Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad

If somebody needs a protest against Napoleon's horse I'll participate!

I will only place my stand here since I know how debated this is:

Considering the fact that all depictions are a part of Islamic history and give us a clue as to how various Islamic cultures perceived Muhammed or how he influenced their art, the pictures have every right to remain.

haha. so no problem with sex videos? Hmm, wiki would be more entertaining.

There's a difference between censorship and academic standards. Pornography would not be permissible in an encyclopedia, unless it was 1. an encyclopedia specifically focusing on sexual acts (i.e. the Kama Sutra) or 2. it was an instructional guide in the mechanics.

The reason the pictures of Muhammad are up there are not to offend. It's not as if it is the only article with pictures. Wikipedia is following their own standards and their standards are pictures belong to historical persons when pictures or representations are available.

Also Wikipedia does respect different cultures via the different languages, for instance the Muhammad article in Arabic and Turkish does not contain any images of the prophet, and the Farsi article has a few pictures of Muhammad. Wikipedia takes into account the feelings of the majority of the people who will read the article, and thus many more english speakers are non-muslim then are muslim, and as not even all muslims can agree that images of the prophet are blasphemous I don't see why the minority should dictate any policies.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the ban on images of the prophet a Hadith and not part of the actual Quran and thus it is up to the individual muslim whether he follows it or not?

The page on Napoleon has more than 10 pictures, most of them 'unnecessary' as well (Napoleon on a horse? ridiculous! I want to get info on Napoleon, not on his horse). I don't hear anyone protesting against those.

Wikipedia is ment for educational purposes, to bring about facts and the chance of learning, as is any unbiased source of education. If you were to talor to all groups so that you won't be offensive or to be PC, then you will lose alot more then you will gain.

Not excatly. As I said before, I will protest and not enter wikipedia.

Edited by Mortaza - 08-Mar-2008 at 13:30

Originally posted by Seko Who you talking at boy?

THe people who want to censor stuff!

Paul haha.

Originally posted by Mortaza I have freedom to spit street but I dont do this because of respect to society. why is wiki trying to show She is free.   Should I spit to street to show I am free. I am freeeeeee. Hark, Puu.

You could use it to protest against the Singapore government, which bans spitting on the street.

Originally posted by Pinguin I bet the reason is to combat idolatry. Which is the tendency of pagan religions to venerate statues, rather than abstract beings.

Exactly right.

Originally posted by Janus Wiki wanted to show Muhammad from a muslim perspective. Are you saying those Persian artists weren't muslim?

While they were drawn by muslims they are not the muslim perspective.

Do you know anyone else who would bow down before the Wiki Muhammad?

Yes. What do you think Wahabbi's are reacting against? Its pretty rare now, but go back 2 centuries in less educated areas and you'll find it. Just as if you go to less educated areas in the catholic world you'll find people praying to Mary.

I mean muslims are allowed to look at depictions of Jesus and Moses aren't they?

Technically no.
Although when Muhammed destroyed all the idols in the Ka'aba he didn't destroy a picture of Jesus, only removed it.


I have no major issue with the wiki article - it is written from an objective non-muslim perspective, and should not be used by any serious research (just like all of wiki), but it is certainly preferrable if the images had a separate page.