Man people and there imaginary friends are just crazy . Ever heard of an atheist complaining about a picture of his imaginary friend? But is seems all the religious nuts jump all over it. There was just that thing on the christens and the statue of jesus.

Get over it . There imaginary people . Thus no "Picture" is actually OF them .

I say if they can prove in court he/they are real then they have some grounds to ask. If not , Then the imaginary friend thing holds more water.

[edit on 6-2-2008 by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR]

What the hell is wrong with media these days, there always has to be something about muslims, it's just some petition so what.

[edit on 6-2-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Originally posted by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR
There was just that thing on the christens and the statue of jesus.

Christians considered the statue to be done in a distasteful and disrespectful manner. But the images depicting Mohammad (and I agree we don't actually know what he looks like) are considered disrespectful simply for existing. It's not a matter of the images depicting him in an off colored manner. It is the matter of any image of him even in an informational or artistic manner that brings offense.

Also, of course, Christians believe Jesus is God. Muslims admit Mohammad was only a man so I don't understand the blasphemy aspect of depicting a human being.

Wikipedia is a privately owned site and it is surprising this made it to the news when there is seemingly things that would cause more contention.

I find the most interesting aspect of this is that the art in question was produced my a muslim. So, at various times in history, not only was it allowed but there were artisits who produced art that is now no longer to be viewed.

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
On that article/review/information there of. they even show a photo of Anthony Quinn (playing Mohammad) has that also been in disagreement with the muslims??

The history channel had a show about the Ottoman Empire a few months ago and there was an actor who depicted Mohammad. Don't remember (or at least not aware) if anything ever became of it. There is also supposed to be a movie coming out about Jesus and Mohammad from an Islamic perspective. I wonder how they will get around this since the movie is being created by a Muslim.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I find the most interesting aspect of this is that the art in question was produced my a muslim. So, at various times in history, not only was it allowed but there were artisits who produced art that is now no longer to be viewed.

That is a good point, too. If a Muslim made the mosaics and artwork, was it allowed in the past but not now?

yeah!! That's what I mean. Just like the movie in 1976 with Quinn, it was by a muslim dude it seems.

Is it just now that the new muslims that are running things (some of "em) are more "control freaks"??

I think most normal folks want to get along and live and let live. We all have to work pay taxes get our cars fixed etc... most normal people don't have time to worry about such things!

I think some people just are trouble makers plain and simple.

What next? Muslims will protest the fact that they are being called Muslims? Are they not happy that the entire Western world will be under Sharia law in 20 years (except Russia)? Are they not happy that the U.S. will replace Bush with Barack Hussien Osama?

For the love of God someone get me off this religious zealot filled rock.

It will be interesting to see what the NWO does with even the mention of his name. It would appear, at least to me, that this religion is one of the most fanatical and backwards. And yet, right across from them in Bahrain, is nearly everything they claim is unholy?

Seems like mass hypnosis and hysteria.....or something similar to me. Someone keeps pulling their chain (?) to bring us into WW3. They don't seem to mind selling us the oily remains of their ancient ancestors. So.........Into the furnace (and gas tank) they go.

Gee, I could care less if the Wiki just shows a shadow figure or even a question mark (as if he ever even existed)

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
What the hell is wrong with media these days, there always has to be something about muslims, it's just some petition so what.

[edit on 6-2-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Uh, aren't you "shooting the messenger" here by attempting to blame the media? If they are making up stories, that's one thing. But if they are just reporting news events - and this appear to be just that - then what's your problem with it? Surely, you are not suggesting the media withhold all muslim news? Or is it just news about muslims doing stupid or ridiculous things you want suppressed?

Deny ignorance?????

When can we expect the riots and threats of death against the founder of Wiki?

I find it hilarious that Fox News put up the pictures, thereby creating even more controversy.

But really, what the hell.... they aren't even good artistic representations. The dude looks asian in several of the paintings on there.

Non-violent religious extremism is still extremism (following outdated rules in a ridiculous manner), and should be removed from society. Leave the pictures up..... hell, put more pictures up. If they don't like it, they can geet out.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Its an olllddd old old tradition.. back way past the Days of Christ himself. In fact, you being a Christian may know this.. but the reason that there are no images of Christ is because it was taboo for Jews to be in portraits.

Ah, no. I didn't know that. You learn something new every day. Thanks. I figured it has something to do with idolatry (regarding Jesus' image) but had no idea it was a Jewish taboo to be in portraits. You don't by any chance have a source for this do you? No worries if you don't but it would be nice to read this.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
100,000 people who fail to realize that they can remove the pictures themselves! Oh, surely the internet is full of wonders.

I was thinking the same thing! Surely they have tried this but a moderator restored it back or something (which they can do easily using the history function). It is a public site that we are allowed to update. Surely one out of those 100,000 people realize this. Let's hope so at least.

Oh wait, here is the notice at the top of his Wikipedia page linked to previously in this thread:

This page is currently protected from editing. (protection log). Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. You may use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask for an administrator to make an edit for you.

Anyway, as to your question Ashley, if I recall correctly the Koran prohibits any depiction of humans, due to something relating to god having the right exclusively.

Oh wow. Thanks, Hon. Didn't know the Koran forbid the depiction of anyone. Then, well, why do they get so heated only over images of Mohammad? They can say they don't know what Jesus looked like so that is no problem but they don't really know what Mohammad looked like either. It's strange in my opinion.

But maybe it's a good thing. Talk about a cultural war- Muslims demanding images of Christ be taken down so they don't get 'offended' while we demand to leave them up so we don't get 'offended.'