All Comments (72)

How exactly is Buddhism violent?

himward spurflower setibo gaslight deuteronomy antilocapra decuple homiletically
Brokers Access Corporation
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9906/20/malaysia.01/index.html

"The great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights . . . not only for acquiescence in poverty, inequality, exploitation and oppression, but also for enthusiastic justifications for slavery, persecution, abandonment of small children, torture, and genocide. . . . Moreover, religion enshrined hierarchy, authority, and inequality. . . . It was the age of equality that brought about the disappearance of such religious appurtenances as the auto-da-fe and burning at the stake."
Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Some thoughts for self-reflection on religion:

“Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven.” Mark Twain

Professor Susan Maneck wrote:

"Someone who has studied Islam and doesn't bear the same animosity towards it as you obviously do."

Not at all. You may have memorized the heap of information, but you have not studied crtically as your responses show the lack of any critical knowledge on Islam. Its like a devotee's faith that is blind. (More on this below.)

"Actually, you were the one who introduced the term, not me. From the context it seems you were talking about what I would call Islamism, which is the use of Islam as a political ideology. "

Islam is a theocracy. So, I cannot see how you would distinguish between the "religion" and "political" aspects. I did not introduce the term. Its so common, that I would really have a hard time stating who was the first author in whose book I read it. Maybe, it was Amir Taheri's book HOLY TERROR: THE INSIDE STORY OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM. (Available at http://www.amazon.com) Did you even know that such a book existed ? (I doubt it, but still would grant you the last word.)

"If they are truly Islamic scholars as you claim you should be able to tell us where they received their ijazeh. As for me proving they are *not* Islamic scholars either in the traditional sense or in the academic sense, it is not possible to prove a non-event."

You are really adept in evasive responses. Read the info in the link I posted about Maudoodi and Qutb. It does not matter about their formal degrees (Islamic education). What matters most is their influence on successive generations of Islamic thought and knowledge. Just because someone does not formally have a degree, does not imply the influence that the person will not have any influence on the scholarship. Omar Abdel Rahman, who has a PhD in Islamic education from Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt has held Qutb and Maudoodi in highest esteem. He did not dismiss them because of lack of "Ijazeh" or whatever. (Of course, you can always dismiss Rahman as a terrorist, but that does not mean that Maudoodi and Qutb are not reckoned as scholars with large following.) My suggestion, please try getting such a large following as Qutb and/or Maudoodi and then you would sound credible in your remarks against them.

Maybe you should seek help in understanding such viewpoints.

Thus, it is not a "non-event" like you try to deflect criticism, but I would contend that your attitude in trivializing such issues, on the grounds of some technicality, does come across as a joke. Do your students take you seriously ? Will they take you seriously after they read these exchanges ?

"Why would a serious academic or even a non-academic intellectual be looking a secondary source to find out what the Qur'an says? "

If serious academics (like yourself) are reluctant to know about other viewpoints, then I have no respect for your so-called self-proclaimed scholarship. You, apparently, have not read Sam Harris's book, and particularly chapter 4, but have this strange attitude of rejecting it outright, because it is a "secondary source" (?). This attitude speaks volumes on your own academic integrity.

Sam Harris quoted from Abdullah's Yusuf Ali's (English) translations of the Quran, FYI. If that translation is a "secondary source" and hence to be dismissed, then you must go to where you have received your "Ijazeh" or whatever and ask your teachers (?) regarding the validity of source.

" Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

[Quran(009:029), Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation]

"Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

[Quran (009:029), Muhammad William Marmaduke Pickthall's translation]

Fighting to proselytize (Jihad in the way of Allah) ? No ? Secondary sources (translations) ?

Chatterjee wrote:

"And you think that you have some credible authority about setting metrics for Islamic scholarship?"

Nope. I just know who the credible authorities are anJust who do you think you are ?

"Just who do you think you are?"

Someone who has studied Islam and doesn't bear the same animosity towards it as you obviously do.

"Just how do you define radical Islam?"

Actually, you were the one who introduced the term, not me. From the context it seems you were talking about what I would call Islamism, which is the use of Islam as a political ideology.

"Just what proof you have to claim that Maudoodi and Qutb are not Islamic scholars but radical howlers?"

If they are truly Islamic scholars as you claim you should be able to tell us where they received their ijazeh. As for me proving they are *not* Islamic scholars either in the traditional sense or in the academic sense, it is not possible to prove a non-event.

"I am reluctant to believe that you are a serious academic. Just read Sam Harris's book END OF FAITH (chapter 4) and you shall find a list of the verses calling for use of violence in proselytizing."

Why would a serious academic or even a non-academic intellectual be looking a secondary source to find out what the Qur'an says?

"Unless you are totally a committed Islam-apologist or Muslim, in the latter case you are obligated to defend Islam, I would be willing to concede that you would realize the falsehood in your statements."

I am a Baha'i who has more reason to resent Islam than you do. But I can read the Qur'an for myself and make a distinction between what the book actually says and what both its protagonists and antagonists have done with it.

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 2 - The Cow)

There is no compulsion in religion.

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 2 - The Cow)

Susan Maneck

Professor Susan Maneck wrote:

"Only by those who haven't the foggiest idea what Islamic scholarship is. The 'ulama have their own problems, but they aren't the same as popularists like Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, who don't know the first thing about figh."

And you think that you have some credible authority about setting metrics for Islamic scholarship ? Just who do you think you are ?

"I indicated nothing of the sort. There is no question that he is one of the idealogues of radical Islam. Ben Laden's theology is derived directly from Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb. My point is:

1) He is no Islamic scholar.
2) Radical Islam itself represents only a minority of Muslims. "

Just how do you define radical Islam ? How precise that definition would be ? If Maudoodi and Sayyid Qutb are NOT Islamic scholars, then moon and green cheese are the same. Unless you seriously subscribe to such absurd garbage, I am willing to bet that you are just being sleek. Just what proof you have to claim that Maudoodi and Qutb are not Islamic scholars but radical howlers ?

"But all of this is really a diversion from my original point which is that your statement that the Qur'an advocates violence for the purpose of proselytizing was false."

I am reluctant to believe that you are a serious academic. Just read Sam Harris's book END OF FAITH (chapter 4) and you shall find a list of the verses calling for use of violence in proselytizing. If Islam did not approve of violence while proselytizing we would not have had the thread. Unless you are totally a committed Islam-apologist or Muslim, in the latter case you are obligated to defend Islam, I would be willing to concede that you would realize the falsehood in your statements.

"Followers of Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston are, even if they have despicable attitudes towards other religions and cultures, by no means apt to bomb cafes and film-makers, actors over form of blasphemy laws."

Chatterjee,

Last I heard they were supporting a war of aggression in Iraq which killed hundreds of times more people than all the bombed cafes, film makers and actors put together. But I guess so long as you drop the bomb from above and don't kill yourself in the process, it is more civilized.

"Maudoodi surely started out as a journalist and was very well versed in English. That does not mean he is not known as a Islamic scholar."

Only by those who haven't the foggiest idea what Islamic scholarship is. The 'ulama have their own problems, but they aren't the same as popularists like Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, who don't know the first thing about figh.

"So, your implication that because Maulana Maudoodi was a journalist his influence in the Islamic world as a scholar was minimal, is simply misleading."

You don't have to be a scholar to be influential, you just have to be a demagogue, which is precisely what these guys were.

"You seem to make the comment that because Sayyid Qutb had secular education and did not attend Al-Azhar, the possibility of him having any influence in the radical Islamic movement is not possible."

I indicated nothing of the sort. There is no question that he is one of the idealogues of radical Islam. Ben Laden's theology is derived directly from Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb. My point is:

1) He is no Islamic scholar.
2) Radical Islam itself represents only a minority of Muslims.

"Alongside notable Islamists like Maulana Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna, and Ruhollah Khomeini, Qutb is considered one of the most influential Muslim thinkers or activists of the modern era, not only for his ideas but for what many consider his heroic martyr's death."

And of those three, only one (Khomeini) was an 'alim or cleric. But all of this is really a diversion from my original point which is that your statement that the Qur'an advocates violence for the purpose of proselytizing was false. Even the above three don't claim to do that. They advocate the use of violence to establish theocratic states in countries that are already nominally Muslim, to defend Muslims in areas where they are a minority, and to prevent Western aggression.

In other words, Islamism and Islamists, as opposed to Islam and Muslims, represent a political ideology, not a religion, just like the Janata Party or the Moral Majority.

Susan Maneck

Professor Susan Maneck wrote:

"Their following is still very much of a minority within the Islamic world and their theology resembles that of the Kharijites who were considered heretical throughout most of Islamic history. But I suppose you could say they are popular in the sense that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are popular in the US."

Followers of Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston are, even if they have despicable attitudes towards other religions and cultures, by no means apt to bomb cafes and film-makers, actors over form of blasphemy laws. Followers of Maudoodi and Qutb do so, and the "silent majority" of Muslims who lend their support to groups of Jammat-i-Islam and Muslim Brotherhood, that idolize the ideals set forward by Maudoodi and Qutb, respectively, are hands-in-glove accomplices to upholding Islamic radical Islam in Pakistan and Egypt. Exporting the fundamentalist views is a part and parcel of the madrassa culture in Pakistan.

"Acknowledged as what? Mawdudi was a journalist, not a cleric. Sayyid Qutb had a secular education and never attended al-Azhar even though he was an Egyptian."

I am not sure of your professional credibility, but it sure appears that you may need to do more homework like the students in your classes.

Maudoodi surely started out as a journalist and was very well versed in English. That does not mean he is not known as a Islamic scholar. Most Muslim commentators/clerics/mullahs have in one way or the other referred to Maudoodi's works. That's the extent of his influence even after his death in 1979. The flaw in your argument is that you seemingly are unaware that Maulana Maudoodi founded the Jammat-i-Islam party following the Lahore Congress in 1933. This party controls almost all mosques, madrassas in Pakistan (and in parts of India such as Moradabad). All forms of radical Islamic ideologies, such as Wahabiism, have received appreciation from Jammat-i-Islam. The Jammat forms an umbrella of radical Muslim ideologies and their coalescence was effected by Maudoodi. (The Jemmah Islamiyah in Malaysia owes its inspirational origins to Jammat-i-Islam.) The Jammat has never deviated from the fundamentals of Islam, as espoused originally by Maudoodi. All clerics in Pakistan (as was reported two years ago in the Dawn newspaper - published from Pakistan) need to understand Islam from Maudoodi's works and become familiar with his various writings and works. The recent standoff in Pakistan over the Lal Masjid issue, that was reported extensively in the Dawn newespaper, was orchestrated by the Jammat-i-Islam party in the MMA alliance. So, your implication that because Maulana Maudoodi was a journalist his influence in the Islamic world as a scholar was minimal, is simply misleading. The following website http://www.abulala.com/shortbio.asp does give a glimpse of what influence he did and still wields after his death on Islamic issues. I believe you need to do more homework, professor.

On Sayyid Qutb, your observations are merely hilarious. You seem to make the comment that because Sayyid Qutb had secular education and did not attend Al-Azhar, the possibility of him having any influence in the radical Islamic movement is not possible. That's pure baloney. I am, for want of brevity, suggesting the link as a start which you may visit to educate yourself on Sayyid Qutb. Check this Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

In the Wikipedia page the following is found:

"Alongside notable Islamists like Maulana Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna, and Ruhollah Khomeini, Qutb is considered one of the most influential Muslim thinkers or activists of the modern era, not only for his ideas but for what many consider his heroic martyr's death."

You may disagree as much as you want, but that does not make any impact outside the ivory tower dwelling of clueless, abstract, unrealistic academicians.

Chatterji wrote:

"There is quite bit of intellectual dichotomy here, as Maudoodi and Qutb have very large following in the Islamic world (which you are apparently unaware of)."

Their following is still very much of a minority within the Islamic world and their theology resembles that of the Kharijites who were considered heretical throughout most of Islamic history. But I suppose you could say they are popular in the sense that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are popular in the US.

"The position of these two scholars have also been respectfully acknowledged by the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt."

Acknowledged as what? Mawdudi was a journalist, not a cleric. Sayyid Qutb had a secular education and never attended al-Azhar even though he was an Egyptian.

Susan Maneck

Professor Susan Maneck wrote:

"That was what I was addressing not what some fanatical Muslims may believe. Mawdoodi and Sayiid Qutb are to Islam what the Sangh Parivar and Nathuram Godse is to Hinduism."

There is quite bit of intellectual dichotomy here, as Maudoodi and Qutb have very large following in the Islamic world (which you are apparently unaware of). The position of these two scholars have also been respectfully acknowledged by the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. Your characterization of "fanatic Muslims" following the viewpoints of Maudoodi and Qutb, makes a very large and significant portion of the Muslim ummah as rabid fanatics.

I am a Hindu by birth, but I don't have any obligation to buy any typical brand of Hinduism. There is nothing in the Hindu traditions that make one brand of practice/belief superior over other. Also, Godse and Sangh Parivar are making political statements by catering to the majority population of Hindus (in India). That's pure politics and has technically nothing to do with religious aspects. Gandhi's killing by Godse was because of Gandhi's Muslim appeasement on the Khilafat and Pakistan issues. Godse could not justify his violence based on any "black and white" instruction from a canonized Hindu religious text.

Thus, your pedestrian effort in equating Hinduism and Godse plus Sangh Parivar is not only fallacious, it is insulting to Hindus worldwide as it smacks of racist innuendos.

"Islamic scholars, such as Sayyid Qutb, Maulana Maudoodi for example, clearly state that killing (and any form of phsyical fighting) in the "way of Allah" (aka spreading Islamic doctrine of theocracy) is permitted."

Dear Chatterjee,

You made a statement about the contents of the Qur'an. That was what I was addressing not what some fanatical Muslims may believe. Mawdoodi and Sayiid Qutb are to Islam what the Sangh Parivar and Nathuram Godse is to Hinduism. Their existence only proves Prof. Marty's point.

Just as an aside, I can't help but notice what violent language some people here are using to denounce other's religion and proclaim the greater tolerance of their own. Not a good way to prove your point. Conspiracy theories don't help either.

Rev. Elliot wrote:

"Yes, historically, various peoples of various religions have been violent. But "hair-raising, pro-violent texts" in Christianity? I'm surprised that a historian of Martin Marty's stature would make so undocumentable a claim. No such Christian "texts" exist, though of course there are some marginal Christian writings unfitting the primary literary category of "texts."

I think Prof. Marty may be thinking of certain passages of the Old Testament such as those which authorize the genocide of the Canaanites.

warmest, Susan

Professor Susan Maneck wrote:

"The Qur'an does not advocate violence for the purpose of proselytizing. It states that it may be used for the purpose of ending persecution which it states is worse than killing."

Then maybe you are the newage Islamic hornblower. Islamic scholars, such as Sayyid Qutb, Maulana Maudoodi for example, clearly state that killing (and any form of phsyical fighting) in the "way of Allah" (aka spreading Islamic doctrine of theocracy) is permitted.

I won't bother you and other Islamists/Islamofacists with details. But, my source of reference is:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/msa/quran

Maudoodi's commentaries are explained there. If I am wrong - per your comments, then surely Maulana Maudoodi is wrong. You have to prove in order to convince me (and others like me) that why you are right and Maulana Maudoodi (or Sayyid Qutb) are wrong and you, Pamela Taylor, Victoria etc are right. Until you can articulate your position logically, you have no credibility.

Anonymous wrote:

"I heard the Bahais and the CIA were quite close."

No doubt you heard this from the same people who deny the holocaust.

Chatterji wrote:

"If you can show me explicitly any Hindu text that advocates violence for proselytization (like in the Quran) I would remain grateful."

The Qur'an does not advocate violence for the purpose of proselytizing. It states that it may be used for the purpose of ending persecution which it states is worse than killing.

Ben Hur writes:
"It is Muslim invaders who killed all Buddhists"

Nonsense. At the time of the Turkish invasions there was only one Buddhist monastery left in the whole country. The persecutions of the Sunga Dynasty had already done them in.

By the way, I'm neither a Christian or a communist. And I have lived in India. Where do you think I got the name "Maneck"?

Mavvadat wrote:

"Your historical note is correct, of course. It was two Babis, not Bahais who committed the attempt on the life of the Shah. But those Babis were counselled either directly or indirectly by Baha'u'llah, and they still did what they did."

They took their counsel from Baha'u'llah's half-brother Mirza Yahya, not Baha'u'llah who strongly opposed such actions. When Baha'u'llah was wrongly imprisoned for this act he stated the following:

"Day and night, while confined in that dungeon, We meditated upon the deeds, the condition, and the conduct of the Bábís, wondering what could have led a people so high-minded, so noble, and of such intelligence, to perpetrate such an audacious and outrageous act against the person of His Majesty."(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 21)

You wrote:

"Nevertheless, this is the point I was making: Whenever anyone has absolute Truth in hand, they will defend that Truth by any means necessary, even if it means violence."

Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, asserted that religious truth was relative, not absolute. Besides I think it makes a tremendous difference on the contents of the truth one seeks to promulgate. In the case of the Baha'i Faith it is this:

"The unbelievers and the faithless have set their minds on four things: first, the shedding of blood; second, the burning of books; third, the shunning of the followers of other religions; fourth, the extermination of other communities and groups. Now however, through the strengthening grace and potency of the Word of God these four barriers have been demolished, these clear injunctions have been obliterated from the Tablet and brutal dispositions have been transmuted into spiritual attributes."

(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 91)

Instead Baha'is are enjoined:

"to consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship, to proclaim that which the  36  Speaker on Sinai hath set forth and to observe fairness in all matters.
They that are endued with sincerity and faithfulness should associate with all the peoples and kindreds of the earth with joy and radiance, inasmuch as consorting with people hath promoted and will continue to promote unity and concord, which in turn are conducive to the maintenance of order in the world and to the regeneration of nations. Blessed are such as hold fast to the cord of kindliness and tender mercy and are free from animosity and hatred.
This Wronged One exhorteth the peoples of the world to observe tolerance and righteousness, which are two lights amidst the darkness of the world and two educators for the edification of mankind. Happy are they who have attained thereto and woe betide the heedless."
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 35)

Naturally, no one can predict the future but for Baha'is to resort to violence to propagate or defend their religion would entail repudiating their most essential beliefs.

You wrote:

"After all, even today we see Baha'is using their grasp on absolute Truth as a pretext for opposing the rights of homosexuals to marry, and of women to have abortions."

Baha'is uphold the sanctity of life and marriage, but they have not taken sides in the political debates regarding the rights of homosexuality or abortion.

warmest, Susan Maneck

Ras Manan:

"Some westerners are all arrogant and think they know everything about people and countries even if they don't live there."

I am an Indian.

Professor Maneck,

Your historical note is correct, of course. It was two Babis, not Bahais who committed the attempt on the life of the Shah. But those Babis were counselled either directly or indirectly by Baha'u'llah, and they still did what they did. They used their religion as a pretext for violence, regardless of what the Bab or Baha'u'llah said.

Nevertheless, this is the point I was making: Whenever anyone has absolute Truth in hand, they will defend that Truth by any means necessary, even if it means violence. In the case of the Baha'i Faith, this is a speculation, of course, but it is justified in the light of every other religion (or system of Truth) that has ever existed in history. So I do not feel unjustified in charging that individual Baha'is will also use their scripture as a pretext for violence, and the Baha'i community, if ever it occupies a seat of power in the world (e.g., to legislate), will use that power to oppress others and incite violence (whether physical or emotional) against them.

After all, even today we see Baha'is using their grasp on absolute Truth as a pretext for opposing the rights of homosexuals to marry, and of women to have abortions.

Deb:

The south asian history departments of American universities are dens of white christian supremacists. They have recruited some Indian sepoys (communist historians) and then they interpret Hindu history to show Hindus as intolerant and violent ("YOU TOO" -- you are also like us semitic faiths) or to twist it to create social strife in India (Aryan invasion theory). We should take them as seriously as they take Hindu professors' writings on Christian history.

Some of these US history professors have been running missionary camps in Chattisgarh. This latest "Hindus persecuted Buddhists" is just this version of "You too."

Google "Rajiv Malhotra" who acted as a whistle blower and read his blog to understand the antics of these white christian professors. They flaunt their credientials of "professors" to give some authority to their pagan hatred and racism.

One such professor lady has began to claim that Ganesha's tusk actually represents a limp phallus and that proves that he has sexual cravings for his mother! Another gentleman labels the word "Om" as a call used by ancient Hindus to call the goats home in the evening. Another specimen calls Ramakrishna Paramhansa a proven homosexual.

No wonder, India government has to begun to deny visas to more and more of these "professors." India has finally begun to learn from Russia and China who do not allow this tribe to enter their countries. The history deparemnts of US universities are just an extension of the state department and there is regular movement of talent between CIA and the academia.

Ras Manan:

Dude, if it was a civilisational conflict, like among Muslims and Christians, Hindus and Buddhists would have been killing each other in India too. It is a purely ethnic conflict. You have not addressed any of the points I raised.

"there were Hindu persecutions of Buddhists in the Middle Ages."

This is sheer nonsense and a mishcievious leftist twist to history. It is Muslim invaders who killed all Buddhists and torched the universities of Nalanda and Taxila (the forces led by Bakhtiar Khalji, the general of invader Mohammad Ghuri). There are enough Buddhist records mentioned their destruction by untutored Afghanised Turks.

Muslims killed Buddhists in Afghanistan and turned it totally Islamic. They are still hostile to Buddhists (destruction of Bamian stautues). In fact the Arabic word for idol, "Butt" is derived from the word "Buddha."

Dear professor. Stop reading history books written by communists of India. I know white christians prefer to fete Indian communist historians because they can be relied upon for anti-Hinduism, but that is certainly not history.

It is a mercy that you did not blame Hindus for destruction of Bamian Buddhas.

You western professors are just running Kangaroo courts in south asian history departments.

Professor Susan Maneck wrote:

"In regards to Homer or Chatterjee's statement, surely they are aware that Tilak understood the Baghavad-Gita as permitting the use of violence? Gandhi understood that book differently, but this only goes to prove Prof. Marty's point."

The Bhagavad Gita, not only Tilak but Aurobindo Ghose explained, does accept violence as a necessary way of life. That does not put the Gita at the same level at that of Quran (Islam).

Quran demands unquestioned faith in each and every wording of it. The faithful (Muslims) believe that there are two versions of the Quran -one revealed on earth (to mankind thru' Muhammad) and the other exists in heaven (with Allah). In the Quran we do find extremely violent verses and commanding genocide against those who will not convert or in the least not accept the superiority of Islam, even if they don't formally convert. (Sam Harris has an extensive list of such violent verses in chapter 4 of his book END OF FAITH, and I am omitting them here.)

The Bhagavad Gita does exactly opposite. It states [chapter 18, verse 63] explicitly that the faithful (in this case Arjuna who is listening) must deeply contemplate and analyze the message for himself/herself. If only s/he realizes the truth in it, then s/he can follow. The Gita advocates strictly against proselytization [chapter 18]. That's why we don't see Hindu monks roaming around to convert in order to win brownie points with Allah or God.

More to the point, violence for preaching Hindu beliefs/traditions, is prohibited/condemned in almost all the scriptural texts in Hinduism.

If you can show me explicitly any Hindu text that advocates violence for proselytization (like in the Quran) I would remain grateful. (Even Prof. Samuel P. Huntington has written in his CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS that Hindu rule was avowedly secular even much before the western civilization accepted it.) Hindus, by all credible historical facts, never used violence for spreading religion.

Otherwise what you have written as rebuttal regarding comparison of violence in Gita, vsi-a-vis Quran, Professor Susan Maneck, is simply misleading and unacceptable.

Ben Hur

Such arrogance young man, explaining the conflict in Sri Lanka where I live and telling me it is just an ethnic conflict. Some Buddhists monks urged government to purge the Hindu Tamil Tigers who killed my brother in a bomb. And the Hindu priests never condemn the violence. Some westerners are all arrogant and think they know everything about people and countries even if they don't live there and from reading only. No one should take what you said here seriously and as true.

re: non-violence as the monopoly of "Eastern" faiths

Here in the U.S. we experience Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and the other Eastern faiths as exotic, foreign and unfamiliar ways of looking and the world and finding answers to eternal questions (or even questions for eternal answers). This is not necessarily the experience in countries where these faiths have been in the majority.
The difference is politics. Where a religion is in the majority, like Islam in the middle east or Christianity in the U.S., it is easily hijacked by politics and religious tenets are trotted out to justify exclusion and the use of violence against any who do not conform to cultural and political norms.
This has happened to Buddhism and Thailand and Japan, and to Hinduism in some parts of India. It is group-to-group chauvinism and identity politics, just like the (Catholic) Croats vs. (Orthodox) Serbs vs. (Muslim) Albanians.

Politics, folks. Not faith.

I heard the Bahais and the CIA were quite close.

Dear Prof. Marty,

I don't expect you to remember me but we met years ago at Dr. Heiko Oberman's house in Tucson, AZ. I was a graduate student at the time. I think you are spot on about violence in religion in general. And you are quite right that one cannot really compare the actions of those who have the power to wreck violence and destruction to those who never held such power. I do want to correct what Mavaddat said about the Baha'is, however. It was a couple of Babis, not Baha'is who attempted to assasinate the Shah of Iran in revenge for the execution of the Bab in 1850. The Baha'i Faith began nearly a decade after that assasination attempt. Baha'u'llah completely eschewed violence in defense of his religion. One can certainly hope that as the Baha'i Faith grows in numbers and strength it will continue to adhere to these principles.

In regards to Homer or Chatterjee's statement, surely they are aware that Tilak understood the Baghavad-Gita as permitting the use of violence? Gandhi understood that book differently, but this only goes to prove Prof. Marty's point. Going back even further, there were Hindu persecutions of Buddhists in the Middle Ages. Homer writes that the Semitic religions were all influenced by Zoroastrianism which in turn was influenced by the Vedas. There is some truth to this but keep in mind that the oldest Veda is the Rig Veda where the chief god is Indra, the god of war. Zoroaster considered such gods as demons.

Sincerely, Susan Maneck
Associate Professor of History
Jackson State University

Mr Mark writes--"but violence is like pregnant-you are or your aren't.One cannot be violent and non violent".

One is not pregnant at all times
One can shift from non violent to violent.
For instance if someone brings violence to your child or any child how should we answer?
Not with a warm smile,but with firm action.

Sorry Dr Marty, but violence is like pregnant - you are or your aren't. One cannot be violent and non-violent.

I realize you're trying to say "at times" one is violient or non-violent, but it's a bad premise.

AFAIK, you may be able to call Buddhism or Jainism non-violent, but beyond that, all religions preach violence.

BenHur-- I can´t answer you because the forum has censured me. Do the research.

Yes, historically, various peoples of various religions have been violent. But "hair-raising, pro-violent texts" in Christianity? I'm surprised that a historian of Martin Marty's stature would make so undocumentable a claim. No such Christian "texts" exist, though of course there are some marginal Christian writings unfitting the primary literary category of "texts."

Yes, historically, various peoples of various religions have been violent. But "hair-raising, pro-violent texts" in Christianity? I'm surprised that a historian of Martin Marty's stature would make so undocumentable a claim. No such Christian "texts" exist, though of course there are some marginal Christian writings unfitting the primary literary category of "texts."

Ras Mahan:

You say: "The Tamil Tigers are so cruel and they are Hindus, killing both Buddhists and Muslims in Sri Lanka."

It is an ethnic conflice (Sinhala v/s Tamils), not a religious conflict (HIndus v/s Buddhists).

Only Tamil Hindus of India and, for some strange reason, the Indian church, support LTTE for ethnic reasons. The rest of the Hindus in India revile LTTE with all their heart and want to see it destroyed because they realise the danger it poses to India.

They know LTTE can easily ecnourage Tamil separatism in India and pass on its terrorist skills to Indian Tamils too. Non-Tamil Hindus have full sympathy with Lanka and want to see LTTE destroyed totally.

Hindus and Buddhists never have had any problem whatsoever. Both are Indic faiths and have lived harmoniously for thousands of years. Hindus have nothing but affection for Buddhists and consider them spiritually and morally evolved. Thousands of Hindus attend Vipassana meditation courses in India and do it everyday.

Prabhakarn is a monster who kills all Tamil Hindus and their organsiations which dare stand against him or in competition with him.

There are strong rumours that Prabhakaran has been converted into Christianity and has total support of the Sri Lankan church. The reigns of LTTE passed into the hands of the CIA/Church combine long ago and it no longer articulates the interests of the Tamil Hindus of Lanka. Does the fact that Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a Tamil Catholic suicide bomber rings a bell?

In fact, LTTE has killed many mullahs and Hindu priests, but it never touches missionaries or christian priests. LTTE is now totally a creature of White Christian imperialism in Lanka. Why do you think an American satellite broadcasts LTTE radio to the whole world?

The same CIA/Church combine that is funding and controlling LTTE is also funding and controlling India and Nepalese maoists. (Incidentally, Prachanda, the leader of Nepal Maoists is also a Christian and has totall support of the church.)

I do now see what Jihadist meant about Deb Chatterjee. I am a Sri Lankan Buddhist. The Tamil Tigers are so cruel and they are Hindus, killing both Buddhists and Muslims in Sri Lanka.

Anonymous:

"A very short time prior to 'enlightment', Haradi Roshi wrote a little book in which he advocated the extermination of Jews."

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. And if Haradi Roshi wrote that book, then he carried his past pre-Buddhist prejudices into this writing.

Buddhism is an eastern religion. They have not even heard about Jews. Why would Buddhist hate Jews? They do not even hate Muslims who exterminated them from India, the land of its birth and torched the universities of Nalanda and Taxila.

What do Buddhists have to do with Jews and what grudge do they carry against them that they want their extermination? Most Buddhists don't have a clue who Jews are, niether do Jews get mentioned anywhere in their scriptures.

Jew hatred is a monopoly of Christians (who claim Jews got Christ killed) and Islam (Prophet asked his followers to purge Jews from Arabia since they did not accept his message).

Buddhists hating Jews? That is as rare a find as an Eskimo hating Sikhs.

Clearly this Haradi dude was a Christian earlier and injected Jew hatred in his "Buddhist" writing. Any Buddhist will tell you Haradi is an ass.

It is strange you try to project Buddhism as a violent religion and put it on same pedestal as Christianity and Islam as far as hatred and bigotry against non-believers is concerned.

I am yet to hear of a Buddhist inquisition or jihad or sermons against non-Buddhists in its entire 2500 year history. I challenge you to produce a Buddhist writing more than 100 years old that contains any disparaging reference to non-Buddhists.

"There is definitive justice, of that we are assured. Facing an infinitely merciful God with bloody hands, to say the least, might indeed be, for the most fortunate, embarrasing, not a picnic. For those that are not embarrased, what can one do, except pray?"

You can have as much definitive justice as you want from your merciful god and have a good picnic with him. I wish you the best.

Just do not ridicule or jeer other faiths and treat their adherents as inferior and contemptible, project that their paths lead straight to hell and your MERCIFUL god has got a HELL ready where he is going to roast unbelievers alive for the temerity of not worshipping him.

Let others live and pray in peace to their own gods. That will be enough mercy for the world from your merciful god.

Please answer the question -- "Do you beleive other spiritual paths may also lead people of other races to heaven, or is it that only your White Christian merciful God has a monopoly to the gates of heaven?"

You can judge from your own answer if you or your god is a vengeful bigot.

Jihadist:

Funny, your twisted interpretation of facts that is cherished only by you don't advance your cause. Regarding Muslim barbarians and their rape of Bangladeshi (Hindu and Muslim) women just because they were culturally impure from Islam, is well documentedin the book:

Susan Brownmiller, AGAINST OUR WILL: MEN, WOMEN AND RAPE.

This author hows how Pakistani Muslim army justified their rapes and slaughter of million women in 1971 under Generals Tikka Khan and Yahya Khan, by seeking moral guidance from the Islamic sources - Quran, Hadith and etc.

Funny that you choose to ignore Jemma Islamiyah by diminishing its menace, and that you seemingly justify that the Thai and Indonesian govt. are cruel on Muslims.

Does it ever bother you that Tibetan Buddhits are also suffering worse fate in the hands of Chinese and yet I am yet to hear Chinese people or embassies being blown up by Buddhist suicide bombers ?

Islam is indeed a vicious and barbaric religion.

Anonymous
Yes, Buddhists have acted badly, as have Christians and Jews and Muslims.

The undeniable precepts of Buddhism however stipulate that
1. our first duty is to act with compassion and loving kindness towards our fellows
2. there is No God who is going to damn the infidels, of whatever background, to hell,
so you don't need to kill to protect your place in heaven.

My opinion is that Buddhism is the MOST evolved spiritual practice in the world, with the least number of bad effects.

One is of course free to disagree, but it is worth engaging with that proposition, IMHO as America's foremost and undeniable greatest literary critic.

BenHur and HenryJames --There is definitive justice, of that we are assured. Facing an infinitely merciful God with bloody hands, to say the least, might indeed be, for the most fortunate, embarrasing, not a picnic. For those that are not embarrased, what can one do, except pray?

Henry James, it doesn't take much to kill, etc., and then claim to be a disciple of Christ. Rather common, indeed. Thus Jesus cautioned us when he said 'by their fruits you shall know them', and 'Not all who say Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom, but only those who live according to his will', that is, to love one another, as He has loved us.

Insofar as Buddhism is concerned, I suggest you both do a little research. If I am not mistaken, its followers in the US trained under 4 or 5 US Leaders or roshis who had been certified to have received transmission, by (I think) a so called Yasutani Roshi. The latter had been certified as enlightened by Haradi Roshi, who had been certified as enlightened, by his master, who traced his lineage back to the Buddha. A very short time prior to 'enlightment', Haradi Roshi wrote a little book in which he advocated the extermination of Jews.

Also check out Brian Victoria's "Zen at War".

This does not mean that all Buddhists are violent people. Most are not. Yet when religion is placed at the service of a criminal state, criminal things happen.

Dear Anonymous
(which anonymous are you?)

Christianity is non-violent.
When Jesus comes back, and he and God condemn the sinners to the flames of hell for all time,
the sinners will burn non violently.

Jesus was pretty non violent most of the time.
Judgement Day will be no church picnic.

And Christianity has been used thousands of times by its adherants as justification for egregious violence.

If Jesus is going to burn the wicked on Judgment Day, why not burn a few while we're waiting. Not a crazy conclusion if you buy the premise.

You will say those "Christians" weren't acting like "Christians."
They sure thought they were, over and over and over again.

If they had been adherents of Secular Humanism, or Buddhism, or Unitarianism, they would have found no justifcation, explicit or implicit, in the founding principles and stories of their tradition to commit the atrocities that they did.

As far as religion is concerned, Buddhism is the best solution for world peace. Very non-violent and meditative.

Or why not just take up yoga? Its higher stages (yoga of the mind) are more than enough to take care of all our spiritual needs, while the lower stages take care of the body. Nobody can accuse Yoga of promoting violence! Imagine if there were no religions, and everybody was just a Yogi.

Henry James,
Christianity is not violent, quite the contrary.
Only people who falsely call themselves Christians are.

Paul
I meant to heartily endorse your conclusion that SOME religions are markedly less violent than Christianity or Judaism or Islam.

Though I don't call Buddhism a Religion, because Buddhism does not believe in Supernatural Gods.

Perhaps it's true that all religions have been both violent and non-violent, but doesn't that point somewhat obscure that some religions have been more peaceful than others? For instance: Didn't Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism all peacefully coexist in China for centuries? And how does the peaceful record of those three religions stack up to the violence between various sects of Christianity within, say, the last 500 or so years?

Veronica writes:

"The important thing to remember is there is only one Absolute God, but there are hundreds and maybe thousands of religious beliefs."

Once again a fallible human perpetuates the God-myth stated as if 'we all should just know it to be true'. I understand you and many others seem to want to believe God exists but that does not make it so. No one has ever been able to produce a miracle or supernatural event as evidence that can stand up to scientific scrutiny thereby substantiating your claim.

Many non-believers hold that criterion dear. Many non-believers find the world makes much better sense when one imagines there is no God. When the world makes sense it can be easier to live life as it really matters, doing good and making the world a better place. Many non-believers think that would be preferable to perpetuating the myth and getting sucked into the morass of organized religion (both the violent and non).

Religion is an invention of man, completely. Fallible humans have written every single religious text and been involved in its evolution of thought. Divinely inspired? Maybe but human work nonetheless. Time to stop perpetuating the myth and making truth-claims that are completely unsupported by objective evidence relying instead on what other fallible humans say is 'true'.

I know you have heard all of that before from non-believers just as we have heard it all, many times, the God-myth from those humans who rely on 'faith'. I can only hope reason based on sound evidence will lead more people to the 'truth' than constantly hearing the perpetuation of pure myth. That may lead to a start to a better world...imagine that.

Our christian President G. W. Bush did not go to war to spread his Religion or Democracy, but only
for two personal reasons: he did not want to be labeled a 'whimp" or a "softee" and he wanted to revenge the attempted assasination of his father
by the Iraqui leader.
Geo

this is one mixed up dude who wrote that opinion. he cant figure out the difference between the teaching and the follower.
are there followers that say they are one religion but act contrary to is - you bet. hitler said he was a christian but sure as heck did not act like the teaching in the bible were his guide. no place in the new testament does christ order his people to kill anyone who was not a follower of his.
did the jews kill a lot of people and is that in the bible - right again. but the old testament is more like a history book when it comes to wars and battles. i cant find any place where the jews are told to kill anyone not a jew is they will not convert.
but the koran, now that does actually order followers of islam to not take as friends jews or chirstians or hindus [called idolitors] and even tells islamics to butcher them. that is the difference.
an islamic that kills to spread islam is following the teaching of islam. a christian that spreads his religion by murdering and killing is not following the teachings of christ in doing it, no matter how badly he thinks he is.
so if we are going to have this conversation lets go written teaching with written teachings, as our starting point. and when we do that we see that the koran commands killing to spread islam but no other religion currently around of any size makes similar demands on them.

Deb Chatterjee and Ben Hur

You two fellows goes every which way but loose in your posts. Going this and that way. I call it 'wear and tear' strategy. The point is not to be rational or logical, but to make offensive and spurious contentions or sophistry.

Can't stand to be wrong or lose both of you? This is not to see who wins or lose by the way, but to see the broader picture. But never mind, I'll go down your narrow and winding roads.

Both of you do make points based on selective readings eh? Does not really warrant a decent answer nor should anyone waste their time with your both, but this is a rainy Sunday afternoon for me for an "indecent response".

And Deb, since when is it and American post etiquette to call someone a liar for points you disagree with?

And Ben Hur, don't read too much history or read them selectively.

now, all for fun.

Ben Hur

Memoirs of self-serving conquerors? Who wrote them and when?

You proved your points exactly. Timurlame, Nadir Shah and Babur lived during times when Europe is in the dark, early middle and middle ages and committed the same atrocities and worse in the name of religion and undertake wars too. Busy with witch-hunts on top of all that too.

And Ben Hur, you heard of the rape of Nanking and taking of sex slaves by Japanese during WWII The Koreans, Chinese and Philippines made an issue out of it. The Japanese reason for war is conquest for economic control. So, waging wars and atrocities is excusable if it is not for Buddhism or any religion or to spread religion?

The simple point is, the spread of any group is motivated by econnomic and political control. From Alexander the Great to the Japanese, rape, pillage and plunder. No one is denying Muslim rulers do not undertake wars for economic reasons in the name of God and religion like the Christian rulers, but primarily to convert the conquered by force is not one of them.

Timurlame is a Muslim, who inflict the greatest pain and plunder on Muslims as the Scourge of God. He don't need to convert the converted really.

And please don't gloss over the conquest of Latin America being devoid of evangelicism. This happened in Africa and Asia too, but the societies in Asia were settled and organized enought to stem off the evangelical activities.

And by the way, if the Muslim conquest of India is solely to convert Indians into Muslims, the whole of India would have been Muslims by now. And most of Eastern Europeans and Spaniards too during the Muslim conquest there.

The reason Indian Hindus never conquered any lands outside of India was because they were busy warring one another and/or like China, remain centred in their own universe. Read up on Asian history, especially China, India, Southeast Asia, Japan Korea. And oh, Latin America.

Deb Chatterjee,

Very telling Deb. "Muslim barbarians"? As if there are no other barbarians. Funny, the Chinese and Japanese used to call the westerners barbarians.

Liberation of Bangladesh? In the early seventies of last century and abetted by India? Why not go back to the time a Hindu killed Mahatma Gandhi, and a Sikh killed Indira Gandhi for all the factionalism violence that happens and still happens in India? Including the stories of Hindu fanatics committing atrocities which you glossed over as being social and not religious-based and to focus and blame on Muslims only.

The rise of Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia and Malaysia? Seriously, I live in this region. I would know. They are being hunted and on the run.
only an Internet "expert" and "traveller" who knows what they know only from books can be so self-certain.

You never gets reports or tell them here of how the Filipino and Thai governments and armies treat Muslims do you, only the Muslim reactions and responses. Or for that matter, the Burmese junta.

And come on Deb, there are rapes and selling of women into sexual slavery by the Japanese in WWII and the Serbs used rape as an instrument of war against the Bosnians. And there are reports of US soldiers raping Iraqis. Is this excusable because what they did has nothing to do with religion?

No one is absolve of arocities in times of war, regardless of Muslims or otherwise. Just pointing out that only Muslims commits these offences is a singular denial of realities.

In Southeast Asia now, the most are committed in Burma by the Burmase junta and not much is known because it is not widely reported.

Either one don't read about it, or one don't care. And sexual slavery and trafficking in women are undertaken the most by the Chinese triads. They are Filipinos, they are Chinese, they are Thais. Hundreds of thousands. Why ignore these thousands of women and focussed on events in war only and by Muslims?

Why not expand it your concerns universally and not selectively?

And don't be rude Deb. I never called you a liar when you made mistakes in your posts nor corrected them. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as you can't know or understand everything as you are not God:)

Jihadist, you wrote:

"Read up on the history of India and Southeast Asia. Hindus and Buddhists do march up to war."

Of course they do. But religion is never the motivation. When Muslim armies march, the motivation is plundering the land of infidels and thier conversion to Islam.

Hindu armies never marched outside the borders of India to spread HInduism. In fact, they never marched outside the borders of India at all.

When Japanese Buddhist emperor joined the second world war, it was not to spread buddhism. It was pure imperialism. Buddhism did not enter the picture at all.

Spread of Islam is a primary motivation for Islamic armies. This is an obvious point that you are somehow not willing to accept.

You want me to quote Tamur Lane, Nadir Shah and Babur to make you understand their motivation in invading India?

In their memoirs they wrote that they set on these expeditions to plunder the land of infidels and spread the light of Islam. You are really spitting against the wind.