1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

wikipedia does not respect religion

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ala101, Jan 9, 2008.

  1. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #101
    Good for you. What does that have to do with non-muslims again?

    This is the thing that you don't seem to understand. They are YOUR RULES. Nobody else is obliged to follow them and no amount of pretending to be offended is going to change that.
     
    stOx, Jan 12, 2008 IP
  2. godofwriting

    godofwriting Banned

    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    11
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #102
    We've already tried explaining that to him (them).

    But, I don't think he wants anybody else to abide by his religious laws, he's only trying to say it's offensive to him as a Muslim. That's why a petition's been made.

    @Ala: I can really understand your frustration but I maintain that the paintings hold historical value. The article itself says that making portraits of the prophet is forbidden in Islam. But if you look at it, the paintings on the page don't actually intend to draw the prophet in paint at all. All they're trying to do is represent his teachings.

    Plus, someone said the law was made so that people wouldn't worship the prophet instead of God. I can't see how Wikipedia is going to make people worship Muhammad by displaying a painting on its pages. That's ridiculous.
     
    godofwriting, Jan 12, 2008 IP
  3. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #103
    If the petition was of people saying they are offended it wouldn't be an issue. They are perfectly entitled to be offended and they are not entitled to be protected from offence. The petition is to have the images removed. The petition is signed by people who want wikipedia, A non-islamic organisation, To remove images that violate an islamic rule. So in effect, By telling wikipedia to remove the images they are demanding that they abide by islamic rules.
     
    stOx, Jan 12, 2008 IP
  4. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #104
    That is simply not true. Islamic countries have no respect for many things I hold dear. Women's rights, the right to freely practice any religion, the rights of free speech and to protest your government. These things that I hold dear are not valued or respected by many Islamic people and countries.

    I will never go out of my way to be offensive to anyone, it serves no purpose. However, I not only see nothing wrong with the wiki page, I find your efforts to censor wiki offensive. What next, do you find American banks offensive as a Muslim because they charge interest?

    Wiki is not made for Islamic people, it is made for free people. If you want a censored website - make it yourself. I promise I won't complain that you don't have a picture of Mohammad on your wiki.
     
    browntwn, Jan 12, 2008 IP
  5. pingpong123

    pingpong123 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,080
    Likes Received:
    117
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    175
    #105
    Hmmmm, errr , have you been to dubai yet? Its an islamic country and they have churches all around and people can wear whatever they want.
    Research is the salvation that frees the mind lol.
     
    pingpong123, Jan 12, 2008 IP
  6. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #106
    I did not mean to imply that there were not some minor exceptions. I was speaking about the majority of Islamic countries.

    You are not trying to tell everyone that Islamic countries routinely embrace all religions and freely allows its practice or that they allow women equal rights or that they allow its citizens the rights of protest against the government or religious authority. Are you?

    In your eagerness to point out an exception in Dubai, you basically proved my point about the rest of the Islamic world.
     
    browntwn, Jan 12, 2008 IP
  7. Toopac

    Toopac Peon

    Messages:
    4,451
    Likes Received:
    166
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #107
    I personally don't believe in religion, therefore you could say i don't give a damn about Muhammed, so could you clarify, that you respect my beliefs & my right to not follow islamic rules ie allow the depiction?

    Do you respect the belief of wiki owners & editor's who are of the same as above?

    Do you respect the belief of wiki owners & editor's who believe that the depiction is educational & of historic value?
     
    Toopac, Jan 13, 2008 IP
  8. mistermix

    mistermix Active Member

    Messages:
    2,326
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #108
    Wikipedia and the rest of the world don't need to obey any religious preachings.

    I can say anything about jesus (he was gay) and mohammed (he eats poo).
     
    mistermix, Jan 13, 2008 IP
  9. Rub3X

    Rub3X Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,902
    Likes Received:
    75
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #109
    There's as much proof of that happening then there is of anything happening in the Bible or the Quarn. :rolleyes:

    38,000 extremists and counting, scary.
     
    Rub3X, Jan 13, 2008 IP
  10. ala101

    ala101 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #110
    We donnot ask the global to follow our rules. Is the word respect following rules in anyway ? or it means expressing ethics, morals and respect to others as others respect you .

    islam respect Women and gives them their rights more than others think.
    and islam gives you the freedom of choosing your religion , as i proved it in my previous post that in islam you are free to follow which religion u want.
    and also islam gives you the right of free speech.


    Everybody thinks that we Muslims are trying to enforce our rules, that is far from the truth.
    let us analyze the subject first.

    Wiki has put some drawings and is claiming that those are of the prophet Mohamed (PBUH), we as Muslims know that there are no drawings of the prophet, in other words those drawings are not authentic.

    In my opinion what Wiki is doing whether they know it or not, is one of two things.

    1. Deceiving people by showing drawing that has nothing to do with Islam, and claiming it to be the the prophet.
    2. Offending us Muslims by telling lies about our religion.

    Or may be both at the same time.

    is that to much too ask?

    Forget about us Muslims whether we feel offended or not, don't you feel bad when you know that someone is deceiving you.

    If it was a mambo jumbo site that put the drawings I wouldn't care, but a great encyclopedia like Wikipedia should be more keen to tell the truth.
     
    ala101, Jan 13, 2008 IP
  11. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #111
    The petition says it is to "tell wikipedia to remove them". You can't demand respect. You can't have a petition telling someone to respect you.

    Your religion isn't entitled to be protected from offence. if you are offended by a picture then that's just tough, You will have to stay offended.

    If there can be no drawings of mohamed why make the rule? The fact that you have a rule saying no images should be made depicting him illustrates that images of him are able to be produced.

    Make your mind up. Are you offended that there exists a depiction of mohamad or are you offended that wikipedia have said it's an image depicting him when no such image can exist? In your need to find something to be offended about i think you have become a little confused.
     
    stOx, Jan 13, 2008 IP
    Rebecca likes this.
  12. Joe Blow

    Joe Blow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    138
    #112
    But it clearly means a right to threaten others:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    ..and most telling of all:

    [​IMG]
     
    Joe Blow, Jan 14, 2008 IP
  13. decepti0n

    decepti0n Peon

    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #113
    I'd say if WP didn't respect your religion, they'd deny any creation of Islamic articles. But I more or less agree with everything about WP not having to abide by another religions rules (otherwise I can create an anti-encyclopedic religion and force it to delete itself I guess)

    Also, ~30k signatures is nothing compared to the millions of wikipedia visitors who don't have a problem with it (or they would edit it out)

    Thirdly, would you be offended if I drew a picture of "Mohammed" in paint, and showed you? Honestly
     
    decepti0n, Jan 14, 2008 IP
  14. ala101

    ala101 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #114
    stOx, it is simple :
    - yes there is no real image of our prophet.
    - that page on wikipedia should provide real info about our prophet.
    - there is no meaning of putting that fake image (illustration) on our prophet's article.. if they want to explain more info about our prophet pbuh, then they can refer to hundreds of books written about him.
    - We are n ot looking for something to get offended ! our request is so simple and logical .. that image is not true so we do not accept it to be published on wikipedia .. such behavior of editors on wikipedia is irrational at all.. they can provide other illustrations that can illustrate important points made in the article.

     
    ala101, Jan 14, 2008 IP
  15. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #115
    An image can be made depicting anybody, Real or fabricated. If someone draws a picture of mohamad and says it's mohamad then it is a picture of mohamad. It's as simple as that, No matter how hard you try to distort reality, That's how it works.

    it does. it even goes as far as to show a picture that someone drew of him.

    Wikipedia isn't a quran class, It reports factual reality, And the factual reality of it is that someone once done a painting depicting mohammad.

    You keep saying the image isn't true or real, But it exists. it exists and it is a depiction of mohamad. Nobody cares what your religion tells you is possible, Any sane person knows that a painting depicting mohamad can exist, because a painting depicting anyone can exist. The artist painted it, The artist said it's a depiction of mohamad and so that is what it is.

    Can i ask you something. What do you, As a muslim, Feel more offended about? Wikipedia showing a picture that you don't even think is real, Or the images that joe blow posted showing people threatening death in the name of your god? An honest answer would be nice
     
    stOx, Jan 14, 2008 IP
  16. ala101

    ala101 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #116
    but that image has been drawn after prophet Muhammad's death by 9000 years so it was not drawn while he was alive so that image is not a real one at all.

    If we consider it a picture as you say , then what is the point of putting it on the article ? known that it is not showing anything true or any information about our prophet ? what is the advantage ?! nothing !

    That's why you cannot find it on Britannica encyclopedia or any respected encyclopedia.
    that claimed depiction is false and shows false facial info about Mohammad pbuh . The reality is in deleting that image coz it did not exist in his life so there is no point in putting something without a real proof of the relationship with the picture owner.
    Good question ,
    first of all , we as muslims love Mohammad pbuh more than ourselves.
    Those images that joe blow posted were edited on photoshop and they are not at all !
    Even though if those images were taken from real situations , those have nothing to do with the truth of islam, the religion of peace.
     
    ala101, Jan 14, 2008 IP
  17. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #117
    all that means is it isn't an exact likeness or a portrait. But it's still a painting depicting him.

    Firstly, they aren't photoshopped. They are real images taken at the protest. many papers run them over here and many photographers and film crews documented them. You are going to have to stop denying reality and if reasonable dialogue is going to be at all possible. just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can just say it doesn't exist.

    Secondly, Answer the question I asked. It's a simple question and it deserves a simple answer.
    Are you more offended by a painting or by people threatening "holocausts", Murder and torture in the name of your god? If you are going to dismiss the threats as "not islam", Why not do the same with the painting, After all, it's not "real", Is it?

    So, That answer please. What offends you, As a muslim, As a member of the "religion of peace", More? The paintings? Or the people threatening violence in the name of your peaceful god?
     
    stOx, Jan 14, 2008 IP
  18. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #118
    How does someone breath under that? Why are these guys always hiding their faces in these pictures.. Reminds me of the KKK wussies that hide.
     
    Mia, Jan 14, 2008 IP
  19. ala101

    ala101 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #119
    ok, but that fake image (depiction) has no meaning putting it there on the wiki page of Mohammad pbuh at all.
    actually i predicted this reply from you so i have said :
    Secondly, Answer the question I asked. It's a simple question and it deserves a simple answer.
    Are you more offended by a painting or by people threatening "holocausts", Murder and torture in the name of your god? If you are going to dismiss the threats as "not islam", Why not do the same with the painting, After all, it's not "real", Is it?
    both are offensive.
    But if you want to know which is more offensive? i don't know .. you can ask an islamic scholar to get an answer.. you can put your question at islamway or at islamonline and iam sure that they will reply to you asap.
     
    ala101, Jan 14, 2008 IP
  20. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #120
    What do you mean there is no meaning? it's a painting featuring mohamad on an encyclopedia page about mohamad. It's not a quran class. It's an encyclopedia article about the guy. it features anything factual related to him. The painting exists, it depicts mohamad and as such it belongs on wikipedia.
    I am asking what you find more offensive. You are still able to think for yourself aren't you?
    It pretty much sums up religion; "I'm not able to form an opinion anymore, Ask someone else what i think". it's very sad.
     
    stOx, Jan 14, 2008 IP