Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="anamnlmslmn" data-source="post: 14435027" data-attributes="member: 453369">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:Quran commands us to show kindness and be just with those who are not in war against us. Injunction is clear.About Dhimmis: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.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: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 (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah</a>). 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.</blockquote>

Verification: Asuwa dahayen wadi kalama keeyada?

Top Bottom