Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad

In any case let's not go off-track; this is not a general value debate beyond how it impacts the topic at hand; the historical illustrations of Muhammed on Wikipedia.

Now, I can't say I've seen to many moderate Muslims protesting the bad side of the Islamic community which infact does stage protests, but they call for death and are anything but sounding peaceful. Why aren't the moderates who are the majority calling the segment out that gies them a bad name? We discussed this in another thread on the forum recently about the Muhammed Cartoons.

you have a problem with people execution (done by Taleban) we have problem with your public SEX (done in most part of west),

Do you mean strip bars? Adult stores? They are behind closed doors, hell in the last couple of years I found out I lived by one and it's been there since I've been a child. You could go by these buildings and never know about them. Even then, just the idea of these businesses moving into a neighborhood are usually ment with protest.

On the other hand, killing someone for and offense against a Religion can not be compared to the example of Sex since, atleast in the US it's mostly behind closed doors and is usually mutual and if it isn't there is a penalty that can come in any form such as bad press, protests, and fines.

bombarding innocent lives for doing nothing (at least those women killed has a case to be killed [ADULTERY, which is also forbiden in Christianity, Jewism, Hindusim, Sikhism and many other religions]) and than just putting an apology for the entire mass killing

No one likes war, and many in the West have protested and specificly pointing out what you just said. But you can not defend the idea of killing a women for having sex with a man other then her husband. It maybe against their Religion, but I believe many in those Religions don't believe in giving the ultimate punishment and should be left for their god to decide if anyone.

 

I understand you were making this arguement against Richard, but I wanted to answer it because it just doesn't seem comparable to me, especially when people in the West have gone against many of the examples you said, again atleast in the US.

 

Secondly, let's get this thread back on track and discussing the petition to wikipedia - because we have gone way off the subject. If anyone wishes to start a new thread on these other topics, be my guest.

 

why? Fetus can feel.(It is not a stone) So you are terminating someone who have capacity to feel. So age is so much important? At india, people are killing female fetus more than male fetus. So no problem for you?  After all it is fetus.

 

 

Okey, Lets turn topic back. Someone can defend it for the sake of true knowledge.But pictures have no relation with true knowledge about Muhammet(SAV). They are not teaching anything about Muhammed(SAV). So I cannot see any reason to put this pictures and I do not think I should repeat why Wiki should not put this pictures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I can open a topic on it because I'm a member of All Empires. But what if the person needing information doesn't know about our forum? What if they want the information now, instead of waiting days for people to respond? What if no one on the forum has enough knowledge about medieval Persian artistic depictions of Muhammad to respond?

 

And the topic in question is medieval Persian artistic representations of the prophet. So an online wiki would be an excellent and quick source of information, besides a proper art history book. And illustrations are often very useful in helping that understanding.

 

Originally posted by Mortaza They are doing it very rude and This is not creating understanding between peoples but She is harming my feeling without a good reason.   I am not waiting that they should follow my religion but I can wait some respect. If someone does not show respect to me, I reply same way.   So no need to try to show muslims, protesting Wiki is wrong.

 

I realise that some Muslims feel sensitive over this issue. But just how much sensitivity is too much?

 

About 10 years ago, an artist in Australia created a work of art called pissed Christ. It was a picture of the Crucifixion, but it was painted with urine and faeces. Naturally enough, the Christian community was horrified that their God was being displayed in such a way. The painting went up in a museum. People protested, and one person even attempted to destroy the painting. In the end, the painting was allowed to remain.  Pissed Christ was a genuinely offensive piece of art, and yet Christians in the end managed to get on with their lives and rise above that paiting, confident in their own faith. I would honestly have thought Muslims are capable of the same over the much less offensive activity of wikipedia.

 

Now is displaying a piece of medieval Persian art (which actually displays Muhammad as a good person doing good things), is that really such a bad thing? Every now and then people see something they don't like. While I respect others' right to protest something they don't like, I simply don't see the Persian artwork as truly offensive. And I don't see how wikipedia has intended to offend Muslims. I think the protest to its display is simply oversensitivity on the part of the protesters.

 

Yes I am sure there are lots of openly offensive pictures that have been drawn over time. But the ones we are talking about don't fit into the category of intentionally offensive.

 

Originally posted by Mortaza By the way, It is not persian art which is offensive. It is offensive to show this picture under the topic of Muhammed.   I am sure noone will care, If they show this as persian art.( Their right places.)

 

Ok I think I have a better idea of where you are coming from. So you would be comfortable if, under the Persian picture of Muhammad, it said "A medieval Persian depiction of Muhammad". ?

 

what is the difference? Persian or French(or whichever nation) art, We should not afraid from past should we? If you see french picture offensive, I see both french and persian picture offensive or maybe you are over sensitive about french picture?

 

 

Infact, I do not know If It is realy french or not, but there are european pictures depicted Muhammed as satan. So Wiki can put them too but of course this pictures will offend muslims so wiki did not use them.

 

But Infact, any pictures of Muhammed offend muslims. (So It would not be much different.)

 

So It is unnecessary to put Muhammed picture at this page. After all, my aim was to learn Muhammed not to see his depictions.

 

Of course, wiki can put these picture at the page about Muhammed. Yes, She have this freedom but this is realy a bad cooperate governance. They are giving me a product that may offend me.

 

If She realy want to show these pictures, She should find a way that does not offend muslims.