An article about the Prophet Muhammad in the English-language Wikipedia has become the subject of an online protest in the last few weeks because of its representations of Muhammad, taken from medieval manuscripts.
In addition to numerous e-mail messages sent to Wikipedia.org, an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images of people. The petition has more than 80,000 “signatures,” though many who submitted them to ThePetitionSite.com remained anonymous…
A FAQ page explains the site’s polite but firm refusal to remove the images: “Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group…”
Sadly, strident Islamists do not respect the view of Muslim scholars – and their own history – much less those who simply catalogue information.
Watch out, the crazies will come here demanding you remove it too.
Jimmy Wales is going to be sharing a room with Solomon Rushdie
I suppose there’s only one thing for Muslims to do….. Keep cutting internet cables in defense of Muhammad!
I am getting sick of this crap.
[edit: see comments guide]
What’s the fucking surprise? Islam proclaims that it’s laws apply to EVERYONE, INCLUDING NON-MUSLIMS.
I thought that Wikipedia was self-censoring and openly edited. Shouldn’t those that disagree with the image be able to remove it on their own?
I am all for sensitivity but sometimes there is not much room for compromise. My initial suggestion was to have the offending pictures on a separate page with a link from the Wikipedia article to the pictures in question, thereby not offending any Muslims who visit the page while allowing true academic research to continue.
Then I woke up out of my idealistic dream and realized that they would still complain. These zealots want all opinions and proofs contrary to their religious beliefs erased from history. Nothing else will do.
Three Headed Cat got it right. Also, Wikipedia does allow editing of a page, but others can reverse the edits. Then a moderator may disable editing the page while future edits are deliberated in the discussion section.
#3 Gary, the dangerous infidel
I think it was the CIA who did that – not the Muslims “Iran is back online, but… its traffic is now passing through the UK and the US, the latter controlling the 13 primary routers. Can you say wiretap?” queries another. you did link there.
I’m going to bed, its late and damn it I am going to miss getting into a good religious fight from both sides who are both wrong equally. :/
Why not just worship something good that would never inspire anyone to kill or hate anybody…
Any ideas?
Mine is I would like to worship the Sun. Its tangible, predictable – comes up every day and goes away every night so there can be no argument about that and without it we would be damn cold and think of the heating bill!
Cheers
So let me get this straight: any depiction of Muhammad is wrong.
But, wait a minute, the picture is taken from a medieval Islamic manuscript. And since the good muslim who wrote the manuscript and drew the picture would never, ever, show a picture of Muhammad, then obviously the person is not Muhammad. It’s just some guy looking at a rug.
So there’s no problem.
What are they rolling into the carpet in the picture? A bomb? Or a human head?
Five men to clean one carpet: speaks volumes about this desert cult. Only if Catholicism adopted this primitive method of God ownership validation.
Islam. Building a bridge to the 7th century.
#10 TIHZ_HO writes “I think it was the CIA who did that – not the Muslims.”
Indeed, when accidental causes are dismissed, the world is chock-full of sinister possibilities, few of which are beyond serious consideration. That said, I’d be surprised if those trunk lines hadn’t already been tapped by the CIA or NSA in a less discernible manner.
If you’re familiar with the old Mad Magazine “Spy vs Spy” ongoing engagement, I happen to think it was the black spy, but so far I have no proof 😉
The prophet’s (Muhammad) reason for not wanting a pictorial (or for that matter other forms such as statue or sculpture) of him is for fear that people might adore/worship his image rather than his messages (from God). In Islam, there is no physical symbols (unlike, for example Christian’s cross)(and no, the common crescent with 5 pointed star is not a symbol of Islam, but have somehow over the course of time been accepted as an emblem of Islam, but is not worshiped or considered holy in any way). Though I would rather not have pictures of the prophet (what’s the point. All he asked for is to have faith. and I can do that without needing an image of him), I have no problem with it. And I feel other Muslims shouldn’t too. As long as everyone understand that the images are merely depicting the prophet and not representing him.
Personally, I understand why some Muslims request the pictures to be removed, but I’m not able to explain that in words in this comment.
I-Slam: “The Religion of Love”…Love to cut off your Infidel head…Love to shoot you in your Infidel head and dump your Infidel carcass in the desert…Love to subjugate ANY thought that you MIGHT have…Love to butcher women who have a problem with being constantly beaten and abused…Love to practice religious tolerance so long as you have all ready been dispatched to Allah…in pieces.
Can’t you just feel all that “Love” people?
I’d say nuke’em back to the stone age but, they’re already there.
Oh yeah, and if any Islamite happens to post here, **anything** they post for the benefit of non-believers, aka Infidels, is a LIE…otherwise known as a Blessing from Allah to LIE to infidels. Dispute THAT!
Why are they complaining about the print when under those tenants even that should not be allowed to exist? Perhaps it should be destroyed also?
I’m starting a petition for muslins to shut the hell up. Anyone interested?
wankhairil, I wonder how far I’d get with a crescent and star embroidered on the seat of my pants?
actually I had a better idea. Let me edit the pictures; instead of having Mohammed’s face, let me draw a huge pen1s on it. A hairy one. then it wouldn’t be the guy and everyone will be happy.
Gee, you’d think with how much the U.S. government wants Americans to hate Islamics the people of Islam wouldn’t give so many reasons to hate. Unless…..
Two Points
(1) Did you know that there is a frieze of Muhammad in the US Supreme Court chamber’s south wall? CAIR has been trying to get Judge Rehnquist to have it removed.
(2) If you go to IMDB, in areas where they discuss a film, they have implemented a Web 2,0 AJAX style spoiler-alert system.
Where there is content that might ruin the film, it is covered with a mask alerting you that the content under the mask contains a spoiler. If you click the mask, it pulls away and you can read the content.
Perhaps Wikipedia can put this “opt-in” mask over such objectionable material. Devout Muslims can choose not to click the mask to reveal the image underneath.
I think wankhairil has made some good comment, obviously from a moderate person with the ability to get along with his neighbors. I also like Ron Larson’s opt-in suggestion. Put both together and the world is a better place. Only problem is, the world needs a lot more reasonable people for these suggestions to work. Well, here’s to hope!
Dear Strident Islamists,
Fuck Off!
Love,
Muhammad
Apparently they had a new puppy that had worms and he kept dragging his ass on the carpet so they are trying to clean it.
This is ridiculous… For all you Muslims out there… relax and have fun! Life is too short.
Image 1
#5 – THC – Islam proclaims that it’s laws apply to EVERYONE, INCLUDING NON-MUSLIMS.
As with Christians, not all of them are nutters. 😉
I don’t have a thing against Islam except for that small detail about its followers wanting to kill me for my not cooperating and bending to their will. Oh well, too bad for them. We Americans have too stiff a spine for that sort of bending. Too much calcium in our diet I’d guess.
#24
So, how many other little “adjustments” are you willing to make and at how many other religions request? How far are you willing to go? Just wondering …
All religion is suspect. Faith is my rock. Those who seek their peace in this corrupt and perverted world ain’t gonna get it, no how, no way.
Adjustments? I’d guess I’d make those that were needed IF I were out of whack but, I’m not (much).
#27 – Jäg
“#5 – THC – Islam proclaims that it’s laws apply to EVERYONE, INCLUDING NON-MUSLIMS.
As with Christians, not all of them are nutters. 🙂 ”
Who said anything about nutters? Islam, the mainstream religion – not some obscure fundie sect – has as one of it’s core tenets the proclamation that Allah rules believers and infidels alike. They don’t advertise it to the
suckerstolerant people they are trying to convince of their reasonableness – but it is there.Again, get it straight. They – which is to say, all devout Muslims – believe that their religious law applies to everyone on Earth. There is no ‘opt-out’ clause in the Quran.