By a Dasa ()
The recent tragedy at Manipur touches me deeply in several ways. At least two immediately spring to mind: As a devotee, I am horrified that people would try to harm defenseless Vaishnavas, particularly on a holy day. Surely, if this is the work of terrorists (who often claim to be religious people), they should be able to empathize with the heartfelt devotion of believers, whatever their particular religion. But, no. Their sectarianism borders on insanity, for they harm worshipers of Allah, even if those worshippers glorify Him by using a different name. I am also horrified as a New Yorker, with September 11th 2001 looming large in my consciousness. The events of September 11th are indelibly etched on the world’s collective heart. For many, as the twin towers came crashing down, so did Western innocence, or the illusion that the world is a safe place and that America is as loved by people of other lands as it is within its own borders. Inescapably, “violence and religion” are the new twin towers, replacing the old because the perpetrators claim that their crime was not only sanctioned by God but commanded by Him.
What is the relationship between violence and religion? When one contemplates the Crusades, the Inquisition, or, in a more contemporary setting, Waco, Bosnia, Heaven’s Gate, the Catholics and the Protestants in northern Ireland, the Om Shinrikyo attacks in Japan, the bombing of American embassies in Africa, the constant battling between Hindus and Muslims, and, of course, the Israeli/Palestinian crisis — it makes one think twice about “believers” and their chosen path. How is it that the world’s religious traditions, which are supposed to represent spiritual ideals such as love, peace, and mutual understanding, often seem to be instigators of hate and strife? The question is nicely phrased — and, to a degree, answered — by psychotherapist Russell Shorto in his book, Saints and Madmen: Psychiatry Opens its Doors to Religion:
Is it possible that religious feeling — the feeling of oneness with others, of being swept up in the current of cosmic love and eternal goodness — has an element of violence in it? Of course it does. It is an avenue of human expression, and so will carry whatever baggage people choose to take with them as they travel down it. In the end, the “religion leads to violence” argument falters; you might just as easily say that education leads to violence since there is so much violence in schools. One might counter the argument by borrowing a slogan from the National Rifle Association: Religion doesn’t kill, people do.
While I do not necessarily endorse this view when applied to the National Rifle Association, Shorto’s point is well taken. Essential religious truths do not promote violence. Rather, people already predisposed to violence interpret these truths in their own distinct way.
Accordingly, a brief look at religious history reveals both martial and peaceloving angles on religion. There are Zionists who are willing to fight for the state of Israel, and there are those like Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who took nonviolence to the point of vegetarianism. The same Islamic tradition that promotes Jihad, or holy war, also gave rise to Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a renowned pacifist. The very existence of someone like Oliver Cromwell, who through military means labored to make England a Christian nation, would lead one to believe that Christianity is a religion that favors violence; but peace advocate George Fox, founder of the Quakers in England and North America, would lead one to believe otherwise. Religion has brought forth the Prince of Peace, Jesus, and personalities such as Gandhi and Mother Teresa. It is also true that most “religious” wars have been fought as much for political and economic reasons as for spiritual ones. Therefore, it seems reasonable to evaluate a given religion on its own spiritual merits, not on the basis of those who have used it to endorse war or violence.
To me, just as man is made of an inner soul (the real Self) and an outer covering (the body), religion seems to have both internal and external dimensions. The internal aspect to religion is the esoterica, the mystical traditions associated with every major religion. This is the heart of religious practice, and it runs counter to superficiality — the kind of superficiality that leads to an “us and them” mentality, the kind of mentality that leads to war. One rarely sees religious wars being fought by Christian mystics, Kabbalists, Sufis, Vaishnavas, and so on — though, I am sure, there are exceptions. More commonly, however, wars are fought by those who embrace external interpretations of religion, or those who come to identify religion only in terms of its outer shell. Such adherents may even be well-meaning, sincere, devout—but if they do not dig deep, if they do not absorb the mystical core of their tradition, they will likely perceive its surface teaching only, which necessarily discounts those of other faiths.
Nonsectarianism, which is the hallmark quality of every major religion’s mystical tradition, allows for peace, tolerance, and mutual understanding. It asks for pluralism and inclusivism—ideas that stem from the realization that we are all God’s children, even if we choose to worship in ways that are alien to our neighbors. It is only such a broad and far-reaching vision that will put an end to the kind of religious violence seen on September 11.
I do not mean to be simplistic. I fully accept that there are complex reasons why a religionist may opt for violence, and that he may have legitimate reasons for doing so. The battle depicted in the Mahabharata is one such circumstance — I do believe that the Pandavas, the heroes of the war in question, had legitimate reasons to fight the Kauravas, the “bad guys” in the story. To my understanding, the battle was fought not to establish “my religion” as opposed to “your religion,” but, rather, for larger issues involving protection of the innocent and the abolition of a tyrannical regime.
In regard to recent events, America’s foreign policy may be as much to blame as is a radical reading of the Islamic faith. Some social commentators say that Muslims in the Middle East are more hateful of “Western Imperialists” than are Muslims in other parts of the world. They thus try to reduce the issue to class distinctions. Some opt for the well-worn arguments of anti-colonialism and anti-capitalism, indicating that there are, no doubt, many sociological and political issues at play. But if we consider the horror of the World Trade Towers and the earlier, if overshadowed, destruction of the two Buddhist monuments in the Afghan desert — also perpetrated by bin Laden’s Taliban — we see not the work of errant religionists but simply of evil men. The crime in Manipur is yet further proof.
The destruction of the two Buddhas is particularly telling: Buddhism is not a symbol of Western Imperialism — it is not Western at all. Buddhism does not cause sociological disturbance for Islam, or poverty for its practitioners. Neither is it a symbol of colonialism. Rather, the destruction of these monuments lays bare the Taliban’s intolerance for other religions in general and their envy for the achievements of great civilizations. Thus, bin Laden’s brand of Islam is politely called “fundamentalist” or “radical” but, in truth, it is not Islam at all.
The word “Islam” is related to salam, which is the Arabic word for “peace.” Muslims are duty-bound to embrace peaceful relations and are called upon to fight only when they are threatened, in self-defense, and then only under the most extreme conditions. Bin Laden, say Islamic experts, had no legal right to proclaim a fatwah against the United States –- if that is to be done, it must be declared by a recognized Muslim leader, one who is respected as an advanced practitioner of Islam. Bin Laden is not recognized as such. Moreover, if a jihad, or “Holy War” is to be pronounced at all, it is supposed to be, first and foremost, a manifestation of “The Greater Jihad,” which means “conquering the lower self with the higher self” — a sort of metaphorical reading on the term “Holy War” an inner struggle and not an external war. It calls upon Muslims to fight the demons within, and thereby to become better Muslims.
“The Lesser Jihad,” which is the one with which most people are familiar, is only embarked upon in extreme situations, where there is no alternative but to engage in external violence. This is a rare and usually forbidden situation, but if it arises, one is called upon to only engage in violence as a matter of self defense, never as an aggressor, and never killing innocent, non-combative personalities, like women, children, and the old and infirm, many of which were in the World Trade Towers when they came crashing down.
But your average person knows this not. Even most Muslims are unaware of these fine points of Islamic doctrine. And therefore the likes of bin Laden run amok, deceiving simple but well-meaning Muslims about the truths of their own religion. It is time for believers to wake up: Those who know should speak out, and those who don’t, should educate themselves and become true defenders of the faith.
Thank you for a beautifully written & broad-minded article, which gives me some fresh faith in the collective consciousness of iskcon leadership.
I’d just like to add a few more little points.
The Taliban – who I am not a supporter of – were not completely bad.
( as shocking a concept as that may sound, bear with me )
They destroyed alcohol & vice everywhere they went, they repressed the horrific practice of selling children for the gratification of evil men.
Amongst the unfortunate excesses, there were some things that were desirable.
At the moment it is quite a mantra, that Hezbollah
( which I am also not a supporter of ) started the war. This isn’t quite the truth.
Israel has many, many prisoners which it is holding without any charges,
let alone a fair trial. Israel was firing rockets upon Palestine, well before the current disarster in Lebanon / Nth Israel. It is the simply truth – that the begining of the state of Israel, was a catastrophe for the arabic people who possessed the land at the time.
Where else were they meant to go ?
So even amongst the organizations, the media has painted as the most evil –
there are actually factors of good & bad. There are factors which have caused the hatred & anger & pain in their hearts. And as you have said – there are gigantic faults in western policy, which have caused these long-term conflicts.
I do think it is completely possible for persons of all different faiths to live together in peace. But a part of that process will be that soceity must have a far better understanding of other faiths, and the reasons behind regional conflicts.
I think that even the most orthodox Muslim country, would eventually overcome all of its new problems … if just given enough time to do that. The battle, as you have said is internal as well as external – and Islamic leadership has a struggle against ancient cultural customs & beliefs … which are wrongly considered as part of their faith, but are in fact nothing to do with Islam. And Christians / those of other faiths, also have their own issues to address ( such as ridding themselves of the deeply rooted suspicion & fear of Muslims ).
OK – thats enough time on the soap box for me !
Even most Muslims are unaware of these fine points of Islamic doctrine
so, apparently is the rosen clan.
ISLAM: the word “ISLAM” simply means “submission”. in the religious context, it means complete submission to the will of Allah. “ISLAM” is not merely a religion but a complete way of life known as “Deen” in arabic. ISLAM encompasses both religion, social, political, and economic aspects of human life. as such, its translation to “religion” limits its scope to man’s expression to his acknowledgement of The Divine, a system of beliefs and practices relating to the sacred.
JIHAD: “an effort or strife”. struggling in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of an effort to make Allah’s Word(al-Islam) superior. JIHAD is regarded as one of the five pillars of ISLAM.
Allah supports a true JIHAD:
see Holy Koran 3: 13, 3: 122, 3: 123- 127
fighting for Allah’s Cause is permissible:
see Holy Koran 2: 191, 2:243, 4: 75- 76, 4: 84, 5: 33, 8: 39
surah 2, text 217:
they ask thee, concerning fighting in the prohibited month.
say: “fighting therein is a grave offense; but graver it is in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque and drive out its members. tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can. and if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbeliel, their works will bear no fruit, in this life or in the Hereafter; they will be companions of The Fire and will abide therein.
source for all quotes:
the meaning of the Holy Qur’an, abdullah yusuf ali, amana publications
IFTA office, washington, dc
It is deplorable to witness the worldwide violence perpetuated by Muslim terrorists, however in this case the suspected terrorists are a quasi-Marxist organization. The bomb was a Chinese-made Hand Granade. According to the U.S. State Department, the KYKL exacts money to support their organization through extortion and violence. When ISKCON Manipur failed to meet their demands for Rs 100,000, they were bombed.
This is an article copied from the local Manipur press:
KYKL denies hand in blast
Source: The Sangai Express
Imphal, Aug 18: Refuting the news report of PTI, the proscribed KYKL has denied any involvement in the bomb blast at ISKCON complex on the occasion of Janmasthami on August 16.A statement issued by deputy secretary of Publicity and Research, KYKL Apabi Mangang also rejected the statement of the Home Ministry official that a huge amount of money was demanded from ISKCON, Imphal by the KYKL as reported by PTI.
The statement clarified that the outfit had demanded Rs 100,000 from the school run by ISKCON as a part of its drive to collect fund from private schools.
The monetary demand was not made on ISKCON temple.
But then the amount was reduced to just Rs 10,000 after taking into account the strength of the students in the school, it said.
It further questioned the motive behind feeding wrong information for a small amount of money demanded by KYKL in line with the tax collection drive of the outfit from all private schools.
Acknowledging that KYKL is a group desirous of development and revival of indigenous culture, language, script etc and that it supports activities towards this end, it asserted that ISKCON should face the wrath of the outfit for deliberately trying to accuse KYKL for the blast just because the outfit extended support to all activities for promotion of indigenous culture and values.
Hare Krishna!
Dear Editors,
Please correct me if I am wrong. However, on reading Dasa’s article, it seems that he was implying that Islamic terrorists were responsible for the attack. However, no one else (at least at the time of the writing of his article) seems to have been aware of who perpetrated the crimes (and it is quite unlikely that it was terrorists(Islamic)). I think that the author should offer an appology and a retraction of his statements. Unless, I am the only one who perceived the Manipur -Islamic terrorist connection in the article.
Also, I thought that it was rather one sided (an American perspective) and was rather inaccurate in it’s depictions (“bin Laden’s Taliban”) it’s like saying “Pat Robertson’s Republicans”(Pat Robertson is a TV evangelist who called for the assasination of Hugo Chavez, the leader of Venezuela, a year or so ago). Anyways, no matter how much we may dislike them, most scholars would acknowledge that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are two distinct organisations however closely they may work with each other (one is an international organisation and the other is a regional political party/reform movement). There is a significance destruction between the destruction on 9/11 and the destruction of the “Bamiyan”Buddhas. However, the author found it convenient to overlook the thousands of civilians killed(and that continue to be killed) by Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, and what to speak of the American sanctioned (and funded) destruction of Lebanon. The US is mostly a Christian country (the evangelical Christians are a very powerful political and economic force) and it is widely known that George Bush regards himself as a Chrisitan and has mentioned that he is doing “God’s work” fighting evil(he initially referred to the aggression against Afghanistan as a Crusade). Well, the author should rightly denounce George Bush as well for all the destruction. He has caused much more than Osama bin ladin has caused.
Finally, not to sound like a conspiracy buff, but despite what the general public thinks, the FBI (on their website http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm ) have not listed Osama Bin Ladin as responsible for the attacks on 9/11. So again, it could be regarded as spreading misinformation, however widely believed (right, we all know that it does not make it true, or does it?)
I am not trying to nit pick. However, if devotees want to address current socio- political issues, then the presentation should stand up to scrutiny. I do understand that the author’s intent could be seen as trying to distinguish between the inner and outer dimensions of religion. However, it seems like it was also quite focused on attacking Islamists (or so called followers of Islam). If we just take a look at the three most recent large conflicts in the world, from a non-american (neutral?) perspective, we could see the hands of the Christians and Jews in the destruction of the lives and property of the thousands (and hundreds of thousands).
It is also interesting that the author is a supporter of Dhanudrdhara Swami…..a whole other issue on religion and violence could be addressed there.
Peace, Shanti, Salaam
Hare Krishna,
Haribhakti das
The critique of a prabhu has been done without much careful consideration of what he wrote. He gave a balanced viewpoint and pointed out:
a prabhu did make a few errors but they were not worthy of the harsh criticism and the juxtapositioning of his support of Dhanardur Swami with his article in some kind of causal nexus, that was a mistake and not worthy of being said. One thing I did find to be wrong with his article was the claim that most muslims do not know the meaning of the word jihad. From my experience with muslims that would seem to be incorrect. They are always eager to point out that jihad means a spiritual struggle first and foremost, especially since western media pundits like to use the word solely as a word for aggression agaisnt non muslims.
When discussing current events such as “The War on Terror” we should understand that the amercian media is reporting within certain allowable parameters which only allow a specific basal paradigm to be presented i.e. “Islamo-Fasicsts are out to get us, stock up on water and canned food because the terrorists are about to strike anywhere anytime”. But as journalist Greg Palast points out
The “War on Terror” is nothing new as a political tool.
While people like Bin Laden are problematic; the truth is that terrorism is for the most part a tool utilized by the oligarchy to consolidate their positions. The current political climate in the west is being driven by the desire for more wealth and more power by the wealthy and powerful. The “War on Terror” is nothing more then a method to attain those goals.
Since 2001 the American government has spent close to $450 billion with no end in site. That money does not simply disappear. It goes into the pockets of the miltary industrial cohorts of the Bush Whitehouse. That is just the tip of the iceberg as Greg Palast points out:
There is significant and compelling evidence that the attacks on 9-11 were at the very least known about and allowed to happen i.e “A new Pearl Harbor” was seen as a vital necessity in order for the plans of the oligarchs to come to fruition. How fortuitous that 9-11 was such a perfect event at such a perfect time. It is well known that all terror organizations in the world are infiltrated by intelligence agencies. Often those infiltrators are even leaders. Intelligence agencies do the bidding of the elites in society, they serve the agenda of the oligarchy which is to expand and protect their wealth and power. No one has ever gone broke from underestimating the exploitative designs of the elites of today’s modern world.
Ultimately beyond the drama on the world stage there is isvara paramah krsnah. The actors on the stage are not independent, they are acting out their karmic destiny as is everyone else.
Srimad Bhagavatam 11.13.24
manasa vacasa drishtya
grihyate ‘nyair apindriyaih
aham eva na matto ‘nyad
iti budhyadhvam anjasa
Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.
Srimad Bhagavatam 11.13.31
asattvad atmano ‘nyesham
bhavanam tat-krita bhida
gatayo hetavas casya
mrisha svapna-driso yatha
Those states of existence that are conceived of as separate from the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no actual existence, although they create a sense of separation from the Absolute Truth. Just as the seer of a dream imagines many different activities and rewards, similarly, because of the sense of an existence separate from the Lord’s existence, the living entity falsely performs fruitive activities, thinking them to be the cause of future rewards and destinations.
Srimad Bhagavatam 11.28.18
jnanam viveko nigamas tapas ca
pratyaksham aitihyam athanumanam
ady-antayor asya yad eva kevalam
kalas ca hetus ca tad eva madhye
Real spiritual knowledge is based on the discrimination of spirit from matter, and it is cultivated by scriptural evidence, austerity, direct perception, reception of the Puranas’ historical narrations, and logical inference. The Absolute Truth, which alone was present before the creation of the universe and which alone will remain after its destruction, is also the time factor and the ultimate cause. Even in the middle stage of this creation’s existence, the Absolute Truth alone is the actual reality.
To Praghosa Prabbu, at the end of my response I mistakingly wrote “underestimating”, it should have read “overestimating”.
Dear a prabhu,
It seems that whichever way we choose to observe the ongoing schisms caused by the adherents of various faiths, could it not be that we are overlooking some basic strictures which are at odds with fermenting a politically correct mergence of polarized minds? These are, if you are a muslim, any non-conformist is an infidel, who, should a situation arise where Islam takes precedent, confers outcastism upon the unbeliever. Same applies to the Christian ethic. A non-Christian is shunned as a heathen and pagan. Likewise for a non- Jew – goy, goyim and so on.
Since these divisive censures are indelible parts of the Bible or Koran, whichever faith one belongs to, the whole world consists of infidels, heathens, goys and pagans all destined for eternal damnation. And who among the Christians, Jews and muslims are going to disobey these ‘sacred’ words? As it is symptomatic of Kali-yuga, these splintered ways will continue if distorted values based on the exclusion of others is fostered by state support.
Still, the horrific Janmastami incident has not yet yeilded any suspects. Though certain trends have pointed in a certain direction, to prematurely accuse one group or another can be the stuff of vigilantism. It is hard. Whether political or religious, it highlights the fact that Iskcon, as an emerging non-sectarian alternative to the woes of society, will become a target for those with warped evil intentions. All the more reason why we should engender a fondness, even for the sake of loke-vicara.
Your servant, Kesava Krsna dasa.
The Five Pillars of Islam ( in english terms )
1. Testimony of Faith
( a – there is only one GOD who is Allah,
b – Muhammad (pbuh) is his final prophet )
2. To observe the 5 daily prayers as a minimum
3. To give in charity
4. To perform pilgrimage to Mecca at least once
5. To fast during Ramadhan
… Where is the mention of Jihad ????????
From the very little I know, I say that Muhammad only allowed fighting for times
of persecution or oppression. It is a misrepresentation of Islam to think that
Muslims want to conquer & convert everyone. Muslims just want to be left the hell
alone to do their own thing. They are a peace-loving people, but if you push them into a corner – they will come out fighting. This is not intolerance – this is just intelligence.
Persons of all religious persuasion – would probably agree that under times of
persecution, violence is acceptable as a last resort.
If you want to see an example of a stable, tolerant Muslim country –
Look at Turkey. There are night clubs within eyesight of the primary
Mosques. The leadership of that country has done the impossible …
allowed some western influence while still retaining Islamic identity.
Under Islam, Jews & Christians are to be protected – I think with some negotiations
Vaisnavas & various Hindus would probably find a place as well.
I’d also like to add, that Hare Krishnas can also suffer from the same kind of
superior attitude over outsiders. We label them as ‘KARMIS’ – and at the same time
wear our saffron robes and try to make moves to marry our favourite brahmacarini.
Actually, to be completely without material desire is a rare platform.
We should be careful not to critisize other faiths for elitism, and at the same time
we got the same problem even with thinking ourselves superior over devotees
who are practising in a differenmt way.
Prabhupada said that those who chant Hare Krishna are the best in the room
and other similar comments. But he also praised Jesus as the son of God,
and everywhere he went he tried to encourage Christians to at least be vegetarian.
So I think it is helpful to be true to ones own beliefs, but at the same time having
an appreciation for the good qualities in other faiths. We should be open-minded that
there are good people in other faiths too. This way we can all get along.
Otherwise, we can end up like Iraq & just bomb the hell out of each other,
until we finally end up with a clear winner. And amongst the smoking ruins
of the world we can pat ourselves on the back for finally proving that God
is only on our side. No – I’d prefer positive appreciation of other faiths.
Hare Krsna. You are all welcome to state opinions based upon distanced liberal interpretations, but the fact remains that DEATH is the sentence for preaching Vaisnavism in Saudi Arabia, which is the quintessence of the Sunni conservative oppressive state. Non-mulsims are not allowed in any mosque. No other scripture other than the Qu’ran is allowed, neither the practice of any other religion.
Muslims blew up Buddha’s statues in Afghanistan, destroyed every religious building
( including the very ancient Mahalaxmi Temple ), except mosques in cities in Pakistan, tore down Rupa Goswami’s Govinda mandira, continue to blow up innocents, whipped Haridasa Thakura, etc. etc. If this is the sort of world you approve of, then by all means appease the muslim aggressors. They have totally distorted religion and are using it to abuse everybody else; not all, of course, just the vast majority.
Those who are naive enough to think that Islam is non-sectarian better think again, before they are the next victims. Under Muslim rule, Krsna is considerded a demon, and followers of Hinduism are Satan’s dupes, to be killed as required or desired. Beheadings occur regularly, every Friday, in Riyadh.
I know, because I lived in Riyadh for three years, and Kuwait City for 1/2. There are factions, of course, who have a more Western oriented viewpoint, but those who are open-minded have to cower and hide before the fanatics who rule. It is hard to find a Muslim who in their real heart and face doesn’t wish death and destruction to Vaisnavas, as they perceive that they are fighting to establish the kingdom of Allah on earth; everyone who opposes is to be put to the sword, as personally demonstrated by their Prophet. Read the Hadithas, which are the pastimes of the Prophet and associates. The Qu’ran has been misunderstood and misapplied. Perhaps Salman Rushdie is right; are there satanic verses in the Qu’ran?
Tamoharadasa (ACBSP)