Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad
    Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 09:43

Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad

Wednesday, February 06, 2008


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
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
  Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 11:45
I expect this will lead to the creation of Muslipedia.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 12:44
I thought freedom of expression (such as a protest) was a right.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
 
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 15:32
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
  Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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! LOL
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 18:56
Originally posted by Dolphin

 
Ali Akbar  Big%20smile
 
 
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 18:58
"I am the greatest. I shook up the world!"Smile
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:17
Just imagine a cross behind him and then you've got some controversy..
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.