Muslim protesters torch Buddhist temples, homes in Bangladesh

[littlemissmartypants]

Source: Reuters

Hundreds of Muslims in Bangladesh burned at least four Buddhist temples and 15 homes of Buddhists on Sunday after complaining that a Buddhist man had insulted Islam, police and residents said.Members of the Buddhist minority in the Cox's Bazar area in the southeast of the country said unidentified people were bent on upsetting peaceful relations between Muslims and Buddhists.

Muslims took to the streets in the area late on Saturday to protest against what they said was a photograph posted on Facebook that insulted Islam. The protesters said the picture had been posted by a Buddhist and they marched to Buddhist villages and set fire to temples and houses.

Police said they had deployed extra security forces and banned gatherings in Buddhist-dominated areas.

A temple burnt by Muslims is seen in Cox's Bazar September 30, 2012. REUTERS/Stringer


Read more: http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre88t03i-us-bangladesh-temples/

---

Any thoughts on who these so called "unidentified people were bent on upsetting peaceful relations" might be?
And why do you think they would want to do such a thing?

[oberliner]

1. This is over a Facebook photo?

Wow - no words.

[bemildred]

2. Oy. nt

[KevTucky]

3. Making their religin look better somehow?

Idiots come in all stripes as we well know. The Bhudists will respod in an apporpriate manner no doubt.

[jsr]

5. Buddhists staged a silent protest against the attacks:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49229241/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.UGhNf6RSQtp

[AsahinaKimi]

14. Buddhists are peaceful

and its not their way to respond with violence. This is what I do not understand. I don't know of any Buddhist who would post an anti Islamic posting because, its not the way Buddhists do things. If I were to guess, I would bet it would be someone posted it to start trouble between the two groups.

Even when Muslims dynamited old Buddhist Statues there was dismay but no retaliatory actions because this is not the Buddhist way.

"'avoid what can be avoided; endure what cannot be avoided
and sometimes the best answer is noble silence".

[ForgoTheConsequence]

28. Not all Buddhists are peaceful.

Just ask the Muslim minority in Burma.

On May 15, 2001, anti-Muslim riots broke out in Taungoo, Pegu division, resulting in the deaths of about 200 Muslims, in the destruction of 11 mosques and the setting ablaze of over 400 houses. On May 15, the first day of the anti-Muslim uprisings, about 20 Muslims who were praying in the Han Tha mosque were killed and some were beaten to death by the pro-junta forces. On May 17, Lt. General Win Myint, Secretary No.3 of the SPDC and deputy Home and Religious minister, arrived in Taungoo and curfew was imposed there until July 12, 2001. Buddhist monks demanded that the ancient Hantha Mosque in Taungoo be destroyed in retaliation for the destruction in Bamiyan.

[AsahinaKimi]

35. Here is a quote from an article ~Buddhism and Violence.

There is a knee-jerk assumption that if an individual or group self-identified as Buddhist commits an act of violence, Buddhism must be the cause. This is unvarnished bigotry, of course. Since Buddhism unequivocally condemns hatred and violence, blaming Buddhism for violence makes no more sense than blaming any other attribute one could assign to the perpetrators, such as race or ethnicity.

Sometimes people self-identified as Buddhist do violent things. When this happens, does it mean these individuals would never have been violent if they hadn't been exposed to Buddhism? Or does it mean Buddhist teachings just didn't sink in?

In southern Thailand Buddhist laypeople and monks are sometimes attacked and slaughtered by Muslim extremists. Some Buddhist laypeople have formed anti-Muslim militias, and even monks arm themselves sometimes for self-protection. Does this mean that if none of these people were Buddhist, it would never in a million years occur to them to form militias or carry arms in response to very real threats? That makes no sense, but some people (ahem) seem to think that's the case.

http://buddhism.about.com/b/2012/06/21/buddhism-and-violence.htm

[azurnoir]

36. another article

It's not so strange for a Buddhist to endorse killing

The exaggerated image of pacifism projected on Buddhism (and Hinduism) was embraced and promoted by natives, as it conveyed moral superiority over colonialist oppressors and missionaries. Getting the message fed back by natives reinforced the original misconceptions. But the ultimate source is Euro-Americans themselves, weary of a century of warfare and longing for a pacifist Shangri-La. Buddhist cultural values were never so simplistic and practically served rājas, khans, and daimyō for millennia. The main reason Buddhists' history does not match our expectations, aside from them being as human as the rest of us, is that our expectations have been mistaken. Some think that fantasies of a pacifist utopia benefit the Tibetan cause. It can also be argued that they encourage communists to contemptuously dismiss western support for Tibet and obstruct Buddhists from engaging their values.

The Buddhist world is racked with violence and it has never been more important to understand Buddhist ethics. These include never acting in anger; exhausting alternatives such as negotiation; striving to capture the enemy alive; avoiding destruction of infrastructure and the environment; and taking responsibility for how one's actions and exploitation cause enemies to arise. They also emphasise the great psychic danger to those who act violently, something we see in the large number of suicides among youth sent to these wars. Above all, rather than "national self-interest", the guiding motivation should be compassion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/11/buddhism-bin-laden-death-dalai-lama


eta ever hear of this guy called Pol Pot, did you know he spent time as a Buddhist monk?

[AsahinaKimi]

38. because Pol Pot was a buddhist

does not mean he acted because of Buddhism. The fact is the opposite. It simply means he never followed the directions of the Buddha. Its like Christians who claim to love thy neighbor and then go and slaughter countless of people for not wanting to convert to Christianity.

A devout Buddhist who follows to letter the teachings of Buddha should know better than to commit violence. If they do, its not because of their religion. It means they didn't learn a thing from Buddhism.

[azurnoir]

39. so in your opinion Buddhists never commit violence due to Buddhism but

Muslims commit violence because..........?

[AsahinaKimi]

40. putting words in my mouth?

I don't recall bringing up Islam. Did I ?

[azurnoir]

41. No I asked you a question which you answered with a question

no you did not mention Islam, you only extolled how Buddhists never commit violence due to Buddhism, leaving the other quite open to extrapolation considering the subject of the thread

[AsahinaKimi]

42. I am sure you have made up your mind about me

I am a Buddhist. I only know about Buddhism, and I am not a practicing one. If you know even anything about Buddhism, you know that non violence is important to Buddhism. If you don't know about Buddhism let me suggest you do some reading, join the DU Buddhist group or find out more. I know nothing about the Koran, or Islam. I barely know that much about Christianity, except what I have read on DU.

you may extrapolate all you wish but, you may also be VERY far from the truth.

Peace.

Kimiko yori.

[azurnoir]

43. nonviolence is important in a number of religions

however once out of the hands of prophets and into the hands of regular people actions rarely follow suit

I mentioned Pol Pot because most not all of the Buddhists I know are survivors of his regime and for the record I made no conclusions about you, in fact your post which could be taken as I described, surprised me, as I have read many of your other posts

[Canuckistanian]

44. False eqiuvalence

Buddhists are FAR less likely to commit violence against others - and they don't in the majority of cases.

You can't deny that.

[azurnoir]

45. what are you getting at here?

and if you have any knowledge of Asian history you know that Buddhists are just as likely as anyone else to commit violence

[littlemissmartypants]

31. AsahinaKimi thank you

so much for posting this "'avoid what can be avoided; endure what cannot be avoided
and sometimes the best answer is noble silence" You are someone's reason to smile.

[YankeyMCC]

46. I would say rather that the Buddhist precepts and

the Buddha's teachings point to non-violence. And they recognize that violence or at least harm is not something you can avoid and still live in the world.

A follower of the way, even a so called "enlightened being", would be unlikely to choose violence. However, if they did they would accept that action as their own, understand and accept the consequences of their action (karma) and not make excuses.

Also, it is important to remember another word for Buddha, Buddhist, enlightened being, is HUMAN.

At least this is my understanding from my studies and my own practice.

Even the Buddha in a past life committed murder.

[MyTwoSense]

4. Thank goodness it was only a photograph!

Imagine if it had been some cheaply made movie trailer. That would have really set them off.

[penndragon69]

6. This is just more proof

that Religion is the biggest root of all evil.

If the world embraced Reason and common sense, we could
avoid soo many senseless tragedies in the world.

There are no gods.....deal with it .

[SoapBox]

12. Agreed

and well said.

[Honeycombe8]

19. Well, THAT religion, anyway. I've never heard of any groups of other religions killing and burning

because of a picture of its prophet.

[defacto7]

21. Try looking into the history of

the Puritans of early America. They did not believe in icons of Christ or God in any form and therefore went into periods of anti Catholic extremism. They were very concerned that the Catholics of the North (Canada) were going to come down to impose "pictures" of Jesus on them.

I'm no scholar on the subject of Puritanism, but that does come to mind.

[Skip Intro]

25. And in the present? nt

[Honeycombe8]

26. Oh, I'm familiar with the Puritans & Protestantism (not worshipping idols like Catholics do)

But I don't think they killed people for drawing a likeness of Jesus.

[defacto7]

34. There were attacks on Papists an their icons were destroyed

I'm not sure of killing, that answer is for someone better at that part of history than I.

[Honeycombe8]

37. Not the same thing. Catholics and Protestants didn't like each other for various reasons. nt

[Skip Intro]

24. +100.

[defacto7]

20. Also agreed.

Couldn't say it better....

[littlemissmartypants]

7. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Cox%27s_Bazar.GIF

[Bosonic]

8. If I had to guess

Last edited Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:44 PM - Edit history (2)

I would assume the photo is a fig leaf excuse to generate poutrage in order to beat up on local Buddhists in retaliation for Buddhists beating up Muslims just next door in Myanmar.

Or is that too cynical?

‘Myanmar tensions could spill over’

NEW YORK (Sept 30, 2012): UN leader Ban Ki-moon warned that Muslim-Buddhist unrest in Myanmar's Rakhine state could hit the country's landmark reforms and spill across borders, a UN spokesman said.

Muslim leaders have made prominent calls at the UN General Assembly for action over the deadly unrest which Ban raised in talks with Myanmar's President Thein Sein and the head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Thein Sein, who has embarked on fast-paced reforms in Myanmar, promised Ban he would tackle fallout from the unrest, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky said.

But Ban later told Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the 57-nation OIC, the Rakhine troubles must be "treated carefully because of the potential wider implications of the Rakhine issue on the overall reform process in Myanmar as well as on other countries."

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/503206

[littlemissmartypants]

11. They rushed the guilty party away from

the village. The Muslims apparently out number the Buddhists. This is a small beautiful tourist attraction. Is the economy so bad there because they rely on tourism and there are no tourists? This would not help boost that revenue.

[littlemissmartypants]

17. I thought about that

and no offense but then I thought, no that is just too convoluted...but it makes sense.

[treestar]

30. Thanks!

I had a feeling it is like most of these stories, more complex than meets the eye, and that people would react without the slightest knowledge of Bangladesh.

[littlemissmartypants]

9. http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-481478-cox_s_bazar_vacations-i

Cox's Bazar is a town, a fishing port and district headquarters in Bangladesh. It is known for its wide sandy beach which is the world's longest natural sandy sea beach.

[littlemissmartypants]

10. http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-481478-cox_s_bazar_vacations-i

[geek tragedy]

13. The Religion of Peace strikes again. nt

[msongs]

15. muslim criminals bent on upsetting peaceful relations. not THAT difficult to figure out nt

[zellie]

16. Lol

You make them sound like wayward choir boys.

[littlemissmartypants]

18. That is a quote

from the original article...lots of eggshell walking going on it seems.

[defacto7]

22. Atrocities against peaceful people

just hurt my heart to think about. Buddhists of all people to strike out against. It's just another strike against humanity in general.

[zellie]

23. Not humanity...I disagree.

Some humanity yes.

Atrocities are usually against innocent people who can't defend them.

[defacto7]

33. No, I stand by my statement.

It a strike against all humanity and civilization to strike against those who by choice refuse to participate in the atrocities of others. Any strike against the defenceless is cowardice and a black eye on the human race... it degrades human life which in turn degrades us all as a species.

[limpyhobbler]

27. sad. nt

[littlemissmartypants]

32. Any

one aware of the Palatines, the Hugenouts...these groups both had their homes and cities burned repeatedly in the name of a religion and of course, as is in this case, that is just part of the story. Why is it that these fervent beliefs are more likely to divide? Case in point politics now in the US. Throughout the world, if we push and push and push away from one another where will we go? When I back away from you while you are backing away from some one else and we meet in this backward push into each other what then? Thank you to all who posted here.