The Dalai Lama, a powerful icon for peace worldwide, will gather with influential American Muslim leaders in San Francisco today to help refashion Islam's image in the United States.

Always lecturing the unbelievers about how they've got Islam figured all wrong... If it's all just a big misunderstanding, how about having a word with their fellow Muslims for a change?

Posted by: Shinoliite at April 15, 2006 7:14 PM

The Dalai Lama has been senile for the longest time, and his appearances have been inane, to say the least. It's sad what 50 years of exile can do to a person. With such an insipid personality, don't worry about him ever being persuasive. The only ones who would latch on to his statements are those who at some level believe it going in.

I wish for the day Tibet will be an independent nation once again, but if and when that happens, I don't think the Dalai Lama should automatically be the one running it. He should stick to the religion he's an authority on - Buddhism, rather than dabble in a 'religion' that was responsible for his faith being wiped out in Turan and Afghanistan in the 11th century. The scary thing is that if he had his way all the way i.e. if Tibet and Xinxiang were independent, Tibet would be facing a new threat from the Uygars, rather than leading an existance similar to Poland or Hungary since 1990.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 15, 2006 7:15 PM

On another note, it's good that Buddhism has two sects, and that those practicing it, be it the Sinhalas in Sri Lanka, or the Indochinese in South East Asia, practice Theravada Buddhism, where no religious stature exists for this Tibetan dunce.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 15, 2006 7:18 PM

I like, I love, I believe in intelligent democracy. To me Gandhi (that enema freak who used to sleep between 14 year old girls to test himself) and Hitler have more in common than less. I don't want or need any more mystico-political-utopians effing with my world regardless of their 'good intentions'.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at April 15, 2006 8:08 PM

Give me the religious Lama in the 1950's Alan Ladd/Charles Boyer film "Thunder in the East" anyday!

Upon witnessing the murder of his child acolyte by invading communists, he sees the light, picks up a Tommy gun and decides that the 'world of illusion' stuff is fun to preach about in the abstract, but when your enemies begin to kill your children, all bets are off.

And the holy man starts mowing down the terrorists on full automatic.

These fastidiously otherworldy folks are nice to have in 'preserves' to keep the rest of us aware of the cul de sac of all philosophies that treat this world as not worth battling for.

The real existenz problem with them is that they depend on the rest of us to fight their battles for them.

In effect, lobsang leeches, who then castigate you as 'trapped in the webs of maya' for getting into gear, killing maniacs, and saving their lousy, ineffectual rear ends.

Go spin a prayer wheel, Dalai.

Islam loves these sanctimonious suckers.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 15, 2006 8:18 PM

All religions are NOT the same.

Jesus teaches "Love your enemies. Bless those who curse you and pray for those who abuse you.
Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her. In Christ there is no difference between man and woman, slave or
free. A husband must only have one wife."

Mohammed teaches "War is deceit. Do not make friends with infidels or even greet them. Slay them wherever you find them. Allah turned the Jews into monkeys and pigs. A rock behind a Jew
will say come get this Jew and kill him. Beat
your wife until she submits. You can have up to four of them."

Posted by: bgordon at April 15, 2006 8:53 PM

Will the Dalai Lama be discussing the more than a thousand years of destruction of Buddhist stupas and libraries, and other artifacts, by Muslims, all over Central Asia and India and even into Western China? Will he be mentioning the Bamiyan Buddhas, and the reveleation that Saudi and Pakistani specialists helped advise the Taliban demolition squad? Will he be discussing the Muslim attacks on Buddhist monks and villagers in Thailand, or the treatment of the remaining Buddhists (in the Chittagong Hills) in Bangladesh, or in Indonesia?

If he forgets to mention those things, he will simply lose his own standing among Buddhists and others. That standing is not guaranteed. If he plays the fool, he will be regarded as a fool. And not a holy fool, either.

Posted by: Hugh at April 15, 2006 9:07 PM

Hugh-

"...and not a holy fool..."

Don't parsifal words!

Perhaps they'll rename the Muslim faith in his honor:

Islamma?

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 15, 2006 9:13 PM

BGordon, you mean "You may have up to four AT A TIME." If all four of your wives are too old to turn you on anymore, just divorce them and get four more, it's that simple.

The Dalai Lama, like Gandhi and Nelson Mandella, has become a dotering old fool. Recall that Gandhi said that the Jews of Europe should have committed suicide, THAT would have shown the Nazis a thing or two. Yet his grandson, another semi-professional Israel basher, says that the "palestinians" should march en masse to the checkpoints, crash through, and claim Israel as their own.

All religions are very similar; Islam is not a religion.

Posted by: kj at April 15, 2006 9:17 PM

It is so disconcerting to hear him speak thus.
The irony is, I was first made aware of the depth of Islam by a Buddhist monk. A lama, and a gifted, rather poignant and impressive person in my life. Many years ago, I was having a conversation with him. The mid 70's, still young and way to liberal about things in general.
He asked me once, about the problems of Israel and the moslems.

I had some inkling already, having met a few Turks and others, that gave a disturbing feeling to that faith. I was a bit lost in sufi poetry and all that.

I went into what I felt was a benign enlightened peaceful interpretation of how we jews had suffered so badly at the hands of muslims and christians and had survived to show how even the meek could accomplish so much, and now, we were ready as always to share what we had for peace, and work together.

I felt very zen with my little speech to him.

And proud of myself. What a peaceful guy I was.

'What do you think of the problems between the moslems and the jews," I asked... I'd never heard this guy ever make a negative comment about other religions, although he was quite the shapeshifter in dealing with all manner of subjects.

He smiled at me. After my little speech, he gave me a slightly forgiving smile. The kind the nurse gives you when she walks out of the Intensive care room of your loved one, and whispers...
"The doctors are working very hard"

He said softly, but succinctly- " Islam is a devil's religion"

If he'd have punched me in the nose, it would've had less effect than that comment. It was unheard of for me, or my family or jews to comment like that. Well- all the liberal one's anyway.

I just thought to myself after hearing his comment- 'well, screw that, that's weird'

You see, I could'nt allow myself to even hear such ideas. Always you be the goody two shoes in my then ideation.

But I knew him. He was a man, a gifted, very talented man, and one whose opinion was never frivolous. Never voiced things unless they had some place, or so it seemed in one's work.

So- since it wasn't any cult. I just thought-
Screw him, that's the end of this conversation.

Yet his comments haunted me, for years. He was a very good man. A wise man, a man of insight- and I learned not to dismiss whatever he said simply because it sounded incorrect.

I remember all the events of the 80's, the events of the early nineites, and Oslo, and the homicide of Rabbi Kahane, and the
Left's embrace of homicidism as revolution.

And I once guarded the DL's door on a visit to america. Nice man.

But he, I do not forgive him for his appeasement, here, now, nor last month in Israel- and his ordinariness. He knows better. The Tibetans then, all knew the muslims for the conquering oppressors of the entire east, and they were truly sympathetic to the Jewish peoples struggle to survive under the muslim hammer. Now, with the mass homicidism, worldwide, he plays UN patsy, a darling and it gets him invited to the vast appeasement table- at the expense of others.

Mark

Posted by: mgoldberg at April 15, 2006 10:32 PM

The phrase "holy fool" above was meant to refer to the Russian "yurodivy."

Posted by: Hugh at April 15, 2006 10:45 PM

"Who are the extremists?" he asked. "It's all of us. There's no 'us' versus 'them' here. We've got extremists on both sides. If we let extremist agendas chart the course for us on both sides, we're headed for a very, very frightening world."
Quote above..

At the begining of WW2, the United States was having daily anti war marches, and many were stating the trouble was Europe's, and China's, among others. It was not our trouble, not our war.

That could be a extreme position, depends on which side of the road you are on.

After the attack that had the president declare war on Japan, some still said it was not our war.

Extreme?

A few years later, the country that wanted nothing to do with the war, took a position and send bombers into Japan, and dropped two small, atomic bombs on her enemy. This "extreme" event ended the pacific war.

What side of the road are we on now?

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at April 15, 2006 10:59 PM

The Dalai Lama is no Dhimmi, he simply advocates non-violence from everybody.

He is NOT a scholar of Middle Eastern, or European History, and he does not know Arabic, so obviously he doesn't understand what Islam is.

The Dalai Lama is one of my role models, although I would never advocate his aproach because I know what the realities are today I do wish that our world will someday become one that conforms to his teaching of non-violence.

He has never strayed from his lessons, even as China massacres his people he keeps them from descending to their level, and he has risked his life many times advocating for Peace.

As for his Dhimmi credentials let me ask these questions.

Would a Dhimmi honor David Ben Gurion as a man of Peace, a Hero and a good man as the Dalai Lama has?

Would a Dhimmi be a regular visitor to Tel Aviv and Jeruslam while recognizing Israel's claim to Jerusalem?

Would a Dhimmi recognize the Greek Claim to Cyprus?

Would a Dhimmi recognize the sufferings of the Jewish People and seek advice from them for his own people?

Would a Dhimmi condemn Turkey's treatment of the Kurds?

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at April 15, 2006 11:11 PM

While on the subject of Buddhist-Muslim relations, will the recent attacks on Buddhists in S Thailand be one of the topics under discussion? Or will the fact that the Thai are Theravada Buddhists keep this off the agenda? Same question for Chinese Buddhists in Malaysia and Indonesia, under that Malay apartheid called Bhumiputra.

NicephorusPhocas,

The Non-violence approach works for civilized people, not Muslims. Let the Dalai Lama address the atrocities perpetrated against Buddhists by Muslims in SE Asia, and call on them to cease and desist, and we'll stop calling him Dhimmi.

Until then, no deal.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 15, 2006 11:17 PM

What’s with the harshness towards the Dali Lama. What did he ever do to anybody? Overall, his life has been an exemplary one. Why should he do all the things you say he should or act the way you think he should? He is an individual, like you or me, charting his own course through this life. The posts here show a real contempt for Buddhism derived from an ignorance of Buddhism’s core teachings. Buddhism teaches that all suffering comes from the false belief in a self. External sources of suffering and conflict, like Islam, are symptoms not illnesses into themselves. The Dali Lama’s willingness to engage Islam is an act of compassion not capitulation. It is commendable. Grumbling about Islam’s threat to world only harms yourself and does nothing to address the problem. On the other hand, compassion for those who are suffering, including Islamists, brings peace not only to yourself but to the world.

Posted by: laosuwan at April 15, 2006 11:30 PM

The Dalai Lama has done that Infidel Pride, he just went unheeded since he was speaking to total barbarians, besides the area of the world that he cares most for is Tibet, his homeland, where he has done as he advocates and prevented a single violent blow from being struck against the Chinese.

You can't blame the Dalai Lama for being ignorant about Islam, he is not a historian, he is not schooled in the history of the Medieval Middle East or Medieval Europe, and he does not know Arabic.

He simply has other things on his mind, and at any rate at least he is ignorant about Islam altogether instead of a Liar like Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at April 15, 2006 11:30 PM

What’s with the harshness towards the Dali Lama. What did he ever do to anybody? Overall, his life has been an exemplary one. Why should he do all the things you say he should or act the way you think he should? He is an individual, like you or me, charting his own course through this life. The posts here show a real contempt for Buddhism derived from an ignorance of Buddhism’s core teachings. Buddhism teaches that all suffering comes from the false belief in a self. External sources of suffering and conflict, like Islam, are symptoms not illnesses into themselves. The Dali Lama’s willingness to engage Islam is an act of compassion not capitulation. It is commendable. Grumbling about Islam’s threat to world only harms yourself and does nothing to address the problem. On the other hand, compassion for those who are suffering, including Islamists, brings peace not only to yourself but to the world.

Posted by: laosuwan at April 15, 2006 11:30 PM

What’s with the harshness towards the Dali Lama. What did he ever do to anybody? Overall, his life has been an exemplary one. Why should he do all the things you say he should or act the way you think he should? He is an individual, like you or me, charting his own course through this life. The posts here show a real contempt for Buddhism derived from an ignorance of Buddhism’s core teachings. Buddhism teaches that all suffering comes from the false belief in a self. External sources of suffering and conflict, like Islam, are symptoms not illnesses into themselves. The Dali Lama’s willingness to engage Islam is an act of compassion not capitulation. It is commendable. Grumbling about Islam’s threat to world only harms yourself and does nothing to address the problem. On the other hand, compassion for those who are suffering, including Islamists, brings peace not only to yourself but to the world.

Posted by: laosuwan at April 15, 2006 11:31 PM

laosuwan,

Why doesn't the Dalai Lama go to Muslims and tell them that Infidels are "unfairly demonized in Islamic popular consciousness" and that "the enemy is not out there...The enemy is within you"?

Posted by: Television at April 15, 2006 11:51 PM

You can't blame the Dalai Lama for being ignorant about Islam, he is not a historian, he is not schooled in the history of the Medieval Middle East or Medieval Europe, and he does not know Arabic.

NicephorusPhocas

Is he also not supposed to know the history of Buddhism? Like how it was eradicated from Turan, Balkh, Gandhara and Badakhshan, and how it was also eradicated from India? How the many stupas, chaityas and viharas in India were destroyed? How Buddhism had no problems co-existing with Hinduism within India, and exclusively to itself in Central Asia, but was totally incompatible with Islam? Is the Buddhist philosophy that he's supposed to champion something that exists in a total vacuum? In that case, why were his forebears (and he before 1962) running Tibet?

External sources of suffering and conflict, like Islam, are symptoms not illnesses into themselves.

Laosuwan,

Islam is not a symptom of any illness - it's the desease itself. Look at any apostates, like Ali Sina, and you'll see that people formerly afflicted with this disease got cured not by twisting the meaning of Islam, but by purging it altogether (just as someone with a bad stomach gets cured after a major session at the throne). Saying that Islam is a symptom is an insult to such people, since it implies that they are inherently sick, and that Islam is just a symptom of their sickness. Since they turn out to be perfectly normal people once they abandon Islam, they aren't the ones with the problems.

I used to admire the Dalai Lama at one time, but the way in which he has allowed himself to become the supreme non-judgemental appeaser has become too much for me. He has done laudable things in the past, such as the things that Nicephorus lists above, but why should that put him above criticism? Also, nobody here has put forward the case that he isn't a nice person. But does that mean that such a person should necessarily be beyond reproach, when he states things that are dangerously wrong?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 16, 2006 1:04 AM

Laosuwan-

If the Dalai Lama were really what you think, he would have stayed in Tibet.

And let the Chinese kill him.

Thereby proving that the psychopathic maniacs of this world can be tamed by peace.

Why did he flee?

What illusion led him to abandon his people to the slaughtering communists?

Or is he more important than them?

Isn't such a self-valuation a perpetuation of the illusion of self?

Spare me his 'credentials'.

You don't need people like him in your foxhole.

Which is where we all are in confronting Imperialistic Islam.

He can show up after the battle is over to help bury the dead.

And say something consoling to the families of those who died to preserve his ability to prate on about the value of peace.

A theoretician about "the evil is within you" is someone who sounds very profound- until a rapist grabs your daughter.

Then harsh reality returns through the 'golden clouds of inner wisdom' ("Cloud Cuckoo-Land" as Aristophanes called it) ...and you pick up a two-by-four and save your child's life.

Peace is wonderful.

But it was never won by a pacifist.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 16, 2006 1:12 AM

Here's a Canadian newspaper that still doesn't get it , 24 Canadians were among the 3000 victims of the 19 self-professed muslim hijackers on 9/11/01 , and because 1 muslim in Toronto is upset over the link to Islam they print this letter below in today's paper as if Muslims WERE the victims that day.

Please take note of the paradoxical irony here, it's these types of Muslims that rant about how the media suppresses the truth when a Muslim is detained or arrested by National security people and Law enforcement agents,and yet when the same media tells the truth and it's bad for Islam we get this exact style letter implying the flight 93 tapes should be censored so Islam doesn't lose its peaceful image in the west.

HELLO, Earth to Mulims,all 19 male claimed to be Muslims and use the exact Quran as you do, maybe you have it all wrong Mr.Ahmad and it's time to change faiths.
Interesting how you imply being Muslim is part of a race just for being born Muslim , I was born a human and made a free will choice to adopt godly tenets

Opps... I forgot, you'll be killed for leaving that peaceful religion .

* Last words on Flight 93 *
----------------------
April 13.

I came to Toronto long before 9/11 happened. Muslim-born, now a Canadian, I chose to emigrate, believing myself to be a progressive Muslim after finding life increasingly oppressive back home. On Sept. 11 and afterward, I watched with horror the oft-repeated television reports of planes crashing into the twin towers. I was baffled that this could actually happen. Friends, Muslim and otherwise, expressed horror, disgust and concern for their safety. As the debris of the towers was cleared, families buried their dead and Muslims braced themselves for possible repercussions. The U.S. unleashed its "war on terrorism" and all sorts of Muslim and Arab-sounding names were placed on exit control lists.
The lives of immigrant Muslims came under scrutiny and many were discriminated against, some lost jobs, others were simply not hired. Travelling to the U.S. became a nightmare. I missed a flight last Christmas; it left before my security clearance at U.S. customs came through. The officer was surprisingly sympathetic and even allowed me to use his phone to inform my family in the U.S. Luckily the security clearance was for a 24-hour period and I boarded another flight the next day. All that is in the past. Yesterday as I opened up the Star and read the transcript of Flight 93, I could not help but think "why?" Not to the events of 9/11 — we know and accept that terrorists have their own brainwashed reasons for committing atrocities — but to the relevance of printing a transcript of the black box of Flight 93 in absolute detail.
In my opinion, printing the transcript with mindless repetitions of "Allah is greatest" and other praises by the terrorists only drives a wedge between Muslims and others, Canadian-born and other immigrants, fanning the flames of hatred and misunderstanding toward everyone affected by terrorism. It extends the notion that foreign (Muslim) immigrants are terrorists who do not believe in a peaceful society, therefore it is okay to discriminate against them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Ahmad, Toronto
***********************************************

Hmmmmm...mindless repetitions of "Allah is great" , I agree, definetly deranged brainwashed losers caught in a cult that uses the Holy book for inspiration to kill.

Posted by: ala-sux at April 16, 2006 1:18 AM

ala-sux-

The hijackers of Flight 93 weren't screaming "Allah wants a Clark bar!"

But, give a Muslim a chance to whine to try to drown out the crimes of his fellow believers and it'll never end.

Not a thought for the massacred dead.

Just the bad p.r for his cult.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 16, 2006 1:32 AM

well the Lama is just a part of it, and this is coming from an Israeli, needing to face all kinds of "peace mogerers" coming to Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv, explaining to us that true Islam is just a pussy cat that sometimes scratches (take Sharon Stone, Eastwood, Madonna, etc - PR for next album or movie+ peace mambo jambo).

Him, Mandela, and others, see themselves as messengers of the gods in all matters of peace on earth - regardless of their evident failure to achieve their people's goals and needs - South Africa is still an aparthied state, and Tibet, alas, is still captured.

The problem is that these people that in the past started their career from strong ideologies and beliefs, have become "tenderized" and dhimmified ever since the Leftists and liberals in US and Europe have turned them to walking talking hollywood dolls - mumbling endlessly about peace and love as if the 60's are here again. they have become a part of the liberal MSM that "smothered them with love" , perhaps the the acquired taste for models, easy money and income, drugs, U2, parties, "Live8"...

I have no objection what so ever to his goals and the campain to release Tibet, but as NicephorusPhocas said, that does not mean that the Lama is anyway an expert in Islam.

I can blame him however, as all the other dhimmis in the media and politics (sadly we have some of our own) - of being agents of ignorance and blindness on matters they are not even begining to be aware of or educated in, and thus serving as a usefull veil of blissfull ignorance in the wake of Islam dark ways.

This fatal formula of Left liberalism is still alive but education and direct activism can bring it down. It takes no more than an hour to teach a few of Islamic gems to anyone willing to listen.

Take it from me - some-newly found courage and inspiration (and a fat spliff) can get you out in the street with two friends, carrying a big card board with Mohammed on it as a slimy looking green pig throwing up on a Koran copy entitled "just felt like doing something artistic".

Posted by: Amit at April 16, 2006 1:51 AM

A different angle on the story from Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060415/ts_alt_afp/usreligionterrorismtibetislam_060415064128

Note that their headline calls it an "anti-terror summit." (Ha.)

A few of the more pungent quotes from the Yahoo article:

- The summit is to be the first assembly of a "religious parliament" that will meet once or twice annually in countries throughout the world, according to Khorasani.

- "Basing your view of Islam on Osama bin Laden is like basing your view of Christianity on David Koresh," Yusuf said, referring to a late US cult leader.

- "I am as Buddhist as the Dalai Lama, as Christian as the Pope and as Jewish as Moses," Khorasani said, contending that people of faith shared a common bond

*beating head on desk*

- There has been a lack of a unified voice by the "silent majority" of Muslims, and the Dalai Lama's attendance at the summit promised to take their concerns "to a higher level," Khan said.

Yyyyyes, there's been a "lack of a unified voice," but the odds of that actually happening as a result of this "anti-terror summit" are somewhere below winning the lottery, under a full moon, in a leap year, as a meteorite shaped like Whistler's Mother crashes through one's roof.

Posted by: Shinoliite at April 16, 2006 2:04 AM

I don't think anybody has suggestted that the Dalai Lama isn't a nice fellow but he has taken it upon himself to speak in public as the leader of a world religion and a man widely regarded as an authority on many things.

While I can accept that he's not a "scholar of Islam" (even though there isn't much you need to know to grasp the sort of threat it poses) that doesn't relieve him of any responsibility - in fact it magnifies his culpability tenfold - to spout untruths knowing how highly his opinion is regarded by so many and knowing how little he knows about Islam is terrible indeed.

I suspect he's just applying the hopeful formula of buddhism to the Islam problem - a wonderful solution to the individual's problem of "not being quite nice enough" but fairly useless in preserving cultures and civilizations in the face of belligerant ideologies (as was demonstrated in Turan, Balkh, Gandhara, Badakhshan and elsewhere).

Islam is different - we wouldn't cut "The National Church of the Reich" this sort of slack. Suggestting that we should is something that renders a responsibility onto the sayer that is proportionate to their influence. Many people agreed with Neville Chamberlain but he bears responsibility in the end. What may happen as a result of so many more capitulating and appeasing at the behest of the Lama?

You're right, profitsbeard, I don't want 'im in my fox'ole either.

Posted by: Razorskarr at April 16, 2006 2:12 AM

Concerned that Muslims are unfairly demonized in American popular consciousness, the world-renowned Buddhist leader hopes to help show Islam in what he sees as its truest form, one of peace.

So, 4 1/2 years after September 12, we've finally come to this, a nadir that, hopefully, will prove our moral and intellectual rock-bottom.

For it was on that day, the day after the innocent freedom loving 90th floor window jumpers had landed their bodies scalded in Jet-A onto the streets of New York. It was on that day that our corrupt elite assured us that Islam was religion and it was of peace and all those Moslem street celebrations didn't occur accross this great nation, and we first learned about this tiny minority highjacker of one of the world's great religions thing.

Here's a thought: for all the violence and hate and bloodlust in Islam's holy scriptures, these Moslems sure do get highjacked a lot. What is that. Is the typical Moslem, the Unicorn loving devout Moslem, too intensely focused on peace to keep a wary eye for all these tiny majorities creeping up on them from behind, unssen and unheard?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 16, 2006 2:25 AM

"The Dalai Lama, a powerful icon for peace worldwide, will gather with influential American Muslim leaders in San Francisco today to help refashion Islam's image in the United States."

Islam's image
Islam's image

Right. Images and icons. Just what we need. More idiots who've never read the Koran, and certainly not with a critical eye. They wish, in the style of hucksters and ad-men, to play with the image of Islam, to create pleasant associations in peoples' minds. They ignore the reality of what is written the Koran, in Mohammad's words and deeds, in 1400 years of Islamic mayhem and oppression that can still be found to some extent nearly every corner of the globe today. They ignore what the jihadists and sharia enthusiasts are openly threatening for the future.

If the Dalai Lama wants to use his position to tell lies, he should be exposed as a fraud. A liar is a liar. There's no nice way to say it. And someone who stands before the world as an alleged spiritual leader claiming Islam is a religion of peace is a very big, very dangerous liar.

For notes and quotes on the ultimate goal of Islam, go here http://islamwatch.forumup.in/about252-islamwatch.html

Posted by: Archimedes at April 16, 2006 2:40 AM

Archimedes

The link you showed seems to be an Indian based link, although the Islam Watch team seems to be Bangladeshis, and their original site is islam-watch.org. Is this the same group?

Also, for the Quran, I've been using Ali Sina's recommended Skeptics Annotated site below for a few laughs, particularly to compare with the Islam Comic Book, and other notes about the Islamic brothel in the sky. But most of those are references from Ahadith, so I was wondering, do you know of any links that could lead one to Bukhari, where I could read about the Camel Urine, the fly treatment of drinks, and other such gems?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html

Also, above from Shinoliite's post, note that Khorasani didn't dare say, "I'm as Muslim as Mohammed, as Shia as Ali or as Sunni as Abu Baqr". Even he knows what's not good for him.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 16, 2006 5:08 AM

profits beard
"Upon witnessing the murder of his child acolyte by invading communists, he sees the light, picks up a Tommy gun and decides that the 'world of illusion' stuff is fun to preach about in the abstract, but when your enemies begin to kill your children, all bets are off.

And the holy man starts mowing down the terrorists on full automatic."

funny when Muslims do that against terrorists who invaded their land they're called terrorists!!

Posted by: truth speaker at April 16, 2006 8:19 AM

The relationship of the Dalai Lama with Islam is not based negligence or ignorance as some have been suggesting in this post above. Rather, it reflects a long tradition in Kalachakra Tantra of which the Dalai Lama is the great contemporary master, to expound the similarities with Islam. (see www.berzinarchives.com on Buddhism and Islam). And one must bear in mind that the Kalachakra teachings are consistent with other systems Buddha taught.
In the world of Kalachakra the concept of jihad has strong resonances with Buddhist teachings. The martial quality suggested by the term jihad is found in much Buddhist terminology. This is not surprising. After all, Buddha himself came from a kshastri, i.e. military, ruling caste. Having exerted proper effort, the Buddha is described as the Triumphant One, who won the battle over the disturbing emotions. “Your thinking can be a jihad. Everything you do can be a jihad”. So where does that battle take place? It takes place within the mind; it’s a fight against ignorance, greed, attachment, anger, and hatred.
However, the Buddhist struggle it is not only a peaceful jihad. Like Islam, Kalachakra teaches an internal and an external struggle. And the real peace will only come after the last final battle. Thus at some point yet to come, Rudra Chakrin, the “raging wheel turner” the last king of Shambala will arrive to fight the last war. Wrathfully, in the last war which will be preceded by catastrophes and hunger, Rudra Chakrin will destroy the leaders of the Barbarians among them Noah, Moses and Jesus.
For further corroboration please google extensively on Kalachakra.
Not surprisingly, the empirial battles of Kalachakra carried a certain appeal to the Nazis who saw in Shambhala a model for their 1,000-year empire. (See, Victor and Victoria Trimondi in the book "Hitler - Buddha - Krishna. An unholy alliance from the Third Reich until today“.) Himmler, leader of the SS, admired Buddhism. SS Hauptsturmführer Jan Wilhelm Hauer was working to create an invincible warrior-yogi based on the Baghavadgita and Buddhist scriptures. SS-Brigadeführer Karl Maria Willgut, an occultist of the SS-Ahnenerbe (ancestral heritage) allegedly maintained “mental” contacts to Lama Monasteries. The so-called ‘anthropologist’ Bruno Beger, who was responsible for racial research for the SS in Tibet, concluded in one of the many Nazi-led expeditions to Tibet that the European racial element showed itself most pronouncedly among the aristocracy in Tibet. The SS-mythology of present day neo-fascists is strongly drawing on Shambhala lore and militaristic Buddhism as a Leitkultur such as that of Chögyun Trumpa. Ole Nydahl a militant Danish Lama believes he is a reincarnated Tibetan warrior and sports German military uniforms.
This is not the only instance where the origins of the thinking of the Dalai Lama have been brought into a questionable context. The Dalai Lama is a friend of Shoko Asahra, founder of the Japanese poison-gas Aum sect. Asahara, who identified the United States as “the Beast” in his book of revelations and sees as his enemies the Jews and Freemasons, was blessed by the Dalai Lama “as a holy man”.

Posted by: Hugo Schmidt-Fischer at April 16, 2006 8:58 AM

Hugo Schmidt-Fischer - considering that all your references seem to be to what Nazis and other assorted Western oddballs seem to have thought about Buddhism, I am not altogether ready to accept that they may have any relevance to the Buddhism of the Dalai Lama - which is only one of dozens of Mahayana sects (and not widely respected in China and Japan). The Nazis had a fantastic ability to misunderstand any source; they were just as ready to misread and misrepresent the Dominican Meister Eckhardt, or indeed St.John the Evangelist himself. And granted that warrior images have indeed been associated with the Buddha (as with Jesus Christ), there is a certain difference between metaphorically or metaphysically fighting the demons of death, ignorance and evil (something that someone might say we at JW do every day) and very, very physically fighting other human beings. If there is one thing that is very well documented about the Dalai Lama, is that he is obstinately pacifistic. What the SS may have thought of him or his sect is not evidence of anything; remember, the same people believed that the Aryan race had had its origin on the Pamir plateau, and actually equipped expeditions to find these ancestral spots!

My interpretation of this has to do with the point that Shinoliite has also noted, that this seems to be one of those damned "religious parliament" initiatives that spring up every now and then, as though a World Trades Union of religions were a desirable thing (and are you going to admit the atheists, who are a religion too?). Buddhists have a tradition of absorbing features of other religions, recognizing the power of their gods but not their holiness or supremacy; hence such things are particularly attractive to them. Kipling, himself rather too fond of this sort of thing, got it exactly right when, in Kim, he had his Lamaistic character propose to his Muslim horse-trader, in all innocence, to join his own religion. As Kipling knew, this did not mean, in the Lama's mind, that the Muslim would have had to renounce any of his own practices and beliefs, but that he would acquire an extra layer of enlightenment over and above what he already had. This makes discussion of religious issues with Buddhists sometimes rather confusing.

The Dalai Lama is not a dotard, as one understandably angry poster said. And he is not a weakling or a coward: he has just released an interview which merrily tramples all over every PC tenet known to man, condemning abortion, homosexuality and sex outside marriage. He is just a person who, like all too many perfectly nice persons known to us, knows far too little about the real Islam.

Posted by: Paolo at April 16, 2006 11:08 AM

Somebody must tell this Dalai Lama that he has better business in his own backyard-taking back Tibet from the claws of China. These Tibetians are forbidden to practice their religion of Budhism,and have lost in turn, their culture and identity.
Now the Islamists are eyeing the Chinese people's conversion to the fold of Islam,and for this purpose,are using the Dalai Lama,through whom,they can penitrate into China. Recently,Chinese Government decided to allow Dalai Lama to visit Tibet.

Posted by: sofia at April 16, 2006 11:53 AM

I guess that I'm one of those who misunderstands Islam too. From my readings of history I got the impression the Islam and military aggression were part and parcel of the same coin. Where did I get such an idea?

Il Toscano

Posted by: il toscano at April 16, 2006 12:13 PM

Infidel Pride,

1. Yes, same Islam-watch. http://www.islam-watch.org/
I posted that material as a topic. The site is new (started late last year), and they are trying to build up readership. It is an ex-Muslim site, with authors from all over the world. Several of the authors, including Ali Sina, have material posted there. They occasionally post op-eds etc., from non-Muslim writers. I'm currently doing a bit of work for that site in my spare time.

I should also mention, while I'm plugging their site, they are linked to JW.

2. Re skepticsannotated, I do know the site...but the annotation of the site is far from complete. I wish they'd do a more thorough job, consult the hadith and tafsir, etc. But it is still handy.

I recommend also this site http://quranbrowser.com/ which has 10 translations plus arabic transliteration which is important for certain key words.

3. Re crazy quotes about camel urine, etc, an entertaining site is http://members.lycos.nl/whatsthisthen/links.html
Here's an example:
"Quoted by Ibn Kathir in his tafsir of Quran 56:37 on the Houris (heavenly virgins, promised to the true believers)
"They are in an infatuated state with their husbands, haven't you ever seen a she-camel in heat. She is like that.''"

I believe the so-called camel-urine cure was mentioned in passing in this hadith, which is one of the reports alleged to be relevant to the punishments in Koran verse 5:33...

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.")

4. Hadith (note: these hadith collections are not complete).
Hadiths (Sunni)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/

It is very time-consuming to go through them, but there is some classification based on general topics.

5. I also recommend tafsir, or Koranic commentary. Ibn Kathir's classic tafsir is generally regarded by Muslims as one of the best. The useful thing about Kathir's tafsir is that he cites the relevant hadith for most of the verses. Here is the Kathir site http://www.tafsir.com/

I also recommend Al-Jalalayn tafsir.
http://www.altafsir.com/TafseerQuran.asp

There are many different tafsirs and they are not always in agreement.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 16, 2006 12:37 PM

Yes Paolo, I agree with you that the Dalai Lama has a persistent record as a pacifist.

Distrurbing nevertheless is his 'dialogue' with Islam which has been ongoing for a long time and his efforts in this area are documented for many years. It thus is not possible to say the Dalai Lama "doesn't know" or is ignorant of the tenets of Islam. By his activities the Dalai Lama serves to rehabilitate some of the very pernicous aspects of muslim way of life.
His translator Alex Berzin, who is close to the Dalai Lama's teaching and participates in many of his encounters has this to say:
"Islamic teachings on the shari’ah can sound quite Buddhist in a certain sense. The Arabic word shari’ah, which means "the grand boulevard" or "the street," is the law that people need to obey in order for traffic to move easily in the world. These are just the parameters that allow people to live in harmony. According to the shari’ah, you have to know how to deal with your instincts, your doubts, and your intuition. So the shari’ah is not a set of precepts, but a set of methods used in order to come to the truth; it’s almost a meditation.Concepts like jihad, meaning "proper effort," also have resonances with Buddhist teachings. "

The Kalachakra movement related to the Dalai Lama is in this way actively working to gloss over the dangers of Islam, and this must be of concern to us.
Whether the Dalai Lama just has a low selection procedure, whether he is by no intention of his own being misused when he meets with objectionable personalities such poison-gas guru Shoko Asahara and other Nazis or Neo-Nazis (such as Miguel Serrano), I don't know. He probably meets so many people, and as a statesman with no state, he's so desperate to bring his message across to anyone hoping to improve the lot of his nation against all odds of Realpolitik, I guess he deserves some benefit of the doubt and can be excused. But it is clear that the Dalai Lama's opinions cannot be relied upon.

Posted by: Hugo Schmidt-Fischer at April 16, 2006 1:11 PM

The Dalai Lama is a holy man who is willing to meet with anyone in the interests of peace and truth. He has always expressed a desire even to meet face to face with the Chinese leadership. He is not a warrior and he is not a politician, he is a monk! It is his duty to meet with any who are willing to listen to him and hopefully have a positive influence for peace.

Even while the knights were on the battlefield, Saint Francis of Assisi went to Cairo and met with the Fatimid Caliph. He knew the Caliph would not convert and might even kill him, but he went anyway because it was his duty to proclaim the truth... even to the cruellest of enemies. It is a similar situation with the Dalai Lama.

Posted by: Provoslavni at April 16, 2006 1:40 PM

Pravoslavni
Analogies are useful but sometimes they are tricky and misleading. What was right for Saint Francis then, in terms other than central beliefs, may not be right now--or, otherwise, history and change are a Buddhist illusion.
I don't know much about Saint Francis, but I do know the early fathers of the desert, whose experiences were collected in the orthodox Pateric, knew a thing or two about illusion and self-delusion. They are the first realists in the Christian age. They know evil. They don't deny it. They all say you can't extend even a finger to evil, or evil will grab your hand and you whole.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at April 16, 2006 3:05 PM

The poor Dalai Lama is deluded,led astray by his leftist European and American followers, the ones with the money and power. The ones who will look one day to Christians, Jews, Hindus, secular humanists and atheists to go to war to protect themselves and their loved ones. Buddhism made huge inroads into the hippy culture and the 60's activists who were left leaning. Unfortunately, they've not cleared their minds enough to look beyond their own dogma to see the writing on the wall. Back to the pillow guys

The Dalai Lama is a lovely man but too involved being the head of his faith to read up on islam. He should not become involved in politics. Did he not understand what happened to a pacifist, theocratic country called Tibet? And as Hugh points out, what happened to tantric Buddhism in Central Asia should be of concern to him, as well as why Tibetans glorify the warrior Gesar of Ling.

He's become a useful fool with idiot compassion and arrogant ignorance. Never thought I'd see this day. Or 9/11.

Posted by: the poetess at April 16, 2006 3:52 PM

Hi, friends. Kepha here.

Actually, I'm someone who says the Dalai Lama is no dotard; there's a lot of bad news about Budddhism that isn't broached often; and that I'm not surprised by the Dalai Lama's olive branch to Muslims.

Tibetan nationalists have a tacit alliance with the Islamic East Turkistan nationalists against the Chinese government. This has been going on for some time. Tibet itself had, and still has (before and after 1950), a small Muslim minority, made up partly of Kashmiris and partly of ex-Chinese Hui who, while retaining Islam, adopted Tibetan customs and language. In the 1950's, some of the former Chinese Kazakhs and Kyrhiz who later found asylum in Turkey were aided by Tibetans as they fled the Chinese Communists. In the 1990's, during one Muslim flare-up in QInghai province, the local Muslims (Mostly Hui, but with some Turks and MOngolic-speakers) pointedly steered clear of the local Tibetans (their ancient, pre-COmmunist enemies, BTW) when they went to trash the local Communist Party hq.

BTW, I am old enough to remember nearly getting my glasses broken and my nose with them for suggesting that Mao was an "imperialist" in Tibet. The perps were Mao-button radical leftists. Ah, how times have changed! It amuses me no end to see how the leftists are now the Dalai Lama's admirers, when back in my youth the Dalai Lama wasa vicious, feudal reactionary running dog of imperialism. Moral of story: Leftists, unless disciplined by a powerful imperial state determined to further its own interests, are very fickle and undependable allies.

As for "peaceful, gentle Buddhism", the mostly Hindu Tamils of Sri Lanka could tell some unhappy stories about the Theravada variety. Christian Karen, Kachin, and other peoples, along with Muslim Rohingas (plus some of the Kokang Chinese) could tell you about how Buddhism on the warpath can be a pretty terrible thing, too (one reason Burma has been plagued by ethnic separatism since independence is because the lowland Burman Buddhist majority has tried to impose its ways on other peoples who, at the inception of Burmese independence, were supposedly equal federal partners).

If we look at Mahayana Buddhism (non-Lamaist forms), which is somewhat closer to home for me, it got pretty bloody during the Boxer rebellion, and took its wrath out on Chinese Christians far more than it did on Westerners. During the long centuries following the introduction of Buddhism into China, belief in the coming reign of the Maitreya (Buddha of the Future; the jolly fat idol we Chinese-speakers call Mi-le-fuo and put in the window of every gift shop and restaurant in lower Manhattan and Rockville, Maryland)inspired numerous violent revolts designed to hasten the coming of this Buddhist millennium.

There's a lot of violence in all of us fallen descendants of Adam the First. Of secular pacifists, Georges Clemenceau once said that there was no group that was more aggressive.

Hugo Schmidt-Fischer: could it be that Nazi and neo-Nazi interst in Buddhism is just a manifestation of how many Westerners, being told that the Christian God is dead, are out to seek a new one?

Quizzical Kepha

Posted by: Kepha at April 16, 2006 5:53 PM

Nicepheru- I studied 30 yrs ago with the aforementioned lama whom I quoted. He and many from that asian region were keenly aware of what Islam consisted and was.

The DL was and I assume is a gentle and consistent man. However, he is also an appeaser to the 'better self' which as never existed in Islam, and as Hugh pointed out- as my benefactor, a great lama pointed out- did not exist in the basis of the religion.

When the DL went to Israel, he urged them to talk to Hamas. He came to sell his brand of meditation. He did not one bit of good at this grave time where the government foisted upon those people, advertise that they have no ideology. The DL does not recognize the sufferings of the Jewish People, when he tells them he recognizes that they must accept the peoples of hamas, who are dedicated to the annihilation, and at the very least, the submission of the jewish people, and all other infidels.

Going to Israel to advertise his own vision of peace is no better than Sec. Rice's who understands little outside of State dept politics vis a vis the Soviet Era, nor the hollywood appeaser types, who say, they like jews, but could they just please give half of everything to the arabs and we'll all sing in peace.

It has no basis in history, unless we're speaking of the crusades. Not the Christian one. But the 1350 yr old Muslim one. They kill you die. That is what Islam means. Submission.

If the DL thinks we all can meditate away reality, fine- I no longer believe that at all. The G-d of Israel, the prophets spoke, of these matters, and in depth. However, if people aren't jewish they are under no obligation to even look at such information. There is no compulsion there- unlike Islam which is entirely about compulsion and deception of infidels.

Yet here we are. And the DL uses Israel to sell himself. That's partially what makes people appeasers. He has his agenda.
It is consistent.

Mark

Posted by: mgoldberg at April 16, 2006 5:56 PM

Laosuwan, you said that the DL was exhibiting compassion because "...The posts here show a real contempt for Buddhism derived from an ignorance of Buddhism’s core teachings. Buddhism teaches that all suffering comes from the false belief in a self. External sources of suffering and conflict, like Islam, are symptoms not illnesses into themselves. The Dali Lama’s willingness to engage Islam is an act of compassion not capitulation. It is commendable. Grumbling about Islam’s threat to world only harms yourself and does nothing to address the problem. On the other hand, compassion for those who are suffering, including Islamists, brings peace not only to yourself but to the world."

So Islamists who want to butcher the entire world are bettered by laying down and allowing them to destroy you, and anyone, and letting them go to heaven?

By the way- I studied with the buddhists, and I have admiration for their faith.

However, he is incorrect. In fact, most of us here, don't want to reflexively hated muslims or anyone.

The fact that islam is a devil's religion doesn't mean muslims are to be hated. Just the jihadists, and their ennablers, who need to be understood for what they wish.

They don't care if anyone shows them kindness. It means nothing to them. Nothing at all.

Islamists proclaim that their homiciding you and yours is the hightes heaven to be obtained.

You don't kiss a rabid dog. You don't hate it. You kill it.
You prevent it from killing you.

It is nonsense to think that appeasement is the road to peace in the face of those who believe that because you will not fight back, gives them carte blanche to engage the jihad, the religious destruction of the non Islamic world.

That is why there is so much killing. Because those who believe you can kiss a killer and make them stop- are deluded.

Buddhism was in fact wiped out in India and went and hid and grew in Tibet. The tibetans knew how they got there and why they were lucky to still be alive up in the secluded mountain ranges. It wasn't because they kissed the killers.

The muslim killers gave the monks at Nalanda, a choice, convert or die. The monks said, they would not convert, but they surrendered everything, and the muslims promptly cut off their heads.

Those who ran fast enough, got away. Buddhism died in India, but lived in Tibet.

The DL is a modest man- who happens to be dead wrong.

Mark

Posted by: mgoldberg at April 16, 2006 6:06 PM

Kepha you are wrong. It is not the Buddhism that is violent but some buddhists who re violents and theres the difference. IMHO your Chinese government is doing its best to help jehadis in Kashmir in its bid to one-up on India (a desire largely fuelled by delusional fantasy of India becoming rival to China.) and in Iran. The Sri Lankan conflict is not about religion its an ethnic conflict same goes in Burma. Similarly your arguments can also be used against X'nity.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at April 16, 2006 7:42 PM

Anyone here see that Penn and Teller "Bull$hit!" on The Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, and Ghandi? That's all I have to bring to the discussion..

Posted by: Armalite at April 16, 2006 9:56 PM

IMHO your Chinese government is doing its best to help jehadis in Kashmir in its bid to one-up on India (a desire largely fuelled by delusional fantasy of India becoming rival to China.)

China has been getting real stupid lately. Is it the Chinese, or the Communism? Or, can the two not be separated?

All I know is that China's growing promotion of Islam is yet another win for the Moslems. Don't these guys ever lose?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 16, 2006 9:59 PM

Mark, I agree with you. The Dalai Lama is politically naive. As is Buddhism which doesn't really speak to the external life except for the monk and nun. The left loves this as it gives them an arena for their political schemes with much better PR status. And there's no competition. They especially like the guru aspect. Worship of the state becomes worship of the teacher.

The worst thing is they misunderstand the Buddhist concepts of "absolute" and "relative" as well as "discrimination" and this wrong view dovetails nicely into political correctness and multiculturalism.

Posted by: the poetess at April 16, 2006 11:32 PM

Vikrant:

"Your Chinese government". I wish to clarify that while I may RWS Putonghua and Hakka (two Sinitic languages) and have family connections, I am an American.

Frankly, my argument was not that Buddhism is violent (at least not in the way Islam inherently is), but that violence is a universal of human nature.

Alarmed Pig Farmer and Poetess, I am not so sure that the Dalai Lama is naive or that China is stupid. China needs oil to fuel its industrial expansion, so it must court the Muslim countries even as it practices a vicious repression against its own Muslim minorities. The Chinese government may also know that by stroking Muslim governments, it can get them to turn a blind eye towards such repression.

As for the Dalai Lama, he knows who has been supportive of his people and who hasn't. He knows the Sharki Turkistan crowd has stood up for the Tibetans, and that perhaps he can increase support for his cause (and undermine Beijing's prestige) by reaching out to people of another religion. While I, as a Christian, think Lama Buddhism grotesque and idolatrous, I also respect the way the Dalai Lama has made supporters of a younger generation of Western Leftists whose elders decried him as a reactionary, feudal running dog of imperialism. He is an astute politician--as are the rulers in Beijing whom he struggles against.

As for Muslim ferment worldwide, maybe it is the Muslim radicals who are stupid. Part of their attack on the USA is that they have drunk deeply from Marxist wells, as has much of the rest of the non-Western world, and thought the USA in terminal decline. This they combined with their own foolish bigotries about non-Muslims to figure that their hour had come.

Posted by: Kepha at April 17, 2006 8:12 PM