Home
Wikipedia's refusal to remove Muhammad’s images justified or not?
Made Popular Feb 7 2008
The Muslim fraternity worldwide is quite enraged and offended at Wikipedia’s entry depicting Muhammad’s drawings and images. However, Wikipedia has politely but firmly refused to remove the images saying: “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.”
Wikipedia is right. Wikipedia should not be censored for the benefit of any particular group and particularly to a religion with retarded beliefs.
No question of hurting religious sentiments, it is related to freedom of expression the intention is crystal clear - not hurting anyone's belief.
i feel so disgusted with the kind of attitude Muslims possess all over the world. all the time questioning govt. systems and things, as if all are against them. so what if Wikipedia don't want to remove the pics...atleast it lets us know that these kinda images were also drawn that misrepresents Islam and its founder. why don't they understand that no one wants Muslims to get extinct and no one's after their lives for the reason they are Muslims. they get excited if Osama laden calls US or the rest of the western world a monster. they get excited if laden asks them to blow themselves for the sake of Allah.
I ask wat's the point?
i suggest all the Muslims to get their thinking brain out of that Muslim shell. there's a beautiful world waiting for you and you are all welcome.
I ask wat's the point?
i suggest all the Muslims to get their thinking brain out of that Muslim shell. there's a beautiful world waiting for you and you are all welcome.
Online media is now showing its strength by refusing such demands. Accepting one demand now would create way to demands from others too.
Wikipedia should not remove the images because it would mean terrorists' victory.
This is the root of all the religious conflicts. Why don't you people believe in respecting others' sentiments. If Muslims don't believe in depicting "ALLAH", is there any need to create a news and unnecessary controversy involving religious feelings?
This is absolutely not justified and not accepted at any cost. Wikipedia will have to remove 'it' at any cost. There is no any reason why 'it' shoul;d be there on site.
Why agitating against Wikipedia when such images are spread all over Internet? One can easily access such images from different other websites.
There is no specific, or explicit ban in the holy Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad - be they carved, painted or drawn, BBC says.
Chapter 42, verse 11 of the Quran says: "Allah is the originator of the heavens and the earth... there is nothing like a likeness of Him."
It means Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hands, such is his beauty and grandeur. Attempting such things is seen as an insult to Allah. The same is believed to apply to Muhammad. So, depicting the images of Muhammad Saheb is against the religious belief.
It means Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hands, such is his beauty and grandeur. Attempting such things is seen as an insult to Allah. The same is believed to apply to Muhammad. So, depicting the images of Muhammad Saheb is against the religious belief.
Is there any Shariapedia? i mean so that we can also add images of Hindu goddesses as drawn by famous artist MF Hussain...yes he's a Muslim from India.
All of you supporting images should know it well that Islamic tradition or Hadith (the stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his companions) explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions. Now stop talking nonsense..
Wikipedia should not remove the images. It certainly is not carrying that image with any motive other than just to represent all topics with a neutral point of view.
This is not an issue at all. It is very disgusting that muslims see everything with a religious over tone. Muslims once again prove that their religious tolerance is zero. For them religion comes first before anything.
As against their misconception, world is not against muslims and they dont need to do any kind of sacrifice to protect Islam. It is already very safe and intact.
This is not an issue at all. It is very disgusting that muslims see everything with a religious over tone. Muslims once again prove that their religious tolerance is zero. For them religion comes first before anything.
As against their misconception, world is not against muslims and they dont need to do any kind of sacrifice to protect Islam. It is already very safe and intact.
All the logics are baseless. Shia Islamic tradition is said to be far less strict on this ban on depicting images of Muhammad Saheb. Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found.
If there is the prohibition on images of Muhammad in Islam, people should try not to violate it.
Wikipedia should show some decency and remove the images from its site...freedom of expression does not mean we take it all the way to offend millions around the world. there are million other sites that will keep it lying there for the sake of mockery and wikipedia should only add one of such sites in external links for the record sake.
Muslims can choose not to view the images if they find them offensive. They don't have any rights to determine what the rest of the world views.
Respecting other religion's beliefs is duty of every individual. we shouldn't forget it for mere business purposes.
Image is just image and there is no bad intention behind publishing it. Why people are making issue of it?
No body can justify such act that hurts religious feeling and artistic freedom should be limited in a sphere of conscience always.
# Adrian - "i suggest all the Muslims to get their thinking brain out of that Muslim shell. there's a beautiful world waiting for you and you are all welcome." Can you come out of your Christian shell??
suggestion to wikipedia- Remove the image otherwise FATWAS will be issued against your editors too.
Wikipedia, as an information provider organization, has the right not to remove it. Afterall, it is only a representation of Muhammad’s drawings and images.
Merely showing them has no intention of offending anyone. It is also a way of having a glimpse of understanding of Muslim’s teachings.
Showing images may in one way or another be helpful in conditioning the minds of non-Muslims that such images are sacred and special to our Muslim brethren. In this way, people in the world will be educated once they see such images.
It is about time to know the different religions in the world. We are in the information age and we need to recognize what various people in the world believe in.
How can we respect things if we are not aware that they exist? It is indeed one way of recognition.
Keeping these things may complicate matters as others would think Muslim religion is somewhat a cult. But with these images, I think Islam will soon be understood better by other members of this world.
Merely showing them has no intention of offending anyone. It is also a way of having a glimpse of understanding of Muslim’s teachings.
Showing images may in one way or another be helpful in conditioning the minds of non-Muslims that such images are sacred and special to our Muslim brethren. In this way, people in the world will be educated once they see such images.
It is about time to know the different religions in the world. We are in the information age and we need to recognize what various people in the world believe in.
How can we respect things if we are not aware that they exist? It is indeed one way of recognition.
Keeping these things may complicate matters as others would think Muslim religion is somewhat a cult. But with these images, I think Islam will soon be understood better by other members of this world.
Going through the article will make it clear that the site is just giving an account on the prophet’s life and in no manner misguiding the populace.All the people who have expressed their anger and intolerance towards the website are requested to go through the article before they begin talking about it.
Haven’t we’ve had enough of us against them. I mean this is the reason that Muslims are increasingly getting alienated from rest of the world. It wouldn’t heart wiki to remove the images, and if leads to a bit of appeasement then all the better.
Let’s take an example, say images of a painter’s art were to be put up on wiki,and the artist citing IPR asks the website to remove the same. What is the option then? This should not be blown into a big issue because it would further increase the hurt and anger amongst the Muslims.
Artistic freedom should not be cited as an argument here.
Let’s take an example, say images of a painter’s art were to be put up on wiki,and the artist citing IPR asks the website to remove the same. What is the option then? This should not be blown into a big issue because it would further increase the hurt and anger amongst the Muslims.
Artistic freedom should not be cited as an argument here.
wikipedia is humiliating 1.7 billion muslims in the world. no law in the whole world allows the humiliation and feelings of even a single person. what wikipedia is doing is simply disrespecting the domestic laws of all countries.
if muslims don't have an image of muhammad than what do they think when they worship him? noting? blank? it is not possible. then demi moore pole dancing in striptease can be one of the scenes that might come to them while praying. utter rubbish. it is almost as if islamists r atheists. might well be coz they brainwash guys to kill ppl.
Which is the world's largest democracy? India? No! USA? No! It is Wikipedia. Today dictators in form of administrators have taken over control. The Muhammad page cannot be edited by anyone. And, disrespecting 1.7 billion people in the world, it is showing Muhammad's images showing that after all it is an American tool.
I am a Cambridge University student and copying and pasting what I wrote in the Wikipedia talk page regarding the issue.
I think this platform will publish this. Thanks. Now let the 'offended' guys reply.
Give up. It's not going to be changed, that much is obvious. It's not going to be changed because this is (hopefully) a pure source of knowledge, as opposed to something that pander's to everyone's opinion. Do you think we should get rid of the article on Jesus suggesting he was the son of god because you don't agree with it? Or should we remove the article on the Torah because the Bible says 'you shall have no god but me', or even, shall we remove all pictures of women not wearing burkas because they are not meant to be seen? This sort of censorship is bad for people, and it shouldn't be allowed.
I think this platform will publish this. Thanks. Now let the 'offended' guys reply.
@ Haris:
Allah means God in English and Ishwar in Hindi. Your Allah is no different from our Ishwar. Don’t give the bullcrap that whatever has anything to do with Allah or is applicable to him is applicable to Muhammad. Muhammad is a highly controversial medieval religio-politico militant campaigner. Don’t try to to impose the thoughts of your faith on the followers of other faiths. If you don’t like the images, it’s fine by us, just don’t see them if you are offended. But spare us mate of following your faith. Keep it up to yourself. Islam, nor does its founder Muhammad has exclusive proprietary rights over Allah which is God or Ishwar in different languages. God belongs to me as much as it belongs to you or for that many any other living being including the pig.
Period.
Allah means God in English and Ishwar in Hindi. Your Allah is no different from our Ishwar. Don’t give the bullcrap that whatever has anything to do with Allah or is applicable to him is applicable to Muhammad. Muhammad is a highly controversial medieval religio-politico militant campaigner. Don’t try to to impose the thoughts of your faith on the followers of other faiths. If you don’t like the images, it’s fine by us, just don’t see them if you are offended. But spare us mate of following your faith. Keep it up to yourself. Islam, nor does its founder Muhammad has exclusive proprietary rights over Allah which is God or Ishwar in different languages. God belongs to me as much as it belongs to you or for that many any other living being including the pig.
Period.
wot if d cam wuz inventd den? mohammad mite 've preachd thru youtube lyk bin-laden. lolz.
Some say that they are misleading, inaccurate and more so 'useless manuscripts'. However, those so called useless manuscripts are part of Islamic history, thus they are relevant to be depicted in the knowledge source that is Wikipedia.
Fully justified........... we have enough diktats from Muslims...... Enuf is Enuf........ we don;t need to listen to 'em always.
Publishing images of Muhammad Saheb is an offence but making it a debate is much bigger offence. Stop talking nonsense here.
Wikipidea Editors have proven their point by showing the world they are more stronger than Main Stream Media by refusing the plea from Muslim community, but other than that I see no reason to keep those pictures.