Bang Galore
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 10,685
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
There's a difference between the two scenarios. Muslims don't slaughter or eat beef to mock hindus. It is because they are supposed to do it on eid, religiously. Its not like they keep an 'in your face' attitude and say do what you can do about it I'm sure they are aware of what the hindu faith says and try to keep it low profile to co exist with people of completely different faith. This is something that should be understood. On the other hand french were doing it intentionally to mock Muslims and earn money of it. These are two absolutely different situations.
Motive is irrelevant, the right to do something is not restricted by what your motive may be. It is connected to whether it is allowed or not. There is no rule that mandates Muslims eating beef, including on Eid. The act, one can argue, offends Hindus (I'm no fan of beef bans, for economic & other reasons, my arguments are to raise uncomfortable questions of those arguing it on the grounds of impropriety) and therefore should not be done. The counter argument can only be that it does not matter if offense is caused, that Muslims (& others) have a right to offend Hindu sentiments because they don't subscribe to that faith. That then leaves it open to the question I raised about causing offense to Muslims. Many Hindus might find Muslims taking offense on the matter of cartoons as silly as many Muslims might find about Hindu aversion to eating beef. Muslims cannot decide what may constitutes an offense to the Hindu faithful just like the reverse.Once you go down that road, there is no way back. The state then has to decide whether it accepts the French/European position that everyone should be free to do whatever even if causes offense to some or go by the Indian position of prohibiting some things on the logic that law & order can be affected.