Jump to content

Cartoon Shooting France


mrggg123
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why did the newspaper draw a picture of mohammed? How would us sikhs feel if derogatory pictures of our gurus was drawn? Why did the newspaper target muslims?

this satirical newspaper has mocked political and religious figures since the time of Marie Antoinette i.e. over two hundred years ...its just their thing usually for corrupt practices. To be honest they wouldn't have any material to admonish our Gurus on , they were humanitarians , non-predjudicial, pro-free speech .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paper regularly targets the Jewish and Catholic community. yet they didn't react in this way.

the majority of christians there are catholic , and there are a sizable amount of jewish people settled , the difference being they are secure enough mentally with their beliefs to not feel so threatened by a cartoonist , I think that you should be able to cope with criticism rationally as a thinking adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it wasn't cartoons, there would be some other reason for the attacks.

I have seen pictures of Ganesh (elephant god) and Buddha with Jesus in compromising positions but there has not been any outrage from Christians, Buddhists or Hindus.

The two brothers who were behind this attack were known to the security and intelligence agencies.

The thing about the west is that nothing is really sacred, everything is under scrutiny and they will take the p***. Islam has been on the offensive in the west for the past few decades, the more it places itself into the public eye the more they will be scrutinised and satirised in the west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not looking at things objectively jkvlondon. Also, you don't seem to be in possession of the full facts.

Firstly, Muslims....like us Sikhs...do not take kindly to their prophet being depicted in any form. Christians and Jews have no such issue - their faith encorages depiction of their prophets - but those Christians should be mature, intellient and understanding enough to appreciate how such an issue is a gigantic issue with both Muslims AND Sikhs.

Secondly, what the mainsteam media is to some extent witholding from us is what those 'cartoons' actually entailed. They say the word 'cartoon' knowing it conjures up innocent tom and jerry type images in our minds. The fact is, when Muslims started to complain about the drawings the magazine deliberately went one step further....some might say a step way too far....and the latest installment of the magazine depicted Mohammed with his genitalia hanging out erect having sexual liasions with all sorts of women.

Whilst absolutely none of us would condone the horrific murder that took place one has to look at things objectively and conclude that this 'free speech' mantra being repeated by the public must have its limits. Free speech should not mean the freedom to wilfully and deliberately hurt and destroy the very essence of others' beings simply because their belief is alien to yours.

the original offence I remember was some years back , and satirists are known to go for the throat... the thing is yes both Muslims and Sikhs are not tolerant of offence on their Founders but the huge gap of time and the fact that the world's muslims didn't complain as much as they did against the scandinavian cartoon seems to make me think this was not a big deal originally and has now become one.

I know this publication has a very rude,purile,irreverent take on everything they do I mean they were scatching in their critcism of Marie Antoinette even though the risks were great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not looking at things objectively jkvlondon. Also, you don't seem to be in possession of the full facts.

Firstly, Muslims....like us Sikhs...do not take kindly to their prophet being depicted in any form. Christians and Jews have no such issue - their faith encorages depiction of their prophets - but those Christians should be mature, intellient and understanding enough to appreciate how such an issue is a gigantic issue with both Muslims AND Sikhs.

Secondly, what the mainsteam media is to some extent witholding from us is what those 'cartoons' actually entailed. They say the word 'cartoon' knowing it conjures up innocent tom and jerry type images in our minds. The fact is, when Muslims started to complain about the drawings the magazine deliberately went one step further....some might say a step way too far....and the latest installment of the magazine depicted Mohammed with his genitalia hanging out erect having sexual liasions with all sorts of women.

Whilst absolutely none of us would condone the horrific murder that took place one has to look at things objectively and conclude that this 'free speech' mantra being repeated by the public must have its limits. Free speech should not mean the freedom to wilfully and deliberately hurt and destroy the very essence of others' beings simply because their belief is alien to yours.

WJKK WJKF

Jagsaw Singh, spot on! It's easy for us Sikhs to say we would of reacted better, however it wasn't our prophet and if it was, I'm sure many a sikh would see red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it wasn't cartoons, there would be some other reason for the attacks.

I have seen pictures of Ganesh (elephant god) and Buddha with Jesus in compromising positions but there has not been any outrage from Christians, Buddhists or Hindus.

The two brothers who were behind this attack were known to the security and intelligence agencies.

The thing about the west is that nothing is really sacred, everything is under scrutiny and they will take the p***. Islam has been on the offensive in the west for the past few decades, the more it places itself into the public eye the more they will be scrutinised and satirised in the west.

But I just told you...and I said it very clearly....how Christianity and Hinduism is not only OK with physically depicting their 'gods' and prophets, they actively encourage it.

Sikhism....and Islam....on the other hand, most certainly does NOT.

Its about respect. Respet for one another. They respect our beliefs and we respect theirs.

So let me ask you and jkvlondon this question : Are you honestly saying you'd support our Guru ji being depicted in the same disgusting way ?

If not, why are you being a hypocrite and applauding the hurt the Muslim feels in place of you ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use