently wrote elsewhere that you & others appreciate a core & stable culture?
I don't think so. That doesn't sound like something I would write at all. Can you quote me saying so?
DooDoot wrote: I think it is religious or moral values (rather than race or superficial identity group) that historically create a stable culture.
Only if those values are the 5 precepts and tolerance. Also, people having these characteristic but different religions can coexist peacefully. Why on earth people would be by principle unable to mix and live together?
DooDoot wrote: For example, when Trump won the election & the left-wing were rioting shows these people do not believe in democracy.
Sorry, but that is a non-sequitur. The USA are not an actual democracy, and people who actually believe in democracy call for changing that fundamentally corrupt system.
DooDoot wrote: Generally, interest in Christianity (generally Protestant) by a Muslim is a sign of less moral values; similar to Christians who are interested in Western (liberal) Buddhism.
What??? :shock:
DooDoot wrote: when Buddhists lament the decline of Buddhism in Thailand or Sri Lanka, this is usually due to the introduction of new cultures (such Western corporate liberalism)
.
What??? :shock:
DooDoot wrote: At least this is how a conservative would view things.
I guess that explains a lot
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by binocular »

Buddha Vacana wrote:
DooDoot wrote:I think it is religious or moral values (rather than race or superficial identity group) that historically create a stable culture.
Only if those values are the 5 precepts and tolerance. Also, people having these characteristic but different religions can coexist peacefully. Why on earth people would be by principle unable to mix and live together?
It is not possible to peacefully coexist with someone who belives you're wrong about something that they consider important. Even if externally, the two parties may live very similar lifestyles, as long as their motivations for living those lifestyles differ, they won't be able to peacefully coexist.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by DooDoot »

Buddha Vacana wrote:I don't think so. That doesn't sound like something I would write at all. Can you quote me saying so?
OK. I was mistaken.
Only if those values are the 5 precepts and tolerance. Also, people having these characteristic but different religions can coexist peacefully. Why on earth people would be by principle unable to mix and live together?
That is what I meant. Similar values, such as 5 precepts. As for 'tolerance', this is contrary to the five precepts. 'Tolerance' is a practise for individual reformation or liberation but not really a political value. Society does not 'tolerate' murderers, thieves, rapists, drug dealers & other criminals. Buddhist teaches 'tolerance' because it is transcendent or apocalyptic. The core essence of Buddhism is not clinging to anything in the world. This is contrary to Islam, which aims, even if misguided, to create a sustainable society & world.
Sorry, but that is a non-sequitur. The USA are not an actual democracy, and people who actually believe in democracy call for changing that fundamentally corrupt system.
Your view here supports what I wrote, namely, the USA may be a divided culture because some believe in democracy & others do not. These are different cultures.
What??? :shock:
:stirthepot: :jumping:
DooDoot wrote: when Buddhists lament the decline of Buddhism in Thailand or Sri Lanka, this is usually due to the introduction of new cultures (such Western corporate liberalism)
.
What??? :shock:
Certainly. Many articles about the decline of Thai Buddhism.
I guess that explains a lot
It explains a lot about Buddhism, which as a path of practise is obviously 'conservative'. Five, eight, ten, 227 precepts and 10 or 37 wholesome kammas are obviously 'conservative'. Funny & strange the things Western Buddhists are cheer-leading for these days.

Islam, like Judaism, is about kammic law. Buddhism goes beyond kammic law because it is essentially transcendent or apocolyptic.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by DooDoot »

binocular wrote:It is not possible to peacefully coexist with someone who belives you're wrong about something that they consider important. Even if externally, the two parties may live very similar lifestyles, as long as their motivations for living those lifestyles differ, they won't be able to peacefully coexist.
But they actually don't live very similar lifestyles. A Christian & Muslim wants to exterminate Buddhists because Buddhists are atheists or polytheists is actually not following their own religion. Where does the New Testament or Koran say to wantonly exterminate people due to difference of religion? (For example, the wars & enemies depicted in the Koran, including 'The Polytheists', are said to be related to Arabian groups/tribes at war against the Muslims http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com.au/ ... ms-to.html). Therefore, there are two cultures here: Xtians, Muslims & Buddhists who follow their religious tenants and Xtians, Muslims & Buddhists who don't. Practitioners vs non-practitioners. Buddhism teaches to view things in terms of 'kamma' rather than 'identity'. Buddha taught a Brahman by family birth that broke moral precepts & was defiled was not a Brahman (holy man). I think Buddhism teaches to not get sucked into the delusion of 'identity politics', such includes stereotyping Muslim-identity either positively or negatively.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Buddha Vacana »

DooDoot wrote:As for 'tolerance', this is contrary to the five precepts. 'Tolerance' is a practise for individual reformation or liberation but not really a political value. Society does not 'tolerate' murderers, thieves, rapists, drug dealers & other criminals.
We are talking about tolerating people with different cultures, like different clothing, different food, different religion, different language... why are you even bringing crime into the mix? There are criminals from all religions and in all societies, you don't need to mix different cultures for that. But surely some will try to put the blame on people who are not in their in-group.
DooDoot wrote: Buddhist teaches 'tolerance' because it is transcendent or apocalyptic.
What?? Buddhism is "apocalyptic"?
DooDoot wrote:
DooDoot wrote: For example, when Trump won the election & the left-wing were rioting shows these people do not believe in democracy.
Sorry, but that is a non-sequitur. The USA are not an actual democracy, and people who actually believe in democracy call for changing that fundamentally corrupt system.
Your view here supports what I wrote, namely, the USA may be a divided culture because some believe in democracy & others do not. These are different cultures.
There is no single-eyebrow-raising emoji here, but that's the feeling. In a country of several hundreds of millions of inhabitants, you find some people disagreeing with one another. You're never going to have everybody in agreement even if they were all from the same cultural background. It's just a fact of life.

DooDoot wrote:
DooDoot wrote: Generally, interest in Christianity (generally Protestant) by a Muslim is a sign of less moral values; similar to Christians who are interested in Western (liberal) Buddhism.
What??? :shock:
:stirthepot: :jumping:
I am not sure you actually mean what the words above say.

DooDoot wrote:
DooDoot wrote: when Buddhists lament the decline of Buddhism in Thailand or Sri Lanka, this is usually due to the introduction of new cultures (such Western corporate liberalism)
.
What??? :shock:
Certainly. Many articles about the decline of Thai Buddhism.
I can believe there are articles contending that. It doesn't make it more accurate. There have certainly been some influence but Buddhists have certainly not waited on westerners to show up to become corrupt.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by DooDoot »

Buddha Vacana wrote:We are talking about tolerating people with different cultures, like different clothing, different food, different religion, different language... why are you even bringing crime into the mix? There are criminals from all religions and in all societies, you don't need to mix different cultures for that. But surely some will try to put the blame on people who are not in their in-group..
Has "tolerance" become a "holy word"? Why must socially destructive sub-cultures, be they drug taking, pornography or predatory corporate economics be tolerated? What is this "tolerance" business? Did the Buddha tolerate harmful behaviours in his community? Buddha tolerated those things he could not control, which included the bad behaviour of outsiders. But this tolerance is unrelated to what can be controlled or aimed for in a community.

I am saying criminals are a different culture. I am redefining culture. People of different clothing, food, language & even religion are not really a different culture when they share the same moral values. When Italians, Greeks, Christian Arabs, Germans, Yugoslavs, Swedes, etc, flooded into white-British-Irish-Australia after WW2, this did not cause social chaos because all shared Christian culture. But people who claim to be of the same religion but some are criminals & some are not are obviously people of a different culture.

I am trying to break down identity politics, such as when people of a certain race commit a crime and those opposing those crimes are called 'racists'. Material or physical attributes do not determine 'culture'. 'Culture' is something that gels or binds social harmony. Obviously, all of the social disharmony & social debate is due to different cultures.

While I am not preaching intolerance, I am just pointing out how tolerance only assists spiritual liberation but does not really assist social harmony. Too much tolerance seems to create social chaos, which is why I called 100% tolerance 'apocalyptic'. The teachings of liberation in Buddhism are distinguished from the teachings of mere morality (MN 117).
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Caodemarte »

binocular wrote:....
It is not possible to peacefully coexist with someone who belives you're wrong about something that they consider important. Even if externally, the two parties may live very similar lifestyles, as long as their motivations for living those lifestyles differ, they won't be able to peacefully coexist.
And yet they do as that is the definition of tolerance. I live surrounded by conservative Christian churches, mosques, Buddhist temples, Hindu temples, and a variety of political groups. I sincerely hope that they all continue to peacefully coexist with me.
Post Reply