Cartoon Today

See the comments:

https://www.facebook.com/NamalSL/posts/10152967684984030

WasteofTime wrote:can you show the proof about 72 virgins?
Do you mean only Muslim kills, child abuse, salve and etc. Do you mean that Sri lanka is a Muslim country as you mentioned everything  happening there.

Talking with a person who justifies the murder of cartoonists is a utter waste of time.

But since you ask for proof here go read the sayings of your founder and learn his behavior and practices. Defa you will justify those as well.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins

Here are the reference to your founder's book. Go and read it
"Even though the Qur'an does not mention the number of virgins, it does say in verse 56:36 that Muslim men will be awarded with virgins in Paradise. The Qur'an describes their physical attributes, for example they will have large eyes (56:22) and big breasts (78:33) and so on. The actual number of virgins is thus a minor issue and 72 is the number of those virgins confirmed in multiple hadith. The hadiths are a crucial part of Islam and certain Muslims ignore them because sometimes they contain uncomfortable details about Islam. There are many hadiths and Qur'anic verses which talk about various issues of a sexual nature. According to Sahih Bukhari 1:5:268 which belongs to the most authentic collection of hadiths"
sourced from http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins

Above is an utter waste of time but since the waste of time wanted proof and he seems not to know the teachings of his cult i'm providing the reference. Await the justification.

කිත්සිරි ද සිල්වා wrote:Typical you.

Never answer my question direct but try to divert the subject matter to another.

This is a well know tactic of this specific cult.

The more that people like Waste of Time write the more the lunacy of their cult is brought out from their own writings.
Normal people can understand the dangers posed by the stone age teachings, practices and behavior of stone age cults. This is why the lunatics try to kill cartoonists and journalists who question or criticize them.

Dear Fellow citizen Kithsiri and jiggy,
Noted ,You both love Charlie who does not understand language other than French. That is why you declare that you are Charlie in French. Did you declare the same when our own journalists were killed in Sri lanka? Did you at least Visit the Parents ,widowed wives, orphaned children of their? If yes, How many times? One minute? One hour? One day? One week? One month? one year? One decade? So, you did not weep for our fellow citizen, but neglected their sacrifices and now you want to be cheese eating Kalu Charlie? The Gang of Charlie has become a zero from hero. How long will this Charlie fever l last?

Pls show me proof from clear authentic Quran and hadiths quotes if Islam teaches any of the things you have mentioned? Pls do not show one link from internet. Pls read fairly from 10 Islamic sites and 30 non Islamic sites and analyse and forward to me .I will come back to your religion If you can prove. I was born in Maha Ambalangoda. No need to explain what my religion was. If Islam teaches violence ,why has it to happen in Muslim countries ? Who was behind Ascension and dissension of dictators in those countries? Who is behind those violence there?
We never blame Christianity for expansion of European and US colonisation, we never blame Christianity for first and second world war. We never blame Buddhism for Japan invasion of Asian countries and US. We never blame Buddhism for expansion of Genghis Khan empire from East to the centre of Europe. But you blame Islam for the third world war which is being happening because you are witnessing the conflict leash upon Muslims and their retaliation .

Dear Jiggy Sir,
I see 99.9% of your comments in this forum are criticising or blaming others. but only 0.01% was supporting at least SLFP during this election. I have no problem with your supporting any party. However, Did you know your party Assistant leader Karuna , one time terrorist , not acquitted in any courts , had killed thousands of Srilankan including monks, journalists, worshipers and children. Did you know that he came to parliament with your (national list) votes ?Why are you double standard or ignorance ? why do you support a killer representing party? Why do you cry for French not Sri Lankan?

Kithsiri you were right.

Paw cult member can't answer questions directly but try to divert the subject matter to another.

Mu dang ahaka yana Karuna wa allaganne dangalanawa.

What a sad waste of time.

JE SUIS CHARLIE

Dear Master of all trade

Karuna killed fellow Sri Lankan Journalist. You did not stand against him or his party. But you want to stand against for nothing in france .


quote="jiggysaurus"]Kithsiri you were right.

Paw cult member can't answer questions directly but try to divert the subject matter to another.

Mu dang ahaka yana Karuna wa allaganne dangalanawa.

What a sad waste of time.

JE SUIS CHARLIE[/quote]

Dear liberal pundit,

You and I didn’t like George W Bush. Remember his puerile declaration after 9/11 that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”? Yet now, in the wake of another horrific terrorist attack, you appear to have updated Dubbya’s slogan: either you are with free speech . . . or you are against it. Either vous êtes Charlie Hebdo . . . or you’re a freedom-hating fanatic.

I’m writing to you to make a simple request: please stop. You think you’re defying the terrorists when, in reality, you’re playing into their bloodstained hands by dividing and demonising. Us and them. The enlightened and liberal west v the backward, barbaric Muslims. The massacre in Paris on 7 January was, you keep telling us, an attack on free speech. The conservative former French president Nicolas Sarkozy agrees, calling it “a war declared on civilisation”. So, too, does the liberal-left pin-up Jon Snow, who crassly tweeted about a “clash of civilisations” and referred to “Europe’s belief in freedom of expression”.

In the midst of all the post-Paris grief, hypocrisy and hyperbole abounds. Yes, the attack was an act of unquantifiable evil; an inexcusable and merciless murder of innocents. But was it really a “bid to assassinate” free speech (ITV’s Mark Austin), to “desecrate” our ideas of “free thought” (Stephen Fry)? It was a crime – not an act of war – perpetrated by disaffected young men; radicalised not by drawings of the Prophet in Europe in 2006 or 2011, as it turns out, but by images of US torture in Iraq in 2004.

Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn.

Has your publication, for example, run cartoons mocking the Holocaust? No? How about caricatures of the 9/11 victims falling from the twin towers? I didn’t think so (and I am glad it hasn’t). Consider also the “thought experiment” offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the “unity rally” in Paris on 11 January “wearing a badge that said ‘Je suis Chérif’” – the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. “How would the crowd have reacted? . . . Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?” Do you disagree with Klug’s conclusion that the man “would have been lucky to get away with his life”?

Let’s be clear: I agree there is no justification whatsoever for gunning down journalists or cartoonists. I disagree with your seeming view that the right to offend comes with no corresponding responsibility; and I do not believe that a right to offend automatically translates into a duty to offend.

When you say “Je suis Charlie”, is that an endorsement of Charlie Hebdo’s depiction of the French justice minister, Christiane Taubira, who is black, drawn as a monkey? Of crude caricatures of bulbous-nosed Arabs that must make Edward Said turn in his grave?

Lampooning racism by reproducing brazenly racist imagery is a pretty dubious satirical tactic. Also, as the former Charlie Hebdo journalist Olivier Cyran argued in 2013, an “Islamophobic neurosis gradually took over” the magazine after 9/11, which then effectively endorsed attacks on "members of a minority religion with no influence in the corridors of power".

It's for these reasons that I can't "be", don’t want to “be", Charlie – if anything, we should want to be Ahmed, the Muslim policeman who was killed while protecting the magazine’s right to exist. As the novelist Teju Cole has observed, “It is possible to defend the right to obscene . . . speech without promoting or sponsoring the content of that speech.”

And why have you been so silent on the glaring double standards? Did you not know that Charlie Hebdo sacked the veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark? Were you not aware that Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet in 2005, reportedly rejected cartoons mocking Christ because they would “provoke an outcry” and proudly declared it would “in no circumstances . . . publish Holocaust cartoons”?

Muslims, I guess, are expected to have thicker skins than their Christian and Jewish brethren. Context matters, too. You ask us to laugh at a cartoon of the Prophet while ignoring the vilification of Islam across the continent (have you visited Germany lately?) and the widespread discrimination against Muslims in education, employment and public life – especially in France. You ask Muslims to denounce a handful of extremists as an existential threat to free speech while turning a blind eye to the much bigger threat to it posed by our elected leaders.

Does it not bother you to see Barack Obama – who demanded that Yemen keep the anti-drone journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye behind bars, after he was convicted on “terrorism-related charges” in a kangaroo court – jump on the free speech ban wagon? Weren’t you sickened to see Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of a country that was responsible for the killing of seven journalists in Gaza in 2014, attend the “unity rally” in Paris? Bibi was joined by Angela Merkel, chancellor of a country where Holocaust denial is punishable by up to five years in prison, and David Cameron, who wants to ban non-violent “extremists” committed to the “overthrow of democracy” from appearing on television.

Then there are your readers. Will you have a word with them, please? According to a 2011 YouGov poll, 82 per cent of voters backed the prosecution of protesters who set fire to poppies.

Apparently, it isn’t just Muslims who get offended.

Yours faithfully,

Mehdi.

Mehdi Hasan is a New Statesman contributing writer and the political director of the Huffington Post UK, where this column is crossposted

People,

I remind you religious discussions often bring heartache .

All I can state is whatever you religion is don't follow your faith blindly but use your brain to understand/ analyze what is right and wrong to make your own judgement .

Also in this forum, respect other religious as every religion has good and bad people.
It is sad to see extremism creeping more and more into religions nowadays. ( In muslims, buddhists and christians)

I visited Nalanda last month.

According to the guide, around 12000 monks were killed, a library was burnt with some student monks alive perishing with it.

However, according to the reports of the invaders they say; "We attacked a fortress with over 12000 soldiers all wearing yellow robes but they never resisted our invasion or faught back but died silently."

When I heard this horific story, tears fell from eyes on their cruelty of killing/burning innocent monks but being a Buddhist I have no ill-felings over the ignorant invaders who believed them to be soldiers.

The Monks may have done similar deeds in their previous births & their Karma brought this bad thing on them.

Similar things have happened all over the world in the past but that does not justify any current or future incidents at any rate either in the name of a religion or any political ideology.

Religion is a very sensitive issue which need to be handlled with care. If modern-day freedom of speech or writing hurts the religious feelings of a section of the polulation one must re-visit its principles & restrain his acts.

At the same time, one must never kill a person who exercised his freedom of speech or writing or for over-stepping his freedom as there are civilised means of taking action against them.

Killing a person is a babaric act of beasts not suitable for a civilised man.

Guys enough is said by both sides on the subject. ?Shall we stop discussing this topic & get back to stocks.

The Diversity of Islam
OCT. 8, 2014

Nicholas Kristof
New York Times OP-ED Column

A few days ago, I was on a panel on Bill Maher’s television show on HBO that became a religious war.

Whether or not Islam itself inspires conflict, debates about it certainly do. Our conversation degenerated into something close to a shouting match and went viral on the web. Maher and a guest, Sam Harris, argued that Islam is dangerous yet gets a pass from politically correct liberals, while the actor Ben Affleck denounced their comments as “gross” and “racist.” I sided with Affleck.

After the show ended, we panelists continued to wrangle on the topic for another hour with the cameras off. Maher ignited a debate that is rippling onward, so let me offer three points of nuance.

First, historically, Islam was not particularly intolerant, and it initially elevated the status of women. Anybody looking at the history even of the 20th century would not single out Islam as the bloodthirsty religion; it was Christian/Nazi/Communist Europe and Buddhist/Taoist/Hindu/atheist Asia that set records for mass slaughter.

Likewise, it is true that the Quran has passages hailing violence, but so does the Bible, which recounts God ordering genocides, such as the one against the Amalekites.

Second, today the Islamic world includes a strain that truly is disproportionately intolerant and oppressive. Barbarians in the Islamic State cite their faith as the reason for their monstrous behavior — most recently beheading a British aid worker devoted to saving Muslim lives — and give all Islam a bad name. Moreover, of the 10 bottom-ranking countries in the World Economic Forum’s report on women’s rights, nine are majority Muslim. In Afghanistan, Jordan and Egypt, more than three-quarters of Muslims favor the death penalty for Muslims who renounce their faith, according to a Pew survey.

The persecution of Christians, Ahmadis, Yazidis, Bahai — and Shiites — is far too common in the Islamic world. We should speak up about it.

Third, the Islamic world contains multitudes: It is vast and varied. Yes, almost four out of five Afghans favor the death penalty for apostasy, but most Muslims say that that is nuts. In Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, only 16 percent of Muslims favor such a penalty. In Albania, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, only 2 percent or fewer Muslims favor it, according to the Pew survey.

Beware of generalizations about any faith because they sometimes amount to the religious equivalent of racial profiling. Hinduism contained both Gandhi and the fanatic who assassinated him. The Dalai Lama today is an extraordinary humanitarian, but the fifth Dalai Lama in 1660 ordered children massacred “like eggs smashed against rocks.”

Christianity encompassed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and also the 13th century papal legate who in France ordered the massacre of 20,000 Cathar men, women and children for heresy, reportedly saying: Kill them all; God will know his own.

One of my scariest encounters was with mobs of Javanese Muslims who were beheading people they accused of sorcery and carrying their heads on pikes. But equally repugnant was the Congo warlord who styled himself a Pentecostal pastor; while facing charges of war crimes, he invited me to dinner and said a most pious grace.

The caricature of Islam as a violent and intolerant religion is horrendously incomplete. Remember that those standing up to Muslim fanatics are mostly Muslims. In Pakistan, a gang of Muslim men raped a young Muslim woman named Mukhtar Mai as punishment for a case involving her brother; after testifying against her attackers and winning in the courts, she selflessly used the compensation money she received from the government to start a school for girls in her village. The Taliban gunmen who shot Malala Yousafzai for advocating for education were Muslims; so was Malala.

Iran has persecuted Christians and Bahais, but a Muslim lawyer, Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, showed enormous courage by challenging the repression and winning release of a pastor. Dadkhah is now serving a nine-year prison sentence.

A lawyer friend of mine in Pakistan, Rashid Rehman, was a great champion of human rights and religious tolerance — and was assassinated this year by fundamentalists who stormed his office.

Sure, denounce the brutality, sexism and intolerance that animate the Islamic State and constitute a significant strain within Islam. But don’t confuse that with all Islam: Heroes like Mukhtar, Malala, Dadkhah and Rehman also represent an important element.

Let’s not feed Islamophobic bigotry by highlighting only the horrors while neglecting the diversity of a religion with 1.6 billion adherents — including many who are champions of tolerance, modernity and human rights. The great divide is not between faiths, but one between intolerant zealots of any tradition and the large numbers of decent, peaceful believers likewise found in each tradition.

Maybe that is too complicated to convey in a TV brawl. But it’s the reality.

Murdered Charlie Hebdo editor 'dragged the team' to their death: Founding member of controversial magazine says increasingly provocative cartoons led to shooting

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2912329/Murdered-Charlie-Hebdo-editor-dragged-team-death-Founding-member-controversial-magazine-says-increasingly-provocative-cartoons-led-shooting.html#ixzz3Oysj3OXJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

WasteofTime wrote:Murdered Charlie Hebdo editor 'dragged the team' to their death: Founding member of controversial magazine says increasingly provocative cartoons led to shooting

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2912329/Murdered-Charlie-Hebdo-editor-dragged-team-death-Founding-member-controversial-magazine-says-increasingly-provocative-cartoons-led-shooting.html#ixzz3Oysj3OXJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Defa Defa, Charlie Hebdo cartoonists shot themselves and dragged themselves to death. The cult of peace is always open to criticism and questioning and would never kill cartoonists.

Here is another dailymail source to read at your pleasure
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2872884/Our-faith-condones-raping-underage-slaves-ISIS-publishes-shocking-guidebook-telling-fighters-buy-sell-abuse-captured-women.html


Sad how some "humans" try to justify the murder of cartoonists. Sad what religion/cult/deitifying cult founders does to people.

What a waste of time, if one has to kill innocent people cold-blooded to enjoy busties in heaven.
Those fools and all the innocent people they have gun down cold-blooded could have been still alive if they have gone to Pigalle instead of Charlie Hebdo office.

Dear Jiggy/Kithsiri Sirs,

you are suffering from Depression. But no medicine for that. Can you prove that your people have never killed any one? I come back to your religion. Why double standard?

Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. — Mark Twain

I thought previously, such things could possibly be happening only in African continent.
(Remember the Idi Amin's Basketball match).

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tv/tvshows/insight/rising-extremism-and/1592752.html

Waste of time,

I need you opinion for my personal study. Other do me a favour and not comment on his next response.


How do you see Charlie Hebdo publications ?
How do you see the attack on Charlie Hebdo by extremists?

I need you frank view religious, personal or emptional. As I said I am tryign to understand from various views.

Slstock sir,

In my first post I have mentioned that killers are sick people and got killed are not better either. One was holding a gun other was a pen. It means both are extremist in my opinion. Both are defiance, did not do anything better to their communities. I don’t agree with both parties.

What can we expect from an extremist who is holding a gun after sending no of warning to an extremist who was holding a pen even after no of Muslim organisations, Jews council of Europe , some local politician, scholars and even white house had requested them to not to create any image of Muslim leader?

Insulting, mocking, humiliating, attacking and even slaying any prophet is not new, it had been in history from Adam to prophet Mohamed. You may understand if you can read the history of all prophets of monotheistic religion .What made worse now is creating images of prophet Mohamed which is not according to teaching of Islam. This would not have gone this far if they had not used any images .In Islam, there is no image of Allah (god) , Prophet Mohamed and other 26 prophets mentioned in the Quran. Jesus is a mighty prophet in Islam and we don’t accept his image what Christians are using. It is different story how that image has been created.

WasteofTime wrote:Slstock sir,

In my first post I have mentioned that killers are sick people and got killed are not better either.  One was holding a gun other was a pen. It means both are extremist in my opinion. Both are defiance, did not do anything better to their communities. I don’t agree with both parties.

What can we expect from an extremist who is holding a gun after sending no of warning to an extremist who was holding a pen even after no of Muslim organisations, Jews council of Europe , some local politician, scholars and even white house had requested them to not to create any image of  Muslim leader?

Insulting, mocking, humiliating, attacking and even slaying any prophet is not new, it had been in history from Adam to prophet Mohamed. You may understand if you can read the history of all prophets of monotheistic religion .What made worse now is creating images of prophet Mohamed which is not according to teaching of Islam. This would not have gone this far if they had not used any images .In Islam, there is no image of Allah (god) , Prophet Mohamed and other 26 prophets mentioned in the Quran. Jesus is a mighty prophet in Islam and we don’t accept his image what Christians are using. It is different story how that image has been created.

I am very sympathetic towards your religious feelings.

Even in the history of Buddhism, we don't find any images of Lord Buddha in the early years. Only symbols such as Bo Tree or Dmma Chacra or the Pathra(bawl used to beg Dana or food) were used to dipict Lord Buddha as early buddhist thought it was an insult to Lord Buddha if an image is made resembling him.

With the pasage of time and Mahayanic sector [(popular buddhism leaning towards Amisa puja -offerings & prayars etc which treat every buddhist a Bodhi Sathwa aspiring to become a Buddha more than Prathipaththi Puja where priority is given to development of one's mind and attain Nibbana either by becoming Arhath/Pase Buddha/Buddha)  ) gaining popularity in India.

However, it was during the period of King Kanishka, that a statute of Lord Buddha was first erected. Ever since, even, Therawadic sectors too (who were propagating Prathipaththi Puja and were dead against images of Lord Buddha) tolarated such forms of art work though their teachings remaines well preserved up-to date.

The world changes with new generations trying to comprehend with latest developments of the universe. Time will come when even the Islam too would learn to tolarate images of its Prophets with the pasage of time.

Attempts to resist this trend would solate such groups.

Having said that, let me also emphasise the fact that, creating an image (in respect of certain religions) and insulting a religius leader are two diferrent offences or things while the latter is more graver than the former.

Hence, usage of offensive cartoons of any religious Leader or founder or a prophet is a grave mis-use of freedom of press, which can't be tolarated in this part of the world. We value them more than our counterparts in the west. Unfortunately, these guys are unable to appreciate these relegious values of the East. They are blind to their new found freedom untill some one slaps them on the face.

I appeal to those fathfulls of Islam offended by such irresponsible "Journalism" to restrain their feelings and use legal/political means to fight back rather than using the Gun.

Some of the words being used here, such as Freedom, Offensive and so on and so forth are subjective.

They differ from place to place and have no universally accepted standards.

What we call freedom may be a totally a strange thing to another, living in another place or in another time ( in thinking ).

The conflict starts when we try to describe something, still staying our boots and without fully comprehending the other's point of view.

My initial question as to why the meditating monks were killed at Nalanda still remained unanswered.

Surely, they were not offending anyone (except themselves by trying to be better human).

As someone said, the monks have paid for their previous Karma, which is something I am ready to buy but why the invaders decided to take their swords out from the scabbards, something very difficult for me to comprehend except only describing them as pure intolerance and vengeful nature of their beliefs.

The words, offensive and avenging are just different coats of paints being used only to hide the intolerance and vengeful nature of their beliefs and to justify their barbaric acts.

I am half of your age. I believe you should have wisdom better than me sir. I have answered that massacre was a result of expansion of Ottoman empire. I am not a Turkish citizen sir. You should check with Turkish embassy if you have further clarification .We are barbaric , intolerance and so on sir. but you are not sir .we will ask all human to follow you sir.

කිත්සිරි ද සිල්වා wrote:Some of the words being used here, such as Freedom, Offensive and so on and so forth are subjective.

They differ from place to place and have no universally accepted standards.

What we call freedom may be a totally a strange thing to another, living in another place or in another time ( in thinking ).

The conflict starts when we try to describe something, still staying our boots and without fully comprehending the other's point of view.

My initial question as to why the meditating monks were killed at Nalanda still remained unanswered.

Surely, they were not offending anyone (except themselves by trying to be better human).

As someone said, the monks have paid for their previous Karma, which is something I am ready to buy but why the invaders decided to take their swords out from the scabbards, something very difficult for me to comprehend except only describing them as pure intolerance and vengeful nature of their beliefs.

The words, offensive and avenging are just different coats of paints being used only to hide the intolerance and vengeful nature of their beliefs and to justify their barbaric acts.

කිත්සිරි ද සිල්වා wrote:

The words, offensive and avenging are just different coats of paints being used only to hide the intolerance and vengeful nature of their beliefs and to justify their barbaric acts.

What else can we expect from a stone age cult? The cultists have been brainwashed from a young age to venerate and deitify the founder of their cult so the cult members act like frogs in the well and think that it is ok to murder cartoonists who question and criticize this supreme all powerful founder.

You can say that this cult is similar to SLEF but in that case the punishment for going against the founder/admin is to be banned while the stone age cult like to murder people who question their barbarism.