Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.

 

More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopaedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.

 

The images at the centre of the protest appear on most of the European versions of the web encyclopaedia, though not on Arabic sites. On two of the images, Muhammad's face is veiled, a practice followed in Islamic art since the 16th century. But on two others, one from 1315, which is the earliest surviving depiction of the prophet, and the other from the 15th century, his face is shown. Some protesters are claiming the pictures have been posted simply to 'bait' and 'insult' Muslims and argue the least Wikipedia can do is blur or blank out the faces.

 

Such has been the adverse reaction, Wikipedia has been forced to set up a separate page on its site explaining why it refuses to bow to pressure and has also had to set up measures to block people from 'editing' the pages themselves.

 

In a robust statement on the site, its editors state: 'Wikipedia recognises that there are cultural traditions among some Muslim groups that prohibit depictions of Muhammad and other prophets and that some Muslims are offended when those traditions are violated. However, the prohibitions are not universal among Muslim communities, particularly with the Shia who, while prohibiting the images, are less strict about it.

 

'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.

 

'So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the US state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed because people find them objectionable or offensive.'

 

The traditional reason given for the Islamic prohibition on images of prophets it to prevent them from becoming objects of worship in a form of idolatry. But, say the editors, the images used were examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

They mentioned their servers and in Florida.....how long before something happens in the Sunshine State????

Edited February 17, 200818 yr by juddling

Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.

 

More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopaedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.

 

The images at the centre of the protest appear on most of the European versions of the web encyclopaedia, though not on Arabic sites. On two of the images, Muhammad's face is veiled, a practice followed in Islamic art since the 16th century. But on two others, one from 1315, which is the earliest surviving depiction of the prophet, and the other from the 15th century, his face is shown. Some protesters are claiming the pictures have been posted simply to 'bait' and 'insult' Muslims and argue the least Wikipedia can do is blur or blank out the faces.

 

Such has been the adverse reaction, Wikipedia has been forced to set up a separate page on its site explaining why it refuses to bow to pressure and has also had to set up measures to block people from 'editing' the pages themselves.

 

In a robust statement on the site, its editors state: 'Wikipedia recognises that there are cultural traditions among some Muslim groups that prohibit depictions of Muhammad and other prophets and that some Muslims are offended when those traditions are violated. However, the prohibitions are not universal among Muslim communities, particularly with the Shia who, while prohibiting the images, are less strict about it.

 

'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.

 

'So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the US state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed because people find them objectionable or offensive.'

 

The traditional reason given for the Islamic prohibition on images of prophets it to prevent them from becoming objects of worship in a form of idolatry. But, say the editors, the images used were examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

They mentioned their servers and in Florida.....how long before something happens in the Sunshine State????

 

Good for them...and be careful.

 

It seems they would have the technology to not display unless someone clicked on the image. That might be a compromise.

It seems they would have the technology to not display unless someone clicked on the image. That might be a compromise.

 

Or they could just deal with it and move on.

 

I hope none of them use google's image search.

Edited February 18, 200818 yr by southsideirish71

Keep it up wiki.

Here it could be considered a personal attack and taken down.

Here it could be considered a personal attack and taken down.

Muhammad posts here?

 

Let's test it. Muhammad, you ignorant slut!

Muhammad posts here?

 

Let's test it. Muhammad, you ignorant slut!

 

If you post an image that is deemed offensive by the moderators, it gets taken down. That is the point I was making.

If you post an image that is deemed offensive by the moderators, it gets taken down. That is the point I was making.

NUKE had one of the Danish Muhammad cartoons as his avatar for a while, and it wasn't taken down. Not that it should have been, of course.

 

Muhammed's image is not offensive here, Lindsay Lohan's liver spots are.

 

 

Muhammed's image is not offensive here, Lindsay Lohan's liver spots are.

 

Still, if we had a group of posters complaining about an image, we would generally take it down.

Sure it is fun to mock something that others people hold as sacred.

Sure it is fun to mock something that others people hold as sacred.

Posting a picture of something is mocking it? I think not.

 

I could see if we had a large number of Muslims who posted on this board and they collectively said "we don't appreciate you posting pictures of our prophet b/c it's forbidden in our religion" and someone did it anyway but thats not the case.

 

Now, to say something like "I bet Mohammed was a Jew" just to get a laugh... THAT is mocking.

Posting a picture of something is mocking it? I think not.

When I posted the picture above... I was mocking it, a little.

When I posted the picture above... I was mocking it, a little.

I know, I was arguing for the sake of being argumentative. lol

Sure it is fun to mock something that others people hold as sacred.

 

I'm with Tex on this. For something like Wikipedia fine, i see nothing wrong w/ having an image. But to use it mockingly is really inappropriate. i mean, what if i put up a picture of gay jesus as my avatar? or a swastika? or any number of other offensive things? point is, i think we should be tolerant of other people's religions, no?

I did laugh at Life of Brian btw.

I'm with Tex on this. For something like Wikipedia fine, i see nothing wrong w/ having an image. But to use it mockingly is really inappropriate. i mean, what if i put up a picture of gay jesus as my avatar? or a swastika? or any number of other offensive things? point is, i think we should be tolerant of other people's religions, no?

Tolerant yes. Uncritical no.

I'm with Tex on this. For something like Wikipedia fine, i see nothing wrong w/ having an image. But to use it mockingly is really inappropriate. i mean, what if i put up a picture of gay jesus as my avatar? or a swastika? or any number of other offensive things? point is, i think we should be tolerant of other people's religions, no?

 

I wonder if the Jewish people have started their assault on Wikipedia as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

 

 

 

I wonder if the Jewish people have started their assault on Wikipedia as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

southsideirish +1

I wonder if the Jewish people have started their assault on Wikipedia as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

 

Oh come on. Ask the Muslims.

 

That Nazi/Jewish extermination "thing" - never happened. It's an American-backed Zionist conspiracy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

 

sarcasm btw.