Buddhabook

Was Islam Spread By The Sword?.....A Response

2011-10-16T15:54:00.002+08:00

This is a piece of revisionist Islamic history and scripture material titled Was Islam spread by the sword? going around that I thought that I would respond to. Last I looked a rendition of this is posted at the website http://www.islamicvoice.com/august.99/zakir.htm the author given is Dr. Zakir Naik. I have seen something very simalar at other websites as well as this being mirrored elsewhere. After something like this goes around for a while it can be hard to tell just where it may have originally come from. As it is the most complete version of this piece of work, it is the above mentioned version that will be reviewed. At the bottom of the same page that this link will bring you to, there is another very short piece titled "Prophet Muhammad's Charter of Privileges to Christian's". What isn't being told here is that in order for privileges to be "granted", this was territory that was conquered by Muhammad in the first place, and in order for them to keep themselves in good standing as members of the " People Of The Book" (Christians qualify) they would have to pay the Jizya to be able to keep their Christian religion without having to convert to Islam, risk death or at best go somewhere else. It would certainly seem as if these particular Christian's were keeping up on their Jizya payments rather well.The Jizya is discussed later in this article. All scripture quoted is from the Qur'an Sahih (considered genuine) Hadith or from the New International Version of the Christian Bible.

I believe that it is important that such things are addressed when one can or else the chances are greater that such unfortunate circumstances might very well be repeated. Denial of these issues or the notion that such issues should be "taboo" to talk of only create an environment that makes it safe for those who, in the name of whatever name for a God they worship will take the very next opportunity to kill as many of us as they can. Members of the Hindu religious family have always been considered "polytheists" and although not the original type of polytheist that Muhammad took a difference with in Mecca, we have been traditionally been a favorite target of those who believe that with "Allah's" blessing wish to rid the world of what can be considered from this perspective as the "truest" of infidel. It is for this reason that I consider such flagrant denial of this matter a direct and serious assault upon the sangha of the Hindu religious family and all others who may suffer the consequences of a failure to address these worthy issues to be discussed. This is why for the Buddhist community as well as others, it is so important that such issues be frankly and openly embraced for discussion.

I realize very well that there will be those who will attempt to avoid these issues by simply trying to paint me and or this article as “anti-Islam” or “anti-Muslim”. I assure all of you that nothing could be farther from the truth. I am not anti-Islam because I recognize all of the good that Islam can stand for, as lived by peaceful Muslims every day, nor am I anti-Muslim because my experience has taught me that there are many Muslim who are very kind people who do not have any religious prejudice at all and as such either do not know much of their own scripture or take much of it too seriously. I have known members of the Muslim community who if I wanted to have hatred for Islam or Muslim people they would make that proposition very difficult for me. Having said that, there are basically three options here. One is that they will believe one type of fabricated excuse or another for their scripture that must rely on their own lack of serious investigation or make up their own and believe it, or another is that they declare the righteousness of it all and become very fundamentalist and militant. The third option as just mentioned is that they identify themselves as Muslim while not taking their scripture seriously, considering much of it out-dated and no longer practically applicable. The last from my experience of talking with these Muslim, are usually afraid to openly say so because of many within their own community that will consider them heretics (which would qualify them for being considered a form of “Apostate”) for doing so. They understandably do not wish to put their own lives as well as the lives and wellbeing of their family at risk. There are many Muslim who are afraid of the violent potential of their own community. You want substantiation? Would you like an anonymous survey? Would they be able to trust the anonymity it? For all they know, it could be the F.B.I. on the phone! My own experience and your own reason given the evidence will tell you that this is true.

As I allude to in this article there are two primary things to take into consideration when giving a study to this topic, that being abrogation in which a later revelation cancels out and replaces an earlier one, an example of various scriptural support for this would be Qur’an 2:106: “Such of our revelation as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?”, and Qur’an 16:101-104: “And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not. (101) Say: The holy Spirit hath revealed it from thy Lord with truth, that it may confirm (the faith of) those who believe, and as guidance and good tidings for those who have surrendered (to Allah). (102) And We know well that they say: Only a man teacheth him. The speech of him at whom they falsely hint is outlandish, and this is clear Arabic speech. (103) Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, Allah guideth them not and theirs will be a painful doom”. There are those who say that abrogation is something only between the Qur’an and other earlier scripture such as the Turat (Torah) and the Injil (New Testament). The problem with this is if we look at Qur’an16:101-104 again, the Torah according to all of the "people of the book" including Islam was revealed to “Musa” (Moses) not the “Holy Spirit”. The “Holy Spirit” being referred to in the Qur’an is that of the angel Jibreel (Gabriel). Considering as well that Islam rejects any partner with Allah (God)… The New Testament (N.I.V.)Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”… it would seem unlikely that the “Holy Spirit” of the New testament was what was being referred to as well.

The other important thing to consider is the fact that the Qur’an is not written in chronological order, that being the historical order in which these “revelations” are said to have occurred. There is a link given later in this article which is an Islamic website which will allow anyone to compare the difference between the traditional order and the chronological one.

If you compare the peaceful scripture with the scripture that is hostile and violent toward the unbeliever, with abrogation and the chronological order of the Qur’an in mind you will find that there isn’t a single peaceful scripture left standing. The links to do your comparison are given later in this article. Many may ask why is this? The answer as discussed later as well, is that Islam developed into something more and more intolerant as time passed. What was Muhammad the Muslim prophet to do? Should he have declared war against all unbelievers with fifty or a hundred followers standing behind him? Whatever someone may wish to call the Muslim prophet Muhammad I believe that we can all agree that that he was not a blithering idiot.

Of course the typical Muslim response to this is that Allah, being the creator and sustainer of the universe can change his mind at any time about anything regarding as little or as much of it as he should so choose.

Some may choose to take issue with the Qur’an scripture that I quote in this article, and I am well aware that whether taken in or out of context (depending on the scripture being discussed) there are certainly parts of the Qur’an that can be construed as promoting a peaceful stance. The point being given is that religious scripture as a whole is not always the most consistent, and the Qur’an is no exception. Why that is the case is something one may differ on as per their view of the context of the scripture involved itself. I do not carry the view that the one way peaceful street of Qur’an scripture is contextually the most objective perspective. There are those of course who will say something like: "Well that's what happens when you mix politics with religion" This also a common theme to be found when some wish to explain away the policies of a Muslim country in question or the topic of related current events.They seem to forget that "politics" don't just "happen". "Politics" are a result of the perceived needs of the social community subject to such "politics" and if the community has as it's core the observance of a particular religious belief then certainly that will be reflected in its political structure. How ironic for such an excuse as well, that the very first year of the Muslim Calendar doesn't start with the birth of Muhammad the Muslim prophet considered by them to be the last prophet or anything else but the establishment of the Islamic state in Mecca. The political state. I would encourage any who disagree with this article for any reason, to read the whole article first and while I'm at it I'll make a note here as well that the proper word used for what would be considered by many as "verse" when discussing Qur'an scripture is actually "Ayah" which is translated as "revelation". I usually use the word "verse" to keep it compatible with what the common term is among those unfamiliar with proper Qur'an scripture language, and I will also say that I do hope that it does not trouble any that I have chosen to give references both in the article itself as well as in the reference section.

Before we go any further, this is an interesting video you might want to watch. I would have to disagree though with the language of Mr. Sam Harris ( that it would appear he later corrects during discussion) that Zen Buddhism informed the Kamikaze during world war 2 although the Japanese government and certain Zen figures did use Buddhist sounding language to encourage the war effort. Accordingly you certainly can't find such a justification in any Zen scripture or Buddhist scripture of any sort for that matter. There is no evidence that the Japanese involvement in World war 2 was provoked or 'informed' by the teaching of Zen Buddhism as this would be a false claim. You simply can't say the same thing about the scriptural teaching of Islam and the encouragement of violence, in particular against the unbeliever.

Now there are those who will tell you something like "They have legitimate concerns and feel that their identity is being threatened as people and so you see they are just using of course " religious language" but it's not really their religious belief to be questioned here".

The rather blatant fallacy to be observed with this type of view is that to believe this you must then also believe that they are not somehow aware of the fact that by using religious language they are giving religious justifications for their behavior or the direct implications of that fact!
Why? Apparently because the academic apologists seem to think that they know better than them!

Was Islam spread by the sword?

Islam means peace

"Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Almighty God. Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt)."

This is actually something of a disputed topic. If you go to the Merriam Websters on line dictionary,(1) it will tell you that the origin of the word Islam comes from the Arabic islām which means simply 'submission' (to the will of God). The Historical Dictionary of Islam will tell you the very much the same thing (pg 154). The root word 'salaam' can indicate the word "peace" as well as "submit" because the trilateral root s-l-m is used for such words as Islam, Salam, Silm, and other word's as well. So yes, although the word Islam does come from the Arabic root word 'salaam' that is because there is a semantic correlation between the Arabic words for "peace" and "submission" as well as again, other words.
Something else to consider here is that the word peace as it was often used was more of a greeting than what would be associated with the word in common usage today. An example: When Muhammad sent a letter to the chrisitian King of Alia he said "peace be upon you" at the start of the letter, but then went on to threaten him with death if he did not pay the Jizyah. ----William Muir- Life of Mahomet pg. 457 (footnote)
The idea here is to associate the proposed origin of the word with the true "meaning" or true practice of Islam.
Understanding that this is a disputed topic, I believe that the best thing to do is to go to the Sahih Hadith of Bukhari where Muhammad the Muslim prophet is asked by the angel Gabriel "What is Islam?" and see just what Muhammad himself has to say as an answer to this question....

Sahih Hadith Bukhari

(1) Narrated Abu Huraira: One day while the Prophet was sitting in the company of some people, (The angel) Gabriel came and asked, "What is faith?" Allah's Apostle replied, 'Faith is to believe in Allah, His angels, (the) meeting with Him, His Apostles, and to believe in Resurrection." Then he further asked, "What is Islam?" Allah's Apostle replied, "To worship Allah Alone and none else, to offer prayers perfectly to pay the compulsory charity (Zakat) and to observe fasts during the month of Ramadan."...
(Book 2 Hadith #47)

Let's all make a note here of how the word "peace" is not mentioned once here, and as far as charity is concerned, just in case anyone wants to confuse charity with the concept of peace.......

"It is best that zakatu-l-fitr be given to the poor and the needy (al-miskin - someone whose level of poverty is more or less than the poor (al-faqir), but does not let others know of his need nor does he beg from others), these are the first two categories of the eight to whom zakat is normally given to; this due to his salallahu alayhi wa salam saying, ‘…and as food for the needy’. The majority of scholars are of the opinion that zakatu-l-fitr is not to be given to non-Muslims."(2)

If I am not someone who is perceived to have struggled or fought against Islam then I may be given charity and treated kindly, but not to be given the obligatory religious charity of zakat. The scriptural support for this would be:

Qur'an: 60:8

“Allaah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. Verily, Allaah loves those who deal with equity”
Notice that there are two different extremes being spoken of here regarding having fought on account of religion... one is a struggle which can be construed as pertaining to any degree of opposition, and the other is a matter spoken of actually driving someone out of their home. The term 'equity' in context here would pertain to value or "worthiness".
Therefore interestingly enough, by the fact that I have written this article or have spoken in ways about Islam that other Muslim's might choose to differ with, this is therefore a good enough reason for myself to be disallowed from being treated kindly or given any charity what so ever.
If one is a kaafir (unbeliever) the one condition that they may be given Zakat is if it is thought that they might be inclined towards Islam and the giving of the charity might help them convert to Islam. This is supported by the following:

Qur'an 9:60

“As-Sadaqaat ( Zakaah) are only for the Fuqaraa’ (poor), and Al‑Masaakeen (the poor) and those employed to collect (the funds); and to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islam); and to free the captives; and for those in debt; and for Allaah’s Cause (i.e. for Mujaahidoon — those fighting in a holy battle), and for the wayfarer (a traveller who is cut off from everything); a duty imposed by Allaah. And Allaah is All-Knower, All-Wise”
After all, if Zakat were to be given to any non-believer who was in need, why make a special circumstance of the non-believer whose heart may be inclined towards Islam?
For further information on what Muslim scholars have to say about whether or not Zakat should be be given to a non-Muslim please take a look at this... http://islamqa.com/en/ref/39655
However.....
There are some though who believe that the proper interpretation of sharia law is that non Muslim's can benefit from Zakat (Zakaah) but only after the needs of Muslims have been met first. (3)
Having said that, lets remember the first thing mentioned as to what Islam means by Muhammad the Muslim prophet here is "To worship Allah Alone and none else,".... this is a theme that we will revisit during this article, as it becomes synonymous with the view that none has the right to be worshiped other than Allah and what this has meant for the non-Muslim as an infidel who does not have the right therefore to worship or pay such tribute to any other religious belief as well.

To sum this up, I can't think of a more authoritative word on what Islam means other than from what is accepted by the Muslim as the spoken words of the Muslim prophet Muhammad himself.

Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace

"Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police force, which uses force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in society. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to struggle and fight against oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force may only be used to promote peace and justice."

"In Islam force may only be used to promote peace and justice."

Unless you have a far different view of what is construed as "justice" other than something that would denote an objective sense of fair treatment, both the Qur'an and the sahih hadith as well as history itself contradict this:

Qur'an 9:1-6

1.Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.

2. Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance).

3. And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

4.Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).

5. Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

6. And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not

The assertion here by some that this verse 9:1-6 is defense during a time of war is contradicted by the first words of 9:4 "Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term".....Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, .....

These are clearly people who do not consider themselves as having any dispute with the Muslim but for them instead of the treaty being null and void, or 'dissolved' the Muslim is to wait until the expiration of the treaty (... "when the sacred months have passed, ..") and then "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free."
Therefore it is pretty clear here that after the treaty period has expired Muslims are to make no more treaties with these pagans and they are to subdue or kill those who do not accept Islam. There is nothing "self-defensive" about this at all.

It is also interesting to note here that even though the four sacred months of the Islamic calander are the 11,12,1, and 7th months, the Ayah of the sword implies four consecutive months. I'll let the Islamic scholars work this one out though, as it is really not very relevant to the topic under discussion.

"Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance)".

A Sacred months treaty was a common practice during the sacred months of pagan pilgrimage so that waring tribes could worship and conduct business during this important period. This practice was then carried over into Islam.

In Bulugh al-'Arab fi Ahwal al-'Arab, we read, 'The four sacred months, Rajab, Dhu al-Qa'da, Dhu al-Hijja and Muharram, had been considered sacred during the pre-Islamic period [Jahiliya]. Raids, taking revenge, war, fighting and disputes were forbidden during them. If a man were to meet his enemy who killed his father or brother during these months, he would not quarrel with him… During the sacred months, [the people] were under restriction not to fight or make raids, and had to remove [their] spearheads as a sign that they would avoid fighting at all costs.' Obviously, Islam borrowed the hallowing of these months from Pre-Islamic Arabs and introduced nothing new into the world. ('Abdallah 'Abd al-Fadi, Is the Qur'an Infallible? ------- Light of Life, PO Box 13, A-9503 VILLACH, AUSTRIA p. 127)

The other existing treaties were being "dissolved".They were being given four months with an ultimatum of what the penalty would be for not converting to Islam. This is why toward the end of the commentary given in the Tafsir of Ibn kathir online we read... Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to,all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''"Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him)".Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".

Let us make a note here of how there is not a single word here that would suggest that those who have kept their word and have no conflict with the Muslims nor anyone else for that matter get to just live their lives peacefully, without converting to Islam.

If any one should disagree with this all you have to do is read The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir online. The link given for this site is an Islamic website which states: "The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir is of the most respected and accepted explanations for the Qur'an and is the most widely used explanations in Arabic used today."
--- The home page of the tafsir of Ibn kathir website

Here's the link which will be given again later: http://www.qtafsir.com/

(Qur'an in a flash section Surra 9)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

This is the Ayah of the Sword

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that the four months mentioned in this Ayah are the four-month grace period mentioned in the earlier Ayah,

﴿فَسِيحُواْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ﴾

(So travel freely for four months throughout the land.) Allah said next,

﴿فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ﴾

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...), meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,

﴿فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ﴾

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area,for Allah said,

﴿وَلاَ تُقَـتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَـتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَـتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ﴾

(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. )﴿2:191﴾ Allah said here,

﴿وَخُذُوهُمْ﴾

(and capture them), executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

﴿وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ﴾

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush), do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

﴿فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ﴾

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''

﴿وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ ﴾

(6. And if anyone of the Mushrikin seeks your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an) and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.)

6.... Safety can only be given if one want's to hear the "word of Allah".....no compulsion or coercion here...right?

Qur'an 9:7

7."How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]".

(As for these).....

Those who have been honorable to the four month’s treaty will be given until the
expiration of the treaty before they are to be slain wherever they are found as people considered idolaters. Of course, anyone who broke such a treaty would also acknowledge that the treaty at that point was null and void anyway.

"But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Again, If they repent and establish worship, ( become Muslim) their lives will be spared.

I am aware that there have been those who have given the opinion that
"this ayah applies only to those that broke their covenants.”

The only problem with this is that it directly contradicts what 9:1-6 itself says.

This is why when we read the first verse in this ayah, as well as the third verse it is Muhammad who is declaring that the previous treaties are now being dissolved, and no one else. Only the most self willed type of blind would believe that this was about anyone else but the Muslim prophet Muhammad who was breaking a peace treaty.

Where does this story come from?

Arabic translation problem? …Then the translation from Arabic would have to wipe out at least an entire verse here that does not exist, and directly contradict what has been written!

--------Tafsir al-Jalalayn commenting on Qur'an 9:7

This is an example of a tafsir that claims at 9:7 that it was the idolaters who broke a treaty (most tafsir do not), and then others will seek to tie this in with the ayah of the sword which is 9:1-6, however for this to be true it would directly contradict 9:1 and 9:3. Either Muhammad was "dissolving" the treaty with the blessing of "Allah", or the idolaters had done so by violating the terms of the treaty, you can't have it both ways! Again... what does the scripture itself say?

If as a matter of analysis there can still be any objective dispute regarding scripture, I would suggest that the majority of the most extant evidence should be most seriously relied upon.

"How can the idolaters have a pact with God and His Messenger — they cannot —while they disbelieve in God and His Messenger, acting treacherously; except for those with whom you made a pact at the Sacred Mosque?, the day of al-Hudaybiyya — these were Quraysh, for whom an exception was made earlier [Q. 9:4]. So long as they are true to you, keeping to the pact and not breaking it, be true to them, by fulfilling it (fa-mā, ‘so long as’: the mā is a conditional particle). Truly God loves the God-fearing: the Prophet (s) had kept to the pact made with them until they broke it by supporting the Banū Bakr against Khuzā‘a".

The fact that some have found a need to make up sweet stories about this ayah that to be sure others are self-willed gullible to believe is an indication of just how embarrassing this ayah has become. For those who choose to disagree, let me know when you believe that an interpretation of a minority interpretation is as worthy as the Qur'an scripture itself for this type of discussion, now won't you?!

So I've heard...

“ Verse 6 ordered the Muslims to provide safe passage and protection to any opposing soldier that sought asylum during combat ”.

This is not true in that it leaves out an important requirement…..

This would only apply to those who are seeking and willing to hear the “word of Allah”, according to 9:6. To persuade (to put it politely) someone to convert to Islam was an important part of the purpose, not just simply to kill people who didn’t believe in Islam.

All of this is why you will notice that when such things are written about an ayah such as 9:1-6 the commentator is usually very careful not to give this in its entirety if at all, but to give some small snippet or two at best.

Otherwise when they write such things they would look pretty foolish and they know it, and that wouldn’t be the best way to convince themselves and or others of something that simply is not true. The fact that someone may have written a tafsir or two that completely ignores what this ayah has to say does not really support the fallacy of such a wishful thinking perspective. This is why any tafsir that I discuss for support on such matters will not contradict what we know the scripture to be. The idea is to complement the scripture during our analysis not to contradict. Let’s put on our critical thinking caps…now shall we?

Critical Thinking - Standards of Thought -Part1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNCOOUK-bMQ

Sahih Hadith Bukhari

(5) Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
(Book 2 Hadith #24)

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

(Book 84 Hadith #57)

This is just one example from the Qur'an and two from the Hadith, if I wanted to I could be here for days discussing such examples like this.The history of Islam as we shall discuss unfortunately quite clearly reflects this teaching. I will make a brief note here of how I always find it interesting just how many will at their whim according to what they like or not, will decide which hadith to question as genuine and which not regardless of what is considered Sahih or why.

It continues........

"The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book 'Islam at the cross road'
(page 8) :

'History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth's that historians have ever repeated.' "

Really? And just where would they get such a “fantastically absurd myth” ?
There are many who are taught to recite the line that if there was a war in Allah’s name that it just must have been “self defence”! And don’t dare question that! We’ll call you a bad name if you do!
“ fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races…”
Notice here just what De Lacy O Leary was actually talking about, nowhere does he say here that Islam was not spread by the sword, or that it only happened on some rare occasion.

Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.

"Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers".

Actually... “The Umayyad conquest of Hispania was the Islamic Ummayad Caliphate‘s conquest, between 711 and 718, of the Christian Visigothic Kingdom ofHispania, centered in the Iberian Peninsula. The conquest began with an invasion by an army that (according to traditional accounts) consisted largely of Berber Northwest Africans and was commanded by Tariq ibn Ziyad. They disembarked in early 711 at Gibraltar and campaigned their way northward. After a decisive battle, the Visigothic kingdom collapsed and over the following decade most of the Iberian Peninsula was brought under Muslim occupation, save for mountainous areas in the north-west (Galicia, Asturias) and northern mountainous areas of little interest for the newcomers. The conquered territory, under the Arabic nameal-Andalus, became part of the expanding Umayyad empire. The invaders subsequently moved north-east across the Pyrenees only to engage in battle with Odo the Great´s Aquitanians in Toulouse, where the Muslim advance ground temporarily to a halt. However, they resumed their advance north by the west, defeating independent duke Odo in Bordeaux.Charles Martel was at the time the Frankish mayor of the palace and Odo saw no choice but to seek his help, pledge allegiance to him and join the Frankish military forces, who defeated the Muslims at the Battle of Tours (Poitiers) in 732. Muslim control of territory in what became France was intermittent and ended in 759. Though Muslim armies dominated the Iberian Peninsula for centuries afterward, Pelayo of Asturias‘s victory at the Battle of Covadonga in 722 preserved at least one Christian principality in the north. This battle later assumed major symbolic importance for Spanish Christians as the beginning of the Reconquista.

Because of the Muslim perception of Christians and Jews as People of the Book, numerous Jewish and Christian communities survived through the centuries of Muslim rule in al-Andalus.”(4)

also…

“Several historical sources state that the Islamic caliphate had not actually targeted Spain for conquest, but that political divisions within the Visigothic kingdom created an opportunity that Tariq and his army exploited successfully. For example, King Roderick was not considered a legitimate ruler by all the inhabitants of the Kingdom, and some Visigothic nobles actually aided the Islamic conquest.”(4)

Would it matter if true? A rose by any other name as they say is still a rose. Spain was conquered by the Muslim sword of the Islamic conquest. Oh but wait a minute... that's right, I almost forgot... that wasn't really Islam ... just the Islamic conquest!

14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.
"Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian."

Whoever wrote this seems to not be aware of the Jizya tax as it regarded the “People of the Book”. The Christians as being recognized as “people of the book” were allowed to pay a tax “in willingness and submission”, and keep their own religion. This topic of the people of the book being allowed to keep their own religion if they pay a tax in willingness and submission shall become more relevant shortly. Regarding the Jizya let's start with Qur'an 9:29 which we'll look at again in just a bit.

Qur'an 9:29

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Sahih Hadith Bukhari

.....The people asked, "What does the Statement say?" He replied, "Allah and His Apostle's asylum granted to Dhimmis, i.e. non-Muslims living in a Muslim territory) will be outraged, and so Allah will make the hearts of these Dhimmis (people of the book) so daring that they will refuse to pay the Jizya they will be supposed to pay."
(Book#53, Hadith #404)

Also.....

Al Tabari, Volume XI

"I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, then you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then you must pay the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will then fight you until God decides between us and you." --- Khalid bin Al-Waheed (Muslim General, 632AD)

The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin Al-Waleed, His Life and Campaigns by Lieutenant-General A.I. Akram --- This book can be downloaded for free at: http://www.grandestrategy.com/2007/12/sword-of-allah-khalid-bin-al-waleed.html In case your wondering, this is a very pro Islamic website that wishes to use this book in the following way: "In such times this book reminds us of how glorious we once were, and perhaps how someday we can be again".

This is why at the end of the last section regarding Spain we read...
“Because of the Muslim perception of Christians and Jews as "people of the book", numerous Jewish and Christian communities survived through the centuries of Muslim rule in al-Andalus”.
While were at it, just how are our Coptic friends doing in Egypt? After all, Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance isn't it?
This link will bring you to a news story about how a Coptic church was recently burnt to the ground, after a mob was incited to do so by a Muslim Imam of a local mosque. Why would an Imam of a mosque who certainly knows his Qur'an and Hadith very well, do such a thing? Doesn't he know that the scripture and history of Islam supposedly teach PEACE? Doesen't he know that any scripture that portrays Islam as violent and fundamentally intolerant is just something presumably being taken out of context by those shameful "Islamophobes"? Is the Imam in question, someone who has perpetrated an "isolated" incident while "hijacking" the otherwise peaceful religion of Islam?
Read the article and you decide. http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.aina.org/news/20110930204413.htm&date=2011-10-02

If you think that that was just you know, an "isolated incident" take a look at this:

http://thepersecutiontimes.com/muslims-attack-two-christian-families-in-egypt-11-killed-including-children/2011/02/04/

More than 80% non-Muslims in India.

"The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword".

Of course the story is very different back in reality land.....

The Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent led to widespread carnage because Muslims regarded the Hindus as infidels and therefore slaughtered and converted millions of Hindus. Will Durant argued in his 1935 book The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage (page 459):

"The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors' opulence."

As Braudel put it:

The backward castes of Hinduism suffered worst. Monarchs (belonging to backward castes) such as Khusrau Bhangi Khan, Hemchandra and Garha-Katanga were knocked off their throne and executed. Backward caste saints like Namadeva(5) were arrested, while women like Kanhopatra were forced to commit suicide. (6)
One example among many of Islam's "peaceful" relationship with India…....
The sacking of the Nalanda University in 1193 C.E. by the Islamic Turk Bukhtiyar Khilji, founder of the Khilji dynasty and whom is considered to be the first Muslim ruler of Bengal. Their amusement was to set the Buddhist monks on fire and to cut their heads off.(7)

Why that’s just dandy! Setting us on fire and cutting our heads off so that we will hop around like like chickens with our heads cut off while on fire! What amusement!

Too bad for us he didn’t know that Islam is a peaceful religion!
Now let’s see, was Mr. Khiji and his friends unaware of the few Qur’an verse’s that can be construed as peaceful and are simply some of the many therefore who have “hijacked” an otherwise peaceful religious standard? Or… did he know exactly what his Qur’an was telling him to do? We'll look at that topic further in just a few moments.......

" If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam".
".....All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.”
Interesting. There are about 115.000 Jews living today in Germany and 1.6 million Jew’s living in Europe, which is considered 12% of the worlds total population of Jews.(8) Using this method of analysis would this author pretend that the Jewish holocaust never happened either?
There have been many books written on the subjugation of the Buddhist's and other members of the Hindu religious family at the hands of the conquering Muslims in India. The atrocities were appalling. For someone to write such insulting nonsense is at best the very height of self- delusional self-denial.

Indonesia and Malaysia.

"Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, 'Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?'"

Finally! Some truth, and how very refreshing!
"Islam was brought into Indonesia by traders from Gujarat, India during the eleventh century, although Muslims had visited the archipelago early in the Muslim era. By the end of the 16th century, Islam, through conversion, had surpassed Hinduism and Buddhism as the dominant religion of the peoples of Java and Sumatra. At this time, only Bali retained a Hindu-practising majority, and the eastern islands remained largely animist but would adopt Islam and Christianity in the 17th and 18th centuries." (9)

I will certainly not hesitate in the slightest to fully acknowledge in a grateful way that this is a fine example of the fact that Islam can be spread in a peaceful manner amongst those willing freely to participate. It is not my intention to suggest or imply in any way anything otherwise.

East Coast of Africa.
“Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"

Our Islamic history revisionist friend wishes to talk of the East Coast of Africa? Well gosh! Just how did Islam reach the East coast of Africa? Oh that's right.....that wouldn't be a problem after all of North Africa was conquered by Muslim conquest, now would it?

“The Umayyad conquest of North Africa continued the century of rapid Arab Muslim expansion following the death of Muhammad in 632 CE. By 640 the Arabs controlled Mesopotamia, had invaded Armenia, and were concluding their conquest of Byzantine Syria. Damascus was the seat of the Umayyad caliphate. And by the end of 641 all of Egypt was in Arab hands. Then, with the destruction of the Persian army at the Battle of Nihawānd (Nehawand) in 642, the conquest of the Persian Empire was essentially finished”.

"It was at this point that Arab military expeditions into North Africa were first launched by local initiative from Egypt, continuing for years and resulting in the spread of Islam."(10)

When some talk of how all of this sort of thing was actually the political and military conquest of Islamic rulers and not really Islam itself per se, you may wish to remind them of this example of which there should be no "isolated example" of here given the fact that it stands to reason that a religion of the dominating social force will dominate along with those who are conquering, or that somehow the Islamic rulers in question were not aware of that fact, or the fact that as discussed spreading Islam through violent means is an actual scriptural teaching that has been observed and recognized by those in a position willing to follow this scriptural teaching. It simply amazes me that there are those who are willing and able to convince themselves to the contrary.

"Christianity wasn't being spread by the sword, no... it was just the Christian rulers and their Christian armies spreading their Christian military and political influence!"

Seriously, just about any Muslim that I know would laugh at such a statement, and justifiably so!

Thomas Carlyle.

"The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book ’Heroes and Hero worship’, refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam":

“ The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at it's starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try's to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.”

Mr. Thomas Carlyle is talking here as if he is some sort of famous delirious hospital patient in a famously delirious coma.

Never the less….
“One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try's to propagate with that, will do little for him.”
But then we have…

"You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."
O.K. So we know that the sword alone won’t always do it, but let’s not get carried away, and be so gullible to believe that the sword didn’t play a very crucial part in the spread of Islam now shall we?

No compulsion in religion.

"With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" (Al-Qur’an 2:256)

The sword of the intellect.

The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125: "Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." (Al-Qur’an 16:125)"

Yes, that last one’s a nice verse, and what if were not convinced by someone's "beautiful preaching"? Now let’s look at this issue a bit closer......

Some of this just needs a bit of research, as an example the Islamic scholar and well known historian and Islamic religious figure of Islamic jurisprudence Ibn Hazm (994-1064) gives his explanation of Qur'an 2:256, the "tolerance" verse, ("Let there be no compulsion in religion...."), where he demonstrates the true purpose of this well touted verse of the Qur'an...

"The prophet Muhammad did not accept from the Arab heathens less than Islam or the sword. This is compulsion of faith. No compulsion in faith (or religion) applies only to Christians or Jews because they are not to be forced to embrace the religion. They have the option either to embrace Islam, the sword, or to pay the poll-tax. In this case they can keep their own faith. It was truly said on the authority of the apostle of God that there is no compulsion in the faith."

-Ibn Hazm, Al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa al-Nihal, Vol.8 commenting on 2:256

Once again, the “poll tax” was also referred to as “Jizya” and was ONLY applicable to the people of the book other than the Muslim (Christian's, Jew's and the Sabian (11) according to the Qur'an 2:62, 5:69 and 22:17) Therefore the "unbeliever" who wasn't a Christian, Jew or Sabian had but two choices..... embrace Islam.... or the sword.

Although in all fairness there is disagreement among Muslim scholars themselves regarding this verse, when we look this up in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, we see that indeed it was a particular Jewish community that was concerned here, and that they are of course considered one of the “people of the book” who would qualify for the "Jizya" tax.
This would make perfect sense considering Qur'an 9:29.....

Qur'an 9:29

29“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

There's no compulsion going on here...right?

Qur’an 47:33-34

33 Verily, those who disbelieve, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allâh (i.e. Islam); then die while they are disbelievers, - Allah will not forgive them.34 So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allâh is with you, and He will never decrease the reward of your good deeds. (Emphasis mine)
Now would you say that this sort of thing is defensive or proactive? Should we dare ask just what is being considered here....."good deeds"?

Having the unbeliever pay a tax which they may or may not be able to afford if they had this choice as a member of the people of the book status (Christian, Jew or Sabian) in lieu of themselves being killed or forced to leave the conquered area .. once again, there's no compulsion or coercion for becoming a Muslim here..... right?

I would like to address a particular excuse used by some, that is that just because the Muslim rulers were busy conquering that this was a purely military and political type of situation and didn't mean that Islam itself was actually being spread by the sword! While there at it some will also try to justify the "Jizya" by talking about Jesus and the New Testament. The jizya is a potentially very coercive and compulsive thing economically for someone to convert to Islam, whatever excuse one wishes to give for its implementation when it's being forced upon a conquered populace. If there were others who implemented this type of tax prior to Islam and someones prophet seemed not to mind, would that make it something justifiable? What I'm speaking of here is the claim that the Muslim prophet Issa (Jesus) did not mind and accepted the right of the Roman's to take "Jizya" from those under Roman rule. We can find both being offered at: http://load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=481&section=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions

The New Testament (N.I.V.)

Matthew 22:16-21

¹⁶ They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. ¹⁷ Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

¹⁸ But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? ¹⁹ Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, ²⁰ and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
²¹ “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Should the purpose of religion as an advancement not be to do something better than others did before you? Or should it be to use it as a precedent to justify your behavior? According to the Taurat (Torah) Moses killed a gentile for working on the sabbath in Num.15:32-36 this is in accordance with Ex.35:2, is this what should be justified today therefore as well? After all, a previous prophet thought it was all good! I've always found it interesting to see when someone wishes to use both historical context and historical precedent in practically the same sentence. If the same thing was done and some of us wish to justify then let's use historical precedent, but if one should wish to excuse or be an apologetic of some sort, well then that's o.k. we can then just use historical context! No double talk here... right? This demonstrates time and time again, that for many such people, it's not the scripture but what one may choose to make of it per what they simply have been taught and have accepted to believe and what makes that so much easier is when we start telling fairy tales about our religious scripture and history. I will as well make a note of the fact that the comparison is an incorrect one. When we are discussing what would be called a "tax" we are not talking of the equivalent of "Jizya" because in the Roman empire this was more of a general tax that usually averaged between 1 and as high as 3 percent during a situation such as a time of war.(12)
When people speak of this though I believe that what they are speaking of is referred to as the "Fiscus Judaicus".

The tax was initially imposed by Roman Emperor Vespasian as one of the measures against Jews as a result of the First Roman Jewish War of 66–73 CE. Vespasian imposed the tax in the aftermath of the Jewish revolt (Josephus BJ 7. 218; Dio Cassius 66.7.2). The tax was imposed on all Jews throughout the empire, not just on those who took part in the revolt against Rome. The tax was imposed after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE in place of the levy (or Tithe) payable by Jews towards the upkeep of the Temple. The amount levied was two denarii, equivalent to the one-half of a shekel that observant Jews had previously paid for the upkeep of the Temple of Jerusalem (Exodus30:13). The tax was to go instead to the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter, the major center of ancient Roman religion. The fiscus Iudaicus was a humiliation for the Jews. In Rome, a special procurator known as procurator ad capitularia Iudaeorum was responsible for the collection of the tax. Only those who had abandoned Judaism were exempt from paying it. – ( ”Fiscus Judaicus”, Encyclopedia Judaica)

This is a classic example of what is known as comparing apples and oranges and calling them both fruit, because both the Jizya and the "Fiscus Judaicus" were both a tax although that certainly does not make them comparable. This tax was being levied against the Jews in particular for a specific reason regarding the first Jewish war, not against someone who wasn't of a certain other type of religious belief ("people of the book") and who would therefore qualify to be able to keep their religion without being killed or forced to leave the conquered area.

As a last thought on this I will say that I always find it rather amusing when the Muslim needs to quote that great Christian classic... the one that many a Muslim has told me is a collection of corrupt scripture....the New Testament of the Christian Bible to try and support their position!

Once again let's look at Qur'an 9:5

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
If we look at the verse at 9:5 of the Qur'an we can see that this was referring to what the behavior should be when dealing with the non-believers who again, had no arguement and didn't consider themselves at war with Muhammad or those who followed him after a treaty has expired. How could it be any better for those non-believers where there was no treaty in the first place?
The Qur'an 9:5 in context was simply during a time of war and was self-defence some say? If the Muslim should read their own scripture as it has been discussed, they would know just how stupid that sounds. Other than the scripture of 9:1-5 itself contradicting that silliness for an excuse, what if it were true? How long then should the jihad last?

We have the answer here: Qur'an 2 :192

(192) And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (alone). -Dr. Mohsin translation

Yes, I know that the other translations of the Qur’an usually include two conditions here and not just this one, but never the less it's the same flavor if read carefully. There are two conditions for not waring and killing the unbeliever given as this verse is otherwise translated, one that the Muslim must fight them (unbelievers) until persecution is no more (however ‘persecution’ is to be arbitrarily defined here) and two, until ALL worship is for Allah alone.
Oh and yes..... that’s very peaceful and self-defensive don’t you think?

There are those whom I have had such conversations with who are fond of telling me that I'm just taking scripture out of "context". "Well, your just um taking that out of context", but when I ask them just how that is and just what would be the proper context... they don't ever seem to have much to say but to perhaps get angry and or repeat the assertion. Now why do you think that is? I'll tell you why, it's because that is something usually used as just another cheap excuse when they are shown something that they don't want to believe. So... the next time someone gives you that line, ask them just how is such and such here being taken out of context, and what would be the proper context, and why? This is what would be termed "critical thinking" type skill, and is very useful. Who knows? They just might give you a cohesive answer that you might be able to further explore and learn something from.

A question that I have for all Muslim who talk of the “peaceful” and "tolerant" scripture of the Qur'an:

Just why do you think it is that of any of the verses to be construed as peaceful in the Qur’an, if we go to anyone’s Qur'an Tafsir (exegesis or explanation) and I do mean anyone’s you will not find a single “peaceful” verse in the Qur’an that is being applied to the polytheist? The writer of the Tafsir may or may not choose to interpret that it is "indicative in general" a few hundred years or so after the fact, but if this is true why not then a single example of the circumstance regarding any such a “revelation” involving the truest of “unbeliever”…. the polytheist? As an example, in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir we read regarding the explanation of 2:256 the much touted "No Compulsion in religion" Ayah (revelation) or "verse" :
Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that before Islam, "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated(from Al-Madinah), some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, ' We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed, "There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.''
In case your wondering, you won't find any such an example of a "tolerance" verse that was being applied toward a polytheist situation in the Qur'an itself or any Hadith either.

Were there not enough polytheist infidels to find such an example for a "tolerance" revelation?
If anyone should believe that this issue has not already been properly addressed... I believe that this is a legitimate question that should be answered . Should we assume that any "tolerance" verse that is ambiguous regarding the specific circumstance involved (an example Qur'an 109:1-6) is "indicative in general" without a single such example of polytheist tolerance, given the scriptural evidence to the contrary that we have? We know that those who had no argument with Muhammad nor Islam were still according to Qur'an 9:1-5 to be hunted down and murdered, and the only specific exception to this ever given in Islamic scripture were the "people of the book".

Qur'an 48:29

"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other."

Here we see that this can't be self-defensive and or during a time of war but a general proscription, other wise there would be no need for the comparison of the Muslim being compassionate amongst each other. Which would of course imply not much if any compassion for the "unbeliever". During a war type of context, it would simply be a matter of "us" vs. "them", would you have to remind the Muslim to be compassionate toward each other in comparison to the "unbeliever" within the context of a war going on?

Here's what the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir online has to say on the matter:

(Qur'an in a flash section Surra 9)

The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites

Allah commanded His Messenger to strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and to be harsh against them. Allah also commanded him to be merciful with the believers who followed him, informing him that the destination of the disbelievers and hypocrites is the Fire in the Hereafter. Ibn Mas`ud commented on Allah's statement,

﴿جَـهِدِ الْكُفَّـرَ وَالْمُنَـفِقِينَ﴾

(Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites) "With the hand, or at least have a stern face with them.'' Ibn `Abbas said, "Allah commanded the Prophet to fight the disbelievers with the sword, to strive against the hypocrites with the tongue and annulled lenient treatment of them.'' Ad-Dahhak commented, "Perform Jihad against the disbelievers with the sword and be harsh with the hypocrites with words, and this is the Jihad performed against them.'' Similar was said by Muqatil and Ar-Rabi`. Al-Hasan and Qatadah said, "Striving against them includes establishing the (Islamic Penal) Law of equality against them.'' In combining these statements, we could say that Allah causes punishment of the disbelievers and hypocrites with all of these methods in various conditions and situations, and Allah knows best.

During a time of war?

(Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites) "With the hand, or at least have a stern face with them.'' Whose war? This can't be talking about a military engagement on the battlefield. Can you imagine giving someone a "stern face" during a time of war? If you lost your sword somehow in battle, not to worry about hand to hand combat... a "stern face" will do the trick!

As a last thought on this, I would again like to mention again the topic of "abrogation" as a term pertaining to Islamic scripture. It basically means to replace or cancel out a previous "revelation".

Because the Qur'an is not assembled in chronological order, it can at times be difficult when referring to the Qur'an alone, to ascertain what ayah or "revelation" are abrogated by a later one.

The one sure guidepost for this matter is the fact that as most Muslim scholars would agree, Islam and Muhammad's religious journey started out much more peaceful than it developed during the later years although they may differ as to why. There are some Muslim scholars who champion this development of violence... I give this link later, but it is appropriate now as well: http://islamqa.com/en/ref/43087
If you would be interested in comparing the chronological order of the sura's with the traditional order as it is given in the Qur'an : http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.qran.org/q-chrono.htm&date=2011-05-13

Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984."An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?"

The Reader’s Digest Almanac is being sourced here, although the first source for this article was “The Plain Truth Magazine”, a Christian periodical. The author’s name was Keith W. Stump and the name of the article was “A Crucial Half Century Of Religion”, and author Keith Stump’s sources of comparison were: The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1935 and The Reader’s Digest Almanac and Yearbook 1983, this piece was then used as a source for the Readers Digest Almanac 1986. This does not seem to have any necessary relevance on whatever the facts may or may not look like now about 26 years later. Let’s also not forget that then as well as now, we are talking about a religious belief where, in most Muslim countries due to Sharia law, the sentence for trying to leave Islam (Apostasy) is death, usually carried out by stoning the unfortunate one to death in the street or where perhaps a simple hanging from a tree will do. Even in Non-Muslim countries therefore, to be an “apostate” can be considered a very shameful and fearful thing for the individual and family involved as well possibility among some if not many who have immigrated to a European country. This combined with an increase in birth rates amongst Muslim’s in Muslim countries and elsewhere compared to a decline of birth-rate’s in America and Europe among the non-Muslim, just might have something to do with such statistics.(13)

Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.

"Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?"

… and just what “large numbers” is he talking about?
Should I dare mention that if this were even true, immigration and the variation of birth rates as discussed, can certainly play a role in much of this.
"Once very small, the Muslim population of the US increased greatly in the 20th century, with much of the growth driven by rising immigration and conversion, and a comparatively high birth rate.(14) (15) In 2005, more people from Islamic countries became legal permanent United States residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades."(16) (17)
What of the claim over all?
It has been claimed that according to Guinness Book of World Records (2003), Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion by number of conversions each year, however, even if you believe any of this (how would you compile such a statistic?) it can only be considered true if you don’t consider Atheism or Agnosticism or some other brand of non-Monotheistic perspective.
"The American Religious Identification Survey gave non-religious groups the largest gain in terms of absolute numbers - 14,300,000 (8.4% of the population) to 29,400,000 (14.1% of the population) for the period 1990 to 2001 in the USA.(18) (19) In Australia, census data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics give "no religion" the largest gains in absolute numbers over the 15 years from 1991 to 2006, from 2,948,888 (18.2% of the population that answered the question) to 3,706,555 (21.0% of the population that answered the question).(20) Reuters describes how at study profiling the "No religion" demographic found that the so-called "Nones", at least in the U.S., are the fastest growing religious affiliation category. The Nones comprise 33% agnostics, 33% theists, and 10% atheists.(21) (22) According to INEGI (23), in Mexico, the number of atheists grows annually by 5.2%, while the number of Catholics grows by 1.7%.(24) According to statistics Canada, the number of Nones more than doubled (an increase of about 60%) between 1985 and 2004."(25)
Ironically it would seem as if the fastest growing “religion” (being used here to simply mean way or perspective of thought) are those who usually claim not to have any!
As a last thought to this I would suggest that the fact that something is a popular idea certainly can’t make it anything more at all than that… a popular idea or trend. If people in general found it a popular thing to go and jump off a bridge, would you go and join them?
No, in case some should suggest, I’m not suggesting that becoming a Muslim is necessarily the same as jumping of a bridge. The idea here is that because something might be popular for one reason or another simply doesn’t make it the best decision.

" Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says
'People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED pbuh) was born'”

Interestingly enough if a non-Muslim were to make a statement like this, as this man equates the birth of their prophet Muhammad with the dropping of a bomb he or she would probably be called an “Islamophobe” (among other very nasty things) for doing so!

With that thought in mind, I will anticipate that there will be those who will wish to consider this simply an “Islamophobic” type of article. So just what is meant by the word Islamophobe?
The word broken down literally would mean someone who is afraid of Islam, although that is not usually the way a word like this is employed. The way that the word is usually used would imply someone who has a negative perspective of Islam. Notice just how subjective this can be. The word is quite often used in a way to demonize those who may be perceived to have a negative perspective of Islam, as a sort of knee jerk buzz word. In this way there are those who would wish to avoid any reasonable and constructive conversation by seeking to socially ostracize any who dare wish to talk about such matters but in the most bowing and placating of ways. Those who have a negative perspective of Christianity or Buddhism as just two examples, don’t have to concern themselves with being labelled with a demonized or negative name themselves for doing so. I'm sure that we have all heard the various excuses for inhibiting an open dialog, such as to keep the peace because we wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings etc. However,when an honest and open dialog is discouraged, it actually helps to promote intolerance and therefore violence.

There is no such thing as the factual truth that should ever fear examination.

At the moment I am living in Malaysia (where the official religion is Islam) where you can go into any t shirt shop and find at least one or two t shirts with the Nazi Third Reich swastika.

Not the original Hindu Swastika mind you, but the Nazi Third Reich Swastika.

I was going to publish the name and address of this store but have chosen not to because this is certainly not an isolated incident.

I’ve heard that this type of apparel is made in Thailand and if true would only indicate that there are some Business interests, whether they consider themselves Buddhist or not, that would see the market for this Nazi wear in Malaysia as an opportunity. Of course, those working for the factory simply need a job and have no say so as to what is produced. The real question therefore is why there would be a market for this type of Nazi wear in Malaysia… an Islamic country?
I Know many a Muslim who has a very unfavorable view toward the Jews, and the Jews could respond with very much the same response that I hear from a Muslim on these issues...."your taking such and such out of historical context" or "your just stereotyping" or how about "you just don't know how to read ancient Hebrew"? etc. Should we just simply call these Muslim who really don't like the Jews at all merely a bunch of "anti-Semites"? Would that really address the issues to be discussed? The point here is that there are some very real and serious issues here that can't be addressed by simply calling someone a name. Many Muslim that I have known have always criticized such a tacit but today many find it convenient to play the same "knee jerk buzz word" game themselves! There is a difference between a term being used as a qualified descriptive adjective, and it being used as a way of shucking off and avoiding an objective and reasonable conversation that deals with issues that others would rather avoid and not recognize.

I have NO problem with a Muslim or for that matter a Christian or anyone else with what they may wish to believe or with the fact that they identify themselves as a this or that. They have every right to believe that a man who was a warrior and military leader is some sort of avatar or “prophet” of what they term as “God” or “Allah” as he chose to portray himself. In case anyone should wish to talk of Krishna the great warrior or something else of the sort, I will remind those that Buddhism is only a branch of the Hinduism family of religions in general. There is not a single word in all of our scripture of either the Theravada or Mahayana schools that would ever condone the purposeful injuring or killing of anyone for any reason. This is why when it comes to Buddhism, contrary to both Christianity and Islam, there has never been a war fought in the name of or for the sake of our religion that is, a war fought in the name of or for the sake of any Buddha or Buddhism using actual Buddhist scripture to support such encouragement.The most maniacal of crazed dictators have always known what a complete jackass they would sound like if they ever were to suggest such a thing! In case anyone is wondering, Japan's involvement in WW2 was never actually carried out as a declared war in the name of Buddha or Buddhism either, although some did take advantage of the terminology of Buddhism to exhort the Kamikaze. If anyone is looking for a true religion of peace, I would suggest that they may wish to keep all of this this in mind.

O.K. let's start with the Jewish tribal culture: The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name. -- Exodus Ch.15 Vs.3
Then the Christian: The Christian will usually tell you "That's just that old-time Old Testament before Jesus came!" Really? Ask them about the Book of Acts Chapter 5. This is where their "holy"spirit murders both a husband and wife. They sold some land and because they wanted to keep some of the proceeds for themselves they told a lie as to how much it was sold for. So after Jesus, according to the New Testament saves a woman from being stoned to death for adultery (John 8:2-11) these two were then both murdered in front of the apostle Peter by the Christian "holy" spirit for not coughing it all up! Then we have Muhammad. In this regard as a "people of the book" kind of guy at least, I believe that we should give him credit for consistency. This is why when a Muslim talks to me about how their religious tradition is so much different from the Christian or Jew I usually have to restrain myself from laughter!

I encourage all to read both the Qur'an and the Hadith, here are two good websites to start with!
http://www.searchtruth.com/ and http://www.quranexplorer.com/
At these two sites you'll be able to research both!
While were at it, here's the link for a good Qur'an Tafsir (exegesis or explanation) site, where you'll have several tafsir to choose from: http://www.altafsir.com/
Don't forget the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir: http://www.qtafsir.com/

MY problem?

When you start talking about cutting MY head or the heads of my fellow Buddhist and Hindu brothers and sisters off and setting US or any other on FIRE for what we believe. Don’t give me any stupidity such as “Well you’re a Buddhist, so you shouldn’t care…” that would be like me walking up to a Muslim and pointing a gun to his/her head and say something like, but you believe that your going to be with your “Allah” so what do you care?
THAT yes, I have a problem with. Believe it, understand it, and KNOW it.

Who today, including any thinking Muslim can deny that Islam has developed what would be referred to in psychological terminology as a dissociative (split/multiple) personality disorder? I'll tell you why. It's because the development and history of Islam reflected by its own scripture has a conflict with the majority of today's Muslim's who simply want to live their lives in peace very much like the rest of us.

What better guideposts for a standard does a religion have but its own scripture? Many seem to be afraid to acknowledge what this indicates because of a divine styled fetishism that they are taught to have with the Qur'an. If a Muslim admits that indeed there are scriptures that are perhaps out of date for today's world then this is seen as an affront to Islam, because the supposedly "timeless" and "divine" application of the Qur'an and for many the credibility of Islam itself is therefore brought into question.

This is why many Islamic apologists wish to have it both ways at their convenience.

Any excuse will do! You don't read Arabic? Well then! You just must have a misunderstanding! I ask my Muslim friends when they give me this, whether they speak Arabic and if they tell me no then I ask them how do they know I'm not reading it correctly because I don't speak Arabic if they don't either? For those that do speak Arabic I ask them just which word or words in my English/Arabic Qur'an missed a proper translation and exactly and what would be the proper translation and why? Once again, we can use our critical thinking skill...they always seem to want to quickly change the subject. When I bring them back to it, they often become angry at me and or insist on changing the subject. "Well I don't have time for that now but um I'll look that one up later and get back to you... they never do. Others will want to tell me about some sort of "secret" meaning that I just don't understand because I'm not a Muslim! They of course forget the fact that this would render the spiritual revelation capability of the Qur'an meaningless as spiritual scripture because I would need to understand the Qur'an to be touched by the message and become a Muslim, but I wouldn't be able to do that unless I already was a Muslim and understood it in the first place! I get this from Christian's all the time! "Well you know, in order to really understand the Bible you need to have the 'holy' spirit"! Its the same "catch 22" your screwed both ways type of situation. Unless of course you choose to simply believe as they do, regardless of how nonsensical that may be.

I'm waiting for someone to tell me next about how I need the special Qur'an reading glasses so that my eyesight isn't obscured by the divine aura energy of the Qur'an!

They would rather remain ignorant of the fact that this sort of self denial about their own scripture and religious history is helping to kill people. The fanatical killing type of Muslim has an advantage with this when he looks at his people and says, "Look at this spectacle!" "They have allowed the unbeliever to con them into not knowing their own scripture!" " Look at how they misconstrue this or that to be interpreted as something that the unbeliever will have no reason to fear!" "You have been made weak by the unbeliever."

If you have a bit of trouble with this sort of talk, check this Islamic web site out and read this page thoroughly ..... http://islamqa.com/en/ref/43087 ironically this question and answer piece is also titled "Was Islam spread by the sword?"

One of the things you'll see written here is this:

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (12/14):

"Islam spread by means of proof and evidence to those who
listened to the message and responded to it, and it spread by means of force and
the sword to those who were stubborn and arrogant, until they were overwhelmed
and became no longer stubborn, and submitted to that reality".

Perhaps' someone may wish to call their own Muslim a bunch of "Islamaphobe's" also! Some Muslim's will talk to me as if they can't understand how I can have any Muslim friends and think for myself at the same time! These are usually the type who refuse to acknowledge any of this and would rather live in their own world of candy coated self denial.

In it's own special way though, as well as being seen as something negative, this self denial can also actually be seen as a positive sign that Islam is willing to allow itself to develop more so into something that the majority of Muslim's today prefer, that is of Islam as a peaceful and tolerant religion.

The problem is that if we keep denying the root cause of the problem to begin with, because of some type of sacred fetishism for a book among other reasons, then that just makes it all so much more difficult to do so, because it encourages those who do not engage in such fairy tale self denial.

Instead of picking a verse here or there to try and "prove" that the Qur'an demonstrates the religion of Islam as a religion of peace OR not, lets look at the religious scripture of the Qur'an and Hadith as a whole and see just what the over whelming message really is. How many people who read this article will take advantage of the links that I have provided to do just that? If this article says something that you don't like, will you just dismiss it with perhaps a little name calling or will you have the ability to take it a step further? After some of us have the courage to do so, let's have the audacity to acknowledge what has been revealed to us. Is there more evidence that Islam developed into something that was intended to peacefully coexist or dominate? Now if you can show me Qur'an scripture that demonstrate that Islam was ment to dominate and I can show you a few examples of something that looks the opposite, is this not a further demonstration that Islam started out much more peaceful then what ended up developing, along with the "revelations" to justify this development? To say the very least we are looking at a highly contradictory situation and as previously mentioned I would suggest that these contradictions didn't just "appear" for no reason out of nowhere.

Do the terrorist today who kill in the name of "Allah" really have it all wrong? Have they just "hijacked" what was ultimately intended as a peaceful religion? If so, just where did they get the idea's that encourage them to do so? I know it's not from any Buddhist scripture.
Yes, killing in the name of “Allah” or condoning such but then declaring Islam a peaceful religion out of the other side of your mouth at your convenience I have a problem with, and when there are those who will want to take a little walk down to the corner of fairy tale street and bullshit avenue and encourage others to do the same, and when doing so can only further the potential encouragement of such very sad episodes of our history as an otherwise peace loving humanity..... then yes, I believe that I'll have something to say about that as well.
Get it? Got it? .......Good.

I sincerely wish all of you a very peaceful spiritual life!

Bhikkhu aggacitto
(Brother Mark)

References:

(websites are all linked for your research convenience)

1.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/islam?show=0&t=1314944547
2.http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=984 also: http://islamqa.com/en/ref/39655
3.Visser, Hans & Visser, Herschel (2009). Islamic finance: principles and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 29. ISBN 9781845425258
4.Fletcher, Richard (2006). Moorish Spain. Los Angeles: University of California Press. pp. 35. ISBN 0-520-24840-6.
5.P. 88 The Rosary and the Lamp By Baburao Patel
6.The Castes and Tribes of H.E.H. the Nizam's Dominions
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhtiyar_Khilji
8.http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm
9.Ricklefs, M.C. (1991). A History of Modern Indonesia since c.1300, 2nd Edition. London:(9) MacMillan. pp. 3. ISBN 0-333-57689-.
10.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_North_Africa
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabians
12.Detroit Free Press Jan 28, 2011- Muslim Population set to outpace others Also: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
13. http://www.unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php
14. The New York Times Oct.22, 2001 A NATION CHALLENGED: AMERICAN MUSLIMS; Islam Attracts Converts By the Thousand, Drawn Before and After Attacks
15.SeattleTimes Sept.10,2006 –Article- Muslim Immigration has bounced back
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003252072_911muslims10.html
16.Migration Information Source- July 1, 2006 http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/print.cfm?ID=409
17. American Religious Identification Survey, Key Findings The Graduate Center of the City University of New York : http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Faculty/GC-Faculty-Activities/ARIS--American-Religious-Identification-Survey/Key-findings
18. American Religious Identification Survey, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Faculty/GC-Faculty-Activities/ARIS--American-Religious-Identification-Survey
19. American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population A Report Based on the American Religious Identification Survey 2008 http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/NONES_08.pdf
20. American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population A Report Based on the American Religious Identification Survey 2008 http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/NONES_08.pdf
21. Faith World, “No religion” segment of U.S. population profiled/Sept.23, 2009
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/09/23/no-religion-segment-of-us-population-profiled/
22. The National Institute of Statistic and Geography (INEGI by its name in Spanish, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía)
23. American Religious Identification Survey, Key Findings The Graduate Center of the City University of New York: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Faculty/GC-Faculty-Activities/ARIS--American-Religious-Identification-Survey/Key-findings
24. Catholic News Agency- July 2011/ http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/mexico_still_catholic_but_number_of_atheists_on_the_rise/

25. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm#decline "Who is Religious?" by Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg

SHOULD A BUDDHIST BE VEGETARIAN?

2011-07-15T14:08:00.016+08:00

Although the first of the five precepts, the basic code of ethical conduct for all practicing Buddhists, calls upon followers to refrain from intentional acts of killing, it does not address the consumption of flesh from animals that are already dead. Theravada monks, however, are clearly forbidden to eat meat from a few specific kinds of animals, but for reasons not directly related to the ethics of killing.2. Monks are free to pursue vegetarianism by leaving uneaten any meat that may have been placed in the alms bowl, but because they depend on the open-handed generosity of lay supporters3. (who may or may not themselves be vegetarian) it is considered unseemly for them to make special food requests. In those parts of the world (including wide areas of south Asia) where vegetarianism is uncommon and many dishes are prepared in a meat or fish broth, vegetarian monks would soon face a simple choice: eat meat or starve.4.Taking part in killing for food is definitely incompatible with the first precept, and should be avoided. This includes hunting, fishing, trapping, butchering, steaming live clams, eating live raw oysters, etc.

And what about asking someone else to catch and kill the animal for me? On this point the teachings are also unambiguous: we should never intentionally ask someone to kill on our behalf. We should not, for example, order a fresh steamed lobster from the restaurant menu. The Dhammapada expresses this sentiment succinctly:

All tremble at the rod, all hold their life dear. Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill. - Dhp 130

And what about purchasing meat of an animal that someone else killed? Is this consistent with the Buddhist principles of compassion and non-harming, a cornerstone of right resolve? This is where things get tricky, and where the suttas offer only spotty guidance. In the Buddha's definition of right livelihood for a lay person, one of the five prohibited occupations is "business in meat" [AN 5.177]. Although he does not explicitly state whether this prohibition also extends to us, the butcher's clients and customers, it does place us uncomfortably close to a field of unskillful action.; To summarize what the suttas tell us: it appears that one may, with a clear conscience, receive, cook, and eat meat that either was freely offered by someone else, or that came from an animal who died of natural causes. But as to purchasing meat, I am just not sure. There are no clear-cut answers here.; We are all guilty of complicity, in one way or another and to varying degrees, in the harming and death of other creatures. Whether we are carnivore, vegan, or something in between, no matter how carefully we choose our food, somewhere back along the long chain of food production and preparation, killing took place. No matter how carefully we trod, with every step countless insects, mites, and other creatures inadvertently perish under our feet. This is just the nature of our world. It is only when we escape altogether from the round of birth and death, when we enter into the final liberation of nibbana — the Deathless — can we wash our hearts clean, once and for all, of killing and death. To steer us towards that lofty goal, the Buddha gave us very realistic advice: he didn't ask us to become vegetarian; he asked us to observe the precepts. For many of us, this is challenge enough. This is where we begin.1.

Well! Aren't some of the Mahayana Buddhists vegetarian?

The Lankavatara Sutra does take a strong position against the eating of meat but...

I must wonder, if someone should have a cigarette would that be showing a good moral example given the fact that cigarettes kill thousands and cause untold misery every year? Is it the proper example, to support such an industry? Should you be responsible for someone else's cancer because you bought that cigarette? Would not buying that cigarette have prevented someone else's cancer?; How about a drink? Have you been “morally irresponsible” by having that cocktail lately?; For those willing to point this out, yes I understand that for some there are issues regarding the five precepts here.... I am simply drawing a none the less example or two of this angle of thinking.; Let's take a look at the story of Devadatta shall we?; In the Vinaya Cullavagga Ch.7 the would be assassin of the buddha that was his cousin Devadatta , encouraged the buddha to adhere to more strict practices for the sangha, one of them being to eat only vegetarian food for alms. Even though I'm sure he must have known that the laity would come to understand that him and his disciples were only accepting vegetarian food, he wisely refused. He knew that the issue of whether or not to be a vegetarian was not the key issue of suffering in samsara. If you have ever drunk a glass of beer, would that be a tarnished example for all of humanity, especially those who might have had a loved one killed by a drunk driver, or how about the many homes and lives in other ways ruined by the industry that produces this product? Are you supporting such misery? The Buddha knew that we are most responsible for that which we most directly affect. He knew that there was a more encompassing issue at hand.......; That would include the key issue of suffering....that being the first spoke on the wheel of dependant origination, ignorance.; Ignorance of our unlimited spiritual potential would be a good way to put it. Not ignorance of the vegetarian way, or of how baby seals are being killed, or of the needless suffering and death of the whales being needlessly killed for the whaling industry, nor ignorance of how alchohol causes so much suffering or of how cigarettes cause so much suffering and misery …..... do you think that I'm comparing apples and oranges as they say and calling them both fruit?; If someone were to find themselves reborn in some sort of hellish realm would it be more prudent to figure a way not to make it back to a place that was made for suffering or instead organize a grassroots boycott against the local coal miners union because they produce some of the method for the burning of the flames?; If we look at the root cause of ignorance and work on that, then fewer and fewer people will be reborn engaged in the process of samsara as an animal that will be slaughtered or someone willing to complain about it. Not ignorance of the best diet to eat as a vegetarian or not or ignorance of how baby seals are being needlessly murdered, or ignorance of the suffering of the whales at the hands of the whaling industry or ignorance of just how many people die and the tremendous suffering caused by drunk driving each and every year but ...; the ignorance of our true spiritual ability as human beings to trancend all of such suffering.

DN 1

Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views (excerpt)

translated from the Pali by

Bhikkhu Bodhi

ll. The analysis of virtue

1. The Short Section on Virtue (Cūḷasīla)

7. "It is, bhikkhus, only to trifling and insignificant matters, to the minor details of mere moral virtue, that a worldling would refer when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata. And what are those trifling and insignificant matters, those minor details of mere moral virtue, to which he would refer? This of course is not to say that there is no virtue in such actions, quite to the contrary! The Venerable Gotama was drawing a comparison between a worldling perspective of what was important spiritually for praise and what would otherwise be considered more of an important matter for those who had attained something more than the mundane worldly perspective. Would there be those who would venture to say that the purpose of the Buddha dhamma is to have the spiritual experience and maturity of a "worlding"?

So what are we now dealing with?

The eradication of spiritual ignorance. What worth would that be without it effecting our practical understanding and practice of our spiritual potential to cease the process of samsara? To cease the process that has the worldling type in it's many different varieties of suffering associated and bound with it? This would include as alluded to earlier the suffering of being birthed as an animal soon to be readied for the slaughter.

So the question is then, where are your priorities? Would you rather focus or even obsess with one of the many issues entailing suffering in a world ready made for suffering, or can you realize a spiritual potential and a worthy goal beyond that?

After going through different types of this sort of worldling perspective he then brings about a different conversation.....

lll.Speculations about the past

28. "There are, bhikkhus, other dhammas, deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, proponds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak. And what are these dhammas?

Why beyond the sphere of reasoning?

Because some things need a subjective experiential exposure before they can be understood, this is why he Buddha dhamma gives a method for discovering a subjective understanding of spiritual truth and not just a moral conjecturing by way of the practice of the eight fold noble path.

This is why Buddhism does not just simply read you the jack and tell you "this is what you'll believe or your not one of us".

29. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, who hold settled views about the past, and who on eighteen grounds assert various conceptual theorems referring to the past. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins frame their speculations? (The eighteen views being categorized amongst them.)

1. Eternalism (Sassatavāda)

2.Partial-Eternalism (Ekaccasassatavāda)

3. Doctrines of the Finitude and Infinity of the World (Antānantavāda)

4. Doctrines of Endless Equivocation (Amarāvikkhepavāda):

5. Doctrines of Fortuitous Origination (Adhiccasamuppannavāda)

Bhikkhu aggacitto

(Brother Mark)

Notes:

1.Frequently Asked Questions About Buddhism edited by John T. Bullitt © 2007–2011

2.Theravada monks are forbidden to eat raw meat or fish, as well as the flesh of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, hyenas, and panthers. See the description of "staple foods" in chapter 8 of The Buddhist Monastic Code. A monk who eats any of those kinds of meat commits an offense that he must confess to his fellow monks. Much of this may well be not only for reasons of health as with the first three, but because there was the protection of the monk in mind, some animals will attack humans if they smell their own flesh.

3.See "The Economy of Gifts" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

4.Monastics within some schools of Mahayana Buddhism do practice vegetarianism. See Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction (fifth edition) by R.H. Robinson, W.L. Johnson, & Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Belmont, California: Wadsworth,2005),p.213. . 5. H. Nakamura (Indian Buddhism, 1987 according the the popular Zen master D.T. Suzuki 6.The Lankavatara Sutra - A Mahayana Text, 1931

8. "'Having abandoned the destruction of life, the recluse Gotama abstains from the destruction of life. He has laid aside the rod and the sword, and dwells conscientious, full of kindness, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings.' It is in this way, bhikkhus, that the worldling would speak when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata. (emphasis mine)

NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA

Translation: May veneration be presented to the exalted one who is a Buddha and who has achieved enlightenment by himself righteously. X3

SHOULD A BUDDHIST BE VEGETARIAN?

A conversation worth having.

In the M.N. Sutta #55 the Venerable Gotama instructs his disciples not to eat the animal that the monk has either seen with the eye or heard with the ear or has suspected with the mind that the animal has been killed specifically for them. He could have reasoned that to accept food that was from an animal would be a bad moral example not worthy of somone following his teaching, whether being offered or in the case of the laity, otherwise depending on the circumstances . He is never known to have said such a thing, instead moderation in such judgement was the example.

Are Buddhists vegetarian?

Some are, some aren't. From the Theravada perspective, the choice of whether or not to eat meat is purely a matter of personal preference. Many Buddhists (and, of course, non-Buddhists) do eventually lose their appetite for meat out of compassion for the welfare of other living creatures. But vegetarianism is not required in order to follow the Buddha's path.

Heavens Family Fund Raising Propaganda... Goodbye Buddha Hello Jesus!

2011-04-20T23:09:00.002+08:00

NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA

Translation: May veneration be presented to the enlightened one who is a Buddha and has achieved enlightenment by himself righteously. X3

Heavens Family Fund Raising Propaganda... Goodbye Buddha Hello Jesus!

A Classic Example Of Lying Christian Propaganda

By
Bhikkhu aggacitto

All scripture quoted is from the Pali Canon Tipitaka which is the oldest known extant writing from the oral tradition of what the Venerable Gotama (Buddha) taught his disciples as dhamma (teaching).

Recently I came across the “Heavens Family’’ website .The caption read “Goodbye Buddha, Hello Jesus”, and I was intrigued. Upon reading the article though it seems as if this must be one of those bogus stories fabricated for the purpose of assisting them in their donation and conversion efforts while allowing them a format to take a few very misinformed shots at the Buddhist monastic sangha (community) and at the Buddhist teaching as well.
Note the clandestine feel of this article, which serves to help further their objectives.

Okay, first things first…I doubt that the Buddhist monks for reasons apparent that grace the beginning of this web site article were aware that their image and likeness would be used for a Christian evangelical web site. Not that the “Heavens Family” could care less of course! The only other photographs for this article are of ‘David’ the presumed author and a blurred secret identity styled photo allegedly of the Buddhist monk who is a “secret disciple of Jesus”.

We read in this article about a Burmese Buddhist monk who is a supposed “secret disciple of Jesus” but if any one should look closer this story becomes very suspicious. In the first paragraph it states that they met secretly, where he has lived for the past thirty years and that he only had a limited amount of time to be missing from the monastery.

"We met secretly, in the morning. He had only a limited amount of time to be missing from the monastery where he’s lived for the past thirty years. To be absent too long might arouse suspicion among the sixty other Buddhist monks with whom he resides."

I’m sure that this is written to give the impression that the Buddhist monastery is comparable to some sort of oppressive religious prison where the other monks are always keeping an eye on you, but as a Theravada Buddhist monk myself I assure you all that after living there for the past thirty years he would not have such a concern.

"Our hour together was one of the highlights of my recent three weeks in Myanmar, a Buddhist nation where Heaven’s Family has been working for the past six years. More details of that monk’s fascinating story follow in this update, along with four other encouraging reports .All of them are only a sample of the good that is being accomplished around the world because of your compassion. Thanks for being a part of Heaven’s Family.---David"

"From inside his saffron robe he drew a New Testament. He’s read it six times through so far, and I noted that many verses were underlined .He told me that his favorite one was John 14:6,and then he quoted it: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” He is a Buddhist monk who is a secret disciple of Jesus."

How convenient for their article that this would be his fave Christian scripture!

"Trying to decipher the doctrines of Buddhism has been compared to searching for a black cat in a dark room in which there really is no cat. Not an easy task."

It is interesting here to note that the author acknowledges that he is basically “in the dark” when it comes to the Buddha dhamma (teaching) . This is why no explanation follows this sort of statement.
The author then quotes from the Kalama Sutta of the Auguttara NIkaya 3.65
In this sutta the Venerable Gotama gives a discourse on the value of spiritual inquiry. He does not discuss from what sutta he is actually paraphrasing, after all why would he want someone to know? They might look it up and learn something factual about the Buddhist spiritual path.

"There is however, one of Buddha’s teaching that makes very good sense:
Do not accept anything by mere tradition….Do not accept anything just because it accords wth your scriptures…..Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions…."

Now lets take a look at what the pertinent part of the Kalama Sutta actually says shall we?

“And this aversive person overcome by aversion, he mind possessed by aversion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person’s wife, tells lies ,and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm and suffering.”

“Yes, lord.”

“Now, what do you think, Kalamas? When delusion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?”

“For harm, lord.”

“And this deluded person, overcome by delusion, his mind possessed by delusion, kills living beings, takes what s not given, goes after another person’s wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm and suffering.”

“Yes, lord.”

“So what do you think, Kalamas: Are these qualities skillful or unskillful?”

“Unskillful, lord.”

“Blameworthy or blameless?”

“Blameworthy, lord.”

“Criticized by the wise, or praised by the wise?

“Criticized by the wise, lord,”

“When adopted and carried out, do they lead to harm and to suffering, or not?”

“When adopted and carried out, they lead to harm and to suffering. That is how it appears to us.”

"So, as I said , Kalamas: ‘Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, “This contemplative is our teacher .”When you know for yourselves that,” These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to harm and to suffering”- then you should abandon them,’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said."

Perhaps it would be good if the author read more of this particular sutta.

"Thankfully, some of Buddha’s followers heed his advice regarding the traditions, scriptures and preconceived notions of Buddhism, and they’re turning to Jesus. One of them attended Chuck King’s recent pastor’s conference in Myanmar (Burma)."

"For the first forty years of his life he was a Muslim, and he was known as Raja Mohammed Adam. From reading the Koran, he learned about Jesus, respecting Him as a prophet. But Islam did not fulfill Raja’s deepest spiritual yearnings. Most of the citizens of his country were Buddhists, and Raja was quite familiar with their numerous temples that dotted Myanmar’s landscape. Hoping to find what he was searching for, he joined the ranks of the Buddhist monks who roam the streets each morning, barefoot, begging for rice. He moved into a monastery, and his name was changed to -------------.

Buddhist believe that all suffering stems from unfulfilled desire, so Buddhist monks attempt to restrain their desires, following a path of asceticism. But after twenty- seven years of begging, fasting, meditation and celibacy, ------------ still hadn’t found what he was searching for. So he borrowed a Bible. As he read through the four Gospels, he encountered a different Jesus than he had learned about through Islam. Jesus was much more than a prophet. He was the Creator and Master--- in the flesh. As he read, it seemed as if Jesus was saying to him,

“You are just like a Pharisee.”------------ was cut to the heart. He decided to repent and follow Jesus. That was three years ago.

After thirty years of being a monk, and now at age seventy in one of Asia’s poorest nations,--------is afraid to leave his monastery, not knowing how he would survive. But he is looking for an opportunity, and he knows that his fellow monks are very suspicious and watching him closely. He told me he would renounce his robe immediately if he had a way of escape. Please pray for him as we work on a strategy to help him with the exodus for which he longs."

Let us now make a note of a few things:

This Buddhist monk supposedly was a Muslim by the name of Raja Mohammed Adam for the first forty years of his life. This Buddhist monk has been a monk it is claimed for thirty years now. This Buddhist monk is now supposedly a convert to Christianity.

Now let us all sit back and imagine for a moment just what a spiritual jewel this would be for any Christian evangelical organization!

Certainly with expert knowledge of the Qur’an and the Pali Canon Tipitaka!
How devastating a witnessing tool it would be to have someone who was a Muslim for forty years and a Buddhist monk for thirty years to now witness for Jesus as a part of their ministry in Myanmar a largely Buddhist nation, where they have been working for the past six years!

“Buddhist believe that all suffering stems from unfulfilled desire, so Buddhist monks attempt to restrain their desires, following a path of asceticism.”

If this were true then ending suffering would entail the Buddhist fulfilling as many unfulfilled desires as possible! Not following a path of asceticism!

No wonder he can’t find the cat in the dark!

According to Buddhist teaching (dhamma) suffering stems from wrong view. I will refer the “Heavenly Family” to the Pali Canon Tipitaka Sutta Pitaka- Majjhima Nikaya #9, the Sammaditthi Sutta.

"As he read, it seemed as if Jesus was saying to him, “You are just like a Pharisee.”------------was cut to the heart. He decided to repent and follow Jesus."

This should be recognized as fabricated story line material to allow this organization the cheap opportunity to call the Buddhist monastic sangha (community) “---just like a Pharisee”

"He told me he would renounce his robe immediately if he had a way of escape. Please pray for him as we work on a strategy to help him with the exodus for which he longs."

They presumably need a strategy to help him with the exodus for which he longs? Okay so lets get this straight…They will use what we are to believe is his story to assist their Christian evangelical efforts but not him as an outreach worker and a willing convert to Christianity in a nation where they have been working for the past six years, giving him the “exodus for which he longs”?!! Certainly they should be able to find something meaningful for such a jewel of a Christian convert!

One might say… “Well he is afraid of negative repercussions” Really? From whom would such negative repercussions come from? The other Buddhist monks and laity who would wish him well? Or would that be from the ruling military junta who would not mind at all seeing one less Buddhist monk in the world when many of them are busy looking to shoot and otherwise execute us?
Should we believe that this alleged convert to Christianity would rather engage in the fraudulent behavour of pretending to be a sincere Buddhist monk when in fact he is not?

Is that what he has presumably learned for these past several years as a Christian?

If someone wishes to convert to Christianity, that is certainly their choice. What I have an issue with are those who seem to believe that lying and making up fictitious stories to convert people to Christianity while cheap shot slandering and character assassinating another religious belief is acceptable as "the lord's work."

Yes, this story is apparently one of those bogus stories designed to help them in their donation and conversion efforts. The “Heavenly Family” know that if they can convince the people in Myanmar (Burma) that this is true then that might be almost as good as having the real thing.

I wish you all the very best of all things spiritual.

Bhikkhu aggacitto

Buddhist Monk Turns To Jesus!!

2011-03-17T23:29:00.002+08:00

Then he writes .....

"Then I realised that the boy in my dream had not been a human being but the spirit of the dead boy who my father had asked to protect my family over 30 years ago. Instantly I rebuked it and commanded it to leave in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, I had evidence that the spirit impersonating the dead teenage boy had been living in my soul and had been holding back my life’s progress and joy".

If what the Christian's say is true, then this would be impossible because the moment he converted to Christianity there would have been no place for the “demon” in this man's body at all! I'll let the thinking Christian him or herself look up the relevent Bibical scripture on this one....... that way they might see for themselves how this man's story doesn't add up even as a Christian!

“I look back now at how much I’ve learnt from the Lord Jesus through his Holy Spirit. Jesus won the victory over death at the Cross ( Luke 24: 7)”

The author here refers to Luke 24:7 he may wish as well to check out 1 Cor. Chapter 15 where it is declared by Paul that the last enemy that will be conquered after the presumed second coming of Jesus by Jesus is death. 1 Cor. 15:26: “The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” If there is a distinction between victory over death and death being destroyed then what of 1 Cor.15:51-54? Has the last trumpet sounded? Have the dead been raised? If death is still with us then it has not been conquered. Why should we believe otherwise? Because we now have a chance to go to heaven if we become a Christian? According to their own Christian Bible, others went to heaven long before Jesus was ever born!

Although John 3:13 tells us that no one else has ascended into heaven:

John 3:13

13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

This is contradicted by:

2Kings 2

11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. 12 Elisha saw this and cried out, “My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!” And Elisha saw him no more. Then he took hold of his garment and tore it in two. (Italics mine)
We also have...
Hebrews 11:5:

5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.
Footnotes:
a. Hebrews 11:5 Gen. 5:24
And while we're at it let's not forget about:
Gen:5:24
24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
(Italics mine)

Now let us make sure that we remember that last one the next time a Christian tries to tell us that “NIBBANA MEANS NON-EXISTENCE!”

The concept of “non death” or to put it another way, “ eternal life” is visited upon again in the New Testament such as:

Luke 10:25-28

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
(Italics mine)
Of course, at the end of the article he does not miss the chance to call us people who "serve the devil”, in the same league as witchcraft and Satanism!

“Oh Lord my God I ask you now to forgive me for the sin of having served the devil (name the areas eg Buddhism, witchcraft, Satanism etc.) in the area of … and that you would wash me clean with the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ from that sin.”" Then say: “”Devil the Lord Jesus Christ has forgiven me for serving you …. He is my Master now, and I tell every foul demonic spirit to get out of my life now and stay out. I take the Sword of the Holy Spirit and cut off every association with the devil once and for all. Amen”
Now I would like us all to just stop for a moment and think about something. Here someone goes and fabricates this nice fairy tale for the gullible to believe and while he's at it will put us in the same catagory as witchcraft and satanism, while refering to us as those that serve the devil . Meanwhile when I respond to this there will be those who will tell me that I'm being too provocative or aggressive for a Buddhist monk or that I'm engageing in "self-aggrandising" behavior!

Excuse me? Please kiss my ass... O.K.?

I have made an effort to contact "Bruce" at the e mail given but to no avail.
I would like to say now that it is certainly not impossible that a Buddhist monk has or ever will convert to Christianity for there may be many reasons for such a conversion, but when a story like this is apparently fabricated we have to ask ourselves what can these people have that is worthy to offer spiritually if they must believe it necessary to create such a story to help them win converts? To say the very least, our author here “Bruce” does not know very much about the Buddha dhamma to make such judgements of us, but what he does believe is that because we aren't Christian we are in the company of the devil. This is typical of the “people of the book” perspective and why there has been such tremendious needless bloodshed in the name of Jesus. Christianity is currenty the most overt with this as an idealogical offering. They say that is not real Christianity but then partake in the idealogical construction to offer it anyway. With Christianity and it's ultra self righteous, we are the only real devine and worthy religion of an almighty God type behavior, this is like helping to build the foundation and first floor or so of a house and then not wanting to take responsibility when somebody comes along and adds a few rooms to their mansion! “Why, they're not real house builders like us” they might as well say!
All of this with the typical "people of the book" genre of scripture that condones and encourages the torture and murder of others because they don't believe in religion the way they do.1

If anyone believes that I have taken any scripture out of context please leave a comment and discuss the relevent scripture as well as why you believe that it's being taken “out of context”. Please be specific! For many this is just another blanket excuse for not wanting to acknowledge what they may not wish to look at. Christian web sites tell me and others all the time regarding correspondence to be specific when such an assertion or something of the like is made and I do just that. I include all such information in my correspondence with them and you know what they do? They ignore me! You will not have to concern yourselves with such behavior here at this blogsite I can assure you. (Has anyone heard from "Contender Ministries" lately? I know I haven't!)

Before signing off I will make a brief mention of another couple of things, including the fact that the author here make a reference or two in this article to the concept of rules. That is, rules that intail "work".He seeks to downplay the necessity of works and emphisize the saving "power of grace" as they say."Buddhism with all its rules and regulations was not satisfying me spiritually or emotionally." You see, we relize that if your driving down a highway and don't follow a requirement of what are called rules or laws you might have trouble getting to your destination! It's that simple. Who or what makes the rules? It's called cause and effect... that is, you don't plant the lemon seed and get the orange tree.This reminds me that there are many who come to me on a daily basis and request that I "bless" some sort of amulet or charm for them, and I inform them that the most powerful blessing that they could ever possibly receive is the work that they do with their own meditation. They need to apply the effort. They seem very disappointed sometimes because they aren't being offered the "easy way out". They would rather carry some sort of lucky charm around with them instead. Anything worth having will require some sort of effort, otherwise everyone we know would be walking around with the the winning lottery ticket! This type of message is clear, that is, why work when you can take the "easy" way out instead? You should think that you shouldn't need to apply any real effort of your own to obtain spiritual salvation but that perhaps after the fact, it would be nice to commit a good work or two as a Christian. I can only say that I wish these sort of people the very best of luck with their "Free Ticket Lucky Charm Styled Christianity".

“In the Bible however it is written: Hebrews 9:27 “Everyone must die once and after that be judged by God.”

However we also have ....

The 4 very different deaths for King Saul!
1 Samuel (31:4) says that Saul "Took a sword, and fell upon it".
2 Samuel (1:2-10) says Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
Later in 2 Samuel (21:12) we read that Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
But then in 1 Chronicles (10:13-14) we learn that Saul was slain by God!

Again, we must ask, is the Christian Bible really the perfect and un erring word of a perfect and un erring God? If that were true and that indeed everyone must die once and after that be judged by God, the fact that King Saul dies four different times and four different ways is certainly a strange way of showing it!
I will add here as well that if one were to take God to be something impersonal as opposed to personal or not, the process of reincarnation could be viewed as a “judgement” prior to ones rebirth in Samsara (the process of being bound by ignorance to a classification of form).
Every different incarnation within samsara would then be considered a different incarnation of birth and death.

"Buddhist monks might have a higher standing in society, but ultimately they will stand before God and be accountable for their sins. The Bible says: Romans 3:22 God puts people right through their faith in Jesus Christ. God does this to all who believe in Christ, because there is no difference at all: 23/ everyone has sinned and is faraway from God’s saving presence. 24/ But by the free gift of God’s grace all are put right with him through Christ Jesus, who sets them free."

"Bruce" along with his Christian friends won't be held accountable for their sins? Oh yes, that's right, they believe that they have nothing to worry about because all of their sins have been forgiven. Which of course even includes the ones that they haven't commited yet! In other words don't even worry about going to jail...when they lock you up, just show them your Christian lucky charm free get out of jail ticket! Ha! What a discouragement to crime!I have had Christians tell me that there is a difference between being weak and falling into sin, and not actually having a change of heart so to speak on the other. So how many times can one be weak and fall into sin before being judged as not having had a change of heart? And just who would do the judging? As long as someone can use this as an excuse to "sin" when they can find no scripture available to justify their actions, I doubt there to be any meaningful difference, especially for those being harmed. We need to remember that the only change of heart that the Christian needs to be a Christian is believing that Jesus died for his or her sins and that Jesus is their lord and savior. Any other talk of "being made new in Christ" or something is an interpretation to be applied, and will be applied as the individual sees fit because any new behavior will or will not be demonstrated after the fact of their conversion in the first place. There should be no wonder that there has been so much needless bloodshed in the name of Jesus, as they talk of who they now choose to conveniently consider a "real" Christian or not.

While this man and his ilk are busy calling us those who "serve the devil" we would be wise not to forget that fact.
Before I sign off here I'm going to leave the link to a site that has a story about a Christian group targeting elementary school kids in America, apparently they were giving out t shirts, balloons, and sweet cakes to the little children and one of the leaders of this group actually went and volunteered as a kindergarten teacher so that they could go and “evangelize and disciple” these very young children.
..... you think that lying about once having been a Buddhist monk to con people into a Christian conversion is bad?.....

http://christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1298391991

I sincerely wish all of you the very best of all good things spiritual!

Bhikkhu aggacitto:)

Notes:
1. For todays Christian you may want to start with Deuteronomy 20 Vs. 10-18 as one of many places and then when they tell you that this is just that Old time Old Testament, discuss the book of Acts Ch. 5 with them and ask them just what type of a moral God would slaughter two people for telling a lie and not "coughing it all up" for the apostle Peter after having sold some land?

Christian-faith.com/ Buddhist Monk Turns To Jesus!

2011-03-16T11:47:00.134+08:00

Then he writes .....

However we also have ....

Panadura Debate - The Buddhist-Christian Debate

2011-02-18T15:43:00.005+08:00

An Inaccurate Prediction
With the authorities’ increasingly unfriendly attitude towards Buddhism, and the missionaries’ aggressive and incessant attacks on their religion, the monks eventually started to defend their faith against the Christians.

Their response however, was disorganized and ineffectual and limited to their sermons on holy days. The Buddhist community also petitioned the government to stop or moderate these attacks, but to no avail.

The view of the authorities was that Buddhism was doomed in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, well-known figures such as the Sinhalese Christian scholar, James D’Alwis, and the Methodist missionary, Spence Hardy, confidently predicted that it would soon be replaced by Christianity.

The missionaries had acquired a printing press around 1820 which they used to churn out pamphlets and tracts denigrating Buddhism and promoting their own religion. Many of these publications were written by the Methodist minister and scholar, Rev. Daniel Gogerly, who was also an expert in the Pali language. The missionaries even distributed their materials at Buddhist events and started to challenge the monks to public debates.

The Buddhists finally bought a press of their own in 1855 and a second one was acquired in 1862, financed by King Mongkut of Thailand. Ven. Mohottiwatte Gunananda, a forceful and articulate monk from Colombo, and the more renowned Ven. Hikkaduve Sumangala in Galle, wrote most of the Buddhist tracts and pamphlets.

The monks at first ignored the missionaries’ challenges to debate. This was a disappointment to the Christians as they hoped to humiliate the monks in public, and thus hasten the downfall of Buddhism. However, the monks eventually accepted these challenges, to the glee of the Christians.

Three debates were held, in 1865, 1871 and 1873 and were formal affairs with ground rules established before-hand, and proper exchanges between the parties. They culminated in the last and most famous one known as the Panadura Debate. The Buddhists were led by Ven. Mohottiwatte Gunananda and Ven. Hikkaduve Sumangala. The Christians were represented by Rev. David de Silva, the Sinhalese protégé of Rev. Daniel Gogerly, and Rev. F.S.Sirimanne, a catechist of the Church Missionary Society.

The local population took great interest in the final debate which lasted for two days. It had very much of a festive atmosphere with the crowd swelling to more than 10,000 people by the second day. The final debate, one of the most important events in Sri Lankan Buddhist history, was covered by the Sinhalese and English language newspapers.

The proceedings were also published in book form by an American scholar, Dr. J. M. Peebles, who was present at the debate, and who ended up very impressed by the performance of the monks. Another American, Colonel Henry Steele Olcott, chanced upon a copy of this book in America, the result of which was to have far-reaching effects for the future of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and beyond.

The Lion’s Roar
Ven. Mohottiwatte Gunananda and Rev. David de Silva, the two main protagonists in the Panadura Debate, had very contrasting styles and characters. Already a seasoned debater, Gunananda was able to play to the audience, standing up and dramatically gesticulating as he spoke. He also addressed the audience in everyday Sinhalese, whereas de Silva used many Pali and Sanskrit quotes which they could not understand easily. Having received a Christian education, Gunananda also knew the Bible very well.

On his own, Gunananda was more than a match for the Christian debaters in terms of oratorical skills. It was his Lion’s Roar which dispelled the fear and shame imposed on the Buddhists by the missionaries’ continual disparagement of their religion, and it reawakened the country’s pride in its religion.

After much arguments and counter-arguments, the turning point of the debate was when Ven. Gunananda pointed to the verse at Judges 1:19 in the Bible. The verse states : “And the LORD was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”

Gunananda said that this showed clearly that the God could not be omnipotent as claimed, if he could not even overcome iron chariots. Rev. de Silva tried to explain that the reason the God did not overcome the chariots was because Judah did not have enough faith in him. However, Gunananda countered by asking, if Judah did not have enough faith, then why was the God with him in the first place?

Sri Lankans believe that evil spirits are afraid of iron. In fact, they commonly hang a piece of iron up on their homes to keep evil spirits at bay. Gunananda’s point thus made sense to the audience because of this.

Although there were more arguments, the debate was effectively over by the first day. The victory for the Buddhists could not have been more resounding and emphatic, with the crowd shouting and cheering for Gunananda and the other monks. The Lion had Roared.

Word of the triumph spread rapidly throughout the island with temples, villages and towns breaking out in open and joyous celebration. Reflecting the open and tolerant nature of the people, the festivities were free from hostility and anger towards the defeated party, even though they were boisterous and happy.

Pride had returned to Buddhism and its revival in Sri Lanka had begun.

Mohottiwatte Gunananda
Mohottiwatte Gunananda was born in 1823 in the village of Mohottiwatta to a prosperous Buddhist family. Monks in Sri Lanka, after ordination, commonly affix the name of their village to their own name. Gunananda had been in close contact with a Catholic priest in his youth and received his education in Christian schools. He had at one time, even considered becoming a Christian priest.

However, he changed his mind after associating with some monks from his village and ordained at the age of 20, becoming a member of the Amarapura fraternity. His oratorical skills soon became apparent and he started to also acquire great proficiency in the Buddhist teachings.

After learning that Buddhists in Colombo were being subject to pressure from the missionaries and discrimination by the government, he moved there and began defending Buddhism with his publications and speeches. In 1862, he formed the ‘Society for the Propagation of Buddhism’ to organize resistance against the missionaries’ attacks, and to publish tracts and pamphlets to counter the anti-Buddhist materials distributed by the Christians.

Gunananda then led the Buddhists in the momentous series of debates with the Christians, which culminated in the famous Panadura Debate of 1873. His outstanding performance and convincing victory sparked off the island-wide revival of Buddhism, and he was hailed a national hero.

Before his death at the age of 67 in 1890, Gunananda continued his efforts in helping to revitalize the Sasana. He published many works and also served on the committee that designed the Buddhist flag.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47524900/Island-Of-Light

Is Buddhism Good For health?

2010-11-08T15:21:00.025+08:00

NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA

Translation: May veneration be presented to the exalted one who is a Buddha and who has achieved enlightenment by himself righteously. X 3

Is Buddhism Good for Health?

by Steve Cioccolanti

A Response

Bhikkhu aggacitto

This is a response to an article recently published at the blog site used to promote the book "From Buddha to Jesus" by Steve Cioccolanti.

All scripture quoted is from either the Pali Canon Tipataka or the Christian Bible (N.I.V.)

If anyone would like to read the review of the article discussed:

Why is Buddhism different in the East than in the West?
Part 1 and Why is Buddhism different in the East than in the West? Who is the God of All Nations? (Part 2) please click here: http://http//dhammaprotector.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-is-buddhism-different-in-east-than_24.html

You can apply several tests to belief systems. One of the tests of good religion is that it should make people better. By “better” I mean you are better spiritually, morally and physically by following that religion than if you had not. In other words, there are objective proofs - e.g. is this religion true or is it made-up by man - and there are subjective proofs - does this religion make me a nicer, purer, healthier - or in a word - a “better” person?

"From Buddha to Jesus" by Steve Cioccolanti
The Three Baskets (Tripitaka) Chapter 24 pg page 162:“The Tripitaka is full of instructions for one to be a better person, but does not address questions like where we came from, where we are heading, or what is the purpose of life.”

Yes, this is why Buddhism is not a philosophy, but the author does acknowledge that the Tipitaka (using the Sanskrit spelled "Tripitaka here) is full of instructions on how to be a better person.

Subjective proofs are hard to talk about because they are that - subjective. Many Christians testify that have been miraculously healed by God - many in my own family and church would not be alive today if they had not believed and obeyed God’s Word - so they would joyfully tell you. But you may choose to disbelieve their experience. You may choose to question, “But other Christians prayed and they were not healed? What about them?” To answer that question objectively, we would have to diagnose each individual sick person, Did they obey the Bible? Did they speak God’s Word? Did they, most of all, learn to walk in love, forgiveness and let go of bitterness - which is one of the major causes of sickness in humans. Every step out of love is simply sin.

Deut. 24 Vs.11

¹¹ If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, ¹² you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Deut.20 Vs.10-16

¹⁰ When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. ¹¹ If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. ¹² If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. ¹³ When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. ¹⁴ As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.¹⁵ This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

¹⁶ However in the cities that the Lord your God has given you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. ¹⁷ Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. ¹⁸Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

I hear so much talk from some when they want to talk of the "free will" that their Christian God gave all of us... instead he commanded that all of these people be killed for fear that some would follow a way other than what was already proscribed. This is only a taste of the "love" shown by their God in both the old and new Testament. Lets not forget the story in Acts Ch.5 Vs.1-10 where their God murders two people Ananias and Sapphira who were a husband and a wife for not "coughing it all up" and giving everything that they received for the selling of their property to the apostle Peter.

"Every step out of love is simply sin." Is that right? God is the authority so he can do what he wants some say.... Although some will deny it, this is saying that might makes right! As I had one person put it, "He created you and will destroy you if he should wish." After all, what good would such a tyrant of an authority be that presumably has made what ever law of his choosing, without the authority (might) to enforce it? Forget about what is or isn't morally cruel and sadistic! In their book might makes right. However the best teacher we know teaches by example ......and this is such a sad lesson for humanity that many have been taught so well. "Every step out of love is simply sin" . I agree. Unfortunately their Christian God would clearly disagree. Unless their God murders people and condones the murdering of people because he loves us....

While we can’t verify every person’s subjective experience, we can say that by following Christ, many people have become better, healthier people. There is plenty of evidence that when people repent, trust Jesus, and walk in love, their health improves vastly, sometimes “miraculously”. Is this true of every religion?

All religions have such testimonies of faith. Believe it or not folks... Christianity isn't the only one. Thankfully though, blind faith isn't actually encouraged in Buddhism.

Growing up in Thailand, I have never heard of one miraculous healing by Buddha. Of course, Buddha went “nippan” (or has ceased to exist), so there is no contradiction that Buddhists should expect no supernatural aid from anyone they pray to. But what about following the principles and practices of religion - is Buddhism good for our health?

Christian evangelists enjoy working with the misconception that Nibanna means ceasing to exist.

Nirvana does not mean non-existence. The author here of course takes an incorrect perspective in order to then criticise. The philosophers of ancient India viewed fire as being bound and binding as well that which it consumed. To extinguish therefore meant to liberate that which was being bound not to commit some sort of celestial suicide.1 This is also why in M.N.#52 as well as else where in the Pali Canon Tipataka 'Nibanna' is referred to as the deathless state.

A well known fact among Asian Buddhists is that the Buddhist ritual of burning incense is harmful to human respiration, pollutes the home, and may even cause cancer in the devotees. This is both objectively and subjectively verifiable. This is so well known that commercial suppliers of incense now offer the modern electric version of incense light without the incense fume. Western devotees have yet to catch on to this as the fad of burning incense and the sale of incense sticks seem to be on the rise in the West. Robert Kiyosaki’s sister Emi Kiyosaki (ordained name: Tenzin Kacho) has encountered health problems and is now conscious of clean air and good venmtilation after years of burning incense in a Buddhist monastery.*

Incense burning is not a requirement to practice the Buddhist religion. Have any of you been to a Christian church on Easter or on any of their special days of observance? Have you ever wondered just what frankincense and myrrh smell like? Of course incense burning is not a requirement for the practice of the Christian religion either!

Contrast this with the Bible’s teachings. God prescribed the “kosher” or clean diet for His believers. He told Israel not to eat scavengers of the sea (shell fish, shrimps, etc) even though many of us think they’re pretty tasty. Of course, we are not bound to the Jewish diet to be saved and go to heaven, but following the Jewish diet may keep us healthier longer on the earth. Why? As it turns out, shrimps, lobsters, and shell fish not only contain very high cholesterol, scientists have found that they accumulate high levels of heavy metals and other pollutions of the sea. The sages of the Bible were not trying to restrict our palette. They were apparently given information well in advance of their time. God knows what’s best for us and following the Bible produces better health.

With all due respect for the Jewish dietary laws...

All that this would have taken was some shell fish that was not cooked properly to have made someone sick, just as perhaps there was no one around to discuss the fact that their pork needed to be cooked to 180 degrees minimum.
The Jewish diet also forbids the eating of swine. Of course if Pastor Cioccolanti were to mention this he would probably piss off pretty much his entire congregation. Them and all of the Sunday church B.B.Q. crowd, and well... we wouldn't want to do that now would we? What did their Jesus have to say about this?

Matt.Ch.15

¹¹ What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

In Pastors Cioccolanti's book "From Buddha to Jesus" he also states:

The Three Baskets (Tripataka) Chapter 24 first paragraph: “It should be accepted by all that what Buddha taught is recorded in a sacred text called the Tripataka…”

and also... In Chapter 16 The Reincarnation Chapter

“Until today we can see Buddha's wisdom in commanding to abstain from meat.”

Although this is untrue regarding the Tipataka he acknowledges that ideally the vegetarian diet can be a more healthy diet. So then why didn't the almighty Christian God command his people to observe one type or another of a vegetarian diet? He could give them manna from heaven ( Psalm 78:23-25) but not the means to observe a vegetarian diet? They could have gotten their protein from the same place that the livestock were getting theirs. Depending on the weight of the animal much of the livestock needed and were getting more protein than any one else. But wait a minute... that would have meant that the sacrificed animal would not have been eaten later by the community. (Lev.7:1-21) Now would it? If you believe what Pastor Cioccolanti has to say, then you would believe that the Buddha had more wisdom when making commandments of diet than their own Christian God!

For 4000 years the God of the Bible recommended scrupulous washing of hands, long before medical doctors adopted the practice less than 200 years ago. Back then no one even knew germs existed. So when Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that post-partum deaths could be prevented by the simple washing of hands, he became the laughing stock of the medical community. But what he observed was later proven true: when medical students go from operating on cadavers straight to delivering babies, the new mothers experienced a higher mortality rate (i.e. they died after giving childbirth). Dr. Semmelweis would not see the medical community adopt his recommendation till after he died. Many mothers’ lives could have been spared if people had simply believed and obeyed the Bible. Any time someone touched a dead body, God commanded that person to wash himself thoroughly.

"For 4,000 years now the God of the Bible has recommended the scrupulous washing of hands".....

Its always interesting to watch when someone like the Pastor Steve Cioccolanti starts making up and writing his own version of history. Classical Hebrew which came prior to the Biblical Hebrew is dated to be in usage perhaps more than two thousand years. The Book of Genesis itself is well within the first millennium with the most recent proposals placing it within the fifth century B.C.E.,2 therefore to write this as factual instead of as something of his own imaginary creation is a type of fallacy creation that Pastor Steve Cioccolanti seems to enjoy engaging in quite often.

It is true that touching a dead body was considered an unclean act. What was also considered an unclean act?

The book of Leviticus Chapter 12 Vs.1; And the lord spake unto Moses saying, Vs.2 speak unto the children of Israel saying, If a woman have conceived seed and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.Vs.3: and in the eight day the flesh of the foreskin shall be circumcised. Vs.4: And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. Leviticus Ch.15: And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days and whomso ever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. Vs.30: And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her before the lord for the issue of her uncleanliness.
The point being here is that the tradition that Jesus came from would consider a woman dirty or “unclean” simply because she was menstruating or because she had recently given birth to a child making her worthy of a sin offering and atonement!

There are countless other examples of how following the Bible leads to better health - from proper personal hygiene to communal sanitation - all of which may seem obvious to us now, but let’s not forget these Biblical practices eluded the wisest of religious people in previous centuries, and still eludes many religious devotees today.

Lest people dismiss the Bible as preaching only commonsense, rather than truths only known by God, I should call your attention to one of the most prominent health commandments in the Old Testament: male circumcision. Any man reading would agree this would not be an idea that naturally comes to a man - to cut the tip of his member or of his offspring’s member! Today, science has caught up with the Biblical knowledge that circumcision carries with it a lifetime of medical benefits, among which are: prevention of kidney infection, urinary tract infection, foreskin infection, protection against HIV, genital herpes, and other sexually transmitted diseases. The benefits extend to the circumcised men’s sexual partners. Circumcision provides women with increased protection from cervical cancer, bacterial vaginosis, and possibly Chlamydia (which can cause infertility). How did the Bible know all this? And if other religions are equally true, why did no other religious leader know about this? (except those who came into contact with the Bible) Every religious leader in the world share one thing in common - they were all uncircumcised except those who believed the Bible.
The Bible not only makes healthy recommendations, it does so with intelligence beyond its time. God was very specific about it. Circumcision was not to be performed on any old day the parents or doctors wanted, but God commanded it on the 8th day. Why should this matter? Because modern medicine has discovered that blood clotting factors are at optimum in a baby on the 8th day. Following God’s order would not only bless the male for life, it would also prevent infant mortality due to poor surgery.

"God was very specific about it. Circumcision was not to be performed on any old day the parents or doctors wanted, but God commanded it on the 8th day. Why should this matter? Because modern medicine has discovered that blood clotting factors are at optimum in a baby on the 8th day. Following God’s order would not only bless the male for life, it would also prevent infant mortality due to poor surgery."

Pastor Cioccolanti seems to forget here that the woman having given birth to the male child was considered clean on the 8th day, the day that the baby was to be circumcised... What good medical reason would the author give for that?

Regarding the supposed health benefits of circumcision there are many medical professionals who disagree with this.3 As well, for any one concerned with the notion of getting a sexually transmitted disease a bit of good hygiene which would include a condom should be more effective that getting your member clipped. This would otherwise be like suggesting that a filter cigarette is "healthier" that a non filtered one after your circumcised sexual intercourse. If Pastor Cioccolanti is a Creationist then why would God create humanity in a state of "imperfection"? Apparently so that some of us can demonstrate their loyalty to the God of the Christian Bible by having their members clipped. The Biblical reason given was to separate God's special chosen Jewish people from the rest. Not for reasons pertaining to one's health.

Gen.Ch.17 Vs. 9 -11

⁹ Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come.

¹⁰ This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. ¹¹ You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.

Galatians Ch.6 Vs.12-15

¹² Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. ¹³ Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh. ¹⁴ May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. ¹⁵ Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.

If there were any true health benefits to be had with circumcision... the apostle Paul certainly knew nothing of it!

Burning incense in Buddhist homes and monasteries has led to health challenges in many followers. But following the Bible has never caused cancer in anybody. If a religion is true, it has to make people better. If a religion is divine, it has to deliver truths that are beyond human theory at the time. Although I used to believe that the Tao Te Ching and the Tri-pitaka are the same as the Bible (after all, aren’t they all good religious books?), evidence has proven my old assumption wrong. When we look at the Bible dispassionately (unemotionally), we discover God’s commands are best for children and best for adults. That’s why I believe the Bible now.

"When we look at the Bible dispassionately (unemotionally), we discover God’s commands are best for children and best for adults. That’s why I believe the Bible now."

Really? The commandments that the author has been discussing come from the Old Testament... Lets look at some more commandments. The Christian God commands..... Who they should kill.

Unruly or rebellious child. Deut. 21:20-21

Those who curse or hit their parents. Lev.20:9 and Ex.21:15

Worshipers of other Gods Deut.13:6-11

Psychics, Witches. Lev.20-27, Deut. 13:6-11, Ex.22:18

Those who work on the Sabbath. Ex.35:2 Moses killed a gentile for this in Num.15:32-36

Those who are accused by at least two people for wickedness. Deut.17:6

The children and babies of enemies are to be killed commands their Christian God in Num.31:17, Deut 20:13, Psalm 137:9, and Lev.26:29.

Adulterers. Lev.20:10

Homosexuals. Lev.20:13

Let's not forget that a woman who is not a virgin when married their God commands her to be killed also... Deut. 22:13-21

I'm going to stop and take a break now because I'm getting nauseous........

Let's not forget..... "Every step out of love is simply sin."

Wait a minute! Would someone accuse me of taking something out of historical context? But I'm not the one who was picking and choosing Old Testament commandments for the article being discussed though... now was I?

In contrast, there is not a single uttering of any Buddhist scripture of any school or sect that condones in any way the intentional killing of another human being. So..... how's that for the better health of someone?

Enthusiasts sometimes claim “Buddhism is the most scientific religion.” I used to accept that blindly, but the evidence above calls the very statement into question. When people make assertions, I’ve learned to politely ask for reasons, “What is the evidence that Buddhism is the most scientific religion? If Buddhism is so scientific, why hasn’t Buddhism produced any of the great scientists?”

From my review of Pastor Cioccolant's article:

Why is Buddhism different in the East than in the West?

Part 1 and Why is Buddhism different in the East than in the West? Who is the God of All Nations? (Part 2)

"They claim Buddhism is the most scientific religion even though no evidence to support can be produced, and evidence to contradict is easy to find. Not a single Buddhist is the founder of any scientific field. Why is the dearth of discoveries characteristic of the “most scientific” religion in the world? Why has the supposed “nonsense” of Christianity produced the greatest scientific minds ever known? These questions demand an answer!"

"Buddhism is more scientific than modern science. Like science, Buddhism is based on verifiable cause-and-effect relationships. But unlike science, Buddhism challenges with thoroughness every belief. The famous Kalama Sutta of Buddhism states that one cannot believe fully in "what one is taught, tradition, hearsay, scripture, logic, inference, appearance, agreement with established opinion, the seeming competence of a teacher, or even in one's own teacher". How many scientists are as rigorous in their thinking as this? Buddhism challenges everything, including logic."4 Although others seem to misunderstand, the point of this article I believe was to express how in order for Buddhism to be all that it was meant to be we can't make the religious "party line" mistake.

I believe an answer overall to this sort of thing then lies in the fact that Buddhists are less likely to feel a need to justify or verify their proposed scientific findings via their Buddhist perspective, because there is no natural enmity between them that would produce a need to try to reconcile the two. Therefore if there ever were a Buddhist founder of a scientific field of study you might very well might not even know it! Modern Western science has been raised in an atmosphere of Christianity, but that certainly does not mean that they are naturally good friends!

A case in point:

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."
TENZIN GYATSO (The 14th Dalai Lama)5
Now I must ask... How many evangelical Christians would ever have the courage and such respect for science to ever dare make such a statement?

Would Steve Cioccolanti?

Now those questions demand an answer!

The major difference here is that Buddhists are willing to conform to the world around them in many ways while many Christians tend to want the world to conform to them. Them, their Bible and anything else that they have to offer whether by the use of violence or not.

What should concern us is the fact that there are people who believe that there is the need to write such an article like this in the first place.
This Pastor seems obsessed with finding every angle that he can dream up to attack the Buddhist religion. We should only hope that such people never find their way into areas of great political power to abuse such obsessive bias.

Bhikkhu aggacitto

Reference for the article discussed.

* “Brother Sister Merge Religion With Business,” SFGate.com, Feb 22, 2009, http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-22/news/17189916_1_dalai-lama-medical-bills-robert-kiyosaki/2 kiyosaki/2

References for this article.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies

2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_ Language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book _of_Genesis

3.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/1.html

4. http://www.wihara.com/forum/topik-umum/464-buddhism-only-real-science.html

5. Our Faith in Science By TENZIN GYATSO (The 14th Dalai Lama)
Published: November 12, 2005 in the New York Times.

Let Us Reason?

2010-11-02T12:46:00.021+08:00

NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA

Translation: May veneration be presented to the exalted one who is a Buddha and who has achieved enlightenment by himself righteously. x3

Here's something that I found interesting at the "Let Us Reason" ministries website. They seem to enjoy quoting Pali Canon Tipitaka scripture to make the Christian propaganda they dish out sound more authoritative.

Any scripture quoted is either from the New International Version of the Christian Bible or the Pali Canon Tipitaka.

Women
According to the Pali Canon, it is said that someone can be born as a woman in one life and then as a man in the next, etc. But, nowhere in the 500 plus Jataka lives (though not an exhaustive list of Buddha’s lives), nor elsewhere in the Pali Canon, does Sakyamuni appear as a woman (although it is sometimes inferred that he must have been a woman at one time or another). Jones writes, “The most striking single fact is that, in spite of the tremendous diversity of forms which the bodhisatta assumes, he never once appears as a woman or even as a female animal. Even when he appears as a tree-spirit or fairy, he is always masculine.” (20) His close friend Ananda who appears in many of his lives, appears only once as a woman (Jones, 113). Going further, Jones contrasts the doctrine of the Jatakas with the Pali Canon in general:
“But whereas the corrupting influence of an evil woman is the norm in the Jatakas, virtuous women being merely exceptions which prove the rule, the possibility of a friend’s becoming a corrupting influence is so remote that it is hardly ever mentioned. This differs from the canonical position. There, unquestionably, sex and marriage are bad, but so are love and friendship, since these involve one in personal attachments and painful (or potentially painful) emotions. The only love which the canon can bless is that which is quite detached and general; a ‘boundless friendly mind for all creatures’.” (115)
Commenting on one of these virtuous women, Jones writes, “That rare thing in the Jataka stories, a virtuous woman, owes her virtue to merit acquired in a former birth- as a male!” (43) In the Pali Canon itself, the depiction of women is hardly better: “…yet, women never tire of sexual intercourse and childbearing (GS I 72) and they never sit in court or embark on business because ‘they are uncontrolled, envious, greedy and weak in wisdom’ (GS II 92f).” (Jones, 78). Regarding the establishment of an order for nuns, Jones writes, “When Ananda prevailed upon Gotama to allow a separate Order for women, he is reported to have been very gloomy about this. It would, he said, halve the length of time for which the Dhamma[xvi] would be preserved in pure form.” (Jones, 77; GS IV 184f). In the Vinaya Pitaka (Book of Discipline V), a similar prediction is made by Sakyamuni, when addressing Ananda:
“If, Ananda, women had not obtained the going forth from home into homelessness in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, the Brahma-faring, Ananda, would have lasted long, true dhamma would have endured for a thousand years. But since, Ananda, women have gone forth…in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, now, Ananda, the Brahma-faring will not last long, true dhamma will endure only for five hundred years.” (356)
Since women did “go forth” and five hundred years have already passed, the question arises, is the above canonical passage false, or is it true in saying that “true dhamma” will only endure for five hundred years? If we say it is false, then there is falsity in the Pali Canon. If we say it is true, then it is still false, since five hundred years have already passed, and thus “true dhamma” would no longer be around. In this same text, the Buddha compares the influence of women to mildew: “Even, Ananda, as when the disease known as mildew attacks a whole field of rice that field of rice does not last long, even so, Ananda, in whatever dhamma and discipline women obtain the going forth…that Brahma-faring will not last long.” (356) Also in the above text (Book of Discipline V), the eight conditions for allowing the women to join, are spelled out. Among these, here are two examples, which highlight women’s subordinate role to men in Buddhism:
“A nun who has been ordained (even) for a century must greet respectfully, rise up from her seat, salute with joined palms, do proper homage to a monk ordained but that day. And this rule is to be honored, respected, revered, venerated, never to be transgressed during her life.” (354); “From to-day admonition of monks by nuns is forbidden, admonition of nuns by monks is not forbidden. This rule too is to be honored, respected, revered, venerated, never to be transgressed during her life.” (355)
Elaborating on this basic attitude, Tibetan (Tantric) Buddhism has taken it to more extreme extents. Victor and Victoria Trimondi, in their book “The Shadow of the Dalai Lama: Sexuality, Magic, and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism,” devote a large portion of their 816 page volume (in German) to the topic of misogyny:
“In light of the complexity of the topic, we have resolved to proceed deductively and to preface the entire book with the core statement of our research in the form of a hypothesis. Our readers will thus be set on their way with a statement whose truth or falsity only emerges from the investigations which follow. The formulation of this hypothesis is necessarily very abstract at the outset. Only in the course of our study does it fill out with blood and life, and unfortunately, with violence and death as well. Our core statement is as follows:
The mystery of Tantric Buddhism consists in the sacrifice of the feminine principle and the manipulation of erotic love in order to attain universal androcentric power”
(this book is not currently available in hardcopy in English, but the entire English translation of the German can be found online: http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Contents.htm)
Coming back to Theravada Buddhism, Jones explains the doctrinal gymnastics behind the scenes of the Jatakas and the Pali Canon proper, related to women:
“Why such an onslaught on the fair sex? I am convinced that JS 61 gives us the most reliable clue to an answer. The stories are designed mainly to discourage young men from family life and sexual involvement. Now, as we have seen, the canonical reason for turning away from the entanglements of family life is that these are “fetters”, nourishing the illusion of “self” and of attachment to other “selves”; only in the detachment of the realisation of anatta (selflessness) can true peace be found. We have also seen that the Jatakas studiously avoid the doctrine of anatta, since this would undermine their basic premise: that the same person moves on from life to life….Thus women pay very dearly for the Jatakas’ need to avoid the anatta doctrine. In becoming the scapegoat, they must have found it very hard to retain any self-respect. A Theravada woman, bred on the Jatakas, must have felt the dice were very heavily loaded against her- as must a layman who hoped that his marriage, against all the odds, would turn out well.” (99)
Instead of rebelling against Buddhism though, many women in Buddhist societies accept their lower status as something they deserve based on supposed karma from previous lives. Cleo Odzer, in the book “Buddhism and Abortion,” writes, “Typically, women in Thailand are undervalued in respect to men, a situation endorsed by the Buddhist religion…”(33), and in surveying women in a Bangkok slum area, it was discovered that “Mostly, the women accepted their lot in the Buddhist belief that they were born ‘as a woman because of bad karma or a lack of sufficient good merit.’”(35)
In the Bible women are not seen as “mildew,” incapable of doing business, of lesser status than even junior men, the cause of men being defiled, and deserving of any suffering they may be facing. Women and men do have different roles and responsibilities in the Bible, but the inheritance for believers in God’s economy is equal: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3: 27- 29) In the book of Proverbs chapter 31, written by King Lemuel’s mother, the virtuous woman is praised for being wise in business dealings, being clothed in strength and honor, having words of wisdom on her lips, and being trusted by her husband.

Now we shall review....

"In the Pali Canon itself, the depiction of women is hardly better: “…yet, women never tire of sexual intercourse and childbearing (GS I 72) and they never sit in court or embark on business because ‘they are uncontrolled, envious, greedy and weak in wisdom’ (GS II 92f).” (Jones, 78).

"In the Pali Canon itself "...... this is the typical type of deception being offered by our Christian friends. This implies that this is something from the Pali Canon. It is not.

“Even, Ananda, as when the disease known as mildew attacks a whole field of rice that field of rice does not last long, even so, Ananda, in whatever dhamma and discipline women obtain the going forth…that Brahma-faring will not last long.” (356)

Although if the Buddha actually spoke this, one could consider the suggestion that the Buddha was using graphic language because of something deficient on the part of the woman. They would not be considering that neither the man nor the woman live in a vacuum. Women being the object of desire to be chased after as is the custom in any patriarchal society would make this a more pressured situation over all over a period of time as well as the fact that there was certainly great pressure from the society at large who to be sure didn't believe that women should be taken as disciples in the first place. Combine this with the problems that women have had traditionally during the time of war being looked upon as a commodity to be won as the spoils of war....... As an example, the Bhikkhuni lineage is lately being revived after about seven hundred years of being defunct because of all of this.1 This could also be something that was discussed or spoken in some way because of this that was later taken out of context as discussed, either inadvertently or later as a purposeful sort of interpolation.

“If, Ananda, women had not obtained the going forth from home into homelessness in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, the Brahma-faring, Ananda, would have lasted long, true dhamma would have endured for a thousand years. But since, Ananda, women have gone forth…in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, now, Ananda, the Brahma-faring will not last long, true dhamma will endure only for five hundred years.” (356)

"Since women did “go forth” and five hundred years have already passed, the question arises, is the above canonical passage false, or is it true in saying that “true dhamma” will only endure for five hundred years? If we say it is false, then there is falsity in the Pali Canon. If we say it is true, then it is still false, since five hundred years have already passed, and thus “true dhamma” would no longer be around".

It is also true that the commentary on the Abhidhamma text, the Dhammasangani tells us that when the first Buddhist Council was convened by the Ven.Maha Kassapa and the Pali Canon was rehearsed at the first council this then made it possible for the for the true dhamma to last 5,000 years as opposed to 500. The first council was convened exactly for this type of reason, that being concern for the dhamma.

The commentaries of the Vinaya Pitaka and Anguttara Nikaya also state as well that the Eight garudhamma (special precepts) would enable the the true dhamma to last 5,000 years as opposed to 500. As shall be discussed later, there is also good evidence I believe to suggest that there were later interpolations added although we can easily recognize them. If we look at the Tipitaka as a whole we can choose to believe that most of what the Buddha said and did regarding the topic of women is the interpolation, but to do that we would have to believe that there was some sort of great women s liberation movement that added all of the pro equality type of scripture prior to the Tipitaka being canonized that none of us know about, or that because there were men who were really pissed at the Buddha's fair minded approach, the comparatively small amount of this material is clearly what is the interpolation.
There is a difference between the truthful dhamma not being taught and it not existing for the one who truly is an aspirant. As an example of this we can draw great encouragement from the fact that the Venerable Gotama (Buddha) himself was an aspirant with no one there to teach him the 'true' dhamma but the knowledge that was available combined with his own perseverance. He did not have to be a 'God' or son or brother or cousin of any of the God's to do it either. The Hindu religious culture was and is full of such celestial family associations. Christianity today has it's own version. Should any of us expect that close to 2,500 years later the dhamma would still be taught verbatim as it was during the time that he lived as a Buddha? Even areas that show potential interpolation have nothing to do with the actual dhamma being taught. No religion that I know of can actually produce anything extant to the time that their spiritual master lived for a representation of their teaching. Today our best guide for reasons that will be discussed in this article further, is the knowledge that we have available in the Pali Canon Tipataka. And what if there are interpolations in the Tipataka as we now have it? The author of this article of course would see this as a grave and fatal flaw, because such are used to judging matters based on the perceived infallibility of his Christian Bible. We shall discuss this.
In the book of Matt. and the book of Luke,.we have two entirely different stories about the paternal genealogy of Jesus. It is the Christian and their like who feel the need to justify every word of their scripture believing it to be the unerring sacred word of their unerring sacred divine creator. This is why they must make excuses for their being two different versions of the genealogy of Jesus as it is recorded in both Matt. and Luke (Matt.1:13 and Luke3:23-37) with a story about how one is actually the genealogy of Mary because Mary's father supposedly adopted Joseph so that there would be a male heir to the family, and that's why one is actually the genealogy of Mary not Jesus even though the Bible tells you something much different, why would you need a story that says something totally different than the Bible on this, in order to explain what the Bible says if the Bible is the unerring word of an unerring and perfect creator God? I've heard people talk about the “original” or “authentic” scriptures or manuscripts when discussing this but I have yet to see any that say anything different. Mind you, this is only one example. Should any of this necessarily have any bearing one way or the other, on the message that Jesus preached or the validity of that message?

“This differs from the canonical position. There, unquestionably, sex and marriage are bad, but so are love and friendship, since these involve one in personal attachments and painful (or potentially painful) emotions. The only love which the canon can bless is that which is quite detached and general; a ‘boundless friendly mind for all creatures’.” (115)

This is simply not true. The author of this article seems to be unaware of these two suttas of the Pali Canon Tipitaka:

The Sigalovada Sutta 2 of the Pali canon (Digha Nikaya #31) Tipataka discusses that a husband should be faithful to his wife. And the Mangala Sutta 3(Khp 5 and Snp 2.4)talks about cherishing one wife and children as one of the greatest blessings!
Just as a mother would protect her only child with her life even so let one cultivate a boundless love towards all beings." Karaniya Metta Sutta 4 (Snp 1.8)
And while were at it... What's so wrong with that?

"Also in the above text (Book of Discipline V), the eight conditions for allowing the women to join, are spelled out. Among these, here are two examples, which highlight women’s subordinate role to men in Buddhism:
'A nun who has been ordained (even) for a century must greet respectfully, rise up from her seat, salute with joined palms, do proper homage to a monk ordained but that day. And this rule is to be honored, respected, revered, venerated, never to be transgressed during her life.” (354); “From to-day admonition of monks by nuns is forbidden, admonition of nuns by monks is not forbidden. This rule too is to be honored, respected, revered, venerated, never to be transgressed during her life.' " (355)

There are those who believe that the eight special precepts simply can't be historically accurate. I respect such an opinion although there are many assumptions to make with that theory that they will call 'irrefutable' evidence if one is willing to do so. What such have are at best a collection of theories that are based on more assumptions that are in turn based on other assumptions of relevance or validity. None of this is hardly anything near conclusive evidence of the "impossibility if not improbability" of the garudhamma's historical accuracy. They seem to want to try very hard though. As an example they will tell of a theory that the eight garudhamma were at first an early form of original Vinaya. At least they acknowledge this to be merely a theory, or that seven of the eight special precepts are else where a part of the Bhikkhuni Patimokkha as pacittiya precepts (the violation of which would entail only confession) and that there fore this is more 'evidence' that the eight special precepts were added later. The line of thinking here is that it would have been unnecessary for the pacittiya precepts being discussed to have been added later if this was already there as the garudhamma. As if the other precepts being used for the compareison could not be the result of anything else. It is quite possible that the eight garudhamma were being down graded from what could be viewed as a more serious offence to the infraction of pacittiya offence in a kind gesture of compassion for the Bhikkhuni sangha, and or to codify most into a category with the rest of the Bhikkhunu patimokkha while leaving the first garudhamma ambiguous as there might have been disaggrement as to whether it was really a necessity when the time as it was felt came to codify.

Given the fact that it's that first one that understandably rubs many a female monastic the wrong way it certainly should not surprise any of us. One could point out that it would have been unnecessary for the adding of the eight special precepts later as is speculated if most had already existed as pacittiya precepts in the first place! There would have been the need from that perspective on their part to add only one. They will also state that the eight garudhamma are not a part of the ordination procedure for the Bhikkhuni or that the Ven. Gotama accepted disciples the simpler way as a procedure without mentioning these special precepts. However I know of nowhere where it was mentioned then or now where all of the precepts are ever a part of the ordination procedure for the Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni regardless of what method was or is used. If they would rather not believe that the Buddha was not infallible and could not be when discussing future events, such as the time period for the true dhamma to last or the presumed theoretical necessity for the eight garudhamma approxamately two thousand five hundred years later, and should not have to be in order for the dhamma of nibanna to be just as valid I suppose that I can understand that. He could only have been discussing things as they were to be at that time of consideration. As time moves forward so to speak, probabilities can change. The Buddha dhamma is not based on a God type of infallable fourtune telling deity worship, although Christianity is. If there is any interpolation regarding this type of thing I would suggest that the discussion regarding the dhamma not lasting more than five hundred years would be the area most suspect. As we learn from the Parinnibanna sutta of the Digha Nikaya the Ven.Gotama had already forseen the establishment of the female monastic order, and why plan for something ahead of time that would be detrimental to the dhamma? This would also be consistent overall wherever the Bhikkhuni are discussed elsewhere in the Pali Canon.

'I shall not pass away until the monks and the nuns, the lay men and the lay women are accomplished and trained, skilled and learned, knowers of Dhamma, trained in Dhamma, walking in Dhamma, who can pass on to others what they have learned from their Teacher, declare and establish it, clarify, explain and elucidate it, not until they can use the Dhamma to refute false teachings that arise and spread the wondrous Dhamma far and wide'. (The Dîgha-Nikâya #16 Parinnibanna Sutta)

The book of Leviticus Chapter 12 Vs.1; And the lord spake unto Moses saying, Vs.2 speak unto the children of Israel saying, If a woman have conceived seed and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.Vs.3: and in the eight day the flesh of the foreskin shall be circumcised. Vs.4: And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. Leviticus Ch.15: And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days and whomso ever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. Vs.30: And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her before the lord for the issue of her uncleanliness. (emphasis mine)

If You didn't know any better you would think that this was Superman’s temple and Lex Luthors girlfriend was trying to sneak in some Kryptonite!

The point being here is that the tradition that Jesus came from would consider a woman dirty or “unclean” simply because she was menstruating or because she had recently given birth to a child making her worthy of a sin offering and atonement! Should we expect that he would rush to make one of his direct disciples a woman? In case any one would like to say that this was just that old time old testament I will remind you that in Matt. 5:17 -19 we are told that all Old Testament laws still apply,(Although Matt.5:38-39 contradicts that in part) . This sort of Taboo fetishism regarding a woman’s menstrual cycle is very common for the comparatively primitive and backward mentality that Christianity is still obsessed with. This is why there is talk of animal sacrifice during the Christian “millennium” at this website when that day does supposedly come by the same sort that wrote this article.

“Mostly, the women accepted their lot in the Buddhist belief that they were born ‘as a woman because of bad karma or a lack of sufficient good merit.’”(35)

This is not the Buddhist belief. Let me give an example as to how such things can be misconstrued..... or at least misconstrued according to some Christian women who would disagree.

1Tim Ch.2
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

There are those who say that this is explained by the Artemis cult that was popular at the time when this was written to the Ephesians. So then the thing to do is over compensate with something like this? If the gospel is about equality then that is what should be expressed.

Ephesians 5:22-24
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

There are those who would suggest here that 'head' means 'source' as opposed to authority. If we read the example though.. "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything". How creative! As if that were true there would be any meaningful difference!
There are Christian women who have told me that as a woman they should be submissive to their husband. Other Christian women of course would disagree.

Lets look at something from the Pali Canon Tipitaka now..... shall we?

Soma Sutta: Soma

translated from the Pali by
Bhikkhu Bodhi

Setting at Savatthi. Then, in the morning, the bhikkhuni Soma dressed and, taking bowl and robe, entered Savatthi for alms. When she had walked for alms in Savatthi and had returned from her alms round, after her meal she went to the Blind Men's Grove for the day's abiding. Having plunged into the Blind Men's Grove, she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day's abiding.
Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Soma, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:
That state so hard to achieve Which is to be attained by the seers, Can't be attained by a woman With her two-fingered wisdom.
Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Soma: "Now who is this that recited the verse — a human being or a non-human being?" Then it occurred to her: "This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration."
Then the bhikkhuni Soma, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses:
What does womanhood matter at all When the mind is concentrated well, When knowledge flows on steadily As one sees correctly into Dhamma. One to whom it might occur, 'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man' Or 'I'm anything at all' — Is fit for Mara to address.
Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Soma knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.

Meditation
Buddhist meditation is often presented as something neutral-- just meditation, as opposed to being a “religious” activity. People from various world view backgrounds are encouraged to try it, on the assumption that it’s just a kind of mind training-- just as physical exercise is body training. This is an attraction for someone who just wants to have a unique, peaceful, or meaningful experience without necessarily buying into the doctrines of the Buddha. But how neutral is meditation really?
In a rarely referred to portion of the Pali canon, a meditation time gone haywire is reported:
“Indeed there was one occasion so damaging to the Buddha’s reputation as a ‘peerless charioteer of men’ that it is hard to think it would have been invented. I have never seen it referred to in any of the books on Buddhism I have read. In KS V 284, we read that the Buddha had commended ‘the unlovely’ as a subject for meditation before he himself went off for a fourteen-day retreat. On his return, he found the Order sadly diminished because so many of the monks, contemplating ‘the unlovely’ had ‘as to this body…worried about it, felt shame and loathing for it, and sought for a weapon to slay themselves’- and had in fact, committed suicide. Ananda suggests that in future it might be better if the Buddha ‘would teach some other method’ of meditation. Gotama replies with this suggestion and advises his monks to base their meditation on their breathing in future.” (Jones, 76)
To this day, ‘the unlovely’ (such as a human corpse) is still a valid object of Buddhist meditation, although other types of meditation, such as focusing on breathing, are far more common. The above canonical passage raises the question of Sakyamuni’s omniscience (which is claimed for him in other canonical passages). Did he know the monks would commit suicide, and gave them this harsher form of meditation anyway, or did he not know, and thus was not omniscient (this latter view is more commonly held today).
Even in the more standard types of meditation, such as focusing on one’s breathing, or observing one’s thoughts as though they were not one’s own thoughts (being detached from the concept of “self” and “objectively” observing the thoughts), there are dangers. Rahula nonetheless encourages such meditation: “Try to examine it as if you are observing it from the outside, without any subjective reaction, as a scientist observes some object. Here, too, you should not look at it as ‘my feeling’ or ‘my sensation’ subjectively, but only look at it as ‘a feeling’ or ‘a sensation’ objectively. You should forget again the false idea of ‘I.” (73) In his chapter dealing with “Meditation on Breathing,” Paravahera Vajiranana relates Vipassana[xvii] meditation to breathing:
“At the moment of insight he breathes in, breathes out, setting free the mind from the idea of permanence by contemplating impermanence, from the idea of happiness by contemplating painfulness, from the idea of self by contemplating non-ego, from the idea of delight by contemplating repulsion, from passion by contemplating detachment, from cause of origination by contemplating cessation, from clinging by contemplating renunciation.” (255)

Also related to a breathing meditation, Vajiranana writes, “Thus in these two stages the bodily element of respiration is said to be completely tranquilized. It is with a view to attaining this state that ‘he practises mindfulness of breathing in and out’” (243) In this instance, the goal of breathing is not breathing! In a footnote, and based on Visuddhimagga[xviii] 283, Vajiranana points out, “There are eight states in which there is no breathing: within the mother’s womb, when one is drowned in water, in unconscious beings, in the dead, in the fourth Jhana[xix], in the unconscious form-world, in the formless world, and in Nirodha-samapatti, the attainment of the cessation of all feelings and perceptions” (243). Ernest Valea in his online article points out some further dangers with Vipassana meditation:
“…the experiences that accompany Buddhist contemplation on the mental states (citta samapatti) can be explained as misperceptions of the surrounding reality due to the imposition of an abnormal way of functioning on the senses and mind:
‘As meditators passively watch their own mental states come and go without trying to control them, these begin to fluctuate more and more rapidly and unpredictably. After a while this chaotic activity creates the strong impression that the mental events are springing into life on their own, from some separate source, rather than the observer’s own mind. As meditators persist with this practice, they also notice that there is a definite separation between the mental events being observed and the mind that is doing the observing. As meditation progresses still further, both the mental events and the observing mind begin to seem alien and impersonal, as if they do not really belong to the observer. At about this point the meditator’s sense of “self” becomes confused and weakened, and finally it disappears entirely for brief periods of time… (E. Hillstrom, Testing the Spirits, IVP, 1995, p. 114-115)’” (http://www.comparative/religion.com/Buddhism.html)
When a person becomes a “third person” observer of themselves, and even renounces the idea of “self”, it is like relinquishing the steering wheel and sitting in the passenger seat. This presents the possibility of outside spirits entering in and having a very real and dangerous influence, even if it’s “only” deception. Why does a person have to move into an altered state of consciousness, in order to accept the “higher truths?” Would we not be suspicious if a real estate agent told us we needed to take mind altering drugs before appreciating the full value of the house being sold?
The ultimate goal of meditation, canonically speaking, is nirvana- freedom from suffering via the non-existence of the individual. Many meditators who try Buddhist meditation at the basic levels, do not have this as their goal. Their goal may be inner peace, mental health, or just to experience something unique. Nonetheless, travelling farther along the pathway of meditation, when the stated goal is nirvana, meditators become more and more detached from their feelings, and become spiritually leprous. A person with physical leprosy is someone who has lost the sense of touch (and thus is in danger when leaning on a hot stove, not having an impulse to pull away, etc.). A person who becomes completely detached from emotions becomes spiritually leprous, and may appear to be quite peaceful, but is also unaware of emotions which give needed warning and provide other healthy functions.
There are said to be states of bliss and even supernormal abilities attainable along the pathway of meditation, but according to canonical teachings, these are supposed to be rejected as distracting from the ultimate purpose- that of complete cessation (nirvana). Thus the “positive” experiences of meditation are mere “lures” leading to the “hook” of cessation. Speaking of the highest level of meditation (Nirodha-samapatti), Vajiranana writes, “But that which is experienced in the Nirodha-samapatti is the state of Nirvana, namely the cessation of all mental activities, which is comparable to that of final Nirvana. The final Nirvana is called ‘Khandha-pari-nibbana,’ the complete cessation of the five aggregates, and is attained by the Arhat at his death” (467).
Apart from the dangers of meditation on a personal level, meditation does not deliver the objective standard it claims. Meditation is sometimes labeled as scientific, because in it, the claims of the Buddha are said to be experienceable. However, as mentioned before, the meditators are instructed beforehand in what they can expect to experience. This expectation removes objectivity since it conditions people to generate what is expected. If the instructor tells them they can expect to see previous lives, they are already predisposed towards that. Also, it is not objective, because there are “wrong” or heretical views described in the Pali Canon. In other words, if someone meditates and experiences something heretical- such as “I do have an eternal soul,” this will be rejected.
Buddhist meditation takes people who are relational by nature, and makes their mind more like a machine. Even when the meditation is “spreading compassion to all beings”, the focus is on one’s own ability to direct the mind to this challenge, and the compassion is meant to be a detached one. When the meditation is a concentration upon one object, to the exclusion of all other thoughts, this silences the voice of conscience calling us to a relationship with God, and sets the mind instead on a path toward increased detachment and isolation. Proverbs chapter 18, verse 1 states, “A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment.” In isolation one’s own desires may be accomplished, but this situation can be compared to a child who would reject the care of loving parents who provide good food and friendship, and wants to instead go live in the forest- rejecting offers of food, rejecting clothing, rejecting offers for education, etc. Such a child would have difficulty surviving and would eventually lose the ability even to communicate with the parents. Meditation in the Bible means to consider God’s principles and character, spending time with God. It’s a relational process of God “feeding” His children and communicating with them, taking away the burdens in life and providing wisdom.

Let us review...

“Indeed there was one occasion so damaging to the Buddha’s reputation as a ‘peerless charioteer of men’ that it is hard to think it would have been invented. I have never seen it referred to in any of the books on Buddhism I have read. In KS V 284, we read that the Buddha had commended ‘the unlovely’ as a subject for meditation before he himself went off for a fourteen-day retreat. On his return, he found the Order sadly diminished because so many of the monks, contemplating ‘the unlovely’ had ‘as to this body…worried about it, felt shame and loathing for it, and sought for a weapon to slay themselves’- and had in fact, committed suicide. Ananda suggests that in future it might be better if the Buddha ‘would teach some other method’ of meditation. Gotama replies with this suggestion and advises his monks to base their meditation on their breathing in future.” (Jones, 76)

This would only be damaging to the Buddha's Buddha’s reputation as a ‘peerless charioteer of men’ if the Buddha were looked upon as some sort of divine infallible human being instead of some one whose mission it was to give the teaching regarding the the method of spiritual liberation that he had discovered. It is the Christian who must constantly strive to dream up such excuses for the areas in the Christian Bible that are uncomfortable to them for this reason.
It is the cult of Jesus as the divine unerring God as the personal son of God who is somehow really God as a part of God that rightfully has this burden, not the Buddhist.

When a person becomes a “third person” observer of themselves, and even renounces the idea of “self”, it is like relinquishing the steering wheel and sitting in the passenger seat. This presents the possibility of outside spirits entering in and having a very real and dangerous influence, even if it’s “only” deception. Why does a person have to move into an altered state of consciousness, in order to accept the “higher truths?” Would we not be suspicious if a real estate agent told us we needed to take mind altering drugs before appreciating the full value of the house being sold?

O.K. I always wondered just where people get the old wives tale about meditation being dangerous because you might get “possessed” while doing it... now I know. If there is going to be spiritual influence of any sort first you have to be unmindful to allow it to happen in the first place. This can't happen if your practicing mindfulness! Further on here the author equates meditation with mind altering drugs. This would presume that the undisciplined mind is the “natural mind”!
Imagine that you raise a child and do not discipline the child very often if at all. You just let the child go and do as he or she wishes. When it comes time to give the child discipline what can you expect to happen? The child will rebel. This is why at first, learning a meditation routine is not always easy but well worth the effort! Now if the child were to rebel against the discipline and went out breaking street lamps, would you tell the police...Well officers! What do you expect? That's the natural child for his age! If you did they might wish to take you to jail for stupidity! We are not talking about smoking cocaine or shooting heroine here just disciplining the mind, in that respect the natural mind is what we make of it.

"This expectation removes objectivity since it conditions people to generate what is expected. If the instructor tells them they can expect to see previous lives, they are already predisposed towards that. Also, it is not objective, because there are “wrong” or heretical views described in the Pali Canon. In other words, if someone meditates and experiences something heretical- such as “I do have an eternal soul,” this will be rejected."

It would be up to the meditator to decide just what is possibly simply a suggestion of thought or not. That is the valued thing about subjective experience. You get to decide, not someone who has written an article!

“But that which is experienced in the Nirodha-samapatti is the state of Nirvana, namely the cessation of all mental activities, which is comparable to that of final Nirvana. The final Nirvana is called ‘Khandha-pari-nibbana,’ the complete cessation of the five aggregates, and is attained by the Arhat at his death” (467).

This is not anything from the Pali Canon and is simply not true, it can be expected that the author here would quote someone with such a misconception in order to then critique and criticize. Khanda-pari- nibbana does not mean complete cessation of the five aggregates,it means final nibanna as opposed to the nibbana achieved when the physical body is still existing. The Pali word khanda or "khandha" in context here would mean extinction or disappearance of a type of craving or attachment.9
The five aggregates here are achieving a complete cessation from Samsara.

"In this instance, the goal of breathing is not breathing! In a footnote, and based on Visuddhimagga[xviii] 283, Vajiranana points out, 'There are eight states in which there is no breathing: within the mother’s womb, when one is drowned in water, in unconscious beings, in the dead, in the fourth Jhana[xix], in the unconscious form-world, in the formless world, and in Nirodha-samapatti, the attainment of the cessation of all feelings and perceptions' "

Of course one would not think that this would need an explanation, but never the less for those who seem to need it, here it is....."no breathing" here is a term being used as a conventional figure of speech. The body's metabolisim slows down to such an extent that the individual would appear not to be breathing.
If the person would really not be breathing then suffocation would occur.

When the meditation is a concentration upon one object, to the exclusion of all other thoughts, this silences the voice of conscience calling us to a relationship with God, and sets the mind instead on a path toward increased detachment and isolation.

The author writes as if we should just believe him because he says so. I would just love to hear his explanation of this. If their understanding of God's power and control encompasses all things then how could the concentration on one object silence the voice of conscience calling us to a relationship with anything including what they would call God?

"but according to canonical teachings, these are supposed to be rejected as distracting from the ultimate purpose- that of complete cessation (nirvana). "

“The ultimate goal of meditation, canonically speaking, is nirvana- freedom from suffering via the non-existence of the individual.”

The Canonical teachings teach that the the complete cessation talked of is the cessation of the process of Samsara or the classification of form. Nibbana or Nirvana as the Sanskrit as opposed to the Pali is used here simply does not mean the “non existence” of the individual, at least in a conventional context. Would the author be so kind to discuss the lack of “individuality” when one is liberated with the release of the binding of the classification of form? Of course not. He will imply instead that Nibbana is some sort of spiritual suicide! At the end of this article we will discuss this further, where this claim is repeated again at the conclusion. The author seems to want to capitalize on this misconception as much as possible. Should we be surprised?

"Nonetheless, travelling farther along the pathway of meditation, when the stated goal is nirvana, meditators become more and more detached from their feelings, and become spiritually leprous. A person with physical leprosy is someone who has lost the sense of touch (and thus is in danger when leaning on a hot stove, not having an impulse to pull away, etc.). A person who becomes completely detached from emotions becomes spiritually leprous, and may appear to be quite peaceful, but is also unaware of emotions which give needed warning and provide other healthy functions."

Nowhere in the Pali Canon does it suggest that we detach ourselves from our emotions or from anything during meditation. This makes use of popular Buddha dhamma type language used by many but not found anywhere in the Pali Canon and certainly not regarding meditation. There is a difference between detaching and stilling.

SN 36.31
Niramisa Sutta: Not of the Flesh
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu (excerpt)

"And what is pleasure not of the flesh? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' This is called pleasure not of the flesh.

It's easy to criticize the Buddha dhamma when your lying about it.

Science
This is the topic which brings to light Sakyamuni’s claims to omniscience (or the Pali Canon’s claims on his behalf). How credible is the Pali Canon as a book of facts? If Sakyamuni Buddha did not inspire these writings either directly or indirectly, where is the standard by which truth is measured? And, if it is claimed that the Pali Canon was inspired by the Buddha why does it contain so many factual errors? If the Pali Canon is a mix of truth and error, entrusting one’s destiny to its teachings would be like entrusting oneself to a doctor who prescribes both good and harmful medicines-- a real gamble. All of the scriptural quotations in this science section are from the Pali Canon proper, not its commentary.
In the Digha Nikaya (Dialogues of the Buddha III; 137-139), are listed the 32 marks of one who is supposed to become either a Buddha or a universal ruler. Among these marks, it says he must have 40 teeth [as a baby! - the time when such an assessment is made (Dialogues of the Buddha II; pp. 13-18)]. Ordinarily children have only half that amount- 20 teeth. A mature adult will have 32 teeth total (assuming they didn’t play too much hockey), or 28 teeth if the four wisdom teeth are removed. Fitting eight extra teeth into the jaw of an adult would be quite a feat, but fitting 20 extra teeth into a baby’s jaw would be a real stretch- both of the jaw and of it’s credibility!
Among the 32 marks, another one is that the potential universal ruler or Buddha must have a large tongue. Just how large? In the Majjhima Nikaya (Middle Length Sayings II), a brahman named Sela came to talk with the Buddha and was looking for the 32 marks on him…”Then the Lord, having put out his tongue, stroked it backwards and forwards over both his ears and he stroked it backwards and forwards over both his nostrils and he covered the whole dome of his forehead with his tongue.” (335). Wow. Although there are many statues of the Buddha with various expressions, and in various postures, I’ve never seen one highlighting this aspect of his anatomy, and yet this is canonical.
When responding to Ananda’s question about the cause of an earthquake (Gradual Sayings IV; pp. 208-210), the Buddha gives eight reasons. The first is a natural explanation relating to the structure of the earth, while in the next seven reasons the Buddha says the earth responds with quaking when various “enlightened” ones make monumental accomplishments. In the first reason for earthquakes, we see some real differences between what he says and what modern science knows about the structure of the earth and the causes of earthquakes: “Since, Ananda, this great earth rests on water and the water rests on wind and the wind subsists in space; what time the great winds blow, they cause the water to quake, and the quaking of the water causes the earth to quake. This, Ananda, is the first cause, the first reason, of a great earthquake becoming manifest.”
This example and some of the following examples, demonstrate a lack of correspondence with “the way things are” (the kind of insight the Buddha claimed to provide). These are not just examples of miracles, which would have to be examined on an individual basis according to the evidence for or against them. Rather, they are examples of “reality claims”, which can be tested against modern and non-controversial knowledge of our world (such as the layout of the continents, the height of the tallest mountain, the size of the oceans, etc.).
In the Dialogues of the Buddha III, a description is given of human ancestors who lived to be 80,000 years old, but gradually through various vices, their life-spans were reduced to only ten years. At that time it is alleged that these humans married at five years of age, and presumably conceived children at least by the age of nine if not earlier (since at age nine “old age” would have already set in). These are clearly referred to as humans in this text, and not monkeys. Then, with an increase in moral living, the humans are said to increase their life-spans once again. If this story is only allegorical, why does the text refer to a well known city as being part of this history/prophecy: “Among such humans the Benares of our day will be named Ketumati…” (73). Also, if it is allegorical, so is the prediction of the future Buddha Metteyya, who is supposed to appear when human life-spans are back to 80,000 years.
In another “reality claim” coming from the mouth of the one who “can fall into no error” (Dialogues of the Buddha III, 25), the Buddha says that there are fish in the great ocean, which are anywhere from 100- 500 yojanas long:
“And again, monks, the great ocean is the abode of great beings; these beings are there: the timis, the timingalas, the timitimingalas, asuras, nagas, gandhabbas. There are in the great ocean individualities a hundred yojanas (long), individualities two hundred…three hundred…four hundred…five hundred yojanas (long).” (Book of Discipline V, 333)
According to the Pali Text Society Dictionary, one yojana is said to be equal to 7 miles. That means a fish which is 500 yojanas long would be 3500 miles long. That’s quite a claim, considering that this distance would be about 700 miles longer than the USA is wide (west to east)! Also, it would be quite a disproportional fish since the deepest spot in the world’s oceans is about 7 miles deep, with the average depth being about 3 miles.
For one who claims to omnisciently describe things “as they are” whether in the spiritual or the physical realm, it seems not too much to ask that he would be able to diagnose physical ailments and prescribe suitable cures. In the fourth volume of the Book of Discipline, there are a number of stories which make it plain that the Buddha’s knowledge does not even match up to modern standards, much less omniscience. In one such case the Buddha puts his approval on consuming raw flesh and blood from swine:

“Now at that time a certain monk had an (sic) non-human affliction. Teachers and preceptors, although nursing him, were unable to get him well. He, having gone to the swine’s slaughter-place, ate raw flesh and drank raw blood, and his non-human affliction subsided. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: ‘I allow, monks, when one has a non-human affliction, raw flesh and raw blood.’” (274)

“A non-human affliction” here may refer to demon-possession as the footnote for this passage points out. The cure approved of by the Buddha, is to let the “non-human” spirit (a.k.a. demon) indulge itself in raw flesh and blood. Is there any disease for which this would actually be a wise practice?
Why didn’t the Buddha cast out such a foul oppressor as Jesus Christ often did? In another contrast to the ministry of Jesus Christ, whose healing was often described using the word “immediately,” the Buddha gives permission for various remedies, which are often followed by the words, “he got no better” (278-279). Following such incidents is another passage showing the Buddha’s lack of appropriate remedies:
“’I allow, monks, a piece of cloth for tying over the sore.’ The sore itched. ‘I allow you, monks, to sprinkle it with mustard-powder.’ The sore festered. ‘I allow you, monks, to make a fumigation.’ The flesh of the sore stood up. ‘I allow you, monks, to cut it off with a piece of salt-crystal.’ The sore did not heal.” (279)
When someone is so much in the dark regarding physical realities, why should we trust him concerning much weightier, eternally significant, spiritual realities?
Lastly, because the theory of evolution seems to align itself to Buddhism pretty well (no need for a Creator), does this mean Buddhism is therefore scientific? Firstly, the Buddha didn’t explain ultimate origins and said that speculating about origins is one of the useless endeavors in life (since such speculation doesn’t lead to Nirvana). But, also if there is no Creator, how can we expect our world to have any morals (or any karmic justice), or any beauty if everything came into being through random, mutated, impersonal chance? Apart from the lack of cohesion between evolution and Buddhism, there is the more fundamental problem- evolution is still a theory- and after all these years since Darwin’s “discovery”, the evidence for evolution is not increasing, but decreasing. The famous line-up of monkeys to men, for example, have been shown to be hoaxes, or completely ape, or completely human. The missing links are still missing. The website www.answersingenesis.org has articles, audios, and videos, presented by Ph.D. creation scientists, offering evidence in support of a Creator of this world. To someone raised with evolutionary thinking, a Creator may sound “unscientific”, but the evidence is there. To dismiss this evidence without a fair examination would itself be unscientific. Should we accept something just because it is the opinion of our age or in agreement with our moral preferences in life? An objective person would be willing to follow the evidence where it leads, even if that means to God.
"This example and some of the following examples, demonstrate a lack of correspondence with “the way things are” (the kind of insight the Buddha claimed to provide). These are not just examples of miracles, which would have to be examined on an individual basis according to the evidence for or against them. Rather, they are examples of “reality claims”, which can be tested against modern and non-controversial knowledge of our world (such as the layout of the continents, the height of the tallest mountain, the size of the oceans, etc.)."

We shall review...

“A non-human affliction” here may refer to demon-possession as the footnote for this passage points out. The cure approved of by the Buddha, is to let the “non-human” spirit (a.k.a. demon) indulge itself in raw flesh and blood. Is there any disease for which this would actually be a wise practice?

There is certainly nothing wrong with understanding the fact that interpolations may very well exist within the Pali Canon.

If any interpolations do exist how do we tell the difference?

AN 8.53
[The teachings that promote] the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
[As for the teachings that promote] the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'

Skill in Questions
HowThe Buddha Taught
By
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

A safe bet for what might well be an interpolation is when it goes against this teaching as to how to tell the difference as well as when it is contrary to the overall teaching of the Tipitaka.

Again, it is the Christian who must instead make up one excuse after another when discussing the Bible because of the need to justify everything written as the unerring word of an unerring perfect God. Again, let us remember the example mentioned earlier of the two different genealogy stories of Jesus in the bible, one in Matt. and the other in Luke. (Matt 1 1-16 and Luke 3: 23-37) Both are given specifically as the genealogy of Jesus. There is a story of how this is because Mary's father adopted Joseph and how therefore one is really the genealogy of Mary! Now again, the question is this...if the Christian Bible is really the unerring word of an unerring perfect God... then why have a story that contradicts the Bible explain what it is that the Bible tells you? This is only one of many different examples . Or we could look at the four different stories of the resurrection of Jesus in the Christian Bible as another example,.......

1.Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James go to the tomb and find guards and boulder which move after earthquake. One flying angel on the boulder tells what happened.
Matt.28

2.Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome go to the tomb, find no guards or boulder and one young man in the tomb tells what happened. But women told no one.
Mark 16

3.Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and some other women go to the tomb, and two men in the tomb tell what happened.
Luke 24

4.Mary goes to the tomb to find nothing, she then tells the disciples that someone stole the body so they go back and again find nothing. The disciples then leave and Jesus appears to tell Mary what happened.
John 20

I have been told that the resurrection of Jesus is one of the most if not the most important event in human history, so.....why couldn't the four apostle's who wrote the four gospels get such an important story straight?

I've heard Christian's say... "The stories are complementary"!
Complementary?
How could the other three apostles not remember such a thing, or not think that a FLYING ANGEL OF GOD as something relevant to at least mention?
Contemporary scholars regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels (c 70)1, so how reasonable is it that the apostle Mark forgot about a flying angel of God, or simply did not think it worthy to mention along with Luke and John who did the same as well?
Were not talking about a fender bender of a car accident where one person might say that the car that sped off was light blue but someone else might say no, it was dark blue.....
No, what we are talking about here is a FLYING ANGEL OF GOD for cripes sake!!!
How could the other three apostles not remember such a thing, or not think that a FLYING ANGEL OF GOD as something relevant to at least mention?

Let us reason ....Shall we?

The book of gen. Ch.11 tells us that the reason why there are different languages in the word today is because of the tower of babel! So the next time your in linguistics class and the professor is teaching about the ancient Chinese language or something, you just stand up and tell them all your not going to be fooled! You let them know that you will not be deceived by Satan! When they ask you just what the rest of the world was speaking prior to the tower of bable, which was actually a "Ziggurat" ( a multi -storied temple tower from ancient Mesopotamia) 6 you just tell them that the rest of the world must have been of the same ancient language! When they remind you that the Sumerian is a language isolate compared to the Egyptian which both came prior to the Classical Hebrew....... Ignore them! Remind them of Satan's trickery! How can any of that be relevent if God simply changed everybody language? So what if this all means that amongst other things, that the Chinese had no language and were not even Chinese until after the Chinese speaking Sumerians came to town! God must have changed the Sumerian D.N.A. into Chinese D.N.A.... and then they went to China with their new genetic profile and language! So what if the legendary Sumarian account has it the other way around (so that many languages would become one) and that the God Enki involved was only one of many Gods! 7 Tell them Mr. Reality Claim said so!

Now would any of that necessarily invalidate what the ministry of Jesus was presumably about?

"The cure approved of by the Buddha, is to let the “non-human” spirit (a.k.a. demon) indulge itself in raw flesh and blood. Is there any disease for which this would actually be a wise practice?"
A "non-human affliction" first of all could refer to several things ... Another possibility is that what is being spoken of here is simply a physical ailment that did not usually hinder a human being. What ever it was the Venerable Gotama was a very practical person, if something worked then he approved it...if not then he didn't.
"Is there any disease for which this would actually be a wise practice?" As what was being talked of here was referred to as a "non-human affliction" this question would simply not apply for the above reasons of possibility given. This was apparently an unusual circumstance and approximately two thousand five hundred years ago their world being a quite different one than it is today, it's very possible that they knew something that in todays world we would be most unfamiliar with.

Why didn’t the Buddha cast out such a foul oppressor as Jesus Christ often did?

If that is what it was or not we are still talking about a different approach. The Buddha didn't claim to be a divine God like being performing miracles to convince people of his divine omniscience. This gives the Buddhist encouragement because it doe'nt mean that we have to be either or worship a God like deity Christian form or otherwise in order to achieve spiritual emancipation. I will also point out that in the Kavatta sutta ( Digha Nikaya #11) the Buddha refuses the suggestion of performing miracles so that others will believe his teaching, in favor of what is called the miracle of wise instruction. There is a saying... feed a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. As well, the last time that I looked, Jesus was nowhere to be found healing people and creating miracles. The Christian Bible tells us(John 14:12) though, that a 'true' Christian can perform greater miracles than Jesus. According to the Christian bible, (Mark 16:16-18) a true Christian should be able to heal the sick and be completely immune from any poison! If that is true then I guess I haven't met any 'true' Christians lately!
I must admit as well, that the last time that I looked, there were no Unicorns (Isaiah 34:7) talking donkeys, (Numbers 23:23-30) or Leviathan sea monsters (Isaiah 27:1 and Job 41:1) hanging around the neighborhood either!

But wait a minute... none of that wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the ministry of Jesus or the validity of his message either ...now would it?

"But, also if there is no Creator, how can we expect our world to have any morals (or any karmic justice), or any beauty if everything came into being through random, mutated, impersonal chance? "

We can't figure out morality for ourselves? Do we need a creator God to tell us that it is morally wrong for an innocent man to hang?Karmic justice? Its called cause and effect. As well hasn't anyone ever informed the author that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

"The missing links are still missing."

Really? I would suggest a book by Dr. David Johannsen titled "Lucy". He was the first one to discover the example of what is termed Homo Sapien as opposed to Homo Sapien Sapien the sub species that we are. This discovery has never been disproven.5
God
"In Jataka 543, questions are asked concerning a Creator[xx]: 'Why are his creatures all condemned to pain? Why does he not to all give happiness. [sic]' (Jones, 144). The agnosticism/atheism in Buddhism and emphasis on self-effort, claim for humanity a jurisdiction all their own. Suffering that is so evident in this world is often given as the reason for rejecting a loving and powerful God. The book of Job in the Bible addresses the problem of apparent injustices in this world. By making a judgement about their circumstances, people presume to know all that can be known about the situation. Job had a similar complaint, because from his perspective, he couldn’t see any justice in what he was facing. In response, God asked Job four chapters worth of questions (Job 38-41), which made Job realize how limited his knowledge really is. Sitting in judgment on God is presuming to know what is right based on our finite and limited perspective. What knowledge does such a person have, that the Creator has not yet considered?"

We shall review...

"Sitting in judgment on God is presuming to know what is right based on our finite and limited perspective. What knowledge does such a person have, that the Creator has not yet considered?"

This would of course imply that this Christian God of theirs is either looking for gullible people who will believe practically anything that he is reported to have said or decreed or that 'God' is incapable of dumbing things down just a bit so that we can all be on the same page together! Perhaps a combination of dumbing it down and raising our intelligence would be too much to ask for? Reality check anyone? Faith did I hear someone mention? But if it must come down to "Faith" as the keystone for your religious belief then what makes your "faith" any better than anyone else's? All religious faiths have their place for faith also, no? Thankfully Buddhism does not place it as the critical factor to say the least. This is why we have the Kalama Sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya (3.65 or #.66 in the Thai Tipitaka) which is the Buddha's discourse on the value of free inquiry. Not the value of blind faith as a priority .

It can only be said as well that a Buddhist is an atheist only if you narrow the word 'God' down to nothing more than the typical monotheistic approach of a separate and supreme persona that is a part of creation but not subject to it's own laws of creation.
What the Venerable Gotama was demonstrating was the foolishness of taking all the creative power of this ever expanding multiverse of a universe and narrowing it down as such to a name with its own personality included.

DN 11
Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta: To Kevatta (excerpt)
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"Then the monk attained to such a state of concentration that the way leading to the gods of the retinue of Brahma appeared in his centered mind. So he approached the gods of the retinue of Brahma and, on arrival, asked them, 'Friends, where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder?'

"When this was said, the gods of the retinue of Brahma said to the monk, 'We also don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. But there is Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is higher and more sublime than we. He should know where the four great elements... cease without remainder.'

"'But where, friends, is the Great Brahma now?'

"'Monk, we also don't know where Brahma is or in what way Brahma is. But when signs appear, light shines forth, and a radiance appears, Brahma will appear. For these are the portents of Brahma's appearance: light shines forth and a radiance appears.'

"Then it was not long before Brahma appeared.

"So the monk approached the Great Brahma and, on arrival, said, 'Friend, where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder?'

"When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.'

A second time, the monk said to the Great Brahma, 'Friend, I didn't ask you if you were Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. I asked you where these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder.'

"A second time, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.'

"A third time, the monk said to the Great Brahma, 'Friend, I didn't ask you if you were Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. I asked you where these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder.'

"Then the Great Brahma, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off to one side, said to him, 'These gods of the retinue of Brahma believe, "There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not know. There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not see. There is nothing of which the Great Brahma is unaware. There is nothing that the Great Brahma has not realized." That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.'

"Then — just as a strong man might extend his flexed arm or flex his extended arm — the monk disappeared from the Brahma world and immediately appeared in front of me. Having bowed down to me, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to me, 'Lord, where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder?'

"When this was said, I said to him,[2] 'Once, monk, some sea-faring merchants took a shore-sighting bird and set sail in their ship. When they could not see the shore, they released the shore-sighting bird. It flew to the east, south, west, north, straight up, and to all the intermediate points of the compass. If it saw the shore in any direction, it flew there. If it did not see the shore in any direction, it returned right back to the ship. In the same way, monk, having gone as far as the Brahma world in search of an answer to your question, you have come right back to my presence.

"'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this:

Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing?
Where are long & short,
coarse & fine,
fair & foul,
name & form
brought to an end?
"'And the answer to that is:

Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness*
each is here brought to an end.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the householder delighted in the Blessed One's words.

* As noted "without feature" or "binding characteristic" unlimited without end.

The vanity in this world should turn us towards our Creator for direction and renewal, rather than supposing we can handle the problems on our own. Jesus taught his disciples their need to humble themselves before God: “Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them,
and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew 18: 2-3). What we see in this world oftentimes is unjust- the wicked prospering, the “innocent” facing trouble, etc., but we need to know the perspective of eternity, which includes a judgment day in which God will judge the world in righteousness. In Buddhism, the question of God’s existence is placed in the category of vain philosophical speculation-- supposing that this question does not help a person end suffering through Nirvana. Thankfully, knowing God does not lead us to Nirvana (non-existence).

Nirvana does not mean non-existence. The author here of course takes an incorrect perspective in order to then criticize. The philosophers of ancient India viewed fire as being bound and binding as well that which it consumed. To 'extinguish' therefore meant to liberate that which was being bound.6

"Also, considering Sakyamuni’s lack of omniscience, it is hardly advisable to trust in his speculations about what is or is not a worthy pursuit. If an appliance in our house is not functioning properly, we turn to the owner’s manual or maybe call the maker of that appliance. Similarly, God who made us has the answers to life’s dilemmas."

Conclusion
Looking at Buddhism plainly like this, if Buddhism were a journey, it would be a journey in which the road map contains known false claims, the “discoverer” of this journey is no longer around to offer any help, and ultimately one is extinguished when arriving at the destination. Although Buddhism is a fascinating system, it leads people along a pathway away from the God who loves them, away from incorruptible everlasting life, and thus away from what we were made for- a life washed of our sins and relating to our Maker- made possible not by “earning it”, but through Jesus Christ taking our punishment onto Himself on the cross. To reject this is to reject a true road map to heaven[xxi], help for the journey, and a guide who will not fail us. To acknowledge and accept this is to begin a relationship of trust with our Maker. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3: 16-18).

"Looking at Buddhism plainly like this, if Buddhism were a journey, it would be a journey in which the road map contains known false claims, the “discoverer” of this journey is no longer around to offer any help, and ultimately one is extinguished when arriving at the destination."
"Known false claims"? If the author of this article were to look at the teaching overall of his own Christian Bible as well as the Pali Canon Tipataka instead of whatever it is that he/she or anyone else believes to be far fetched, then he/she would be less likely to say this..... " the “discoverer” of this journey is no longer around to offer any help", and Jesus of Nazareth is? Oh thats right, they believe that he is... and they have every right to! ..."and ultimately one is extinguished when arriving at the destination." Again this is a false interpretation of nibbana, but convenient for this sort of Christian propaganda.

Samutarra Nikaya 12.64:

“Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the North, The South, or the East. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?”“On the Western wall lord.”“And if there is no Western wall, where does it land?”“On the ground, lord.”“And if there is no ground, where does it land?”“ On the water lord.”“And if there is no water, where does it land?”“It does not land, lord.”Notice that it does not say that with no place to land, the sun ray ceases to exist. When the sun ray “lands” in this analogy you have birth in “Samsara”, not a “place” really but a process of being identified or “bound” by ones circumstances as a consciousness of “this” or “that”.

The Christian propagandist can do his or her best to misconstrue and deceive people about our Pali Canon Tipataka and the teaching of what we today call "Buddhism", I know they must believe that they are doing something good. They also must feel threatened by just what we have to offer.

We should have sincere compassion for such unfortunate people.

Bhikkhu aggacitto:)

References for the article discussed

Childers, R.C. (1979). A Dictionary of the Pali Language. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications.

Gogerly, D.J. (1885). The Kristiyani Prajnapti or The Evidences and Doctrines of the Christian Religion in three parts. Colombo: Christian Vernacular Education Society.

Herman, A.L. (1996). Two Dogmas of Buddhism. In Pali Buddhism Hoffman, F.J., Mahinda, D. (Eds.) Surrey: Curzon Press.

Jones, J.G. (1979). Tales and Teachings of the Buddha: The Jataka Stories in relation to the Pali Canon. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Keown, D. (2000). Buddhism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Odzer, C. (1998). Abortion and Prostitution in Bangkok. In Buddhism and Abortion. Keown, D. (Ed.). Great Britain: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Rahula, W. (1999). What the Buddha Taught. Bangkok: Haw Trai Foundation.

Rhys Davids, T.W. & Stede, W. (1966). The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary. London: Luzac & Company, Ltd.

The Debate of King Milinda: An Abridgement of The Milinda Panha. (1998) Pesala, B. (Ed.) Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pte. Ltd.

The Holy Bible: New King James Version (1991 printing). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc.

The Pali Canon: Pali Text Society Version. Abbreviations of Pali Text Society books, with Pali titles in parentheses: V = Book of Discipline (Vinaya Pitaka); GS = Gradual Sayings (Anguttara Nikaya); D = Dialogues of the Buddha (Digha Nikaya); KS = Kindred Sayings (Samyutta Nikaya); MLS = Middle Length Sayings (Majjhima Nikaya); JS(S) = Jataka Stories (Jataka).

Trimondi, V. & Trimondi, V. (1999) Der Schatten des Dalai Lama: Sexualitaet, Magie und Politik im tibetischen Buddhismus. Duesseldorf: Patmos- Verlag.

Vajiranana, P. (1987). Buddhist Meditation in Theory and Practice: A General Exposition According to the Pali Canon of the Theravada School. Kuala Lumpur: Buddhist Missionary Society.

[xvi] Dhamma can be translated as the body of teaching or the doctrine.

[xvii] Vipassana meditation is what makes Buddhist meditation unique, focusing on the transitory (anicca), unsatisfactory (dukkha), and non-self (anatta) nature of existence.

[xviii] This is a non-canonical work, written by Buddhaghosa, but very well respected among Theravada Buddhists.

[xix] Jhana is also spelled Dhyana. Rahula defines Dhyana as, “’trance’, recueillement, a state of mind achieved through higher meditation.” (143)

[xx] In this case the creator referred to is Brahman, although this is actually an argument against the existence of such a creator.

[xxi] For some examples of the reliability of the Bible, the following sites present some evidence from history, archeology, fulfilled prophecies, etc.:

http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/resource.html

http://www.letusreason.org/Apolodir.htm

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/article-index-b_1.html

Childers, R.C. (1979). A Dictionary of the Pali Language. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications.

Gogerly, D.J. (1885). The Kristiyani Prajnapti or The Evidences and Doctrines of the Christian Religion in three parts. Colombo: Christian Vernacular Education Society.

Herman, A.L. (1996). Two Dogmas of Buddhism. In Pali Buddhism Hoffman, F.J., Mahinda, D. (Eds.) Surrey: Curzon Press.

Jones, J.G. (1979). Tales and Teachings of the Buddha: The Jataka Stories in relation to the Pali Canon. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Keown, D. (2000). Buddhism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Odzer, C. (1998). Abortion and Prostitution in Bangkok. In Buddhism and Abortion. Keown, D. (Ed.). Great Britain: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Rahula, W. (1999). What the Buddha Taught. Bangkok: Haw Trai Foundation.

Rhys Davids, T.W. & Stede, W. (1966). The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary. London: Luzac & Company, Ltd.

The Debate of King Milinda: An Abridgement of The Milinda Panha. (1998) Pesala, B. (Ed.) Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pte. Ltd.

The Holy Bible: New King James Version (1991 printing). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc.

The Pali Canon: Pali Text Society Version. Abbreviations of Pali Text Society books, with Pali titles in parentheses: V = Book of Discipline (Vinaya Pitaka); GS = Gradual Sayings (Anguttara Nikaya); D = Dialogues of the Buddha (Digha Nikaya); KS = Kindred Sayings (Samyutta Nikaya); MLS = Middle Length Sayings (Majjhima Nikaya); JS(S) = Jataka Stories (Jataka).

Trimondi, V. & Trimondi, V. (1999) Der Schatten des Dalai Lama: Sexualitaet, Magie und Politik im tibetischen Buddhismus. Duesseldorf: Patmos- Verlag.

Vajiranana, P. (1987). Buddhist Meditation in Theory and Practice: A General Exposition According to the Pali Canon of the Theravada School. Kuala Lumpur: Buddhist Missionary Society.

[xvi] Dhamma can be translated as the body of teaching or the doctrine.

[xvii] Vipassana meditation is what makes Buddhist meditation unique, focusing on the transitory (anicca), unsatisfactory (dukkha), and non-self (anatta) nature of existence.

[xviii] This is a non-canonical work, written by Buddhaghosa, but very well respected among Theravada Buddhists.

[xix] Jhana is also spelled Dhyana. Rahula defines Dhyana as, “’trance’, recueillement, a state of mind achieved through higher meditation.” (143)

[xx] In this case the creator referred to is Brahman, although this is actually an argument against the existence of such a creator.

[xxi] For some examples of the reliability of the Bible, the following sites present some evidence from history, archeology, fulfilled prophecies, etc.:

http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/resource.html

http://www.letusreason.org/Apolodir.htm

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/article-index-b_1.html

References for this article.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhuni#Re-establishing_Bhikkhuni_Ordination
2.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
3.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/khp/khp.5.nara.html
4.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.than.html

5.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
6.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/index.html
7.The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature: http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1823.htm
8.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/1.html
9.The Pali Text Societies Pali English Dictionary
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/

Zen Violence?

2010-10-07T22:00:00.001+08:00

On February 13, 2010, Christian publication WORLD Magazine published an article by Marvin Olasky titled "Zen at War; war and peace in Buddhism".

Let's start at the top.

"Bold journalist Brit Hume took a lot of heat last month for saying, while commenting on the fall of Tiger Woods, that Buddhism does not 'offer the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith." Maybe so, one Buddhist blogger replied, but Buddhism is a religion of peace without any of those nasty crusades lurking in it's past."

Ouch! Judging from the tone and nature of the rest of the article, I guess the truth really hurts. Also, Brit Hume is supposed to be an impartial, unbiased journalist; trying to make his religion look better than someone else's(which he has probably never studied) does not make him "bold", it just makes him biased, rude, and unethical. Now imagine Mr. Olasky's reaction if a Buddhist journalist had made an equivalent statement comparing Christianity with Buddhism on national television.
Some Christians will do anything to promote their religion and push it into the spotlight.

"Juxtapose that sentiment, please, with this new note; A panel of Japanese and Chinese scholars recently completed a three-year study aimed at reconciling differences of view-point on contentious historical issues involving the two nations- and concluded the study without reconciliation. The final report of the Japan-China Joint History Research Committee will merely consist of papers submitted by each side.
In Particular, the scholars could not agree on the number of Chinese civilians killed by Japanese soldiers in Nanjing in 1937 and 1938, when Nanjing(sometimes called Nanking) was the capital of China. The Japanese suggest tens of thousands. The Chinese insist that 300,000 were killed. But more is at stake than numbers. The best book I've seen on the subject is Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking(Basic, 1997), which quotes eyewitnesses who, for example, witnessed Japanese officers training soldiers in cutting off heads:
'Standing behind the prisoner, Tanaka steadied himself, legs spread apart, and cut off the mans head with a "Yo!".
The head flew more than a meter away. Blood spurted up in two fountains from the body and sprayed into the hole. The scene was so appalling that I felt I couldn't breathe."

Um... how did we get on the subject of WWII Japanese war crimes? They were indeed horrible, but they have very little to do with Buddhism. Let's see what Mr. Olasky says...

"Utter brutality was common. Rapes in front of family members tied up and forced to watch, with the women then mutilated and killed. Soldiers betting on the sex of unborn children and using their bayonets to cut open women and find out who won. Soldiers forcing family members with acts of incest, with any resistance leading to immediate execution.
Three Japanese generals were eventually executed for their roles in the Rape. For a time it was convenient to blame just "Japanese militarism."

Maybe that's because militarism was to blame. Just thought I'd point out the obvious.

"But some contemporary Buddhists acknowledge that Buddhism was not entirely innocent."

Before we go any further, let's remind ourselves that it was Soto Zen, a nationalistic offshoot of mainstream Zen Buddhism, that played out a small part in militarism. Not Buddhism, or Zen Buddhism, as a whole.

"In particular, Zen priest Brian Victoria's Zen at War(Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd edition, 2006) and Zen War Stories(RoutledgeCurzon, 2003) bravely revealed how Zen leaders in the 1930s applauded killing."

Notice how he says "Zen leaders", not "Buddhist leaders". Subtle word-play and word-wankery seem to be the favorite pastime of Christian propagandists(also known as "apologists").

"As some Buddhist scholars increasingly acknowledge, militant Buddhism is not new. Warring Buddhist armies from dueling monasteries dominated Japan in medieval times."

Wrong. You fail basic Japanese history, Mr Olasky; not a surprising feat for a propagandist. The samurai dominated feudal Japan, not warrior monks, who, on the battlefields of Japan, were red herrings. In fact, warrior monks only showed up for about 400 years, give or take, before Oda Nobunaga, the first warlord to attempt to unify Japan, wiped them out sometime before 1580. It's also interesting to note that they fought almost entirely for political reasons, violating several of Buddhism's most basic guidelines(do not harm or kill others, do not strive for selfish ends, etc.).

"Their tradition gained applause from Shaku Soen(1859-1919), the first Zen Buddhist master to teach in the United States. He argued that everything is of one essence, so that war and peace are the same- and the soldier who doesn't care whether he lives or dies, and doesn't worry about killing others, is getting closer to "the final realization of enlightenment"."

First off, he's talking about the Samurai, my imbecilic friend, not the warrior monks. Secondly, that is indeed what Bushido teaches- but not indiscriminate killing, as you so cleverly forgot to mention.
Moving on...

"The year 1937 brought not only the Nanjing terror but also Zen and the Japanese Culture(republished in 1970 by Princeton University Press). It's author, D.T. Suzuki(1870-1966), who became the leading Zen popularizer in the United States, acknowledged that Zen "treats life and death indifferently" and can be "wedded to anarchism or fascism, communism or democracy... or any political or economic dogmatism".

B.S. First off, this(like the warrior monks of old), contradicts the most basic teachings of Buddhism. Does the author have any scriptures from the Dhamma that support one word of this drivel? Secondly, I find it a little convenient that Mr. Olasky neglected to provide us with any evidence that Suzuki said that at all. Surely there was a source for that statement? And if he did say that, what, I wonder, was the original context?

"That's what is key. Adherents to the Buddhist doctrine of non-attachment- to things, people, or life itself- argue that we only imagine the difference between war and peace, civilization and savagery: All are illusions."

Looks like someone took all those Zen koans literally. As I've pointed out, Buddhists are strictly forbidden to partake in violence; a fact that our Christian friend neglects to mention. By contrast, the Hebrews were ordered not to commit murder in the Old Testament. Except for pagans. And homosexuals. And witches. And lazy teenagers. And drunken teenagers. And anyone who blasphemed. And anyone who did any work on the Sabbath.
Projection, anyone?

"Brian Victoria shows how that doctrine hardened Japanese soldiers with *Buddhist* training."

*sigh* Okay, let me explain this for the benefit of anyone gullible enough to buy this crap: the training was watered down martial arts training, not "Buddhist training". Traditional martial arts originated from China in the 2nd Century, I believe; carrying with it a distinct philosophy derived from a mix of Buddhist and Taoist concepts; do not harm any living creature unless it is necessary, do not use Wu shu/karate/etc. for selfish ends, use it only to help those around you. At times, this debased training(stripped of the principles above) was administered by Soto Zen priests, but Japanese Militarism had much more to do with Nationalistic Shinto than anything else(and this was a perversion of Shinto, by the way, before any propagandists try to slander that religion as well). It was also a perversion of the samurai code of Bushido(Way of the Warrior).
If anything, this tragic episode is a cautionary tale that shows how destructive it can be when you separate the philosophy from the art; they were never meant to be separate.
Continuing on...

"Others also worry about Zen teaching that, according to Buddhist Josh Baron, pushes adherents to "give our rational thinking and intelligence."

Well, my Irony Meter just started melting. Guess I'll have to buy a new one. First off, the Christian author very deviously took this quote waaay out of context. Click http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm to see the original context and be sure to scroll all the way down the page to the second paragraph from the end, right after the author says "this is our iron ball koan". It's nice to see that we can depend on Christians to display overwhelming intellectual honesty ;). Also, as for "giving up our rational thinking and intelligence", well, wasn't that precisely what Jesus himself was doing when he said that "only those with the faith of a child will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven"(Matthew 18;3)?

"Baron's review of Victoria's writing noted, "For too long, we have accepted all eastern teaching with child-like reverence, placing our thinking faculties on hold. Perhaps now, with these new revelations, it is time to re-honor intelligence and questioning and look more carefully at what we inherited and where we're headed."

Indeed. Buddha's intellectual standards were quite stringent; he demanded that everyone carefully consider every aspect of the Dhamma before accepting it; dogmatic, child-like faith was discouraged.
All Buddhists should examine their beliefs constantly, and refresh their minds by looking into other beliefs and philosophies.

"Christians have gone through such self-appraisals concerning the Crusades. Some Buddhists are ready to do the same."

Right; which is why the Soto Zen sect is currently making sincere, public apologies for their misdeeds.

"My point in all this is not to suggest that Buddhism is a religion of violence- it rarely is these days- but that it can be."

Just as any other religion, including Christianity can be, once someone cherry-picks it, guts out the directives of peace and compassion, and replaces them with oppressive, inhumane, fanatical, and totalitarian values.

"Buddhism gets a great press in the United States, but it is one more man-made religion that reflects our naturally sinful natures. Murderers and adulterers all need Christ."

Yet another large nugget of crap from a Christian fertilizer salesman. All religions are man-made, and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise. And something else our Christian friend forgets to mention is that while ample justification for mass murder and even slavery can be found in the Bible, no such excuses are apparent in the Dhamma. The long and short of the matter is that Buddhism does not have any crusades lurking in it's past, nor any possible justification for such actions; even the actions of so-called Buddhist "radicals" in Sri Lanka and elsewhere does not count, because those who do evil in the name of Buddha are going directly against everything he taught to the point of where these people can not be called Buddhists. Also, Christians have yet to prove that "sin" is anything but a piece of Church dogma. All murderers and adulterers need to break free from the selfish delusions and desires that corrupted them.

May all be well and happy...

B.R.
http://acmebuddhistblog.blogspot.com/