Convertion of muslims

[DooDoot]

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???

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???

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.

[DooDoot]

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.

[Buddha Vacana]

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.

Buddhist teaches 'tolerance' because it is transcendent or apocalyptic.

What?? Buddhism is "apocalyptic"?

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.

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???

I am not sure you actually mean what the words above say.

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???

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.

[DooDoot]

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).

[Caodemarte]

....
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.

[binocular]

....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.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "tolerance" and "peacefully coexist."

In one way, it is possible to "peacefully coexist" with someone whom one belives to be wrong in some important way -- provided that all parties involved are proud or indifferent enough towards eachother. That then externally looks like "tolerance." This is how, on principle, it is possible that one despises another to the core, but can still "peacefully coexist" with them. The question is, for how long, and in what circumstances.

I think that actual peaceful coexistence requires a lot more than just an external, superficial absence of intense conflict.

I live surrounded by conservative Christian churches, mosques, Buddhist temples, Hindu temples, and a variety of political groups.

But how Christian are those Christians; how Muslim those Muslims, how Buddhist those Buddhists, how Hindu those Hindus; etc.?
How consistently do they keep the precepts of their respective religions?

[Caodemarte]

....Well, it depends on what you mean by "tolerance" and "peacefully coexist."

In one way, it is possible to "peacefully coexist" with someone whom one belives to be wrong in some important way -- provided that all parties involved are proud or indifferent enough towards eachother. That then externally looks like "tolerance." This is how, on principle, it is possible that one despises another to the core, but can still "peacefully coexist" with them. The question is, for how long, and in what circumstances.

I think that actual peaceful coexistence requires a lot more than just an external, superficial absence of intense conflict.

I live surrounded by conservative Christian churches, mosques, Buddhist temples, Hindu temples, and a variety of political groups.

But how Christian are those Christians; how Muslim those Muslims, how Buddhist those Buddhists, how Hindu those Hindus; etc.?
How consistently do they keep the precepts of their respective religions?

Having lived in my current region when it was pretty much all Protestant Christian with a distinct animus towards Catholics and very violent, I will gladly accept an abscence of people trying to kill me. Behavior can be legislated and that is all that can be required or enforced.

That said, I doubt very much that anybody currently hates or despises me because of my religion. Far from being indifferent, proud, or hostile many want to save me and as long as they are polite and non-threatening about it that's fine. I will accept anyone's good wishes. By the way, the Buddhists are really Buddhists, the Hindus really Hindu, etc. who all seem to follow the precepts of their churches or temple quite seriously. I may not agree with the teachings of local fundamentalist Christian church next to the mosque and Hindu temple, but there is no external sign that they don't take their own interpretations of their own scriptures seriously.

[binocular]

Having lived in my current region when it was pretty much all Protestant Christian with a distinct animus towards Catholics and very violent, I will gladly accept an abscence of people trying to kill me. Behavior can be legislated and that is all that can be required or enforced.
/.../
That said, I doubt very much that anybody currently hates or despises me because of my religion.

Then you haven't learned anything yet from the persecution of Jews in pre-WWII Germany. It all started out with contempt for Jews being something acceptable.

[Caodemarte]

....
Having lived in my current region when it was pretty much all Protestant Christian with a distinct animus towards Catholics and very violent, I will gladly accept an abscence of people trying to kill me. Behavior can be legislated and that is all that can be required or enforced......That said, I doubt very much that anybody currently hates or despises me because of my religion. Far from being indifferent, proud, or hostile many want to save me and as long as they are polite and non-threatening about it that's fine. I will accept anyone's good wishes.

....
Then you haven't learned anything yet from the persecution of Jews in pre-WWII Germany. It all started out with contempt for Jews being something acceptable.

???????????

[khemindas]

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.

I quite disagree with you, I think your knowledge of Islam is very basic, is not the same as for other religions. In Islam you can't steal from muslim, or kill muslim, but you can steal from Kafir, or kill Kafir in some situation. I think you should study both Quran and Sunnah (Hadith) first than you can see real picture.

[Bundokji]

but you can steal from Kafir

Where did you get this from if i may ask?

[Coëmgenu]

but you can steal from Kafir

Where did you get this from if i may ask?

The quote used to justify this, by some (apparently), is:

“So enjoy what you took as booty; the spoils are lawful and good”– Koran 8:69

Obviously this required some "interpretation" to get "you can steal from kafirs". I googled it, and a certain Anwar al-Awlaki (according to this somewhat questionable article, from which I got that first quote from the Koran) uses this quote to justify, it seems, stealing from any "kafir" .

If you go back to 8:61-62 we get: "(61) And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing. (62) But if they intend to deceive you - then sufficient for you is Allah . It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers" <-- so I fail to see the reasoning presented in the article. Then again, I am a foreigner to the tradition in question, but it seems this is specifically referring to war in which the non-muslims are the aggressors. There is still the issue of advocating for "just war", that has its own well-warranted debate, but its hardly saying anyone can steal from any kafir any time.

[binocular]

but you can steal from Kafir

Where did you get this from if i may ask?

The quote used to justify this, by some (apparently), is:

“So enjoy what you took as booty; the spoils are lawful and good”– Koran 8:69

It's not surprising, though. Theists tend to see themselves as fully empowered representatives of God on earth.

If a theistic preacher comes to your property to preach to you, and you send them away, saying, "Get off my land!", prepare to be replied with something like, "No, this is God's land, not yours. I am acting in God's name, so I can be here."

[Coëmgenu]

"No, this is God's land, not yours. I am acting in God's name, so I can be here."

I've politely turned away Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons a few times before and never got such a reaction!

[Bundokji]

but you can steal from Kafir

Where did you get this from if i may ask?

The quote used to justify this, by some (apparently), is:

“So enjoy what you took as booty; the spoils are lawful and good”– Koran 8:69

Obviously this required some "interpretation" to get "you can steal from kafirs". I googled it, and a certain Anwar al-Awlaki (according to this somewhat questionable article, from which I got that first quote from the Koran) uses this quote to justify, it seems, stealing from any "kafir" .

If you go back to 8:61-62 we get: "(61) And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing. (62) But if they intend to deceive you - then sufficient for you is Allah . It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers" <-- so I fail to see the reasoning presented in the article. Then again, I am a foreigner to the tradition in question, but it seems this is specifically referring to war in which the non-muslims are the aggressors. There is still the issue of advocating for "just war", that has its own well-warranted debate, but its hardly saying anyone can steal from any kafir any time.

Spoils of war is not stealing. And as you said, its not only the article that is questionable, but the whole website does not seem very credible.

Here is a website where people get Fatwas

https://islamqa.info/en/14367