wikipedia does not respect religion

[ala101]

Hello all!
In Islam pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other holly figures are not allowed, but on wikipedia they has published some pictures that are showing not only a body with white face but an image that has a complete face.. that is even not allowed .

We collected 31,826 signatures on this petition :
Removal of the Pics of Muhammad from Wikipedia

and Faraz Ahmad contacted wikipedia but they didn't respond to our polite request at all!

We are so sad to find that Wikipedia does not respect our religion

[gauharjk]

Brother, I had figured it out long ago. I even had a lot of debate with the main editors. Their view is different than ours. I failed to convince them that images should be removed, since it is forbidden in Islam, and it becomes very insulting to our religion.

Wikipedia is not sensitive to religious beliefs. They are there to provide information, all sorts of information, even if the information is banned or forbidden. These editors at Wikipedia say that "Shia Alawis" of Syria, Iraq and Iran have kept images of our Prophet (pbuh) for many centuries. Those images are fake, but it is true they were there.

Wikipedia is not tied by any religious beliefs. It is an Open encyclopedia. So, I'd suggest you to just ignore them. Please don't make a big deal about it. We are in a different world now, a globalised world, and we should accept it as a fact of life.

Do not get offended, since the images of prophet are not genuine at all. Just ignore them, and everything will be alright.

[wisdomtool]

I have heard of this rule in Islam, this is your right of belief which no one should ever take away. But I think Wikipedia also have their own set of beliefs and principle as an organization, that is to provide accurate information for all.

You can say that they insulted Islam, but can't they say that you insulted their rights and duty to give the public the full and accurate information?

I am not trying to defend Wiki, but I am looking at the issue from two different perspective as a neutral 3rd party. But I also feel that Wiki should not have ignored your request, at least listen to what your petition have to say and from there, try to get a Win Win situation.

Originally Posted by ala101

Hello all!
In Islam pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other holly figures are not allowed, but on wikipedia they has published some pictures that are showing not only a body with white face but an image that has a complete face.. that is even not allowed .

We collected 31,826 signatures on this petition :
Removal of the Pics of Muhammad from Wikipedia

and Faraz Ahmad contacted wikipedia but they didn't respond to our polite request at all!

We are so sad to find that Wikipedia does not respect our religion

[gauharjk]

Originally Posted by wisdomtool

I have heard of this rule in Islam, this is your right of belief which no one should ever take away. But I think Wikipedia also have their own set of beliefs and principle as an organization, that is to provide accurate information for all.

You can say that they insulted Islam, but can't they say that you insulted their rights and duty to give the public the full and accurate information?

I am not trying to defend Wiki, but I am looking at the issue from two different perspective as a neutral 3rd party. But I also feel that Wiki should not have ignored your request, at least listen to what your petition have to say and from there, try to get a Win Win situation.

Actually, the information is not accurate, because there are no pictures of the Prophet. None. The images there are all fake lies. But it is insulting.

I agree, let Wikipedia do what they want. But they should atleast correct their mistake, and blur out the faces in those images. It is highly offensive.

[wisdomtool]

Yeap, thats what I always believe in, respect for each other, Wiki should at least sit down and listen to what the petition has to say.

Originally Posted by gauharjk

Actually, the information is not accurate, because there are no pictures of the Prophet. None. The images there are all fake lies. But it is insulting.

I agree, let Wikipedia do what they want. But they should atleast correct their mistake, and blur out the faces in those images. It is highly offensive.

[killafawk]

says:

"15th century illustration in a copy of a manuscript by Al-Bīrūnī, depicting Muhammad preaching the Qur'ān in Mecca.[18]"

and another picture says:

"The earliest surviving image of Muhammad from Rashid al-Din's Jami' al-Tawarikh, approximately 1315, depicting the episode of the Black Stone.[42]"

If these are real dated history pictures / paintings or what ever they are then why should they not show them? I understand that your not supposed to have pictures of muhammad according to you guys but if you weren't suppose to have pictures of him then where did these come from and how did they survive if it was not allowed?

[gauharjk]

Originally Posted by killafawk

says:

"15th century illustration in a copy of a manuscript by Al-Bīrūnī, depicting Muhammad preaching the Qur'ān in Mecca.[18]"

and another picture says:

"The earliest surviving image of Muhammad from Rashid al-Din's Jami' al-Tawarikh, approximately 1315, depicting the episode of the Black Stone.[42]"

If these are real dated history pictures / paintings or what ever they are then why should they not show them? I understand that your not supposed to have pictures of muhammad according to you guys but if you weren't suppose to have pictures of him then where did these come from and how did they survive if it was not allowed?

Prophet Muhammad was in Arabia in the 6th century. How did these people draw his images in 1315 and 15th century? Very strange!

The images in question were drawn by these people on the basis of the Prophet's description, which is found in many books. But his depiction in any form is prohibited. This was done to avoid the return to pagan Idol worship, as was prevelant in Arabia before the time of the Prophet.

The main fear was people would stop worshiping God, who is no form, and instead start worshiping an idol or image of the Prophet. That is why, any depiction of the Prophet was banned.

[Nora]

No offense but why would it mean the rest of the world has to respect that rule?
I've heard of Buddha statues being destroyed in Afghanistan because of the whole anti-holy figures thing, where were the rights of the people who believed in Buddhism?
Its impossible to make the rest of the world follow the rules of one faith..

Again, not trying to offend anybody, this just popped into my head when reading the thread

[ala101]

Its impossible to make the rest of the world follow the rules of one faith..

we donnot ask the rest of the world to follow our rules , or as we say , our religion "islam".
But we ask the world to respect us ! is this too much ?
You know what ? i live in Jordan and iam a muslim , in Jordan we live each together Muslims and Christians with no problems no hate no Hatred... We respect all their beliefs and they do the same to us .. thats why we live in Peace in Jordan and we like each other .

Now the case of wikipedia is so clear that these actions are done by anti-moslim wikipedians .. They donnot want to repect us at all . Most of the articles releated to Islam are derived from Western, Non-Muslim sources while Christian and Jewish articles are written with Christian and Jewish perspective! why ?

this is offensive and we are so sad that wikipedia is moderated by admins who hate islam .. as appearing at Talk

[wisdomtool]

I beg to differ, I do not think it is right to label them as anti Muslims! There may be differences in opinions but just because they have different opinions does not mean they are anti Muslims.

I do not see anything that is so clear as what you have claim. I feel that Wiki tried to present as much data with as much accuracy as possible. For those sections that you disagree, surely there are Muslims scholars who can correct it with Wiki and present something that is more accurate? One last thing, what has the Jews got to do with Wiki this time round?

Originally Posted by ala101

we donnot ask the rest of the world to follow our rules , or as we say , our religion "islam".
But we ask the world to respect us ! is this too much ?
You know what ? i live in Jordan and iam a muslim , in Jordan we live each together Muslims and Christians with no problems no hate no Hatred... We respect all their beliefs and they do the same to us .. thats why we live in Peace in Jordan and we like each other .

Now the case of wikipedia is so clear that these actions are done by anti-moslim wikipedians .. They donnot want to repect us at all . Most of the articles releated to Islam are derived from Western, Non-Muslim sources while Christian and Jewish articles are written with Christian and Jewish perspective! why ?

this is offensive and we are so sad that wikipedia is moderated by admins who hate islam .. as appearing at Talk

[ala101]

I beg to respect our prophet !
when i said "anti-moslims" i mean it . Because i know editors, by their names who hate islam and muslims and who are against islam . Iam not going to mention their names here but visit this link and they mentioned one of them there.

see what , you want me to differ some human and not to say that they are anti-moslims while they donnot respect Muhammad , the prophet of islam.

Why those editors put their views on islamic contents on wp ? while on other religions wikipedia only take info from certified religious references ?

it is haram (sinful) to make photos of Muhammad PBUH. wp has links to all references of islam so if they really do care about respecting islam then they can easily refer to real islam info instead of publishing anti-islam materials on the article that is supposed to teach people who is Muhammad.

[Nora]

Originally Posted by ala101

I beg to respect our prophet !
when i said "anti-moslims" i mean it . Because i know editors, by their names who hate islam and muslims and who are against islam . Iam not going to mention their names here but visit this link and they mentioned one of them there.

see what , you want me to differ some human and not to say that they are anti-moslims while they donnot respect Muhammad , the prophet of islam.

Why those editors put their views on islamic contents on wp ? while on other religions wikipedia only take info from certified religious references ?

it is haram (sinful) to make photos of Muhammad PBUH. wp has links to all references of islam so if they really do care about respecting islam then they can easily refer to real islam info instead of publishing anti-islam materials on the article that is supposed to teach people who is Muhammad.

Its not Wikipedia's responsibility to filter every article to see if it respects the rules of every religion.. if you don't like it, don't visit it.. :S

[stOx]

why should non-muslims have to respect and abide by an islamic rule?

How about islam respecting wikipedia, And the rest of us, For a change? Why is it religion is always the one demanding respect and why does that "respect" always involve someone else changing their behaviour to fit in with your rules?

THEY ARE YOUR RULES! NOT OURS!

[gauharjk]

All those images are fake anyway. It is a great insult, though.

I was on Wikipedia discussion page for a long time, trying to convince people, who're the main editors, but these folks don't give a damn.

Because of these reasons, Wikipedia has lost all credibility.....

I wouldn't care much about these petty issues, when there are other important and urgent things in the world...

[wisdomtool]

In what way have I shown any disrespect to the Prophet? I am just stating my differences in opinion on how you label others as Anti Muslims. Is disagreeing with you considered disrespectful to the Prophet?

I do not want you to do anything, I am just stating our differences in opinion.

You have absolute right to your opinion, I have never once disagree with that. I think I had made my stance clear.

Originally Posted by ala101

I beg to respect our prophet !
when i said "anti-moslims" i mean it . Because i know editors, by their names who hate islam and muslims and who are against islam . Iam not going to mention their names here but visit this link and they mentioned one of them there.

see what , you want me to differ some human and not to say that they are anti-moslims while they donnot respect Muhammad , the prophet of islam.

Why those editors put their views on islamic contents on wp ? while on other religions wikipedia only take info from certified religious references ?

it is haram (sinful) to make photos of Muhammad PBUH. wp has links to all references of islam so if they really do care about respecting islam then they can easily refer to real islam info instead of publishing anti-islam materials on the article that is supposed to teach people who is Muhammad.

[gauharjk]

Originally Posted by stOx

why should non-muslims have to respect and abide by an Islamic rule?

How about Islam respecting wikipedia, And the rest of us, For a change? Why is it religion is always the one demanding respect and why does that "respect" always involve someone else changing their behaviour to fit in with your rules?

THEY ARE YOUR RULES! NOT OURS!

You have an air of arrogance within you. We are a globalised world. And we should respect each other's rules.

If something is considered forbidden and sinful to 1/4th of the world's population, then it certainly should be taken into account.

I, for one, would never break taboos of Jews or Christians or Hindus. Because I know better than insulting the feelings of people and making them enemies.

[gauharjk]

Originally Posted by wisdomtool

In what way have I shown any disrespect to the Prophet? I am just stating my differences in opinion on how you label others as Anti Muslims. Is disagreeing with you considered disrespectful to the Prophet?

I do not want you to do anything, I am just stating our differences in opinion.

You have absolute right to your opinion, I have never once disagree with that. I think I had made my stance clear.

He wasn't talking about you mate, he said it about Wikipedia editors in charge of that page.

[stOx]

Originally Posted by gauharjk

You have an air of arrogance within you. We are a globalised world. And we should respect each other's rules.

What is arrogant is expecting, No, Demanding, That everybody abides by the rules that you have agreed to. what needs to happen is you need to realise that the only people subject to those rules are the people in that religion. I'm not in that religion so i am not obligated to follow any of the rules.

As much as you may dislike it, I am allowed to depict mohammad. I can draw pictures of him all day if i like. Know why? because your rules dont apply to me, They are your rules!.

[Rebecca]

Wikipedia has the right to publish whatever they want.

[ala101]

wisdomtool , i was not meaning you when i said

I beg to respect our prophet !

but i mean wikipedia .. sorry if my sentence was not clear.

Nora,

Its not Wikipedia's responsibility to filter every article to see if it respects the rules of every religion.. if you don't like it, don't visit it.. :S

then what is wikipedia responsibility towards the petition signed by 32,055 person ?
we are not talking about a normal article or a normal information here .. those are fake photos and this is a refused behaviour that we donnot accept it . It is clear offensive.

How about islam respecting wikipedia

did islam attack wikipedia ? if so then you can ask islam to respect wikipedia .. but the case is wikipedia tries to hurt islam not the contrary..

Why is it religion is always the one demanding respect and why does that "respect" always involve someone else changing their behaviour to fit in with your rules?

we are not forcing wikipedia .. we followed democracy and made a petition
we do respect everybody and everything . We respect all religions, we respect all thoughts , but this is not something respectful to publish fake photos of our prophet who helped the whole humanity .

wikipedia is going on a false path by ignoring us .. they should learn from youtube policy how to respect people in web 2.0 ..