K.H. Ahmed: Buddhists did not kill innocents like Muslims in defence of their culture/religion

Submitted by Plato (India), May 4, 2008 at 02:30

K.H.Ahmed you wrote:

>>First, let me say a physical statement is a statement - whether they chant or leave messages one is saying the movement is more important then my own well being.<<

Mr. Ahamad, the Buddhist monks were not saying they were giving up their lives for Buddhism. They were doing it to protest what was happening in their own country. The Muslims who kill themselves and others invariably say they are doing it for Islam, Muhammad or Allah. And the Muslims kill themselves and others in the name of their religion even for what is happening to Muslims in other countries.

>>Did Bhuddism drive the monks to suicide in Viet Nam or the monks in Tibet to violence - of course not , you and I would both agree that Bhuddism does not advocate such actions.<<

Yes we can both agree that Buddhim does not advocate such actions. But can you honestly say the same about Islam? To get a clue read 9:111. Or 9:29.

>>So something else drove them to this action and that something is an action of cultural self defense.<<

You sense of cultural self defense is strange to say the least. Were the Indian Muslim doctors living in the UK trying to defend their culture by attempting to car bomb Glasgow airport?

Were the citizens of UK of Pakistani origin indulging in cultural self-defence by suicide attacks on British trains?

Their government did not attack either India or Pakistan. Their government attacked Iraq. What is their connection to Iraq, except that they follow the same religion, Islam?

Christians are attacked by Hindus in India. Christians are attacked by Muslims in Indonesia. Do you see Hindus or Muslims being attacked in Britain?

Does only Islam have a right to cultural self defense?

When Muslims kill Muslims in Darfur Muslims do not kill other Muslims in protest. When Sunnis kill Shias or vice versa in Pakistan or Iraq we have yet to see Muslims in other countries killing each other in protest.

Saddam gassed Muslims in Kurdistan. Hafez al Assad killed nearly 20,000 Muslims in the Hama massacre. What happened to cultural self defense?

>>Which has been my point all along Islam is merely a vehicle a structure within which to defend this particular culture.<<

Since you have not defined what this particular culture is I assume it is Muslim culture. Where can you find a uniform Muslim culture? Muslims living in various countries have their own cultures. What unites them is their religious practices which is only one part of culture. So why do you think that an attack on say Iraq is an attack on all Muslims. The US attack on Vietnam did not provoke attacks on the US from Burmese or Sri Lankan Buddhists. The only conclusion I can draw from this so called cultural self defense is that Muslims consider an attack on any other Muslim as an attack on himself/herself.

>>Just as we go to war to defend "democracy" or "christian values" both a nice way to describe something we are doing in our own national self interest.<<

For Muslims national interest seems to be Muslim interest, no matter which nation.

>>It is neither good nor bad to cover an action with an ideology I'm merely saying it is intellectually dishonest and to not recognize the other is doing the same leads to faulty logic and poor foreign policy choices, such as invading Iraq.<<

At least the Buddhist monks were lighting themselves up, and if I may mention, without harming any bystander, to protest what the US was doing to their country. What Muslim suicide bombers do is kill themselves and innocent bystanders for the sake of what is claimed to be a peaceful religion. They also tell you in their videos that they are eager to enter the paradise that is promised for their action. Mr. Ahammad there just is no comparison between the Buddhist monks of Vietnam did and Muslim bombers.

>>As to comparing what the Prophet said and what Bhudda said - I say go further and compare what the Prophet said and Jesus and Bhudda and Hindu saints and prophets. Jesus said it will be father against son do I take him literally, Christians go to war for the faith. Do I believe they are following the precepts of Christ's teaching, don't think so<<

To get a true picture about these religious leaders what you should do is compile the worst things they said and did and see who comes out on top. Try this experiment; it should give you an interesting result.

>> Muslims and Christians take quotes out of context and go to war over Islam, appropriate don't think so.<<

I have not yet come across a Muslim who does not have to plead context to water down Koranic violence. What remains of the eternal word of Allah if you have to hunt for context and find that the context abrogates His words. Take for instance:

9:111 YUSUFALI: Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

You manage to dig up a context for this verse that it was revealed during wartime and so it can be claimed that the context abrogates what Allah is so obviously commanding Muslims to do.

>> Fundamental in Islam if you are being oppressed leave the place where you reside, if you as a Muslim people are invaded repell the invaders. Sweet and if I am a muslim seeking power it only takes a little to twist those two statements and make an argument for war. Is that the religion or the seeker of power.<<

You are right Ahammad, it is sweet and simple to twist the Koran to start wars and oppress people. That is one big problem with Islam. That is why the prophet raided and invaded. That is why Muslims rampaged across the world invading and oppressing other cultures – Persia, Spain, India, Egypt, Syria etc. Why can't you see that it is the religion that makes it possible for the seeker of power to do his thing?

Muslims make the claim that Islam has instructions for all matters important for us, rules of conduct, rules of governance etc. How do dictators and potentates find it so easy to jettison these rules if it is direct from Allah?

>> My problem is the argument over Islam is misplaced this is not a struggle between Islam and Christianity but a struggle between us and people who seek power in their own land and use relgion as a cover.<<

Your problem is Allh who says that He will not accept any religion other than Islam: 3:85 If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; …

And: 61:9 He it is who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.

Do you have some context to take the sting out of these two verses?

These two verses explicitly show that Allah will not tolerate any religion other than Islam. Could Allah in his wisdom not have given us similar explicit verses which rule out oppressive governments, now the bane of all Islamic countries?

>>If you wish to study foreign affairs or politics then study what moves men and what they desire.<<

Islam is surely all about foreign affairs and politics. The Prophet once he gained power in Medina constantly pestered neighbouring tribes and countries to accept Islam. This is known as interfering in affairs of nations which are none of your concern. And rightly, many of those nations and tribes rejected his invitation to Islam (a thinly veiled term to become subject to him and his laws). Politics was something the prophet indulged in all the time. He bribed people to join his side of the political/religious divide by promising them paradise in the after life and giving them a share in the spoils of war in this life.

>> …I do not believe that God has a dog in this fight.<<

If you read 3:85, 61:9 and 9:111 you will realize that Allah is trying to have hundreds of millions of dogs commit themselves to this fight by enticing them with paradise.

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".