Thread: Political Discussion - Prophet Mohammad Pictures

I'm sorry but in this case I honestly have to side with Wiki

They are an information site, not a religious site.

Yes, I agree, they are an information site. but they can provide the information WITHOUT the picture.

Originally Posted by Jani

Yes, I agree, they are an information site. but they can provide the information WITHOUT the picture.

They can not provide information of what he looks like w/o the picture can they?

They are not a religious site and since they are not, they are not and should not be bound by any relgious rules.

I am a person with muslim religion, but I am born and live in a christian country Bulgaria. I have nothing against christianism, budism or any other religion and I have nothing against putting illistrations of Muhammed in Wikipedia, since I am not so religious person.

The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances.

the way i read that is that Muslims are not allowed to create images of him, that does not ban the west from doing so. and to try and impose your religion on our freedom is not going to happen.

Most Muslims live in the west because they wanted to escape the oppression and threats of violence in their home lands in the middle east. The west offers freedom unlike they had at home.

now you want to impose that oppression on your host nations? if you don't like the west and the freedom it gives you, then return to the east and the oppression and violent life you were in such a hurry to run away from.

Quite frankly i find this very post an insult, as it abuses the very freedom the west gives you on freedom of speech, to try and impose censorship on the west.

Jani peacefully requested that people sign a petition to show support for this cause.
He isn't oppressing anyone. He simply asked for some support.

If you don't want to support him, that's fine. But to lump him in with the leaders of Middle Eastern Muslim countries who actually order executions, etc. is ridiculous.

The way I see it, he was exercising his freedom of speech, here. Nothing more, nothing less.
The same freedom of speech that we want to preserve gives Jani the right to say things that we don't agree with.
Some of us may not like that he asked for help. But it's his right to ask.

Originally Posted by Zap

Jani peacefully requested that people sign a petition to show support for this cause.
He isn't oppressing anyone. He simply asked for some support.

If you don't want to support him, that's fine. But to lump him in with the leaders of Middle Eastern Muslim countries who actually order executions, etc. is ridiculous.

The way I see it, he was exercising his freedom of speech, here. Nothing more, nothing less.
The same freedom of speech that we want to preserve gives Jani the right to say things that we don't agree with.
Some of us may not like that he asked for help. But it's his right to ask.

as it is my right to voice my opinion

the very site he is asking to support has published an image, oh the hypocrisy

Originally Posted by Sammie

as it is my right to voice my opinion

And voice it you did Sammie. :lep-grin:

I respectfully agree with Sammie on this.

Now if one of us were to go on a muslim forum and ask for pictures of Jesus, Bush, USA etc to be removed, wonder what would happen?

But Zap is correct, we do allow freedom of speech, something just not allowed in muslim countries....

Originally Posted by Zap

[ #/1 ]Jani peacefully requested that people sign a petition to show support for this cause.
[#/2] He isn't oppressing anyone. He simply asked for some support.

[#/3] If you don't want to support him, that's fine. But to lump him in with the leaders of Middle Eastern Muslim countries who actually order executions, etc. is ridiculous.

[ #/4] The way I see it, he was exercising his freedom of speech, here. Nothing more, nothing less.
[#/5] The same freedom of speech that we want to preserve gives Jani the right to say things that we don't agree with.
[#/6] Some of us may not like that he asked for help. But it's his right to ask.

i am not sure what you think you know, but you sure do not know very much, but let me show you what you are missing and appear to be supporting.

# 1
Target: To request wikipedia editors to respect other peoples religion
Sponsored by: Muslim Munity <<<they sound like a peaceful group to you?

# 2
Censorship is oppression, in this case it actually is only about one image. not the other 14 images that are on Wikipedia showing Muhammad's face, a lesson in History,
570 AD Possible date of birth, April 20: Mecca
632 AD Death (June 8): Medina
Up until the 16th Century images of him where allowed,
The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances.
the Hadith where written almost 1000 years after his death so from the 16th Century no more images of him where allowed.
Almost all of the images on wikipedia are before this date, but the one in question. (see attachment) is a 17th Century copy of a 14th Century picture.

#/3
i do not support anyone that supports censorship, nor do i support anyone that supports fanatics, (more on the Fanatic below)

#/4
the way i see it is he has used this website to show his support and to stare up a normally peaceful community, with his support of a Muslim Fanatic thats on the UK terrorist watch list. (more on this guy below)

#/5
the same reason DP has so much hatred between it's members is because they allow the open support of terrorists, is that what you want here?

#/6
if he has the right to ask a western community to support his terrorist bothers, then i think WTF has lost the plot.

( the man on the UK terrorist watch list)

In 2008, several Muslims protested against the inclusion of Muhammad's depictions in English Wikipedia's Muhammad article. An online petition claims to have collected over 300,000 signatures in three months (December 2007 to February 2008). The petition was started by Faraz Ahmad of Daska, Pakistan, resident in Glasgow, formerly editing Wikipedia as "Farazilu".[34] The petition specifies opposition to a reproduction of a 17th century Ottoman copy of a 14th century (Ilkhanate) manuscript image (MS Arabe 1489) showing Muhammad as he prohibits intercalation

This guy lives in Glasgow, you remember last year when 2 suicide car bombers drove a car into Glasgow airport?
This guy lost his position as an Editor on Wikipedia and is trying to stare up some violence and because he is an activist, that puts him on the UK's terrorist watch list, something our friend Jani forgot to mention to WTF members.

So yes to i do lump him in with that lot.

But to lump him in with the leaders of Middle Eastern Muslim countries who actually order executions, etc. is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Sammie

i am not sure what you think you know, but you sure do not know very much, but let me show you what you are missing and appear to be supporting.

Nice way to start off, Sammie. Insult me.

The truth of the matter is that you don't know me one bit. You have absolutely no idea, not even an inclination of what I DO and DO NOT know.
Geez, Sammie, Judge people much? :lep-rolleyes:

Thanks for "showing" me what I appear to be supporting in your own mind only. Go back and reread my post. Read it several times if you need to. Nowhere in my post do I show support for anything other than Jani's right to voice his opinion. I didn't say one word for or against any religion.

Jesus Christ, Sammie! This witch hunt of yours isn't healthy. Crusade against Islam if it makes you feel better but leave me the fuck out of it and don't try to put words in my mouth. It makes you look stupid.

Originally Posted by Sammie

i do not support anyone that supports censorship,

How do you reconcile that with your actions in this thread? Jani peacefully makes a request and you proceed to say he insulted you and is trying to oppress you when all he did was make a request to sign a petition. Since then, you've made accusations about him and accusations about me because I defended a person's right to speak freely. And you've slapped every post of his in this thread with the groan button. Looks to me like the oppression tactics are coming from your corner, Sammie. He's left your posts alone.

Originally Posted by Sammie

the same reason DP has so much hatred between it's members is because they allow the open support of terrorists, is that what you want here?

Is that some kind of poorly disguised threat?

Originally Posted by Sammie

if he has the right to ask a western community to support his terrorist bothers, then i think WTF has lost the plot.

He has the right to speak his mind freely, whether you believe he is the devil or not and that is NOT going to change.

Originally Posted by Sammie

This guy lives in Glasgow, you remember last year when 2 suicide car bombers drove a car into Glasgow airport?
This guy lost his position as an Editor on Wikipedia and is trying to stare up some violence and because he is an activist, that puts him on the UK's terrorist watch list, something our friend Jani forgot to mention to WTF members.

Source?

Originally Posted by Sammie

So yes to i do lump him in with that lot.

That was pretty evident from your first post in this thread, Sammie. Your tendency to make bold assumptions and state them as fact, as well as your oppressive posting style were also pretty blatant.

Feel free to go back and hit the groan button on my posts if you wish. If it makes you feel like the bigger person, then go ahead. You will NOT be oppressing me or squashing my opinion on this or any other topic.

Hey friends, Please don't fight.

I didn't want to make violence here. I was just appealing people to get together and appeal wikipedia to remove that picture cause it is not allowed in our religion.

I know wikipedia is not an islamic organization but being a human being they should respect other religions as well.

If my post is being the cause of fighting, please remove it.

I don't want people to fight here because of me

Dude, you're posting at wrong places.
If you need support for your cause, you should post at Islamic forums. Don't get me wrong but not everyone thinks the same way as you do. Most of the people who are not Muslims and have a logical thinking would side with wiki here, including me.

I tell you why, Wiki didn't make those pics. those pictures have a significant historic values. I'd have sided with you, if it was a wiki artists that created those pics, but it's not the case.

So you need alike mind people to get support for your petition and for that you need to post on forums related to Islam.

source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
last part of page,

Wikipedia article
A self-uploaded image of Faraz Ahmad, the editor who started the petition

In 2008, several Muslims protested against the inclusion of Muhammad's depictions in English Wikipedia's Muhammad article.[32][33] An online petition claims to have collected over 300,000 signatures in three months (December 2007 to February 2008). The petition was started by Faraz Ahmad of Daska, Pakistan, resident in Glasgow, formerly editing Wikipedia as "Farazilu".[34] The petition specifies opposition to a reproduction of a 17th century Ottoman copy of a 14th century (Ilkhanate) manuscript image (MS Arabe 1489) showing Muhammad as he prohibits intercalation.[35] Jeremy Henzell-Thomas of The American Muslim deplored the petition as one of "these mechanical knee-jerk reactions" which

are gifts to those who seek every opportunity to decry Islam and ridicule Muslims and can only exacerbate a situation in which Muslims and the Western media seem to be locked in an ever-descending spiral of ignorance and mutual loathing.[36]

Wikipedia considered but rejected a compromise that would allow visitors to choose whether to view the page with images.[33] The Wikipedia community has refused to act upon the petition.[37] The site's answers to frequently asked questions says Wikipedia does not censor itself for the benefit of any group.[38]

Thank you for that.

Direct from your source...

Jeremy Henzell-Thomas of The American Muslim deplored the petition as one of "these mechanical knee-jerk reactions" which are gifts to those who seek every opportunity to decry Islam and ridicule Muslims and can only exacerbate a situation in which Muslims and the Western media seem to be locked in an ever-descending spiral of ignorance and mutual loathing.

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing this all over the internet.
Ignorance, mixed with opportunism fuelling prejudice and hatred.

It's pathetic how many people get sucked in.

Originally Posted by Zap

Thank you for that.

Direct from your source...

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing this all over the internet.
Ignorance, mixed with opportunism fuelling prejudice and hatred.

It's pathetic how many people get sucked in.

direct from my source, lol
you neglect the issues of the reason of this thread, and pick the one bit you dislike, OMFG are you really that easily taken in?

you asked for a source for the guy on the UK watch list, and his fanatical beliefs and ignore all that when it's in your face, and pick the one part that has really nothing to do with the issue of this thread.

dont get me wrong here. i hate islam, and i hate all religion equally, if it was the 7th LDS or the kkk or the jews, or the buddists, or islam. i hate all of them.
not the people the religion, if mankind spent 1/2 the time working together on the feeding of the world, as they spend praying to a mythical god, then mankind would have its foot out its ass and do some fuckin good on this earth.

sorry but i lock horns with any admin, you dont scare me one bit. in fact, ban me, it's just another notch on my battle banner that says an admin cant win a fair fight.

oh yea, you sure got sucked in, when you allowed your site to be used, to ask for support for a radical muslim activist

Originally Posted by Sammie

sorry but i lock horns with any admin, you dont scare me one bit. in fact, ban me, it's just another notch on my battle banner that says an admin cant win a fair fight.

I wasn't trying to scare you, or anyone else for that matter.
I was just pointing out the stupidity of trying to oppress the original poster while touting the virtues of free speech.

And, this is not the first time you've asked to be banned here in this manner.
If you really want to be banned that badly, then you're going to have to break a rule here or something. Until that time, there's not much I can do to help you there.
But, if it's a problem with WTF specifically, might I suggest that you just don't come here anymore, instead of repeatedly asking to be banned?
There's a lot less drama that way.

Originally Posted by Zap

I wasn't trying to scare you, or anyone else for that matter.
I was just pointing out the stupidity of trying to oppress the original poster while touting the virtues of free speech.

And, this is not the first time you've asked to be banned here in this manner.
If you really want to be banned that badly, then you're going to have to break a rule here or something. Until that time, there's not much I can do to help you there.
But, if it's a problem with WTF specifically, might I suggest that you just don't come here anymore, instead of repeatedly asking to be banned?
There's a lot less drama that way.

before you ban me may i post comments from DP that you made on my threads?

or are you now wondering WTF did i say 2 years ago?

This thread went waaaay off topic long ago so I'm closing it.

Sammie, you've had the last word on it and you're not going to be banned for this thread.
(See my post above)

After all the posts were moved 'on topic' I have reopened the thread.

Now that the drama queen has edited her profile into oblivion, maybe this topic can be discussed rationally.

I'm in agreement with Grim. Wikipedia is an information website not a religious one and as such, It is not governed by the rules of any religion.
I have no problem with Jani requesting that people sign a petition. Thats what living in a democracy is all about.

As an artist (and a non-muslim) I often check wikipedia for pictures as well as text, so I don't think any images of the prophet should be removed. Piss Christ pisses off Christians, and I don't think that should be removed either.

I agree, wikipedia should leave it up there if for no other reason than to celebrate their freedom. In my opinion, it certainly isn't hurting anyone.

Originally Posted by PHPGator

I agree, wikipedia should leave it up there if for no other reason than to celebrate their freedom.

There is no such thing as "absolute freedom", responsibility and respect towards other faiths must follow as well. The consensus is clear on any imagery of the Prophet (P) in Islam, it should not be an argument at all.

In my opinion, it certainly isn't hurting anyone.

It hurts our religious sensitivities, that doesn't count as "hurting anyone" in your book?

Ok I know I just read it somewhere in here, but keep missing it, I was wondering, which is the true Muslim rule, not to look at pictures of Mohammad or not to draw them at all? Anyone know the real answer?

Originally Posted by Kaos

Ok I know I just read it somewhere in here, but keep missing it, I was wondering, which is the true Muslim rule, not to look at pictures of Mohammad or not to draw them at all? Anyone know the real answer?

Both.

Interesting. I love learning about other religions personally, hate people that are brainwashed into false beliefs and willing to group people together with a few bad seeds. I have to agree though with the freedom of information on this one.

By the way, Where's Tim with the Family Guy clip for this one? Even I know this episode LOL

Weird that muslims say they can not have pictures of humans, etc.

But they have tv?

Originally Posted by iowadawg

Weird that muslims say they can not have pictures of humans, etc.

But they have tv?

Something I find even odder than that is someone who doesn't want a picture of Mohammed to exist anywhere, out of respect for their religious rules, but yet they are interested in adult domains and/or running adult websites. :eek:
I've seen this more than once.

I guess that proves no matter what you religion..men are still pigs *ducks*

Zap is right.
See original thread starter, who started a thread about running an adult site.

Biggest users of proxies are in muslim countries and they use proxies to hit the porno sites.

Originally Posted by iowadawg

Weird that muslims say they can not have pictures of humans, etc.

But they have tv?

I think you are trying to confuse the issue here. Representation of beings used for worship is forbidden, and the ban extends to images of the Prophets (P) as well because such images are prone to abuse and cause man to fall into idolatry, which has been the case even before the coming of Islam (Hinduism being a good example of this).

I think I should also make one thing clear here: when I said "ban extends to images of the Prophets (P)", I mean just that. Not only is the image of the Prophet Muhammad (P) forbidden in Islam, the images of the other Prophets (P) such as Moses, Joseph, Jesus, etc. (peace be upon them all) are banned as well. Now, one may not agree with this but that does not give him/her the right to disrespect the Islamic faith.

menj added 4 Minutes and 49 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by Kaos

I have to agree though with the freedom of information on this one.

Islam has a different standard of ethics from yours.

Hmmmmmm.....if anyone says anything that muslims do not agree with, it becomes disrespect!!!

Why one can not have a discourse with a muslim.

Muslims disrespect non-believers, but we can not disrespect muslims?

Originally Posted by iowadawg

Hmmmmmm.....if anyone says anything that muslims do not agree with, it becomes disrespect!!!

Excuse me, have I accused you specifically of being disrespectful?

Why one can not have a discourse with a muslim.

Muslims disrespect non-believers, but we can not disrespect muslims?

Doesn't this sound like you are trying to flame-bait me? Have I shown any disrespect to you, or is a generalisation of Muslims the norm?

I get Dawg's point menj.

For example, many many Christians have a picture of Jesus somewhere in their house. I would say more Christians have this than those who don't. Many of them don't even think about Islam, so they can't really be labelled as disrespecting Islam.
Within Christianity, there is nothing wrong with having a picture of Jesus in the house. In fact, Christian church leaders would praise this move and be pleased by it. So, you can't expect non-muslims to follow Islam or be accused of disrespecting it. That's not much of a choice.
How would you, as a muslim, like it if you were accused of disrespecting Christianity because you don't have a picture of Jesus in your home? It wouldn't be fair, would it?

Originally Posted by Zap

I get Dawg's point menj.
How would you, as a muslim, like it if you were accused of disrespecting Christianity because you don't have a picture of Jesus in your home? It wouldn't be fair, would it?

Ironically, we see any representation of Jesus (P) to be an insult and a great disrespect to him, as we acknowledge Jesus (P) to be a Prophet of God. However we do recognise the fact that Christians have images of him and his mother (peace be upon them both) hanging on their walls and based on the Qur'anic verse that "there is no coercion in religion" (Qur'an, 2:256), we do not impose our beliefs upon Christians. They are free to do whatever they please with such images, as long as they do not try to force Muslims to adopt their ways.

That, however, does not change the fact that depicting the Prophet Muhammad (P) is disrespectful and an insult to Muslims and Islam in general. I don't see the point of having such "images" hanging in Christian or Muslim homes, do you?

Originally Posted by Zap

I get Dawg's point menj.

For example, many many Christians have a picture of Jesus somewhere in their house. I would say more Christians have this than those who don't. Many of them don't even think about Islam, so they can't really be labelled as disrespecting Islam.
Within Christianity, there is nothing wrong with having a picture of Jesus in the house. In fact, Christian church leaders would praise this move and be pleased by it. So, you can't expect non-muslims to follow Islam or be accused of disrespecting it. That's not much of a choice.
How would you, as a muslim, like it if you were accused of disrespecting Christianity because you don't have a picture of Jesus in your home? It wouldn't be fair, would it?

Placing a picture of jesus in your home because your religion tells you to is much different, No muslim has ever protested against placing pictures of jesus in your homes as the intention is very different. On the other hand, the picture of prophet mohammed (PBUH) does not serve anyone anything at all.

Originally Posted by menj

I think you are trying to confuse the issue here. Representation of beings used for worship is forbidden, and the ban extends to images of the Prophets (P) as well because such images are prone to abuse and cause man to fall into idolatry, which has been the case even before the coming of Islam (Hinduism being a good example of this).

I think I should also make one thing clear here: when I said "ban extends to images of the Prophets (P)", I mean just that. Not only is the image of the Prophet Muhammad (P) forbidden in Islam, the images of the other Prophets (P) such as Moses, Joseph, Jesus, etc. (peace be upon them all) are banned as well. Now, one may not agree with this but that does not give him/her the right to disrespect the Islamic faith.

Why do you write (P) like that?

What if you saw Jesus Christ Superstar on tv, where does that fit in? Is it entertainment and non-worship related, or is it considered disrespectful too?

I don't consider myself a Christian but like that rock opera.

Does the Koran forbid images of the Prophet? Not explicitly, but some passages are interpreted as a ban. The Hadith, a compilation of Islamic traditions, specifically forbids the depiction of God and his prophets--including Jesus. Scholars through the ages have argued that such images encourage idolatry, which is regarded as a grave sin. Shi'ite Muslims make an exception for Muhammad's cousin Ali, who they believe was his rightful successor, so Ali's image is common in Shi'ite areas like Iran and Iraq.

Does Islamic art ever include images of Muhammad? Almost never. On rare occasions, he is depicted as a figure with a veiled face. In the Middle East, even movies and TV programs about the Prophet never show his visage. Early in Islamic history, his face was shown in Persian paintings and tapestries, many of which have since been defaced.