Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Leonardo
General
Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 09:43 |
Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Wikimedia
Muhammad settles a dispute between Meccan clans over the sacred Black Stone in a 14th-century Persian manuscript currently found in the Edinburgh University Library.
Online encyclopedia Wikipedia has again stirred up controversy this time over a biographical entry on the prophet Muhammad.
Nearly 100,000 people worldwide have signed a Web-based petition asking Wikipedia to remove all depictions of the Prophet from its English-language entry, viewable here.
"I request all brothers and sisters to sign this petitions so we can tell Wikipedia to respect the religion and remove the illustrations," the creator of the petition at The Petition Site asks.
Opposition among Muslims to images of Muhammad has its roots in the prohibition of "graven images" in the Ten Commandments, but has varied over time.
"Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent," Notre Dame history professor Paul M. Cobb told the New York Times. "Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad."
All four images on the English-language Wikipedia page are rather lovely Persian and Ottoman miniatures from the 14th through 16th centuries. The two later ones depict Muhammad's face as covered by a white veil, but the earlier pair show his full face.
"Please take off those pictures or leave only the digitally blanked out faces please," writes one anonymous petitioner from Belgium several times on the petition site. "Thanks for respecting Muslims beliefs. Peace and Light."
Wikipedia has entries on Muhammad in several dozen languages. A quick survey found images of the Prophet on the Dutch, German, French, Spanish and Russian versions, but not on the Arabic, Turkish, Chinese, Albanian, Urdu or Bahasa Indonesia versions.
The Croatian edition depicted Muhammad, but the version written in the nearly identical Bosnian dialect did not, reflecting Bosnia's Islamic identity.
Surprisingly, one version in a language spoken overwhelmingly by Muslims had several images of Muhammad, both veiled and unveiled the Farsi edition, legible to Persian-speakers in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and in the Iranian and Afghan diasporas worldwide.
Click here for the English-language Wikipedia entry, here for the Petition Site petition and here for the New York Times report on the issue.
Edited by Leonardo - 04-Mar-2008 at 09:43
|
|
Mughal e Azam
Colonel
Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 09:59 |
Its stupid and interesting because these are Muslim/Islamic paintings to begin with. Essentially Muslim heritage is being condemned by Muslims.
|
Mughal e Azam
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 10:12 |
Sigh.
First of all; these historical illustrations of Muhammed exist whether they are shown on Wikipedia or not, and seeing as Wikipedia aims to be the most comprehensive online encyclopedia it cannot afford to ignore the illustrations as they are, like or not, as much a part of Islamic history as anything else, and should be recognised as such. I'm sure many non-Muslims interested in the history of Islam, as well as Muslims who accept or tolerate depictions of Muhammed, would be interested in seeing these pictures, and if they can't find them in an encyclopedia then where?
Second; Wikipedia has no religious affilition and therefore is under no obligation to censor their articles to conform with the doctrine of any featured religion.
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 10:47 |
If I remember correctly, there are no contemporary images of Mohammed. So no-one has a clue what he looked like.
So any image of Mohammed is simply a picture of a fictional person (usually Arab looking) with the name Mohammed written underneath.
To believe this is actually a picture of Mohammed and get upset about seems to be a psychological condition. I kind of schizophrenia where people are unable to seperate the imaginary from reality.
In the same vein. I would like to post a picture of Mohammed.
Mohammed
Edited by Paul - 04-Mar-2008 at 10:48
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 11:45 |
I expect this will lead to the creation of Muslipedia.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 12:44 |
I thought freedom of expression (such as a protest) was a right.
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 13:06 |
Originally posted by Sparten
I thought freedom of expression (such as a protest) was a right. |
As far as I can see no one in this thread has yet said it isn't, and surely you are aware that this right also extends to protesting against the protesters. Freedom of expression means you are free to hold any idiotic opinion on any topic, but it doesn't exempt anyone from being criticised for these opinions, rather the contrary I'd say.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 13:56 |
Originally posted by Mughaal
Its stupid and interesting because these are Muslim/Islamic paintings to begin with. Essentially Muslim heritage is being condemned by Muslims. |
I actually agree with you here. Small wonder.
|
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 14:59 |
Honestly, this is crazy. Could they not just ask Wikipedia to put some warning on the page to deter Muslims who might be wary of viewing an image of their prophet? Rather than deleting it?
I would also like to post a picture of Mohammad.
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 15:10 |
Originally posted by Mixcoatl
I expect this will lead to the creation of Muslipedia. |
Oh I do hope so.
Just so I can read the Conservapedia entry on Muslipedia.
|
|
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended
Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 15:32 |
|
|
SearchAndDestroy
Caliph
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 15:39 |
well if this is in the English section, then why not just tell them not to enter that section. I mean, if it bothers them that much, why use Wikipedia in the first place? Boycott the site by not going to it, don't take away from others who use it. How much are we going to have to censor in the world before it's to PC?
|
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 15:54 |
If wiki gives in to demands such as this then eventually petitions
demanding that things such a blasphemy must be prohibited on such
websites will be served on them too.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 16:47 |
wikipedia will no doubt soon be visted by the lovely gentleman of PTA. They already got youtube to "see the ligh"t.
|
|
Mughal e Azam
Colonel
Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 18:43 |
Youtube was probably not due to Islamic Indecency, rather the new political regime that was voted into in Pakistan.
|
Mughal e Azam
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 18:54 |
Originally posted by Paul
If I remember correctly, there are no contemporary images of Mohammed. So no-one has a clue what he looked like.
So any image of Mohammed is simply a picture of a fictional person (usually Arab looking) with the name Mohammed written underneath.
To believe this is actually a picture of Mohammed and get upset about seems to be a psychological condition. I kind of schizophrenia where people are unable to seperate the imaginary from reality.
In the same vein. I would like to post a picture of Mohammed.
Mohammed |
exactly!
|
|
malizai_
Sultan
Alcinous
Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 18:54 |
Originally posted by Mughaal
Youtube was probably not due to Islamic Indecency, rather the new political regime that was voted into in Pakistan. |
My thoughts exactly.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 18:56 |
Originally posted by Dolphin
|
Ali Akbar
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 18:58 |
"I am the greatest. I shook up the world!"
|
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended
Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:17 |
Just imagine a cross behind him and then you've got some controversy..
|
|