القضية ليست في عدد الضحايا ، لأن قتل شخص واحدٍ بلا ذنب ليس كقتل ألف شخص مجرمين ، ألم تدري ما قاله عمر بن الخطاب " لو تمالأ أهل اليمن على قتل امرء مسلم لقتلتهم جميعاً " ؟ وأيضاً قتل شخص واحد كقتل ألف شخص ، فالمجرم يكون مجرماً سواء قتل ألفاً أو مليوناً ولكنه كلما قتل أكثر يزداد إجراماً .

هناك الكثير من القضايا المتداخلة ببعضها البعض ، واستغلال شخص ما لجرحك لا يعني أن جرحك لا يستحق عناء الشفقة والتضامن ، فأن تستغل أمريكا قضية الشيشان لا يعني أن قضية الشيشان ليست عادلة وكذلك أن تستغل أمريكا القضية البورمية والفلبينية لا يعني أن هاتين القضيتين ليستا عادلتين أبداً والأمر ينطبق على القضية الفلسطينية وإستغلالها ، فمثلاً المجاهدين الشيشان ينفذون كل يوم عمليات حربية ضد الروس - راجع موقعهم كفكاز سنتر - كما أن الروس والعصابات الموالية لهم يرتكبون يومياً المزيد من المجازر والاضهادات ولا أحد يفتح فمه - لأننا ضعفاء كمسلمين أولاً ولأن مصالح كثيرة لا تريد فتح هذا الملف - ولكن لو أرادت أمريكا اشغال روسيا فمن الطبيعي أن تستغل هذه القضية واستغلالها لها - وأكرر هذا للمرة الألف - لا يعني عدم عدالة هذه القضية بتاتاً وأن نتركها ونترك الدفاع عنها بسبب إستغلال أمريكا لها ، وهل الدنيا إلا مصالح وإستغلال للمصالح وكذا السياسة ؟

نعود للقضية البورمية ، الذي يحصل الآن إبادة حقيقية ضد طائفة فقيرة ومهمشة وحالات قتل جماعي إجرامية ضدها ، والدافع خلف هذه الحملة - وإن كان مهماً معرفته - إلا أن اي دافع في الكون لا يبرر عمليات الابادة والقتل الجماعي وخصوصاً في القرن الواحد والعشرين ، وعندما نسمع بحالات مثل هذه فالفطرة السوية الطبيعية تشفق على هذا الصنف من البشر سواء كانوا على نفس دينك وفكرك ومعتقدك أم لا ، أما حين نبرر الجرائم هذه أو نمنع مشاعر الشفقة التلقائية فحينها نكون قد نزعنا أولى لبنات المشاعر الإنسانية لدينا ورويداً رويداً سنصبح مجرد وحوش بشرية لا تفقه إلا شيئين " مصالحها وفرائسها " .

لماذا نتحدث عن تجفيف " الفكر المتطرف " وهو عبارة عن ردة فعل لا أكثر ؟ الأصل أن نبحث عن الأسباب قبل البحث عن آثار النتائج ، وكما يقول حسن حنفي في كتاب له عن ثقافة المقاومة على أن الواجب قبل إزالة آثار الهزيمة إزالة الأسباب التي أدت إليها ، الفكر المتطرف هو نتيجة حتمية للإضطهاد والاستبداد والفقر والحرمان ، فاذا تظافرت هذه العوامل جميعها فلن يبقى إلا شيء واحد وهو الغطاء الذي يتحرك من خلاله هذا التطرف ، قد يكون الغطاء شيوعياً أو اشتراكياً أو مسيحياً أو إسلامياً والقائمة مستمرة .

وتنويه أخير لك وأنت تتحدث عن العدد ، فإن كانت العبرة في العدد فالأصل أن نهتم للثورة السورية وللشعب السوري الذي فقد على يد نظامه الإجرامي خلال سنة ونصف أكثر مما فقده الشعب الفلسطيني على يد الإحتلال الإسرائيلي خلال أكثر من عشرين سنة .

History of Violence in Buddhism

Armed Buddhist monks in Thailand are not an exception to the rule; they are contemporary examples of a long historical precedence. For centuries monks have been at the helm, or armed in the ranks, of wars. How could this be the case? But more importantly, why did I (and many others) hold the belief that Buddhism=Peace (and that other religions, such as Islam, are more prone to violence)?

It was then that I realized that I was a consumer of a very successful form of propaganda. Since the early 1900s, Buddhist monastic intellectuals such as Walpola Rahula, D. T. Suzuki, and Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, have labored to raise Western awareness of their cultures and traditions. In doing so, they presented specific aspects of their Buddhist traditions while leaving out others.

You have monks taking up arms and marching in the Russo-Japanese War, or earlier messianic battles in China when they thought killing people would bring them closer to enlightenment (a Ten Stage Process). Buddhists have fought against non-Buddhists, or other Buddhists. Japanese Buddhists fought to cleanse the impure Buddhist lands in China and Korea. Thai and Burmese fought for centuries against each other, each claiming religious authority as Cakravartins. This is what the book covers.

via Monks With Guns: Discovering Buddhist Violence | RDBook | ReligionDispatches.

The recent bloody violence in Sri Lanka and Thailand are but examples of this. Yes, Sri Lanka’s violence has traditionally recognized political and cultural components to it, but the Janata Vimukti Peramuna had very clear religious motivations voiced during their assassinations and calls to exterminate the LTTE.

Shaku Soen and D.T. Suzuki, along with Paul Carus, were instrumental in bringing Japanese Zen to this country. There is a long history of this, covered quite well by Verhoeven in “Americanizing the Buddha.” And lets not forget that Suzuki and his teacher Soen were at the vanguard of Japanese militarism during the Russo-Japanese and second World Wars. In Suzuki’s own words, Buddhism must protect the nation.

Walpola Rahula did the same for Sri Lankan Buddhism in the United States, and he had similar concepts of religiously justified violence in Sri Lanka.

In a way, I wish I could return to that dream of Buddhist traditions as a purely peaceful, benevolent religion that lacks mortal failures and shortcomings. But I cannot. It is, ultimately, a selfish dream and it hurts other people in the process.

Buddhist Warfare certainly contributes to the broader discussion of religious violence, but on a more intimate and local level, I hope this collection will effect some significant change in the way Buddhism is perceived in the United States. Only time will tell.

In the end, what I find odd is how we try to displace a very long and lengthy history as anecdotal or enigmatic examples of people gone awry, instead of seeing the nature of religious violence present in Buddhist traditions (as well as others)
-----------------




Monks With Guns: Discovering Buddhist Violence

The publication of Buddhist Warfare, a book I co-edited with Mark Juergensmeyer, is a bittersweet experience as it marks the culmination of a journey that began with an exploration of the peaceful aspects of Buddhism only to end up chronicling portions of its dark side. This journey, which consumed much of the last six years of my life, began in 2003 when my wife and I spent a little over a year in Thailand. It was then that I began to research Buddhist social activism which was going to be the topic of my dissertation.

Rather than look to archives, I decided to speak with Buddhist monks and nuns on the ground. I interviewed monks protecting the forests from big business and villagers from dangerous pesticides; I met and began to chronicle the activities of the first fully ordained Thai Buddhist nun, Dhammananda Bhikkuni; and I met with Thai Buddhist monastic intellectuals.

Military Monks

Then in January 2004, violent attacks broke out in the southern provinces of Thailand, some of which were directed at Buddhist monks. These attacks and the numerous ones to follow shocked the country. But, since contemporary issues and my research interests seemed to be converging, I thought: what better way to study Buddhist activism than to observe Buddhist monks engaged in peacemaking?

Unfortunately, I found very little of this.

During my visits between 2006 and 2008, southern Thai monks shared the challenges of living in their fear-infested communities. All but a few concentrated on survival; peacemaking was the last thing on their minds.

The constant fear and violence took a toll on them. Monks talked about the guns they had bought and now kept at their bedsides. Others spoke heatedly about the violent militant attacks on Buddhist civilians and monasteries. Although the cause of the violence is multilayered—owing much to corruption, drug trade, and corporatization—many monks also felt Islam was to blame. In their minds, the conflict was anchored to the larger discussion of religious violence: Muslims against Buddhists.

One day after teaching an English class for Buddhist novices at a monastery a young monk came over and pulled back the folds of his robe to reveal a Smith & Wesson. I later learned that he was a military monk—one of many covert, fully ordained soldiers placed in monasteries throughout Thailand. To these monks, peacemaking requires militancy.

Since my initial realization in 2004, I began to look critically at my earlier perspective on Buddhism—one that shielded an extensive and historical dimension to Buddhist traditions: violence. Armed Buddhist monks in Thailand are not an exception to the rule; they are contemporary examples of a long historical precedence. For centuries monks have been at the helm, or armed in the ranks, of wars. How could this be the case? But more importantly, why did I (and many others) hold the belief that Buddhism=Peace (and that other religions, such as Islam, are more prone to violence)?

Buddhist Propaganda

It was then that I realized that I was a consumer of a very successful form of propaganda. Since the early 1900s, Buddhist monastic intellectuals such as Walpola Rahula, D. T. Suzuki, and Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, have labored to raise Western awareness of their cultures and traditions. In doing so, they presented specific aspects of their Buddhist traditions while leaving out others. These Buddhist monks were not alone in this portrayal of Buddhism. As Donald S. Lopez Jr. and others have poignantly shown, academics quickly followed suit, so that by the 1960s U.S popular culture no longer depicted Buddhist traditions as primitive, but as mystical.

Yet these mystical depictions did not remove the two-dimensional nature of Western understanding. And while it contributed to the history of Buddhism, this presentation of an otherworldly Buddhism ultimately robbed Buddhists of their humanity.

Thupten Tsering, the co-director of “Windhorse,” encapsulates the effects of two-dimensional portrayal in a 1999 interview with the New York Times. “They see Tibetans as cute, sweet, warmhearted. I tell people, when you cut me, I bleed just like you.”

In an effort to combat this view and to humanize Buddhists, then, Mark Juergensmeyer and I put together a collection of critical essays that illustrate the violent history of Buddhism across Mongolia, Tibet, Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and India.

Our intention is not to argue that Buddhists are angry, violent people—but rather that Buddhists are people, and thus share the same human spectrum of emotions, which includes the penchant for violence.



Although the book only arrived at bookstores last month, it apparently touched some nerves in the academic community before its release. Some have objected to the cover [image right], which they feel is not an appropriate subject for Buddhism. Ironically, that is the very reason this collection of essays is so important: to address the apparent and widespread inability to acknowledge the violent side to religious traditions. It is this inability that robs its adherents of their humanity.

In a way, I wish I could return to that dream of Buddhist traditions as a purely peaceful, benevolent religion that lacks mortal failures and shortcomings. But I cannot. It is, ultimately, a selfish dream and it hurts other people in the process.

Buddhist Warfare certainly contributes to the broader discussion of religious violence, but on a more intimate and local level, I hope this collection will effect some significant change in the way Buddhism is perceived in the United States. Only time will tell.