NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=52089

Is it really that difficult to accept that Wikipedia and other western organizations are not bound by some nutty religious rule in a really old book?

Edit: links to the various wikipedia pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images

I believe this sums wikipedia's position up
Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=52089

Is it really that difficult to accept that Wikipedia and other western organizations are not bound by some nutty religious rule in a really old book?

It was a petition on "thepetitionsite.com" so a resounding MEH all around
Hell "Save Wolves - End Aerial Hunting »" has 63 thousand votes right now for god sakes

An internet petition hardly seems to be something to care about

then they can just make their own WIKI if it matters so hard

maybe its just a Scientology plot aggravate anon

Is it really that difficult to accept that Wikipedia and other western organizations are not bound by some nutty religious rule in a really old book?

this only makes sense as a question if you already believe that such things are not divine commands.

I don't see this ending well....



this will just bring it to the attention of extremist on both sides....wikiwar

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=52089

Is it really that difficult to accept that Wikipedia and other western organizations are not bound by some nutty religious rule in a really old book?




Yes it is for them. Just as its difficult for Christians to accept that non-Christians are not bound by some of their absurd morality.

No matter waht religion you are, there is some unspoken rule that you cannot accept other people dont abide by your rules.

Yes it is for them. Just as its difficult for Christians to accept that non-Christians are not bound by some of their absurd morality.

No matter waht religion you are, there is some unspoken rule that you cannot accept other people dont abide by your rules.
I accept others don't live by my beliefs. Jesus tells us to be tolerant, and I do exactly that. Or try at least, I'm not perfect.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=52089

Is it really that difficult to accept that Wikipedia and other western organizations are not bound by some nutty religious rule in a really old book?

I didn't even know about this wiki page until now.

So.. where's the link?

If Wikipedia backs down from their position I'm going to be very disappointed in them.

I accept others don't live by my beliefs. Jesus tells us to be tolerant, and I do exactly that. Or try at least, I'm not perfect.



If only you were the majority of Christians. My life would be so much better.

The nice thing about wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. The muslims can change this without starting a petition.

It's not a sin for a non muslim to look at muhammad, so they could just change the image into a link to an image. Muslims should be able to read a page on wikipedia without commiting a sin.

The nice thing about wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. The muslims can change this without starting a petition.

It's not a sin for a non muslim to look at muhammad, so they could just change the image into a link to an image. Muslims should be able to read a page on wikipedia without commiting a sin.

No they should not ... I am all for freedom but you do not have a right to not be offended weather that is religious or any other type of belief.

When your religion requires the restriction of information it is in the wrong ... I don't care if thats pictures of Mohamed or Nudity.

If you feel you are in danger of violating your religion by simply seeing a picture you best evaluate the places you spend your time online

Edit: Clarifing because I have a feeling that some posters will not understand that "your" is meant as a general reference to people as a whole

The nice thing about wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. The muslims can change this without starting a petition.

It's not a sin for a non muslim to look at muhammad, so they could just change the image into a link to an image. Muslims should be able to read a page on wikipedia without commiting a sin.

actually, no, they can't
Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

In case you missed it, that was quoted in the OP.

Read, then post.

Read, then post.

Reading before posting violates my religious beliefs. Please be tolerant.

I like how everyone assumes I'm a muslim just because I think they should be able to read a page on wikipedia.

I like how everyone assumes I'm a muslim just because I think they should be able to read a page on wikipedia.

Who assumed?

I like how everyone assumes I'm a muslim just because I think they should be able to read a page on wikipedia.

I like how you assume that everybody assumes that. Especially when there is nothing said in this thread to back that up...

But why should they have to take them pictures off when all the people that would find such images offensive would have to do is click a few times to have their browser not display them?

I like how everyone assumes I'm a muslim just because I think they should be able to read a page on wikipedia.

No one said anything about you being Muslim. I implied that you have poor reading comprehension skills, which you have now reinforced.

Wiki ruled that the images won't be taken down. As such, they won't be. That was quoted in the first post. You, somehow, missed it.

They can still read it...they just need to deal with the fact that no one else cares about images of their prophet.

Reading before posting violates my religious beliefs. Please be tolerant.

Does that mean I have to be tolerant of poor reading skills, too?:(:D

Ok, I admit I didn't read the article very thoroughly. I'll go sit in the corner now.

Reading before posting violates my religious beliefs. Please be tolerant.

tolerance of your religious beliefs violates my religious beliefs. you shall read before posting or be burned at the e-stake!

Ok, I admit I didn't read the article very thoroughly. I'll go sit in the corner now.

It was in the OP. And I quoted it a second time for you. It has nothing to do with an article...it's the post you were responding to.

Hence: read, then post.

tolerance of your religious beliefs violates my religious beliefs. you shall read before posting or be burned at the e-stake!

oh, come on. The e-stake is only used on e-heretics. You should know that we use the i-crucifix for e-heathens and g-blasphamers.

oh, come on. The e-stake is only used on e-heretics. You should know that we use the i-crucifix for e-heathens and g-blasphamers.
*runs public.exe*

I don't think there ary any legitimate images of Muhammed though.

I don't think there ary any legitimate images of Muhammed though.

Out of curiosity, do you think that there are any legitimate images of any person?

*runs public.exe*

can a pun win?

I don't think there ary any legitimate images of Muhammed though.

define "legitimate"

What I meant was a portrait made during his life.



I would be inclined to agree, just as there are no legit portraits of Jesus (and in America he's often portrayed as White Blonde Haired Blue Eyed which just amusses me...I dont think there are many of those born in the Mid-east).

What I meant was a portrait made during his life.

Ah, gotcha. That makes more sense.

I initially thought you might be taking an even more interesting position than the typical iconoclasm of Islam.

Out of curiosity, do you think that there are any legitimate images of any person?

What I meant was a portrait made during his life.

can a pun win?
Aww, but I was proud of my one.

I like how everyone assumes I'm a muslim just because I think they should be able to read a page on wikipedia.

I am just curious as to why any Muslim would need to look up Muhammad on Wiki???? The only possible reason they are meddling into it is to cause a ruckus....surely they already are experts on Muhammad. DOH.

Perhaps they wanted to learn more. Or maybe they wanted to share their knowledge on Muhammad. There are plenty of reasons why a Muslim could be on such a page.

I suppose so. But I am not convinced it isn't just to cause trouble. Which is typical. If they are offended then leave or turn off the pictures. The rest of the world is not required to follow their beliefs...no matter how they try to force it.

I am just curious as to why any Muslim would need to look up Muhammad on Wiki???? The only possible reason they are meddling into it is to cause a ruckus....surely they already are experts on Muhammad. DOH.

Perhaps they wanted to learn more. Or maybe they wanted to share their knowledge on Muhammad. There are plenty of reasons why a Muslim could be on such a page.

I suppose so. But I am not convinced it isn't just to cause trouble. Which is typical. If they are offended then leave or turn off the pictures. The rest of the world is not required to follow their beliefs...no matter how they try to force it.

How is it typical of Muslims to try to cause trouble? I had Muslim friends growing up, and they were actually some of the least likely to cause trouble.

If that pisses them off, then I expect nothing less than a car bomb over this:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/allahsaurus.jpg

(thanks for the pic LG)

How is it typical of Muslims to try to cause trouble? I had Muslim friends growing up, and they were actually some of the least likely to cause trouble.

I'll rephrase, it is typical of radical muslims to cause trouble. The world is full of examples. More than one instance has been about pictures of Muhammad.

My Muslim friends don't ask me to believe what they believe nor do they insist on their rules being my rules. Do yours?

Out of curiosity, do you think that there are any legitimate images of any person?

Nope, because I don't look as good in pictures.

If that pisses them off, then I expect nothing less than a car bomb over this:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/allahsaurus.jpg

(thanks for the pic LG)

Poor Zilam will have to wait forever for his car bomb.

If that pisses them off, then I expect nothing less than a car bomb over this:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/allahsaurus.jpg

(thanks for the pic LG)

If you wanted to make them REALLY mad, it should be a Muhammad-saurus Rex and there should be a nuclear radio-active sign thing on the bomb. If you want to piss people off, you have to do it right, not half-ass it and cut every corner you can think of.

I'll rephrase, it is typical of radical muslims to cause trouble. The world is full of examples. More than one instance has been about pictures of Muhammad.

My Muslim friends don't ask me to believe what they believe nor do they insist on their rules being my rules. Do yours?

No, they don't, and never have. Granted, that may be partly because their religion doesn't have the kind of social clout here that it does in the Middle East. Religious folks tend to be a lot more willing to make those sort of demands when the weight of the state is behind them.

I accept others don't live by my beliefs. Jesus tells us to be tolerant, and I do exactly that. Or try at least, I'm not perfect.

So I take it you're in support of the legalization of gay marriage and the continued legality of abortion in the US?

I agree that the Muhammed images should be left up. Additionally, so double standards are not held, pictures should be put up for these too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_steamer

or is it only okay to offend Muslims?

I agree that the Muhammed images should be left up. Additionally, so double standards are not held, pictures should be put up for these too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_steamer

or is it only okay to offend Muslims?

I think Muslims would be offended by those pictures too.

If that pisses them off, then I expect nothing less than a car bomb over this:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/allahsaurus.jpg

(thanks for the pic LG)

I'm here to help. :)

I agree that the Muhammed images should be left up. Additionally, so double standards are not held, pictures should be put up for these too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_steamer

or is it only okay to offend Muslims?


Ones pornographic. The other is of a historical figure. One society as a whole agrees they dont want to see. The other a fringe group of radicals are offended by.


Your comparison fails.

Ones pornographic. The other is of a historical figure. One society as a whole agrees they dont want to see. The other a fringe group of radicals are offended by.


Your comparison fails.
First of all, that's false. Pornography has been wildly successful and is used for advertising all over the globe. The group of people opposing the depiction of their prophet is not a fringe group, but represents something close to mainstream religious thought in the worlds second?-biggest religion.

Also, if you are saying that one is okay because it offends a smaller percentage of people, where do you draw the line? And on what principled basis?

The bottom line is that both instances are cases where a lot of people think information should be censored from an encyclopedia because they are offended by it. For one of those groups, it's intrinsically tied to their belief system, and for the other group - they're just uncomfortable looking at it. The reason the latter group is heeded and the former group isn't is because wikipedia's editors are culturally biased.

can a pun win?
I've tried to win that way, ten times in fact, hoping one of them would win.
But no pun in ten did.

Is it really that difficult to accept that Wikipedia and other western organizations are not bound by some nutty religious rule in a really old book?

Is it really so difficult to understand that if someone believes as a tenant of their religion that certain images should not be shown then it doesn't really matter who shows it?

Right or wrong, muslims believe that images of mohammed should not be shown, period. Why in the world would you expect a person whose religious belief states that showing an image of mohammed is unacceptable in all circumstances would suddenly find it acceptable when wiki did it?

Guys, there is porn on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions

Is it really so difficult to understand that if someone believes as a tenant of their religion that certain images should not be shown then it doesn't really matter who shows it?

Right or wrong, muslims believe that images of mohammed should not be shown, period. Why in the world would you expect a person whose religious belief states that showing an image of mohammed is unacceptable in all circumstances would suddenly find it acceptable when wiki did it?

i actually kinda take it as good news that god is so dead in large swaths of the world that people have trouble imagining that believing god says so would be a legitimate reason to do something.

Less porn more instructional ... but a good example why religious values should restrict information, plenty of members of other religions that are more common around these parts (the west) that are protesting that sort of information as well.

That's the business they're in. The first step to controlling thought is controlling information. *nod*

Guys, there is porn on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions

Less porn more instructional ... but a good example why religious values should restrict information, plenty of members of other religions that are more common around these parts (the west) that are protesting that sort of information as well.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=52089

Is it really that difficult to accept that Wikipedia and other western organizations are not bound by some nutty religious rule in a really old book?

Edit: links to the various wikipedia pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images

I believe this sums wikipedia's position up

i have never heard of this! still they could just get online and delete the image

i have never heard of this! still they could just get online and delete the image

Nope - wikipedia has officially stated that they will rollback any removal.
Maybe the site could implement a censor system that hides images like this unless you click them ? Would also allow them to show goatse ;)

Funny btw how people have managed to put goatse and Mohammed together.

http://cagle.com/news/Muhammad/images/849-MuhammadDrawing.gif

Guys, there is porn on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions
More!
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Wikipedia_Porn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list

More!
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Wikipedia_Porn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list

Just wait until I post AwesomeCougarsselfsuck.jpg

Guys, there is porn on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions

:eek:

Someone, protect the children, quick!

[/facetious]

Irked of course, but the first reason of this anti-imagery is not about fear from ridicule. Actually it's because of fear of icon worship. Iconoclasts.

actually it isn't THAT "nutty" of a rule. baha'is also have no pictures of baha'u'llah, though there are plenty of abdu'l baha, his son and successor.

there is a reason for this, and i feel it IS a good one. the idea is to avoid making the messanger an object of worship rather then the god they all, christ included, channeled. of course mohammid's objection to ANY representative art, was perhapse a bit over the top, but i do get tired of seeing so many portrats of human faces as opposed to landscapes, architecture and infrastructure, along with nonhuman critters that i so much more greatly enjoy seeing.

i really can see mohammid's point in that, and had i been he, might well have done much the same. better no representative immages, if people refused to make the finer distinction of no human images.

just a matter of my personal taste the latter. and i suppose entirely aside from the more salient point.

=^^=
.../\...

the original newspaper is Turkish Daily News.

the Turkishweeklynews is a newspaper representing the radical or let's say right-leaning defensive islamists in Turkey and has nothing to do with the viewpoint of Secular media in Turkey.

What Mohammad was trying to do is to avoid his believers idolizing him as >God< , that's why it is forbidden in Islam to draw (not photograph that times) :) his picture. However the Islam Khalifs coming after Mohammad have also forbidden the Imagery of Human in Islam arts for a really stupid reason, that took back the Arabian arts even 1000 years back!

The problem of Islam today is the Sharia which is not only based in Koran but also that rumors, some say Omar said so, some say Abu Bekhir forbidden these... And also there are over 100000 Khadis (the words of visdom said by the prophet) which are not legible or just false.

The Islamic Media today uses all the possibilities of Audio/Visual Communication with out thinking of these old Image Forbid in Islam Religion. And it is normal for Non Islamic countries to use their own images, even to draw Mohammad for communication/information reasons.

Internet is democracy. And while radical islamists cry for respect. They can also respect an online Encyclopedia like WIKI and if so disturbing AVOID looking to that for themselves.

Or they can really stand after what they always say. The Islam is the latest and most modern religion! So just because of self respect. They can also reformize Modern Islam, with redacting the whole "may be/could be/should be" shit inside.

this only makes sense as a question if you already believe that such things are not divine commands.who does not believe thus? and do those who not believe thus matter? why do folks still even take the drivel of religious nutjubs seriously?

Irked of course, but the first reason of this anti-imagery is not about fear from ridicule. Actually it's because of fear of icon worship. Iconoclasts.

That's right. According to orthodox Muslim doctrine, creating and showing images of any person is forbidden... So if Wikipedia gave way on this claim, the probable next step would be for the same Muslim group to demand the removal of all images of all people from its contents...

The bottom line is that both instances are cases where a lot of people think information should be censored from an encyclopedia because they are offended by it. For one of those groups, it's intrinsically tied to their belief system, and for the other group - they're just uncomfortable looking at it. The reason the latter group is heeded and the former group isn't is because wikipedia's editors are culturally biased.
You can't really compare the two. Goatse, tubgirl, etc are offensive in a sense that the image itself assaults the senses and is simply disgusting; this has nothing to do with a cultural norm and more to do with human wiring. The religious prohibition on visual representations of Muhammad is a completely different matter derived from religious norms; this kind of image is only offensive with the strict caveat that those concerned not only accept those religious norms, but specifically the one prohibiting visual arts. Two very different scenarios.

What Mohammad was trying to do is to avoid his believers idolizing him as >God< , that's why it is forbidden in Islam to draw (not photograph that times) :) his picture. However the Islam Khalifs coming after Mohammad have also forbidden the Imagery of Human in Islam arts for a really stupid reason, that took back the Arabian arts even 1000 years back!I honestly don't know how much the ban on visual arts can be said to have affected the Arabian arts. Even before Islam, art in that region tended to focus on poetry and song rather than any kind of visual stimuli for the simple fact that a vast number of people were pastoralists or nomads and carrying around a painting, or even a scroll, is extra weight that is unnecessary. On the other hand, poetry and song are easily memorized and part of being an adviser in a tribe was knowing the genealogy of not only your tribe, but of various other tribes you might encounter as well, on top of memorizing poetry. Hell, the pre-Islamic use of the Kaaba was as a site for what amounts to a grand (though really, really cool....the winners supposedly had their poems written in gold upon high quality scrolls or some such) poetry bash. My point through this is that the visual arts hadn't actually been emphasized for very practical reasons so there isn't really any reason to think that things would have changed very much for a good while.

As an aside, has anyone actually read 1001 Nights? Holy shit is some of that stuff pornographic. o.O

I honestly don't know how much the ban on visual arts can be said to have affected the Arabian arts. Even before Islam, art in that region tended to focus on poetry and song rather than any kind of visual stimuli for the simple fact that a vast number of people were pastoralists or nomads and carrying around a painting, or even a scroll, is extra weight that is unnecessary. On the other hand, poetry and song are easily memorized and part of being an adviser in a tribe was knowing the genealogy of not only your tribe, but of various other tribes you might encounter as well, on top of memorizing poetry. Hell, the pre-Islamic use of the Kaaba was as a site for what amounts to a grand (though really, really cool....the winners supposedly had their poems written in gold upon high quality scrolls or some such) poetry bash. My point through this is that the visual arts hadn't actually been emphasized for very practical reasons so there isn't really any reason to think that things would have changed very much for a good while.

As an aside, has anyone actually read 1001 Nights? Holy shit is some of that stuff pornographic. o.O

That is true, the tradition of both written and oral poetry still goes on in the Islam culture. Islams culture also implies people of non-Arab or Semite descend.

Well, since we're talking of visual arts,... Islamic visual arts are heavy on complex geometrical patterns and there's calligraphy. To add, the only banned image is that the image of the Prophet and of course that of a deity.

And of, the 1001 Nights, it's an analog to today's light soft-core porn reading.

And of, the 1001 Nights, it's an analog to today's light soft-core porn reading.

Yea, I realize that now, but prior to having to read Aziz and Azizah for a class, I thought it was a collection of children's tales. I can assure you...should I fall into the unfortunate state of parenthood, I will not be putting my children to sleep with that tale, at least.:eek:

I mean architecture and ornamenting fellows, not rembrand like painting :)

Is it really so difficult to understand that if someone believes as a tenant of their religion that certain images should not be shown then it doesn't really matter who shows it?

Right or wrong, muslims believe that images of mohammed should not be shown, period. Why in the world would you expect a person whose religious belief states that showing an image of mohammed is unacceptable in all circumstances would suddenly find it acceptable when wiki did it?
They don't need to find it acceptable. But they do need to let us do it.

They can hate us for it all they want, as long as they take no action against us.

They don't need to find it acceptable. But they do need to let us do it.

They can hate us for it all they want, as long as they take no action against us.

what action exactly have these people taken? They have petitioned wiki to remove it, in accordance with their beliefs. Surely they have this right, yes?

Right or wrong, muslims believe that images of mohammed should not be shown, period.

Some muslims. Mainly sunni, I think.

Under the Ottoman empire it was more common to see artwork depicting the Prophet - and I've seen pictures made recently that were purchased at an open marked in Tehran, Iran. Legally.

The controversy goes deeper than simple depictions.

what action exactly have these people taken? They have petitioned wiki to remove it, in accordance with their beliefs. Surely they have this right, yes?

Utterly barbaric! They shouldn't destroy out image of them like that, being all calm about it! If they won't riot in the street, then how can we demonize them and pretend they want to kill us all? :(

Some muslims. Mainly sunni, I think.

Under the Ottoman empire it was more common to see artwork depicting the Prophet - and I've seen pictures made recently that were purchased at an open marked in Tehran, Iran. Legally.

The controversy goes deeper than simple depictions.

You bring up an interesting point. Can you add to it? What do you mean exactly? :)

what action exactly have these people taken? They have petitioned wiki to remove it, in accordance with their beliefs. Surely they have this right, yes?
Actually that is quite a respectable action on their part, they could have simply defaced the wiki but instead they are civily going about presenting their view.

You bring up an interesting point. Can you add to it? What do you mean exactly? :)

Mind if I let Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad)do some talking?

The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there have been a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances. Most contemporary Sunni Muslims therefore believe that visual depictions of the prophets generally should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad. The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, where the image becomes more important than what it represents. In Islamic art, some visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from Persia of the Ilkhanate, and those made under the Ottomans, show him fully.

Other Muslims have taken a more relaxed view. Some, particularly Iranian Shi'a scholars, accept respectful depictions, and use illustrations of Muhammad in books and architectural decoration, as have Sunnis at various points in the past. However, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the traditions, will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, even if created and published by non-Muslims.

Also, Islamic art expert Wijdan Ali has shown that the prohibition against depicting Mohammed didn't arise until as late as the 16th or 17th century. And indeed, they continue to be produced - maybe most notably in Shi'ite Iran.

This link (http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/) will show you several older pieces showing the face of Muhammed. You'll also find a link to the report of Wijdan Ali there.

So I mean exactly that: The prohibition is not a universal muslim thing. Nor is it founded directly in the religion. As others have stated, the important thing would be not to create false idols and/or worship the Prophet as God.

Is it really that difficult to accept that Wikipedia and other western organizations are not bound by some nutty religious rule in a really old book?

"Come, let us reason" (Isaiah 1:18)


Yep, Wikipedia is definitely not bound to this rule.

EDIT: I had to say that to get it out of my system. If I see anyone taking this post and making a whole discussion out of it, I will just laugh.

what action exactly have these people taken? They have petitioned wiki to remove it, in accordance with their beliefs. Surely they have this right, yes?

True enough, but as any gangster knows, sooner or later, you don't actually have to take any action at all.

Sooner or later, you don't even have to make the threats.

There ARE people in this world who carry the "Behead those who insult Islam" signs. As long as those people exist, and moderate muslims are more interested in going after Wiki images than the radical freaks, then the Behead threat is implicit.

And it would be even worse if the threat was unneeded, because it was simply "understood" by all concerned.

It is my right as a Human Being to mock and belittle any religious or historical figure I wish too- I've even taken pot shots at God.

You have to wonder- if God really cared about being mocked directly, you'd think he'd do something about on his own, right, instead of employing some twitchy-brained flunky? If God exists, then he certainly shows far more patience and tolerance than his followers!

So I mean exactly that: The prohibition is not a universal muslim thing. Nor is it founded directly in the religion. As others have stated, the important thing would be not to create false idols and/or worship the Prophet as God.

There are no Muslim things. And there are no Christian or Jewish or Shinto things. Religions are collections of stories, and stories don't beleive anything, because they have no minds of their own. Beleivers in those stories can believe things.

Which means I raise an eyebrow when anyone tries to tell me what "real" Islam is. Islam is what people who identify as Muslims say it is, no more and no less. If some nutcase wants to behead people and he says its for his religion, who am I to argue? And if some saner person claiming the same religion says no, those beliefs aren't truly Muslim, again, hey, no argument from me. Leave me out of it, get together with the guy with the sword and face mask, and argue it with him.

Is it really that difficult to accept that Wikipedia and other western organizations are not bound by some nutty religious rule in a really old book?

Just to actually add to the discussion:

The rule about not depicting Muhammad is not found in the Qur'an (The Book claimed to be from God), and references to it in the Ahadith (Muhammad's sayings, not infallible) are vague at best.

It is for this reason that only Sunnis observe this rule. The Shia openly depict Muhammad. I actually know of a very well drawn Shia image of Muhammad holding the Qur'an with light shining down on him (it's pretty Jesus-esque).

But, since I'm not an arrogant fool against cultures that I know nothing about (even though I DO know about Islam, but others do not), I will not put up the picture.

the news link is FUBAR...

I got a link to
Turkmenistan Ratifies Nuclear Terrorism Convention

Just to actually add to the discussion:

The rule about not depicting Muhammad is not found in the Qur'an (The Book claimed to be from God), and references to it in the Ahadith (Muhammad's sayings, not infallible) are vague at best.

It is for this reason that only Sunnis observe this rule. The Shia openly depict Muhammad. I actually know of a very well drawn Shia image of Muhammad holding the Qur'an with light shining down on him (it's pretty Jesus-esque).

But, since I'm not an arrogant fool against cultures that I know nothing about (even though I DO know about Islam, but others do not), I will not put up the picture.

It doesn't have anything to do with arrogance on wikipedia's side, as far as I can tell; heck, the talk page, IIRC, even tells people how to disable such images from wikipedia if they don't like it.

Wikipedia, as it has noted many times, isn't censored; but that doesn't mean they force there images onto people; it's very easy to block images. Or, at least it is for anyone with an idea of how to use their browser.

I'm interested in hearing the opinions of my fellow Muslims on the matter, especially if they support the removal of such an image.

If only you were the majority of Christians. My life would be so much better.

Wow, on these Liberal controlled forums, it doesn't take long for some hard headed athiest to insult Chrisitians at every chance they get.

Wow, on these Liberal controlled forums, it doesn't take long for some hard headed athiest to insult Chrisitians at every chance they get.

I've been thinking the same thing. I've just been keeping it bottled up inside.

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

Well, that seems reasonable.

Well, that seems reasonable.and defiant.

Wow, on these Liberal controlled forums, it doesn't take long for some hard headed athiest to insult Chrisitians at every chance they get.
Why do you assume that he is a "hard headed atheist", rather than, as he describes himself, someone whose life has been injured by what "the majority of Christians" do? The Christian majority has injured my life, too; it is hardly uncommon.

Is it really so difficult to understand that if someone believes as a tenant of their religion that certain images should not be shown then it doesn't really matter who shows it?

Right or wrong, muslims believe that images of mohammed should not be shown, period. Why in the world would you expect a person whose religious belief states that showing an image of mohammed is unacceptable in all circumstances would suddenly find it acceptable when wiki did it?



Did your mother drop you on your head as a child? Wikipedia is not a muslim owned company, therefore, it does not conform to the rules of your beloved muslim extremists. Retard.

-something-

Mmmm? Flaming? Anyways, the point of wikipedia of owned by somebody's with any religion/faith/political affiliation is not a valid point since ANYONE can edit it to their liking.

Wikipedia will conform if the majority wish it to be. It's a tyranny by majority in some cases.

Wikipedia will conform if the majority wish it to be. It's a tyranny by majority in some cases.

Wikipedia will conform to the power of vociferous minority reaching a semi-consensus, an active clique of elite users. :p

Every wikipedia article should come with a disclaimer:
'This text was written by a geek who has strong opinions - Sorting out the facts from the opinonated drivel is the reader's responsibility!'

Wikipedia on wikipedia:
The criticism is centered on its susceptibility to vandalism, such as the insertion of profanities or random letters into articles, and the addition of spurious or unverified information;[9] uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies;[10] and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process

Did your mother drop you on your head as a child? Wikipedia is not a muslim owned company, therefore, it does not conform to the rules of your beloved muslim extremists. Retard.

See you in two days, Vaklavia. Flaming despite repeated warnings. Clear?

Hahahaha! This will make no other tries to insult with unlogical flaming! Use debates, now, are we?

Now, I support that the Rasulullah Muhammad SAW's images in wikipedia to be censored, or to make 2 pages , in which one for the orthodox Sunni, other one to be for everyone else...

So, people. In which side i'm be?

Wikipedia will conform to the power of vociferous minority reaching a semi-consensus, an active clique of elite users. :p

Just like in real life, I suppose.

Hahahaha! This will make no other tries to insult with unlogical flaming! Use debates, now, are we?Gloating isn't considered all that legal either, you know.

Did your mother drop you on your head as a child? Wikipedia is not a muslim owned company, therefore, it does not conform to the rules of your beloved muslim extremists.

Try reading his post again. Slowly.