I think the question was what offends You more not what offends some scholar. *Edit- Stox Beat me to it
but that image is not featuring Mohammad pbuh at all . He does not look like this , besides it is forbidden to make depictions or publish depictions of our prophet , that's why we ask for respect to our belief, and to the fact that this image is fake. As you said, that's an encyclopedia article, so it should show useful and real info , not images like this which is clear to intent to spite Muslims.. i don't know what my answer has to do with the main point of this topic or with teh petition ?! is it abnormal to receive an answer like "i don't know " ? or as iam a muslim then i must have answers to everything ? The people who give opinions in islam are the scholars who understand it better than me . So , if u really need an answer from me , my answer is " it depends" and iam not gonna say more, this topic is about the petition for removing prophet Mohammad pbuh fake image from wikipedia , any outside question will be answered on those links that i provided
I have been avoiding this thread, but wanted to add this after catching up on it. Seems a little hypocritical of Wikipedia to post a depiction, when the religion forbids depictions. If it was an actual photo or drawing, that's one thing, but it is clearly an example of what the religion considers "Haram". "Here is a picture of Mohammad PBUH that is not a real picture of Mohammad PBUH, on a page that contains information about Islam prohibiting pictures of Mohammad PBUH" It would be like posting a mock picture of a guy getting waterboarded by US troops, on a page about the US Army Field Manual, which prohibits waterboarding. At the very least, it's intellectually misleading. Lack of discretion without bias, is not to be confused with respect. Would it hurt Wikipedia to remove the image? Probably not. Would it hurt the readers to not see a depiction that is no more accurate than any other depiction centuries too late? Probably not. In a tolerant world, we don't look for reasons to antagonize one another. If there was some intellectual disadvantage to not posting a depiction, that's one thing. But no one can confirm that it is accurate or not, and posting it regardless shows a lack of respect for honesty IMO.
it is a picture depicting mohamad. The creator of the painting said it is, So that means it is. Regardless if it is accurate likeness or portrait. And if it isn't a picture of mohamad and it is a fake what the hell are you getting so offended about? Islam says no pictures of mohamad, You say the picture on wikipedia isn't a picture of mohamad, So whats the problem? I think your unwillingness to answer the question says a lot more than your honesty ever could. guerilla, The painting exists. it is a painting depicting mohamad. There is no reason it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia.
I don't agree, Guerilla. For one thing, within the history of Islam (please see my posts 77, 80), there were depictions that were not considered inappropriate. I have also taken great interest in seeing that quite vivid verbal descriptions are allowed, but so far no one has addressed these points. To wiki itself, Wiki states that it is taboo. I think my "nude Christ" or "classic theme" painting in a historical museum is appropos to the debate. Wiki is an educational resource. That is all.
so u said it , as it is fake and is not a picture of Mohamamd pbuh , why it is there on wikipedia ? this is the question. and the problem is it is haram to publish fake images of prophet in islam . i think i answered you twice 1st by saying both are offending and 2nd by saying it depends. You didn't answer me what's ur point of this question?! besides, you didn't accept my answer which is " i don't know" my goal here is to stay in the main idea of the topic not to start several ideas and branches that iam not focusing on or want to talk about. Same strategy iam following on the talk page at wikipedia. there is no reason to include such an image . how did u know that such images were not considered inappropriate ? you are studying History right ? have you revised the islamic history books before you became sure of that ? The forbidden is mentioned by Hadith , which is the 2nd source of islam after Quran , so in everytime i nHistory the scholars were saying the same thing about them . wiki is following intellectual imperialism.
I'll re-read those. I agree. Which is why I dispute the educational value of a depiction that is not only not-sanctioned, but also of dubious accuracy.
I'd say: Not sanctioned: Wiki says it isn't sanctioned. Take a look at the example I give, re painting in a history museum. I think the exact situation obtains here. Dubious accuracy: In an art museum - how many 15th century paintings of adam, moses, Christ, Caesar, etc. are of "dubious accuracy?" Accuracy isn't the inherent value, in my opinion. As part of the artistic (all of the above) and historical (all the above you believe it to be) record, as the case may be, for Man: quite valuable.
No, I didn't say it. You simply bolded a piece of text in an attempt to take it out of context. I don't know if that was a result of a poor understanding of English or plain faced dishonest lying. But either way, it makes reasonable dialogue with you impossible.
Read it. Good argument, but I disagree. A sub page on Wikipedia with Depictions or Likenesses of Mohammad PBUH would be ok with me. I don't think it is unreasonable to separate fact from fiction, particularly in this circumstance. I hesitate to engage in religious equivalence. I don't think all religions are equivalent, nor should they be treated as such. We're dealing with a belief system that does not endorse images of their prophet.
Why do you disagree? Many Christians would view the nude Christ, indeed, all nudes, as equally offensive. Should these, too, be removed from public viewing, in a private museum? Idols of Hindu deities, or African ancestor deities, pictures of Buddha, statuary from Ancient China, jizo from the Shinto pantheon. All idols are proscribed by Islam. Should these, too, be removed - as the Taliban did, destroying the centuries-old Buddha statues- from places like the Chicago museum of Art? Strict Jainists believe it is a grave sin to even walk on the ground, or to breathe free air, without a mask, for fear of killing a sentient life, on its possible way to a higher order of reincarnation. Should a private museum hand out peg-thongs, and face masks, to respect the religious prohibitions? These are facts, Guerilla, and I'm not being flippant. Wiki's job is not to be a steward of religious orthodoxy, but to provide material that edifies the minds of its viewers. As with the Piss Christ, clearly prohibited by the vast majority of Christians, if you don't wish to view it, click another page. This is my opinion.
I think what adherents of all religions need to accept is that freedom of speech and expression are more important than their particular religious sensitivities. In a free country we are entitled to say whatever we want about Allah, Jesus, Buddah or any other religious figure you care to name. The rules of Islam are for Muslims, the rules of Christianity are for Christians. I am neither and I refuse to be bound by these rules which I find absurd. So toughen up and accept that some people are not going to respect your religion. That is their right and should be no less respected than the right of theists to practise their religion in whatever way they see fit (as long as it does not violate the rights of others).
I'm ok with your opinion. Mine differs. That's why I try to stay out of the religion threads. To me, religion is a personal thing. I'm not into big overt displays of my faith or beliefs. My experience with Muslims and Islam has been that for the most part, they feel the same. You're an artist, and I am sure you can appreciate that sometimes, we have to exist outside the realm of logic and vigorous rational dissemination in order to preserve some creativity and mysticism. Again, I'm ok with showing the images, if they are on a subpage clearly labelled as depictions of Mohammad PBUH, not on the article themselves, where the images could be considered representative of the prophet, because they clearly are not. This would be intellectually honest, and IMO be consistent with the prohibition against images at the same time.
Precisely why iI get testy at the notion that something of the world's artistic and historical record is to be censured, even destroyed, by someone else's close reading of religious law, or any law, for example. Coming from a libertarian perspective, with such a strong view on free speech, I would think you would agree. I remind you of your statement: And I didn't think this presumes a "pick and choose" creed, which is what I think you are doing here - no regulation means no regulation, or else it is regulation. The subpage argument you are making, which is, practically speaking, fine by me, really, seems to be a kind of regulation, a stricture. Beyond that, a subpage would be just as offensive to some Muslims. The argument made by Ala, and others who share his view, isn't that people will be confused when going to the page on Muhammed - again, it is on that page that a description of the taboo is explicitly made. The problem is universal. Any image of Muhammed, anywhere, in their mind, is universally dangerous, as it leads to idolatry. This comes from a wiki page, by the way, devoted to Depictions of Muhammed. On that page are numerous representations of the Prophet. The issue rests solely on whether something does or doesn't offend Muslim religious sensibilities, and, if so, whether those sensibilities should determine content in public viewing. The Topkapi museum in Istanbul certainly does not have an issue with presenting these images. Beyond the fact the Qu'ran doesn't actually prohibit the images, and that not all Muslims*** have a problem with the representations regardless, from what I can tell, the Qu'ran does prohibit pantheism, and idols of any kind. Both are a deep offense to Islam. I think the question I asked above is a fair question. From a private, secular organization, are we to remove all depictions of other gods, to include religious statutary and paintings, from the public sight of viewers, because some members of a religion are offended by such representations? If you answer no, then I think you must answer no by principle. If you answer yes, the answer must be "yes" by principle. It isn't the Qu'ran, but the hadith, that seems to take issue with the representations of the Prophet. That hadith apparently explicitly bans the representation of all living creatures. So, all representational art - shuttered? Why, then, limit it to Islam - many religions have proscriptions of all kinds. Are we to consult the world's religions when determining what pieces of the world's art and history are to be shown, or not shown? I think it's a fair question. And I think you have perhaps unintentionally mischaracterized my contentions. My argument rests on a rational basis, as you say, Guerilla, but it doesn't stop there. It also rests on my impassioned belief in the open sharing of the world's artistic traditions and historical records. I don't see how you can say, on the one hand, "no regulation of free speech' but on the other argue for just that kind of regulation here. It's also OK to disagree, obviously. But I think it necessary to be clear on what we are all saying. *** The world's shia apparently don't have a problem. In fact, You will note that the webpage the OP refers us to regards Sh'ia Islam's view thusly: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia Which is incorrect, by the way, from what I can tell. I don't know if this is a language thing, but sure seems to want the Shia view to be thrown on the proverbial book bonfire, to me. Shias, in fact, use the images as educational tools: Are we to wholesale deny their view in this debate? On so many levels, I can't agree.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. This is precisely why I avoid these threads. Free speech != mandated requirement to speak freely. It's a protected right that the government cannot restrain, not a function that the government has to encourage or mandate. We don't have much appreciation for private property rights in our society anymore. It's truly a shame.
I'm sorry, Guerilla, but though we can agree to disagree, you continue to make assertions that I must dispute. Wiki, a private enterprise, wishes to speak freely. Another group opposes that right. If it comes to it, it is very much a mandated requirement to speak freely. You indicated we can't rely on rational argument alone; I agreed and showed you why I take issue with this on so many levels - I provided numerous examples that make the question - yes or no? - a much more important question than this specific issue alone. But you haven't addressed those questions.
Free Speech to many appears to be only that speech that they sanction and or agree with... Either way, if wiki wanted to say Islam is a source of terrorism, they could... Wiki is a information source that is sourced by its contributors, which at times, may or may not include inaccuracies and or opinion. Often times factual evidence, while provided by source is not always 100% fact, or at the very least questionable, but overall pretty accurate. Given nothing is set in stone and each page in Wiki is editable, it is an ever growing source of fact vs. fiction that is constantly evolving and being fine tuned.. As I have said before.. Who really gives a crap... ? It's an internet encyclopedia for crying out loud... If Wiki said people who fart in public are cool, do you really think everyone would start doing it?
How sorry are you really? It's not a free speech issue. It's a property rights issue. Wikipedia has complete editorial control. What I am saying is, that I wish they would use some discretion. I disagree with their editorial process in this case. Honestly, I am confused about the things I did not answer. If you can point me to them, I will address them. Sorry.