On Muslims who boycott France nowadays

[bluesky]

What do you think of Muslims who boycott France nowadays?

Sylvain Saurel's answer: I am divided. On the one hand, I am very attached to freedom of expression, which is something fundamental for us in France. On the other hand, I have the feeling that these cartoons are only intended to provoke, not to express anything. As a result, I don't know what t...

www.quora.com

What do you think of Muslims who boycott France nowadays?



Sylvain Saurel
·
October 31
Former https://sylvainsaurel.substack.com/
I am divided. On the one hand, I am very attached to freedom of expression, which is something fundamental for us in France.

On the other hand, I have the feeling that these cartoons are only intended to provoke, not to express anything.
As a result, I don't know what to think. I like what Jacques Chirac, former France president, said in 2006 when Charlie Hebdo first published the cartoons:

"Freedom of expression must be exercised in a spirit of responsibility."

That's the feeling I share. One can express oneself freely, but one must be responsible, which is not the case with Charlie Hebdo.
I understand that Muslims around the world are offended. The call for a boycott seems legitimate to me. After all, it is their freedom of expression that is being expressed in this way.

What is intolerable, on the other hand, are acts of terrorism.


Source: QUORA

 

[Homo Sapiens]

What do you think of Muslims who boycott France nowadays?

Sylvain Saurel's answer: I am divided. On the one hand, I am very attached to freedom of expression, which is something fundamental for us in France. On the other hand, I have the feeling that these cartoons are only intended to provoke, not to express anything. As a result, I don't know what t...

www.quora.com

What do you think of Muslims who boycott France nowadays?

Sylvain Saurel
·
October 31
Former https://sylvainsaurel.substack.com/
I am divided. On the one hand, I am very attached to freedom of expression, which is something fundamental for us in France.

On the other hand, I have the feeling that these cartoons are only intended to provoke, not to express anything.
As a result, I don't know what to think. I like what Jacques Chirac, former France president, said in 2006 when Charlie Hebdo first published the cartoons:

That's the feeling I share. One can express oneself freely, but one must be responsible, which is not the case with Charlie Hebdo.
I understand that Muslims around the world are offended. The call for a boycott seems legitimate to me. After all, it is their freedom of expression that is being expressed in this way.

What is intolerable, on the other hand, are acts of terrorism.


Source: QUORA

This is what I also feel. freedom of speech should come with responsibility and civility. What Charlie Hebdo and some French done is hateful provocation targeting Muslims for their different race, religion, culture, values etc in the crudest way. By publishing those cartoons they did not care about the reaction of a large number of deeply religious people who truly care about their religion. They also did not take any responsibility of any potential negative outcome from it. Neither they shown any respect for 1.8 billion Muslims nor any concerns about potential terrorists attack that may happen as a reaction against it. As if provoking Muslims in worst possible ways was more important for them than saving innocent lives from terrorists attack which they knew would come given the past experiences. This is sheer irresponsibility. It is not that, France would have failed as a country if they had not published those caricature. This is most probably done to create farther political polarization targeting the next French election.

Every religion and ideology including Islam should be open to criticism But that should be done from scientific and ethical field. It should be done by scholars while maintaining proper civility and respect. Creating obscene, hateful caricature of the founder of one of the most popular religion is not the way. It is only hardening the Muslim attitude towards any disrespect, real or perceived against their religion and becoming hugely counterproductive.

 

[bluesky]

This is what I also feel. freedom of speech should come with responsibility and civility. What Charlie Hebdo and some French done is hateful provocation targeting Muslims for their different race, religion, culture, values etc in the crudest way. By publishing those cartoons they did not care about the reaction of a large number of deeply religious people who truly care about their religion. They also did not take any responsibility of any potential negative outcome from it. Neither they shown any respect for 1.8 billion Muslims nor any concerns about potential terrorists attack that may happen as a reaction against it. As if provoking Muslims in worst possible ways was more important for them than saving innocent lives from terrorists attack which they knew would come given the past experiences. This is sheer irresponsibility. It is not that, France would have failed as a country if they had not published those caricature. This is most probably done to create farther political polarization targeting the next French election.

Every religion and ideology including Islam should be open to criticism But that should be done from scientific and ethical field. It should be done by scholars while maintaining proper civility and respect. Creating obscene, hateful caricature of the founder of one of the most popular religion is not the way. It is only hardening the Muslim attitude towards any disrespect, real or perceived against their religion and becoming hugely counterproductive.

Yes, you are right. I must repeat what the former President Chirac of France said before that the freedom of expression must be exercised with caution and restraint, especially when it is related to a religion or even a cult. An unnecessary insult of one's religion hurts the feeling of its followers and disturbs the peace among followers of different religions.

However, Muslims are also similarly irresponsible to instigate religious hates. They criticize Hindu Deities for nothing. Why should Hinduism disturb the Muslims. It is none of their business to forecast who will enter Paradise or not. Allah is the sole Authority to decide on that matter.

 

[samv]

And yet Muslims destroy and vandalize Buddha statues as they please?

 

[waz]

And yet Muslims destroy and vandalize Buddha statues as they please?

Such Muslims are bigoted trash and they reek of double standards.

 

[samv]

Such Muslims are bigoted trash and they reek of double standards.

There are people like that in every religion and it is not unique to Muslims by any means.

However I generally feel that the Muslim community does not respect the "Prophet Muhammad" equivalent in non-Abrahamic faiths.

Ancient Bamiyan Buddha statue wilfully blown up
Ancient Gandhara statue in Pakistan smashed
Ancient Buddha statues in the Maldives museum smashed
Buddha statues in Sri Lanka vandalised (by the same people who went on to bomb churches in Easter)
Buddha statues in Bangladesh attacked
Buddha statues confiscated in Iran
Buddha Bars in UAE... I am sure they would not accept "Muhammad Bar"

I understand Islam is vehemently opposed to "idol worship." But the Muslim world in general was in uproar about the Danish cartoons and then Charlie Hebdo.

How can one demand respect for the Prophet Muhammad, but at the same time not respect the "Prophet" of another religion?

 

[waz]

There are people like that in every religion and it is not unique to Muslims by any means.

However I generally feel that the Muslim community does not respect the "Prophet Muhammad" equivalent in non-Abrahamic faiths.

Ancient Bamiyan Buddha statue wilfully blown up
Ancient Gandhara statue in Pakistan smashed
Ancient Buddha statues in the Maldives museum smashed
Buddha statues in Sri Lanka vandalised (by the same people who went on to bomb churches in Easter)
Buddha statues in Bangladesh attacked
Buddha statues confiscated in Iran
Buddha Bars in UAE... I am sure they would not accept "Muhammad Bar"

I understand Islam is vehemently opposed to "idol worship." But the Muslim world in general was in uproar about the Danish cartoons and then Charlie Hebdo.

How can one demand respect for the Prophet Muhammad, but at the same time not respect the "Prophet" of another religion?

I do and so do many others. The countries sadly are developing and will have a higher proportion of people inclined to intolerant views.
You're not allowed to destroy or deface, damage anything sacred to another faith. Heck you can't even abuse it.
The historical Buddhas should have never been touched. Once things are stable I believe the authorities have pledged to rebuild.

 

[bluesky]

I do and so do many others. The countries sadly are developing and will have a higher proportion of people inclined to intolerant views.
You're not allowed to destroy or deface, damage anything sacred to another faith. Heck you can't even abuse it.
The historical Buddhas should have never been touched. Once things are stable I believe the authorities have pledged to rebuild.

Yes, you are correct. We cannot blame Christian and other communities to show disrespect towards Islam when we systematically do the same towards other religions. We should rectify our own thoughts before asking others to change their mindset.

 

[Michael Corleone]

And yet Muslims destroy and vandalize Buddha statues as they please?

Yeah and Buddhist can kill and rape Muslims and Hindus under the facade of peace?

There are people like that in every religion and it is not unique to Muslims by any means.

However I generally feel that the Muslim community does not respect the "Prophet Muhammad" equivalent in non-Abrahamic faiths.

Ancient Bamiyan Buddha statue wilfully blown up
Ancient Gandhara statue in Pakistan smashed
Ancient Buddha statues in the Maldives museum smashed
Buddha statues in Sri Lanka vandalised (by the same people who went on to bomb churches in Easter)
Buddha statues in Bangladesh attacked
Buddha statues confiscated in Iran
Buddha Bars in UAE... I am sure they would not accept "Muhammad Bar"

I understand Islam is vehemently opposed to "idol worship." But the Muslim world in general was in uproar about the Danish cartoons and then Charlie Hebdo.

How can one demand respect for the Prophet Muhammad, but at the same time not respect the "Prophet" of another religion?

Buddha wasn’t a prophet, Buddhism is technically not a religion

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

I do and so do many others. The countries sadly are developing and will have a higher proportion of people inclined to intolerant views.
You're not allowed to destroy or deface, damage anything sacred to another faith. Heck you can't even abuse it.
The historical Buddhas should have never been touched. Once things are stable I believe the authorities have pledged to rebuild.

But the fact is many Islamic invaders to the subcontinent had destroyed thousands of Hindu, Buddhist and Jain temples.

Islam clearly encourages it as it believes that Idol worship is haram.

If I understand correctly didn't Prophet Muhammad himself destroy idols?

This is what all Muslims read multiple times a day and follow your Prophet's foot steps to destroy Idols worshipped by non-Muslims.

Islam expects others to respect and allow Islamic principles but Islam does not allow others to practice their own religion.

No one is forcing Muslims to indulge in Idol worship but what right does Muslims has to prevent Idol worship by Hindus or Buddhists or Jains?

This is nothing but shameless indulgence in double standards and bullying on others.

That is the crux of the problem.

 

[X-ray Papa]

But the fact is many Islamic invaders to the subcontinent had destroyed thousands of Hindu, Buddhist and Jain temples.

Islam clearly encourages it as it believes that Idol worship is haram.

If I understand correctly didn't Prophet Muhammad himself destroy idols?

This is what all Muslims read multiple times a day and follow your Prophet's foot steps to destroy Idols worshipped by non-Muslims.

Islam expects others to respect and allow Islamic principles but Islam does not allow others to practice their own religion.

No one is forcing Muslims to indulge in Idol worship but what right does Muslims has to prevent Idol worship by Hindus or Buddhists or Jains?

This is nothing but shameless indulgence in double standards and bullying on others.

That is the crux of the problem.

Says the Hindu, that kill people for eating beef.

 

[samv]

Yeah and Buddhist can kill and rape Muslims and Hindus under the facade of peace?

No. But Muslims historically have killed and destroyed Buddhists and Buddhist kingdoms throughout Asia. Even the term but-shikan or idol-breaker comes from the penchant for destroying Buddha statues.

Buddha wasn’t a prophet, Buddhism is technically not a religion

Hence my use of quotation marks when I used the term prophet. The Buddha is venerated by Buddhists just like the Prophet Muhammad is venerated by Muslims.

 

[bluesky]

Hence my use of quotation marks when I used the term prophet. The Buddha is venerated by Buddhists just like the Prophet Muhammad is venerated by Muslims.

Buddha was the only living God who did not falsely identity himself with the Creator. His disciples asked him numerous times to tell them about Bhagwan. He told them Bhagwan lives too high above our life we cannot see or touch. So, instead o seeking Bhagwan, better you seek enlightenment about the truth of hard life.

Like some others, Buddha did not fake his identity and did not use the name of Bhagwan to spread his message. And his humanistic appeals spread throughout South Asia, Afghanistan, Central Asia, China, SE Asia and Japan. He will always be venerated by all people of this world except a few blind adherer of illogical faiths.

The five precepts of Buddhism

These are rules to live by. They are somewhat analogous to the second half of the Ten Commandments in Judaism and Christianity -- that part of the Decalogue which describes behaviors to avoid.

However, they are recommendations, not commandments. Believers are expected to use their own intelligence in deciding exactly how to apply these rules:

1. Do not kill. This is sometimes translated as "not harming" or an absence of violence. 2. Do not steal. This is generally interpreted as including the avoidance of fraud and economic exploitation.
3. Do not lie. This is sometimes interpreted as including name-calling, gossip, etc.
4. Do not misuse sex. For monks and nuns, this means any departure from complete celibacy. For the laity, adultery is forbidden, along with any sexual harassment or exploitation, including that within marriage.
5. Do not consume alcohol or other drugs. The main concern here is that intoxicants cloud the mind. Some have included as a drug other methods of divorcing ourselves from reality.

Those preparing for monastic life or who are not within a family are expected to avoid an additional five activities:

6. Taking untimely meals.
7. Dancing, singing, music, watching grotesque mime.
8. Use of garlands, perfumes and personal adornment.
9. Use of high seats.
10. Accepting gold or silver.

 

[Michael Corleone]

No. But Muslims historically have killed and destroyed Buddhists and Buddhist kingdoms throughout Asia. Even the term but-shikan or idol-breaker comes from the penchant for destroying Buddha statues

Muslims in Asia has come from Buddhist invaders from Afghanistan. They converted to Islam

 

[waz]

But the fact is many Islamic invaders to the subcontinent had destroyed thousands of Hindu, Buddhist and Jain temples.

Islam clearly encourages it as it believes that Idol worship is haram.

If I understand correctly didn't Prophet Muhammad himself destroy idols?

This is what all Muslims read multiple times a day and follow your Prophet's foot steps to destroy Idols worshipped by non-Muslims.

Islam expects others to respect and allow Islamic principles but Islam does not allow others to practice their own religion.

No one is forcing Muslims to indulge in Idol worship but what right does Muslims has to prevent Idol worship by Hindus or Buddhists or Jains?

This is nothing but shameless indulgence in double standards and bullying on others.

That is the crux of the problem.

You answered the question yourself i.e. you used the word invaders, they were not there to spread peace. Invaders the world over and in history have destroyed the cultural and religious icons of nations they subdue to show their dominance.
Islam does not encourage it and nor does it say anywhere you go out and destroy that which is sacred to others faiths.
I also find it ironic that you mention how Buddhist temples were destroyed when it's a well known fact that Buddhism was also greatly weakened by the sheer destruction of temples, mass execution of monks and persecution of those who followed the way of the Buddha, by Hindu rulers.



"According to Jha, "Other early evidence of the persecution of Shramanas comes from the post-Mauryan period, recorded in the Divyavadana, a Buddhist Sanskrit, which describes the Brahmin ruler Pushyamitra Shunga as a great persecutor of Buddhists. He is said to have marched out with a large army, destroying stupas, burning monasteries and killing monks as far as Sakala, now known as Sialkot"


"In the post-Gupta centuries, says Jha, Chinese Buddhist pilgrim and traveller Hsüan Tsang, who visited India between the years 631 and 645, during the reign of Harshavardhana, "states that the sixth-century Huna ruler Mihirakula, a devotee of Shiva, destroyed 1,600 Buddhist stupas and monasteries and killed thousands of Buddhist monks and laity. He further tells us that 1,000 sangharamas in Gandhara were 'deserted'/and in 'ruins,' and describes 1,400 sangharamas in Uddiyana as 'generally waste and desolate'.”

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

News Blog

counterview.net

Why did they do this?
Why also is India following the path of destruction of holy places (see Dehli riots), Babri masjid case (rioters rewarded) and so on. Should India be blamed like you blamed Islam for be all and end all?