Will certain Buddhists on DW please stop disparaging other faiths

[DNS]

Read the first paragraph in the first post of this thread
.....

I removed that thread (Muhammad - worthy of respect) from view for now, maybe permanently. Most of the team is away right now, so I went ahead and removed it and later it might get cleaned up and return or it just might stay away permanently.

[Mr Man]

Thank you David. You might want to have a look at this thread as well (even though it is very old).

viewtopic.php?t=4713

[perkele]

I don't think it is generally a good idea to delete threads or make them invisible for eternity in most cases.

Thank you David. You might want to have a look at this thread as well (even though it is very old).

viewtopic.php?t=4713

There was discussion, disparagement, disagreement and so on in that thread... And it was locked in the end.
Do you believe this dark chapter from the past should be hidden away? If so, why?
I think reading such old discussions, no matter what the outcome, can be informative and possibly helpful at times.

Of course, I am not the boss here. That's just my opinion.

[Mr Man]

I don't think it is generally a good idea to delete threads or make them invisible for eternity in most cases.

Thank you David. You might want to have a look at this thread as well (even though it is very old).

viewtopic.php?t=4713

There was discussion, disparagement, disagreement and so on in that thread... And it was locked in the end.
Do you believe this dark chapter from the past should be hidden away? If so, why?
I think reading such old discussions, no matter what the outcome, can be informative and possibly helpful at times.

Of course, I am not the boss here. That's just my opinion.

Hi perkele
I think specifically the first post from Modus.Ponens (& conected posts) are not appropriate, offensive and disrespectful and should have been removed at the time and should be removed now.

[perkele]

Hi perkele
I think specifically the first post from Modus.Ponens (& conected posts) are not appropriate, offensive and disrespectful and should have been removed at the time and should be removed now.

I don't see what sense that would make. That the mentioned post was inappropriate, offensive and disrespectful has been well pointed out in the thread.
People can say offensive and inappropriate things, and they can be called out for it, and discussions evolve in ways good, bad or ugly, and when moderators find it too hard to deal with them anymore they may shut them down. That's how it seems to work. I don't think it's a bad thing to be able to see still in hindsight what has happened. Why should this or that particular post from the past be cut out of history, especially when it has been answered to, and in this case, duly rebuked?
I don't see the advantage of cleaning up the traces of what others have said far back in the past.

But anyway, that is not my job, and I'm glad about it.

[Modus.Ponens]

Following is a suggested template for reporting anti-Islam posts and other posts which disparage other faiths:

Provision 2.d. of the TOS on this forum prohibits, among other things: "Unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or traditions." This post and other similar posts by this Member violate TOS by making unsubstantiated allegations against the tradition of Islam.

I encourage Members to speak out.

I have no problem with this rule. The claims about Muhammad are very well substantiated, because they are backed up by the canonical scriptures of islam. There is no need to be inflamatory because this is a buddhist forum and because incendiary style is counterproductive. But how do you tell the truth about Muhammad without upseting some people, even by just quoting canonical sources? That is not possible, unfortunately.

This should not be confused with endorsement of religious persecution. This should not be confused with characterizing muslims as if they are all the same as Muhammad, or saying that they're all evil, because clearly they are not. In fact, there should be a clear distinction between fundamentalists and non fundamentalist muslims, so that we can empower the reform movement against the fundamentalists. That way, we can hope muslim women will be able to have independent lives some day, and not be forced to marry, not have their genitals mutilated as children, not be stoned to death for the crime of being raped. We can hope muslim homossexuals will not be killed for who they like, exmuslims not to be murdered, moderate muslims not be killed by fundamentalist muslims, etc.

The only way this can happen is if the islamic doctrines that encourage these crimes are criticized. And it includes a severe criticism of Muhammad as a (bad) moral example for today's world. If you want to prevent others from reading unpleasant truths, then you are leaving the minorities within the muslim minority to rot under the islamofascist regimes and/or laws. Thus, you cannot claim that your position is moral and mine isn't, because it is the opposite. I could make an unfortunately long list of the things that ofend me about islam and the apologists for islamic fundamentalism. So, even then, your ofense would not surpass mine.

Substantiate your defense of Muhammad, or accept the criticism of Muhammad as statement of fact, and not disparagement.

[perkele]

so that we can empower the reform movement against the fundamentalists

Seriously? A Buddhist forum to empower the reform movement against fundamentalist Islamism? We should reform Islam?

I really don't think many muslims would listen to buddhists' ideas on how to reform their religion on some internet forum.

And as much justified criticism of Islam or of Mohammed or whatever aspect of muslim faith there may be, I fail to see how it is relevant for buddhists for the most part. To me it is mostly just noise.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Just a few comments...

I'm not particularly interested in other religions, but when (as has been pointed out above) it is written into the scriptures of certain religions that infidels (i.e. most people on Earth) are to be killed, is it somehow "lacking in compassion" or "intolerant" to state that such a view is unacceptable? Did the Buddha not speak out against Wrong View, especially when it was so diabolical and genocidal?

Personally, what I would ask people to do is to clearly differentiate between:

Islam - the doctrine, the scripture, the ideas
Muslims - followers of Islam
Islamists - those who wish to force Islam on the world

-------------------------
If you're inclined to criticize...

Criticize Islam dispassionately as you would criticize any other ideology or view. Try to use logic, reason, sources etc. in order to make a cohesive argument.

Similarly, call out Islamists for their extremism, violence, intolerance of infidels and efforts to enforce the brutality of Sharia Law on others.

Recognize that most Muslims are not Islamists, and just want to live a peaceful and happy life, like you.

Please, do not criticize Muslims in toto. Each person should be judged by their own actions, not those of others who share the same label.


If you're inclined to complain about the criticism...

Recognize the distinctions between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. Do not wilfully conflate them in order to smear your opponent as Islamophobic.

Do not prove your opponents views about censorship of criticism of Islam right, by using ad-hominem labels in an attempt to shut down uncomfortable discussion.

Acknowledge that the majority of victims of Islam are actually Muslims. If you weren't aware of that, let it sink in for a few moments before you lash out at someone for being critical of Islam.
-------------------------

Just as it is throughout the forum "play the ball, not the man".

To the critics, criticise Islam, not Muslims.
To the critics of the critics, refute the arguments, and don't play identity politics by smearing the individual for expressing a view that you don't like.
To all, please report actual TOS violations. Please don't weaponize the function in an attempt to silence perspectives that you personally disagree with.

Metta,
Paul.

[Mr Man]

I don't see what sense that would make. That the mentioned post was inappropriate, offensive and disrespectful has been well pointed out in the thread.
People can say offensive and inappropriate things, and they can be called out for it, and discussions evolve in ways good, bad or ugly, and when moderators find it too hard to deal with them anymore they may shut them down. That's how it seems to work. I don't think it's a bad thing to be able to see still in hindsight what has happened. Why should this or that particular post from the past be cut out of history, especially when it has been answered to, and in this case, duly rebuked?
I don't see the advantage of cleaning up the traces of what others have said far back in the past.

But anyway, that is not my job, and I'm glad about it.

In principle I kind of agree with you but in practice no. Sometimes things should be cleaned up, in my opinion, and not everything that is said needs to stay around forever for everyone.

But likewise it's not my call.

[pilgrim]

They self-identify as Buddhists.

Does that make them Buddhists?

Of course. A person may behave badly, he may break the precepts, he may not practise well. But that does not forfeit his refuge. The path is open to all.

"Venerable sir, in what way is one a lay follower?"

"Mahanama, inasmuch as one has gone to the Buddha for refuge, has gone to the Dhamma for refuge, has gone to the Sangha for refuge; in that way, Mahanama, one is a lay follower."

"Then, venerable sir, in what way is a lay follower virtuous?"

"Mahanama, inasmuch as a lay follower abstains from destroying living beings; abstains from taking what is not given; abstains from sexual misconduct; abstains from lying; and abstains from wine, liquor and intoxicants that are causes for heedlessness; in that way, Mahanama, a lay follower is virtuous."
~ Mahanama sutta, AN 8.25

[L.N.]

Following is a suggested template for reporting anti-Islam posts and other posts which disparage other faiths:

Provision 2.d. of the TOS on this forum prohibits, among other things: "Unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or traditions." This post and other similar posts by this Member violate TOS by making unsubstantiated allegations against the tradition of Islam.

I encourage Members to speak out.

I have no problem with this rule. The claims about Muhammad are very well substantiated, because they are backed up by the canonical scriptures of islam. There is no need to be inflamatory because this is a buddhist forum and because incendiary style is counterproductive. But how do you tell the truth about Muhammad without upseting some people, even by just quoting canonical sources? That is not possible, unfortunately.

It seems very inappropriate to "tell the truth about Muhammad" in the manner which has been done here, using for substantiation facts which may be in dispute, with the ultimate goal of disparaging Islam. This is not a discussion of Dhamma. I think "connections with other paths" contemplates finding where there are points of connection, not how we can put down other faiths.

This should not be confused with endorsement of religious persecution. This should not be confused with characterizing muslims as if they are all the same as Muhammad, or saying that they're all evil, because clearly they are not.

When there is a thread about the perfection of Rohingya Muslims and Buddhists start talking about all the excuses for why such persecution might be justified (e.g., the Rohingya's past-life culpability) and denying that Buddhists are carrying out the persecution, then comments are an implicit endorsement of religious persecution.

... The only way this can happen is if the islamic doctrines that encourage these crimes are criticized. And it includes a severe criticism of Muhammad as a (bad) moral example for today's world.

I am sorry if this offends, but the comment is ignorant. There is good and bad in any presentation of one's faith (as evidenced here on DW by the Buddhist "proselytizers" who sometimes come out of the woodwork), but one visit to your neighborhood mosque may help you to realize that any perceived examples of rape or pedophile or the other absurdities which have been pointed out here on DW as the truth about Muhammed are not the examples which Muslims in general follow. The discussions here on DW have crossed the line over, and over, and over again into something ugly, particularly at a time when Muslims are persecuted at the hands of self-identified Buddhists. We should be setting a better example here.

If you want to prevent others from reading unpleasant truths, then you are leaving the minorities within the muslim minority to rot under the islamofascist regimes and/or laws.

Disparaging Islam (and Christianity, and Bahai, among perhaps other faiths) on a Buddhist discussion forum devoted to Dhamma certainly will not help these individuals. To me it sounds more like an excuse for Islam-bashing.

Thus, you cannot claim that your position is moral and mine isn't, because it is the opposite.

I have not made such a claim.

I could make an unfortunately long list of the things that ofend me about islam and the apologists for islamic fundamentalism. So, even then, your ofense would not surpass mine.

And none of your long list should have any place on a Buddhist forum devoted to discussion of Dhamma. We should create an environment which is welcoming to Muslims who may wish to hear the Dhamma. We certainly have not done this at DW.

Substantiate your defense of Muhammad, or accept the criticism of Muhammad as statement of fact, and not disparagement.

I decline to do either. The select and distorted facts you and others choose to identify here in this Dhamma forum are inappropriate, in my opinion. There are other more appropriate avenues for this.

[L.N.]

All good advice, retrofuturist/Paul.

If you're inclined to complain about the criticism...

Recognize the distinctions between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. Do not wilfully conflate them in order to smear your opponent as Islamophobic.

Who has engaged in such conflation in order to smear others? I have not seen this done, but perhaps I missed it.

Do not prove your opponents views about censorship of criticism of Islam right, by using ad-hominem labels in an attempt to shut down uncomfortable discussion.

I also have not seen this done, but perhaps I missed it.

Acknowledge that the majority of victims of Islam are actually Muslims. If you weren't aware of that, let it sink in for a few moments before you lash out at someone for being critical of Islam.

We are all victims when we allow unjust and hurtful speech to go unanswered. I would love to is Muslims join the Dhamma conversation here and offer their perspective, but I image most would rather stay away, given the tone which has been set here. It is very unfortunate for a Forum devoted to Dhamma discussion.

Just as it is throughout the forum "play the ball, not the man".

Or the woman.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings L.N.,

Who has engaged in such conflation in order to smear others? I have not seen this done, but perhaps I missed it.

It's a regular occurrence, especially when Islam and politics are discussed. I'm speaking generally here, not about anyone in particular - more the general propensity for people to emotionally lash out, conflate moderate positions with extreme ones, and expect authorities to squash expressions of speech that offend their feelings and sensibilities.

We are all victims when we allow unjust and hurtful speech to go unanswered.

We are all victims when exerting authority in the name of protecting people's feelings is prioritised over basic human rights, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech.

I would love to is Muslims join the Dhamma conversation here and offer their perspective, but I image most would rather stay away, given the tone which has been set here. It is very unfortunate for a Forum devoted to Dhamma discussion.

And the teachings of Islam are "very unfortunate", when assessed against the Buddha's teachings. So what of it?... should such truth be shut down, lest it might offend these hypothetical Muslims who you think might actually want to talk about the Dhamma?

Just as it is throughout the forum "play the ball, not the man".

Or the woman.

Sure, if you wish to suck all good will out of life through a crusade of reforming idioms in the name of political correctness.

Metta,
Paul.

[Pseudobabble]

Greetings,

Just a few comments...

I'm not particularly interested in other religions, but when (as has been pointed out above) it is written into the scriptures of certain religions that infidels (i.e. most people on Earth) are to be killed, is it somehow "lacking in compassion" or "intolerant" to state that such a view is unacceptable? Did the Buddha not speak out against Wrong View, especially when it was so diabolical and genocidal?

Personally, what I would ask people to do is to clearly differentiate between:

Islam - the doctrine, the scripture, the ideas
Muslims - followers of Islam
Islamists - those who wish to force Islam on the world

-------------------------
If you're inclined to criticize...

Criticize Islam dispassionately as you would criticize any other ideology or view. Try to use logic, reason, sources etc. in order to make a cohesive argument.

Similarly, call out Islamists for their extremism, violence, intolerance of infidels and efforts to enforce the brutality of Sharia Law on others.

Recognize that most Muslims are not Islamists, and just want to live a peaceful and happy life, like you.

Please, do not criticize Muslims in toto. Each person should be judged by their own actions, not those of others who share the same label.


If you're inclined to complain about the criticism...

Recognize the distinctions between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. Do not wilfully conflate them in order to smear your opponent as Islamophobic.

Do not prove your opponents views about censorship of criticism of Islam right, by using ad-hominem labels in an attempt to shut down uncomfortable discussion.

Acknowledge that the majority of victims of Islam are actually Muslims. If you weren't aware of that, let it sink in for a few moments before you lash out at someone for being critical of Islam.
-------------------------

Just as it is throughout the forum "play the ball, not the man".

To the critics, criticise Islam, not Muslims.
To the critics of the critics, refute the arguments, and don't play identity politics by smearing the individual for expressing a view that you don't like.
To all, please report actual TOS violations. Please don't weaponize the function in an attempt to silence perspectives that you personally disagree with.

Metta,
Paul.

[L.N.]

And the teachings of Islam are "very unfortunate", when assessed against the Buddha's teachings. So what of it?... should such truth be shut down, lest it might offend these hypothetical Muslims who you think might actually want to talk about the Dhamma?

This is not a black-and-white choice between no discussion versus unfettered Islam-bashing. As Buddhists on a Buddhist discussion forum, I believe it is not our place to dismiss all the the teachings of Islam as "very unfortunate." I understand you disagree with this, and this is perhaps why you have allowed highly offensive commentary about Islam.

Just as it is throughout the forum "play the ball, not the man".

Or the woman.

Sure, if you wish to suck all good will out of life through a crusade of reforming idioms in the name of political correctness.

Since when is gender equality and women's empowerment a question of "political correctness"? Of course you are welcome to continue to use gender-biased idioms if you wish. But being mindful of the way men speak about women certainly is not an effort to "suck all good will out of life," as you put it (rather disturbingly). I get it that Buddhism is traditionally male-dominated.

I have noticed that most people who employ the term "political correctness" do it for the purpose of seeking empowerment to say things which are offensive or potentially offensive. I understand very well that somehow, perhaps by virtue of some twisted understanding of "anatta," many Buddhists here feel they bear no personal responsibility for the effect their words might have on others.

So we can expect the Islam-bashing to continue then, correct?