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."'"

Comments

Better login into wikipedia host asap

[ccguy]

jimw@wiki:/var/www/wikipedia/wiki>tar cz * |uuencode /dev/stdout |mail -s "Just in case" jimw_backup@gmail.com

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[armada]

1st problem: Once again there are people missinterpreting religious dogma in order to satisfy their desires to express themselves. 2nd problem: religious dogma..... um period. 3rd problem: I'm pretty sure you could find someone offended by some aspect of every single article written in wikipedia to varying levles and with varying density. Solution 1: Think for yourself Solution 2: Think for yourself Solution 3: Grow some balls and re read 1 and 2.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[ultranova]

Unneccessary, since the Wikipedia database contents are already available for download for all interested parties. See this page for details.

That said, I don't think that this is offtopic. This being Islam we're talking about, it propably won't take too long before death threats start flying, and it's always possible some lunatic will decide to carry them out, or take less drastic action, such as a cyber-attack against the Wikipedia servers. Making sure that the database is safe from any such attacks is only common sense; and the easiest way to accomplish that is to back it up and spread the copies to as many places as possible.

Cue a hundred replies claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance; and maybe it is - I wouldn't know, since I haven't read their holy book. All I know is that it certainly seems attract lots of bloodthirsty lunatics who use their religion as an excuse to live up to their murderous nature.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Squiffy]

Whoever modded the parent offtopic needs to be metamodded into oblivion. Since when does Slashdot give mod points to people who don't know UNIX?

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[ccguy]

Dude it was just a bad joke riding on frist pots visibility :-)

Now if I can get send one of those censoring muslims to whoever modded me offtopic...

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[SuperStretchy]

I can assure you that "Christians" who bomb abortion clinics and picket actors'/soldiers' deaths because of whatever sexual orientation they might be- are hardly Christians at all. While mainstream Christianity disagrees with the issues behind those things, the isolated reactions by a fanatical few are totally uncalled for and vile. Jesus didn't put to death the woman who was caught in adultery- he reviled her accusers (who had committed a greater sin) and told told the woman to go and sin no more. I, however, take great offense at Christianity being likened to Islam.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Trails]

I absolutely refuse to believe that!

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[flitty]

To bastardize Ghandi: I like Christianity, I dislike your christians, they are so unlike your christ.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[mrxak]

Associating violence with any one religion, or religion as a whole is just silly. All humans, religious or not, are capable of atrocities, and have been carrying them out for nearly every reason imaginable for millennia. The capacity for hatred really is the one thing all humans have in common.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[cayenne8]

"This is true of pretty much all religions. It's just that Islam has gotten the most face time on the news lately. There isn't much difference between a fanatic who is killing in the name of Sharia law vs. the devout christian who starts shooting people in front of the abortion clinic."

Except that there isn't anything in the new testament telling Christians to go out and bomb abortion clinics or to do any kind of violence, just isn't in there. Some crazies will read anything and go violent...extremists are rare.

However, there is violence in the Sharia law and the Koran (sp?) that seem to be an integral part of Islam. It seems in Islam, the extremists are almost the majority of the members...they can sure easily fill a street screaming, protesting and dragging bodies through the streets. I dare say you couldn't fill a block with violent Christians and any given time.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Andrew Kismet]

Regardless of atrocities committed (and atrocities are committed by humans, not religions), there certainly seems to be a higher atrocity/individual rate in current Islamic culture than any other current faiths.

Retrospectively, I think you'll find it's about equal to Christianity in all regards, with a few rather nasty atheists involved throughout history, their own worst point being one shared with Christians, the holocaust. And mentioning that, I'm pretty sure the Jewish faith has caused more than a few problems, although they generally get as many atrocities committed against them as they actually commit.

All in all, I think pretty much any large, organised group, be their grouping religious or otherwise, are prone to manipulation from nasty buggers who want other groups to cease existing.

Regarding the actual article... Wikipedia's all about verifiable groupthink. It'll be a heavily contested page, just like the one on circumcision or any other 'delicate topic'. All in all, the pictures are pretty much required to illustrate various controversies like the Posten issue, and generally to reflect a worldwide view on the topic. At least they chose the symbolic depiction for the article header and category.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[notamisfit]

Sadly, any religion that claims to be a religion of peace is lying through its teeth. When people abandon their faculty of reason and start to believe in the imaginary, they lose their means to negotiate with others. The only remaining alternative is the use of force, either directly (kidnappings, murders, bombings) or indirectly (using coercive power of government to enforce one's "divinely inspired" whims).

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Regardless of atrocities committed (and atrocities are committed by humans, not religions), there certainly seems to be a higher atrocity/individual rate in current Islamic culture than any other current faiths. Really? Is killing because you are a uniformed soldier any better in the eyes of god than killing because you are a guerrilla soldier?

Because if you want to count 'atrocities' the muslim culture is way behind most other cultures. For example, Israel's been averaging 3 dead palestinians for every 1 dead israeli. And of course the US has slaughtered tens of thousands of muslims in iraq and afghanistan.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[OS24Ever]

And look at yourself? You've turned an online petition into a reason to rail against an entire religion! I bet you get upset when people use a few bad priests to condemn an entire religion, but you are so eager to condemn Islam based on the actions of a few extremists who are generally agreed to ignoring the basic tenets of their own religion to bring about their own political goals.

I think you read into what he said. He said he wasn't sure, as he hasn't read their holy book. However, in general it seems to attract more nutjobs than your usual contingent of religious folks.

I mean, Baptists had a person or two blow up abortion clinics is about the closes we have, and usually no one was there except somebody with bad luck, and most good christians were 'meh' but the government those christians elected hunted him down, found him, tried and convicted him. nobody said 'eh, he was doing gods work' and let him go.

Meanwhile, we have a 'folk hero' who took down two buildings killing a few thousand people, and the system of government that is in place from Islam went 'meh' and isn't hunting his ass down to prosecute, and arrest him for murder. You have people celebrating in the streets, you have all sorts of 'support' in general of the activities.

It's hard to be impartial, but to me it seems that while yeah maybe a good chunk of the Islamic followers aren't bloodthirsty monsters, the people they put in front of the cameras for the rest of the world are, and scream prepare to die infidel whenever they get the chance.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Anonymous Coward]

Fourth problem: your post has nothing to do with what GP said.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a nastier person in human history, outside of he who shall not be named.

Voldemort???

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

However, there is violence in the Sharia law and the Koran (sp?) that seem to be an integral part of Islam. It seems in Islam, the extremists are almost the majority of the members...they can sure easily fill a street screaming, protesting and dragging bodies through the streets. I dare say you couldn't fill a block with violent Christians and any given time. You haven't actually read the koran have you? Only a few translated excerpts without any context, right? Lines like "Go and kill the infidels" without the line right before that said something like "and when the infidels break their peace treaty with you and attack without warning..."

PS, I bet you've never been to a 3rd world catholic country - lots of angry violent mobs in those places too. It has more to do with being a 3rd world country - or living in 3rd world conditions - than it does with being catholic, or muslim. We've got a few million muslims in the US and you don't see them forming up violent mobs - certainly nothing like we get here after some big sporting events...

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Pendersempai]

I can assure you that "Muslims" who bomb people they think are repressing them and picket actors'/soldiers' deaths because of whatever sexual orientation they might be- are hardly Muslims at all.

What authority decides who is a true Muslim and who isn't? Because it is a crime to be gay in most Islamic countries, punishable by torture and/or death, and at some point you have to wonder if maybe your tolerance is the anomaly, not their barbarity.

At what point do we start judging the tree by the fruit that it bears?

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[ehrichweiss]

Here's a simple question to ask yourself. What religion do most(I dare say close to 99.999%) of the world's suicide bombers subscribe to? Statistically speaking, it doesn't look good for Islam.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Scrameustache]

I, however, take great offense at Islam being likened to Christianity. Lets see, one is the bastard offspring of Judaism, and the other is the bastard offspring of Judaism... no, no, you're right, they are totally unlike each other. No similarity at all.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[ultranova]

As has Christianity, where fairly wide swaths of believers have embraced those who bombed not only abortion clinic but those who would come to their aide.

And so it begins. "Don't talk about muslims; look at what the christians are doing !"

And look at yourself? You've turned an online petition into a reason to rail against an entire religion!

Yes, look at me rather than your own strawmen. I pointed out that the parent post - which said it might be wise to make a backup of the Wikipedia database just in case - was not offtopic (as it had been moderated at the time), and backed up the neccessity of this operation by pointing out that protests coming from the muslim world have a tendency to become death threats.

As I specifically stated that I don't know Islam well enough to know whether it actually condones such behavior from its followers, your accusation about "slamming an entire religion" is false.

I bet you get upset when people use a few bad priests to condemn an entire religion, but you are so eager to condemn Islam based on the actions of a few extremists who are generally agreed to ignoring the basic tenets of their own religion to bring about their own political goals.

If you are referring to Catholic Church's semi-official policy of protecting practicing pedophiles and ensuring them a steady supply of new victims, you are again incorrect. I find said policy to be a very good argument against such massive religious organizations in general and Catholic Church in particular.

And the only thing I've said about Islam is that it certainly seems to draw a lot of bloodthirsty nutcases nowadays.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Show me where Muhammed preached loving thy neighbor- including those who aren't of your own faith and I'll support your statement. 28:55, And when they hear vain talk, they turn away from it and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we do not seek out the ignorant."

25:63: The worshippers of the All-Merciful are they who tread gently upon the earth, and when the ignorant address them, they reply, "Peace!"

5:69 (Arberry): "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness--their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."

4:90: Exempt those who join a people with whom you have concluded a peace treaty, and those who come to you with hearts unwilling to fight you, nor to fight their relatives. Had God willed, he could have placed them in power over you and they would have made war on you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no way to go against them.

4:94: ... Do not say to one who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," seeking the spoils of this life. For God has abundant treasure. You used to be like them, after all, and then God blessed you.

Last I checked, my Bible didn't say to wage jihad against the infidels. Neither does the Quran.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Otto]

I can assure you that "Muslims" who bomb people they think are repressing them and picket actors'/soldiers' deaths because of whatever sexual orientation they might be- are hardly Muslims at all. While mainstream Islam disagrees with the issues behind those things, the isolated reactions by a fanatical few are totally uncalled for and vile. While I agree and understand your position, it's certainly the case that the "few" is actually "a great many". Furthermore, it's also there to a greater degree.

I mean, sure, christianity has its share of nuts, but for the most part those nuts are rather lame. Only occasionally does somebody try to kill an abortion doctor or some such nastiness. And when they're caught at it (and they usually are), then they're arrested and put in a small room and looked at for the rest of their lives.

Whereas the nuts in Islam seem to be the ones in charge. When you have women getting arrested and charged for sitting with another man in a Starbucks, then you have some serious issues that need to be resolved. When you have women being stoned to death for... well, does it really fucking matter what it's for? It's barbaric and ridiculous. Even the nutty suicide bombers seem to have really poor aim, in that they are blowing up random people. At least the anti-abortion-nutjob can aim a rifle at the abortion doctor in specific instead of blowing up cafes in the same town.

Sure, you can claim that these nuts are not "true muslims" or what have you, but that doesn't change the fact that they claim they are and so me, being an outsider, will judge them as such and judge the religion as a whole based on their actions. I'm no christian either, but even I can see that its crazy people are far less crazy (and far less dangerous) than those of the islamic faith(s).

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[unlametheweak]

Associating violence with any one religion, or religion as a whole is just silly. Indeed, and using one's religion as an excuse for violence is just as silly. Violence in the form of censorship, or violence in terms of rioting, killing, death threats, or out right murder. None of this should be tolerated.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Anonymous Coward]

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[RobertM1968]

3rd problem: I'm pretty sure you could find someone offended by some aspect of every single article written in wikipedia to varying levles and with varying density.

Not just are you correct, but as it applies to this particular discussion, I'd say that any article that discusses religion in any form, has the (mathematically impossible) 1000% chance of offending people - just as how some religious zealots will see, experience and co-exist with a known (aspect of) reality and dismiss it in favor of religious rhetoric.

I'm impressed that they will not allow such changes though... reality and religious beliefs/desires dont always go hand in hand... no offense to anyone who is religious intended...

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Its not about the number of dead. Where does any holy book say that one life is more important than another?

Its about intent.

Israel targets only militants, but due to them hiding in condensed civilian populace, civilians get killed. Really? Obviously israel knows they will be killing civilians, after all they've been doing it for a long, long time. So clearly they intend that innocent civilians will get killed too. They just don't care.

The Palestinians are targeting innocent civilians, even though they could target just the military without getting any civilians killed at all. They could target those whom they can't kill. But that wouldn't have much of an effect would it? If you are going to kill the enemy, one dead is as bad as another - see my first sentence in this post. Perhaps it is the israel military's fault for hiding in fortified bases, while they leave the general population out in the open...

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>Last I checked, my Bible didn't say to wage jihad against the infidels.

You must have the pop-up version for kids.

Last I checked, waging a jihad against the infidels was one of the first things Moses did:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Here's a simple question to ask yourself. What religion do most(I dare say close to 99.999%) of the world's suicide bombers subscribe to? Statistically speaking, it doesn't look good for Islam. What's so special about suicide bombers? Isn't it the killing that matters? In fact, if you can kill a bunch of people and the walk away unscathed, isn't that worse than becoming a victim of your own handiwork?

PS, what religion are the Tamil Tigers? Or the Basques separatists? Or the IRA?

Statistically speaking, all you can say is that the muslims get more TV time than the other groups.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[jollyreaper]

Whoever modded the parent offtopic needs to be metamodded into oblivion. Since when does Slashdot give mod points to people who don't know UNIX? "Hey, it's Unix! I know this!"

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[ynososiduts]

I'm sure the religious right of the U.S. wouldn't mind seeing homosexuality being a crime punishable by law. If the West was so tolerant of homosexuality then there would be no question on the legality of gay marriage. Trust me, if the born again Christians broke off and formed their own country, it wouldn't be that much different from Iran or any other Muslim state. This is why the founding fathers of the U.S. really made it a point to seperate the church from the state.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Translation Error]

You raise some interesting points... unfortunately, they're all simply rhetoric. You imply that someone who has a religious belief automatically abandons their faculty of reason--a ridiculous claim, especially considering the huge range of religions and beliefs; they're don't all say 'we must do what this holy book says without question', nor do they all say that people shouldn't think for themselves and question things. If religious people don't automatically lose reason, I think it's safe to say they don't lose their ability to negotiate, either; but putting that aside for the moment, let's look at your claim that they would need to use force if they can't rely on negotiation (and reason). You're assuming that every single religion in the world has nonnegotiable goals that requires them to kill and coerce when negotiation fails, and that just isn't the case. Some don't even seek new followers.

Now, you may not like religion--and that's fine--but failing to use reason when criticizing people for being unreasonable doesn't seem exactly productive.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[unlametheweak]

Most dictators have their own quasi-religious beliefs and practices, such as personality cults (seen in Stalinism and with the fucktard running North Korea), as well as with Hitler and Nazism. It could be said that the more religious a person is, the more mentally unstable they are. Most people who are criminally insane, for example, do not commit murder because they never received a message from god to do so.

Yes Atheists kill, but I would hypothesize that this psychotic tendency comes from that emotional and unpredictable part of the brain that also causes people to see images of the Virgin Mary in inanimate objects like rainbows or cookies.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[qkslvrwolf]

And why, I ask you, are the christian nuts locked up? Because our countries and laws were set up by secularists, deists, and atheists. Freethinking people who knew that the end result of letting your book o' myths dictate your laws was a sure way to end up with people getting burned, stoned, beheaded, drowned, tortured, generally abused for no good reason. It is ONLY the secular, rational influence of the scientific enlightenment that prevents our society from acting exactly as muslim societies do now.

The real difference is that there aren't as many true believers among christians as there are among muslims (thank goodness). If christians believed as strongly as muslims do, then we would've had a crusade that would've killed hundreds of millions of people by now.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>>Last I checked, my Bible didn't say to wage jihad against the infidels.
>Neither does the Quran.

I'm no biblical scholar, but a quick Google shows me (which is probably about as deep as many Christians read their Bibles)...

Deuteronomy 13:6-9 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

Deuteronomy 17:3-5 "And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die."

2 Chronicles 15:13 "All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman."

And for the "It's only the old Testament" folks:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

Of course it can all be taken out of context, like anything else, and I don't personally care to put the effort in to find the appropriate context, but the Bible, on its face, seems to preach the "death to infidels" thing as well as the Koran, on the face of it.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[belmolis]

It is certainly true that Islam is not the only source of terrorism, but some religions are much more likely to lead to terrorism than others. Ever hear of a Quaker terrorist? A Mennonite terrorist? A Buddhist terrorist? A Baha'i terrorist?

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

The problem is that when some nutjob says "let's kill Joe Smith because our religion says so", other people agree with the nutjob.

Article 34 of the current Constitution of Afghanistan (2004) protects freedom of expression:

Freedom of expression shall be inviolable. Every Afghan shall have the right to express thoughts through speech, writing, illustrations as well as other means in accordance with provisions of this constitution. Every Afghan shall have the right, according to provisions of law, to print and publish on subjects without prior submission to state authorities. Directives related to the press, radio and television as well as publications and other mass media shall be regulated by law.

That sounds great, but this year (2008), a man was sentenced to death for printing and distributing a copy of a website that criticised Islam for its treatment of women. The Afghan senate has affirmed the death sentence.

In 2006, another man was almost sentenced to death for converting from Islam to Christianity.

How is this constitutional? Article 2 of the same constitution states:

No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan.

This is basically a free pass to use religion as an excuse to infringe upon what would otherwise be constitutionally-protected freedom of expression, and people tolerate it. They wanted it so much, in fact, that they put other provisions into the constitution to prevent Article 2 from ever being removed. Article 149 starts with:

The principles of adherence to the tenets of the Holy religion of Islam as well as Islamic Republicanism shall not be amended.

An atheist state would not have this cop-out. An atheist populace would not tolerate this cop-out.

Another thing: Joseph Stalin in a red herring. Being atheist doesn't necessarily make a good person, but it takes away a ton of excuses for being a bad person.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Cro Magnon]

Trust me, if the born again Christians broke off and formed their own country, it wouldn't be that much different from Iran or any other Muslim state.

That, IMO is the distinction between the two religions. There IS no Christian country ruled by Fred Phelps, or anyone like him. MANY Muslim countries are ruled by their equivalant of Phelps. It seems to be the norm for them.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[lixee]

Whereas the nuts in Islam seem to be the ones in charge. When you have women getting arrested and charged for sitting with another man in a Starbucks, then you have some serious issues that need to be resolved. When you have women being stoned to death for... well, does it really fucking matter what it's for? It's barbaric and ridiculous.

Can't argue with that. However, what you fail to perceive, is that those "in charge" in no way represent the will of the people. In fact, besides a couple of countries, none of the dozens of Arab countries are democratic. If the West wasn't backing up the Al-Sauds (which I assume you referred to with your Starbucks bit), they would have been toast long ago.

Take Iraq for example. Women in the country were the equal of men. Now, after a war of aggression and countless innocent deaths, their fate is essentially no better than that of the ones in Saudi Arabia. Take Kuwait; the darling of Washington. Women were allowed to vote their in 2004. Do you see nothing wrong with that? The Saudis are not even allowed to drive a car.

If you really want the situation to change in any of those places, quit supporting the tyrants. I've lived my whole life under a dictatorship in a majority-Muslim country, and I can tell you from experience that Western support is the biggest hindrance to progressists. You are mistaken what is political for religion. Amalgamating the two is a sure way to misunderstand the situation.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Cederic]

I, however, take great offense at Christianity being likened to Islam. Why?
They're both monotheistic religions.
They both refer continually to books written a long time ago.
They're both used as an excuse for subjugating, killing or stealing from others.
They're both full of shit.

Even in the subset of things in this world called 'religion', these two are pretty fucking similar.

Don't go pretending Christianity is in any way better than Islam. They're as bad as each other.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[bigstrat2003]

If you truly believe that religious belief necessarily implies a willingness or tendency to do violence, then you, sir, are the one who has abandoned your faculty of reason. Not the religious people.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

While I agree and understand your position, it's certainly the case that the "few" is actually "a great many". Furthermore, it's also there to a greater degree.

If you attribute all violent acts by muslims as "muslim extremism," but do not count all violent acts by christians as "christian extremism" then you get a very skewed picture of what is happening. If muslim soldiers invaded the US and the people fought against them for their own freedom and for vengeance for the slain, would all those acts of violence qualify as "christian extremism" in the eyes of the invaders? Do the people of Iraq consider all the people killed by the US military in Iraq to be victims of "christian extremism"? Is the reason we invaded Iraq that we're mostly christians? Is the reason people are setting bombs to kill the invaders that they are muslims?

I mean, sure, christianity has its share of nuts, but for the most part those nuts are rather lame... Whereas the nuts in Islam seem to be the ones in charge.

So the violent, christian extremists named George Bush and Dick Cheney are lame and have not managed to create a lot of pain and suffering? Bush stated that he believes it is "god's will" that we invade Iraq and a lot of death has resulted from that. Should people of other religions around the world consider christianity to be dangerous cult because of this?

Only occasionally does somebody try to kill an abortion doctor or some such nastiness. And when they're caught at it (and they usually are), then they're arrested and put in a small room and looked at for the rest of their lives.

I think you're missing the point. In well ordered societies with reasonable qualities of living people are murdered a lot less than in the US, but in places with even more stable governments and even better quality of life people are killed less than in the US. Why then, would you consider religion to be an important causative factor?

When you have women being stoned to death for... well, does it really fucking matter what it's for? It's barbaric and ridiculous.

Every society has its taboos. In the US, a few miles from where I am now and a few months ago, three men were tortured and murdered because they were suspected of being homosexual. In Ohio a man had his penis cut off and then was beaten to death because he had briefly exposed his naked body to high school girls... who were not really harmed in any meaningful way. These are not rare occurrences compared to the rate of violence in our society as a whole. The US has been reviled by countries around the world for executing or imprisoning for life, people who were only children when they committed a crime. Likewise for people with mental problems. In fact many countries consider any execution to be barbaric and ridiculous, especially when we have such a high rate of error in our court system. Many countries consider letting people suffer and die of curable diseases, because they don't have enough money to be barbaric. Many countries consider forcing people to suffer from painful and incurable ailments by forcibly preventing them from committing suicide; to be barbaric.

Cultural beliefs differ in different parts of the world. I don't see that differences in religion correlate very accurately with the violence in society.

Sure, you can claim that these nuts are not "true muslims" or what have you, but that doesn't change the fact that they claim they are and so me, being an outsider, will judge them as such and judge the religion as a whole based on their actions.

Just as the people of the middle east judge christians and Americans based upon the actions of George Bush and the US military?

I'm no christian either, but even I can see that its crazy people are far less crazy (and far less dangerous) than those of the islamic faith(s).

Really? You objective, scientific analysis has concluded that r

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[jeffasselin]

The problem is that religion is inherently *irrational*. There are crazy, stupid, irrational atheists, no one would dispute that.

But if you follow and believe in (almost) any religion, it means you believe things that are by definition unprovable, irrational, and supernatural. A person who is ready to believe such things might be more ready to believe other irrational things than someone who bases his thoughts on rational explanations.

The other problem is that in logic, if you allow a contradiction or paradox, you can prove about anything you want. Positing the existence of an omnipotent, sentient, all-powerful being as an axiom of any system of logic and thought will necessarily result in a system that can be used to prove anything whatsoever. So even though most believers might be considered "moderate", religion can always be used as an excuse for about any crazy thought you have.

Skeptics and atheists, on the other hand, will usually require more rational logic, facts and proof before believing you.

Unless they're lunatics/crazy, in which case your religious beliefs (or absence thereof) will not change the results much.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[David Gerard]

"a cyber-attack against the Wikipedia servers"

*cough* Rotsa ruck with that one. You realise as #9 site in the world, we could slashdot Slashdot?

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[be-fan]

The real difference is that there aren't as many true believers among christians as there are among muslims (thank goodness). If christians believed as strongly as muslims do, then we would've had a crusade that would've killed hundreds of millions of people by now.

Yes! This is a key issue that I often overlooked. The warm, enveloping arms of the scientific enlightenment have gradually weened Christians in the West off their religious dogma. The church attendance rate here in the US, this most Christian of countries, is well below fifty percent. Many "Christians" have never read the Bible, in its entirety, because frankly, they don't need to. The "mainstream Christianity" espoused their priests and ministers bears little more resemblance to the religion described in the Bible than it does to the religion described in the Quran. It is, instead, an amalgam of some of the more palatable ideas cherry-picked from the Bible and some traditional American cultural norms. It is, basically, a 2000 year old religion molded and sanitized to fit within the intellectual constraints created by this country's Enlightenment-inspired foundation, along with the further progress afforded by a couple of hundred years of social liberalization.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[bakuun]

Ever heard of the crusades?

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[severoon]

This is logically flawed. Just because there are some people who believe it's ok to use force doesn't mean that every pro-liberty individual is guaranteed to lose everything. Liberty-infringing security measures are not the only way to combat such people. And there aren't enough such people willing to take others' things by force to "guarantee" everyone will eventually lose everything.

I myself am often given to hyperbole, but jeez.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Mr. Slippery]

Ever hear of a Quaker terrorist? A Mennonite terrorist? A Buddhist terrorist? A Baha'i terrorist?

Nixon was a Quaker; he ordered secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia and Laos that killed more people than most terrorists could dream of. Zen masters in Japan contributed to militarism there, and encouraged kamikaze pilots in WWII. The Bahá'í/Bábí split led to several murders.

There's no idea so pure that someone can't screw it up. As Douglas Adams observed in a different context, people are a problem.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[keeboo]

PS, I bet you've never been to a 3rd world catholic country - lots of angry violent mobs in those places too. It has more to do with being a 3rd world country - or living in 3rd world conditions - than it does with being catholic, or muslim. We've got a few million muslims in the US and you don't see them forming up violent mobs - certainly nothing like we get here after some big sporting events...

Muslims do not rebel in the US only because, being a minority, they know very well what would come next.

This argument of yours on 3rd world country is a slap in the face for anyone living in a country called as such.

I do live in a so-called 3rd world country, a latin american one (call it "christian" if you like).
People hate the US and blame that country for this and that, but I've _never_ heard anyone, even semi-seriously, talking about being a suicide bomber.

We were never involved in those wars against muslims nor anything led by the US. Still, I can perceive muslims are not exactly well seen here.


In sum: fuck you, and do not use the "3rd world" (which happens to include my country) as an excuse for your religious crap -- most of we have nothing to do with muslim matters, neither we're interested.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[dotancohen]

It is certainly true that Islam is not the only source of terrorism, but some religions are much more likely to lead to terrorism than others. While I do agree that is true, I also believe that some religions are more likely to mock and deliberatly offend others on the basis that they thenselves would not be offened by such "silliness". Would all those who have mocked the Muslims (or others, for that matter) please state your faith || lack of here?

(I'll start. I'm Jewish -even worse- Israeli. Grep my username to see why I've been modded troll in this thread.)

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Ex-MislTech]

Radical Islam is best summarized by someone who has lived
near it for many years of their life and became an educated person,
and can clearly and concisely point out its fallacies.

The amazing part is this person is Muslim ... to a point.

I give you Wafa Sultan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

Ex_MislTech

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[BgJonson79]

Bah, they were all Catholic :-)

They weren't exactly following the teachings of Christ, either, were they?

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[beav007]

Christianity also has positive things to say about martyrdom - however, it has nothing to do with you killing other people. What it says is that if someone else kills you because of your faith, and you hold true to the end, then you will be greatly blessed in heaven.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[belmolis]

Murder, however regrettable, is not the same as terrorism, nor is it necessarily motivated by the religion. One can be reasonably confident that members of all religions (other than perhaps the tiniest ones) have committed murder, but that doesn't tell us much about the religion. Without justifying Nixon's secret bombings, I don't think that they qualify as terrorism - their goal was not terror but to disable enemy forces. There are lots of evils other than terrorism.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[kalel666]

My understanding is the Arabic tendency toward extremism is due to a lot of grievances against the west. It's really only after the Iraq invasion and other post 9/11 US actions that Muslim terrorism toward the west started spreading to non-Arabs

You're understanding is wrong:

From AMERICAN SPHINX The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis

"Several muslim countries along the North African coast had established the tradition of plundering the ships of European and American merchants in the western Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, capturing the crews and then demanding ransom from the respective governments for their release. In a joint message to their superiors in Congress, Adams and Jefferson described the audacity of these terrorist attacks, pirates leaping onto defenseless ships with daggers clenched in their teeth. They had asked the ambassador from Tripoli, Adams and Jefferson explained, on what grounds these outrageous acts of unbridled savagery could be justified: "The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of the prophet, that it was written in their koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their [islams] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners...."

This event occured between 1784-1789 while Jefferson was ambassador to France and Adams (2nd president) was ambassador to England.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[LithiumX]

Sadly, any religion that claims to be a religion of peace is lying through its teeth. When people abandon their faculty of reason and start to believe in the imaginary, they lose their means to negotiate with others. The only remaining alternative is the use of force, either directly (kidnappings, murders, bombings) or indirectly (using coercive power of government to enforce one's "divinely inspired" whims).

Just a moment... wasn't it Judaism (in the western world, at least) that effectively pioneered the concept of goodwill for goodwill's sake? Or the idea of a deity that primarily wanted you to behave (if you read between the lines) rather than simply fall to your knees and worship? Wasn't Christianity the religion that replaced competitors that were primarily centered around appeasement and little else, and taught the powerful that simply killing the weak wasn't proper? Wasn't Islam the advanced moral framework that made the Pax Islamica possible? And if you head further east, wasn't Buddhism oriented primarily towards teaching you how to find peace through helping others find it themselves? There are others, but these are the dominant religions, and by no coincidence happen to focus heavily on morality itself.

Humans are innately imperfect beings, regardless of the cause. Some believe it was a matter of our creation. Others blame it on demons. I blame it on a primate heritage, primates being one of the most violent, rage-driven, and spiteful branches on the tree of life. Either way, being imperfect, we can and often do warp any cultural heritage, any belief, any moral concept, into something that suits our basest desires. Even the most high-minded secular concepts, such as liberty, are more often than not converted into bloodthirsty rampages and bloodbaths, abused by those who seek power, and used as an excuse to kill by those who don't understand it.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Some_Llama]

"Tons of dhimmi-wannabes running around misquoting and taking quotes out of context. Those are really easy to find in google. Good for you."

wouldn't it be more productive to take the verse quoted and put it INTO context, to teach others and show that your original point remains true?

Name calling and sarcasm would seem opposed to this goal (esp since you should'nt be contentious)?

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[w3woody]

Within the context of Christianity, Deuteronomy has been aborgated (overridden) by Christ's discussion of the law in Matthews (Matthews 22:37-40: "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.") and by Galatians, which is a discussion of living by faith verses living justified by the law. (Short story: the New Testament (testament basically means covinenant or agreement between man and God) delivered us a new agreement which superceeds the old one in the Old Testament.)

It's one of the reasons why Christians using Deuteronomy to justify hatred of homosexuality irritates me deeply: by what word of Paul or of Jesus did we decide to aborigate all laws of the Flesh except the ones we can use to bash each other over the head?

Oh, and your Matthews quote? The Old Testament (agreement between God and man) was indeed fulfilled by Christ--and like any good contract that is fulfilled (and thus no longer relevant) it was time to write a new agreement (contract), which is why we have an Old Testament (for reference and historic value) and a New Testament (to document the current agreement). The deed was in fact "accomplished" with Christ's crucifixion. Which is why Christians today make a big deal at Easter.

The biggest difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity has had several moments where the text of the Bible was either reinterpreted (through the delivery of a new Testament, through the reinterpretation of faith by Saint Augustine, through the various interpretations of Galatians by everyone from the Catholics and Protestants to the Gnostics) or outright reframed (such as during the Renaissance): the Bible is simply the "inspired" word of God and not the literal word of God.

Islam, in contrast, has had no such reformation or reinterpretation: the Quran is not just the "inspired" word of God, it is the literal word of God--and worse, it is a third covenant which seeks to replace the Old and New Testament (which Islam teaches was rewritten by people jealous that it's (the Bible's) prophicies of Mohammed were fulfilled), and which ends with Sura 9--which demands that infidels should be subjugated by the sword until they convert or are turned into second-class servants.

In the West if you see local terrorism (such as people killing others or blowing shit up), it's environment terrorism or anti-abortion fanatics or just plain nutbars: killing others for a cause is simply not seen in the West as justified by the Bible. In Arabia, however, local terrorism is religious--and seen as scriptually justified--and not justified in a round-about way, but pointedly justified by Sura 9 Verse 5.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Scrameustache]

the continuation and fufillment of judaism Odd, the jews don't seem to think so.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Oligonicella]

"In the US, a few miles from where I am now and a few months ago, three men were tortured and murdered because they were suspected of being homosexual. In Ohio a man had his penis cut off and then was beaten to death because he had briefly exposed his naked body to high school girls... who were not really harmed in any meaningful way."

You neglect to mention that those acts were by individuals, not the government. You also purposely spin it to sound like US society condoned it, when those individuals were sought and tried as criminals.

Your comparison is bad. In the US, individuals enacting murder in the name of religion are considered criminals.

"These are not rare occurrences compared to the rate of violence in our society as a whole. "

Uh yes, vigilante acts such as that are pretty rare. More spin.

"Many countries consider letting people suffer and die of curable diseases, because they don't have enough money to be barbaric. "

Yes, I agree. Socialized medicine is an abomination. Here in the US, it's law that hospitals treat people regardless of income.

"Just as the people of the middle east judge christians and Americans based upon the actions of George Bush and the US military?"

Like the Iraqis? By a majority of 68%, they don't want US forces leaving before a year. That was 2006, the numbers are now in favor (by 57%) of the US leaving only as security improves.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Original Replica]

Oddly enough it is my liberties and rights that are being taken by force. Yet I am no more "secure" than I was before they were gone. I was in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11th and I felt far less threat to my freedom on that day than I do since the creation of DHS.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[mjwx]

Associating violence with any one religion, or religion as a whole is just silly. All humans, religious or not, are capable of atrocities

You see the problem isn't that religion causes atrocities, the problem is that religion (most of the major ones*) forgive atrocity in entirety. The fact that the terrorist or paedophile are forgiven by divinity means they does not have to face their actions and say "I caused this harm" and "why do I cause suffering to others" because it is alright with God. A religious person does not need judge their own actions nor have their actions judged by others because they believe that they will be judged by God and by god alone, this takes away worldly accountability when a religious authority figure gives pardon for crimes committed and suffering caused. This tends to take the burden of guilt off the shoulders of the guilty which allows them to commit the same atrocity again without thinking of the consequences as they are acting on behalf of God (as they are told by the religious authority figures).

Whilst religion is not a necessary precursor to crime and atrocity it is significant factor in the committing of the more heinous and repeated crimes. A person who does not receive divine forgiveness is far more likely to turn around and ask "what have I done". Many of the worst criminals (premeditated and serial offenders) in western jails ether had extremely strict religious upbringings (and I mean extreme fundamentalism, this tends to stunt normal life lessons in the teenage years which in turn prevent them from having normal interactions with others) or turn to god as a means to escape the guilt that they feel (Sometimes religious conversion is a means to circumvent the guilt given by the court but I am talking about the type of criminal that we would never let back into society).

* I know not all religions have a divine forgiveness clause, some such as Buddhism promote self evaluation.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Pig Hogger]

Israel targets only militants

Why are they "militant" in the first place?

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[mgabrys_sf]

I think the world would be a better place if more people ate bacon. Just about every and any group that shuns bacon has serious issues on this planet.

Bacon for world peace. It's the marijuana of meats! mmmmMMM. BACON!

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[A nonymous Coward]

The actual quote is Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. But according to wikipedia, he didn't write it.

At any rate, the Coward has his interpretation all wrong. It is not trading all security for all freedom, it is trading essential liberty for temporary security. Only morons don't understand that. Only morons go out of their way to interpret it as backwards as possible.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[rossz]

Associating violence with any one religion, or religion as a whole is just silly.

Except with Islam, where violence is the norm. Below is a list of religious based violent attacks by muslims for just the past month of January. There's 111 incidents, an average of just shy of three a day, every day. I didn't bother to add up the total injured and killed. Also, I deleted attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan from the list to prevent anyone from making it a "it's Bush's fault" political statement.

Of all the religions in the world, Islam is the only one associated with murder and mayhem at such a consistent level. Yes, every now and then someone Christian survivalist nut-job goes off. Or an odd Hindu does something. Those are so rare that they make headlines. The muslim attacks, however, have become so common that the mainstream news almost completely ignores them.

Why do people keep offering up excuses for the evilness of what Islam has become? When a religion not only allows it's members to kill innocents, but even actively encourages it, the religion is evil. There is no wiggle room. There is no excuse. There is no defense.

BTW, anyone who pulls out "but Christians did that a few hundred years ago" line is a complete moron. I don't care what happened 200 years ago. I care about what is happening right now. If the Catholic church still ran things like they did back during the inquisition, I'd be actively hunting and killing their church leaders. The Catholic church changed, but Islam remains in the dark ages.

Date, Country, City, Killed, Injured, Details
1/31/2008, Somalia, Mogadishu, 3, 1, Islamic militia stage a drive-by attack on a house, killing three people inside.
1/31/2008, Somalia, Mogadishu, 1, 0, Islamic militias assassinate a government spokesperson.
1/30/2008, Thailand, Yala, 2, 0, Two men, ages 32 and 52, are shot to death by Muslim militants in separate attacks.
1/30/2008, Pakistan, NWFP, 13, 0, The bodies of thirteen soldiers taken hostage several days earlier by religious extremists are discovered.
1/30/2008, Philippines, Zamboanga, 1, 1, A woman is killed, and another injured, following an ambush by Moro Islamic terrorists.
1/30/2008, Thailand, Pattani, 1, 0, A security guard at a car showroom is shot to death by Muslim militants.
1/29/2008, Pakistan, Razmak, 3, 4, Three local soldiers are killed in an ambush by Islamic militants.
1/29/2008, Algeria, Thenia, 4, 20, At least four people are killed in a suicide attack by Islamic radicals.
1/29/2008, Pakistan, FATA, 1, 0, A village elder is abducted and murdered by al-Qaeda terrorists.
1/29/2008, Pakistan, Punjab, 1, 0, A 16-year-old Christian is kidnapped and sold for organ harvesting.
1/28/2008, Pakistan, Swat, 1, 0, Islamic militants drag a policeman from his house and behead him.
1/28/2008, India, Handwara, 1, 0, A 34-year-old man is abducted from his village and murdered by the Mujahideen.
1/28/2008, Somalia, Mogadishu, 2, 9, Two Ethiopian guards at a market are murderd in an ambush by Islamic militias.
1/28/2008, India, Tenkasi, 1, 0, A gang of Muslims hacks a Hindu man to death.
1/28/2008, Somalia, Kismayu, 4, 0, Two humanitarian doctors and a journalist are among four killed in a remote-controlled bomb attack.
1/27/2008, Somalia, Mogadishu, 2, 3, A man and woman are killed by Islamic militia bombers.
1/27/2008, Thailand, Pattani, 1, 1, A woman is shot to death by Muslim terrorists while a motorcycle.
1/27/2008, Pakistan, Orakzai, 3, 2, Islamic militants attack a checkpost, killing three local soldiers.
1/27/2008, Pakistan, Makin, 3, 0, The bodies of three soldiers taken hostage by the Taliban are found.
1/27/2008, Thailand, Pattani, 1, 0, Islamists gun down a trained monkey vendor.
1/27/2008, Somalia, Mogadishu, 2, 2, Two civilians are killed when Islamic militias fire rockets into the main airport.
1/26/2008, Jordan, Jerash, 1, 0, A 17-year-old girl is strangled by her brother for shaming her family.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Lost Engineer]

One thing I learned from this video (and a few similar which are linked): Muslims are still pissed off about stuff that happened hundereds of years ago: the crusades, the expulsion of Muslims from Spain, the Spanish civil war. It is unfortunate that these scholars who keep Muslims so conscious of history do not also inform them of the lessons learned by it.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Thangodin]

True, except that few religious believers, especially not those of the Abrahamic religions, hold their beliefs in this way. What you are proposing is apophatic theology, in which you cannot say anything about God--even that God exists in any meaningful sense. The proper response is silence. Virtually all of the faithful adhere to kataphatic theology; they want to talk about God, talk to God, and expect divine intervention on a regular basis. The core of their faith is superstition, a desire for magical control through force of will, and the response you quoted is perfectly suited to this kind of belief. They make objective claims, claims not considered "true for me" but true for everyone. So do you: with that word "miraculous" you give the whole game away. Objective claims have rational and evidentiary consequences, and must answer on those grounds. An intervening God falls within the rightful domain of science, and religion must therefore answer to science when making such claims.

All too often, as it is in your post, the kind of argument you make is accompanied, within a few sentences, by a return to this magical thinking. I call this bait-and-switch deism, where the merest wisp of a deist possibility is taken as carte blanche for the existence of a being intimately involved in the physical world. It's the magical thinking we object to. But without that magical thinking, the entire proposition loses its appeal. If reason and evidence do not apply to such an entity, neither do concepts of personality, good or evil, causation, action, intent, or any other category that is applied to God by any religion. What is left is a meaningless question mark in the dark, something so completely orthogonal to any human hope, expectation, or understanding, so utterly alien, that it is colder than the void of space.

This is not the God that any religion believes in.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

wouldn't it be more productive to take the verse quoted and put it INTO context, to teach others and show that your original point remains true? Ok, here is the context

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[tigerhawkvok]

Atheist and proud. You can mock it all you'd like -- I'll smile and nod at you.

There's no offense to be had when you have a lack of faith. Its instead your own personal comedy show when you see logical fallacy after logical fallacy, threats, and all other kinds of oddities from those that want to "save" you.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[rossz]

I'm denouncing the entire religion because the followers of that religion haven't denounced the evil that is perpetuated in the name of Islam. The typical response to a group of Westerners getting blown up is dancing in the streets, not a protest against violence. Therefore, I must conclude that the majority of the followers of Islam actively support evil. When I see mass protests against bombing of innocents, I'll reconsider my stance. If I see mass protests of bombings of Jews, I will believe Islam has been saved.

Let's take one example from the list. Thailand is about 95% Buddhist. Muslims make up almost all of the remaining 5%. But they just can't tolerate the idea of other religions existing, so they start killing peaceful monks and teachers (About 20 attacks by your-so called "religion" of peace in a single month). Not counting the Islamic terrorist attacks, how violent is Thailand? According to the CIA World Factbook, not very.

As for the huge population of Muslims. That religion is the only one that has an automatic death penalty for changing your religion. I wonder how many people would remain Muslim if they had a choice. I would bet any amount of money that a significant percentage of people would denounce Islam if they wouldn't be killed for it. I'll bet any amount of money that a significant percentage only go through the motions of being Muslim, when in their hearts they don't actually believe the prayers they are mouthing or the words of hate being preached from the mosques. Also, Islam is the only religion that considers forced conversion as legitimate. Egyptian Coptic Christians have been suffering from this for years. Teenage girls are kidnapped, converted, and married off to some old Islamic asshole. Then the government refuses to do anything about it because it falls under their separate Islamic laws.

It doesn't matter if the majority are not violent. The people who control Islam are extremely violent and extremely evil and they do not tolerate one tiny bit of descent. Kind of like the Catholic church 500 years ago, but far worse than anything the inquisition ever did.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[Talinom]

Ever heard of the crusades?

Yeah. Have you ever read about them? Quoth the article:

The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.

In case you are unclear, the church was attempting to "take back" what was theirs. To "take back" something it first must have been taken from you. Equating that to invasion would be like me stealing your car and then blaming you for taking it back.

Round One:
The immediate cause of the First Crusade was Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was defeated, which led to the loss of all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) save the coastlands. Although attempts at reconciliation after the East-West Schism between the Catholic Western Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church had failed, Alexius I hoped for a positive response from Urban II and got it, although it turned out to be more expansive and less helpful than he had expected.

Round Two:
After a period of relative peace in which Christians and Muslims co-existed in the Holy Land, Muslims conquered the town of Edessa. A new crusade was called for by various preachers, most notably by Bernard of Clairvaux. French and South German armies, under the Kings Louis VII and Conrad III respectively, marched to Jerusalem in 1147 but failed to win any major victories, launching a failed pre-emptive siege of Damascus, an independent city that would soon fall into the hands of Nur ad-Din, the main enemy of the Crusaders. Round Three:
, Sultan of Egypt, recaptured Jerusalem, following the Battle of Hattin. Pope Gregory VIII called for a crusade, which was led by several of Europe's most important leaders: Philip II of France, Richard I of England (aka Richard the Lionheart), and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor.

Round Four:
The Fourth Crusade was initiated in 1202 by Pope Innocent III, with the intention of invading the Holy Land through Egypt. Remember that it was originally invaded by Muslims. this is the church trying to recapture it.

Round Five:
By processions, prayers, and preaching, the Church attempted to set another crusade afoot, and the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) formulated a plan for the recovery of the Holy Land.

Round Six:
Emperor Frederick II had repeatedly vowed a crusade but failed to live up to his words, for which he was excommunicated by Pope Gregory IX in 1228. He nonetheless set sail from Brindisi, landed in Palestine, and through diplomacy he achieved unexpected success: Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem were delivered to the crusaders for a period of ten years.

I hope you get the point. The Crusades were not a proactive attack but rather they were a defense and recapture of previously held territory.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[aproposofwhat]

May I suggest Pakipedia as a title?

Several million articles on the intricacies of goatherding and wifebeating, plus a special bonus section on how to be a complete and utter arse when living in other peoples countries.

Just look at Oldham, Bury, Bradford and other northern towns for an example.

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[SpecTheIntro]

The Crusades were not a proactive attack but rather they were a defense and recapture of previously held territory.

That is utter nonsense. You think the Byzantine Empire rightfully owned those lands before the Muslims seized them? Are you even marginally familiar with the Middle East? It has been under the control of one empire or another until the fall of the Ottomans. The Holy Land was conquered by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Persians again, and then proceeded to oscillate between the late Roman/early Byzantines and the Persians. That is, until the Islamic caliphate conquered a war-exhausted Sassanid empire and then promptly began kicking Byzantine ass.

The world is borne of conflict. The Greeks/Romans never had any claim to the Holy Land--they took it by force, just like everyone else. And its population has been relocated and slaughtered so many times that attempting to claim ancestral ownership is pointless--the Hebrews have lived there for less time than practically ANY other ethnic group native to the area, be it Arab, Iranian, or Turk. The only determining factor in ownership of those lands is the strength to hold it, which is why Israel holds it now, and will continue to hold it until someone gets strong enough to kick them out.

Nice try?

Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[eldavojohn]

These pictures aren't so bad! Here he is betting his followers that he can slide all the way down a railing without falling off. Here is his senior picture. Here he is preparing to be tossed into the air on a blanket. Here he is on fire (about to be Super Saiyan 2). Here he is full blown Super Saiyan 3 complete with human headed horse. Here he is at an Ozzy Ozborne concert (far right). Last but not least, here's what you'd have to print to be murdered in Europe.

All of that on Wikipedia? How does Jimmy Wales sleep at night?!

Oh, I am so going to end up trapped in my grave being tormented by djinns until the end of time. After that, Shaitan be kickin' me old school. Hope he likes classic rock and indie bands!

The notes left on the petition site 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." Perhaps you should instead choose simply not to use the site? If you believe that to be true, you should be condemning images of him everywhere at once, not just on Wikipedia. Why aren't you petitioning against all of these sites? Why are you picking on Wikipedia?

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[MenTaLguY]

It's worth noting that a number of those pictures were made by Muslim artists, too.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[januth]

1) Target Wikipedia 2) ? 3) Prophet

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Bogtha]

They should complete this survey so we know exactly how far we can go before offending them.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[fullgandoo]

On a side note, portraits of Muhammad and others are everywhere in Iran. You can even see them painted in cafes depicting various scenes from Muhammad's life. So how come it is OK for Iranians to do this but not anyone else? I would have thought this would be grounds enough to nuke Iran long ago!

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[PopeRatzo]

These pictures aren't so bad!

Did you get all those from Mohammad's MySpace page?

Seriously, it's important that we realize that religion makes people nuts. Of course, there are degrees of nuttiness, and certainly marching around in front of Women's Health Clinics and screaming at young women going in to get a pap smear and throwing lamb's blood at them isn't quite as bad as strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing folks up, but crazy is crazy. I think we really have to try our best to encourage people to keep their religious insanity to themselves and to their own little groups. The early Christians had the right idea, meeting in secret in caves. If only we could get the contemporary ones to follow their lead.

Judging from the results of the recent presidential primaries, it looks like the wave of militant religious has finally crested and is now starting to recede. It can only make life better for the rest of us.

As always, the best tool is ridicule. Whether Tom Cruise or Mormons or Ted Haggard or "evangelicals" or fanatic muslims, ridicule is the key. Somehow, it seems like all forms of political correctness have been beaten back except when it comes to religion. For religion, you are absolute required to be politically correct, especially if you're talking about a rich, white, religious person. How silly.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[alexgieg]

What's more interesting is to note that these "no-Muhammad-images!!!" iconoclastic idiots are not followers of any traditional branch of Islam. If you look at centuries old Islamic books, in lots and lots and lots of them you'll find drawings of Muhammad and other people, meaning such drawings were never, ever forbidden.

In the end, these Islamic iconoclasts are roughly similar to those Christian Puritans who, finding mainstream Christianity too relaxed, invented tons of new, very strict rules that no one but themselves think everyone else must follow.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[antifoidulus]

Iran is one of the few majority Shi'a states. this explains it nicely(It even mentions Iran directly).

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[jandrese]

How else could they be Holier than Thou?

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[cayenne8]

"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."'

Ok, muslims...time to get with the 21st century. It is ok to have your religion, and rules, but, they do NOT apply to everyone else in the world. No religion gets "respect". People can freely show insensitivity to Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers....(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so).

So, get with the times. You are not special in this world. Geez...I get so tired of very group being so freakin' sensitive, and whining all the time that we're not thinking of their feelings.

People, get a grip, quit wearing your feelings and your religion on your sleeves. Man up...get on with life.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[MenTaLguY]

Well, almost. The first, third, fourth, and fifth images linked to by the GP are certainly examples of such Islamic art just as you say. But how comfortable Muslims were with depicting living creatures (let alone Mohammed) has varied a lot across different places and times -- it's the reason Islamic cultures tend to favor abstract/geometric decorations. You can't say that images were never forbidden before, only just that the ban was never universal.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[techpawn]

This is why I prefer atheism. It's a non-prophet religion...

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, Wikipedia is a form of individual expression, something that CAN NOT be tolerated by Islamofascism. After you kill off freer forms of communication, it is much easier to target the brick and mortar with Explosives.

If the Mullahs decided that all followers of Islam must believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns then so be it, believe or get your heads cut off. There is no toleration of anything but Islam, Atheist as well as people of other religions are targeted for 3 out comes: (1) pay a tax to keep on living (2) convert (3) die.

"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated." --Muhammad_of_the_Borg

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[eldavojohn]

Oh yeah! Thanks for pointing it out. Obama is muslim. So US needs to be involved. Well, from his website:

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth. You seem to be confused. Obama is not a Muslim. Did you mean Osama Bin Laden?

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Those are merely CLAIMS. What is the proof for such claims, especially for the first claim? Not to mention that Wikipedia is a Western-culture thing, in which pictures of most things are OK. It doesn't have to bow to Muslim-culture notions, any more than they have to bow to Western-culture notions.

Perhaps a compromise is possible? The Muslims mostly don't use English or other European languages, so what if pictures were not included in the Arabic and equivalent-language versions of the article?

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[geekoid]

".(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so, anymore)."

Minor correction.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[ZiggyStardust1984]

Now we only need Al Jazeera to notice that and publish this "news" so all Islamic countries where images o Muhammad is prohibited will issue a fatwa to kill iranians (Or at least those with muhammad images). This will save Bush some bucks.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[UnknownSoldier]

> it's important that we realize that religion makes people nuts.

You're blaming the symptom and ignoring the cause.

Most people don't understand the TRUE purpose of religion -- EVERY religion is kindergarten in the grades of spirituality. i.e. providing the basics, but woefully incomplete in any depth of true knowledge.

Usually the biggest problem is fundamentalists not being able to understand anything more then a literal interpretation of "scripture", and being completely oblivious to the fact that all of the You-niverse is scripture.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Shakrai]

Those are merely CLAIMS. What is the proof for such claims, especially for the first claim?

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. Nobody is forcing them to go look at these pictures.

What's next? Are they gonna complain about the pictures all over the net (and even Wikipedia) of exposed women? My right to say what I want, read what I want and look at what I want trumps your right not to be offended.

Perhaps a compromise is possible?

And why exactly SHOULD we compromise on one of the most important principles of western democracy? I can think of a lot of stuff on the internet that's offensive and disgusting and I'm not advocating that we take it down. My freedom of speech trumps your right not to be offended.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[EvilGrin5000]

Actually, they ARE in the 21st century.

--FTFA--
Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, "Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent." He added, "Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad."

The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. With the Wikipedia entry, he added, "what you are dealing with is not medieval illustrations, you are dealing with modern media and getting a modern response."
--End Article quote--

So actually, this is a recent thinking to impose such strong bans on depictions.
Although reading most of your comment, I'm not sure why you had to follow most of your points with clearly stereotypical comments such as:
--quote--
People can freely show insensitivity to Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers....(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so).
--end quote--

You were starting to make sense until I read the end of that sentence. I believe you were trying to say "Respect all humans, their own religion and their human rights to study all areas"

What I am tired of, is actually comments like yours that push stereotypes further into everyone's head. Their religion doesn't MAKE them blow you up, extremists and activists and violent groups do. As far as I know, I recall Christian crusades doing the very same thing. Kill in the name of God? Christ? what the fuck man, why not look into your own history and see what YOUR religion (if you have one) or a religion you're defending has already done?

Genocides and death in the name of gods, religion or beliefs are actually common in history. Let's not make the mistake that just because we're facing a more recent act of extreme reactions, that they are and were always the -only- ones that are at fault.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Diomedes01]

Usually the biggest problem is fundamentalists not being able to understand anything more then a literal interpretation of "scripture", and being completely oblivious to the fact that all of the You-niverse is scripture.

I don't usually make posts like this, but the term "You-niverse" made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[NeoOokami]

People can freely show insensitivity to Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers....(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so).

I hate to be so glum but try telling that to abortion clinics and gay bars that get targeted by unsavory Christian whack-jobs. It's not too common fortunately, but if you think Islamic fundamentalists are the only violent ones today you're ignoring quite a bit. (It's hardly limited to those two spin-offs either!)

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[enderjsv]

ah crap. I meant Genocide. Damn you Orson Scott Card.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[morgan_greywolf]

Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers....(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so). Really? Are you entirely certain about that?

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know, I recall Christian crusades doing the very same thing. Kill in the name of God? Christ? what the fuck man, why not look into your own history and see what YOUR religion (if you have one) or a religion you're defending has already done?

The Crusades were a military response to a muslim/arab invasion of Europe. The "Crusade" was just a way European nobles whipped up support among the serfs.

Get a history book, one that hasn't been sanitized by the PC Police, and see for yourself.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Rellik66]

Though the FSM worshippers have been known to pull off a limb or two

Correction: Those are Cthulhu worshipers

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Shakrai]

As far as I know, I recall Christian crusades doing the very same thing. Kill in the name of God? Christ? what the fuck man, why not look into your own history and see what YOUR religion (if you have one) or a religion you're defending has already done?

Keyword there: history.

I'm not even Christian, but I'm growing weary of hearing people pull out the crusades to try and change the topic away from Muslim extremism. Yes, Christianity has had it's dark moments. Life for life it's even possible that Christianity has killed more people. But what's the point of bring it up in these discussions? Christianity isn't engaged in a crusade today. Christians aren't burning down buildings and issuing fatwas because of cartoons.

Let's talk about what's going on in the modern world. And in the modern world it's indisputable that Muslim extremism is claiming more lives/doing more damage then Christian extremism. This problem isn't going away until the moderates step up and silence the extremists. We can do our part to help them out (being less one-sided with our foreign policy would be a good start) but at the end of the day it's THEIR job to clean up their house, not ours.

The dark past of Christianity is not a free pass for other religions to do the same in modern times.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[flyingsquid]

Frankly, I am appalled by the irreverent joke comparing Mohammed to Super Saiyans. This is exactly the type of disrespectful behavior that the article is complaining about, and you ought to be ashamed for making fun of other people's religions. Is it that hard to have a little respect and basic tolerance for other human beings? I find it disturbing that people are so ignorant and prejudiced as to mock our Prophet in this fashion. We faithful take our Prophet, the Super Saiyan known as Goku, very seriously.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[mapkinase]

I have read the story on digg and, sadly, the style of modded up comments is not different.

What's more interesting is to note that these "no-Muhammad-images!!!" iconoclastic idiots are not followers of any traditional branch of Islam.

That is not true. Being one of those iconoclastic idiots, I can assure you that prohibition of images comes from very traditional "branch of Islam" which existed and dominated Muslim Ummah during the Khalifaat of Four Righteous Khilaafa.

This "branch of Islam" is called Ahli-Sunnah and it is comprised of all Sunnis with at least a shred of knowledge of their religion.

Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim relate that a man came to Ibn Abbas (Allah be well pleased with him and his father) and said, "My livelihood comes solely from my hands, and I make these pictures. Can you give me a legal opinion about them" Ibn Abbas told him, "Come closer,' and the man did. "Closer," he said, and the man did, until he put his hand on the man's head and said: "Shall I tell you what I heard from the Messenger of Allah, Prophet Muhammed (Allah bless him and give him peace) I heard the Messenger of Allah say, "Every maker of pictures will go to the fire, where a being will be set upon him to torment him in hell for each picture he made. So if you must, draw tress and things without animate life in them."

For the reference, this comes from book number 2 and book number 3 in Islam: Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

Read this for more historical evidence.

In fact, first existing pictures of the Prophet, sal Allahu alaihi, popped up only in 14 century as infamous article in Wikipedia clearly says.

That's pretty much summarizes your "such drawings were never, ever forbidden".

Second, if you look at the pictures you can clearly see that all the characters on them are look alike. Clearly being made (a) several centuries ago after the death of the man (sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) allegedly shown on those pictures (b) without much knowledge of how he (sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) looked like (there is actually historic and detailed description of his looks in many historically authentic books of very early Islamic scholars) those pictures have no relevance to the subject and are more suitable to the History of Islamic Art, not the article about the Prophet (sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam). And if you consider the History of Islamic Art, it would be only very small, very heretical and very insignificant part of what Islamic Art is.

So the whole fuss is about rigid Wikipedia policy that if you have (a) a historic figure and you have (b) images, they should be there and it does not even matter for the editors that the depiction is not authentic, not even close to the original, and ultimately has no encyclopedic purpose except that for entertainment of people who grew up reading comics.

And I did not even mention about how blasphemous it is.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[kailoran]

You mean like in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration? Sure, the picture isn't animated, but it's still there, and you can clearly see that it's an American flag, on fire.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[BytePusher]

"The early Christians had the right idea, meeting in secret in caves. If only we could get the contemporary ones to follow their lead."

I really don't think you know what you're saying. Early Christians met in secret caves in order to avoid being killed by people who didn't like them. If you're going to try to compel contemporary Christians to behave the same way, you'll probably have to treat us the same way. So calling religious people crazy and then endorsing killing us is no different than being crazy yourself.

I look forward to a day when religious tolerance and freedom means respecting all human rights to and for all people, including freedom of speech and expression.

I don't know how to get this message across, but people are people, religion or not. Religion is often times used as an excuse for bad behavior, but removing the religion will not remove the bad behavior.

I might also add that Christianity has promoted many significant reformations of cultures that anti-religious people enjoy. Read about William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King Jr., Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, Thomas Aquinas, etc... Almost without fail you'll find the most influential men and women who brought about significant positive cultural change were worshipers of Christ. Granted, you'll find some people who've done some really evil things in the name of Christ, but you'll find really evil people pretty evenly distributed throughout the entire world, religious or not. The truth is, you and I owe quite a lot to religious people before us, who put their lives second to the lives of the poor and oppressed. It's hard to find the motivation to do that if life is simply from dust to dust.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[na1led]

C'mon. Muslim is a very peaceful religion, and if you don't believe that, they will kill you!

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[magarity]

It's worth noting that a number of those pictures were made by Muslim artists, too
 
I don't think religion of the artist matters; only that a picture ye old prophet was displayed. After all, a group of muslim children named a teddy bear after him but their teacher was the one who was almost stoned to death.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings

Objectivity is not sensitive to people's feelings. That is exactly what makes it valuable.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Shakrai]

but please, that last statement was preposterous.

Why? In what major Western Country can religion impose restrictions on free speech? The followers of said religion can hem and haw all they want -- that's actually their right (free speech again) -- but by and large they aren't resorting to violence.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

Get back to me when a majority of Muslims realize that freedom is just as important to us as their freedom to practice their religion is to them. We've been utter dicks to them for the last 100 years (European colonialism, the USSR/USA using them as pawns during the Cold War, current US policy, etc) but for once I don't think we have anything to apologize for.

If we are willing to give up our freedom of speech to appease a handful of loud Muslims that offend easily then we truly are doomed.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Shakrai]

Lack of belief does not equal belief.

Sure about that? Because I've met my fair share of Atheists that are as aggressive in trying to convert people as any Christian would be. Hell, most of the hard-core atheists are more obnoxious then the hard-core Christians. Either way, they both share one common trait: Both are utterly sure beyond any reasonable doubt that THEY have the RIGHT answer.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[UnknownSoldier]

"Enlightenment" is not about going to this teacher, that guru, or whoever seems to be popular today, but about you finding your own answers within. It is a process. No one else can do it for you -- they have their own lives to live.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[myowntrueself]

We faithful take our Prophet, the Super Saiyan known as Goku, very seriously.

And to quote our Prophet "You hurt my friends and you *tried* to hurt me."

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[BForrester]

Perhaps a compromise is possible? The next set of web standards will require all pages to have a Javascript message popup: Are you a muslim? Yes / No.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[spun]

It wouldn't take much to be holier than me. Can holiness go into negative numbers?

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[risk one]

More importantly, who gives a shit what they think is "unacceptable"?

I know I don't. I don't care almost to the point that this petition doesn't bother me at all. Wikipedia is never going to give in to any of this. Anybody who knows the very least about how Wikipedia operates knows this isn't going to make any kind of a dent in their resolve. For that same reason, I'm not scared of this perceived Muslim threat. Not really.

I did however sign the counter-petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/support-wikipedia-muhammad-pics . Because what does concern me deeply is the language and the numbers. 100,000 is a lot, even for an internet petition, especially considering that this is a group that is not exactly married to the internet. Then there's the language. This petition calls for the removal of the image out of respect for muslims. I'm all for respect for other religions. I will let other people believe whatever the hell they want. I will even suffer a reasonable amount of discomfort to let them do so. We need to give each other some space, at least. That is what respecting other people's religion is. This has nothing whatsoever to do with respect. That's what scares me, how very much they are convinced that these claims are justified, that they're entitled to have this image removed based on their religion alone. That means the whole muslim/western discussion that's so hot at the moment is based on completely shifted views. We use the same words, but we define them differently.

The muslim world doesn't understand the western world at all, and I doubt we understand them very well. When we 'insult' Muhammad, they instantly start insulting Jesus in a sort of "see how you like it" rationale. It seems unimaginable to them that the largest part of the western world does not give a shit what anybody says about Jesus. Which is not to say we are completely free of such taboos. Say the wrong things about the holocaust, and you'll see international outrage and ambassadors being withdrawn and whatnot. The point is, they don't see what the west is really like. (And like I said, the same probably goes for us, although I have more faith in the availability of objective information over here. I doubt I need to explain that one under this story). Until these views get straightened out, we can't work through the tensions that we have at the moment.

So that's why I signed the counter petition. Because I really want it to reach at least similarly high numbers. Not because I'm afraid that Wikipedia will remove the message, but because I want a message out there that is strong enough to make the people that signed the first petition question their sense of entitlement. Just show that there are a hell of a lot of people out there that have very different opinions about what respecting actually religion means. Show these people what world they actually live in. In other words: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/support-wikipedia-muhammad-pics" here

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Joey Vegetables]

I am an aspiring Christian, and I would agree with this, but the lamentable fact is that by this standard most people, including most Christians, have not passed kindergarten yet. :( Witness all those folks who claim to be Christians, yet hate other people, while the Bible makes it clear that to love God *and* our neighbor are the greatest commandments, and also that we cannot love God, whom we have not seen, if we do not love our neighbor, whom we have.

The ultimate goal of Christianity as I understand it is a restored relationship with God and with the rest of creation (and particularly our fellow human beings). There are rules we are supposed to follow, which exist not for their own sake, but because they are an essential part of the means to this ultimate goal. For instance, we cannot love our neighbor by lying about him, killing him, and taking his wife. We cannot love God by ignoring Him or using His name as a swear word. But too many people get hung up in the rules and regulations - especially the ones that they see others break, not so much the ones they break themselves. So they find in them excuses to dislike, dishonor, and even hate other people who don't have the "right" religion or skin color or economic beliefs or whatever. :(

We are created in God's image and thus of infinite worth . . . yet we act in ways that fall short of that image, and as a result manage to infinitely mess things up. This is an infinitely big problem that takes an infinitely big God to solve. What you learn in the "kindergarten" version of Christianity is that Jesus Christ, who was both God and man, has made a way for us to be reconciled, both with Him, and with one another.

Once I'm a little better at living as though I truly understood all this, I hope to be able to graduate from "kindergarten," and explore a little bit more the wonders of life that become possible when you don't spend it hating and messing things up. And I hope others would do likewise.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[kabocox]

Frankly, I am appalled by the irreverent joke comparing Mohammed to Super Saiyans. This is exactly the type of disrespectful behavior that the article is complaining about, and you ought to be ashamed for making fun of other people's religions. Is it that hard to have a little respect and basic tolerance for other human beings? I find it disturbing that people are so ignorant and prejudiced as to mock our Prophet in this fashion. We faithful take our Prophet, the Super Saiyan known as Goku, very seriously.

We'd take either Jesus, Mohammed, or anyone seriously if they could destroy the moon or planet by themselves without a death star!

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Maudib]

W/r/t to those reformations that "Christianity has promoted" I will refer you to the Christopher Hitchens challenge. The flaw in your argument is that is asserts that religion was in someway responsible for these good things you list, when in fact in every case they could have been done absent a component of religion. In any good thing religion is never a prerequisite, while for many bad things it is.

From a Hitchen's op-ed:

"Here is my challenge... Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301461.html

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[ILongForDarkness]

I agree very weird. I have a lot of Muslim friends and they haven't ever said anything about not having images of him. Now obviously your not supposed to have idols of all sorts, so making him an idol would be an no no. This appears to be one particular sect or perhaps people that lean to a more zealous bent that are coming up with this. Even if your not supposed to have images of him (you should be referring to muslims not everyone), what is another sin among us infidles? Heck if we listened and obeyed to what every religion told us not to do we'd not eat beef (in respect to Hindus), not eat pork (in respect to jews and muslims), not drink (in repect to muslims, baptists et al), not work on Friday (muslims), Saturday (jews), Sunday (orthdox christians), etc etc. In short if I'm an infidel let me go to hell in peace :)

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[ChristTrekker]

One thing that often gets lost is that the Crusades were a reaction to Muslim encroachment on Jerusalem and other Christian-held territories north and west of there. The Muslims even then were forcibly converting everyone in their way and killing those who resisted. The Crusades were a response to a cry for help from coreligionists that were being murdered. Did they go overboard sometimes? Probably. Did rulers use the military forces assembled for their own ends sometimes? Most likely. Did the Crusades help prevent Europe from becoming a Muslim territory by the 14th century? Definitely. Even as recently as 1683, cities as far northwest as Vienna were under military assault by Islamic forces. Revisionists like to paint the Christian West as the sole aggressor in the matter, when the truth is that Islam has been growing through military might since its inception.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[rhakka]

Significant contributions to our culture has also been brought about by entire cultures that sanctioned old men having sex with little boys, murderers, people chopping off their own body parts as gifts, and people who thought that women were property, blacks were animals, and that the nazis were right.

Just because you do some stuff for the world doesn't mean everything about you is blameless, and it doesn't make belief in "a creator" any less silly.... it certainly doesn't allow you to lay the wreath of human achievement at christianity's feet, not even in part, not by insinuation and not by association either. Not unless you also want to credit pedophilia, homicide, oppression, racism, and insanity with also furthering humanity's cause. Maybe you can, but it certainly doesn't make much of an arguement for the continuation of those beliefs or behaviours.

I owe nothing to overly religious people. Philosophers, yes. Some of them were religious too! but the religious part of themselves has absolutely nothing to do with the things I thank them for. Even if THEY thought it did.

While I respect your right to believe whatever you like, I have no respect FOR your belief. I may respect you for other reasons, even in your willingness to live your convictions if you do. I may respect some aspects of the philosophy taught by your god (no religion is ALL wrong in its teaching). But "worshipping" a fairy tale doesn't win you any points in my book. I'll defend your freedom of speech, and I'll still wish you crazy nuts would meet in caves and leave the rest of us alone. I respect your human rights while dreaming of the day you all wake up and realize you're acting like little children.

Sadly, I know that will not happen in my lifetime. Hope springs eternal though...

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Fweeky]

Um, what's all about making pictures of "animate life", not just Mohammed. So why is it making a picture of Mohammed gets you killed and a picture of a stoat goes uncommented?

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[jafiwam]

Read about William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King Jr., Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, Thomas Aquinas, etc... Almost without fail you'll find the most influential men and women who brought about significant positive cultural change were forced to say they worshipers of Christ to gain any social traction amongst christofacists in power at the time. Fixed it for you.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[MenTaLguY]

When we 'insult' Muhammad, they instantly start insulting Jesus in a sort of "see how you like it" rationale.

Where did you get this idea? You aren't going to find many Muslims deliberately insulting Jesus, since the Prophet Isa (aka Jesus) is an important figure in Islam.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Scrameustache]

Almost without fail you'll find the most influential men and women who brought about significant positive cultural change were worshipers of Christ. Zarathustra, Ghandi, Hypocrates, etc.

So, to correct your insufferably biased thought: If you only look at social change in Christendom, you'll find that they were mostly Christian. Whodathunk, huh?

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Shakrai]

Revisionists like to paint the Christian West as the sole aggressor in the matter

It goes further then that. Revisionists seem to think that we should feel sorry for Western Civilization. "Western Guilt" is one term for it.

It's not my fault that my ancestors conquered/converted/raped/killed/enslaved your ancestors. And for all the talk about western aggression, history is ripe with examples of aggression directed at the West. In fact, there are a handful of moments in history (Salamis comes to mind) where Western Civilization could have been snuffed out if a single battle had been lost.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[10Ghz]

Actually, Truth is stranger than fiction. Few select quotes:

"Prosecutors asked for the death penalty for Abdul Rahman, calling him a "microbe".[12] Prosecutor Abdul Wasi demanded his repentance and called him a traitor: "He should be cut off and removed from the rest of Muslim society and should be killed." The Afghan Attorney General was quoted as saying that Abdul Rahman should be hanged.[15]....

....Ansarullah Mawlafizada also said "the Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back, Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him".

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[greyhueofdoubt]

I have to take issue with this one sentence:

>>I look forward to a day when religious tolerance and freedom means respecting all human rights to and for all people, including freedom of speech and expression.

That's either a tautology or it's wrong. 'Tolerance' does not mean 'respect.'

Tolerance: The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behaviors that one does not necessarily agree with.

Respect: A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

I tolerate christianity. I also tolerate islam, crying babies, cats, jazz, Grain Belt beer, etc. I respect my mother, Napoleon, Tom Waits, Carl Sagan, etc.

Tolerance does not mean, and will never mean, respect. You cannot force or even ask someone to respect something. Respect is unenforceable, subjective, and irrational. Tolerance is enforceable, objective, and rational (In the framework of law).

I would like to point out that thoughts are not crimes, actions are. My thoughts and my actions are often 180 degrees out of phase with each other, thank goodness. And my actions make me a very nice- if reserved- and gentle person.

-b

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Qzukk]

there are whole categories of evil acts that are by definition only the product of religion. ... Religious crusades, pogroms against jews, none of these things happen absent religion.

I eat bacon.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[teadrop]

The reason that most mosdern Christians are moderates is not because their religion is more moderate. It is a result of the Age of Enlightenment. Because of that, the influence of Christians religion has been tuned down. If it had not been the AOE (i.e. Age of Enlightenment, not Age of Empire), the Christians would be burning down buildings and issuing fatwas because of some stupid cartoons. Remember Pope Gregory XVI? He opposed democratic movement, banned gas light, and thought railway was a bad idea because it brought people together and make them smarter... He was as nutty, if not more, than any Muslim leader nowadays. And not to mention the Witch Hunt, and the jailing and execution of anti-religious thinkers in the 17th and 18th century. If the AOE had taken place in the land of Muslims instead of Christians, they would be the more rational and enlightened one we see in the modern days. So what the Muslims need nowadays is an AOE. But the AOE requires the OS of DOS (Democratic Operating System) and the hardware of DELL (Developed Economic, improved Literacy, and better Living standard).

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[ruggerboy]

calling atheism a religion is a lot like calling NOT collecting stamps a hobby.

Good luck

[tulmad]

Good luck with that. People all around the world of all religions and beliefs need to learn that not everyone in the world will bend your views all of the time.

Re:Good luck

[MightyMartian]

Oh hell, people in the West get all up in arms if someone says something perceived to be blasphemous against Jesus Christ.

All of these people, wherever they live, need to grow up.

Re:Good luck

[JohnFluxx]

The difference being with Christians is that it's only figuratively speaking when you say 'up in arms'.

Re:Good luck

[Foofoobar]

No we dont. Alot of us are atheists. Fuck Jesus and his fucking whore of a mother. There? See. I'm not offended at all.

Re:Good luck

[MightyMartian]

You better tell that to the Christians trying to wipe out science education in America via school and state education boards. Just because Christians have been forced to be a bit more sophisticated than killing Dutch filmmakers and trying to bully online encyclopedias doesn't mean they aren't every bit as fearful and hateful of freedom as their Muslim counterparts. They've just figured out the best way to go about it is to hire lawyers.

Re:Good luck

[mike2R]

Oh hell, people in the West get all up in arms if someone says something perceived to be blasphemous against Jesus Christ.

Not so sure about that. Or at least the 'up in arms' bit is only a figure of speech.

Say what you like about Christians (and I frequently do) but they do seem to take criticism and mockery a hell of a lot better than Muslims.

Can you imagine if Monty Python had set 'The Life of Brian' around Mohammed?

He's not the prophet, he's a naughty naughty boy!

Someone would get killed.

Re:Good luck

[mike2R]

Just because Christians have been forced to be a bit more sophisticated than killing Dutch filmmakers and trying to bully online encyclopedias doesn't mean they aren't every bit as fearful and hateful of freedom as their Muslim counterparts. They've just figured out the best way to go about it is to hire lawyers.

Lawyers aren't great, sure. But they're a hell of a lot better than armed mobs.

Re:Good luck

[eln]

You're painting both Christians and Muslims with a very broad brush. Moderate Muslims have no particular objection to these images. It's the crazy fundamentalist Muslims that kill people over stuff like this and try to get laws passed requiring women to wear burquas all the time, just like it's the crazy fundamentalist Christians that bomb abortion clinics and try to force school boards to include religious indoctrination into the curriculum.

Every religion has its crazy wing, and every religion inspires certain people to be violent. The only difference these days is that the crazy wing of Islam is very well funded and better organized than the crazy wing of Christianity. In times past (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc) that situation was reversed.

Re:Good luck

[Shakrai]

The end result is the same. Less liberty, more ignorance

"Less liberty"? The last time I checked you can still stand up and oppose Christianity in the United States or Europe. Try flying to the Middle East and speaking out against Islam in the city square and let me know how that works out for you.....

Re:Good luck

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

the KKK was also a Christian organisation. and they didn't stop their bullying and murder because we showed respect for their beliefs, they stopped because decent people got together and demanded they stop.

appeasement does not work. see WW2 for details.

Re:Good luck

[Liquidrage]

Just because Christians have been forced to be a bit more sophisticated than killing Dutch filmmakers and trying to bully online encyclopedias doesn't mean they aren't every bit as fearful and hateful of freedom as their Muslim counterparts.

No, actually it does. While I have many issues with the Xians in this nation, they are no where close to having the issues Islam has. Christianity has had it's reformation. The Muslim world is just 500 years behind and counting.

Re:Good luck

[JeanPaulBob]

You see the difference between murdering filmmakers and trying to change science curriculum as one of...greater sophistication? What a fascinating moral philosophy!

Or were you implying that Christians involved with trying to affect science curriculum would murder the science teachers if they thought they could get away with it?

Where do people get this stuff? And how are there even two people out there that think it's "insightful"?

Re:Good luck

[MightyMartian]

The Reformation hardly made Christianity more liberal. The Puritans were a horrible lot. The English finally managed to get rid of them, a good many ended up in the Colonies, and are the forefathers of the mouthy evangelistic types who attack the greater society with much zeal.

Re:Good luck

[IPFreely]

People all around the world of all religions and beliefs need to learn that not everyone in the world will bend your views all of the time.

I'm pretty sure that should apply to you and me as well.

Just an observation, but do the admins at Wikipedia allow casual profanity in articles? I haven't seen any. I doubt that they take that lightly. It's probably scrubbed out pretty carefully.

Why would profanity be actively cleansed? Because the admins believe it is not appropriate? Because a large enough group of people using Wikipedia believe it is inappropriate? Who is the judge?

Profanity in language is just as much a subjective measure of acceptability as these pictures. Some people don't care about profanity and use it as casually as any other word. They get all uppety when someone tells them not to use it in public or something. I've certainly met people like this.

So ultimately, Wikipedia can't really claim thay are neutral if they choose one form of censorship due to one measure of public acceptibility but not another. It does not really matter what that other is or where it is from.

But it probably feels easier for them to swallow the hypocracy if they can call one "religion" and the other "social", as if that makes a difference. People are people and it should not matter that much when it comes down to it: offensive material is offensive to someone. If Wikipedia only censors what is offensive to them and not what is not, they are not neutral.

Re:Good luck

[Fallen Seraph4]

To be fair, the sacred cows of the US and Europe aren't *quite* religion, yet. Nor will you get killed over them. But, in Europe, try to suggest that 6 mil jews were killed in the holocaust and you'll be in a sticky situation.

Also, some particularly amusing US citizens fail to notice the hypocrisy in telling the middle east to grow a pair over the whole mo' cartoons deal, while trying to get flag burning made illegal.

No one may be dying over these issues, but the principle is the same.

Re:Good luck

[JeanPaulBob]

While I have many issues with the Xians in this nation, they are no where close to having the issues Islam has. Christianity has had it's reformation.

Er...

Minor comment on the history, here. The Reformation didn't really have much to do with the kinds of issues you're talking about--nothing to do with moral & theological problems involved with the Inquisition and the Crusades, for instance. As far as I can recall, the closest you could get would be Luther's dislike of the practice of selling indulgences to reduce time in hell.

Re:Good luck

[operagost]

You just gave the advocacy of intelligent design, moral equivalence to murder. Nicely done!

Re:Good luck

[Khaed]

Wake me up when Christian fundamentalists fly planes into buildings, or burn down embassies because someone made an unflattering picture of Jesus. Oh wait -- Christians didn't set anything on fire over Piss Christ.

Christian fundie violence occurs about 0.000001% as often as Islamist fundie violence.

Re:Good luck

[jollygreengiantlikes]

the KKK was also a Christian organisation. and they didn't stop their bullying and murder because we showed respect for their beliefs

An important distinction is to note the difference between a faith/religion and organizations formed by those claiming to be faithful followers.

Quite a few years ago a grade-school teacher told me that even though 1) snoobs have bloongs and 2) bloongs are green does not in fact mean that all snoobs are green.

JGG

Re:Good luck

[phoenix321]

I am from Europe, but the blame-America-first crowd annoys the hell out of me, to be honest.

Come on, don't portray things as equal that are obviously not.

It is not the same to "forbid denying the holocaust by law" or "killing people the worst imaginable way for laughing at the Koran", no no and no.

-The first is an actual tragedy from not-too-long ago, the other is just some paper with ink on it.
-The first is an offense punishable by law, yielding a monetary fine or at worst a sentence on probation, the second means instant death or being a fugitive for the rest of your life, just ask Mr. Salman Rushdie.
-The first is gets the most severe punishment only in France and Germany and is over after a few years. The second will follow you everywhere, just ask Mrs. Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
-The first can easily be avoided: just don't mention the holocaust and you'll be fine. It's over for sixty years, anyway. The second is hard to avoid because there's a clash of cultures raging around the world that could emerge into a third world war, if you haven't noticed. Oh, and the Koran isn't laughable, it's sad, just read it if you have the time.

The principle is the same, prosecuting people over the denying of an idea. But everything else is totally utterly incomparable in severity and proportion.

You can show the Hitler sign on any German marketplace and publicly deny the holocaust and passer-bys will show you the finger and call the police. Then two friendly-but-serious German officer will come to handcuff you, take your name, put you in jail for two days, release you on bail until the trial.

Now imagine what happened if you publicly mocked Mohammed when there are able-bodied muslim males in the vicinity. Just. Imagine.

Oh and if you mess up, everyone you know will suffer, too. And that means you, your family, your country, the embassies of your country and all well-known corporations and brand names from your country as well.

Re:Good luck

[Lord Ender]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Re:Good luck

[Tony Hoyle]

But, in Europe, try to suggest that 6 mil jews were killed in the holocaust and you'll be in a sticky situation.

What's wrong with saying that? (speaking as a european). AFAIK that's the official historical position.

Some have questioned the 6 million number (seems an awful lot given the timescales involved) but not that the holocaust exists.. indeed the act of denying it happened is likely to get you in a lot of bother (not with the law.. you've got a legal right to free speech under the human rights act... but everyone else is also free to disagree, loudly).

Re:Good luck

[Bob9113]

Moderate Muslims have no particular objection to these images. It's the crazy fundamentalist Muslims that kill people over stuff like this and try to get laws passed requiring women to wear burquas all the time

Very agreed. See, for example, Morocco for a Muslim nation which is very compatible with Western culture. They are also one of the US's oldest allies - dating back to being one of the first nations to recognize our independence, and saving our asses from The Barbary Corsairs. Muslims aren't bad - xenophobes and authoritarians are. If you want to fight the real enemy, you don't need to look for a temple, mosque, or church - and you don't need to look outside your own borders. The real enemy is arrogant ignorance.

Re:Good luck

[hagnat]

Oh wait -- Christians didn't set anything on fire over Piss Christ. Spanish Inquisition ?

Christian fundie violence occurs about 0.000001% as often as Islamist fundie violence. Goa Inquisition, Crusades, KKK, Ireland?

Most of these were things in the past, the same way islam was a peaceful religion in the past. Things changed, and people corrupted the original message of their beloved prophets. Fanatics christians corrupted the words of Christ, and fanatic islams corrupted the words of Muhammad. The key difference is that most christians stopped believing that much in their prophets words, to the point they dont give a shit about who says what about him, while some muslins with power abused the faith of the people and used them to wage war for their own profit.

Like many americans tell me when we talk about why the rest of the world hates the USA: "dont hate the common people, hate those whom have the power to lead them"

Re:Good luck

[jonadab]

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum, and so it generally attempts to maintain an encyclopedic tone. (It's not perfect, of course, and things that don't belong occasionally slip in, but the goal is clear.) As a rule, encyclopedias normally contain illustrations, but not many colloquialisms. I don't think all of the Wikipedia editors believe that profanity is something to be religiously proscribed; they simply don't deem it to be conducive to a formal, encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia articles also usually (though I've run into a couple of exceptions) don't have, like, slang and stuff, even though it's, like, you know, totally non-obscene, dude.

I *do* see a fair number of contractions in WP articles, though, and some fairly lax grammar sometimes, albeit usually not quite as bad as in journalistic writing.

Re:Good luck

[AeroIllini]

You make an excellent point, but I would argue that the use of casual swearing is not analogous. Wikipedia is not censoring profanity at all; in fact there are lots of articles specifically about profanity that don't censor a thing. Articles which are not about profanity typically do not include any because the writing style doesn't require it. This is not censorship anymore than refusing to capitalize the first letter of every noun in a sentence is censorship (as used to be the convention in English several hundred years ago).

By it's nature, most profanity, in any culture, is a product of passion. When people are angry or excited or otherwise passionate about something, they tend to swear. Wikipedia's purportedly neutral tone would negate the need for that, since the style of writing should be, by definition, without passion. It should simply be a calm discussion of the topic. Standard (passionate) profanity therefore does not belong in a Wikipedia article.

The "casual profanity" you referenced is a deliberate speech pattern people use when either 1) they wish to make people uncomfortable, 2) they wish to fit in with a crowd, or 3) they do not have a large enough vocabulary to come up with anything else (either by choice or by education). None of these three reasons is justifiable for use of "casual profanity" in a scholarly article, as Wikipedia's writing style aspires to be. Scholarly writing does not include profanity for profanity's sake not because it's offensive, but because there are many more specific and appropriate words to use instead. Swear words are usually very loosely used, and more precision is needed in an informational article. (One example that comes to mind is the use of the word "feces" in a medical context, or "scat" in a zoological context, or "manure" in an agricultural context, because these words are the appropriate jargon in those industries, and more precise than "shit.")

Additionally, Wikipedia has no problem printing profanity when it is appropriate. For example, quotes from people including profanity are not censored or blocked out, acronyms including swears are fully explained, and Wikipedia even has articles on the swear words themselves which use them liberally. In the context of discussing that topic, swearing is appropriate, where it would not be elsewhere. Wikipedia doesn't sprinkle random images of the prophet Muhammad into unrelated articles, either. They are only in the articles where the images are appropriate to the topic.

The people you mention who get "uppity" when others tell them to stop swearing have every right to feel that way, since the people asking them to stop are trying to infringe on what I consider to be basic free speech rights. The same standard should apply to Wikipedia's collection of images depicting Muhammad.

I am offended

[Timberwolf0122]

As an atheist I am offended by this Muslim group deciding what I can an can see baised on a set of beliefs and ideals that are not my own, I demand that they stop bothering wikipedia it shows a total lack of respect and understand to athiests.

Re:I am offended

[PunkOfLinux]

Thank you! I don't understand how they can do some of the things they do (like denouncing christianity) then going and saying "How dare you insult my religion!" Eat your own shit.

Re:I am offended

[MightyMartian]

Quite frankly, I think the Western countries should collectively get together and declare one day as "Mock A Tradition Day". On that day, every sacred cow ever invented by any group is trotted out and made fun of. Whether it's Mohammed, Confucius, Jesus, Zeus or Joseph E. Smith, they all should be mocked, hopefully with lots of scatalogical humor, insinuations of homosexuality and beastiality, baseless accusations of every manner of immorality, and to end with a public pissing contest over images of them all.

Re:I am offended

[geekoid]

I think they should replace airline security with the option of drawing a picture of Mohamed and then pissing on it, then eating pork, denounce any existence in god. Maybe watch 12 minutes of two men kissing.

I'd fly on that plane and feel perfectly safe.

"Welcome to Atheist Airlines."

Re:I am offended

[MightyMartian]

Respect is something you earn, not something given to you automatically, and respect doesn't mean having some right to censor an encyclopedia. It's one thing to say "You have the right to your faith" and quite another for members of that faith demand that they're one taboos (which are apparently of rather recent origin) be enforced on non-believers.

Re:I am offended

[Xtravar]

As an interesting side-note, Spanish cuisine basically centers around pork because of the Spanish Inquisition. Chances are that if you ate pork in public you wouldn't be persecuted.

Re:I am offended

[prlawrence]

It's been done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumie

Re:I am offended

[gnick]

Maybe watch 12 minutes of two men kissing. 12 minutes?? Methinks that you're not just on this airline for the security...

Re:I am offended

[mapkinase]

"Lack of any perceivable weaknesses is in itself a weakness, since it makes you vulnerable to pride" I think you are a little bit exaggerating the scope of applicability of this. First of all, Islam is not my invention, my Faith is not my merit, but a Mercy bestowed upon me, my knowledge about it so limited that any pride will sound ridiculous and vulnerability to pride is surely a danger of all people, not only Muslims.

I have enough weaknesses in myself to be not proud of anything. Not seeing weaknesses in my faith, in the basis of all that I am trying to do, in the set of axioms is not a weakness. It's strength.

Dear Muslims

[Kierthos]

I'm offended by members of your religion blowing themselves up in populated areas as terrorist acts. When you stop doing that, then we can talk.

Re:Register to read, bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

here's the article, but it's not asking me to register. maybe because i'm in canada.

An article about the Prophet Muhammad in the English-language Wikipedia has become the subject of an online protest in the last few weeks because of its representations of Muhammad, taken from medieval manuscripts.

In addition to numerous e-mail messages sent to Wikipedia.org, an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images of people.

The petition has more than 80,000 "signatures," though many who submitted them to ThePetitionSite.com, remained anonymous.

"We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails beginning mid-January," said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco, which administers the various online encyclopedias in more than 250 languages.

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 the petition site 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."

The site considered but rejected a compromise that would allow visitors to choose whether to view the page with images.

Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, "Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent." He added, "Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad."

The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. With the Wikipedia entry, he added, "what you are dealing with is not medieval illustrations, you are dealing with modern media and getting a modern response." anon as i don't want to karma whore. my karma is already maxed out anyway.

I would suspect

[Anonymous Coward]

that Mohammed's objection to him being pictured is the danger of that image being worshiped. I don't think he would mind if his image is presented in a educational forum, such as Wikipedia, where the forum itself doesn't give any reverance other than historical fact to the picture.

Re:I would suspect

[Frosty Piss]

But arn't all these images from Islamic religious documents? They certainly are not from Western artists.

Go jump in a lake

[hesaigo999ca]

I am soooooooo tired of the muslem community pushing their views on everyone else.
Yes it may be an insult in your culture to publish a pic of the dude, which is why you should complain if it was a muslem run website, however it isn't so you shouldn't complain, learn to live with others, if everyone had the same mentality as these extremists, the pedos would say it is mentally unacceptable NOT to see naked children on all their favorite websites.

Just cause you believe in something doesn't make it right, right?!?

"I believe the world is flat and get away with murder" : (

Re:Go jump in a lake

[mh1997]

I am soooooooo tired of the muslem community pushing their views on everyone else.

Other than arresting a women for going to a Starbucks with men, stoning a woman for meeting with unrelated men, blowing up hotels, blowing up misc. buildings, blowing up schools, and blowing up children, attempting to force sharia law in England, crashing planes into buildings - name one instance where a muslim pushed their views on anyone else.

getting real old

[justdrew]

ya know I'm just about sick of trying to give a shit about Muslim feelings. they of all people should realize that the profit's image can only be there if Allah wills it to be so, and if He's fine with it, they might as well shut up too.

BA announcement

[thewils]

I'm reminded of a (legendary) announcement from a British Airways cabin crew member on arrival somewhere in Saudi Arabia.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Riyadh (or wherever) please set your clocks back five hundred years.

Re:BA announcement

[MLCT]

A more recent version that I always remember was from the UK satirical news quiz HIGNFY. When covering the story of the Miss World contest that had to be abandoned in Nigeria and quickly held in London due to Muslim protesters. Team Captain on HIGNFY Ian Hislop commented, "for us, Miss World is about 30 years out of date, for them it is about 500 years ahead of its time"

Honestly...

[Pendersempai]

You know, I am generally pretty politically correct, and I totally understand the need to let a thousand flowers bloom.

But in this case, it really seems like people are trying pretty hard to be offended. It's fine if your religion prevents YOU from creating pictures of your prophet, or eating meat, or working on Sundays, or using vowels. Best of luck with that. But it's a different thing entirely to tell ME that I am not allowed to either.

Re:Honestly...

[bkr1_2k]

Ah, but the point of religion isn't just to control me, but also to control you. Why bother if it can't do both?

"It's totally unacceptable..."

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

"It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture?"

Oh, really?

Centuries of your own culture's actions suggest otherwise, sweetie. Sorry to have that little inconvenient truth drag you kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Try the veal...

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Re:"It's totally unacceptable..."

[dave420]

I'm pretty sure he meant in the present time. Just as thousands of years ago it was OK for Christians to kill other folks, now not so much.

Re:"It's totally unacceptable..."

[Anonymous Coward]

thousands of years ago it was OK for Christians to kill other folks, now not so much

Pst! Could someone please let the US president know this? Thx.

Re:"It's totally unacceptable..."

[operagost]

It's always been unbiblical to do so. But you're obviously ignorant of that fact.

I am Muslim and...

[HerculesMO]

Honestly, Muslims around the world need to shut the fuck up.

If you complain about something, especially on the internets -- people are going to do it MORE. What happened after the complaints on the drawings of Muhammad? MORE were made by random people all across the internet.

You cannot expect people to respect your religion just "because". Jews, Christians, etc... are all mocked all over the internet on a daily basis. Muslims are no exception to this.

The inherent problem is, that they are quick to complain and rarely change anything in a negative light about themselves. It's why I am non-practicing now, even though I do stick to the tenets of morality (which are largely the same as Christianity or Judiasm -- because they are frankly just stolen and modified) the religion preaches. I cannot get along with people who are so virulent in their attacks of the "West", "blasphemers" (like they think of those editing Wikipedia now), etc.

Besides... as a friend told me -- Wikipedia is a "non prophet organization".

So why are they worried ANYWAY? :)

Censor Yourself!

[MightyMartian]

Five seconds on Google got me this:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

These are pictures from Islamic illuminated manuscripts showing pictures of Mohammed. These pricks are as ignorant of their own history as they are of the notion of liberty and free exchange of ideas.

Maybe they should just cut their access

[instantmatthew]

... by severing all their access lines. Wait... what's that? (whisper in the background)... sorry, someone has apparently already followed that suggestion. Well then, if that doesn't work, perhaps they can start logging in from China.

Re:Register to read, bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized

By NOAM COHEN
Published: February 5, 2008

An article about the Prophet Muhammad in the English-language Wikipedia has become the subject of an online protest in the last few weeks because of its representations of Muhammad, taken from medieval manuscripts.

In addition to numerous e-mail messages sent to Wikipedia.org, an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images of people.

The petition has more than 80,000 "signatures," though many who submitted them to ThePetitionSite.com, remained anonymous.

"We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails beginning mid-January," said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco, which administers the various online encyclopedias in more than 250 languages.

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 the petition site 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."

The site considered but rejected a compromise that would allow visitors to choose whether to view the page with images.

Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, "Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent." He added, "Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad."

The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. With the Wikipedia entry, he added, "what you are dealing with is not medieval illustrations, you are dealing with modern media and getting a modern response."

Re:Ok, I'll bite

[thewils]

But you can't explain religion, it's correct by axiom and any proof is superfluous.

What Would Muhammed Do?

[securityfolk]

So, did Muhammad have an issue with his image being portrayed, or is it just these Muslim extremists? Kinda reminds me of those extremist Christians who are afraid to say the word "God" or "Satan", since it'll summon him or some such nonsense.

Silly humans... they should know Cthulu, the one true God, after which the FSM was created, doesn't care if you speak its name!!!

Re:This profit's image is also censored.

[Jhan]

As the profit of the universe I hereby censor my image from view by the hethenious masses as well as by the devout itsybitsyers who worship me.

Given the laws of thermodynamics, wouldn't you look... Rather negative?

I guess most people wouldn't want to look at that bleak countenance.

Mohammed image archive

[Animats]

Zombietime's Mohammed Image Archive has a collection of most of the available images of Mohammed. The oldest dates from 67 years after his death, and is from a coin in the British Museum.

The site also has an archive of their incoming hate mail on this subject, some of which is quite funny.

Um...

[amuro98]

If the image of Mohammed is sacrilege, how do Muslims know what he looks like if no one can ever create a picture of him?

Just saying things like "Don't draw Mohammed!" is rather impossible if you've never seen a picture of him in the first place.

Misguided fanatical legalism

[Lucas123]

While I'm not a Muslim, I have looked into this issue out of curiosity and found a few interesting similarities between Judeo-Christian and Muslim religious laws. And, Muslim "outrage", like all legalistic religious outrage, seems quite misguided. There is no verse in the Koran, per se, that forbids images of Mohammad or Allah. In Chapter 42, verse 11, the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him." So the interpretation is that to try to reproduce Allah in whatever form you choose -- and by extension His prophet Mohammad -- is an insult to God. The Koran also states in Chapter 21, verses 52-54 that "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'" This verse is probably far more applicable to this modern outrage we're experiencing, and it mirrors the Judeo-Christian law (in the Ten Commandments) that forbid "graven" images of God. The reason behind it is quite simple: Man is prone to worshiping idols, which takes his attention off the creator and places it on the created. Religion is about creating a relationship with God. The first chapter of Romans in the New Testament of the Bible also addresses this. Much like Christian's have tradition, Muslim tradition, or Hadith, points to Muhammad and his companions explicitly prohibiting images of Allah, Muhammad and all other major Christian or Jewish prophets, but it doesn't explain why. So, at least on the surface, Muslims appear to be taking to a legalistic extreme both law and tradition by threatening death to anyone who might break such a law, when, like all Biblical laws, they were created for our own good, not God's. And, perhaps this is the greatest mistake of all that religious zealots make: God doesn't need a defender; He's quite able to defend Himself.

Not for prophet

[InbredTom]

The pictures should be removed as Wikipedia is a non-prophet organisation.

Sorry, was that obvious?

Anyone have....

[EveryNickIsTaken]

an ASCII art of Mohammed? I need a new sig for message boards.

Re:Anyone have....

[sfled]

Here ya go*:




*Please note that the above ASCII art is sanctioned by Islam.

Your attention, please

[Lurker2288]

Attention Muslims: no one gives shit about the rules your fruity little cult chooses to embrace, so please stop acting as though we ought to.

Attention all other religious folks: likewise.

Maybe when you folks grow up a little and are no longer so arrogant as to believe yourselves to be the sole custodians of the ultimate truths of the universe, we'll have more to talk about. Until then, go screw.

Re:Excuses in 3. . . 2. . 1. .

[MightyMartian]

Actually, I think Christianity is every bit as morally bankrupt, worthless and vile as Islam, it's just that most Western societies long ago castrated churches, leaving them largely impotent. On occasion you'll get bands of them a bit more active and politically motivated, but look at how the Republicans are tearing themselves to shreds right now precisely because they sold their souls to a pack of moralizing lunatics to win some elections.

Some day it will happen to Muslims. They'll wake up one morning and realize the mullah they've been listening to is no authority, that his use of political clout is completely improper and counterproductive, and will also realize that he has been in league with politicians to manipulate the populace so as not to have to modernize and liberalize society. On that day, those mullahs better bloody well hope that the revolution is a gradual and peaceful one, and not the violent, bloody kind which they so often preach.

Help Help I'm Being Oppressed!

[eldavojohn]

Good luck with that. For the love of Cloacina, I don't believe in 'luck'! You oppressive religious zealot! Stop trying to press your religious beliefs on me! Get off my back already! Sounds like you need to take some of your own advice.

Re:Images? What about fucking a 9 year old?

[lixee]

You can't apply the standards of whatever place and time you're living in, to what happened in Arabia 15 centuries ago. What is a pedophile in your opinion? Someone that screws people who aren't 18? 16? 15? 14? 13? Who decides? The age of consent in Germany or Austria is 14; in Spain, it's 13. In other places, it goes down as low as 12 years old. We don't have the same genes or cultures, and different people achieve sexual maturity at different times. There's this girl of 5 years old who gave birth in Peru. And besides sexual maturity, people mature differently in general. That's for the "pedophile" part. The claim that it was "rape" is ludicrous given that the whole marriage was as a favor to Aisha's father (the first male Muslim). If there was indeed rape, she wouldn't have been so lenient on the prophet when recounting her experiences. To quote the Wiki: A rape is a form of assault where one individual forces another to have sexual intercourse against that person's will. Nothing of the sort happened in this case. It was an arranged marriage with the blessing of the whole family, and Aisha didn't object to it. Granted, she was young, but there are plenty of young kids with more judgment, determination and wits than adults. I am not saying she falls in that category, but surely you must be able to realize that your "rape" claim is ridiculous. I should also point out that the prophet married mostly widows, which are often of a certain age. The idea being that it is the best way to fulfill their sexual and economic needs. In fact, at the age of 25, the prophet's first wife was 40 years old. It is not contested that Khadija was the "love of his life". It may also be worth mentioning that the actual age at which the marriage with Aisha was consummated is not exactly a settled issue. The number fluctuates from 9 to as much as 15 years old. Which was it does not really matter in my opinion. Does Georges Washington's marriage to a 12 years old take away any of the man's achievements? You decide. For my part, I am not ready to judge something that happens centuries ago based on some arbitrary figure modern society decided upon.

Let me guess...the only Muslims you know are Ben Laden and his ilk.

Re:Ok, I'll bite

[gnasher719]

I gotta know, why is it so disrespectful to show a picture of Muhammad? It is not disrespectful of Muhammad at all. It is exactly the opposite. Muhammad feared that people could be misled to believe that he is more important than he should be; he is just a prophet, not a god. Muslims should pray to Allah, not Muhammad. So by having no pictures of him, the danger of a cult developing is much reduced. You could say that he just didn't want to end up like Elvis. In Christianity, in some parts of Europe there are a few people who are a bit too much in love with Mary (for my taste), that wouldn't have happened if there were no pictures of her around. So from his point of view, it is a very sensible thing not to want any pictures. Muhammad wouldn't be insulted if you had his picture on your wall, he would be worried that maybe your beliefs are going off into the wrong direction and he would say that it is in your own best interest to remove it.

Re:Images? What about fucking a 9 year old?

[TurinPT]

Oh come on now times change, read a history book.

The concept of 18 being the age of maturity is fairly recent.
People used to get married at a young age since the expected life span was much shorter.
Look back at whatever your ancestry is, I bet you'll find alot of marriages at the age of 11/12.

Re:This profit's image is also censored.

[ColdWetDog]

"As the profit of the universe..."

Funny, I never received my check...

No, you just get the bill. Haven't you heard of Thermodynamics?

Re:Easy solution

[weyesone]

The name itself has become the idol.

Re:Images? What about fucking a 9 year old?

[Surt]

You can draw a minimum bar at around 12, the age of reproductive functionality. Falling below that bar is pedophilia no matter what the calendar year.

Simple solution

[Yvanhoe]

Create a sharia-compliant version of the wikipedia. Along with a kosher version of it. And a Vatican 0, Vatican 1.0, Vatican 2.0 version, a King James version, a baptist version.

The content's licence allows such a thing. After all, Wikipedia is one giant pool of knowledge but has a scientific, secular, americano-centrist bias (only my feeling, it is debatable but it has, to some people, some bias) so it is unavoidable that some other pools spawn from the main one.

Re:When petitions become censorship...

[MightyMartian]

You don't see anything wrong with an online petition whose sole goal is to censor an encyclopedia? You don't see anything wrong with a petition which is in fact made by people ignorant of their own artistic heritage?

I've tried to be a moderate atheist these last fifteen years, but I'm really beginning to believe that religion is a vile and repugnant thing, a controlling, manipulating atrocious monster, an ugly form of primitive tribalism that has increasingly less of a place in a modern world.

Maybe if you guys could just keep your goddamned faith in your homes and temples, rather than violating every notion of liberty, justice and reason, it wouldn't be so bad.

link to the article

[Surt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Why don't they include this in the summary?

My idea to offend everyone.

[DdJ]

I still want to make one of those pin-on buttons that simply consists of a red circle-slash on top of a simple stick figure.

When people ask what it means, I can explain that it's an iconic representation of the idea that there should be no graphical representations of Mohammed.

Some people will be offended because the button promotes censorship, and other people will be offended because the button uses a (poor) representation of Mohammed to do so! Everybody wins!

Why shouldn't muslims censor wikipedia....

[owlnation]

after all everyone else does...

Including, and most especially, those who work for it. For example. Just another scary example of the lack of ethics at the heart of wikiality.

Or you could chose this further example of its integrity.

Wikipedia is perfect for everyone with an axe to grind or an agenda to push. It's just the best site in the world for fundamentalists. Why should Muslims be exempt from that opportunity?

Somebody must do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody braver than me should register Muhammadse.cx and teach these crybabies what disrespectful pictures really look like. Come on, you know you want to.

"Irony" defined.

[warrax_666]

Muslims should pray to Allah, not Muhammad. So by having no pictures of him, the danger of a cult [around him] developing is much reduced.

Yeah, and just look how well that worked out.

The title of this article sucks

[n1ghtstr1k3]

How is a group of Muslims signing an online petition "attempting to censor" Wikipedia? The title makes it sound as if they've engaged in some malicious activity to shutdown Wikipedia.

An actual Muslim perspective

[sky7i]

It is very misleading to say that "Muslim groups attempt to censor Wikipedia".

First of all, we are not talking about Muslim "groups" like CAIR, or the OIC, or the like. The article only mentions a lowly internet petition-- one with just 80,000 signatures, many of them anonymous, most of them probably just kids. Who takes these petitions seriously? This is not even a noteworthy protest, let alone a fearsome act of censorship.

Second, even if you do accept the use of the term "Muslim groups", it should read "*some* Muslim groups". Although many ill-informed Westerners look at every wacky thing that emanates from the Muslim world as being typical of the whole 1.3 billion-strong community, the reality is that there is a heck of a lot of diversity in the Muslim world. 99% of the actual Muslim world thought the whole teddy bear thing was an idiotic fiasco, but people took it as being representative of Muslims generally.

The reality is that there are no established, representative Muslim groups behind this mostly anonymous petition. Neither CAIR, nor the OIC, nor any other major body that legitimately represents a substantial number of Muslims has attempted to censor Wikipedia.

For an idea of what mainstream, traditional Muslim scholars -- the legitimate representatives of the religion -- have to say, read this article by Imam Zaid Shakir or this article by Fareena Alam.

Similar case with the Baha'u'llah article.

[israfil_kamana]

Bahá'ís (a recent religion with origins in 19th century Iran) are encouraged not to keep pictures of their founder, Bahá'u'lláh (there are actually two passport photos and one painting in existence), because such images should be respectfully viewed, and not casually treated. Posting them on the web has generally not been considered to be a terribly reverent presentation. Their leadership, however, made it clear that non-Bahá'í-owned/operated sites are not subject to Bahá'í rules, so Bahá'ís should not generally attempt to coerce such sites to remove the pictures. Wikipedia isn't a Bahá'í site, so while some well-meaning Bahá'ís kept taking the picture down, neutral parties as well as some Bahá'ís who understood the nature of Wikipedia as a neutral site put the picture back and worked out a compromise - don't put the picture front-and-centre. They put it at the bottom of the page, with the equivalent of a "spoiler alert" so that Bahá'ís whose sensibilities would be trampled by an unexpected viewing could simply avoid that part of the page, without having to avoid the whole article.

I think the problem with the attempt to censor mentioned in the article is that members of a religion are attempting to enforce their rules for themselves on others. In this case, it's a prohibition by several Muslim sects. Not all sects do, as pointed out elsewhere - Shi'ah Muslims often revere icons of the Imams much as Catholic or Orthodox Christians keep icons of the Saints. But the rules of a sect or religion don't apply to non-members (no matter how much that group would like it to). So sites that are public are in a different space. Academics have had this sort of difficulty as well with respect to religious, cultural, and other social issues where they need a space to openly examine a cultural taboo, but the members of that cultural group need to not have the taboo busted right in their faces. And it's even harder when people that live in a homogenous society (say, an entirely Muslim or Christian country) start to interact with a global human civilization which is diverse and must handle hundreds of views and practices and taboos.

There are some good examples of... well not really compromise, but rather groups of disagreeing folk examining basic principles and coming up with a solution that takes everyone into account. It could be a compromise in some situations, but often it can result in a more respectful (but not pandering) treatment of a subject. Perhaps the best rule of thumb anyone can use in this increasingly complex global society is, "Do not give or take offence".

i.

My faith...

[Critical_]

I'm an American Muslim who was born and raised here. While I choose to reserve my opinion over the images of the Prophet I do find a lot of the comments on Slashdot to be disappointing. I've been a part of this community since its very inception and have done my best to contribute my expertise to relevant topics. However, its troubling to see that whenever anything Islam-related is posted, there are endless tirades painting my faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance.

As I've seen in the past, this sort of post always garners responses such as: "well if you're so level-headed then why aren't you changing the Muslim world?" Unfortunately, all 1+ billion of us are treated as if we're one big happy family. I have no more power to change the world of Islam than I do my own country's domestic and foreign policy beyond the established routes (i.e. voting, debates, etc). We make small but significant gains in our own ways but none of possess earth shattering abilities to make miracles happen. If we--as westerners--are really bastions of knowledge and free thinking then I'd do far more to educated the masses about my religion instead of having it hijacked by both non-Muslim Islamophobes and international extremists.

I will say that discussions littered with such ignorance and hate don't help people like me when we try to open up dialog with members of our religion. As much as people here may call the anti-portraitists relics of the past its very difficult to defend enlightenment and modernism when its laced with veiled Islamophobia [1]. Its even more difficult when people outside of the religion have the audacity to tell Muslims what is and isn't antiquated or kosher. Defining our religion for us wreaks of orientalism and causes even the most moderate to stop listening. I certainly hope I don't get modded or flamed into oblivion because this discussion needs to start somewhere.

[1]: Lets not beat around the bush and call it what it is when 15 century old stereotypes are thrown back in our collective faces even though they may have been debunked already. It even offends me.

Re:My faith...

[afabbro]

I'm an American Muslim who was born and raised here. While I choose to reserve my opinion over the images of the Prophet I do find a lot of the comments on Slashdot to be disappointing. I've been a part of this community since its very inception and have done my best to contribute my expertise to relevant topics. However, its troubling to see that whenever anything Islam-related is posted, there are endless tirades painting my faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance.

Within an hour of the SlashDot article, news broke than an American businesswoman in Saudi Arabia had been arrested because she'd sat at the same table as a man at a Starbuck's. She spent a night in jail, was forced to sign a false confession, and was informed by the "judge" that she was going to burn in hell.

Muslims do not need any tirades to paint their faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance. They're doing a fine job by themselves.

Re:My faith...

[Creepy Crawler]

---I'm an American Muslim who was born and raised here. While I choose to reserve my opinion over the images of the Prophet I do find a lot of the comments on Slashdot to be disappointing. I've been a part of this community since its very inception and have done my best to contribute my expertise to relevant topics. However, its troubling to see that whenever anything Islam-related is posted, there are endless tirades painting my faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance.

Listen to the words of the president of Iran and his position on the Holocaust and his opinion of the Jews. Now, tell me those views aren't shared across most of the Muslims of the world...

I've heard directly from other Muslims, both in real life and over the 'net. Most, if not all of them have a hatred of Jews and a disdain of other religions. I'm not exactly inclined to be around people who hate so much. What makes Islam interesting is that this hatred seems extremely widespread, even including forcing of Sharia law upon countries and general (what I would call) evilness.

And we can also see the "religion of peace" by the way families strap bombs to their children's waist and tell them to kill those infidels. Real peaceful.. Pieceful as in gibs if you ask me.

---As I've seen in the past, this sort of post always garners responses such as: "well if you're so level-headed then why aren't you changing the Muslim world?" Unfortunately, all 1+ billion of us are treated as if we're one big happy family. I have no more power to change the world of Islam than I do my own country's domestic and foreign policy beyond the established routes (i.e. voting, debates, etc). We make small but significant gains in our own ways but none of possess earth shattering abilities to make miracles happen. If we--as westerners--are really bastions of knowledge and free thinking then I'd do far more to educated the masses about my religion instead of having it hijacked by both non-Muslim Islamophobes and international extremists.

I know about your religion. I am.. no, was a Catholic, and was taught about the big 5 religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism). I may not know exactly know every detail about your religion, but I also do not know everything about mine.

From what I see, 500 years ago, Christianity was about equal on the violence scale to Islam, if not slightly more so. During these times, the countries representing Islam faith stayed stagnant in terms of technology and rights to the people. Christian nations grew technologically, bypassing the Muslims, and along with that, gained more rights and freedoms not "allowed" by Islam and their holy laws. Our country was founded to keep YOUR holy laws (and everybody elses', for that matter) out of our country.

The countries that represent majority of Islam have not had the sort of epiphany the Christians did in regard to freedom, and have effectively repressed it. I find that disgusting, and suitable for disdain.

---I will say that discussions littered with such ignorance and hate don't help people like me when we try to open up dialog with members of our religion. As much as people here may call the anti-portraitists relics of the past its very difficult to defend enlightenment and modernism when its laced with veiled Islamophobia [1]. Its even more difficult when people outside of the religion have the audacity to tell Muslims what is and isn't antiquated or kosher. Defining our religion for us wreaks of orientalism and causes even the most moderate to stop listening. I certainly hope I don't get modded or flamed into oblivion because this discussion needs to start somewhere.

Since you like in the US, as do I, then perhaps you can appreciate my analogy.

I'm in Indiana, the state with the founding of the group called the KKK (spit). You ever hear of them? They were individually nice people, you know, Christians and whatnot. But, as a group, they'd hold lynchings to scare everybody else that wasn't in their gr

Re:My faith...

[Deadplant]

I'm an American Muslim ... I do find a lot of the comments on Slashdot to be disappointing. ya, it is not exactly hard to become disappointed by slashdot posts for oh so many reasons.
(your post was very nice btw)

...whenever anything Islam-related is posted, there are endless tirades painting my faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance. Let me explain... it is not because we think you picked the wrong religion or simply because you are different.
You and your religion will be mocked because you proclaim a serious belief in invisible sky-wizards.

Every one of the major religions requires that you believe things that the available evidence indicates are false.
By having faith in a religion one is displaying an unwillingness or inability to make rational decisions.
It is logical and reasonable to fear irrational people because their irrational behaviour can harm us.
It is also usually pointless to argue with a person of faith because they have by definition already eschewed logic.
Thus we are left with trying to shame you into giving up on the sky-wizards and unhelpfully venting our frustration by saying mean things.

...when people outside of the religion have the audacity to tell Muslims what is and isn't antiquated or kosher. I don't want to tell you how your religion's rules should be written. I want to tell you that the entire concept of faith and religion is antiquated and should be abandoned for your own good and the good of humanity.
I do not have to be a member of any particular sect or ethnic group to make this statement.

except for those 19 crusades...

[SuperBanana]

The difference being with Christians is that it's only figuratively speaking when you say 'up in arms'.

Yeah, save the NINE "official" crusades (aka wars) and the ten or so un-numbered ones. Most of which were to stamp out other religious groups.

Let's keep a little bit of historical perspective, please. Most religions that has been around long enough has been responsible for intolerance, persecution, repression, death, and destruction.

Images of Jesus

[leroybrown]

Well, technically, Christians aren't allowed to make images of Jesus/God either. The original text of the commandment in Exodus about graven images is:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Before I get jumped, "idol" means something to be worshiped. This means, in it's strictest sense, no paintings of Jesus/God to worship ANYWHERE. Why anyone would have paintings or sculptures of Jesus/God in a church without intending them to be worshiped is beyond me. And it seems hard to believe that no one has ever prayed in the Sistine Chapel after looking at the ceiling.

This commandment has obviously been rewritten over the years and I'm sure some Christian will reply and make a defense about how I've taken things out of context. I'll never understand some things, such as this commandment can be open to interpretation, while "women should never wear mens clothing" means that it's a sin for women to wear pants to some far out fundamentalists.

Let me fix that for you

[dreamchaser]

"It's totally unacceptable to crash airplanes into buildings and commit suicide bombings," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards innocent people and should be openly condemned by all Muslims immediately."'"

Karma be damned. Most people would post this as an AC, but I am totally sick of the bullshit. They've RIOTED AND KILLED PEOPLE over posting images of their Prophet already. I'm tired of seeing people kowtow to this so called 'Religion of Peace' out of fear of 'offending' them. I applaud Wikipedia for their stand on this.

Re:Let me fix that for you

[homer_s]

"It's totally unacceptable to crash airplanes into buildings and commit suicide bombings," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards innocent people and should be openly condemned by all Muslims immediately."'"

Completely agree with you. You should also add "It is totally unacceptable to kill muslims for oil, take their land and install dictators".

You know, just to be fair. And no, I'm not a muslim or a christian.

List of Comments

[phantomcircuit]

Quote Collection

# 25: Dec 4, 2007, Syed jalal Akbar, India tell the infedels and kafirs not to publish,host or carry images of our prophets...if so be prepared to face the wrath of god...and cosequences

# 24: Dec 4, 2007, Sajid Qureshi, India please do not test our patience.

# 15: Dec 4, 2007, Vaseem Muhammad, India To undo the wrong, please remove the images of our beloved Prophet Muhammad(Peace be Upon Him) as it hurts our religious feelings and its blasphemous.

# 98: Dec 9, 2007, Pir Ghulam jeelani, Germany I request all my muslim brothers to come out of the deep slumber and prevent such intolerant abuses to our religion.

# 116: Dec 10, 2007, Nazia Qidwai, Pakistan Values of every religion have to be respected. It is not new to anyone that the picture of THE HOLY PROPHET MOHAMMAD (P.B.U.H.) cannot be made, whatsoever.NOTHING can mimic him, in looks or voice. It comes as a liability on Wikipedia to instaneously remove this pic. Is that a threat?

# 140: Dec 10, 2007, Shima Fadzil, Malaysia only 1952 more to go. HUH?

# 185: Dec 11, 2007, Abdul Hameed Mangrio, France We approx.1500000000 Muslims of the world take strong exception to pics of our Holy Prophet(pbuh)and and Wikipedia should remove them immediately Funny I only see 60K signatures so um %0.004 of Muslims care as strongly as you?

# 152: Dec 11, 2007, Ahmad hafiz Hussin, Malaysia Wikepedia crews, u near urself to HELL!

# 203: Dec 11, 2007, Ahmad Firdaus, Malaysia please respect my prophet. this is warning from one of the billion.. trillion.. super duper trillion muslim in the world. i hope ALLAH will give hidayah to owner of wikipedia.. amin.

# 108759: Feb 7, 2008, Mark Globocnik, Germany Please remove all Muslims from Europe. Start with their ugly and hairy women. I beg you. It offends us.

Feb 7, 2008, Osama Bin Laden, New York Islam is a religion of peace. If you do not remove the images of Muhammad from Wikipedia we will kill you all! Millions of innocent lives will perish because of your choice. We will kill everyone because it is forbidden to show an image of the greatg Muhammad. The only other choice is that everyone dies. EVERYONE. We are peaceful. All praise Allah.

# 108791: Feb 7, 2008, Bernard Kutz, France Please expel all Muslims from Europe and North America, and in return we will remove the pictures of some bearded guy from the Wikipedia's entry on Muhammad. I cant read this crap anymore. My eyes are burning.

Attempts by the Amish going even worse

[RexDevious]

"Being unable to use either computers or electricity hath made our task quite trying", said Brother John.

With the help of the entire community, the were able to build a server entirely of wood and mud, but attempts to connect it to the secular internet have so far been unsuccessful.

"Getting our horses to carry packets was quite easy, but teaching them to shake hands with each other has proven nearly impossible", the Elder continued.

"At this point, we're considering scrapping the whole horse protocol and using dogs instead, as shaking hands is something they do quite well. The problem is were not 100% if it's the Muslim's who hate dogs, or us, or both. We'd look it up on Wikipedia, but..."

In light of set-backs, another Amish community farther north has taken different approach. So far, they've managed to forge no less than 87 cast-iron "token rings", and are getting quite good at passing them around.

"Once we figure why exactly we we're doing this, we should be well ahead of our brothers to the South with their fancy-schmancy wooden server", lead researcher Brother John (no relation, yet) commented.

"But", he continued, "if Muslims can figure out who's publishing pictures of their prophet, when by definition they'd not have an original picture to compare it to - I'm sure we can figure out what we're doing too".

What the bleep are you on you bleeping moron?

[Animaether]

subject is tongue-in-cheek.

Perhaps Wikipedia perfectly allows profanity in a subject that deals with, say, Profanity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profanity ) ?
I quote:
"For example, "fuck", a common (often considered strong) profanity in English, is a verb for the act of sexual intercourse and may be used literally in this sense ("I fucked her all night long.")or ("Fuck you bitch")."
And that is just a tiny quote of that page. I swear I'll have to wash my eyes with soap later!

Perhaps they have a policy on not allowing profanity in subjects that do not call for it; or at least trying to keep it to a minimum.
E.g. what is the added value of the profanity in this:
--
Linux /lnks/ in motherfucking English; fucked up variants exist[1]) is a goddamn Unix-like computer operating system. Linux is one da motherfuckin' bomb when it comes to free software and open source development: typically all underlying source code can be freely modified, used, and redistributed by any motherfucker with half a clue.[2]
--
Over the non-profane description that is there already?

However - let's say an article deals with Muhammad, either the very topic or reasonably tangentially - then the added value, certainly in the former, of graphical depictions of the guy is, at least to me, quite clear.
Similarly, however, I wouldn't expect pictures of Muhammad to appear in subjects that have little to nothing to do with him - but not because I feel it would unnecessarily potentially offend islamists visiting that page not having expected to see the picture and seeing it anyway, but because the subject wouldn't call for such the picture in the first place.

That, at least to me, is the difference between your Muhammad vs Profanity and how Wikipedia handles it example.

Oh, "they" are not targeting only Wikipedia.

[Gary W. Longsine]

Attacks against The Enlightenment (see also: Age of Enlightenment) say for example, upon the idea of freedom of speech, in the name of one religion or another (let's just stick with this one religion for now) have been ongoing since reason began to displace superstition.

More recently, you may remember the cartoon controversy? This faded from the collective consciousness after "they" (people whose minds are captive to superstition of the islamic brand) repeatedly threatened, and then killed Dutch Filmmaker Theo van Gogh , great grandson of the brother (also named Theo) of the famous painter, Vincent. Contemporary Theo was guilty in the eyes of islam of making a film which was critical of the treatment of women under islam.

The great clash between Islam (unwittingly and unstably allied, by the way, with fundamentalist Christian radicals who are working within the western democracies to undermine the same feared Enlightenment values and institutions in favor of their own brand of superstition) on the one side, against the cultures and nations descended from The Enlightenment on the other, is coming to a head in Europe. The demographic trends, and the inability of the European cultures to assimilate their immigrant Muslim populations (alternatively, those populations are disinterested in assimilating), cause concern that Europe's democratic institutions will be subverted as instruments in the religious colonization of those European countries that gave birth to the Enlightenment by Islam, and their eventual conversion to theocracies in fact, if not in name.

March 2006:
"If Europe continues as it is now, the rising Muslim tide will, one at a time, transform the members of the European Union into Islamic Republics under Islamic Shari'a law as Muslims become the majority population."

February 2008:
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

It has been suggested that this problem is exacerbated by limited economic opportunity for young people in these countries.
An Economist Considers the Riots in France (from 2005, there were more riots last spring, March 2007)

The non-political nature of the riots in France

MARTYRS OFFEND ME!!!

[AnomaliesAndrew]

I'm offended by martyrs. They must stop immediately.

Re:MARTYRS OFFEND ME!!!

[harl]

Yeah well I'm offended by people who are offended by things. Oh crap I just broke something.

Re:MARTYRS OFFEND ME!!!

[Translation Error]

Yes. All martyrs must die.

Islamophobia doesn't warrant "

[Khopesh]

I'm offended by members of your religion blowing themselves up in populated areas as terrorist acts. When you stop doing that, then we can talk.

How is this "Score:5, Insightful" ?

The handful of Muslims involved in terrorist activity is both extremely small and non-representative of the religion as a whole. No major Islamic organization is represented by terrorists, and most such organizations officially condemn terrorism as a whole. I doubt you responded to the Oklahoma City Bombing by saying "Dear Christians, I'm offended by members of your religion ..."

I can't interpret your post (and its moderators) as exhibiting anything but discrimination against Islam, including a rather large helping of ignorance.

But isn't this a form of idolatry?

[g2devi]

While I agree with you that he didn't want anyone to worship him since only God serves worship, his prohibition was on idolatry, not actual pictures.

Money, video games, statuses of Zeus, movies about Moses, and songs about Jesus are all okay as long as you don't worship *them* instead of the only thing that has any permanence, i.e. God.

It's a teaching that's common to all inspired religions and a form of it even exists for secular humanists.

Ironically, by prohibiting any and all pictures of Muhammad, people are violating the idolatry, commandment by making the obsession with pictures of a prophet more important that God.

Why is this a sensitive issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a Moslem and I've lived in the west for long enough to see both points of view, and I can see how the ignorant on both sides easily claims knowledge and goes on the offensive.

First no one ever talks about why do Moslem's say you shouldn't draw the prophet, and the reason was very simple, back in the old days (when idol worshiping was "hip") it was forbidden to make statues of any prominent figure so people don't go back to worshiping inanimate. Moslem's believe that Mohammed (PBUH) was just a regular man, with faults and a gift of a message. He didn't split no sea, heal the sick, or perform any miracles, his miracle was his message, and thus should not be worshiped since he is not the son of god, or divine as Jesus (PBUH) is considered.

Extremists have hi-jacked the religion and have used it to wage warfare, what the west isn't aware of, is that the war is largely fought outside and has nothing to do with "Our Freedoms". The war is being mainly fought between the Moslems and their rulers/occupiers, and since most of the rulers are backed by western influence (Mubarak of Egypt, Musharaf of Pakistan, Royal Family of Saudi, etc..) the west becomes automatically a target in the fight (the friend of my enemy is my enemy), Osama and his followers enjoy a lot of support in Pakistan and Afghanistan not because of their charisma, but mostly because they fall under the category - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Rulers in the Moslem dominated countries have oppressed their people for quite some time (close to 100 yrs now), and they kidnap and kill all the moderates, and only "curb" the extremists in their attempt to show the "west" that if support stops, the western countries will have to deal with the Osama's of the world.

The images don't offend the true moderate Moslem, he/she just sees them as crude, and that is where it stops. The moderate true believer never thinks that faith needs to be defended against those that bad mouth it.

This is horrible.

[Vampyre_Dark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images#Arguments_for_Removal

Actually reading the talk page, it seems like people are having a lot of fun mocking the religion of Islam and antagonizing anyone who tries to make their feelings be heard. It becomes very obvious that the picture is up there in defiance, and anyone who comes forward with a calm argument simply asking it to be removed is singled out and mocked by what looks to be the elite of the site acting out like 14 year olds.

I'm not religious, but I hate to see blatant discrimination like this. The official stance by the editors is 'we leave the image up, because we can'.

Interesting, but wrong, mentality they have

[fudgefactor7]

What is the deal with these Muslims, anyway? They're offended; that's fine. But why is it that they think they have the right to dictate to others what to do or not do? Muslims represent roughtly 30% of the world population, that's not a majority; yet they think they can boss everyone else around. 70% of the world is not Muslim, what about their sensitivites or feelings? Immaterial? Seems to me that the Muslims of the world are just a bumch of whiney cry-babies. Why is it only their opinion matters? As one boss I had once put it: everything is a matter of perspective, but your perspective doesn't matter.

Re:Here's my 2 cents

[MightyMartian]

First of all, either principals mean something or they don't. In the West, we find censorship abhorent, a crime against liberty. Capitulation simply to avoid controversy is the very antithesis of free exchange of ideas. This is essentially giving in to a mobocracy kind of situation, where a militant group successfully bullies someone into their way of thinking.

Second of all, this prohibition against showing Muhammed's face has not even been universal throughout Islamic history. There are plenty of depictions of the man from Islamic artwork and manuscripts, so, in fact, this group is, whether they know it or not, lying.

In the West, we have the right to express ourselves freely, and are in fact protected. The solution for these Muslims is simple. Don't go to Wikipedia. It's no different than if it was a printed encyclopedia. If you don't like the pictures, don't open the book. No one is forcing any of these people to go to that site. It's simply an attempt to bully, and that should always be fought. Some of their compatriots have already killed a Dutch director, so I think it is important that we, as a society, send the message to these people that they're cultural taboos are not license to become abusive bullies. Freedom means something, or it means nothing.

Besides, the Pakistani ringleader should be spending more time trying to clean up his corrupt and dangerously unstable country and less time trying to score idiotic rhetorical points by attacking an online encyclopedia.

Thank you for the informative response

[mattt79]

If it's not modded up to a 5, the the moderators are truly on crack!

While it's interesting to see the scriptural basis for the prohibition on depicting living beings (I had no idea it encompassed animals as well). I'm sure you recognize the difficulty of getting an international (but western oriented) community like Wikipedia to observe Sharia law on this subject.

Wouldn't a reasonable compromise be to ask the Wikipedia moderators, that since the images are offensive to Muslims, that they should be moved to a linked page, so that believers would not come across them by mistake?

To demand the rest of the world to agree with one religion on the subject of blasphemy is impossible but not really necessary, when asking for a degree of politeness and sensitivity would suffice.

Re:Thank you for the informative response

[huckamania]

"That is essentially what it came to: censoring of Muslim users"

Who were trying to censor everyone else, by removing the pictures.

"tell us what is Islam and what is not"

However Muslims comment on other religions, make judgements on other cultures, etc. Wasn't it Muslims that destroyed the figures of Buddha in Afghanistan? Also, Muslims use images of non-Muslims in derogatory ways with impunity, including figures of other religions. Where's your sharia law then? Conveniently forgotten.

Go ahead and feel offended, but don't expect it to stop anytime soon.

Religion

[Z34107]

Sadly, any religion that claims to be a religion of peace is lying through its teeth. When people abandon their faculty of reason and start to believe in the imaginary, they lose their means to negotiate with others

Sadly, you're assuming that all religion is irrational and imaginary. If you assume that most people are irrational and live in fantasy land, you've lost your means to communicate with others.

Arabic page is censored

[assassinator42]

I'm assuming this is the page, although I don't speak Arabic. It has no pictures of Muhammad. It also appears to always use 'peace be upon him' after after mention of Muhammad (at least if the SVG name is names accurately).

Easy Solution

[thomas.galvin]

Easy solution: distribute lynx to all Middle Eastern nations.

Few words :

[aepervius]

Inquisition. Witch Burning. Saint Bartholemy massacre. Many persecution on minority. justification of taking slave by attributing them "no soul". I could probably dig more with a few minutes.

As for the crusade being used as an excuse, that still does not absolve all Christian having participated to them dosn't it ? Or will you use the usual excuse of "those were not true Christian" ?

buddhists

[commodoresloat]

Don't forget that the Japanese terrorists who released sarin gas in the subway in 1995 were Buddhists of a sort. And the mass murderer Pol Pot was a Buddhist. And despite the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 21st century, Christians have still killed far more in Christ's name in the Crusades than Muslim terrorists have killed under the flag of the prophet.

Re:buddhists

[Ubergrendle]

The all time winners of body count would be secular atheists or agnostics of course. Hitler and Stalin easily surpass any religiously oriented genocidal campaign. Stalin alone is good for 40-50 million deaths through deliberate starvation, gulags, mass executions, etc. Even if the crusades were as brutal, I doubt the Christian forces had the logistics or numbers capable of reaching such a bodycount.

I consider myself a secular atheist, but I call a spade a spade...I think this concept of 'religious wars' is overdone and loses historical, sociological, and ethnic context. The Crusades were religious wars, only insomuch as the dominant government of the day was feudalism which was based on some religious principles (divine right of kings). And there were alot of Muslim armies, but half of the Koran is about various tribes/countries in the middle east fighting with each other.

Re:buddhists

[mdwh2]

The all time winners of body count would be secular atheists or agnostics of course. Hitler and Stalin easily surpass any religiously oriented genocidal campaign.

I'm surprised it took so long to bring up this old myth. Hitler was not an atheist.

His religious views are unclear, but he certainly wasn't an atheist or agnostic.

Stalin was an atheist, but that is beside the point. The point is he didn't murder in the name of atheism. You might as well mark him by the colour of his hair, it's just as relevant as a lack of belief in one particular supernatural entity.

Sura 9

[w3woody]

Last I checked, my Bible didn't say to wage jihad against the infidels.

Neither does the Quran

Ahem.

9:5: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

Note that by repenting and establishing regular prayers and the like, "Pagans" (translated elsewhere as "idolaters" or non-Muslims) have converted to Islam.

9:13-14: "Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths [and failed to convert to Islam as promised, verse 9:7-12], plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assult) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe! Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,"

9:23-24: "O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith [that is, if they are not believers in Islam]: if any of you do so, they do wrong. Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fiear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight -- are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger, or the striving [Jihad] in His cause;- then wait until Allah brings about His decision: and Allah guides not the rebellious."

In other words, it's us (the brotherhood of Islam) verses them (the "Pagans" or "infidels"--not believers in Islam)--and if you side with your non-believing family over your fellow followers in faith, you're screwed.

And so now we've set up the sides:
9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Keep in mind as well that Sura 9 is the last Sura to be dictated by Allah, and so aborigates all other verses to the contrary.

Why, yes: the Quran does indeed say to wage war against the infidels. It says it several times in Sura 9: in the verse of the sword (9:5) and in the passage exhorting war against the non-believers (9:29). Verses 9:5 and 9:29 are oft cited by those who launch bombs at non-believers and those "of the book", and who step onto busses and blow themselves to kingdom-come, along with the children and innocent parents on that bus.

The Quran damned well demands of its believers to overcome the non-believers until they feel subjugated or until they convert, no matter how many aborgated (Meccan) verses of "love" you wish to dig up.

Now whether or not individual Muslims believe this themselves is a completely different matter: I'm not suggesting that those who pick up a Quran and confess that it may have value are about to go hijack a plane and fly it into another skyscraper. Nor does all of this deny how beautiful it is to see the opening lines "God is greatest" of prayer sung in Arabic. But let's not fall into the delusion that there is any moral equivalency between the Bible and the Quran, simply because you either are a believer in the illusion of multiculturalism or think anyone who is religious is axiomatically a nutbar and morally equivalent to the other God-fearing nutbars out there.

Actual Islamic law

[Purple Grant]

What is actually forbidden in Islam is pictorial depictions of any living thing. eg Humans, horses, bumblebees or anything else as it is for god to create these things, not you. The "No depictions of Mohamed" rule is a more recent (historically speaking) tradition. Any Muslim with, cameras, TVs or paintings should be aware of that.

I am a Muslim...

[Mahjub Sa'aden]

I am a Muslim living in Canada, and I know many Christians who are very much like their Christ, and very interested in the world at large and how to make it a better place. Many of them are very conscious that the Crusades, for instance, were perpetrated by people who called themselves Christian, and most of them will readily admit the Crusades were evil. They are also very conscious that the nation to Canada's south currently crouches its wars and politics in Christian terms as well. They are extremely uncomfortable with that.

I should perhaps spend more time defending my own religion, as I am extremely uncomfortable with the state of Islam in the world. I will only say, however, that one day Muslims will look back on this period of history with the same sort of shame the Christians I know feel about the Crusades.

Uncyclopedia

[Foobar of Borg]

If they are offended by Wikipedia, just wait until someone shows them the Uncyclopedia article!

Re:Shame on you.

[dotancohen]

You are saying that the Muslim religion is a murderer? Understand that I'm a Jew living in Israel. Understand that just yesterday a suicide bomber blew up in my country. Understand that every single day between 5 and 25 rockets fall on my country from Gaza. Understand that I spend a month in Lebanon last year. You would think that if anyone would be convinced that Islam is a murderous religion, then I would be convinced, no? I'm not convinced because it's not true. The Muslims who murder are not unlike the Christians, the Jews, and the atheists that murder. They do it because it's what their parents, teachers, politicians, and heros taught them to do. Not because their religion requires it. When the blame gets put where the blame is due, then the problem can begin to be solved. Blaming the religion is merely excusing the real root of the problem.

Wafa Sultan

[six11]

Hey, thanks for that link. I was amazed on several levels.

First, the camera setup and the scrolling text at the bottom reminded me of CNN or Fox News, or whatever. I was expecting the content would match my expectations. But, instead of a bunch of people speaking in sound bites and talking over one another, I saw a rational human being giving a reasoned, articulate perspective. Even though that perspective was found to be repulsive by the interviewer (he calls her a heretic and that her opinion does not matter), she was allowed to continue speaking. This would never happen on CNN.

Second, I was impressed by the amount of knowledge she (and the interviewer) have about things that to most Americans would seem subtle. She talked for a while about a 'clash of civilizations', a term made popular by Huntington's book. (I recommend you look for it if you don't know what I'm talking about). At the end she said something that reminded me of JFK's famous "ask not" quote. She said, "the Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."

It's the right thing to do ...

[jc42]

Let's face it, nobody has the slightest idea what Mohammed looked like, no more than anyone knows what Jesus looked like.

So pictures of Mohammed should be removed because they can't possibly be accurate. The only place where it might be appropriate to keep them would be in an article specifically about images of Mohammed.

Similarly for pictures of Jesus and other such ancient characters. Unless we actually have an image created during their lifetime, they have little value in anything claiming to be historically accurate.

OTOH, if it's a history of art, then I suppose anything goes. (Though recently we have had a few problems with museums showing "artistic" images of Jesus. ;-)

Questions I have never been able to get answered

[codeButcher]

1. If it is forbidden to draw pictures of prophets, why does nobody complain about the ubiquitous pictures of Christ, which is recognized by Islam as a prophet?
2. If pictures of Mohamed are forbidden, how do muslims actually know what he looked like so that they know a given picture actually depicts him and not somebody else?
3. If it is forbidden to depict anything with a soul, is it OK to depict some imagined person (which to the best of my knowledge does not have a soul or life)?