Buddhist violence: Does it stem from the ideology or the people?

The genocide in Burma that started in June 2012, is presently responsible for the murder of over a quarter of a million Rohingya Muslims.  That beats the killing machine of the invaders of Syria (starting March 2011) in a time frame fifteen months shorter.  The Buddhist apologists around the world were initially on denial.  Gradually that wasn't possible any longer.  Now we hear loud claims that the Buddhist ideology is ""peaceful"" and those involved in the genocide do not represent Buddhism just as ISIL and Al-Nusra do not represent Islam.   This apology needs to be mulled and examined.

The genocide in Burma isn't the brainchild of a few radical politicians or bureaucrats or monks. The entire nation (government, opposition, monks, mobsters and the Buddhist public) is involved collectively and the genocide is viewed as an act of nationalism with connivance from Buddhists around the world and silence from the dalai lama.  In June 2014, similar copy-cat riots against the Muslim minority also spread across Sri Lanka.  Such a scenario typically pops up when there is a problem with the ideology rather than a few rogue individuals. Nonetheless, even if an entrenched apologist refuses to accept this view, unanswered questions continue to linger concerning the fallacious nature of their analogy;  most importantly, does Buddhism have a benchmark like Islam?

Alan Strathern of Oxford University writes on BBC, "Of all the moral precepts instilled in Buddhist monks the promise not to kill comes first, and the principle of non-violence is arguably more central to Buddhism than any other major religion. So why have monks been using hate speech against Muslims and joining mobs that have left dozens dead?" 
The same person also mentions "Buddhist teachings were handed down orally and not written until centuries after the Buddha's lifetime. The principle of non-violence is intrinsic to the doctrine .."  according to a collection of sayings attributed to Buddha. 

Thus, Strathern inadvertently asserts the Buddhist doctrine is legendary as there is no recourse that may serve as the criterion or irrefutable evidence containing a set of original written laws.  The assumption of "peace" in Buddhism hovers around and sits on minds as phraseologies and jargons, similar to the theoretical notions of the altered Old and New Testaments, the Talmud and the Ahadith, all of which have been proven to contain astronomical levels of fabrications and forgeries by their respective clerics/pharisees.  

Even if one ignores the very violent 2,500-year Buddhist history and accepts Strathern's apologetic stance, it does not add up.  You frame a doctrine in the name of 'Buddha's oral teachings' avowing "the promise not to kill comes first."  But then your actions muffle your words and the masses cave in to their irresistible penchant for blood supporting the newer doctrines of Buddhist monks like Wirathu and his likes.   That transforms the oral / hearsay teachings of Buddhism into the new and practical face of Buddhism that had nothing original as the criterion to start with.  Differently put, despite political and traditional reservations, Strathern concedes the 'mutation' of the oral Buddhist doctrine from no-bloodshed to plenty of bloodshed; that human 'philosophies' like Buddhism are amenable to change depending on the political or social direction of the tide flow.  

By the way, if you read Strathern's BBC report (link already given), it claims no Muslim was killed in Sri Lanka.  Quoting Wikipedia  "At least four people were killed and 80 injured.  Hundreds were made homeless following attacks on homes, shops, factories, mosques and a nursery."  Wikipedia which usually downplays the victimization of Muslims, also stated that 8,000 Sri Lankan Muslims were displaced by the riots.

Blushing Buddhist apologists lost for words over those crimson blood stains of the minority splattered across Burmese villages and cities are insisting that if the ISIL dogma isn't Islam then the genocide in Burma isn't the real axiom of Buddhism either.  Do they really not know what a pathetically failed attempt for vindication that is?  For sure ISIL is NOT the real Islam which can be deduced from a very simple and non-fallacious logic.  Islam has a permanent, non-flexible Sole Criterion with specifications for comparison - THE NOBLE QURAN.  Whether or not you adhere to it, the yardstick is there.  That's certainly not the case with non-Divine faiths, Buddhism included.  If you check the credo of ISIL or Al-Nusra, not even one percent conforms with the Sole Criterion assigned for a submitter of the Monotheist Faith by the Divine Power.  In the case of Buddhism, there is no such barometer for gauging and comparing the changing 'isms' determining the extent of deviation from the original.  With the absence of the original, every deviation is itself the face of the so-called philosophy. And reordering philosophies can switch from cool or fierce, kind or brutal, clean or dirty, depending on the needs of the adherents or simply the nature of their frenzy along the annals of history.

Tibet - the citadel of political intrigues, bloodshed, sexual misconduct of the lamas & priests, rampant slavery, sexual mistreatment of kidnapped peasant boys in monasteries and more:

The tumultuous history of Tibet has been carefully and comprehensively compiled by Michael Parenti at www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html  that's worth reading if you are interested to learn the truth about that land which is forbidden information in the Western media.  Between the 1500s and 1600s for some political purpose the emperor of China declared his support for the first dalai lama in Tibet, a 25-year-old man with too 
many political ambitions.   He is reported to have taken over Buddhist temples and destroyed writings by other Buddhist priests that didn't conform with his views of attributing divinity to himself.  In plain terms, his reign ignited a power struggle between various sects of Buddhism.  The second dalai lama was a hedonist.  He loved partying, drinking and womanizing.  With that sort of lifestyle he made some jealous enemies and was consequently brutally murdered.  Within the next approximately 150 years, at least five dalai lamas were killed over differences with Buddhist priests or courtiers, following which, the Buddhist ideology (whatever that's supposed to be) was written and rewritten numerous times.

So, when and how did all this ruckus about "Buddhism" start?

Most researchers are of the opinion that there were some rudimentary forms of "sacred" writings that began being transmitted after 500 BC as "Buddhism" in northern India. 

Buddhism is a splinter group of the Hindu religion that supposedly originated in the foothills of the Himalayas.  History cannot confirm whether its presumed founder -- a Hindu prince named Sidhart Gautama living in the Himalayan region approximately 500 BC -- was a real person or not.  The existence of that man is a debatable subject.  There are a variety of sagas about him.  According to historians, Sidharta Gautama was "likely a person" but no confirmations nor evidences which is the farthest they can go.

Deep-rooted in misogynism and non-spiritualism:  

Ismail Salaam, a Muslim of Sri Lanka who has extensively researched Buddhism, comments:  "Buddhism is indeed a religion of man (and I mean MEN - women are effectively 'half-people' in Buddhism, whose best hope is to be reincarnated as a male, as only males can become 'buddhas' (something to do with menstruation and other natural aspects of the female's created state).  Buddha, whose name is touted as Gautama as was supposed to be a rich prince, abandoned his wife and family to pursue his egotistical quest, something quite easy for a rich warrior prince to do. He only begrudgingly allowed the existence of a female monastic order, who in the long run effectively became slaves to the monks. He effectively stated that he was concerned only with the human condition, and remained conspicuously silent when asked about God Almighty." 

Got started 100 years after the death of its legendary founder! 

Another version says that more than one hundred years after the death of this man (if at all he was real), a Hindu emperor of that region (or nearby region) began preaching the doctrine which he named "Buddhism" claiming that it originated from the a man named "Gautama" one hundred years ago.   This means that the earliest man-made laws & writings on Buddhism attributed to "Gautama" began being circulated at least one hundred years after his mythical existence.  So, even if someone wants to believe that he existed, it's just as insignificant because one hundred years is a long enough period for massive manipulation of someone's ideas & thoughts.  Since then, those man-written works have been edited, erased and replaced with newer works of Buddhist priests and warriors many more times than any historian has been able to keep track of. 

 Its connection with the New World Order:

Take a look for a moment at the horrifying historical event titled "Rape of Nanking" linked with WW2.   A reader of my blog at the above link describes "the Japanese army killed approximately 30,000 people, mostly civilians, in 60 days. Two Japanese officers held a highly publicized 'competition' as to which one would kill 100 Chinese people first."  At present this is an awkward issue for the allies.  With the commencement of the NWO, arose the need for restructuring political alliances and deals with smaller, friendly, developing nations having minimal of cultural barriers to assist strengthen global exploitation in return for a favorable international image and an ineliminable place as an ally.  That's when the puff piece of ""peaceful Buddhism"" gathered momentum, hurriedly slipping the 1,000-year grisly history of Buddhist warlords
under the rug and revising academic syllabuses.  This high speed ride shows no signs of cooling off and it won't any time soon.  The theoretical reconstruction of Buddhism from the macabre practices of its heathen warlords to a mythical goody-goody bag full of tenets is one of the facets of the multifaceted NWO consisting of its Bilderbergs, bankers, media moghuls and so on, each one required as an instrument to play its own specific game in the global political turf. 

Conclusion - The Fact: 

In the cases of Judaism and Christianity, we have seen how much of the original Divine contents have been altered, almost everything.  But the confirmation of their original status remains intact via The Quran as every Divine Message has the same Source and is a confirmation of the previous one. 

Both Moses and Jesus (son of Virgin Maryam) preached the pure doctrine of Submission (surrender to The One God, known as Islam in Arabic). Later, the Jews and Christians deviated from strict Monotheism (Tawheed) through their own corrupted innovations and beliefs. The Jews earned the wrath of Allah Almighty by worshiping the golden calf.  The Christians went astray by taking Jesus as god along with their belief of trinity.
Swept away by corruption, all other religions are named after mere mortals except Islam. Christianity was named after Christ, Jews or Judaism after the tribe of Judah, Buddhism after Buddha, Confucianism from Confucius and Zoroastrianism from Zoroaster. Islam (complete surrender to HIS will) is the only Original code of spiritual and practical Laws from the Creator Himself, which has always existed since the beginning of times was not ascribed or named after NO mortal nor human being.  That establishes its Sole Criterion, its Benchmark - The Final Message.  Its followers may stray, but the Benchmark stays intact as an evidence against all deviants and laggards.

Buddhism, like all other non-Divine faiths, has NO such criterion and the maneuvering stratagems of its followers periodically put the stamp of convenience on its 'ideology' with every changing era.  Buddhist violence definitely stems from the ideology of Buddhism, constructed and selected by no other than its followers.