Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Muslim Groups Attempt to Censor Wikipedia

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the where-free-speech-meets-the-road dept.

Censorship 1730

Nom du Keyboard writes "The New York Times is reporting that Muslim groups are attempting to censor Wikipedia because of images of Muhammad contained in the article about him. 'A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site's polite but firm refusal to remove the images: "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group." The notes left on [online petitions against the page] come from all over the world. "It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately."'"

cancel ×

1730 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Better login into wikipedia host asap (5, Funny)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336880)

jimw@wiki:/var/www/wikipedia/wiki>tar cz * |uuencode /dev/stdout |mail -s "Just in case" jimw_backup@gmail.com

Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336890)

These pictures aren't so bad! Here [wikimedia.org] he is betting his followers that he can slide all the way down a railing without falling off. Here [wikimedia.org] is his senior picture. Here [wikimedia.org] he is preparing to be tossed into the air on a blanket. Here [wikimedia.org] he is on fire (about to be Super Saiyan 2). Here [wikimedia.org] he is full blown Super Saiyan 3 complete with human headed horse. Here [wikimedia.org] he is at an Ozzy Ozborne concert (far right). Last but not least, here's what you'd have to print to be murdered in Europe [wikimedia.org] .

All of that on Wikipedia? How does Jimmy Wales sleep at night?!

Oh, I am so going to end up trapped in my grave being tormented by djinns until the end of time. After that, Shaitan be kickin' me old school. Hope he likes classic rock and indie bands!

The notes left on the petition site come from all over the world. "It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately."
Perhaps you should instead choose simply not to use the site? If you believe that to be true, you should be condemning images of him everywhere at once, not just on Wikipedia. Why aren't you petitioning against all of these sites [google.com] ? Why are you picking on Wikipedia?

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia (5, Interesting)

MenTaLguY (5483) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337036)

It's worth noting that a number of those pictures were made by Muslim artists, too.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337050)

Why did they only target the World Trade Center? Oh, wait, they didn't... They went for more than that. I would expect them to go for more than Wikipedia once they prove their strategy works.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia (5, Funny)

januth (1000892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337076)

1) Target Wikipedia 2) ? 3) Prophet

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia (5, Funny)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337108)

They should complete this survey [b3ta.com] so we know exactly how far we can go before offending them.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia (5, Insightful)

fullgandoo (1188759) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337184)

On a side note, portraits of Muhammad and others are everywhere in Iran. You can even see them painted in cafes depicting various scenes from Muhammad's life. So how come it is OK for Iranians to do this but not anyone else? I would have thought this would be grounds enough to nuke Iran long ago!

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia (5, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337360)

Iran is one of the few majority Shi'a states. this [wikipedia.org] explains it nicely(It even mentions Iran directly).

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337238)

These pictures aren't so bad!
Did you get all those from Mohammad's MySpace page?

Seriously, it's important that we realize that religion makes people nuts. Of course, there are degrees of nuttiness, and certainly marching around in front of Women's Health Clinics and screaming at young women going in to get a pap smear and throwing lamb's blood at them isn't quite as bad as strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing folks up, but crazy is crazy. I think we really have to try our best to encourage people to keep their religious insanity to themselves and to their own little groups. The early Christians had the right idea, meeting in secret in caves. If only we could get the contemporary ones to follow their lead.

Judging from the results of the recent presidential primaries, it looks like the wave of militant religious has finally crested and is now starting to recede. It can only make life better for the rest of us.

As always, the best tool is ridicule. Whether Tom Cruise or Mormons or Ted Haggard or "evangelicals" or fanatic muslims, ridicule is the key. Somehow, it seems like all forms of political correctness have been beaten back except when it comes to religion. For religion, you are absolute required to be politically correct, especially if you're talking about a rich, white, religious person. How silly.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia (4, Interesting)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337248)

What's more interesting is to note that these "no-Muhammad-images!!!" iconoclastic idiots are not followers of any traditional branch of Islam. If you look at centuries old Islamic books, in lots and lots and lots of them you'll find drawings of Muhammad and other people, meaning such drawings were never, ever forbidden.

In the end, these Islamic iconoclasts are roughly similar to those Christian Puritans who, finding mainstream Christianity too relaxed, invented tons of new, very strict rules that no one but themselves think everyone else must follow.

Good luck (4, Insightful)

tulmad (25666) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336894)

Good luck with that. People all around the world of all religions and beliefs need to learn that not everyone in the world will bend your views all of the time.

Re:Good luck (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336958)

Oh hell, people in the West get all up in arms if someone says something perceived to be blasphemous against Jesus Christ.

All of these people, wherever they live, need to grow up.

Re:Good luck (5, Insightful)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337112)

The difference being with Christians is that it's only figuratively speaking when you say 'up in arms'.

Re:Good luck (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337166)

You better tell that to the Christians trying to wipe out science education in America via school and state education boards. Just because Christians have been forced to be a bit more sophisticated than killing Dutch filmmakers and trying to bully online encyclopedias doesn't mean they aren't every bit as fearful and hateful of freedom as their Muslim counterparts. They've just figured out the best way to go about it is to hire lawyers.

Re:Good luck (4, Insightful)

mike2R (721965) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337264)

Just because Christians have been forced to be a bit more sophisticated than killing Dutch filmmakers and trying to bully online encyclopedias doesn't mean they aren't every bit as fearful and hateful of freedom as their Muslim counterparts. They've just figured out the best way to go about it is to hire lawyers.

Lawyers aren't great, sure. But they're a hell of a lot better than armed mobs.

Re:Good luck (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337334)

Lawyers aren't great, sure. But they're a hell of a lot better than armed mobs.


The end result is the same. Less liberty, more ignorance. Less people get killed, perhaps, but that seems almost besides the point. The two groups have similar goals, just different paths to achieve them.

Re:Good luck (1, Flamebait)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337244)

Right, abortion clinic bombings have nothing to with Christianity. Nope, not a damn thing.

Bullshit. There's more similarity between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists than there are differences. They use the same methods when it suits them, they just disagree on points of dogma.

Re:Good luck (1, Troll)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337380)

Right, abortion clinic bombings have nothing to with Christianity

Bombing an abortion clinic, while abhorrent, is a little bit different from torching a KFC and threatening to kill people just because you don't happen to like a drawing published in a Danish newspaper.

Or did the Muslims perceive that human life was dying because of the publication of those pictures?

There's more similarity between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists than there are differences

And that makes it ok?

Re:Good luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337140)

Oh hell, people in the West get all up in arms if someone says something perceived to be blasphemous against Jesus Christ.

In America, sure. The rest of the West? Not so much. Even when Life of Brian was new, to the extent that it was controversial it was more of a selling point than anything else; nowadays it wouldn't even cause eyebrows to be raised. Fuck Jesus Christ.

Re:Good luck (5, Funny)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337156)

No we dont. Alot of us are atheists. Fuck Jesus and his fucking whore of a mother. There? See. I'm not offended at all.

Re:Good luck (5, Insightful)

mike2R (721965) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337198)

Oh hell, people in the West get all up in arms if someone says something perceived to be blasphemous against Jesus Christ.

Not so sure about that. Or at least the 'up in arms' bit is only a figure of speech.

Say what you like about Christians (and I frequently do) but they do seem to take criticism and mockery a hell of a lot better than Muslims.

Can you imagine if Monty Python had set 'The Life of Brian' around Mohammed?

He's not the prophet, he's a naughty naughty boy!

Someone would get killed.

Voice vs. Violence and why Islam is dangerous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337256)

Voice vs. Violence.

There are so many examples of insults to the Christian religion where the followers urge people to boycott, protest, write letters.

Not the level of violence or abuse brought on by the pro-Sharia law Muslims. The real issue is those who want to see Sharia law control mankind. Read up on Sayyid Qutb. No other way for man to live peacefully other than under Shria law. If that ever takes over in the US, yes, violence is the response. And I'm okay with that. Until then, vote, petition and counter their efforts

Help Help I'm Being Oppressed! (2, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337280)

Good luck with that.
For the love of Cloacina, I don't believe in 'luck'! You oppressive religious zealot! Stop trying to press your religious beliefs on me! Get off my back already! Sounds like you need to take some of your own advice.

Re:Good luck (1)

jdray (645332) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337400)

AFAIK, a basic tenet of the Muslim faith is that The Prophet's (Muhammad's) image won't be used. Now, not being a Muslim (or Christian or Jew), I'm not sure if this is just a fragment of what the Qur'an says on the subject (like the Bible's "an eye for an eye" thing, where the popular meme has the forgiveness part dropped off). I will say, though, that not being able to use Muhammad's image has put a serious damper on the penetration of understanding of the faith in the Western world. After reading Reza Aslan's "No God But God," I thought, "Hey, this would make a good Discovery Channel documentary." On further consideration, they could never do it, as it would require re-enactment scenes showing the life of Muhammad. Fear of reprisal will keep such a show from ever being made, no matter how helpful to the world situation it would be.

While not quite as vehemently pushed as the above-mentioned proscription against using Muhammad's image, Christian Protestants don't use crosses with Jesus hung on them. That's how you can tell a Protestant church from a Catholic one at a glance: does the cross outside have Jesus on it? Catholic. Bare cross? Protestant. Though, as I said, IANAC (nor Muslim, nor Jew).

Register to read, bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22336896)

Perhaps someone could copy and paste the article here so the rest of us don't have to register? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

Re:Register to read, bah! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22336976)

here's the article, but it's not asking me to register. maybe because i'm in canada.

An article about the Prophet Muhammad in the English-language Wikipedia has become the subject of an online protest in the last few weeks because of its representations of Muhammad, taken from medieval manuscripts.

In addition to numerous e-mail messages sent to Wikipedia.org, an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images of people.

The petition has more than 80,000 "signatures," though many who submitted them to ThePetitionSite.com, remained anonymous.

"We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails beginning mid-January," said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco, which administers the various online encyclopedias in more than 250 languages.

A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site's polite but firm refusal to remove the images: "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group."

The notes left on the petition site come from all over the world. "It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately."

The site considered but rejected a compromise that would allow visitors to choose whether to view the page with images.

Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, "Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent." He added, "Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad."

The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. With the Wikipedia entry, he added, "what you are dealing with is not medieval illustrations, you are dealing with modern media and getting a modern response."
anon as i don't want to karma whore. my karma is already maxed out anyway.

Re:Register to read, bah! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337058)

Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized

By NOAM COHEN
Published: February 5, 2008

An article about the Prophet Muhammad in the English-language Wikipedia has become the subject of an online protest in the last few weeks because of its representations of Muhammad, taken from medieval manuscripts.

In addition to numerous e-mail messages sent to Wikipedia.org, an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images of people.

The petition has more than 80,000 "signatures," though many who submitted them to ThePetitionSite.com, remained anonymous.

"We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails beginning mid-January," said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco, which administers the various online encyclopedias in more than 250 languages.

A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site's polite but firm refusal to remove the images: "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group."

The notes left on the petition site come from all over the world. "It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately."

The site considered but rejected a compromise that would allow visitors to choose whether to view the page with images.

Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, "Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent." He added, "Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad."

The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. With the Wikipedia entry, he added, "what you are dealing with is not medieval illustrations, you are dealing with modern media and getting a modern response."

Dawkins' God Delusion... (1)

krovisser (1056294) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336910)

Seems ever so glaring now that I have read through it...

I am offended (5, Insightful)

Timberwolf0122 (872207) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336918)

As an atheist I am offended by this Muslim group deciding what I can an can see baised on a set of beliefs and ideals that are not my own, I demand that they stop bothering wikipedia it shows a total lack of respect and understand to athiests.

Re:I am offended (4, Interesting)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337016)

Thank you! I don't understand how they can do some of the things they do (like denouncing christianity) then going and saying "How dare you insult my religion!" Eat your own shit.

Re:I am offended (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337120)

Quite frankly, I think the Western countries should collectively get together and declare one day as "Mock A Tradition Day". On that day, every sacred cow ever invented by any group is trotted out and made fun of. Whether it's Mohammed, Confucius, Jesus, Zeus or Joseph E. Smith, they all should be mocked, hopefully with lots of scatalogical humor, insinuations of homosexuality and beastiality, baseless accusations of every manner of immorality, and to end with a public pissing contest over images of them all.

Amen Brother (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337296)

"Islam vs Christianity is like Kris Kringle vs Santa Claus in that strong arguments for either are better left to children and those with the mind of a child."

Thankfully those that do not believe in such folktales still exist.

Crazy? (0, Redundant)

lorenzino (1130749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336934)

This is just crazy. If they do that, then I will put on my effort to recreate one page every day, with a different name. Is like the fact they can build a mosque in rome but then don't allow to put a church there. And I'm a jew! :)

Re:Crazy? (1)

CapitanMutanda (1185685) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337310)

Yep, thinkl of those second generation arabs in UK that want to apply sharia (spelling) while on UK territory. How on earth can you possibly think to impose your rules to the country that is givving you hospitality. Don't like local rules, then go back to your homeland

This profit's image is also censored. (1)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336948)

As the profit of the universe I hereby censor my image from view by the hethenious masses as well as by the devout itsybitsyers who worship me.

Bow down and don't see my image.

Re:This profit's image is also censored. (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337048)

"As the profit of the universe..."

Funny, I never received my check...

Re:This profit's image is also censored. (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337396)

"As the profit of the universe..."

Funny, I never received my check...

No, you just get the bill. Haven't you heard of Thermodynamics?

Re:This profit's image is also censored. (2, Funny)

Jhan (542783) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337146)

As the profit of the universe I hereby censor my image from view by the hethenious masses as well as by the devout itsybitsyers who worship me.

Given the laws of thermodynamics, wouldn't you look... Rather negative?

I guess most people wouldn't want to look at that bleak countenance.

Re:This profit's image is also censored. (1)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337358)

No, you can't have the negative of my photo's either.

Profit? (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337192)

  1. Invest in spell checking software
  2. ...
  3. Prophet!

Re:This profit's image is also censored. (1)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337216)

As the profit of the universe I hereby censor my image from view by the hethenious masses as well as by the devout itsybitsyers who worship me.
If a "profit" is in direct contact with God to help/punish the "hethenious" masses, why then would God not tell how to spell prophet and heathenous?

Get over it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22336964)

Subject says it all. Its a picture. Nobody should feel compelled to be "sensitive towards the feelings" of random arbitrary religious views that aren't their own.

For instance: can't eat pork, fine. Don't expect us to not kill a few pigs. Can't eat beef, fine, more cows for me.

 

Dear Muslims (4, Insightful)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336966)

I'm offended by members of your religion blowing themselves up in populated areas as terrorist acts. When you stop doing that, then we can talk.

I would suspect (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22336980)

that Mohammed's objection to him being pictured is the danger of that image being worshiped. I don't think he would mind if his image is presented in a educational forum, such as Wikipedia, where the forum itself doesn't give any reverance other than historical fact to the picture.

Re:I would suspect (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337114)

But arn't all these images from Islamic religious documents? They certainly are not from Western artists.

Go jump in a lake (2, Interesting)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336982)

I am soooooooo tired of the muslem community pushing their views on everyone else.
Yes it may be an insult in your culture to publish a pic of the dude, which is why you should complain if it was a muslem run website, however it isn't so you shouldn't complain, learn to live with others, if everyone had the same mentality as these extremists, the pedos would say it is mentally unacceptable NOT to see naked children on all their favorite websites.

Just cause you believe in something doesn't make it right, right?!?

"I believe the world is flat and get away with murder" : (

Re:Go jump in a lake (5, Funny)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337338)

I am soooooooo tired of the muslem community pushing their views on everyone else.
Other than arresting a women for going to a Starbucks with men, stoning a woman for meeting with unrelated men, blowing up hotels, blowing up misc. buildings, blowing up schools, and blowing up children, attempting to force sharia law in England, crashing planes into buildings - name one instance where a muslim pushed their views on anyone else.

Excuses in 3. . . 2. . 1. . (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22336984)

We all know some idiot will soon post an excuse absolving the culprits of any blame and instead will point the finger at:

a. Christianity
b. The United States of America
c. George W. Bush
d. All of the above

Because, you know, we have to respect our muslim friends beliefs even if it means giving up our own to do so.

Re:Excuses in 3. . . 2. . 1. . (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337276)

Actually, I think Christianity is every bit as morally bankrupt, worthless and vile as Islam, it's just that most Western societies long ago castrated churches, leaving them largely impotent. On occasion you'll get bands of them a bit more active and politically motivated, but look at how the Republicans are tearing themselves to shreds right now precisely because they sold their souls to a pack of moralizing lunatics to win some elections.

Some day it will happen to Muslims. They'll wake up one morning and realize the mullah they've been listening to is no authority, that his use of political clout is completely improper and counterproductive, and will also realize that he has been in league with politicians to manipulate the populace so as not to have to modernize and liberalize society. On that day, those mullahs better bloody well hope that the revolution is a gradual and peaceful one, and not the violent, bloody kind which they so often preach.

getting real old (2, Insightful)

justdrew (706141) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336990)

ya know I'm just about sick of trying to give a shit about Muslim feelings. they of all people should realize that the profit's image can only be there if Allah wills it to be so, and if He's fine with it, they might as well shut up too.

Stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22336996)

Being a muslim shows insenstivity towards my atheism, therefore you must stop being a muslim.

Yeah, it does sound kind of stupid when one put the flashlight on how fucking special you think you are, doesn't it?

BA announcement (5, Funny)

thewils (463314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22336998)

I'm reminded of a (legendary) announcement from a British Airways cabin crew member on arrival somewhere in Saudi Arabia.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Riyadh (or wherever) please set your clocks back five hundred years.

Honestly... (5, Insightful)

Pendersempai (625351) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337000)

You know, I am generally pretty politically correct, and I totally understand the need to let a thousand flowers bloom.

But in this case, it really seems like people are trying pretty hard to be offended. It's fine if your religion prevents YOU from creating pictures of your prophet, or eating meat, or working on Sundays, or using vowels. Best of luck with that. But it's a different thing entirely to tell ME that I am not allowed to either.

Re:Honestly... (5, Insightful)

bkr1_2k (237627) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337174)

Ah, but the point of religion isn't just to control me, but also to control you. Why bother if it can't do both?

Ok, I'll bite (0)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337002)

I gotta know, why is it so disrespectful to show a picture of Muhammad? and if pictures are so bad why do they not ban cameras outright? I don't understand, and I think explaining it as opposed to just complaining would help out a lot here. Educate people, it works better then explosives...

Re:Ok, I'll bite (4, Interesting)

thewils (463314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337060)

But you can't explain religion, it's correct by axiom and any proof is superfluous.

Re:Ok, I'll bite (4, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337314)

I gotta know, why is it so disrespectful to show a picture of Muhammad?
It is not disrespectful of Muhammad at all. It is exactly the opposite. Muhammad feared that people could be misled to believe that he is more important than he should be; he is just a prophet, not a god. Muslims should pray to Allah, not Muhammad. So by having no pictures of him, the danger of a cult developing is much reduced. You could say that he just didn't want to end up like Elvis. In Christianity, in some parts of Europe there are a few people who are a bit too much in love with Mary (for my taste), that wouldn't have happened if there were no pictures of her around. So from his point of view, it is a very sensible thing not to want any pictures. Muhammad wouldn't be insulted if you had his picture on your wall, he would be worried that maybe your beliefs are going off into the wrong direction and he would say that it is in your own best interest to remove it.

Insensitive??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337004)

I would like to point out that it is also insensitive to fly civilian aircraft into office buildings, it is also insensitive to drive a car loaded with explosives into crowded street and blow it up. It is also insensitive to take advantage of mentally handicapped women and use them as suicide bombers.

"It's totally unacceptable..." (4, Insightful)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337018)

"It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture?"

Oh, really?

Centuries of your own culture's actions suggest otherwise, sweetie. Sorry to have that little inconvenient truth drag you kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Try the veal...

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ [zombietime.com]

Re:"It's totally unacceptable..." (2, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337190)

I'm pretty sure he meant in the present time. Just as thousands of years ago it was OK for Christians to kill other folks, now not so much.

Re:"It's totally unacceptable..." (1)

Novus (182265) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337356)

Centuries of your own culture's actions suggest otherwise, sweetie.
Depicting Muhammad [wikipedia.org] seems to be controversial within Islam (with Iranians mostly being laid-back about it). The people complaining are only speaking for their particular brand of Islam, not all Muslims.

the Dem's will assist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337022)

Get the ACLU and the Democratic party involved. They love saying all are equal while separating people into groups and treating them differently.

I want the images (and any other requested censorship content) to stay. I am offended by censorship! Does it help if I say it is disrespectful to my beliefs?

You know, I try to be a good guy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337024)

... but I just cannot give a flying shit about "Muslim feelings" anymore. For Pete's sake, they show absolutely zero interest in non-Muslim "feelings" and don't even try to hide the desire to kill all infidels, and I'm supposed to walk on egg shells... why again?

So, allow me to officially state the following, having had enough of this -- Fuck off, Muslims. Your idols mean nothing to me, and I couldn't possibly care less how offended you might be. Please continue blowing each other up, and leave those of us who have progressed beyond the stone age alone.

I never used to be this way...

I am Muslim and... (5, Insightful)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337026)

Honestly, Muslims around the world need to shut the fuck up.

If you complain about something, especially on the internets -- people are going to do it MORE. What happened after the complaints on the drawings of Muhammad? MORE were made by random people all across the internet.

You cannot expect people to respect your religion just "because". Jews, Christians, etc... are all mocked all over the internet on a daily basis. Muslims are no exception to this.

The inherent problem is, that they are quick to complain and rarely change anything in a negative light about themselves. It's why I am non-practicing now, even though I do stick to the tenets of morality (which are largely the same as Christianity or Judiasm -- because they are frankly just stolen and modified) the religion preaches. I cannot get along with people who are so virulent in their attacks of the "West", "blasphemers" (like they think of those editing Wikipedia now), etc.

Besides... as a friend told me -- Wikipedia is a "non prophet organization".

So why are they worried ANYWAY? :)

Re:I am Muslim and... (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337118)

Perhaps the Streisand effect will become known as the Mohammed effect. The Moslems crying about this need to get a little perspective.

Censor Yourself! (5, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337028)

Five seconds on Google got me this:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/ [zombietime.com]

These are pictures from Islamic illuminated manuscripts showing pictures of Mohammed. These pricks are as ignorant of their own history as they are of the notion of liberty and free exchange of ideas.

Maybe they should just cut their access (5, Funny)

instantmatthew (861096) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337052)

... by severing all their access lines. Wait... what's that? (whisper in the background)... sorry, someone has apparently already followed that suggestion. Well then, if that doesn't work, perhaps they can start logging in from China.

Whose picture is it? (1)

Nomen Publicus (1150725) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337054)

Is the claim that the picture _really_ depicts the exact image of Mohamed? Or is it the association of any picture with Mohamed?

Easy solution (1)

igotmybfg (525391) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337088)

My understanding is that some Muslims do not want to see images of Muhammad because they feel that images of him may encourage idolatry. I won't speak to that point, because it's a personal / religious opinion. I will say that if you don't want to see something, you shouldn't look at it. As far as I know, no one is forcing anyone to look at Wikipedia.

What Would Muhammed Do? (2, Funny)

securityfolk (906041) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337090)

So, did Muhammad have an issue with his image being portrayed, or is it just these Muslim extremists? Kinda reminds me of those extremist Christians who are afraid to say the word "God" or "Satan", since it'll summon him or some such nonsense.

Silly humans... they should know Cthulu, the one true God, after which the FSM was created, doesn't care if you speak its name!!!

Uncensored (1)

s.bots (1099921) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337100)

This [wikipedia.org] is an example of an article that may offend Christians. Nobody seemed to have too big of a problem with it (the article) displaying prominently a picture of the work in question. To me, this would be like having a picture of the 'offensive' Danish cartoons displayed with an article about them. Is it really that big a deal?

Why is there such an uproar about free speech and freedom of the press? Thankfully I can print whatever I like, knowing full well that I am responsible for my remarks and the uproar that may ensue. Wikipedia should be completely uncensored and unbiased (wishful thinking).

When petitions become censorship... (0, Troll)

lixee (863589) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337110)

I'm a Muslim who also happens to be quite active on the Wiki and I see absolutely no reason why the pictures should be taken out. But then again, I see nothing wrong with starting an online petition either. Somehow, I wasn't surprised to see Zonk's name associated with the sensationalist headline.

Images? What about fucking a 9 year old? (0, Flamebait)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337122)

I find it comical that the muslims are in uproar over some images while they have no problems with their Mohammad being a pedophile. Mohammad married a 6 year old girl and fucked her when she was 9. Today he would have been behind bars for statutory rape.

Re:Images? What about fucking a 9 year old? (3, Insightful)

lixee (863589) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337292)

You can't apply the standards of whatever place and time you're living in, to what happened in Arabia 15 centuries ago. What is a pedophile in your opinion? Someone that screws people who aren't 18? 16? 15? 14? 13? Who decides? The age of consent in Germany or Austria is 14; in Spain, it's 13. In other places, it goes down as low as 12 years old. We don't have the same genes or cultures, and different people achieve sexual maturity at different times. There's this girl of 5 years old who gave birth in Peru. And besides sexual maturity, people mature differently in general. That's for the "pedophile" part. The claim that it was "rape" is ludicrous given that the whole marriage was as a favor to Aisha's father (the first male Muslim). If there was indeed rape, she wouldn't have been so lenient on the prophet when recounting her experiences. To quote the Wiki: A rape is a form of assault where one individual forces another to have sexual intercourse against that person's will. Nothing of the sort happened in this case. It was an arranged marriage with the blessing of the whole family, and Aisha didn't object to it. Granted, she was young, but there are plenty of young kids with more judgment, determination and wits than adults. I am not saying she falls in that category, but surely you must be able to realize that your "rape" claim is ridiculous. I should also point out that the prophet married mostly widows, which are often of a certain age. The idea being that it is the best way to fulfill their sexual and economic needs. In fact, at the age of 25, the prophet's first wife was 40 years old. It is not contested that Khadija was the "love of his life". It may also be worth mentioning that the actual age at which the marriage with Aisha was consummated is not exactly a settled issue. The number fluctuates from 9 to as much as 15 years old. Which was it does not really matter in my opinion. Does Georges Washington's marriage to a 12 years old take away any of the man's achievements? You decide. For my part, I am not ready to judge something that happens centuries ago based on some arbitrary figure modern society decided upon.

Let me guess...the only Muslims you know are Ben Laden and his ilk.

Re:Images? What about fucking a 9 year old? (3, Insightful)

TurinPT (1226568) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337354)

Oh come on now times change, read a history book.

The concept of 18 being the age of maturity is fairly recent.
People used to get married at a young age since the expected life span was much shorter.
Look back at whatever your ancestry is, I bet you'll find alot of marriages at the age of 11/12.

Mohammed image archive (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337158)

Zombietime's Mohammed Image Archive [zombietime.com] has a collection of most of the available images of Mohammed. The oldest dates from 67 years after his death, and is from a coin in the British Museum.

The site also has an archive of their incoming hate mail on this subject [zombietime.com] , some of which is quite funny.

Um... (2, Interesting)

amuro98 (461673) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337162)

If the image of Mohammed is sacrilege, how do Muslims know what he looks like if no one can ever create a picture of him?

Just saying things like "Don't draw Mohammed!" is rather impossible if you've never seen a picture of him in the first place.

Misguided fanatical legalism (5, Informative)

Lucas123 (935744) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337172)

While I'm not a Muslim, I have looked into this issue out of curiosity and found a few interesting similarities between Judeo-Christian and Muslim religious laws. And, Muslim "outrage", like all legalistic religious outrage, seems quite misguided. There is no verse in the Koran, per se, that forbids images of Mohammad or Allah. In Chapter 42, verse 11, the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him." So the interpretation is that to try to reproduce Allah in whatever form you choose -- and by extension His prophet Mohammad -- is an insult to God. The Koran also states in Chapter 21, verses 52-54 that "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'" This verse is probably far more applicable to this modern outrage we're experiencing, and it mirrors the Judeo-Christian law (in the Ten Commandments) that forbid "graven" images of God. The reason behind it is quite simple: Man is prone to worshiping idols, which takes his attention off the creator and places it on the created. Religion is about creating a relationship with God. The first chapter of Romans in the New Testament of the Bible also addresses this. Much like Christian's have tradition, Muslim tradition, or Hadith, points to Muhammad and his companions explicitly prohibiting images of Allah, Muhammad and all other major Christian or Jewish prophets, but it doesn't explain why. So, at least on the surface, Muslims appear to be taking to a legalistic extreme both law and tradition by threatening death to anyone who might break such a law, when, like all Biblical laws, they were created for our own good, not God's. And, perhaps this is the greatest mistake of all that religious zealots make: God doesn't need a defender; He's quite able to defend Himself.

Then DON'T CONNECT TO WIKIPEDIA. (1)

JustShootMe (122551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337196)

If you don't like something that is on Wikipedia, then don't connect to it. Trying to get it removed so that no one else can look at it either is stupid and against Western values. So are these Muslims, though.

I say we put up a huge statute of Mohammed with his middle finger raised and point it towards Mecca.

Also, on anopther token, are Christians any better? Look at the whole situation with evolution, etc. How about Scientologists? OK, bad example, they're just fucking jerks. Jews? Try posting pictures of the holocaust or pro-Palestine ideas (not anti-Semite, btw, just pro-Palestine, it is indeed possible to be for something while not being prejudiced against its opposite).

The fundamental problem here consists of two elements - a general idea that spans all political sides of the spectrum that one is entitled to not being offended, and a general idea that religion is Inherently Good and thus must be given lots of leeway.

Fuck these Muslims. Not all Muslims, but these Muslims. (And a rather hot one I had my eye on a while ago, but that's a different story ;)) I don't care if you're offended, grow up and get over it, you whiny crybabies.

Not for prophet (5, Funny)

InbredTom (1189565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337202)

The pictures should be removed as Wikipedia is a non-prophet organisation.

Sorry, was that obvious?

No, very good. (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337384)

I'd modd you up, haven't had points in a while.

Its a great pun. I plan on using it later today, and taking full credit for it. Nothing personal, I just don't want to explain how I got that joke from "Inbred Tom".

Thanks!

Mohammed-crisis (1)

eitreach (1211194) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337214)

This is surely bad news for Wikipedia's dairy-articles.

If the Muslims would quit changing the rules.. (1)

CitznFish (222446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337218)

If the Muslims would quit changing the rules this wouldn't be an issue. It wasn't that long ago (relatively speaking) that it was appropriate to post images of their prophet. This is a recent development. They're probably hiding something....

Anyone have.... (3, Funny)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337226)

an ASCII art of Mohammed? I need a new sig for message boards.

Your attention, please (2, Insightful)

Lurker2288 (995635) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337236)

Attention Muslims: no one gives shit about the rules your fruity little cult chooses to embrace, so please stop acting as though we ought to.

Attention all other religious folks: likewise.

Maybe when you folks grow up a little and are no longer so arrogant as to believe yourselves to be the sole custodians of the ultimate truths of the universe, we'll have more to talk about. Until then, go screw.

mo:d dowN (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337242)

supplies to private 3ontinues to lose new core is going offended some and building is fellow travellers? people playing can our cause. Gay GNAA (GAY NIGGER I've never seen

The only way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337252)

In this day and age, there is no way to please all subdivisions of culture. The best one can do is upset them all, and equally. You aren't prejudist if you hate everyone!

Muhammed Bobbleheads, now 2 for 1 (1)

instantmatthew (861096) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337266)

yeah,ah, for you, my friend, uh, a special deal. This really puts a dent in our business plan.

About God (1)

Panayotis (1119445) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337286)

God, in order to punish the religious fanatics, doesn't exist

To all sensitive Muslims (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337304)

who find pictures of their prophet Mohammed offensive:

Kindly go fuck yourself you medieval retards. And if you think I'm being unfair, you have NO idea of my wrath towards the hypocritical bible thumping Xian morons. So, kindly go take your stupid little dipshit religion, step away from the computer, and go home to your burkha clad women and the 11th century where you seem to be happiest And once you're there, please do us all a big favour and stay there and STFU. I'm tired of your whiney ass bullshit.

AC

Ignorati (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337308)

And who do you suppose created those pictures of the great prophet in the first place? It's ridiculous that some of today's muslims are so wound up in the rhetoric of our era that they conveniently forget that the creation of "graven images" wasn't always prohibited in islamic culture. This is doubly silly since these most inflexible people are generally the same ones who want everyone to go back to living like it's the year 599 where such practices were commonplace.

reminds me of my new t-shirt line (1)

loafula (1080631) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337312)

entitled "jesus loves mohammad", and featuring such gems and "Jesus and Mohammad holding hands", "Jesus Ass-Fucking Mohammad", and "Mohammad Sucking Jesus' Cock"

The Problem is Your Sensitivity (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337316)

Maybe the people complaining here should learn how to ignore stuff that offends them. If you're offended by something as banal as a picture, then you're way too sensitive. Its not our responsibility to be sensitive to your beliefs and religion. Sorry, but thats how freedom works.

On a side note, if you're so unsure in your faith that you need people to side-step around it just to comfort you, then you need to do some serious examination of your belief. For people who claim to be following the Ultimate Truth, they sure seem to need a lot of encouragement from us lost sheep. And if your god really gives a shit about printing pictures of a guy that he talked to hundreds of years in the past, then your god is a humongous pussy, and you probably shouldn't be worshiping him anyway. I have a feeling that, if god exists, he doesn't give a shit about what pictures we upload onto a website.

If you're offended by someone badmouthing your religion, then you need to stop being a crybaby.

How large do freedoms reign? (1)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337318)

That is what the question boils down to. Obviously any reasonable person sees that in this case the "freedom of religious belief" can not overrule the "freedom of expression", while those with hard line Islamic beliefs cannot accept that. A page and step by step guide exists specifically to walk people through how to block images on the page if they do not want to view them (or allow their families to view them). What quite a few of the protesters want is nothing to do with that though - they don't want *anyone*, whether Muslim or not, to view them.

I rather fear with a lot of the people so heavily protesting - not only about this, but going to much more extreme lengths in many different spheres of the world today - is that they are being whipped up into a FUD storm. As the NYT piece points out, prior to the 20th century, illustrative depictions of Muhammed were not at all taboo. The folks "protesting" here act like it is the central tenant of their entire religion. We have an entire generation of people, across the Muslim world who are unhappy, they are easy to whip up into a storm of protest over ridiculously inconsequential things (and in a few rare cases seriously consequential things) - it is done at the bequest of "leaders", leaders of religion or country, who use these people as tools. Whip them up into a frenzy so they won't question why they are so poor, disillusioned, powerless or poorly educated themselves - for if they did that the leaders privileged powerful lives would disintegrate.

Clarrification for our own stereotyping (1)

RaigetheFury (1000827) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337320)

Let's be clear about something. This cry from the Muslim community is not. It is a cry from a small group of Muslims in comparison to the whole community.

But to direct an example to the small group within the Muslim community, this same group believes that bleeding goats by a poke in the next is "okay". To us, that is animal cruelty where noone cares about the animals welfare. Different views.

Religion has always been about control. Whether it be direct or indirect by making you think about your actions and the repercussions, it is a method of control. A method to institute law and give direction(notice how i did not say fear) by using a "higher power" as the bargaining chip.

Most religious groups that are strict are very scared of what the world is turning into. People are no longer being blind sheep, they are asking questions. Our generation is a bunch of nosey people who believe EVERYONE has the innate right to choose for themselves.

Rights activists are our poster children. This editing of wikipedia is a direct attempt by those scared people to maintain control of a population that is no longer being sheep. The women are asking why they are considered less than men and not taking "Because mohammed said so" as an answer.

It's very interesting times. But please note that just because someone is Religious, it doesn't mean they are an extremist. That's why we have two different words to describe them. The same applies to Muslims. So when you want to attack "them muslims" make sure you clarify who you're attacking instead of using blind hate. That's what they're doing, and it obviously isn't working.

Well it could be worse (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337332)

Well they haven't locked the article yet, so things are going better than on most controversial articles.

Oh never mind, i hit refresh and its been protected. just checked it again. Its locked now.

Hi! I'm Mohamad (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22337346)

       O
     --|--
     _/ \_

Hi, I'm Mohamed, and I deeply apologize the the idiocy of my believers. Really, I just wanted to marry 12 year old and beat women, I didn't think it would get all crazy like this, Praise me.
With all this free time to be whiny about other people, clearly I didn't give enough work to do to my followers. So for now on, my followers can no longer touch anything electronic, and must spend their days hiding in there huts, and only adult men can leave to gather food, but for no more then 2 hours a day. Muslims must also never take any violent action, or encourage others to do so for any reason what so ever. Also, to prove yourself, all adult Muslims must fast without ANY food or drink for oh..lets say 40 days. If you really believe you will be fine, if you get hungry or thirsty just believe harder.

A suggest a three-phase plan... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337386)

1. Print images of Muhammad.
2. ?
3. Prophet!

Get over it. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337392)

Back when I was a lad there were folks who always walked around with a chip on their shoulder. Seemed they looked at everything around them as if they were the center of the world and anything to their liking was offensive.

It's still true today. Aspects such as race, religion, sexual orientation, and all that crap that makes individuals special doesn't have a thing to do with it. They were and are just plain old assholes.

Logical Inconsistancy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22337404)

How is a Muslim supposed to know that they are looking at an image of Muhammad if the religion forbids images of Muhammad? How can they be sure they aren't just looking at an image of someone who just kinda looks like Muhammad? What if a real person ends up looking EXACTLY like Muhammad? ...and he's a Muslim. Yikes!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>