The comments generated by my piece on Islam have been thoughtful and inspiring to me, and I am appreciative of all the folks who took the time to offer them (and I recommend that others check them out - you can see them at the end of the previous article on this site). One person in particular (thanks, Richard!) wrote this:

"I was really surprised at this post of yours. When reading these snippets from Islamic writings, did it occur to you to try to put them in their cultural context?"

Richard then provided a quote from Nichiren's writings which could lead one "not familiar with the context of Nichiren Buddhism [to] think ours is an amazingly crude and warlike piece of dangerous zealotry!" Richard concluded his remarks saying:

"Like all religions propagated by the countless incarnations of the Eternal Buddha of the 16th Chapter, Islam has the seed of provisional truth within it. It's practitioners are no more or less successful than the followers of every other provisional religion in separating the rice from the filth."

I recommend Richard's entire post. The point he makes is well taken, but I am unconvinced that, at its core, it is correct. I am not a historian, but I have paid attention, and I agree with Richard that context, both cultural and historical, are important in evaluating any teachings and their impact. In the case of Islam, I believe that the history and the culture involved support my original point. In looking at the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism, and its practitioners, while some examples of zealotry and misguided fanaticism can be found, what can NOT be found is an ongoing historical or societal trend. The reverse is true of Islam.

One can consistently see, from the very beginnings of Islamic history, examples of Muslim believers casually accepting the notion that violence is justifiable and permissable under their religious banner. One can find nations ruled this way and centuries of conquests carried out in the name of it. Even the great Christian-generated conflicts were not primarily inspired by religion, but rather used religion as a disguise for more mundane motivations, such as greed, lust for power and land acquisition. In contrast, the Muslim conquests were primarily motivated by the mandate inherent in Islam. This is not to say that lust and greed were not present, as well, but to point out rather that they were ancillary in instigating conflict, rather than primary.

In addition, one can observe the means and methods of Islamic rule and see clear contrasts to both Western nations and Japan and other countries influenced by Buddhism. Islam institutionalizes inequality. This can be seen in its attitudes toward women, as well as in its attitudes toward non-believers living in Islamic theocracies. People "of the Book" are permitted, even welcomed, but they do not share equal status under the laws, are taxed differently, and so forth. Information on all of this is readily available.

And, as I mentioned briefly in my original article, only in some Islamic nations today can the continued practice of chattel slavery as a matter of course be found. This is inherently fine with Islamic teaching.

What I get from all of this is that, while one may be able to point to passages in Nichiren's writings or in the teachings of other religions that are apparently similar to some of the material that can be found in Islamic teachings (such as those quoted in my original piece), when one views these things in context, only in Islam do we find consistency in practice, both culturally and over the entire history of Islam, of the violence and other unpleasant aspects I have addressed. This can simply not be said of other religious teachings or their adherents on any similar scale. Islam may have the "seed of provisional truth within it," and it may be true that many of its modern adherents do not embrace the more radical aspects of that faith, but it cannot be said that any other teaching has inspired among so many, for so long, and so consistently, a level of behavior that is at all comparable to that of Muslim believers, and this continues today. Some contend that it is on the rise, and I would not disagree.

In closing these remarks I feel confident reasserting what I said in the final words of my previous article. I can't think of any teachings more erroneous, and more responsible for suffering, than fundamentalist Islam. We ignore it at our peril.