'...boys will be boys, and mujahedin will be mujahedin!'

Now, that has a ring to it. Perhaps Stephen Sondheim can use it on Broadway.

Posted by: Vee at October 14, 2006 8:27 AM

I used to respect the Dalai Lama and think that he was a very learned and shrewd man. In person, he radiates goodwill and is, in fact, a very jolly fellow.

In 2003 he stated that Islam was "not a militant faith." In 2006 he recently characterized Islam as "a religion of compassion," now he has said that Islam should not be stigmatized just because, as in other religions, it has a "few mischevious fellows."

With these statements he has destroyed any respect I had for him and revealed himself to be a fool and a dangerous apologist for Islam, which I might point out to him, has killed and enslaved quite a few Buddhists.

There comes a point at which you cannot compromise with evil and cannot submit to domination. His view of things and the approach that flows from it explains perhaps why the Tibetan people, who were a feared warrior people before Buddhism arrived in Tibet, have been dispossesed of their own land and are slowly being exterminated along with their religion.

Posted by: GaryK at October 14, 2006 9:18 AM

It is simple. Tha Dali Lama is wrong.

islam is pure, unadulterated, evil. It is a cultural abomination and causes the mental retardation of millions of human beings and the deaths of millions of the uninfected at their hands.

islam is not worthy of existence.

Posted by: mtriviso at October 14, 2006 9:20 AM

Is it just me; but does anyone else here find the Dalai Lama to be just a tad over-rated and not quite up to promises of the whole sales pitch of being his the spiritual-genuis/saviour of our times? I am sorry but in history there have been far-greater Buddhist thinkers. His books are mostly, New Age, multi-culti, p.c. happy thoughts for neurotic Post-Christian westerners. So is this bit of moral idiocy is no-shocker, its pretty much par for the course. His books which I have looked are reams of this kind of vacous, mumbo-jumbo,masquarading as deep knowledge. He gets away with being a vacous twit, because he is "exotic" non-white,non-western and has cleverly package a dumbed down,bowerized, Buddhism for empty headed Westerners. Him and Desmond Tutu are the two of the most annoying, over-rated, p.c. moral idiots on the scene.In our self-hating confused culture, any exotic foreigner,talking in vague axioms and parables is exalted as some deep sage and font of spirituality,a priori. Excuse we while I go puke.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at October 14, 2006 9:33 AM

A few mischievous muslims should not give islam a bad name? Oh, I agree. We need not look at their mischievous acts to give islam a bad name. Indeed, their acts are the least of what makes islam repugnant to humanity.

Look at their dress. I think their dress alone should give them a bad name. Any culture, especially one geographically located in the hottest parts of the world, where no one can wear shorts, and where the women must wear blankets, is pathological. The fact that those blankets, in the lands of the burning sun, must be made of black material and not white, is testament to how pathological islam really is. And if that does not convince you, let me say that any culture where the women can't show ankle, but the men must, is a little, ahh.....strange?

Then their is their treatment of animals. The fact that no one owns a pet in all of islam, makes it pathological. You have an entire mass of 1.2 billion people, all of whom are hostile to animals. It's almost as if the more defenseless and innocent an entity is, the more hatred they feel for it. Indeed, slaughtering a captive animal, is a rite of passage for every muslim boy. Slaughter, for the sake of slaughter, is fundamental to the creed of islam. That is pathological.

If that doesn't give islam a bad name, what about their lack of GDP? That should give them a bad name. 1.2 billion people and they only ones that work, slaughter goats and sheep, sell fruit at a fruit stand, or grow drugs. It is a religion of shopkeepers. Nobody actually does anything. In the entire muslim world, there are only two reason to get up in the morning, either to sell meat or fruit, or to wage murder. Tell me that is not pathological.

If you are still resistent to giving them a bad name, what about their treatment of their own, such as their women and children, that should give them a bad name. Forget about how they kill others. Just think how they kill themselves. Their own children. The brother and mother holds the daughter down, the father cuts her throat. In islam, that is not a crime. That is islamic practice. That is pathological. Perhaps that should give islam a bad name.

If that doesn't do it, then you are pathological yourself.

So what about the level of corruption in their nations, the highest in the world, by far? That should give them a bad name. Reading off the list of the world's most corrupt nations, and they are indexed in any encyclopedia, is like reading off a list of all the world's muslim countries. And the corruption is not just about getting away with money, it is also about getting away with murder. Their level of corruption is pathological.

I could go on, but it is Saturday morning, I don't want to spend my whole day here.

Indeed, there is more to give islam a bad name than simply their mischievous acts. Their mischevious acts are the least of their sins. The Germans had mischievous acts, too. But their culture and societies were still humane. But islam is far different. Even without those mischievous acts, the whole creed is repugnant on so many levels.

And if you are still not convinced that any of this should give islam a bad name, despite all logic, then I think at the very least, their names should give them a bad name. Any culture or religion where every second man has the same name, is cause for just a wee bit of suspicion.

So Mr Lama, you pajama-wearing, meditating, hippy icon ignoramus, their mischievous acts are not what gives islam a bad name. Islam itself gives islam a bad name. It is not the verbs of islam that really cut to the bone, no pun intended. It is the noun that is islam that is so vile to the rest of the human race. The name Islam gives islam a bad name. For islam means submission.

Islam IS the bad name.

Posted by: August22 at October 14, 2006 9:50 AM

As a student of Buddhism, I would have to say that using the word 'mischievous' is inane and in poor taste. As to the number of militant Muslims, one might ask how His Holiness knows they are so few? Is it because anything called a 'religion' must be mostly good? Is that some law of nature? Real Buddhism is about inner mental control and discipline and has nothing to do with inane and uninformed political statements.

Posted by: Benjamin at October 14, 2006 9:56 AM

All this reminds me of what a few mischievous Gremans did more that fifty years ago, and don't forget those mischievous Japanese. Mischievous Marxists?

Posted by: Pelayo at October 14, 2006 10:23 AM

The Dalai Lama is naive and misguided. He has an "academic" advisor/ambassador for Islam who writes with apologetic dhimmitude about the mohammedans.
History shows the Central Asian Buddhists became dhimmis for a while after the initial mohammedan conquests until their total demise.

http://www.berzinarchives.com/kalachakra/holy_war_buddhism_islam_shambhala_long.html

The Dalai Lama should keep his nose out of politics and quit speaking with arrogant ignorance for he is leading his followers into a deluded no-man's land.

Posted by: the poetess at October 14, 2006 10:36 AM

So the Dalai Lama is politically correct too...

Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 14, 2006 10:54 AM

The Dalai Lama is a Pacifist. It is worth studying modern pacifism, the 'chaste' handmaiden of evil.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 14, 2006 10:59 AM

I wonder what would bamian Budhas said for his holyness statement.

Posted by: svemirko at October 14, 2006 11:07 AM

A simpleton who misuses his office and his prestige. One can sympathize with all those who would wish the lamaseries of Lhasa not to have been deswtroyed, and of all the bumperstickers available, the most justified is certainly "Free Tibet."

But the Dalai Lama is a figure who should be ignored when he spouts pleasant nonsense. He knows as little about Islam as you and I know about Tibetan Buddhism (unless you happen to be Uma Thurman's father). He is not entitled to being listened to about things he knows little or nothing about.

"Whereof we do not know, thereof we should not speak."

That's what Wittgenstein tells Elizabeth Anscombe and Rush Rhees and a cast of Cambridge thousands.

And it's what your mother told you, in simpler words, when you began to babble on about something, between being read one poem about the King who did like some butter for his bread so the queen asked the dairymaid,and the dairymaid went to ask the cow now before she goes to bed, and that other poem, the one about James James Morison Morison Weathereby George Dupress, who took good care of his mother (trhough he was only three).

Posted by: Hugh at October 14, 2006 11:10 AM

… "a few mischievous Muslims" should not be allowed to give the Islamic faith a bad name.…

Now wait just a minute. Didn’t ole Mohammed himself give it a bad name when he named it Islam? In 7th century Arabic, the word Islam meant submit or surrrender, take your pick. No serious scholar denies this, but nor will anybody with clout point out this salient fact.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 14, 2006 11:19 AM

"But the Dalai Lama is a figure who should be ignored when he spouts pleasant nonsense. He knows as little about Islam as you and I know about Tibetan Buddhism" Hugh

The Chinese have kept his little kingdom bottled up in the mountains. The air is thin there depriving the Dalia Lama's people of oxygen.
Not good for the brain.

The Dalai Lama is just another example of Oxygen deprevation.

God willing, of course.

Posted by: credit man at October 14, 2006 11:31 AM

The Dalai Lama is a man with a pure heart who seeks to find what is good in all men. Even when he sent his Khampa warriors to fight the Chinese Communists he was careful to avoid personal condemnation even of the worse of his enemies, refering to them as "misguided". This is the nature of his religion.

Nevertheless, it would be better for all of us if he didn't sound so much like George W. Bush or Tony Blair.

Posted by: Provoslavni at October 14, 2006 12:16 PM

The posts on this page seem rather vulgar and crude. Actually, they are on most of the pages. You folks seem much more narrow-minded than the Muslims you criticize. The Pope is as much an ignorant hippie as the Dalai Lama is, according to your logic, for he apologized and called Islam a religion of peace for which he has the greatest respect. Why do you not rant and insult the Pope? Because you are Christian? There is nothing primitive about Buddhism; it is the only religion that can be tested and affirmed in this life, not the hoped for next one. And Buddhism doesn’t attack other religions. You folks simply stew in your own hate by writing posts like these and make yourself targets for criticism that underminines your message's credibility. You seem to take yourselves much too seriously.

Posted by: laosuwan at October 14, 2006 12:17 PM

laosuwan-

The Dalai Lama didn't preach a message of radical peace, sanctity of life or what have you when he states his view of Islam. He stated 'facts' about Islam that are deadly wrong. Telling millions of people who respect him FALSEHOODS is not innocent. I'm sure he 'means well'.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 14, 2006 12:24 PM

Well, the Dalai Lama never claimed to be infallible. But one might have thought he'd be more vigilant and realistic about totalitarianism given the situation of Tibet.

Posted by: traeh at October 14, 2006 12:40 PM

Previous D. Lama confusion:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011046.php

"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."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011072.php

"Buddhist leader says Islam has been unfairly maligned because of a few extremists."

It's an ongoing theme, among the uninformed.

Posted by: PRCS at October 14, 2006 12:42 PM

It seems that "Hear no evil, see no evil" was first spoken by a Buddhist....
I agree with every one of you. I have no use for the Dalai Lama and his beliefs, but, if I remember well from my past short and fruitless inquiries into Buddhism, they believe the world of perceptible, material reality is an illusion, moral concepts are illusions, the self is an illusion, we live our very lives in a perpetual state of delusion, the "true" nature of reality transcends human categories, one of the goals of the Buddhist is detachment from reality and its grief-conducing passions, and one of the ways of achieving the goals of Buddha-hood is "speaking right," that is, among other things, not antagonizing and not harming anyone with your speech. Which, interestingly enough, discourages criticism as harmful and intemperate.
Does anyone know what the D.L. has said of Mao and communist China? That would be very interesting to find out.

All of the above should disqualify any Buddhist higher-up from meddling into any political act, which necessarily bears on "real" life and has very real consequences for the lives of real people and nations.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at October 14, 2006 12:55 PM

What a couple of naive boneheads. Is there anything that is heard more from Muslims regarding the murderers amongst them, than total silence or self-serving commiseration. Have either one of these fools looked at a world map lately that charts out the conflicts between Muslims or Muslims and their neighbors?

Posted by: amana39 at October 14, 2006 1:23 PM

Obviously, the Dalai Lama has not checked the facts of history, namely, what Muslim invaders and practicioners of jihad did to the Buddhists of the Hindu Kush, India, and Central Asia. Are Buddhists such poor chroniclers?

Posted by: FredIsinglass at October 14, 2006 1:53 PM

laosuan:

I'd like to to respond in detail to your comment. First, please see this paragraph:

According to Fjordman:

"In Denmark, linguist Tina Magaard concludes that Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far greater degree than the original texts of other religions. She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions. [Says Magaard:] 'The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact we need to deal with.' "

laosuan said:

The posts on this page seem rather vulgar and crude. Actually, they are on most of the pages. You folks seem much more narrow-minded than the Muslims you criticize.

There is some truth in what you say, but you exaggerate a bit. Not all the posts on this page are "vulgar and crude." Nor are we more narrow-minded than all the Muslims we criticize. Polls of Muslims indicate there are hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide who would support (though not themselves carry out) violent jihad to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims. And at least ten million Muslims worldwide would actually engage in violent jihad themselves, in order to impose Islam and Sharia. These millions are more narrow minded than the commenters on this thread, who only want religious freedom for everyone, even if the desire for religious freedom is expressed at times in an ignorant and ugly fashion.

laosuan said:

The Pope is as much an ignorant hippie as the Dalai Lama is, according to your logic, for he apologized and called Islam a religion of peace for which he has the greatest respect. Why do you not rant and insult the Pope? Because you are Christian?

This thread follows on an article about the Dalai Lama. It's not about the Pope. Therefore most of the comments have to do with the Dalai Lama, not the Pope. People on these threads have sometimes been highly critical of the current Pope, but if we have been less critical of him than some on this thread have been of the Dalai Lama, the reason is that the current Pope clearly has taken some risks to speak directly about Islam. He has never referred to the 1400 year old institution of Islamic jihad as "mischief." Thousands of civilians, all around the world, have been victims of jihad since after 9/11. See the website www.thereligionofpeace.com. To speak of this worldwide deadly violence as "mischief" understandably will make some people angry, though it would be much better if they suppressed the heat and put out more light. If jihad were only random violence, it would be more tolerable. But current levels of Muslim immigration to Europe, and extremely high Muslim birth rates in Europe, could easily bring parts of Europe under Sharia law by the year 2050, and all of Europe under Sharia by the end of the century. The terror jihad is part of a demographic jihad.

laosuan said:

There is nothing primitive about Buddhism; it is the only religion that can be tested and affirmed in this life, not the hoped for next one.

This is too absolutist, and slanders the other religions. However, since you didn't start this petty squabble, your defensive and emotional remark is understandable, up to a point.

laosuan said:

And Buddhism doesn’t attack other religions.

Permit me to ask, what is the difference between a cult and a religion? Or between the cultish elements in a religion and the good elements? Isn't a cult something that should be criticized or, as you put it, "attacked?" Shouldn't every religion, to whatever extent it involves "cult-like" elements, be criticized and "attacked"? Especially if those cult elements involve violence and spiritual compulsion? Prove that Islam's central texts do not make it in many respects a violent cult bent on world domination and the imposition of Muslim theocratic rule. You will not be able to do it. The Dalai Lama has been an admirable proponent of freedom and democracy. But with these recent comments about Islam he has made an error.

laosuan said:

You folks simply stew in your own hate by writing posts like these and make yourself targets for criticism that underminines your message's credibility.

Here, you are correct to a degree. You are wrong in that you overgeneralize about the comments. Not all of them are as you describe. And although Robert Spencer always writes politely and out of a spirit of responsble concern, never with animus or in a spirit of hate, he doesn't have time to wade through every comment and weed out the comments that have more hate than light in them. His believes the best antidote for incorrect, vulgar, or hateful speech is almost always more speech -- not censorship.

Posted by: traeh at October 14, 2006 1:53 PM

laosuwan:
Sorry I didn't spell your name correctly in the post above.

Posted by: traeh at October 14, 2006 1:59 PM

All that this guy wants to say is : Calm down folks, there are plenty of people everywhere asking for peace. Only these people have not read about the history of islam and jihad conquest and the subsequent treatment of infidels. (Most people have, but we still find it unbelievable that some beardos are not interested in living as we do. They just want to live like their great caveman lived. They want to wear sacks, they don't shave, and since they have to bang heads on ground 5 times a day, they don't take a job like you and me. And of course, since we don't do like them, they hate us and unless we become like them, they will saw our heads off. They are brought up sawing off heads of animals).

Leave the Dalai Lama alone. Do we all believe that all that I have written above is true ? It sounds like the basic script for a PS II game. A Survival Horror game.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at October 14, 2006 2:59 PM

The Dalai Lama makes the jihadis sound like Dennis the Menace (the scamp) instead of the dangerous death-cultists they really are. (Dennis the Menace may have been mischievous, but at least he never strapped on a semtex vest and blew up Mr. Wilson because he was an infidel.)

Posted by: scaramouoche at October 14, 2006 3:26 PM

No wonder Liberals love the Dalai Lama.

Posted by: atheling at October 14, 2006 4:38 PM

"The Chinese have kept his little kingdom bottled up in the mountains. The air is thin there depriving the Dalia Lama's people of oxygen.
Not good for the brain."

The Dalai Lama could just as well be in southern California, or Boulder, Colorado, or Austin, Texas, or Chicago, Seattle, New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., Norfolk, Virginia, Charlotte, North Carolina, Miami, Florida, London, England, Madrid, Spain, Berlin, Germany, Paris, France, Rome, Italy:

The PC gas permeates all atmospheres, thin or rich.

Posted by: remote_control at October 14, 2006 5:12 PM

The dalai Lama is a nincompoop....a rather silly man living in cloud cuckoo land. Hence his appeal to New Age Westerners. He is also a victim of a superstitious and extremely hierarchical cult that indoctrinates its children from an early age. He was chosen and recognised as the Dalai Lama as an infant whether he liked it or not. Tibetan Buddhism is a very rigid mindset and belief system, and also a stratified and callous social system. It's not surprising he doesn't perceive the corruption and viciousness of Islam given it's similar subservience and blind obedience to authority. Didn't the destruction of the Bamian Buddhas break his heart? And I suppose he was just a little inconvenienced by those 'mischievous' Chinese Communists.

Posted by: johndoe at October 14, 2006 5:22 PM

"The Pope is as much an ignorant hippie as the Dalai Lama is, according to your logic, for he apologized and called Islam a religion of peace for which he has the greatest respect"

laosuwan,
You may not have read the Pope's comments correctly. He said he was sorry that Muslims were upset by the remarks. He did not say he was sorry for saying it or denied that what he said was untrue. He also never said Islam was a "religion of peace." (It was US President George Bush who said that). The pope did say he has "great respect" for Islam, probably to try to defuse tensions.

You don’t seem to understand why some people hate Islam so much. It’s because the Muslims want to impose Islam on the whole world! They will do it though any means, violent, non-violent, deceptive. What about the disappearance of Buddhism from Central Asia? Zorasterism from Persia (Iran)? Christianity and Judaism from the Arabian Peninsula? The pagan religions from the Middle East? Think it happened voluntarily?

At least some Buddhists know what actually happened when Buddhism met Islam some 1300-1400 years ago.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,2588,0,0,1,0

Posted by: non-redneck at October 14, 2006 6:56 PM

Off-Topic FYI: There is an ESPN special tomorrow morning (Sunday morning at 9:30am EST) on Pat Tillman called "Outside the Lines" which deals with his journey from the NFL to Afghanistan and tragic death. The preview showed fellow Rangers being interviewed who were there at the scene on the day he was killed. Maybe this will settle the issue of how he died once and for all. I hope so, but I also hope that it will be mainly a tribute to one Man's bravery, dedication, and sacrifice for his country, for all of us. Pat Tillman, American Hero, RIP.

Posted by: alexon at October 14, 2006 11:31 PM

If there are so few miscreants causing Islam a PR nightmare then it should be easy for the Muslims to deal with them, right? Well, the rest of the world is waiting for that to happen-isn't 1400 years enough time for it to happen? Methinks Tibet will be freed from Chinese control before we hear of such good news.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 15, 2006 1:34 AM

"The fact that no one owns a pet in all of islam, makes it pathological."

Not true, not true! Read the hilarious website http://muttawa.blogspot.com/, by a Saudi Arabian who details the SA love for having a pet camel kept out of town, where one goes to visit it and play at sheikhs. Sounds rather fun, actually.

Posted by: Lili at October 15, 2006 2:42 AM

it looks like to me considering how old the dali lama is that he might be getting senil , describi ng islamic terrorist as though they are just highly stung children get real that is the stupidist thing i have ever heard

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at October 16, 2006 4:50 AM

it looks like to me considering how old the dali lama is that he might be getting senil , describi ng islamic terrorist as though they are just highly stung children get real that is the stupidist thing i have ever heard

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at October 16, 2006 4:50 AM

The problem with Buddhists is they are too nice for their own good !

When islam invaded India the Buddhists had absolutley no idea what evil they were facing and it was islam that destoyed Buddhism in India.

Posted by: apostate_islam at October 16, 2006 5:45 AM

Pacifists can survive in this vale of tears by: 1.) Existing in relative isolation and owning nothing perceived as worth stealing. 2.) Living under the protective umbrella of people willing (and able)to protect them by kicking ass and taking names.During WWII, Gandhi made no distinction between the British and the Japanese. He would have survived about 15 minutes had the British been defeated by imperial Japan.

Posted by: MP at October 16, 2006 3:39 PM

Buddhists are neither too nice for their own good, senile, or suffering oxygen deprivation. Nor are they any more evil than any other children of fallen Adam.

The Buddhism peddled in the West is, I may observe, about as denatured as it comes. It gets hailed as tolerant and scientific, when it holds that the universe is upheld on the back of a giant turtle. It draws in Hollywood feminists when, on its home turf, it holds that a woman pollutes a monk simply by sitting on a bench on which the monk sits later, and that a woman who gets an abortion will have the aborted child tugging at her skirts in Hell.

Buddhists are as capable of violence as anyone else. The Boxers of China (ca. 1900) believed that Buddhist spells would render them impervious to bullets, and believed that massacring Chinese Christians was a meritorious deed. Hindu Tamils from Sri Lanka and Christian Kachin and Karen or Muslim Rohingas from Myanmar would also demurr if you told them that Buddhism is a peaceful and tolerant religion.

An important point to remember about the Dalai Lama is that his chief enemy is the Chinese Communist regime. His allies include Turkic Muslims in Eastern Turkistan (also known by its colonialist name of Xinjiang), the Tawian Independence Movement, and others. This same political nexus has shown Muslim East Turkistanis standing up for underground Christians in Central China as well. Further, back in the 1990's, when Muslims in Qinghai (Chinese-speaking rather than Turkic) wrecked Communist Party headquarters during a rampage, they pointedly stayed away from their Tibetan Buddhist neighbors, despite the latter being the traditional tribal enemy. In the political game the Dalai Lama hopes to win (a truly autonomous Tibet within China or an independent Tibet), Muslims are allies against the racist Chinese Communist regime.

Posted by: Kepha at October 16, 2006 7:53 PM

The Dalai Lama is a good though misguided man.

He should stick to public discussions of things which he is knowlegeable about, which clearly do not include Islam and jihad.

Posted by: pythagoras at October 17, 2006 5:00 PM

Poor islam, that victim religion always violated by a handful of extremists.

Posted by: rocky at October 17, 2006 11:01 PM