Associated Press,  Fri Feb 10 07:34:08 EST 2006

    BHARATHA MALLAWARACHI  -   Associated Press Writer  -              COLOMBO, Sri Lanka -  (AP)  Thousands of Muslims trampled on a large Danish flag spread outside the entrance of one of Sri Lanka - 's main mosques on Friday to protest caricatures of Prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper.        Sri Lanka - 's 1.3 million Muslims are the country's second-largest minority after ethnic Tamils, who are mainly Hindu. The 14 million Sinhalese majority are mainly Buddhists.

Full Story


_________________
- The Academic

I wonder why there were no protests when Afgans bombed Buddha status!

Gee Guys, belated organized "protests",. Where were these guys when Taleban destroyed ancient Buddhist Statue? Where were these guys when Saddam gassed fellow Moslems and massacred thousands of Shias? Where were these guys when Usama launched terrorist attacks?  SL is a SECULAR NATION.  These guys have no credibility because I doubt if any of them even saw these cartoons.  Albeit they were incendiary but someone should retaliate by posting cartoons calling the Holocaust a fraud (which it is not) and cartoons of Jesus as a queer person or terrorist and the Pope as a terrorist to in American papers and European papers  and those fellas will react in anger too. So it is two edged sword.

It is realy funny to see them.
I condemn insulting any religion by any way.  Not only once they have reproduced it several times.

But the way muslims reacting to it also owfull.  The show how fool they are.
Several years ago, when they(Thaleibans) bombed and blasted Bamiyan Buddha statues, they never thought this type of things no. Buddhists protested little bit. Donot no whether Buddhists were incapable of acting like muslims.  
Some muslim leaders were unkind enough to justify it telling that "worshipping statues is prohibited in Islam, so no need to have any statues in Muslim countries".
Buddhists tolerated is peacefully.
As there were no buddhists in Afganistan to worship Keeping it like that would not be a problem for islam.  So future generation lost one of the world heritages.
 

Just within few months Thsleibans got he results, in whatever way, they lost. At least linking to 9 11 attack.
It is called "Ditta Dhamma wedaniya Karma"

How many Cartoons comes about Jesus, Pope, every year.  Cristians just enjoy  it.  That is all.
How many Buddha bars in Muslim countries?

Why Muslims donot beliew on their God?  Do they think their god is simply incapable of punishing his enimies?
Let the God to solve his problem him self. If he cannot do it,  how the hell he solve your problem even you pray?
If so forget him.


The people who do good will get good.  Who do bad will get bad too.

One way Cartoons are correct because most of the terrorist organisations in the world are Muslim.  They are aimed to Jihad.  Jihard is in Isalam, said by Prophet Mohmed.  So his word Bomb and kill thousands every year.  
So is it not the meaning of that cartoon?


_________________
"#¤¤&/()=?``=?[ }

Apparently, the Muslims who are protesting now are much more offended by a stupid cartoon than when someone flies an airplane into a building full of innocent people, in the name of their religion. How's that for double standards!!


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------

Do Not Speak - Unless it Improves on Silence...

---------------------------------------------------------------

peevee.,

You are generalizing., Many Moslems protested the insanity of the attacks on the WTC., Far more than those who supported it. Of course, the media will only publish those stories (the Dancing Palestinians for example) that can be used to increase the ratings or sales or inflame public opinion with a view to garnering support for subsequent actions (like Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example)

Cartoons depicted nothing but terrorism of some Muslims and their belief in Prophet Mohamed's teachings. One  cartoon shows they have run out of virgins in heaven as there are so many Muslims kill themselves  in the name of Islam to go to heaven hoping they will get to enjoy all the luxuries including seventy two(?) virgins per person!!! When you look at the number of suicide bombers dying in Iraq, Afganistan and other Muslim countries, cartoonist was correct in his  satirical expression in one of the cartoons. I do not think cartoonist had any intention of insulting Islam or Prophed Mohamed, he was mainly expressing the terrorist behaviour of Muslim fanatics.

bweera

Based on your line of reasoning, how would you explain the same newspaper that first published the Muhammed cartoons, refusing at an earlier time to publish similar inflammatory material pertaining to Jesus (originally apparently on the grounds that "it may offend readers" and "readers may not think it funny")

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4700124.stm

I would be interested to read your response.

The response of the editor was that he refused the anti-Jesus cartoons because they weren't any good, but he was too polite to say so.

Even if it weren't true, you can hardly expect the media anywhere to ridicule both sides. Not many anti-Mahinda cartoons in "The Daily Noise", or anti-Ranil in "The Sunday Loser".

....  who says faith based religions have done any good to the humanity.

Stephen Jones wrote:

The response of the editor was that he refused the anti-Jesus cartoons because they weren't any good, but he was too polite to say so.

Even if it weren't true, you can hardly expect the media anywhere to ridicule both sides. Not many anti-Mahinda cartoons in "The Daily Noise", or anti-Ranil in "The Sunday Loser".

Yes. The editors response is a suitable one and the previous politness he now claims is commendable, considering the madness that his subsequent ill-thought decision to publish percieved anti-Islamic cartoons unleashed. I am not aware that MR and Ranil are religious figures.

Do you see many anti-Christian caricatures in Saudi Arabia ., ? I mean specifically depicting a religous figure ? If not, why do you think that may be ?

proximus wrote:

bweera

Based on your line of reasoning, how would you explain the same newspaper that first published the Muhammed cartoons, refusing at an earlier time to publish similar inflammatory material pertaining to Jesus (originally apparently on the grounds that "it may offend readers" and "readers may not think it funny")

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4700124.stm

I would be interested to read your response.

proximus:
It depends on how you interpret those unpublished cartoons pertaining to Jesus. May be they were truly offensive, how do I know? I haven't seen them.

Quote:

Do you see many anti-Christian caricatures in Saudi Arabia ., ? I mean specifically depicting a religous figure ? If not, why do you think that may be ?

The Christian prophets are also the Muslim prophets.

Violent caricatures of Jews are common; they are commonly seen as anti-semitic by many European Jews, but are often no more than a stereotype. Much depends on the cartoonist. All pictures of religious figures are however seen as being prohibited. Philipine workers who bought in illustrated bibles were sentenced to years in jail for pornography (the pornography being the illustrations to the bible). If you were caught brining in a carved Buddha it would be smashed and you would be deported or worst.

Years ago when I bought in a chess set they wanted to cut off the cross on top of the king. When I told them the Staunton design was the internationally approved one they said 'international' didn't apply to Saudi. EWventually I got the chess set in unmutilated on condition I took it with me when I left.

Caricatures of Christianity are of course exceptionally common in Europe and the US.

bweera, thanks for your response.

If I read you correctly, you are saying that "if the Jesus cartoons were truly offensive", it was appropriate for the editor to decide not to publish them. I assume you would hold the same truth as being valid for the Muhammed illustrations as well ? I also assume that you are not a Muslim and therefore probably cannot appreciate the nature and degree of the offense. To you, it's just another illustration.

I can appreciate and make allowances for a certain level of ignorance of Islam on the part of the editor. What I cannot understand is the reasoning behind the decision made by a number of other newspapers to subsequently carry the same illustrations well after the Moslem community has voiced (and acted out) it's displeasure.

To me this seems like a purposeful goading of the Muslims in the expectation that the cycle of violence will increase and it may be held up as an example to the non-Islamic world that Muslims are basically a violent and raging community bent on destruction of everything that does not conform to their particular world-view.

If that is indeed the case, it's regrettable. Unfortunately, the Muslims seem to be falling into this trap all over the world.

"....  who says faith based religions have done any good to the humanity."

HardX has explained a lot in one sentence what we are facing to day with religious fanatics. These religions have made some human beings to behave like robots. They have lost rational thinking and open mindedness. May be the teachings of these great thinkers  have been modified by man to suit their selfish interests.