Talking about jihad with the Dalai Lama
This is a scene that immediately captured my imagination: last week, in the preacher’s room at Memorial Church in Cambridge, the Dalai Lama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his advocacy of non-violence, turned to one of Harvard’s leading scholars of Islam and asked him about the meaning of jihad.
The Tibetan Buddhist leader briefly mentioned the exchange in his speech to at the church; it took me a few days to get more details, and now, here they are:
The 73-year-old Dalai Lama had been to Harvard multiple times, and on a couple of occasions had met Professor William A. Graham (right), a noted Koranic scholar who for the last several years has been the dean of Harvard Divinity School. The Divinity School, as well as the Harvard Graduate School of Education, co-hosted the Dalai Lama’s Harvard event last week, so Graham was with the Dalai Lama in a room behind the sanctuary while the assembly watched Tibetan dancers and listened to the strange sounds of a dhung-chen, a traditional Tibetan horn that sounded to me like a cross between a didgeridoo and a shofar. The Dalai Lama, preparing to give his speech about the teaching of compassion, was apparently thinking about the role of a divinity school at an institution like Harvard – he later talked about the importance of teaching comparative religion in university settings -- when he turned to Graham and asked him about Islam. I later caught up with Graham by phone, and here’s what he told me:
"We were simply talking about the virtues of doing comparative religion studies, which he believes in, and he said so many things are misunderstood, like jihad. He said he was thinking about the differences between greater and lesser jihad in Muslim jurisprudence. He had a few things to say about it – I didn’t get much of a chance to respond to anything – but he’s quite correct that the word jihad has been misused. Any traditionalist who knows his Islamic law knows that jihad is fundamentally defensive. The tendency has always been, with Muslim religious thought, to say the real jihad is the inner struggle with oneself, and the lesser jihad is actually having to take up arms. And, even then, Muslim law has ruled consistently that it has to be for defense of Islam. Obviously, various political leaders have taken and misused that -- rulers have always been able to find someone who can give a fatwa, saying it’s because they’ve been threatened or attacked or whatever, to say this is legitimately a jihad. But that’s why 9/11 was so thoroughly condemned by mainstream Muslim legal scholars and clerics, saying this should not be construed as an act of jihad."
Graham described the exchange as a form of "chit-chat" and said the point was "we need to understand more about other traditions – he was mostly just saying we need to know more."
But the Dalai Lama also seemed to draw a second lesson from the exchange, because in his opening remarks he not only paid tribute to the importance of educating students about religions other than their own, but he also made a more specific point, that Islam, like Buddhism and other religions, emphasizes compassion (the Dalai Lama’s most frequently mentioned priority). The Dalai Lama made his point visually, as well as verbally, pulling off his wrist his Buddhist prayer beads - called a mala -- while referring to Muslim rosaries and talking about how Islam fits into the family of faiths. Here’s what he said as he began his speech (his English is a little rough, but his meaning is clear):
"It is very, very important for religious school: comparative study of different traditions. Sometimes, unfortunately, the different religious faiths, sometimes instead of helping people, sometimes divide. In worst case, even bloodshed take place in the name of different faith. That not only in the ancient time, but also modern times sometimes it happen. So therefore the study of different traditions is very, very helpful, and I think make familiar to people there are many different tradition, and all tradition, in spite different philosophy, all have same purpose, to bring inner peace. And with that, I think all religion talks about sense of spiritual brothers, sisters, and also love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment, self-discipline, all tradition consider these are very valued, these are important.
So, while we just were waiting there, I asked you, from the special field of Islam…I asked the meaning of jihad. In certain way, when threat towards one’s own tradition happening, then, for protection or defense one’s own faith, then certain kind of appropriate action. So that kind of concept I think all religion have the same sort of use. So sometimes people, it’s a little exaggerated: Islam is more militant, because of few individuals misuse to action. So since September 11th event, in many occasion I always come forth, with a defense of Islam. Islam like any other major tradition. I think the very praising Allah means love, infinite love, compassion, like that. I understand Islam, they usually carry rosary, all 99 beads, different name of Allah, all refer compassion, or these positive things.No religion, no religious tradition say their god is full of hatred, full of anger, nobody say that. So Allah means infiniteness of love. So genuine follower of that kind of god, the meaning is, must practice love, compassion, because they are genuine follower of that kind of god. So in that case, more faith towards one’s own god, the person should be more compassionate person. That’s logical like that.
So it’s wonderful, comparative study. Usually my approach, about interfaith, and promoting religious harmony: firstly make clear all the differences. Then try to analyze the purpose of these different approach, different philosophy. Then more or less you can find that all different approach, all different method, different concept, meant for promote love, compassion, forgiveness, honesty, truthful, these things. So like medicine. There are a variety of medicine. Each medicine different. But all same purpose: cure illness. Some medicine serve to some illness. Some medicine is very harmful, very dangerous. But overall, all meant for better health, cure illness. So similarly, all religion like that."
(Photos of the Dalai Lama at Memorial Church by Mark Wilson of the Globe staff, 4/30/09. Photo of William Graham by Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard University News Office.)
Comment
Permalink
E-mail
I hope for the world's sake Professor Graham is correct, but other scholars disagree with him. Here are some of the pertinent verses from Holy Qur'an:
Sura 9:29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Sura 8:12. Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
Sura 4:76. Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.
Professor Graham's colleague at Princeton U., the eminent Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical [Muslim] theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [i.e., specialists in the hadith] ... understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."
Also, the 'aggressive' example of the Prophet would seem to point against the interpretation offered by Graham.
On the other hand, I have thoroughly enjoyed the visit by the good and wise Dalai Lama to the Boston area.
@gaudete:
"the 'aggressive' example of the Prophet?" Let's examine his life ... until the age of 40 he was considered by his fellow Meccans to be the most honest person; then at 40 he received revelation and the same Meccans turned against him and his small number of followers; for 13 years he and his followers endured all kinds of cruel treatment (see Valley of Talib, emigrations, Taif, etc.); forced to migrate to Medina (while bounty hunters pursued him); 8 years later returned to Mecca; died a year later. It was during his 8 years in Medina that he participated in three major battles. The one fact that can't be overlooked is that during all these battle the death toll on both sides combined wasn't greater than 500. I urge you to research this issue further. It's a shame that a majority of Muslims (Maudoodians) have embraced this violent view of Jihad (and Islam). It has created such a hatred in the hearts of 'westerners' that they can't see beyond the daily images seen on tv.
I continue to be amazed at Mr. Paulson's continued attempts as being an apologist for certain religions that make no demands on its followers.
But I am really surprised that he is using the Dalia Lama's visit as a way to explain away Islam's calls and agenda for a ridgid theocracy. Given Mr. Paulson's penchant for the agendas of feminists, homosexuals and abortionists why is this?
I am guessing, but I think Mr. Paulson knows that if certain Muslim elements could complete their vision of society those that he gives a forum here to foment , in my opinion primarily the bigots of the Catholic faith, those bigots would be the first to be eraditcated. Yes, violently.
I think I know why Mr. Paulson likes what the Dalia Lama has to say, but it has nothing to do with Islam.
Let's discuss....
MZ, i grant everything you said in your post. I would just point out that 3 battles for the Prophet is 3 more than for Jesus, Buddha, Confucius combined. I for one do not "hate" Muslims or anyone else. I do however have a righteous hatred for those who misuse religion to for example, drive planes into sky scrapers or to sexually abuse children. i have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are good, peaceful people. I just make my comments in the spirit of the dialogue called for by the Dalai Lama. Dialogue should mean even telling the truth to one's esteemed neighbor, for their own good.
Anyone can check clearly what is written in Quran. however we have to read to full text and not cherry picking Geert Wilder, Robert Spencer etc.
Can anyone provide proof that Prophet Muhammad did killed or hurt any Christian?Prophet Muhammad even prayed when King of Ethopia who is a Christian and believe in One Almighty God died
How many thousand were killed when Muhammad capture Mekah?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca
What Non Muslim Scholar said about Muhammad?
http://www.answering-christianity.com/philosophers.htm
The post by Gaudete is typical attack on Islam that relies on quoting snippets of the Qur'an out of context and citing acts of political power hungry leaders to pain the entire religion with one color: Prof. Graham's point is succinct nuanced. Jihad as prescribed in the Qur'an is defensive and retributive but politicians may have used it differently.
Take Gaudete's quote of 9:29; if he looked at the opening of the chapter, it provides the context for waging the war: the believers were driven out of their homes, their treaties were broken unilaterally, and they were threaten, and then comes the authorization to wage war... nothing special there, here are some of the verses that Gaudete left out (translator is and verse number are cited for readers to verify on their own:
9:06:
YUSUFALI: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
009.007
YUSUFALI: How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.
009.012
YUSUFALI: But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
009.013
YUSUFALI: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
...
then comes 9:29
so take it in the context of fighting those who fought the 'believers' and exiled them from their homes.... and that is what Prof. Graham meant by defensive war: a war that is response to others' aggression and others' breaking of treaties... Not pre-emptive war, not colonial war, not occupation war.
Also, the wording in the Qur'an is clear, in English the word was the pagans referring to Mushrik. So the war is not of "Muslims" against non-Muslims, it is of the Believers against the pagans. Who are the believers you may ask; here is what the Qur'an say about that:
002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe, and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
005.069
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
gaudete:
I appreciate where you're coming from, but to offer the most incendiary verses (especially taken out of context) and to state that the 'aggressive example of the Prophet' appears to portray a different tone. Had the Prophet and early followers really believed that they had an obligation to kill everyone who didn't accept Islam, wouldn't they have killed off the entire Arab population and left a handful of followers to practice the faith? Again, the fact is that when Mecca 'fell' to the Muslims less than 10 people were killed, and all of them were criminals (some historians have argued that even these 10 were not executed). The fact is that at that time, even the most hardened enemy was forgiven. I wish people had such an 'aggressive' attitude today!
As a Muslim, I too despise those that spread hatred in the name of religion, especially Islam because I practice Islam and I don't hate anyone--that is not what Islam has taught me. In fact, Islam has taught me to pray for those that are misguided (we can debate the meaning of Jihad and its proper context) because this is what the Prophet used to do for his enemies ('So haply thou wilt grieve thyself to death for sorrow after them if they believe not in this discourse.' 18:6).
As for the physical Jihad, it has no place in today's world. The Jihad that is often quoted by Islamists and Orientalists was for a people that was persecuted and God says that persecution is worse than killing. It's so sad, then, that a majority of 'Muslim' nations persecute minorities today.
Finally, as for the Prophet having been engaged in three battles too many, again I encourage you to read more about the context of these battles. The fact is that when the Romans came for Jesus, no one stood by him and he was crucified (though I don't believe he died on the cross). However, when the Meccans came after the Prophet, people of Medina offered to protect him (see treaties signed at Medina). The fact is that the Prophet was a human, not a 'god' (according to the Christian faith, which of course means that actions of Jesus can never be good examples for mortals, but that's a different discussion), so can you really compare the actions of the two?
Demhas,
I did not nor do not attack Islam itself, just like i don't like my Christian religion to be attacked. I merely pointed out some verses which seemed to point in the wrong direction, and sought out deeper understanding, which you have provided, especially about context. Very often folks quote the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures out of context too. But even the last verse you cite, Sura 5:69 seems to refer to, not killing the Peoples of the Book, but placing them into dhimmitude, a kind of 2nd class citizenship in which no new churches are allowed to be built, special extra tax to be paid, etc.; or am I wrong? I think where we agree is deploring those "politicians" and others who willfully misinterpret the 3rd monotheistic religion into a justification of, not defensive violent response, which is ok, but regional or world conquest.
I agree with the Dalai Lama that we need to have a better understanding of each others faith. What good is faith if we can't enrich the lives of others and live in peace with our neighbors? Muslims have done a terrible job of promoting their faith through dialogue (partially because Muslims lack common sense and partially because the media overwhelmingly promotes violent images of Muslims and partially because Muslims have had to deal with terrible leaders for the past few centuries). There is a 'next generation' of young Muslims in western countries that is much better suited to represent the true Islam, so there is hope. I wish the media would promote them more than the lunatics run astray by political/material ambition.
In response to the Dalai Lama's statement that all religions serve to heal the soul (medicine), let me just say that no religion promotes that better than Islam. As Muslims we are required to believe in all the prophets (Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Budha, etc.) and all the books (Torah, Bible, Vedas, etc., we believe they were of divine source, but their message was for a limited time/people). No other religion can make such a claim.
It amazes me that people read this books like they like are the Bible or something... oh wait.
Religion is a silly, outdated concept. Haven't you guys realized that by now?
Islam is a backwards, primitive way of thinking. Therefore I think muslims are backwards and primitive.
Jdizzle:
Which of your personal values is not rooted in religion? Religion is slammed for being responsible for war and other kinds of abuse, but can't one argue that the perpetrators of those actions were/are only using religion as a cover? Isn't it true that there are many more people who do good for the sake of God, then those that promote disorder? Here's my thought: I believe there is a God and we will be judged for our actions on earth (there are no automatic passes); if I'm wrong--oh, well--I lived a humble/good life (treating others with respect, serving mankind, no gambling, no alcohol, etc.), but if I'm right I get my reward (and no I don't care for virgins because I don't believe the afterlife will be in the physical state that one likes to imagine). Why the strong condescension for this view?
chris:
Normally, I ignore such comments, but I need a good laugh, so please define the forward and modern way of thinking. By the way your logic is impeccable! Actually, you may have had a point had you reversed your position: "Muslims are backwards, primitive ... therefore ..." (of course that would have meant ignoring centuries of oppressive rule under Muslim and Colonial regimes alike, but why let the facts get in the way of a good argument).
Gaudete,
With all due respect, you did attack Islam, not politicians or interpreters of it when you quoted Quran text. Your first post clearly suggested that Prof. Graham had it wrong because he did not take into account the verses you cited. I pointed out that the verses you cited were taken out of context because it actually supported the defensive war theory that prof. Graham put forth. You continued to blur the lines between "islam" and politicians when you pointed out in your response that the verses I quoted confirms the second class status of the People of the Book; how do you get that from the verses and only form the verses? True Muslim politician’s treated –at times—the People of the Book as second class citizens, but that is not what those two verses say: “they shall have no fear and they shall be rewarded” on equal footage. So don’t mix the two (politics and Quran). Every religion was used by politicians and religious authorities: remember Pope Pius and other popes and religious authorities sanctioned the Crusades; religious authorities in Spain sanctioned the mass murder and forced conversion of natives it the Americas. Catholic Religious authorities were found guilty of child rape… But That does not allow me to say anything negative about the essence of Christianity. I just hope you do the same.
I am not going to dignify the other incendiary comments by other posters with an answer; Ignorance ought to be ignored!
Peace!
As a person who has grown up and lived for 35 years under communism I must say I find many arguments familiar. For all 35 years I heard that the idea of communism was great, pure and noble and it was only individuals (i. e. "politicians") who corrupted it. No criticism of Holy Marks, Engels and Lenin words and deeds was allowed.
Then it turned out that the idea itself was one great lie.
I renounce the insane comment of Chris, especially if he claims to be a Christian.
jdizzle, your total rejection of religion, while your right, is characteristic of the 'modern' world, which coincides approximately with the so-called enlightenment (only in the West, to our shame), from about 1600 until recently. Perhaps you hadn't heard that all philosophers agree, that we are now in the 'post-modern' phase, in which the postive contributions of the enlightenment (roughly, our Bill of Rights plus non-dogmatic science) are blended with the ancient,
wise teachings of the various religions. Its not either/or, its both/and. Your attitude contradicts both the spirit of the Dalai Lama and the enlightenment teachings on tolerance.
Demhas, With regard to child rape by Christian clergy, totally indefensible actions of grotesque, sick criminals, completely unrepresentative of the vast majority of
Christians and clergy, as you said. Those evil doers directly contradicted the teachings of Christ and the church. They have given the Catholic church such a bad name that we will not completely recover from it in my lifetime.
Regarding the crusades, as a Muslim, I can understand how you would completely reject them. However, i think it is at least possible to advance the theory that they were partially to defend Christian pilgrims who were being pre-
vented from having pilgrimage to Jerusalem and other holy places. Also, one can look at them as delayed reaction, 'just war' defensive wars to liberate the territories of Spain, North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean which had been solidly Christian territories prior to to the Arab (i don't say Muslim) conquest of the 7th and 8th centuries. I am sure you will not agree with this interpretation, but i think the cause of peace is better served by frankness spoken in love, rather than harboring grudges often based on misperceptions of the other. Certainly many crusaders were guilty of unjustifiable cruelties as they carried out what they believed to be their duty. They were promised higher places in heaven (no virgins, though!), like some un-Muslim violent jihadis.
I believe the Hebrew word 'shalom' is similar to that of the Arabic, saalam?
Grzegorz:
Can't you make that same argument about any social/economic philosophy? Tell me what you like and I'll find holes in it. I understand your frustration, though, but faith in God is something you have to experience. Otherwise, faith becomes a matter of academic debate, which serves no one.
MZ
I would argue that faith in a missing, illusory deity is something which needs to be approached from a viewpoint of academic debate. Someone pointed out that we are all atheists regarding just about every god ever created by man. Some of us just go one god further.
You mention that faith in god is something you have to experience. I did. I grew up with it. It's ironic, that going through school people thought I would grow up to be a priest. Then, I was molested by one. I buried it, but being in the church became very uncomfortable and I couldn't understand why. So, I studied my faith and any other I could. I learned something about Islam, Judaism, Shinto, Buddhism and others. I found none really, intellectually, made sense.
I learned that religions were created to answer questions that we know/knew not the answers to. Lighting sets a tree on fire, prehistoric man does not know why, so he creates a story about a fire god, after reacting with “someone up there is stronger than me and very unhappy.” The first religion is born of fear. Over the centuries it hasn’t changed, religions born of fear and ignorance have tried to answer the eternal questions, and failed. Over the centuries, particularly with the birth of monotheistic religions, those who didn’t believe were persecuted, tortured and killed if they wouldn’t convert.
This is the history of organized religion. The answer to all unanswered is “you have to have faith.” I was raised to believe that faith was a virtue. I learned that that is a fallacy. I learned that believing in something which cannot be supported with historical or factual evidence outside of religious texts is similar to religious faith, not real. I learned that believing in Jesus or Allah is no different from believing in Zeus or Odin. Faith in god is something I have experienced, deeply. I am better off, now, without it, looking at life through realistic eyes, taking credit or blame for my own actions, responsibility for what I do. Doing the right thing because it is the right thing, not because of a fantasy of an afterlife. If I fail it is because I didn’t work hard or smart enough, not because I didn’t pray hard enough.
"all have same purpose, to bring inner peace."
How can the Dalai Lama speak seriously about comparative religious study when he says such a thing as quoted above about "different religious faith," when inner peace is not the purpose of any religion I'm aware of, except for Buddhism, which isn't really a religious faith! It's certainly far from the purpose of the world's most prevalent religion - Christianity. That would be like saying sweating is the purpose of exercise. I liked him a lot more before he opened his mouth - this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
agree with Nobel Peace Prize winner Dalai Lama and Prof. William Graham on their understanding of the "differences between greater and lesser Jihad in Muslim jurisprudence."
Jihad Against the Abuse of Jihad
Thursday 26 March 2009
by: Abukar Arman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
In light of the rampant extremism and militarism around the world, nothing proves more dangerous than the manipulation of truth for political ends. This tactic facilitates the demonization process that blurs ideologies and beliefs in both the West and the Islamic world. And, no concept is more abused by both sides than the concept of Jihad.
To Muslim extremists and their cronies, Jihad is a narrowly defined license to fight their perceived enemies (including Muslims, as is the case in Somalia) even if that leads to atrocities against civilians. And to Western extremists and their cronies, Jihad is a religiously sanctioned, perpetual holy war led by militant non-state actors sworn to destroy Western values and civilization.
However, Jihad is a complex concept deeply embedded in Islam. It is a principle that all Muslims who adhere to the teachings of their religion embrace. And, contrary to prevalent post-9/11 perception, the concept does not connote senseless violence against innocents or suicide bombings.
While the concept carries different relevance for different people, the Arabic word means to strive or struggle toward achieving a higher aim, which includes the "struggle in the way of God." It can also mean to defend oneself, or to strive against injustices. Finally, Jihad means the attainment of the ultimate goal of Tazkiyatul Nafs, or purification of the soul - morally, spiritually and ethically. Indeed, it is this latter aspect, the Jihad with oneself as one resists temptations and strives against his/her evil tendencies, which Prophet Muhammad referred to as "the Greater Jihad." The purification of the soul, or simply self-purification, is an around-the-clock process of deep introspection.
Despite great achievements in the fields of science and technology; in the compilation and standardization of knowledge; and, yes, in the art of its dissemination, humanity still remains in an embryonic, if not an imbecilic, stage when it comes to morality and ethics....
You may read the rest of the piece by clicking the link below
http://www.truthout.org/032609A
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Blogger
E-mail mpaulson@globe.com.
Articles of Faith on Twitter
views
featured comments
Faith-based gardening: A rose for the popebrowse this blog
by categoryEVENTS
CAUSES
BLOGROLL
Headlines
Media blogs
Media criticism
Politics
Catholicism
Episcopalianism
Evangelicalism
Islam
Judaism
Mormonism
Unitarian Universalism
ALSO OF INTEREST
From our archives
Ma Siss's Place
Benedict visits the US
O'Malley's elevation
The new pope
Pope John Paul II
Parish closings
Catholic church abuse
INside Boston.com