Slashdot Mirror
Muslim Groups Attempt to Censor Wikipedia
Nom du Keyboard writes "The New York Times is reporting that Muslim groups are attempting to censor Wikipedia because of images of Muhammad contained in the article about him. 'A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site's polite but firm refusal to remove the images: "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." The notes left on [online petitions against the page] come from all over the world. "It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately."'"
I'm a Muslim who also happens to be quite active on the Wiki and I see absolutely no reason why the pictures should be taken out. But then again, I see nothing wrong with starting an online petition either. Somehow, I wasn't surprised to see Zonk's name associated with the sensationalist headline.
Res publica non dominetur
Bombing an abortion clinic, while abhorrent, is a little bit different from torching a KFC and threatening to kill people just because you don't happen to like a drawing published in a Danish newspaper.
Or did the Muslims perceive that human life was dying because of the publication of those pictures?
There's more similarity between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists than there are differencesAnd that makes it ok?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
More importantly, who gives a shit what they think is "unacceptable"? In the Western World its unacceptable for religion to impose its restrictions on free speech. Yeah! I mean what if we allowed that to happen in America? Thank GOD we have George W. Bush to protect all of us from allowing religion to mix with government because GWB is a strong supporter of the Constitution and Bill of Rights . . . well, some of them, anyway . . . depending on who's asking . . . and what color the DHS alert is at the time . . . and whether anyone's looking.
"The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
o /|\
/ \
This stick figure is a depiction of Muhammad! Even worse, Slashdot won't render him properly! Gentlemen, start your ululululating!
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Man, coward is absolutely the right title for your sad ass. Don't leave your house tomorrow...a terrorist might kill you in your driveway. Come to think of it, maybe you shouldn't sleep again, ever. Someone could kill you in your sleep. Maybe you could fort up with a couple of dozen guns and kill anyone darker than a swedish albino that comes too near you, just in case? I know I'm not supposed to feed the trolls, but I have a feeling this guy believes what he's saying. Yikes.
Or have you only comfort...that stealthy thing that enters the house and guest then becomes host, then master - KG
That's because your media is controlled by another religious group that is the political ennemy of muslims, and thus has all the incentive of portraying muslims as barbarians.
Islam being based on the insane ramblings of a child-molesting serial killer is not a weakness? No, to Muslims it is a strong point.
So why include a deprecated text in the Christian collection of books at all?
Oh wait, because the new testament doesn't make any sense without the old testament. Nice to know that the 'Word of God' is packaged as a choose-your-own-adventure HOWTO instruction booklet.
And I'd like to take exception to the phrase '[Jesus had a] sin-free life'. Do you say this because you were taught to say this? Is your world view contingent upon this single phrase being a fact? Is this spoken by you because there is empirical or otherwise factual evidence supporting this phrase? Or were writers acting completely free of poetic license 50 years after the enscribed events, during a time when exaggeration and ass kissing were standard practice in literature.
Consider that people of Jesus' day would not have characterized Jesus as being 'sin free'. He was a vandal, a vagrant, a political dissident, he did not respect his elders, nor his family's culture, he was ultimately put down as a common criminal. And this is all from the text that exults him. Never mind the suppressed documents.
The party line response to the above is that Jesus was held to a higher standard - God's standard.. Which completely ignores the fact that God likely has not directly told you this, nor is God the vendor that sold you or your preacher's translated copy of the bible (e.g. at best a filtered and imperfect view of history). Never mind the fact that Jesus presumably broke the existing highly detailed standard of God's law. So all this argument does is move the implausibility of "sin-free", to the implausibility of a pair of 1,948 to 1,928 year removed messenger-of-God manuscripts (amongst a likely thousands of other suppressed documents) (aside - yes by this I mean that there are only two distinct texts in the gospel). The party line response to this is that God wouldn't allow his word to be corrupted - for he is the light of the world. This is further 'reinforced' by the knowledge that his light will win out in the end times.. Since that wouldn't be possible if all knowledge of the truth were lost along the way - and how could his followers know the path without such a passage, then certainly this otherwise circular logic MUST be true. Of course the Mormons have a way out - Hidden documents and other modern-day revelations to remind us of lost historical truths.
Finally, as for 'the law must be fulfilled, and then He fulfilled it..' - you're essentially asserting that the symbolic fullfillment of physically prophesized events has significance.. Then fine, I will symbolically end world hunger by dramatically finishing my yogurt - their souls will no longer hunger at least (ask a Jehova's witness if that stings a little).
-Michael