I’ve read some Buddhist literature, including a lot of tales about the Buddha, and the monks were arguing all the time. There’s a handful of stories where the Buddha goes at them because of how much they’re always arguing.
More accurately, the brutal warlord actually had feelings and didn’t know how to process them. In walks serene monks who seem to be at peace. Compare to: In walks missionaries who promise he can be forgiven and his immortal soul saved in the eyes of God.
While it’d be unfair to compare Sikhs to crusaders, it’s not like there weren’t Sikh states at war (especially with the Mughals. And, uh, the British East India company.)
It’s also important to note much of the Sikh militarism was brought out of self defense- persecution by Muslims and Hindus in particular were pervasive throughout their history; and the handful of states that were specifically Sikh, were mostly short lived.
Suffice it to say, it’s a very modern concept that religions were supposed to be peaceful. For most of history, religion was as much a part of national identity as it was fervent beliefs.
This isn’t to say that members in those religions can’t be absolutely peaceful.
For what it’s worth, Buddhism was similarly spread by Ashoka.
It’s likely all religion has been spread by violence.
Except it’s the other way around. Ashoka gave up conquering after he converted to Buddhism.
Atheists hate this one simple trick (converting monarchs and emperors to your faith).
Yes, because the brutal warlord suddenly became repulsed by violence and never again resorted to violence….
(There are those 18,000 monks mentioned, and I find it dubious there wasn’t internal discord, considering.)
I’ve read some Buddhist literature, including a lot of tales about the Buddha, and the monks were arguing all the time. There’s a handful of stories where the Buddha goes at them because of how much they’re always arguing.
More accurately, the brutal warlord actually had feelings and didn’t know how to process them. In walks serene monks who seem to be at peace. Compare to: In walks missionaries who promise he can be forgiven and his immortal soul saved in the eyes of God.
I misread as “there wasn’t some internal Discord” and thought you were about to say something about leaked DMs. I need to wake up.
I’m sure there have been minor incidents, but as far as I know Sikhism comes to mind as a religion that doesn’t have blood on its hands.
While it’d be unfair to compare Sikhs to crusaders, it’s not like there weren’t Sikh states at war (especially with the Mughals. And, uh, the British East India company.)
It’s also important to note much of the Sikh militarism was brought out of self defense- persecution by Muslims and Hindus in particular were pervasive throughout their history; and the handful of states that were specifically Sikh, were mostly short lived.
Suffice it to say, it’s a very modern concept that religions were supposed to be peaceful. For most of history, religion was as much a part of national identity as it was fervent beliefs.
This isn’t to say that members in those religions can’t be absolutely peaceful.
The Baha’is haven’t used violence, they also don’t proselytize.