Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad

reply to post by blueorder


*yawn*

Thanks for bringing the collective IQ of the forum down a few points with your valuable contributions!

Much appreciated.

I have read in several threads here on ATS postings by some Muslims stating that Islam and it's teachings etc is the same now as it always has been.
How come then it was ok to depict Mo in the 15th Century but it isn't now?
Proof that Islam HAS changed.

Back on thread; of course the protesting Muslims have every right to protest about pictures of Mo being displayed on Wiki, (I personally find it pretty childish but, if it's their faith it's up to them), the more important issue to me would be if Wiki caves in to their demands and withdraws or censors the images.
Censorship of anykind is wrong and should be discouraged at all times.

Originally posted by vox2442

*yawn*

Thanks for bringing the collective IQ of the forum down a few points with your valuable contributions!

Much appreciated.

good lad, your sole purpose appears to act the "smart alec", without actually gettin involved

Originally posted by Freeborn
I have read in several threads here on ATS postings by some Muslims stating that Islam and it's teachings etc is the same now as it always has been.
How come then it was ok to depict Mo in the 15th Century but it isn't now?
Proof that Islam HAS changed.

Back on thread; of course the protesting Muslims have every right to protest about pictures of Mo being displayed on Wiki, (I personally find it pretty childish but, if it's their faith it's up to them), the more important issue to me would be if Wiki caves in to their demands and withdraws or censors the images.
Censorship of anykind is wrong and should be discouraged at all times.

that is it in a nutshell, I respect the right of people to act childish on petitions, but that doesnt mean the rest of us should cave in

Just ignore the Facist muslims and hopefully they will go away. Works with Dirty [snip] soo it will work with islam.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 7-2-2008 by elevatedone]

Originally posted by BallBreaker
.... Works with Dirty sluts soo it will work with islam.

I'm sorry but just what is that supposed to mean?
What on earth has the moral standards of women got to do with this thread?

Hell, dirty sluts, where, please show me

Originally posted by TKainZero
Seeing something like this only makes me want to do one thing...

...make my own tee-shirt will a 'depiction' of Mohhamad on the front...

AND when one of these scumbag idiots comes and gets all offended...

Just so i can say this...

"Got a problem with it, thats fine, too bad though, this is America, you scumbag, we got a little thing called the bill of rights, something you never heard of in that dirty 3rd world (bleep)hole that you came from, you got a problem with free speach, say something about it, thats the beauty of it, dont like freedom, then get the hell out of this country and go live in that (bleep)hole you came from"

At that point i would spit at thier feet and walk away... but thats just me...



...in fact.. i think i just planed my weekend...

And his reply would be,
"Got a problem with my religious beliefs, thats fine, too bad though, this is America, you scumbag, we got a little thing called the "Bill of Rights", something you apparently never heard of growing up in your little hillbilly inbred shack that you come from. Got a problem with me exercising free speech, too bad , you don't have a choice. Don't like me also having the freedom of religion, then get the hell out of the country and go live in Iran where your not allowed to talk about other religions."

Just so you know, spitting at someone in any state is considered assault. It may be considered a hate crime to wear a shirt just becasue you know it will piss off a muslim, thus drawing him in so you can verbally demean him and physically assault him.

It's nice that you would be willing to violently break the law because something you were doing was offending someone else. Its no different than if someone was cussing loudly right next to your kids and you asked him to stop. He might think theres nothing wrong with cussing and can't understand why you would get offended. A decent person would stop, but this guy starts yelling about the "Bill of Rights" and spits at you for asking him to stop cussing. What a jerk, huh?


[edit on 7-2-2008 by Lotiki]

The crux of the problem lies in being a zealot.

How can one gain ground of any sort, if his opponent believes that, not only is he right, but, furthermore, for him to even entertain the fact that he might be wrong, is in fact a deadly sin.

I have met Christians like this. I have met Muslims like this. I have met Atheists like this.

I don't know the answer to the 'big' question.....but I love the freedom to be able to explore the possibilities.

This is where the founding fathers, in deep wisdom, where able to fuse together the idea that 'all men" can pursue happiness. Rich, poor, Muslim or Atheist.

The thesis of freedom must supersede any thesis of dogmatism...religious or scientific

Ya know, if their faith is so weak and shakable that they can't even stand for anyone to post an image of Mohammed, lest it upset their sensibilities, that's pretty sad. You don't hear anyone whining about depictions of Jesus, Moses, Buddha, etc.

I understand it is against their religion to depict images of Muhammad but would that not pertain to just a Muslim creating images of Muhammad?I mean since the site is probably run by infedels anyway.......what difference does it make.According to them we are all damned anyway right?
Hey I wonder if there is a website named Muhammad.com and if they have pictures or not...

[edit on 7-2-2008 by CaptGizmo]

Hey everyone, let's try to not turn this into a Muslim bashing thread. Not pointing anyone out by name but let's keep it on track.

Here are some general replies to questions asked and some responses to opinions while I was offline:

1) The original story was from the New York Times. I think Fox got the story from them.

2) Question: We may think it is silly to get so offended by this but that is still the way they feel. So, the two sides of the issues are:

A). Should Wikipedia keep the images up since they are a privately owned site and they have the right to post the images for educational and illustrative purposes?

B). Should Wikipedia take down the images out of respect? If they do, do you think this could cause a chain reactions of other "offensive" material regarding Islam being taken down?

AshleyD

I think it should be taken down out of respect like I said earlier in the thread.

We choose to do or not do things daily in life out of respect for other, yes we have freedom of speech but you don't see me calling an african american you know what out of respect. I love to hear my music loud all the time at MY HOUSE all the time, do I do it? NO! Out of respect to my neighbors.

Respect is the main issue to me.

Wiki has the right to do what they choose, but IMO they should remove it out of respect and nothing else.

So it's deemed acceptable to mock a persons faith and beliefs.

I don't call it childish, I call it people taking their religion seriously.

To me it matters not a jot, but if these petitioners feel strongly about this then they have every right to protest - and those who mock are only showing their own childish nature.

I feel sorry for people that are sooooooo GD'ed brainwashed and entirely lost for the remaining time they have on this planet. Seriously folks, its a picture...........A FRIGGIN PICTURE!!!!!!1

GET OVER IT!!!!!!

Oh my god, there is a picture of a fake person on the internet, GET THEM!!!!!

Infidels.........

Please

I feel soooo sorry for people like that.

Maybe in their next life they will see that this is all a steaming pile of horse blank.


And yes its childish to bash them.

Keep the pictures up!!!!
it's really too bad.....really

[edit on 7-2-2008 by IMAdamnALIEN]

Well, I once talked to a woman who was deeply offended by drawings of human faces on product packaging. She said that she had to soak the labels off because it was against her religion.

I personally don't understand how a person with that type of religious rule can ever go outside or even get mail without being offended. I mean, there are pictures of people everywhere. If you just look around and take note you'll see what I mean. I do think it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to conform to your own religious norms when they aren't illegal or offensive to most reasonable people.

But I keep thinking that maybe there is something I am missing because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I agree with what many others are saying: We don't have the right to tell them not to be offended or to tell them they are being childish. If this is a sensitive issue to them in their religion, then that is the way we see it.

Like Bunch said, Wikipedia could take it down out of sheer respect- not force or cowardice. It seems odd the page is actually locked from updates.

But if it starts with that should they also take down the "Criticism of Islam," "Criticism of Mohammad," and "Criticism of the Koran" pages, too? Should an educational site have to worry about it? There's some pretty harsh and downright incorrect stuff about Christianity and most religions on Wikipedia. And even some things that may be true that makes us cringe. I personally disagree that such things should be taken down.

And just in case anyone cares, here is something I just noticed. It makes some sense:

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

From: The Wikipedia Talk Page.

Does everyone think that is fair? Leave them up for the public and if they offend someone to turn off their image function? Kind of like if you don't like what's on the television, change the channel because others want to watch the show?

Here is an even better solution than having Wikipedia remove the pictures:

IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY SUCH THINGS, DON'T LOOK AT THEM!

It's pretty simple actually. No one is holding their hands and forcing them to look at offensive images. I personally find some images on the web disturbing, but I am out hollering for them to be taken down? NO! I just don't look at them!

Why must we cater to the arcane sensibilities of one group of people, when the rest of the world has essentially no problem? It's just this sort of ridiculous politically correct thinking that is destroying us from within!


EDIT: Whoops, AshleyD, you must have posted as I was typing!

[edit on 7-2-2008 by keeb333]

personally i hope the wiki does NOT take them down....so some people/muslims are butt hurt over it and are crying. so what.
censorship blows.

it may be against their religion to depict mo but it is not against the people who run wiki's servers....

why does a muslim need to be reading about mo on the wiki anyway?

just another case of people being little whiney ass babies.

Originally posted by Boondock78
just another case of people being little whiney ass babies.

I 100% agree!

What a true statement!

Its not being childish to say so either, you are just pointing out the obvious!

LOL

Crazy people!