It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad


www.foxnews.com

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.

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
This is interesting. It is pretty well known Islam considers it to be a form of idolatry to show an image of Mohammad. I noticed the Wikipedia article showed images of Mohammad several months and was surprised they had been posted.

I could understand not wanting an image of Allah but why not Mohammad? He was only a human being. Also, is Wikipedia being disrespectful by hosting these images or is it in their right? Should they give in to the petition and take down the images?

Wikipedia is not exactly known for being pro-religion. Several different faiths have been offended by some of the wrong information being posted on the website and have opened dispute threads to discuss it but this is the first time such a thing made it all the way to the news. What are your opinions?

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
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]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I'm waiting for the Muslims to insist we delete the Supreme Court! It has a full wall engraved mural that includes Mohammed - who by his own words is a mere mortal anyway - and the mural has Jesus and Moses and Confuscious and Budda too perhaps. I can't remember who all is in it.

www.snopes.com...

Australia recently told their Muslims that if they want Sharia Law, then, they should leave Oz and go to a country with that type of law.

I saw Go WIKI! It's bad enough having our own President take our RIGHTS away from us - but, ... you can finish the sentence.

[edit on 6-2-2008 by Trexter Ziam]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
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_]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
what about this also :

*Mohammad, Messenger of God (retitled The Message for U.S. release) is a 1976 film directed by Moustapha Akkad, chronicling the life and times of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad. Released in both the Arabic language and the English language (Arabic name is الرسالة--English: Ar Risalah), Mohammad, Messenger of God serves as an introduction to early Islamic history.

*source go here >> en.wikipedia.org...(film)

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??

I don't get it myself. This is a big world and folks must get on with each other.

Info is info.

If you look for stuff to piss you off , (and you have that kind of mind - set whatever your faith is, then you can find stuff to piss you off and bitch about it.

Life is much bigger than worrying about such crap.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

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?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by shai hulud
 


Barack Obama is not a muslim.

On topic, I dont know what is it with people not respecting others people wishes. Christians makes all kinds of noise when something about Jesus is said, painted, made or depicted in an offensive matter.

Just respects other peoples faith, not all religions are equal. They have a right to protest and if Wiki takes them down out of RESPECT good for them.

Is it really that hard to give or show some respect?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
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)



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

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?????



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
When can we expect the riots and threats of death against the founder of Wiki?



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by aleon1018
Gee, I could care less if the Wiki just shows a shadow figure or even a question mark (as if he ever even existed)


What do you mean by "as if he ever even existed?" Do you not believe Mohammad existed as a historical figure? Just curious. Haven't heard that argument too often.


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


I thought that was pretty funny, too, that they reposted the picture. It is a news story and they often post photos along with the articles but I noticed Fox News took the article from the New York Times HERE which did not post a photo.

General question to anyone who may know: Who do Muslims find offense with Mohammad's image being posted anywhere but not with the other people they believe to be prophets of Islam including Jesus and Moses? If they are offended by one prophet's image, why not the others?

Also, does anyone know what apparently changed? It seems it was once acceptable to depict Mohammad in art.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


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.

Since Islam diverted from Judaism, Muhammad brought back Jewish customs.. of course adding his own teachings.. essentially is Arabized Judaism to better fit the people.. but kept some of the Judaic tradition.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


100,000 people on an internet petition is news? Amazing. I bet I could get twenty times that number signing a petition to get Coca-cola to go back to the old recipe.

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

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. As we can see, the Islamic scientific revolution kinda ignored this little bit, and good for them, I say - that's some nice art they cranked out in that period. Mohammed may be a special case because, well, as you can see in Christianity we have Jewish Jesus, Turkish Jesus, Russian Jesus, Black Jesus, Swedish Jesus... And people keep arguing over which is "Accurate".

[edit on 6-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

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.'



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join