[Buddha-l] FW: Buddhists taking a stand against Islamaphobia

[James A Stroble]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:11:37 -0600
Jo <jkirk at spro.net> wrote:

> 
> I think what bothers me about discussions like the one going on now
> is that list members don't want to reflect on the fact that Islam is
> not just a religion or, let's say, a bunch of related spiritual
> communities.  Like what Christianity once was, it is also a politics,
> and in some quarters it has vast visions for world domination, just
> as Christianity once had (and as some so-called evangelicals still
> have). 

Jo, I don't think we ignore this.  But it just isn't all that
significant. Ultimately, if any religion's claim to absolute truth is
verified, well so be it.  But the point is that they are not. And to
the extent that their claims to "world domination" rest on claims about
the ultimate nature of reality, I say "pfff". 


> So far, the theoreticians on this list don't wish to bother
> with the consequences of the international politics that some
> Muslims, and one particular Islamic government, have undertaken ever
> since the US moved armed forces into Saudi at their official
> invitation to "protect the government" from bin Ladens' ambitions,
> and the ensuing attack on the WTC.  (Muslim rulers did politics in
> the past, legitimizing them by religion, as well. I refer here to
> recent actions.)

 Muslims, and Christians, and Wiccans for all I care, can go on about
 how they are protecting truth by protecting some particular ideology,
 but even the fact that they succeed politically does not prove that
 their ideology is in fact true.  This is called the " ad populum"
 fallacy, which in my favorite version from the Montana Woolgrowers
 Association is "Eat Lamb" 10 million coyotes can't be wrong."
> 
> Reading the suttas from the Pali canon, one cannot ignore the
> politics that the Buddha himself got involved in because of kingly
> patronage: but that too usually is ignored--at least on this list--
> in favor of dogmatics and ethics. I say this only to ensure that we
> understand that Buddhism historically has always been political
> (during and after the Buddha's time). As I revall, this angle was
> once discussed here. Thus,  there should be no hindrance to
> discussing the politics of any other religion or spiritual community
> and the behavior of its patrons. However, here there apparently are
> mental blocks reflecting either ignorance, or reluctance to appear to
> be off topic, or both. (However, off topic is as off topic does on
> this list.)

This is exactly my interest. Buddhism gets involved in politics, but
there should be a line, a bright line, between support of the Dharma
and the Sangha, and the identification of these with the state.
Patronage is fine, until it entails that the Dharma be put into the
service of the state.  This is a matter of doctrine, however, not a
matter of politics per se. And I don't see how Buddhist doctrine can
support the use of coercion at all. Period.   So are Buddhists planning
world domination? I don't see how they could, and still be Buddhist.
But some versions of Mahayana and Vajrayana seem to think they could. 
> 
> I wrote the above just to explain where I come from in my few remarks
> on list during this topic. I have given up getting in depth anywhere
> on Buddha-L with the politics angle, but as a social and cultural
> anthropologist I am unable to ignore it. 
>  
> Joanna
> 
I have in the past pointed out that one of the values of Buddha-hell is
the variety of approaches to that amorphous thing called "Buddhism", so
I can understand your frustration.  But I would ask, what are you
asking for?   Are we to prove that the Muslim doctrine is wrong? Or the
Christian? I think one of the positive aspects of Buddhism is to not to
attempt such refutations, if they do not result in the lessening of
suffering.  So my relatives can eat their Chick-fil-A, and I will not
be offended, even if I think they are wrong on many counts.  But the
wrongness is not a political matter, it is in fact philosophical. And
the only redress to a philosophical error is a philosophical argument.  

So am I wrong not to be afraid of the Muslim agenda to take over the
world?  How do they attack the Dharma, after all?  (And I worry more
about Tom Cruise!_)

James Andy Stroble
University of Hawaii, sort of.