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."'"

Better login into wikipedia host asap

[ccguy]

jimw@wiki:/var/www/wikipedia/wiki>tar cz * |uuencode /dev/stdout |mail -s "Just in case" [e-mail]

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 [wikipedia.org] 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

[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

[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 [wikipedia.org].

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

[Trails]

I absolutely refuse to believe that!

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) [president.gov.af] 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 [bbc.co.uk].

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[flitty]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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." [juancole.com]

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!" [juancole.com]

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." [juancole.com]

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. [juancole.com]

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. [juancole.com]

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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[eldavojohn]

These pictures aren't so bad! Here [wikimedia.org] he is betting his followers that he can slide all the way down a railing without falling off. Here [wikimedia.org] is his senior picture. Here [wikimedia.org] he is preparing to be tossed into the air on a blanket. Here [wikimedia.org] he is on fire (about to be Super Saiyan 2). Here [wikimedia.org] he is full blown Super Saiyan 3 complete with human headed horse. Here [wikimedia.org] 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 [wikimedia.org].

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 [google.com]? 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

[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

[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

[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 [godhatesfags.com] 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

[Anonymous Coward]

It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings

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

MARTYRS OFFEND ME!!!

[AnomaliesAndrew]

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

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

[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

[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

[januth]

1) Target Wikipedia 2) ? 3) Prophet

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

[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

[Bogtha]

They should complete this survey [b3ta.com] 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

[antifoidulus]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[kailoran]

You mean like in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration [wikipedia.org]? 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

[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

[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 [islamicacademy.org] 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

[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

[eldavojohn]

Oh yeah! Thanks for pointing it out. Obama is muslim. So US needs to be involved.

Well, from his website [barackobama.com]:

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?

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

[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

[JohnFluxx]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[gnick]

Maybe watch 12 minutes of two men kissing.

12 minutes?? Methinks that you're not just on this airline for the security...

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/ [zombietime.com]

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/ [zombietime.com]

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.

Mohammed image archive

[Animats]

Zombietime's Mohammed Image Archive [zombietime.com] 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 [zombietime.com], some of which is quite funny.

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?

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 [theregister.co.uk]. Just another scary example of the lack of ethics at the heart of wikiality.

Or you could chose this [theregister.co.uk] 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?

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 [zaytuna.org] or this article by Fareena Alam [radicalmiddleway.co.uk].

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 [cbsnews.com] 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.

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.

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".

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:Ok, I'll bite

[thewils]

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?