Concept of Killing ( self defense or otherwise) in Buddhism and Islam

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid

Lately I have been noticing the full extent of misinformation spread about Islam these days. Various other " religious" forums have been denouncing us Muslims and violent and bloodthirsty and Buddhists as the angels of the world. I don't know why they can't get it through their heads that religious textx have always been hijacked by extremists throughout the ages. More importantly, Buddhism is NOT an exception. An interesting article debunking the myth that Buddhism is impervious to contortion for violent extremists is shown in this very interesting article. http://www.mandala.hr/5/baran.html

What are your opinions brothers and sisters? I have no problem with Buddhists as people but of course we have our differences in philosophical ways.

Your first point is a little sloppy in that you claim Buddhism is no exception to the hi-jacking of texts by extremists. There is nothing in that article that suggests same, and it is an accusation you would be very hard pushed to support with facts should you try. Your second is a little sloppy in that it refers to 'violent extremists' which is only true as far as the majority of the population of Japan at those times would also have been 'violent extremists'. The people concerned were Zen Buddhists, but they were also products of a very specific nationality, culture and time.

There are clearly issues here the first of which, just as with Islam, is the need to disentangle cultural and political factors from religious ones. The particular variety of Buddhism we are talking about, Japanese Zen, is no more representative of 'Buddhism' as a whole than any other and indeed far less so than many. In recent years it has had far more publicity than the number of practitioners really justifies (particularly in the 'hippy culture' era, principly due to it's adoption in the West as potentially far more 'quick and easy' approach to 'enlightenment').. although even Zen adherents do not confuse the Zen experience of satori with the final understanding of a Buddha or Arhat.

As to the people named even masters are not Buddhas, and like all human beings are far from perfect.. and in this case I admit to finding that lack of 'perfection' and that great Buddhist essential, compassion, disturbing to say the least (I also find it reassuring it is being openly questioned and examined in the book and at that site). But it should be remembered that Zen came from China, remains relatively strong there (all things considered since 1949) and in Korea, and it is the citizens of those countries that suffered most at the hands of the Japanese. Or in other words, that particular militarism was unique to Japan, and was not found in notable Chinese or Korean Buddhist figures, and was and is not found in the West. Indeed, the "Statement of Repentance" suggests it is no longer found in Japan. That is also true of the population as a whole, but in terms of 'extremism' it should be pointed out that those Zen Buddhists have been rather faster to 'repent' than the Japanese authorities.

Again, as with Islam, producing a counter-example is not difficult. The Tibetan exiles have a 'cause' of a nature that would promote violent 'resistance' (a.k.a. terrorism) in many cultures; the Chinese occupation of Tibet is far more pervasive than the Israel occupation(s) of the West Bank and Gaza, for example. Yet, following the Dalai Lama - probably the world's most prominent 'man of peace', they pursue that cause using totally non-violent means despite sometimes intense provocation. Tibetan Buddhism is far more dependent on texts than Zen, incidently.. indeed one distinctive feature of Zen is that it barely uses them.

Lastly, at the risk of straying slightly off topic, I strongly recommend one particular book, Ikeda and Tehranian's Global Civilization: A Buddhist - Islamic Dialogue, British Academic Press, ISBN 1 86064 810 X, to anyone with a serious interest in comparing the two religions. Both authors are 'peace activists' and, despite the publisher, it's an 'easy' and non-technical read.

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid

First off, sorry if my comments seemed inflammatory, I am not yet skilled in debating or questioning so if my points seem sloppy thanks for pointing them out. Also... wow that post was long... care to compress it?

Thanks for responding! Any Muslim opinions out there?

if i may ask... (and i don't mean this as an insult), did you start the topic out of curiosity or out of a sense of feeling islam has been wronged? if you can decide what you want to accomplish then your debating will improve

format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid

To be honest it was because I feel that Islam has been wronged. Especially since I received a number of insulting emails about why this guy thinks every religion but Buddhism is bloodthirsty. I told him that any religion could be hijacked by extremists. More to the point, from what i have read on this forum, Buddhism completely prohibits the act of killing. But doesn't that leave out situations of defense where it is necessary?

si,

i thought so... i think it serves your purposes better (and will in turn provide you with a clearer, more lucid point) to focus on the actual argumen... is islam wrongly portrayed?

the best way of doing this is not to attack buddhism... buddhism was brought up to make a comparative point about the argument... but nothing more than that... the argument was still whether islam is unduly violent.

so instead of being caught up in buddhism, look at islam... ask general questions like 'does islam allow violence' 'under what circumstances' 'are these circumstances justifiable?' 'what does justifiable mean?' 'do i need to justify islam with secular standards of justice?'

etc...

and then present those questions to the accusors... that's how you have a debate/conversation and flush out the issues... in the end i think you will be surprised. my intuition is that islam is in the eye of the beholder... if you are not a violent person then islam will provide you a reason to not be violent... if you are a violent person then you will find a reason in islam to be violent. nasty people tend to overlook the logical fallacy of grouping everybody together under one homogenous glob

attacking buddhism will make you look petty, take the higher path.

que Dios te bendiga