SuttaCentral
then the question begging to be asked is ‘why bother? what are the benefits?’
Christianity has undergone hundreds of years of development in parallel with the Western society, i don’t see why the Western society at its current stage of development has to go back in history to repeat the whole process all over again this time with Islam, that would be living someone else’s history and doing someone else’s job
Well, how many Christians do heed St. Paul’s words that women should keep silence in church or that the ‘sodomists’ will never inherit the Kingdom of God? How many Christians fast nowadays? How many Catholic Christians believe in Holy Prepuce? Still, all these doctrines and relics do exist and were never cancelled by the Church. In a way, making a doctrine irrelevant means making people ignore it to a certain extent or even ignore it completely if it cannot be revised, I just wanted to put it more diplomatically.
I am afraid it can open a huge can of worms. For me, the historical circumstances of the formation of Islam seem to be among the worst potential points of contention between us and the Muslims. It’s just like studying the early Mormon history: not a very pretty sight. Studying the rich intellectual tradition of the Muslim theology and early Muslim philosophy can be a better thing for both sides as there are relatively little politics involved. Of course, if you can talk about the political context of the Early Islam in a more or less sterile academic environment, sure, but even then it may potentially lead to huge outcry in the more orthodox Muslim circles and the more conservative non-Muslim population, because, well, mass murders will be called mass murders, political assassinations will be called political assassinations, early conquest attempts resembling quasi-Crusades on Sicily, in the Continental Italy, Southern France and Spain will be also called just that, so one should be very very cautious when talking about such things.
This is not quite true. For example, five hundred years ago almost any Christian would say all non-Christians will go to hell, end of story, today most of them will not be that categoric. Re-interpretation of many other Christian tenets gave birth to the Protestant Christianity.
Certainly, this re-interpretation should happen within the theological tradition of the concerned religion. So, a state or maybe diaspora itself may educate a new generation of theologists, like Mouhanad Khorchide in Germany or Abdurrahman Reidegeld in Austria. Optional religious education in schools can also help, since the society may form the curriculum more to its liking. Finally, in teh case of Islam, re-igniting the interest to the more acceptable theological traditions, like the long-ignored Mu’tazila may also help. I mean, we as Buddhist shouldn’t tell the Muslims what thez have to believe, but I don’t think it is totally impossible to influence the religious preferences of at least Western Muslims in a subtle way, although this can be a fairly tricky task.
I definitely agree to you in what concerns our ideas or suggestions of a political solution for this conflict. Yet, in everything that concerns Buddhism it is our duty to say: ‘It is better to marry a dog than a Muslim, you say? Well, the Blessed One didn’t teach that sort of thing, sorry.’
Mostly, because you can’t stop the inevitable. There are already millions of Muslims in Europe, and there will be more whether we want it or not. You can’t deport all of them since very many citizens of European states. Even if you close the borders full Trump-style, there still will be millions of Muslims in the EU and US. Curing the symptoms will hardly help, so a more active approach may prove to be fruitful.
I am racially or genetically Semitic however I do not agree with ‘identity politics’ because I think most conflicts occur due to specific kamma (intention & action) rather than due to race or other broad self & social identification constructs (a.k.a ‘jati’).
For example, one group may oppose another group because of actions (kamma) performed by that other group (rather than for the identity of that group). However, sometimes, this kamma can merge with identity when characteristic actions are the actual culture of an identity group.
I think ‘identity politics’ is not a sound epistemology because, it not only views outer appearances (pātubhāvo) rather than underlying causes (hetu-paccaya), but it also contributes greatly to conflicts since the Dhamma teaches ‘identity’ (sakkaya ditthi) is a major cause of suffering.
While a specific identity group may claim identity rights or concessions, the opposition of the opposing group will be exacerbated due to the very construct of identity. In short, identity politics is very easily manipulated on both sides of the divide.
It is suggested by some that the current Syrian crisis was largely financed by the nation of Qatar, whose proposal for a major gas pipeline running via Syria was rejected by the Syrian government. Yet identity constructs do not view the Syrian conflict as an economic or imperialist conflict but view it as a conflict between Islamic sects (even though the existing Syrian government is secular).
Similarly, there have been suggestions the Rohingya crisis reached a serious level or starting point after the discovery of oil & gas offshore Rohingya land. Where there is offshore oil & gas (in the sea), there can be onshore oil & gas (on the nearby land). Yet identity constructs do not view the Rohingya conflict as a possible economic or imperialist conflict but view it as a conflict between Buddhists & Muslims (even though Buddhism is not the official national religion of Burma).
Semitic people have lived reasonably well together for hundreds of years under Islamic rule & often major conflicts have occurred between previously harmonious sub-cultures due to ulterior motives of external or special interest groups.
For example, when Jewish people were expelled from Spain in 1492, many Jewish families were offered residence in Turkey by the Islamic Sultan. Yet when it became evident in the 1920s that previously welcomed European Jews in Palestine intended to create their own state, conflict started between European Jews & local Arabs (both Muslim & Christian).
Or in Lebanon in the 1850s, the nurturing of conflict by various imperialist powers between the previously highly harmonious Lebanese Islamic Druze and Christian Maronites resulted in what is known as the Lebanese Diaspora. Here, the British were said to support the Islamic Druze in some attempt to expand their sphere of influence in the Ottoman Empire.
Similarly, Buddhists & Muslims have often lived harmoniously in Burma & Thailand. When I lived in Thailand, there was a nearby (and beautiful) Muslim village, where I visited a traditional Muslim doctor for herbal medicine.
Identity politics allows events such as 9/11 to be so easily manipulated for conflict. It is without question both Islamophobia & Islamic extremism increased as a result of 9/11 (despite many people questioning the causation of 9/11). But once ‘identity politics’ starts gathering momentum, it is so difficult to stop
To end, I think major conflict generally occurs for far greater & deeper reasons than ‘identity’. If ‘identity’ is the focus, investigating the complex sphere of kammic causality may not occur.
It seems like we’re all in the same page, that each religion got its own issues. And that we’re not into the romantic idea that all religions are the same.
I think another way to view this is to understand that a Muslim doesn’t mean he accepted everything in Quran, it just means that he’s raised in Muslim family and inherited the belief. Probably 99% of the time he is thinking about how to earn more money to raise his family comfortably. 99% of the time we’re also thinking about worldly things rather than Nibbana. So 99% of the time we’re thinking about the same thing.
Finally everyone’s cool, after so much of discussion 
At least Europe could try to contain it.
For example, German Chancellor Merkel’s generous gesture of receiving all Syrian refugees (unilaterally decided, without consulting the other EU countries) is magnanimous, but, when we don’t send back these refugees when hopefully one day the war is finished, we will end up with many problems which we will pass on to the next generations, too.
Often, Islamic values are absolutely not in accordance with Western values and as long as that is not the case, better be safe than sorry instead of leading our countries to the brink of civil war or expose them to the danger of terrorism.
It is not always good mixing people with very different views.
If it’s a bad mix, people will learn eventually and laws will be established to contain the problem. For example, China can contain the extremism problem quite well, so it’s not the end of the world. Anyway just let it be, only time will tell, we can’t control the world.
Well, European enlightenment values are not really in accordance with European Catholic values, and neither are in accord with European reformation Calvinist values. And none of them are in accord with European, Jewish values. Nevertheless, people who live in close proximity generally find ways of getting along with one nother.
Well, of course, problems can always be controlled in a way, but in continental Europe we have the Rechtsstaat-idea:
From Wikipedia:
A Rechtsstaat is a “constitutional state” in which the exercise of governmental power is constrained by the law,[2] and is often tied to the Anglo-American concept of the rule of law, but differs from it in that it also emphasizes what is just (i.e., a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity). Thus it is the opposite of Obrigkeitsstaat (a state based on the arbitrary use of power).
A rechtsstaat also means a separation of powers ("trias politica) ( Separation of powers - Wikipedia ) and this is unsufficiently the case in China.
Being a rechtsstaat, it is much more difficult to contain extremism because of civil liberties.
I beg to differ: You only have to look at the sectarian terrorism in, for example, Iraq or Pakistan and you can see that this is far from being always true.
Sure, Europe could try to contain this - or not, depending on your political views. My point is not that Europe should or should not try to contain immigration from Muslim countries. My point is that there are millions of Muslims in Europe, and if the current demographical trends are true there will be more. So, Europe has to look for a solution anyway
One of the European and American problems is “free speech” and our inability to distinguish between freedom of speech on one hand and the abuse of freedom of speech on the other hand.
This inability is one of the causes of the dissemination of both islamic and right-wing extremism.
Changing our attitude to free speech and abandoning the thought that free speech should be unlimited, could be part of a solution.
Again, it sure can be. I think the radical Islamist preachers approving of the Islamist participation in the war in Syria should be treated by the state as strictly as the Nazis spreading their hateful ideology. I would also be happy if the more radical Sangha members in Myanmar and Sri Lanka: not all, I mean those who say ‘it is better to marry a dog than a Muslim’. This is a very important principle and there should be no compromses - either you allow the Nazis to march with swastikas through Berlin, or you censor the Islamist preachers and radical Buddhist preachers just as exentsively.
At the same time, it will not solve the problem. The Nazis are the most closely watched political force in Germany, but there still was the NSU. We may or may not limit the free speech, but we have to have a serious discussion about Islam.
But without being closely watched, the problem could have been much bigger, same with islamic extremism. Only, we tolerate much more from islamic extremism only because islam is a religion and Nazism not. That distinction is wrong. Extremism is extremism, no matter where it is coming from. Of course that is also valid when it comes from Buddhists.
When the problem becomes very serious, people will wake up and things will change, look at human history, remember the revolutions?
Here’s a link to a nice little album of Yangon street photos. Despite the conflict in the West of the country and hatred against Muslim spreading among certain circles of the Myanmar society, we should not forget how wonderfully accepting, kind, and understanding the Myanmar people can be 
it’s always best to be proactive and not allow the situation to be carried off to a revolution, in the short term revolutions bring very little good to people if at all
The ‘silent crisis’ of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh
[quote=“Cara, post:26, topic:4274, full:true”]
Ah, so we’ve reached that point of the online discussion have we 
…[/quote]
Looks like it – Godwin’s Law
