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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I hope this doesnt offend people but........

Muhammad



Muhammad



Muhammad



Muhammad



Now please ask me to take them down.......I WILL NOT




posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN
 


Thank you SO much!! Exactly what I was looking for!

I honestly had a very nagging wonder of what Muhammad really looked like. Should I be punished for that? Should the knowledge of his countenance be forbidden? I hope not, because the suppression of knowledge is one thing I am strictly against and until the day where ALL ideas, inventions, and knowledge is free to explore, we are bound to ignorance.

Now to CafePress to make T-shirts, Coffee Mugs, Mouse Pads, and Posters - LOL


[edit on 8-2-2008 by deadline527]



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Since I respect other people's religions, I remove my shoes when I enter a temple or a Mosque, put on a yamaka when I enter a synogoge, light a candle when I enter a catherdral and i will not post images of the prophet if that offends...

And I expect the same respect in return.


Wig

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
what about this also :

*Mohammad, Messenger of God (retitled The Message for U.S. release) is a 1976 film directed by Moustapha Akkad,
*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??


If you look at that wiki page you can see the cast list, Anthony Quinn played Hamza. I have seen that film (& enjoyed it) they do not portray Mohammed, Mohammed does not even speak in the film, when mohammed speaks there is an eerie music which is like a dubbing over his voice, the narrator explains what Mohmmed had said.

Also if you had actually read the article you would not only have discovered this about the film, but you would also have read that the film did offend some muslims, And they caused quite a bit of trouble at the time. But most muslims do not mind this film, I was given it by a muslim.

[edit on 10/2/2008 by Wig]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

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)


Isn't it blasphemy to call an image of Mohamed idolatry?



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



Originally posted by grover
Since I respect other people's religions, I remove my shoes when I enter a temple or a Mosque, put on a yamaka when I enter a synogoge, light a candle when I enter a catherdral and i will not post images of the prophet if that offends...

And I expect the same respect in return.

You're describing the realm of courtesy and good manners. That is your personal choice, much like your opinion. There are no laws demanding that one be courteous.

There are, however, laws which protect freedom of expression.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
Isn't it blasphemy to call an image of Mohamed idolatry?


Judging by Muslim outrage, it seems it is an act of idolatry in itself to make an image of Mohammad. I think that is what they are claiming to be blasphemous.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


You're spot on, thats what exactly the case is



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Since I respect other people's religions, I remove my shoes when I enter a temple or a Mosque, put on a yamaka when I enter a synogoge, light a candle when I enter a catherdral and i will not post images of the prophet if that offends...

And I expect the same respect in return.


Do you eat pork, do you drink alcohol?



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Actually Josbecky I am also describing what should be good behaviour from a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim etc.



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ImJaded

Tell me when has anyone ever liked education? Most people get education free, Once in a college or University your paying even if its a Grant education costs, religion is free and why then is parts of it as Muhammad The muslim tainted? Is that some service the muslim masses do not want to provide? Like i said education is not liked by most that are enjoying a day to day life as a kid or have jobs to support their family. If Islamists have something else to do why don't they get into freedom themselves and enjoy the costs of education? They all could be like the President of Iran and yell at the masses taking turns all day every day, the ultimate of the educated guessers challenge guessless societies of the world on a nuclear issue they have yet to master and enable muslim push button robots so the religion begins to mean religion not nuclear war. Love the world or cope a new silent trip.



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD

So Wikipedia also has pages on Nuclear Arms and Nuclear War and Robotics but nothing yet about Muslim Robotic Push Buttons so Muslims can return to their religion after a Muslim Nuclear War brought on by Iran's President yelling that he needs Muslim Push Buttons from Nuclear Energy. Why don't Muslims see through the red tape and yell back that Muhammad will become meaningless once Nuclear War has begun, and valueless to Wikipedia and its readers whom saw once a image of a once in a lifetime Muslim up until the Muslims felt assaulted enough to devise their own elimination from the human race using nuclear energy. Muslims are real stupid at this aspect of Muslim freedom, so either learn muslim ways or preach diversity where religion is not the main issue cause a few pictures don't mean a thing, a few words don't mean a thing, what means something is how you are applying what you mean. Did you mean, "Muslim Behave Like Idiots When They Are Subjected To The Nuclear Test?". If I were the President of Iran I would get tired real fast of hearing that muslims have a religion and no nuclear power to guide their push button future. Like push button washing machines, I know that world stinks like bad oily rags and so what happens to the children that don't know what a Muslim is, who will survive, Israel has little to offer Muslims that have no mental image of what a Muhammad is without Wikipedia as it will not be destroyed during or after the nuclear confrontation. Iran, maybe Iraq, maybe Pakistan, maybe also Afghanistan will all perish from the nuclear disaster, radiation will kill the remaining undead. What religion is Muslim? Is there anything to prove that Islamic religion existed? Who are the Muslims of a future that cannot be real for me when I see disaster as the ultimate threat against learning a Muslim existed. To much to forget, the pain, the agony, the defeat, it will overshadow the earth like a black plague days following the explosions, no Muslim has not a chance on earth as Muslim is not a religion and takes out Islamic future policy as soon as the nukes are released I will forget what a Muhammad was and is to Muslim. You should forget Muhammad before I do as it will be upon you that earth shall continue to earn from its losses in the ever enlargening universe where Muslim have never tread or breathed the word Muhammad. Understand the world is full of broken washing machines and your complaining about Muhammad's image on Wikipedia, funny go ahead and complain that don't fix the broken washing machines, that don't make Muslim clothing, that don't put food on the table of the Muslim, that don't clean a Muslim body, that don't bury the dead Muslim, does it? I do not want you to get the idea I want you dead, I just want you to understand the people on earth do not care one way or the other if Islamic religion exists or not if they have not chosen Islamic religion as their guide. Faith has a blessing, take this as the last blessing you need from me, go about your life and I will manage mine, change not mine and I will change yours not for I shall see through the tyranny and the hunger and the pain and bring a warmth into the world that you will obey as it is your keeper and your bread and butter and your future is then with me not against me.




[edit on 11-2-2008 by OoTopNotchoO]



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


In my opinion it's an act of idolatry getting UPSET over these pictures, they get so upset it really does seem like they idol worship Mohammed. By the way remember only a minority do get upset.

[edit on 11-2-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Why throw a hissy fit?
All they have to do is denounce the whole thing by saying "that is not Mo", explain why and move along, plain and simple.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

There are, however, laws which protect freedom of expression.



The freedom of expression laws are a double edged sword as you can see by this truly sickening video-do you think if Hitler was giving his speeches today we should allow him his 'freedom of expression'?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD



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.


Wrong information?

Maybe debateable.. but I find it rather disingenuous to claim the information is out and out wrong.

I know many religious people who get offended by information which is right on the money. So in lieu of actual circumstances, let's just say some faiths have been offended by information they believe to be inaccurate.

There, now thats an NPOV



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


problem is, if the messenger is choosing what messages to deliver to further their own agenda then they deserve to be shot, no?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
The following is only one of the ideologies that Islam exports. If you have questions about Islamic slavery, do some research on Saudi Arabia slavery. It is shocking & deplorable. It is against the nature of Humanity.
Slavery was banned by royal decree in Saudi Arabia in 1962. It is taboo to discus in their countries. And please don't try to convince me otherwise, because I have lived in SIX Muslim nations. What the imams say, is frankly the TRUTH.
All of the Peace loving well wishers on ATS just sit back, relax and let them twist & take what they want. You will be living under their laws when you get old enough to know better. Hope you learn to like it.


[ We learn today from the dissident Saudi Information Agency that a prominent Saudi religious authority recently called for slavery to be re-legalized in the kingdom. Ali Al-Ahmed reports on the views of Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, the author of a religious textbook (At-Tawhid, "Monotheism") widely used to teach Saudi high school students as well as their counterparts abroad studying in Saudi schools (including those in the West).

"Slavery is a part of Islam," he announced in a recent lecture. "Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam." He argued against the idea that slavery had ever been abolished, insulting those who espouse this view as "ignorant, not scholars. They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel."

Al-Fawzan is no maverick. He is:

A member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body;
A member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research;
Imam of the Prince Miteb Mosque in Riyadh; and
Professor at Imam Mohamed Bin Saud Islamic University, the main Wahhabi of learning.]

So if you respect their ideology on one issue, give them the whole ball game. Give, give & by all means give.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Oh my goodness. Why was this old thing bumped.


reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



Maybe debateable.. but I find it rather disingenuous to claim the information is out and out wrong.


Maybe you should have asked for clarification before immediately assuming 'disingenuous' intentions.

I'm an apologist and the facts of religions are what I study and research. And, yes, I frequently see incorrect dates, names, places, quotes of religious texts, etc., when browsing religious Wikipedia articles. I'm not bashing Wiki since it happens to be one of my favorite and most visited websites. However, it stands to reason that a site able to be edited by average Joes and public users will have some errors. Surely other article subjects have errors as well but since religious studies is my passion and area of expertise, the errors in religious articles are more easily noticed by myself.

You also seemed to have missed the point of what I said which was not about the factualness of Wiki.

Oh, and edit to add: I've also seen many error-ridden articles about ancient religions no longer practiced. Therefore, it has nothing to do with hurt feelings, oversensitive feelings, or the followers trying to sweep anything under the rug.

[edit on 11/17/2008 by AshleyD]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join