Why Islam is violent and Buddhism & Jainism are not - Sam Harris

elaTHEbra

Member
Jan 11, 2007
238
20
0




There's a difference between Buddhist Monks killing and Islamic fundamentalists killing.

Buddhsts can NEVER justify killing in the name of religion. Violence in Buddhism is forbidden.

Islam, on the other hand encourages violence against the 'dhimmies' and 'Kafirs'.

Thus, Buddhists killing people are going AGAINST doctrines of their faith.

Islamists killing are pretty much COMPLYING with the doctrines of their faith.
 

elaTHEbra

Member
Jan 11, 2007
238
20
0
Better change your avatar before posting these things. It's like, a fox preaching about kindness towards chicken!

Off the topic

Who is this Sam uncle?

Did you thought he is like that Zakir idiot?



Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author, philosopher, public intellectual, and neuroscientist, as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason. He is the author of The End of Faith, which was published in 2004 and appeared on The New York Times best seller list for 33 weeks. The book also won the PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction in 2005. In 2006, Harris published the book Letter to a Christian Nation, a response to criticism of The End of Faith. This work was followed by The Moral Landscape published in 2010, his long-form essay Lying in 2011 and the short book Free Will in 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)
 

elaTHEbra

Member
Jan 11, 2007
238
20
0
Saudi cleric who raped and killed daughter receives small fine

fayhan-al-ghamdi.n.jpg


http://www.thecommentator.com/artic...raped_and_killed_daughter_receives_small_fine
 
Last edited:

මරුසිරා

Well-known member
  • Mar 5, 2012
    14,353
    1,577
    113
    out of the blue




    There's a difference between Buddhist Monks killing and Islamic fundamentalists killing.

    Buddhsts can NEVER justify killing in the name of religion. Violence in Buddhism is forbidden.

    Islam, on the other hand encourages violence against the 'dhimmies' and 'Kafirs'.

    Thus, Buddhists killing people are going AGAINST doctrines of their faith.

    Islamists killing are pretty much COMPLYING with the doctrines of their faith.
    1000% true:yes::yes::yes::cool:
    rep++
     
    There's a difference between Buddhist Monks killing and Islamic fundamentalists killing.

    Buddhsts can NEVER justify killing in the name of religion. Violence in Buddhism is forbidden.
    Terrorists who called themselves Muslims kill. So they are terrorists of course.

    So you accept Buddhist MONKS also kill?? OK. Can they continue to be monks after killing?

    Islam, on the other hand encourages violence against the 'dhimmies' and 'Kafirs'.
    Tell me what you know about dhimmies and kafirs. You should know what you are talking about.


    Thus, Buddhists killing people are going AGAINST doctrines of their faith.
    So the 3 decade war against terrorists is AGAINST Buddhism? Strange!

    Now, how can you justify that war in the light of your religion? Or did everyone in the army earn bad karama so they will end up in hell? Is it because of bad karma earned during war that SF ended up in a mess?

    Please clear this mess in the light of your religion.


    Islamists killing are pretty much COMPLYING with the doctrines of their faith.
    Why only "pretty much"? Copy/paste one by one.
     

    elaTHEbra

    Member
    Jan 11, 2007
    238
    20
    0
    First of all I have to mention that you need to ask those questions from the person who said this in youtube (http://www.youtube.com/user/drhtum) anyway lest see.

    Terrorists who called themselves Muslims kill. So they are terrorists of course.

    So you accept Buddhist MONKS also kill?? OK. Can they continue to be monks after killing?

    When he said like this he doesn’t mean Buddhist monks kill people. He said Buddhism doesn’t support for any terrorism or any violence.


    Tell me what you know about dhimmies and kafirs. You should know what you are talking about.

    do you mean these defines?

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

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

    or http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081124184959AAVObIR


    So the 3 decade war against terrorists is AGAINST Buddhism? Strange!

    Now, how can you justify that war in the light of your religion? Or did everyone in the army earn bad karama so they will end up in hell? Is it because of bad karma earned during war that SF ended up in a mess?

    Please clear this mess in the light of your religion.

    That is why we called them as hero. They sacrificed their lives and karma for us. I'm not an expert in Buddhism but as I know you can change your bad karmas by doing good karmas. So they earned bad karma for killed terrorists and be side they earned good karma too by stopped terrorisers and save 1000 of innocent people lives.



    Why only "pretty much"? Copy/paste one by one.

    Here are few of them
    https://musalmanuwa.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/%E0%B6%BB%E0%B7%8F%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%83%E0%B7%8F%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%8A-%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%8F%E0%B7%83%E0%B7%99%E0%B6%A7-%E0%B6%AD%E0%B7%84%E0%B6%B1%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%8A-%E0%B6%9A%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%BB%E0%B7%8F/
     

    GuneBhai

    Well-known member
  • Dec 23, 2011
    15,156
    713
    113
    60 වත්ත

    Off topic. Saudi is not fully Islamic. Monarchy is against Islam. Law is a mix of sharia and secular. Favoring towards locals is well known.

    Then why no Muslim ever do anything about it? Or point out what is the ideal Islamic country? Is there none or there wasn't any then we can assume that their is no ideal Islamic country, which means Islam does not suite humankind.
     
    Then why no Muslim ever do anything about it? Or point out what is the ideal Islamic country? Is there none or there wasn't any then we can assume that their is no ideal Islamic country, which means Islam does not suite humankind.

    Well, if we take your religion, isn't it the same? Sri Lanka is the example for a Buddhist country. Do you say it's ideally Buddhist? Can you show me an ideal Buddhist country now?

    Sorry to disappoint you, as far as I know, currently there is no country with an ideal Islamic government. The ideal islamic countries were in times of Caliphs after the Prophet. The "Islamic" countries now are those with a majority of muslims, practicing proper islam or not. So, the subject is not that straight-forward. Solution is to uphold the teachings of islam. That's happening slowly and the West is scared. People are realising the facts. Isn't Islam the fastest growing religion in the world (including Europe and America)? You might say it's because of "Islamists" killing others. So then, where is the war in Europe or America?

    If you argue in this line to say that "religion does not suite mankind", you're asking for trouble? aren't you? :lol:. Don't forget about your own religion.
     
    Last edited:
    First of all I have to mention that you need to ask those questions from the person who said this in youtube (http://www.youtube.com/user/drhtum) anyway lest see.

    When he said like this he doesn’t mean Buddhist monks kill people. He said Buddhism doesn’t support for any terrorism or any violence.
    But the wording says: "There's a difference between Buddhist Monks killing and Islamic fundamentalists killing" as if it's happening. Anyway, if a monk kills someone for whatever reason, will he cease to be a monk?

    Is there any stipulated reason which permits killing/fighting for monks? What about using a weapon for self defense? What's the place of Kung-Fu and such in your religion? Please give reference also if possible. Sorry for too many questions. But I think it's important to know the correct guidance, in case of such situations.


    Posting links means you know little. The solution for that is to learn or ask questions. Hatred doesn't do much good.

    In these links posted by yourself, do you see anywhere mentioning that they should be killed??

    Instead, from your same links, it says:
    Kafir and Jihad

    For dealing with non-Muslims, Jasser Auda, a director of the al-Maqasid Research Centre in the Philosophy of the Islamic Law in London, England, says that the general rule is mentioned in the verse that says what means:

    "Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers." ([Quran 60:8])

    Birr in this context is likened to birr al-walidain, the kindness that a Muslim should show to his or her parents.[30] This quote addresses the relationship between the concepts of kafir and jihad in Islam.

    While the Qur'anic statement of peace towards non-Muslims and non-believers is implied within this passage, the practical sense of jihad in Islam is derived from the example of the Prophet Muhammad. A. Ghosh, author of The Koran and the kafir cites the Prophet's war against the Qurayza Jewish tribe in 627 A.D. and subsequent wars of the caliphate as the starting point for a pattern of "jihad" which he translates as, "holy war," against the infidel in the Muslim religion.[31]

    However, the research of Dr. Sherman Jackson suggests a separation between the classical terms of "jihad" and the modern interpretations of "jihad." According to Jackson, both the Qur'an and classical interpretations of jihad show that "a perennial 'state of war'" existed, where in which the "assumed relationship" between neighboring tribes was one of hostility, while in the modern world the "assumed relationship" illustrates a state of peace unless provoked by the other party.[32]

    Thus, although “jihad” was often painted as a “holy war” against infidels, the historical and cultural backgrounds of the Muslims involved in “jihad” must be taken into consideration.[33]

    Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir>
    Quran commands us to show kindness and be just with those who are not in war against us. Injunction is clear.


    About Dhimmis:
    According to law professor H. Patrick Glenn of McGill University, located in Montreal, Quebec, "[t]oday it is said that the dhimmi are 'excluded from the specifically Muslim privileges, but on the other hand they are excluded from the specifically Muslim duties' while (and here there are clear parallels with western public and private law treatment of aliens – Fremdenrecht, la condition de estrangers), '[f]or the rest, the Muslim and the dhimmi are equal in practically the whole of the law of property and of contracts and obligations'."[22]

    Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi>

    In fact, dhimmis are non-muslim citizens living under an islamic government. They have freedom to practice their religion, have their worship places etc. If some dispute arise among themselves and if any law is specified in their particular religion, they will be judged according to their own law (provided that there is no gross injustice). In that sense, they are alienated from islamic law. Military service is not a duty for them. If some other country attacks, muslim army has to protect them. In lieu of those privileges, they have to pay a tax called jizya. Nowhere it says that they should be killed. Instead, they should be protected.

    Nowadays it's hard to see the original teachings being practiced.


    That is why we called them as hero. They sacrificed their lives and karma for us. I'm not an expert in Buddhism but as I know you can change your bad karmas by doing good karmas. So they earned bad karma for killed terrorists and be side they earned good karma too by stopped terrorisers and save 1000 of innocent people lives.
    Is this your opinion or the teaching of your religion? Because I had experience of being told about religion which turned out to be not exact.

    I feel your interpretation makes things more problematic. You clearly said our army earned bad karma by killing. I doubt that the soldiers know that they are going to earn bad karma while going to the battlefield? At the same time good karma earned. Which one is more? How to know or 'estimate'?

    What's the role of 'intention' here? I mean, the intention is to save the country and people. So, wouldn't that override the immediate intention of killing (causing bad karma), leading only to good karma?

    What is action that caused to save 1000 lives? Isn't it the same action of killing which earned bad karma? (Or different action?). If it's the same action of killing, then different karma for same action? How? ….Many many questions. If a different good action is needed to earn a good karma then soldiers are at a risk. They might run short of good karma to counterbalance the bad ones. Because bad karma is ensured (by killing), but good karma are hard to come by. Suddenly he dies with a "balance" of bad karma, is it fair for him to suffer?

    You can clear any misunderstandings above.

    If I ask you, whether this war is complying or against the teachings of your religion? Yes or no? I don't think you can give a straightforward answer. Because, Buddhism is silent about wars (correct me if I'm wrong). So, your religion appears inherently peaceful. But when we try apply that to real life situations problems arise. This war is an example. I suppose, you applied your usual principles and concluded that soldiers are earning bad karma (which I'm not very happy about. It's a personal opinion. Ignore that). What if we apply unconditional love as taught in your religion (correct me if I'm wrong here too), can we fight a war to protect ourselves? Is there any teaching in your religion that directly justifies this in a dire situation? Please show me the reference too.



    Quite the same list repeated everywhere in the internet. Pieces of Quranic verses taken to give the wanted meaning! I had explained few things in other threads. I'll put it here so you might note what's happening behind the scene.

    This is from your link:
    කුරානය 9.5. තහනම් මාසය (උපවාස මාසය) පසුවුනු විට, අදේවවාදීන් දුටු තැන මරන්න. සියලු උපක්රම යොදා ඔවුන් කොටු කරන්න, ඔවුන් ගැවෙසෙන තැන්වල සැංඟි සිටින්න, ඔවුන් සිරභාරයට ගන්න. 

    My explanation:

    ඉස්ලාම් විරෝධීන් හැමතනම දාන්නේ ඕක තමයි. ඔබ කලබල වෙන්නේ නැතුව හරියට බැලුවොත් තේරෙයි ඒ දාල තියෙන්නේ වාක්‍ය කැල්ලක්බව. එතකොටයි ඒ අයට අවශ්‍ය තේරුම එන්නේ. මුළු වාක්‍යය මෙහෙමයි.

    (5) So, when the sacred months expire, kill the Mushriks wherever you find them, and catch them and besiege them and sit in ambush for them everywhere. Then, if they repent and establish Salah and pay Zakah, leave their way. Surely, Allah is most Forgiving, Very-Merciful. (Al-Quran 9:5)

    (සැක නම් quranexplorer.com බලන්න). 9 වෙනි පරිච්චේදය මුල ඉඳන් කියෙව්වොත් තේරෙයි මේ කතා කරන්නේ මුස්ලිම්වරු සමග සාම ගිවිසුම් කඩ කරල මුස්ලිම් වරුන්ට විරෝදිකම් කල අය ගැන බව. අඩුගානේ මෙයට උඩින් හා යටින් ඇති වාක්‍ය දෙක කියෙව්වත් තේරෙයි ඇත්ත මොකද්ද කියලා.

    (4) Except those of the Mushriks with whom you have a treaty, and they were not deficient (in fulfilling the treaty) with you, and did not back up any one against you. So fulfill the treaty with them up to their term. Surely, Allah loves the God-fearing. (Al-Quran 9:4)

    (6) And if any one of the Mushriks seeks your protection, give him protection until he listens to the Word of Allah, then let him reach his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. (Al-Quran 9:6)
    මේකේ කියනවා, එවැනි කෙනෙක් ඔබගෙන් සාමය හා ආරක්ෂාව පතන්නේද, ඔහුට ආරක්ෂාව දී ආරක්ෂා සහගත තැනකට ගෙනියන්න කියා!

    දැන් තේරෙනවනේ ඉස්ලාම් විරෝධීන් ඉස්ලාමයට තීන්ත ගාන හැටි. කුරානය පහල වුනේ එක පාර පොතක් විදිහට නෙමෙයි. අවශ්‍ය තැනදී උපදෙස් ලෙස වාක්‍ය එකක් හෝ කීපයක් පහල වෙනවා. මේ වාක්‍ය ටික පහළ වුනේ ඒ අවස්ථාවට. ඒක හැම අවස්ථාවකටම අදාල නෑ. එනිසා ඔබ කියනවා වගේ අන්‍ය ආගමිකයන් මැරීම කියා එකක් ඉස්ලාමයේ කොහොමත් නෑ. ඒ අයට ආගම ගැන දැනුවත් කළ යුතු බවයි පැහැදිලිව තියෙන්නේ.
    Translation from your link is totally wrong. It's MONTHS, not month. Mentioning month of fasting here is also wrong. Should be බහු-දේවවාදීන්, not අදේව-වාදීන්. It stops in the middle of the verse (to give the intended meaning)! Context is totally ignored.

    Case is similar in all others. Distorted by Islam-haters. You have to understand that I can't be doing like this for all the verses. Can go to QuranExplorer.com and see the complete and correct translations. To obtain the intended meaning, referring to a commentary is wise. Your Tripitaka also has commentaries, as I heard. You refer to them to understand what is said in Suttas. Eg: meaning of sukara-maddawa. Likewise commentaries are needed in case of Quran to avoid misunderstandings.


    Your religion has not given guidance in a case of war. But, as a complete way of life Islam has taught from how to spit until upto ruling an empire. No aspect of life is left without guidance. In the case of wars, it's the same. Therefore, it appears that Islam encourages wars, which is not the case. Islam encourages peace treaties with enemies more than engaging in wars. E.g: Treaty of Hudaibiyyah - a very important juncture in history of islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah). While Quran was being revealed, specific guidance was given for particular instances, such as in wars. It doesn't apply everywhere. Failing to understand the context leads to wrong conclusions. This is the case among some muslims too, causing havoc.
     
    Last edited: