Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad

Originally posted by Dolphin Just imagine a cross behind him and then you've got some controversy..

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Well if you want to mess with the heavy weight boxing champion that's up to you. Wiki should put the images in a separate page; they basically, have nothing to do with Muhammed, but a lot to do with Irani culture 500 years ago.

That doesn't make sense unless you are a Muslim. In most of the biographical articles you will find depictions of the person in question, even if these depictions are pure guesswork.�The�pictures�should�be�featured�in�both�the�article�on�Muhammed�and the article on Iranian art.




Edited by Reginmund - 05-Mar-2008 at 12:57

Originally posted by Reginmund That doesn't make sense unless you are a Muslim. In most of the biographical articles you will find depictions of the person in question, even if these depictions are pure guesswork. The pictures should be featured in both the article on Muhammed and the article on Iranian art.

That is historically inaccurate and misleading on Wiki's behalf. Don't tell me you support the deliberate falsification of history.

That is historically inaccurate and misleading on Wiki's behalf.

Have you even seen the Muhammad article?

When you first grace it there is no pictures of Muhammad, there is only his name in Calligraphy.

As you scroll down the first picture you see of Muhammad is with a veiled face, and a caption explaining that this is common practice in Islamic art.

There are three more depictions of Muhammad, one with a veil and the other's without, in it they are clearly defined as Persian made artworks.

Towards the bottom of the article after the Biographical accounts, is a mention of the controversy of Depictions of Muhammad that links you to wiki's article on that.

So how is any of that historically inaccurate and misleading when you have a total of 4 depictions of muhammad, 2 are veiled and 2 are listed as Persian, and you have to scroll down the page for a bit to reach them?

Here we go again.

Tolerance towards a religion is required not only from Muslims but also from followers of all other regions.
I don't see any religion in the world which states to dishonor the other religion to get prosperity, but every religion states to honor and respect others religions and opinions.
So then why are Muslims of the world known as extremists, isn't this an act of extremism, while you are imposing something which hurts someone else, if it is not then why was Taleban and all other Shariya implementers, are called extremists???
If they are extremists and have to be destroied then so shall be this act of extremism.
I persoanaly am a regular user of Wikipedia and I very much appreciate the work of Mr. Wales in building such a great encyclopedia, and would be glad to see his concern in the case and understand emotions of Millions of Muslims.

while you are imposing something which hurts someone else

You have to remember Europe has around 450 million INDIVIDUALS. We do not act as one bloc, and we are not in some massive conspiracy to insult Islam.

Originally posted by Parnell while you are imposing something which hurts someone else You have to remember Europe has around 450 million INDIVIDUALS. We do not act as one bloc, and we are not in some massive conspiracy to insult Islam.

Hi Gharani,

Only the most ignorant consider suicide bombings a teaching of Islam - It started as a tactic in the Iran-Iraq war I believe, a conflict between two Islamic countries, and therein lies the confusion.

Were you consider public sex just as bad as executing women for 'sleeping around' is where our two societies fundamentally differ. Your society considers executing a student for spreading an Iranian Woman's rights leaflet, while ours considers speaking your mind an important part of growing up. Who's society will stand the test of time will be a big question for the future, but answer this for me - who's society has a better standard of living, more food to eat, more things to do for fun and dramatically better artwork, literature and overall culture? I'm pretty sure its not the one that kills gays, women and ordinary people for what they believe.