Buddhist-Muslim Doctrinal Relations:

Past, Present, and Future

Alexander Berzin

Originally published with extensive footnotes in
Buddhist Attitudes toward Other Religions,
ed. Perry Schmidt-Leukel.
St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2008, p. 212 236
Introduction
Buddhists and Muslims have interacted with one another culturally, politically,
economically, and sometimes militarily for the last thirteen and a half centuries.
Depending on the place, the time, and the individual persons and governments
involved, the interaction in all these spheres has spanned the spectrum from friendly
to hostile. Much attention has been paid to the history of these areas of interaction,
but less has been directed toward an analysis of doctrinal relations. In this paper,
after a survey of this facet of past and present relations, I should like to examine the
prospects and grounds for future dialogue. The discussion will focus primarily on the
Buddhist viewpoint toward doctrinal engagement, particularly within the
Indo-Tibetan-Mongolian cultural spheres.

Historical Survey of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates
The earliest contact between Buddhist and Muslim populations was in present-day
Afghanistan, eastern Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan when the region
came under the rule of the Arab Umayyad Caliphate in the mid-seventh century CE.
The Umayyad Iranian author, Umar ibn al-Azraq al-Kermani, took interest in
explaining Buddhism to his Islamic audience. Consequently, at the beginning of the
eighth century CE, he wrote a detailed account of the Nava Vihara Monasery in Balkh,
Afghanistan, and the basic Buddhist customs there, explaining them in terms of
analogous features in Islam. Thus, he described the main temple as having a stone
cube in the center, draped with cloth, and devotees as circumambulating it and
making prostration, as is the case with the Kaaba in Mecca.

Al-Kermanis writings were preserved in the tenth-century CE work, Book of Lands (Ar.
Kitab al-Buldan) by Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadhani. Buddhist scholars, however, do not
seem to have shown reciprocal interest in explaining the Muslim customs and beliefs
to the Buddhist audience. There is no recorded evidence of any such description at
this time.

From 715 until approximately 727 CE, Tibet had a military alliance with the
Umayyads. During that period, Caliph Umar II decreed that all Umayyad allies should
follow Islam. As an expedient means not to jeopardize the alliance, the Tibetan
Empress Jincheng requested an Islamic cleric be delegated to Tibet. The Caliph sent
al-Salit bin-Abdullah al-Hanafi. The Tibetan Buddhists, however, do not seem to have
taken any sincere interest in Islam. There are no records of any interfaith dialogue or
Tibetan Buddhist conversions to Islam having taken place as a result of this visit. The
cool reception was most likely due to the influence of the xenophobic opposition
faction at the Tibetan imperial court.

The next Buddhist-Muslim doctrinal interaction took place during the last half of the
eighth century CE, during the Abbasid Caliphate. Caliph al-Mahdi, followed by Caliph
al-Rashid, invited Buddhist scholars from India and the Nava Vihara monasery in
Balkh to the House of Knowledge (Ar. Bayt al-Hikmat) in Baghdad. There, he
commissioned them to help translate primarily medical and astronomical texts from
Sanskrit into Arabic. Ibn al-Nadims late tenth-century CE Book of Catalogues (Ar.
Kitab al-Fihrist), however, also listed several Buddhist works that were rendered into
Arabic at that time, such as an account of Buddhas previous lives, The Book of the
Buddha (Ar. Kitab al-Budd). The text was based on two Sanskrit works: A Rosary of
Previous Life Accounts (Skt. J a takam a l a) and Ashvaghoshas Deeds of the Buddha
(Skt. Buddhacarita).

Despite this interest in Buddhism demonstrated by Muslim scholars, there is no
corresponding account of Islamic beliefs or translation of Islamic texts by any
Buddhist scholars of that time. Nor is there any evidence of philosophical debate
with Muslim scholars in any of the Buddhist monasic universities, even when
Buddhist and Muslim communities lived in the same areas. Debates occurred only
with proponents of the various non-Buddhist Indian tenet systems and they occurred
primarily in central North India before the advent of Islam to that region. No mention
of Islamic beliefs appears in any of the Sanskrit Buddhist philosophical treatises,
either then or afterwards.

The Kalachakra Literature
The singular Buddhist textual tradition that mentions any Islamic customs or beliefs is
the Kalachakra Tantra literature, which emerged in the late tenth and early eleventh
centuries CE. The historical reference, however, is not to all Muslims in general, but
specifically to the adherents of late tenth-century CE eastern Ismaili Shia, as
followed in the Fatimid vassal state of Multan in present-day north central Pakistan.

At that time, the Ismaili Fatimids in Egypt and their Multanese allies were vying with
the Sunni Abbasids for control over the Muslim world. Thus, they posed a threat of a
two-pronged invasion of the Abbasid Empire sandwiched between them. Buddhists
and Hindus living together in the Abbasid vassal state of the Ghaznavids, in
present-day eastern Afghanistan, were caught in these frightening times. The
portions of the Kalachakra Tantra that dealt with the external world most likely arose
in response to this situation. They advised the Hindus to reaffirm their own spiritual
values and join together in one caste with the Buddhists and the rest of the
population, so as not to be absorbed by the invaders religion because of naivety and
disunity.

The Kalachakra description of the invaders religion indicates only a partial
understanding of the Islamic sects of the time. It included the pan-Islamic customs of
praying five times a day after washing and prostrating in the direction of the holy
land, taking singular refuge in one God in heaven, pursuing the spiritual goal of
enjoying heavenly happiness, destroying any statues of gods whatsoever, following
the halal method of slaughter of animals, eating only after sunset during the
Ramadan fast, keeping general cleanliness, honoring the equality of all men in one
caste without asserting the brahmans as a purer caste, circumcision, women
wearing veils, keeping strict ethics in general, and, specifically, not stealing, not lying,
and keeping marital fidelity. The pan-Islamic beliefs described include the assertions
of a Creator God called Rahman, the atomic nature of matter, individual eternal
souls that bear responsibility for their actions, and a Day of Judgment when, because
of pleasing him, Rahman sends souls for rebirth to a heavenly realm and, because of
displeasing him, to rebirth in a hell realm.

Certain specific details, such as the list of Islamic prophets and the assertion of a soul
that only an aspect of which takes temporary birth in worldly existence, base
themselves primarily on eastern Ismaili Shia, as formulated by Abu Yaqub al-Sijistani.
Some details, such as rebirth in heaven or hell with a human body, base themselves
on other Islamic theologians of that period. Other details are merely attempts to
explain Islamic beliefs in terms understandable to Buddhists and Hindus, such as
describing Muhammad as an incarnation of Rahman, much like Krishna being an
incarnation (Skt. avatara) of Vishnu.

The Kalachakra literature also highlights points shared in common between
Buddhism and Islam namely, the atomic nature of matter and souls that bear
responsibility for their actions. Without specifically refuting the Muslim
interpretations of these points, it indicates how to lead Muslims to an understanding
of the Buddhist assertions. The main issue that the Buddhist texts dispute is that
heavenly rebirth is the ultimate spiritual goal and the final attainment that any
person can reach, since this contradicts the central Buddhist assertion of final
liberation from karma and rebirth. The Buddhist texts also find fault with the halal
method of slaughter, which it describes as slitting the throats of animals while
reciting Gods mantra, Bismillah. The grounds for the critique, however, are a
misunderstanding of the Islamic custom, which they mistake for a blood sacrifice to a
god.

Continued Muslim Interest in Buddhism
There is no evidence that, during the next centuries, Muslim scholars became aware
of or addressed the problematic areas mentioned in the Kalachakra literature.
Interest in Buddhism, however, persisted among them, as seen in several historical
works; while, aside from Kalachakra exegetical commentaries, further Buddhist
interest in Islam was nil.

For example, during the Ghaznavid Dynasty, the Persian historian, al-Biruni,
accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni on his early eleventh century CE invasion of the
Indian subcontinent. Based on what he learned there, al-Biruni wrote A Book about
India (Ar. Kitab al-Hind). In it, he described the basic Buddhist customs and beliefs
and noted that the Indians regarded Buddha as a prophet. That does not mean, of
course, that he was suggesting that Muslims accept Buddha as a prophet of Allah,
but it does indicate that he understood that Buddhists do not assert Shakyamuni as
their God. Serving under the Seljuk Dynasty, al-Shahrastani repeated al-Birunis
account of Buddhism in his twelfth-century CE work, The Book of Religions and
Creeds (Ar. Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal).

The Mongols
In the late thirteenth century CE, Khubilai Khan, grandson of Chinggis Khan and
Emperor of Yuan China, adopted the Sakya form of Tibetan Buddhism. He employed
Central Asian Muslims as tax collectors in order to form a buffer between his Chinese
subjects and their Mongol rulers. At the start of his rule, Khubilai Khan permitted the
Muslims to retain all their customs. However, in response to his cousin and enemy,
Khaidus support of Muslims, Khubilai instituted anti-Muslim regulations. In 1280 CE,
he forbade circumcision and the halal method of slaughter. The latter injunction was
in accord with the jasagh code of laws of Chinggis Khan, which forbade desecrating
the earth with the blood of slaughtered animals. It had nothing to do with Buddhist
beliefs, only with pre-Buddhist Mongol customs. Thus, although Khubilai Khan
embraced Buddhism, his interaction with his Muslim subjects had nothing to do with
a Buddhist-Muslim doctrinal dialogue.

Buddhism was even spread by the Mongols to what had already become traditional
Muslim regions; but still the Buddhists showed no interest in the beliefs of the native
population. Specifically, during much of the Ilkhanate period, when the Mongols
ruled Iran in the last half of the thirteenth century CE, the Mongol Khans practiced
and spread the Tibetan form of Buddhism there. Sad al-Daula, the minister of
Arghun Khan, suggested that certain aspects of Islam be incorporated into the Khans
imperial policies. He advised that Chinggis Khan and his hereditary line be declared
prophets, much like the Shia line of imams, and that Arghun Khan follow
Muhammads example and found a universal Buddhist religious nation and convert
the Kaaba into a Buddhist temple. Although the Khan declared Buddhism the state
religion and invited many monks from Kashmir and Tibet to his realm, he did not
adopt his ministers other recommendations.

The next Ilkhanate ruler, Ghazan Khan, soon converted to Islam after ascending the
throne. When he commissioned his minister, Rashid al-Din, to write Universal History
(Ar. Jami al-Tawarikh), he instructed him to include descriptions of the belief systems
of the various peoples whom the Mongols had encountered, including Buddhism.
Thus, he invited to his court Bakshi Kamalashri, a Buddhist monk from Kashmir, to
assist Rashid al-Din with his work. The result of their collaboration was The Life and
Teachings of Buddha, which appeared, in both Arabic and Persian versions, as section
three of A History of India, the second volume of Universal History.

Like the previous works by al-Kermani and al-Biruni, Rashid al-Din explained
Buddhism in Muslim terms. Thus, he listed Buddha as one of the six religious
founders accepted as prophets by the Indians: three theistic Shiva, Vishnu, and
Brahma and three non-theistic Arhanta for Jainism, Nastika for the Charvaka
system, and Shakyamuni for Buddhism. He also referred to the deva gods as angels,
and Mara as Iblis, the Devil. The text also mentions the six rebirth realms, the laws
of karmic cause and effect, and that the words of the Buddha were preserved in the
Kangyur, the collection of their Tibetan translations.

Rashid al-Din also reported that in his day, eleven Buddhist texts in Arabic translation
were circulating in Iran. These included Mahayana texts such as The Sutra on the
Array of the Pure Land of Bliss (Skt. Sukhavativyuha Sutra) concerning Amitabhas
Pure Land, The Sutra on the Array Like a Woven Basket (Skt. Karandavyuha Sutra)
concerning Avalokiteshvara, the embodiment of compassion, and An Exposition on
Maitreya (Skt. Maitreyavyakarana) concerning Maitreya, the future Buddha and
embodiment of love. Some aspects of Rashid al-Dins description, however, were
quite fanciful. For instance, he claimed that before Islam, the people of Mecca and
Medina were Buddhists and worshipped idols resembling Buddha in the Kaaba.

A little over a century later, in the early fifteenth century CE, Hafiz-i Abru, serving in
the court of Shahrukh of the Timurid Dynasty in Samarkand, compiled A Collection of
Histories (Ar. Majma at-Tawarikh). The section in it concerning Buddha and Buddhism
based itself on Rashid al-Dins work.

Although histories of India written by Muslim scholars include descriptions of the
Buddhist beliefs, we do not find comparable accounts of the Islamic beliefs in
histories of India written by Tibetan or Mongolian Buddhist authors after the spread
of Islam in India. For example, in A History of Buddhism in India (Tib. rGya-gar
chos-byung) by the early seventeenth-century CE Tibetan scholar Taranatha, the
author described the early thirteenth-century CE destruction of the Buddhist
monaseries of central North India by the Muslim armies of the Guzz Turks during the
Ghurid Dynasty. Nevertheless, he remained completely silent about Islam itself.
Further, when, due to a famine in their homeland, Kashmiri Muslims settled in Tibet
in the middle of the seventeenth century CE and were peacefully integrated, with
special privileges, into Tibetan Buddhist society by the Fifth {D.} Lama, there was still
no doctrinal dialogue between the two religions.

Moreover, when discussing non-Buddhist beliefs, Indian, Tibetan and Mongolian
Buddhist texts of the tenet system genre (Skt. siddhanta, Tib. grub-mtha) have
focused primarily, if not exclusively, on native Indian systems. Even when these texts
go beyond the Indian cultural area and present non-Buddhist Chinese and indigenous
Tibetan beliefs, such as Crystal Mirror of Excellent Explanation Showing the Sources
and Assertions of All Tenet Systems (Tib. Grub-mtha thams-cad-kyi khungs-dang
dod-tshul ston-pa legs-bshad shel-gyi me-long) by the late eighteenth-century CE
scholar Tuken Lozang-chokyi-nyima (Tib. Tuu-bkvan blo-bzang chos-kyi nyi-ma), they
do not discuss Islam.

Only one exception to this trend of Buddhist non-interest in Islam stands out: the mid
nineteenth-century CE Mongolian novelist Injannashi. In his anti-Chinese and
anti-Manchu fictional work on Mongolian history, The Blue Chronicle (Mong. Kke
sudar), he points out that Islam and Buddhism share a common intent: goodness.
As an example, he cites the fact that both Muslim and Buddhist butchers slaughter
animals with a prayer for them to be reborn in heaven.

Suggested Explanation for the Traditional Buddhist Lack of Interest in Islamic
Doctrines
In general, then, both Buddhist and Muslim scholars took interest in other religious
systems when their own religion was spreading into areas with already established
native religions. The converse, however, was not the case. They showed little interest
in other religions that were spreading or trying to spread into regions in which their
own religion was the principal belief system.

Sometimes, Buddhism borrowed certain ideas from the native religions in the areas
to which it was spreading, or emphasized points in Indian Buddhism that resonated
with facets of those religions. For example, the bodhisattva ideal, pure lands, and
Amitabha, the Buddha of Infinite Light, have parallels in Zoroastrianism, as found in
the Iranian cultural areas. The Buddhist texts, however, did not hesitate to point out
ethically objectionable customs of these areas as well. The Great Commentary (Skt.
Mahavibhasa), for instance, compiled in Kashmir in the second century CE, described
incest and the killing of ants as being sanctioned by the Yonaka teachings. The
Yonakas refer, literally, to the Greek settlers of the Bactrian region of the Kushan
Empire, but more particularly to the Indo-Scythians living there, who were followers
of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. The sixth-century CE Indian Buddhist master,
Bhavaviveka, repeated the description of these objectionable Yonaka teachings in his
Blaze of Reasoning (Skt. Tarkajvala), the earliest example of the tenet system
literature.

In the case of Buddhism spreading to China, the first method used for textual
translation was called reaching the meaning (Chin. geyi, Wade-Giles: ko-i). This
entailed using Daoist and Neo-Daoist technical terms as analogous concepts for
translating Buddhist terminology. Some early Chinese Buddhist masters, such as
Zhidun in the early fourth century CE and Sengzhao in the early fifth century CE, even
explained voidness (emptiness) in terms of being and non-being. Confucian
values and ways of thinking also influenced the choice of translation terms, such as
substituting humans for sentient beings and explaining filial piety as a Buddhist
virtue. All of this implies, if not a dialogue, at least Buddhist knowledge of these
native Chinese systems.

In many other cases, Buddhist interest in non-Buddhist systems was prompted by
competition to gain royal patronage. Sometimes, both sides of the debates were
already established in the land. This was the case when the Buddhist scholars in the
monaseries of central North India debated with scholars from the various
non-Buddhist Indian religions and philosophical systems between the early fourth
and late twelfth centuries CE.

At other times, both sides were vying for royal favor so as to be adopted as the state
religion to unify an empire. Although the debate at Samyay (Tib. bSam-yas) Monasery,
Tibet, between Indian Madhyamaka and Chinese Chan masters, held in the last years
of the eighth century CE, was between two forms of Buddhism, it falls in this general
category. More pertinent cases, however, were the debates between the Buddhists
and Chinese Daoists held by Chinggis Khans grandsons to decide the state religion
for the new Mongol Khanates. The first debate was held at Mongke Khans court in
1255 CE and the second at his brother, Khubilai (Kublai) Khans court three years later.
The point of contention, however, was the Daoist claim that Buddha had been a
disciple of Laozi. The debates had little to do with philosophical doctrinal beliefs.

William of Rubruck, a thirteenth century CE Flemish Franciscan missionary, visited
the court of Mongke Khan. In his travel account, he described a debate about the
existence of only one God that took place at court in 1254 CE, primarily between
himself and a representative of the Tuin or idolater religion. Also present at the
debate were representatives of Nestorian Christianity and the Saracen religion,
namely Islam.

Although some scholars have characterized the debate as one that pitted Christianity
and Islam against Buddhism, this conclusion is questionable, based on William of
Rubrucks own account. First of all, the name Tuin derives from the Chinese dao-ren,
meaning people of the Dao. Apparently, the Franciscan monk relied on Chinese
translators at the Mongol court. Further, he described the Tuin as accepting the
Manichaean assertion of the universe being divided into good and evil. They believe
in a supreme god in the sky, he went on, but one that is not omnipotent, is purely
spirit, and has never taken human form. Ten other gods live beneath him, another
one under these ten, and then an infinite number of gods on earth. Although the
Tuins accept rebirth, he explained that they assert the existence of a soul. They have
celibate monks in their places of worship, who recite mantras, but the idols in these
temples are statues of the deceased and not of their supreme god.

Thus, it is highly unlikely that the Tuins were strictly Buddhists. It would appear that
William of Rubruck, in trying to explain their beliefs in Christian terms, conflated the
Buddhists, Daoists, and Manichaeans at Mongke Khans court all the so-called
idolaters. Further, according to the Franciscan monks account, the Muslims and
Nestorians did not actually contribute anything to the debate, but merely agreed
with his own assertions. Thus, we can hardly consider this debate as a
Buddhist-Muslim dialogue.

In summary, then, Buddhism took interest in the doctrines of other religions (1)
when it was spreading into non-Buddhist regions in which another religion was
dominant; (2) when, together with other foreign belief systems, it was being
considered for adoption as a state religion, or (3) it was vying with other religions for
royal patronage. Except for during a very brief period in Iran under the Ilkhans, Islam
did not fit into any of these situations as the other religion. But even then, when
the Mongols brought Buddhism to Islamic Iran, the Buddhists showed no interest in
the Muslim doctrines. The only time that Buddhism addressed the Islamic beliefs,
then, was when there was a threat of invasion by Islamic militant forces.

The Present Situation between Buddhist and Muslim Populations in Asia
These historical precedents seem to characterize Buddhisms current situation in the
world vis-a-vis other belief systems. Starting in the second half of the twentieth
century CE, Buddhism has been spreading in many areas of the world in which other
religions have been the traditional faith. This has led to a growing trend toward
interfaith dialogue between Buddhists leaders and leaders of the Christian and
Jewish faiths. Buddhism has not, however, been spreading to traditional Muslim
areas. Buddhist interest in dialogue with Muslims has been prompted, instead,
primarily by threats of upheaval, especially since the beginning of the twenty-first
century CE. Part of the threat stems from the violent circumstances of terrorist
attacks by militant Islamic extremists and the strong military responses to them. Part
of it stems from traditional economic rivalries between the Buddhist and Muslim
communities in Asia, exacerbated by the perceived threat of economic globalization.
In some cases, the situation has been complicated by the policies of past and present
colonial powers. Frequently, several of these factors are compounding each other.

In such dangerous situations, education and dialogue are indispensable, since many
people mistakenly confuse extremists with the Muslim population as a whole, and
their policies and tactics with the teachings of Islam. Moreover, some tend to blame
the violence solely on religious doctrine, and deny or ignore the political, cultural,
social, historical, and economic factors involved. Such shortsightedness worsens the
conflict.

For example, in Afghanistan, the Talibans destruction of the giant Buddha statues at
Bamiyan in 2001 CE was directed, perhaps, more as a protest against international
sanctions and withholding of humanitarian aid, rather than as an attack against
Buddhism and Buddhists per se. No Buddhists, after all, lived in Afghanistan,
worshipping the statues.

Bangladesh, on the other hand, has a one percent Buddhist minority, living primarily
in Chittagong Division and the Chittagong Hill Tracts. As an outcome of growing
Bangladeshi Islamic fundamentalism since the events of September 11, 2001 CE, a
certain amount of Muslim violence has broken out in these areas, directed against
the Buddhist population. Such violence, however, has not been limited to the
Buddhist community or to this area, but has included Christians throughout the
country as well. This is a clear example of an increase of violence since the War on
Terror and the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Although a constitutional
amendment had been passed in 1988 proclaiming an Islamic way of life for
Bangladesh, tension between the Muslim and Buddhist communities there had been
much less prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Malaysia and Indonesia are examples of countries in which economic factors have
compounded the communal tensions. Both countries have large native Muslim
populations, with relatively wealthier overseas Chinese Buddhist minorities. Only in
Indonesia, however, have the relations between the two ethnic communities become
tense. This has followed the economic crisis of 1997-1998 CE and the collapse of the
Suharto regime.

In Kashmir and Ladakh and in the Tibetan cultural regions of the Peoples Republic of
China, on the other hand, the Buddhist-Muslim conflicts have not reached the stage
of overt violence. Nevertheless, tension is present, primarily because of economic
rivalry between the two groups and not because of doctrinal differences. In the case
of the Tibetan cultural regions, the situation is exacerbated by the Chinese policy of
encouraging, supporting, and facilitating population transfer of non-Tibetans into
these areas.

Government policies have also been influencing the situation in Burma/Myanmar.
There, the ethnic clashes have been primarily by the Buddhists against the Rohingya
Muslims in Northern Rakhine State, Arakan. The violence reflects the general
Buddhist resentment of non-Buddhists settled among them, especially ethnic Bengali
Muslims. This resentment has developed in response to the British colonial
governments preferential treatment of non-Buddhists during their rule of the
country. The present military junta government has been taking advantage of this
prejudice by imposing severe restrictions on the Muslims through denying them
citizenship and is often accused by the Muslim population of fomenting the
Buddhists riots against them.

In southern Thailand, Muslim-Buddhist communal violence has stemmed from the
annexation of the Malay Muslim state of Pattani into Thailand as part of the
Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909 CE, and the lack of the subsequent integration of this
region into the predominantly Buddhist nation.

Modern Buddhist-Muslim Dialogue
In response to the critical situation in southern Thailand and the challenges in other
parts of Southeast Asia, the International Movement for a Just World and the Santi
Pracha Dhamma Institute convened a conference, in Penang, Malaysia, in 1996 CE,
for Buddhist-Muslim dialogue, called Alternative Politics for Asia. It emphasized
using the traditional wisdom and spiritual values of both religions to solve the
regional problems.

In 2004 CE, the Thai government established a National Reconciliation Committee to
try to find solutions to end the communal violence. Consequently, in November 2005
CE, this Committee, in conjunction with the Mahidol University Research Center for
Peace Building, sponsored a conference called Buddhism-Islam Dialogue: Violence
and Reconciliation in Salaya, Thailand.

Together with the International Network of Engaged Buddhists, the International
Movement for a Just World and the Santi Pracha Dhamma Institute sponsored a
follow-up conference, Buddhists and Muslims in Southeast Asia: Working towards
Justice and Peace in Bangkok, Thailand, in June 2006 CE. This conference resulted in
the Dusit Declaration. To foster mutual understanding and intercommunal harmony
between the two religious groups and eradicate stereotypy and prejudice, the
Declaration recommended increasing efforts in education, publication, dissemination
of electronic media information, and efforts by religious and political leaders to
nurture harmonious relations.

The Declaration concludes:

The hegemonic power of global capitalism is the new religion which threatens to
undermine the universal, spiritual and moral values and world views embodied in
Buddhism, Islam and other religions. This is why Buddhists, Muslims and others
should forge a more profound unity and solidarity which will be able to offer another
vision of a just, compassionate and humane universal civilization. It is with this
mission in mind that we hereby announce the launch of a permanent
Buddhist-Muslim Citizens Commission for Southeast Asia.

A call for an alternative ethic to that of global capitalism, however, runs the danger of
fueling what Samuel Huntington has termed a clash of civilizations. The risk of such
a view is that it can actually increase the difficulty of dialogue with other groups.
Thus, other interfaith groups interested in a Buddhist-Muslim dialogue have focused
on a more universalistic approach.

In response to the destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan, for example, The
Global Family for Love and Peace, together with the Museum of World Religion in
Taipei, Taiwan, has cosponsored a Muslim-Buddhist Dialogue Series with a more
all-encompassing approach. The first three conferences were held in close succession
in New York, USA in March 2002 CE, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in May 2002 CE, and
Jakarta, Indonesia in July 2002 CE. This was followed by A Buddhist-Muslim Dialogue
Conference on Global Ethics and Good Governance held at UNESCO Headquarters,
Paris, France, May 2003 CE. A symposium on Dharma, Allah and Governance: A
Buddhist-Muslim Dialogue then took place in July 2004 CE in Barcelona, Spain, as
part of the Parliament of the World Religions. In November 2005 CE, A Buddhist and
Muslim Dialogue Symposium was then held in Marrakesh, Morocco, followed by a
Muslim-Buddhist conference called Religions on Life and Death in Beijing, China, in
October 2006 CE.

The call for peaceful cooperation among Buddhists, Muslims, and other religions to
forge a global pan-religious ethic has resounded elsewhere as well. For example, in
1996 CE, Daisaku Ikeda, the president of Soka Gakkai International, founded the Toda
Institute for Global Peace and Policy in Tokyo, Japan and Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Focusing on the development of a global civilization dedicated to the protection of
all human life, safeguarding the environment, and the harmonious development of
all human communities, the Institute has sponsored numerous conferences and
publications. The latter include Global Civilization: A Buddhist-Islamic Dialogue.

His {H.} the Fourteenth {D.} Lama has likewise repeatedly called for all people, both
followers of religions and nonbelievers, to take universal responsibility to create
and maintain a peaceful world, based on a secular ethic common to all religions
and humanitarian systems. This secular ethic bases itself on a reaffirmation of basic
human values, such as the equal wish of everyone to be happy and not to be
unhappy, and the equal right of everyone to enjoy happiness and not to suffer.

In light of this call, His {H.} has participated in numerous interfaith dialogues. Among
these, the ones focusing on Buddhist-Muslim relations began with a meeting in
Dharamsala, India, in March 1995 CE between himself and Dr. Tirmiziou Diallo,
hereditary head of the Sufi order in Guinea, West Africa, concerning compassion in
Buddhism and Sufism. More recent meetings include A Gathering of Hearts
Illuminating Compassion, convened in San Francisco, California, USA, in April 2006
CE and The Risks of Globalization: Do Religions Offer a Solution or Are they Part of
the Problem? held in Prague, Czech Republic, in October 2006 CE.

Conferences concerning Buddhist-Muslim issues have also been held by academics
aimed at fostering better understanding through historical research. My own
participation in such cooperative efforts began in May 1994 CE with meetings with
Islamic scholars at universities in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan and Alamty, Kazakhstan,
followed by discussions in Istanbul, Turkey in February 1995 CE. The aim was to gain
a more objective analysis of the interaction between Buddhism and Islam in Central
Asia and the Indian subcontinent, devoid of the one-sided presentations that
emphasize only the violence and destruction of monaseries. These talks expanded in
November 1995 CE with further meetings in Cairo, Egypt, Mafraq, Jordan, and once
more in Istanbul. A more extensive round of talks then followed in October 1996 CE
with visits to universities in Bishkek, Almaty, Cairo, Mafraq, and Istanbul, Konya,
Kayseri and Ankara, Turkey. The insights gained from this sharing of knowledge
appear in my eBook The Historical Interaction between the Buddhist and Islamic
Cultures before the Mongol Empire.

More recently, the Gerald Weisfeld Lectures on Islam and Interfaith Relations, held in
Glasgow, Scotland, in October-November 2006 CE, included presentations of papers
on A Muslim View of Buddhism and A Buddhist View of Islam. Also in this vein,
the Warburg Institute convened an academic conference in London, England in
November 2006 CE on Islam and Tibet: Cultural Interactions. Thus, it is clear that
many institutions around the world have recognized the importance of fostering
interfaith understanding among the worlds religions and humanitarian systems,
including Buddhism and Islam.

Prospects for Future Dialogue
Finding or reaffirming a common ethic that can help to stem the surge of
intercommunal violence in the world has been one of the main emphases in the
current spate of Buddhist-Muslim dialogues. In light of this, in a public lecture
entitled Compassion: The Source of Happiness, delivered in Madison, Wisconsin,
USA in May 2007 CE, His {H.} the Fourteenth {D.} Lama spoke of an extreme view
toward ethics that needs to be avoided. One side of this view is to consider ethics as
the exclusive domain of a particular religious faith; the other is to consider that if
people lack a specific religious faith or religious faith in general, they lack all ethics.
His {H.} pointed out that some Muslims, in particular, seem to hold this view. He then
clarified his call for a secular ethic based on fundamental human values, by
explaining that such an ethic neither excludes nor threatens a faith-based ethic.
Rather, it encompasses the shared values of all religious and humanitarian systems.
This is because the wish for happiness and for freedom from suffering derives from
inborn biological factors, irrespective of the issue of whether or not God created
biology.

His {H.} clarification was perhaps prompted by the response that many Muslim
leaders had to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated by the
United Nations in 1948 CE. Later, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia criticized it
as not taking into account the values of non-Western religions and cultures. Their
objections led to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, adopted by the
ministers of forty-eight Islamic countries in 1990 CE at the Organization of the Islamic
Conference. This document recognizes only those human rights that accord with
Islamic law, Shariah.

Thus, if Buddhists and Muslims are to join together in fostering peace, harmony, and
social justice in not only their own bilateral interactions, but in the world at large,
they need to explore further and build on the common ground of their ethical
teachings. The Kalachakra Tantra has already indicated this common ground: both
systems accept that individuals bear responsibility for their actions and that followers
of both systems keep strict ethics.

It is noteworthy that although earlier Indian Buddhist philosophical texts debate at
length the existence of a Creator God as asserted by various Hindu systems of tenets,
the Kalachakra literature merely records the Muslim belief in the Creator Rahman,
with no further comment. In not addressing the question of the existence of an
omnipotent creator, the Buddhist text recognized that there was no point in debating
whether the natural ethical order of the universe derives from God or is uncreated.
Although in Indonesia, in order to satisfy the requirements of being an officially
recognized religion, the Buddhists have explained that Adibuddha in Kalachakra is the
creator; in-depth analysis of the issue seems to be as irrelevant today for promoting
interfaith cooperation in the face of violence as it was in the times when the
Kalachakra literature emerged. The issue is charged with too much emotional energy
on both sides and, for most ordinary followers of both religions, the discussion would
be too philosophical to have any meaningful relevance to their daily lives and
experience.

More relevant for Buddhist-Muslim doctrinal dialogue, perhaps, is the issue of holy
wars. In Islam, the Arabic word jihad means a struggle in which one needs to endure
hardship for the sake of Allah. Although there are several classification schemes for
types of jihad, most Muslims agree that there are two major divisions: the greater
jihad and the lesser jihad. The greater jihad is an internal struggle in ones soul
against thoughts and impulses counter to the Islamic teachings. The lesser jihad is
armed struggle against external threats to Islam and in defense against oppression
directed at oneself, ones family, or ones community.

Islamic scholars and clerics hold many opinions as to which of the two types of jihad
is more fundamental, although no one can deny that permission is found in the
Quran for armed struggle to defend Islam. Nevertheless, a potentially fruitful
doctrinal topic for Buddhist-Muslim dialogue and cooperation for furthering regional
and global peace could be the greater jihad. In defense of the superiority of the
greater jihad, some Muslim scholars quote the hadith:

Some troops came back from an expedition and went to see the Messenger of Allah,
blessings and peace upon him, his family and companions. He said: You have come
for the best, from the smaller jihad to the greater jihad. Someone said, What is the
greater jihad? He said: The servants struggle against his lust.

The eighth-century CE Indian master, Shantideva, in Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior
(Skt. Bodhicharyavatara, chapter 5, verse 12) expressed a similar sentiment regarding
the superiority of waging an internal war against ones own disturbing emotions,
such as anger:

Cruel beings are (everywhere) just as is space:
It cant possibly come that Ill have destroyed them (all).
But if Ive destroyed this mind of anger alone,
Its the same as my having destroyed all those foes.

Doctrinally, Buddhism is in a good position to dialogue with Islam regarding the two
types of jihad. This is because the Buddhist teachings also include something similar
to a lesser jihad. Thus, His {H.} the Fourteenth {D.} Lama has indicated that, if all
nonviolent, peaceful methods fail, sometimes it may be necessary to use forceful
means to stop violence directed at others. However, in such drastic situations, the
motivation needs to be compassion for both the victims and perpetrators of violence,
not anger and hatred. Since, in general, violence only breeds more violence,
nonviolent methods are always preferable.

It could also be productive to expand the scope of the Buddhist-Muslim dialogue
concerning jihad to encompass strategies for dealing with environmental issues as
well. For example, although external methods are needed to combat and reverse
global warming and environmental degradation, an internal struggle is even more
essential to overcome the shortsighted selfishness and greed that fuels the problem.

Islamic Practices and Methods that Could Be Helpful for Buddhists
As interfaith dialogue increases, followers of the worlds various religions are learning
of each others teachings and practices. Some have even found that certain methods
from other religions harmonize with their own tradition and suggest practices that
might enhance the implementation of its principles in daily life. In light of this trend,
several Muslim practices may perhaps be helpful for Buddhists to examine further.

One of the five pillars of Islam is for every able-bodied Muslim, who can afford to do
so, to make a pilgrimage a hajj to Mecca at least once in his or her lifetime.
During this pilgrimage, all men are required to dress alike, draping themselves in two
sheets of white cloth and wearing sandals. Women have no set dress code, other
than the traditional modest garb for women followed in their countries. The mens
apparel represents the equality of all Muslims, both rich and poor, regardless of sect
or country of origin, and reminds the pilgrims of simplicity, humility and the
purification of their sins by means of the hajj. The pilgrims follow a set schedule of
religious practices during the hajj and are required, during this period, to refrain from
negative acts, such as intentionally harming others, engaging in sexual activity,
arguing, or swearing.

Many followers of the various Buddhist traditions also aspire to make a pilgrimage
once in their lives to Bodh Gaya, the holy site in India where Buddha attained
enlightenment. There are no set customs, however, for their dress or conduct while
there. It might be an interesting idea, then, especially for fostering unity among
Buddhists from all traditions and lands, for the Buddhist pilgrims to adopt some of
the customs of the hajj and adapt them to the Buddhist beliefs. Although there is no
need to establish an annual pilgrimage on a specific date; nevertheless, all lay
pilgrims could dress alike, in simple garb, while in Bodh Gaya and follow a suggested
round of ritual practices acceptable to all forms of Buddhism.

Another of the five pillars of Islam is almsgiving to the poor from an annual 2.5 %
tithe on all income above a certain minimal level. All forms of Buddhism, on the
other hand, teach generosity as one of the far-reaching attitudes or perfections. In
keeping with that practice, Buddhist laypeople have traditionally offered food and
other forms of support to monks, nuns, and their monaseries. However, generosity
directed toward the poor and needy within the lay community has been rare. Several
recent Buddhist movements have started to address this deficiency, such as the
Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation founded in Taiwan in 1966 CE by
Master Cheng Yan and the International Network of Engaged Buddhists founded in
Thailand in 1987 CE by Sulak Sivaraksa. The Muslim custom of an organized tithe
suggests that more could be done in this direction.

Buddhism, however, encourages practitioners to develop generosity and the other
far-reaching attitudes through their own motivation and initiative. An obligatory tithe
for the poor would contravene that training. Nevertheless, specific suggestions of a
certain percentage of ones income being dedicated annually to the poor in general
and the establishment of further volunteer institutions for distributing this aid would
be very helpful.

Lastly, another area in which Buddhists might learn useful methods from Muslims is
in the rehabilitation of drug addicts. In Zanzibar, for example, rehabilitation programs
include filling the time of recovering addicts with organized religious practice, such as
prayer five times a day. This helps them to deal with the physical and emotional
difficulties of withdrawal and helps them to establish a new, more positive direction
in their lives.

Drug addiction and alcohol abuse is growing in many Asian Buddhist societies. Heroin
use is prevalent not only in the Golden Triangle of Burma/Myanmar, Thailand, and
Laos, but has found its way elsewhere. The Tibetan refugee community in India and
Nepal, for example, has witnessed ever-increasing substance abuse among its
disenchanted youth. In Mongolia, alcoholism has been a major problem for decades
and drug addiction is rising. A program similar to the one in Zanzibar might be helpful
for recovering addicts. In the context of Indo-Tibetan-Mongolian Buddhism, such a
program might include prostration and other preliminary practices repeated a
hundred thousand times for purification.

Conclusion
Traditionally, then, Buddhist scholars and practitioners have shown little or no
interest in the teachings of Islam. This was not due to cultural smugness, but rather
due to the fact that the Buddhists saw no need for doctrinal dialogue. This was
because, unlike Buddhist contact with some other religions, Buddhism was neither
moving into traditional Islamic regions nor competing with Islam for royal support.
The Buddhists did not even see the need for dialogue in response to the destruction
of their monaseries on the Indian subcontinent at the hands of Muslim armies or in
response to the peaceful spread of Islam to traditional Buddhist lands, such as
Central Asia and Indonesia. Buddhists were always free to change religions and, once
the monaseries were destroyed, doctrinal debate with the perpetrators of the
destruction was deemed pointless. A similar Buddhist response can be seen in the
face of more recent persecution and destruction at the hands of communist regimes
in Russia, Mongolia, China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

The singular historical occasion when Buddhists addressed doctrinal issues with Islam
was when faced with the threat of invasion and violence at the hands of an armed
extremist Muslim minority group at the end of the tenth century CE. Even in that dire
situation, however, the Buddhist texts did not try to refute any of the Islamic beliefs,
but sought, instead, to find a common ground between the two religions so as to
lead the invading Islamic group to a better understanding of the Buddhist view.
Similarly, today, the most productive approach to Buddhist-Muslim dialogue may be
to try to identify a common doctrinal ground for tackling the threats of escalating
intergroup violence, armed conflict, global warming, environmental degradation, and
drug abuse. Through peaceful cooperation and mutual understanding, solutions to
these pressing problems may perhaps be found.

Postscript
In a lecture entitled Compassion in the Globalized World delivered in Hamburg,
Germany, in July 2007, His {H.} the Fourteenth {D.} Lama addressed another issue
that is extremely important for the success of future Buddhist-Muslim dialogue: how
to resolve the doctrinal difference in some religions asserting only one truth and
others accepting several truths. His {H.} explained that religion is an individual matter
and so, for any individual, what he or she believes is, in fact, the only truth for him or
her. But, the reality is that there are several religions in the world and several truths
believed in by their individual followers. He then elaborated this point:

My Christian and Muslim friends, the reality is that there are several religions and
several truths taught by them. This is reality and reality is stronger than what we
might wish. Therefore, in terms of several people and several communities, several
religions are appropriate. For those who feel there is only one truth, one religion,
then keep that for yourselves. But please respect others religions, since they give
deep help to our brothers and sisters.

I admire, appreciate, and respect all other religions Christian, Muslim, Hindu,
Jewish. Some Christians describe me as a good Christian and I consider some
Christians as good Buddhists. I accept all major practices of Christianity: forgiveness,
compassion, charity, and so on. But I consider cause and effect as the basis of religion;
while they consider God as the basis. I tell them that dependent arising and voidness
are our business, not yours; but all the other aspects are held by all of us in common.
This is the basis for all harmony.

These final points of emphasizing shared ethical values pertain to harmony between
Buddhists and Muslims as well.