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. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #181
    Ok, but how do you deal with the inequity of one religion possibly being represented more or less than others?

    Too bad for the patrons?

    By what moral authority should your money be confiscated to fulfill my agenda, one that you may be vehemently opposed to?

    So if the library was public and visited predominantly by Muslims, and they only requested books without pictures of the prophet, you would be ok with the library not having a picture of the prophet available? What happened to intellectual vigor?

    Well, I already covered that I don't endorse the idea of public libraries at all, for more reasons than the topic of this thread.

    So we would be talking about private libraries, and because I respect property rights, you are entitled to stock whatever books you wish, and so will I. I would definitely focus on satisfying the people who use my library, not stock every possible text, popular or unpopular, desirable or undesirable. I want to provide people with what they want to read, not everything they don't.
     
    guerilla, Jan 16, 2008 IP
  2. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #182
    NPT, no hard feelings, but I am almost done with this thread. I really need to avoid these in the future, because they are endless spirals of self-defense.

    I'll deal with right and left in another thread. No time for it today. What is liberty? Is it the absence of bad choices or is it the availability of all choices? Again, freedom is not inherently moral or amoral. How it is used can be either or in between.

    Technically, I disagree. Removing something is also a freedom of expression.

    But I've made myself clear (I hope) on this. Move them to a separate page. It isn't an ideal answer for Ala, but I feel it would be more intellectually honest, and a compromise on two positions. Personally, it is a tricky thing for me. I don't purport to know for sure that "God" exists, and if he does, what religion is accurate on how he is to be worshiped, who his prophets were etc. From that position, I can't condone antagonizing a particular faith.

    That's my irrational position.

    You've misconstrued my point I believe. I'm saying that private property rights allow for discretion and bias. Wikipedia is not immune to this.

    *beats head against desk*

    Freedom is not absolute use of freedom. It's the opportunity to not utilize freedom as well. It's about being able to defer, or initiate. To lead, or follow. To use, or not use. IT'S NOT A FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE!

    I know that. I was just making a point in return. You're good people.

    My understanding, of your understanding of the freedom issue implies that absolute freedom is moral. I'm making the point that is not necessarily so.

    And thus, the freedom of speech issue, can conflict with moral issues, the irrational argument, so to speak.
     
    guerilla, Jan 16, 2008 IP
  3. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #183
    Damn, all we had was National Geographics.. Had to really use your imagination. :eek:
     
    Mia, Jan 16, 2008 IP
  4. Will.Spencer

    Will.Spencer NetBuilder

    Messages:
    14,789
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    375
    #184
    Ack! No! Freedom is always moral. :eek:

    If you define freedom correctly -- from a third-party point of view -- freedom is always moral.

    Yes, yes it is. :(
     
    Will.Spencer, Jan 16, 2008 IP
  5. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #185
    Guerilla, no, no hard feelings - I understand the feeling like you are hitting the head on the desk, because I feel it too.

    Freedom, liberty, don't require sophistry, and I believe that is what you are engaging in here, Guerilla. A very simple concept: the absence of constraints on free will. Absolute freedom for one is likely absolute enslavement for another, so yes, common sense dictates that freedom stops at the door of harming another. Common sense dictates it ends at the limit of harming another.. If an individual wishes to kill another over a slice of pizza, they are not to enact their free will in killing the other, nor advocating for another to do so. If an individual, on the other hand, is offended by someone using the word "fart" in a gymnasium, move to the other corner of the gym. Or, in the case of wiki, click.

    Here is how I see it. The entirety of what you are saying, if I have it right, is that as this offends some members of Islam, out of respect for those members' sensibilities, the images should be removed.

    -It doesn't offend most non-Muslims, nor all Muslims; the images are respectful images of the Prophet of Islam, in the course of his work. Many shia use these very images as aids to teaching the tenements of their faith, and many sunni, the majority notwithstanding, are not offended. Why deny them access to something they wish to see, or use?

    -these images were drawn from Islam itself, at one point in its history; as such, they are historical relics, works of art, that have a great value beyond the scope of religion or its tenets; and it is open to interpretation whether they are, in fact, haram, given that there is no prohibition in the Qu'ran, but in the hadith.

    Gauharjk has indicated that the hadith is to be interpreted with an understanding of context. I do not see, in this day and age, why pictures of Islam's most revered Prophet cannot be interpreted with the same understanding of context. But I accept it is a problem for many sunni nevertheless, and my argument really does rest elsewhere.

    -<<banging head>>, your move to another page won't work, as I've said several times, and provided the reason why. Any depiction is haram. There are no mitigating factors. You cannot have an image of the Prophet, to folks like Ala, under any circumstances; this is an absolute position. So, whereas you say you would support a move to a subpage - and, as I pointed out to you, there is a subpage - the images anywhere are offensive. You don't want to offend. Yet you do, by offering the images on any page of any kind. Your two stances cannot co-exist.

    I don't believe I've misconstrued your point. Wiki is a private site that has chosen to make itself a relatively unbiased source, it seems to me, and an open source to boot. In the instance of this article, your stating "it is not immune from bias" isn't supported by wiki's neutrality in the matter. It is stating factual positions, without making a moral call. In fact, as I've posted several times, it makes explicit the taboo:

    I believe it is pure sophistry to try to make the argument that removal of something due to outside pressure is an example of free speech. Yes, technically. But weren't you talking about "radical arguments," etc.? If I am standing on a square, and due to an onslaught of 200,000 people screaming at me to shut up, and I do - yep, I've made a choice. And the unimpinged right to free speech has just taken a serious step backwards. I think we both know that.

    With respect to a known white supremacist website's right to exist, you didn't just indicate your stand vis a vis government. By saying:

    It seems to me you clearly advocate a policy of openness - to the point with respect to views that advocate the harming of other human beings - and that censureship only drives the revelation of faults underground. If you believe these images are wrong, why do you not say, hold these images "out in the open anyway?"

    I have asked several times, but you have not answered my question, namely, that idolatry is prohibited by the Qu'ran. For you to remain consistent, you would have to advocate the removal all artwork and statuary that would be considered idolatrous in this interpretation of Islam. Starting with Christ on the Crucifix, hindu statuary, anything.

    You haven't answered the question - and it is a very real one - that on this private site, there are almost incalculable numbers of things deeply offensive to some religion or creed, somewhere. For you to remain consistent, you would have to advocate the removal of these, as well.

    I don't believe there is any other framework.

    Please note - I am not using this quote as an out of context slam. I am making the general statement that I am utterly cool with just saying, "just don't like it, just my gut on this," or something like it. I do it all the time here. I only object when we are relying on an argument based on logic and reason, and then something like this is pulled out., or your comment to me regarding art.


    Guerilla, I consider you to be a bright guy, and feel the exchange is usually worthwhile, though like you, I want to beat my head against the desk from time to time. That said, I understand debate fatigue as well, as I get it too. I respond to things I see, but if you'd rather just move on, that's fine as well. (NOTE: Not a passive aggressive tactic. Literally, I get it).
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 16, 2008 IP
  6. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #186
    This is an interesting public/private side discussion. I don't believe taxes were initially constructed as user fees. I don't agree with the concept now. And a strict vision of this is impossible. We are not in the era of internal tariffs, a cacophony of fees for things as disparate as usage on parts of a multi-regional road (France, pre-Necker, anyone?), and so forth.

    We are not atoms existing in a kind of brownian movement, merely bouncing off each other in a pure exchange of free will. It is inherent to society that one accepts synergy, compromise, linkage; one accepts the public good that is agreed upon, by some agreeable process. If one doesn't want this, one isn't in society, but in a state of raw, individualist, nature. Unencumbered, yes, but outside the pale of society.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 16, 2008 IP
  7. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #187
    I'm a sucker.

    Cool, and I appreciate it. Last night really set me back on my journey to be a better forum poster.

    Do I need to provide you with examples of freedom that does not harm others but could be considered quite bad?

    You're also a very intelligent guy, but please indulge me for the people who might not be as deep into this topic but still reading this thread.

    Personal liberty
    Self-mutilation. Suicide.

    Freedom of Speech
    Those crazy people who go to the military funerals and picket them, screaming at the mourners that they are fa**ots and are going to hell.

    Private property rights
    The purchase and destruction of timeless artifacts
    Clear cutting forests

    I could go on, but you get my point. I am comfortable with people doing crap like this, but would you call it moral? I think many would not.

    I never said Freedom was easy.

    I have a great example for you too. I think someone is a f***ing ***hole, and a total id**t as well as worthless sack of flesh. But I refrain from writing it on a forum where I have the absolute right of free speech. Have I wounded free speech in this instance, or have I perhaps exercised some judgment on what is worth saying, and the possible consequences of saying it?

    Dude, I'm not a Muslim. I construct and manage my own morality, but I do have some respect for the decisions of others, hence the desire for at the least, some compromise. If it is not possible, well that is beyond my control. All I can do is propose what I consider fair, given that I am neither the complainant or defendant.

    If you want me to condemn the OP for his religious beliefs, I will not. I don't like to roll like that. It's why I stay out of the religion threads. It always involves the potential of trampling on what someone holds as a truth and way of life. Whether I approve of it or not, doesn't give me the moral high ground to endorse or condemn.

    If you believe in personal liberty, you have to support the OP's right to his belief system and its imperatives. He doesn't have a right to impose them on others, but that is something he has to reconcile for himself.

    Actually, I would rather the dirtbags be in the open. I'd like to know which forum posters from there using the same names are on forums with me. I want to recognize them by their sigs or avatars. And I think it's a good idea to expose them, instead of relegating them to basements and backyards, where serious kookiness can get cooked up that no one is prepared for.

    I really don't feel the depiction of Mohammad falls into the same class as a supremacist site. Again, rights might be absolute, but their use and effect are not equal in all cases.

    This is of course, my personal bias. They are my feelings and inclinations. Not too different from the compulsion to put on pants when I go outside, or answer the phone with "Hello."
    Well, I really want to debate R2G in the FED thread. And like I said, these discussions turn into a lot of, "Why do you think this? How can you believe that? You're not being logical or consistent." Which is all valid, because I am a deeply flawed man.

    Economics on the other hand is a lot more cut and dried. :D
     
    guerilla, Jan 16, 2008 IP
    wisdomtool likes this.
  8. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #188
    Needs a new thread for sure.

    If one of us is pro-choice, and the other anti-abortion, and the "society" via democracy enacts subsidized "on demand" abortion, then isn't the party who is anti-abortion being forced to pay (via taxes) for something they may find morally abhorrent?

    "The society" is a dangerous thing. There is an implicit, "you have to surrender some of your free will to the will of the majority" that is very anti-liberty.
     
    guerilla, Jan 16, 2008 IP
  9. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #189
    Self mutilation, suicide - again, we are dealing with death here, not "fart" in a gym, or images on a web page that can be clicked away. But like you, I'm conflicted here. Under majority age, no. Afterwards, I tend to subscribe to an anthropological view, that many prohibitions extant in society come from something fairly primordial - and the right of society to protect itself is one. We tend to be "iffy" around these acts, because ultimately they redound to society itself. But I also support, for someone of sound mind, the right to a conscious death. Again, I'd say, commonsense - are we talking killing a relatively healthy, not terminally-suffering human being, or clicking the TV channel?

    Funeral picketeers - freedom of speech ends when you have a captive audience. It's why bullhorns in crowds have been deemed unconstitutional. A "reasonable person" standard must, and does, apply, when considering issues of free speech. If those fuckwads made their speech on a street, and a father, who could simply walk away, and who lost his son to this war, freaks and unleashes on one of them, he'd be guilty of violating the fuckwad's freedom of speech (maybe, constitutionally. We've gone through this before, in the "racist website" thread. "Fire in a crowded theater," and all that). However, by going to the funeral, it isn't reasonable to simply say, the grieving families can go somewhere else, in making the choice to not hear the vile speech. They are in essence captive, and that is no longer free speech, but imposing that speech on another.

    With wiki, don't want it? Click.

    Private property rights
    The purchase and destruction of timeless artifacts
    Clear cutting forests


    Happens all the time. Again, public good, and that, again, is an imperfectly arrived at instrument. It is fairly well decided that what Goering did was a crime against western culture. It is also obvious that clearcutting to the last tree does not limit one's actions to one's private property. It benefits no others, and in fact harms them.

    But you are very much making a choice, then - as I said, it goes beyond a net "no harm." Many of the world's Muslims believe these serve a positive, morally beneficial purpose. By supporting the pyre burning (ok, unfair image...you're owed, from "Mr. reason ain't all, artist, radical argument makin' islamophobe"...:D), you are denying another group of Muslims something they support. Why do you disparage their view thusly?

    Many of the world's religions find many things offensive. By not removing those, you are also making a choice. You are valuing Ala's right over all others. Which is fine, but I think you should acknowledge this.

    "Do I want you to condemn Ala's faith?" You didn't need, or shouldn't have needed, to ask this. (And I believe this is again a subtle means of devaluing the good faith substance of my contentions, Guerilla. Like "but reason isn't everything, Paul - you should know, as an artist"; like "your radical line of argument," these are not a good way to proceed). I absolutely support Ala's right to his faith, and its imperatives. I will not go into his mosque and paint a representation of Muhammed in overlay on a figurative, geometric piece of artwork, symbol for "Prophet of God." To be honest, I'll stand guard at the door of his mosque should that eventuality arise. Yet you say he doesn't have the right to impose them on others - and support that very thing here. These cannot co-exist.

    Other stuff, fair enough. If I have you right, it's your personal inclination, and I won't judge you for that. It's been an engaging debate. Thanks. I have to close, too, at least for now. Hate to keep whining, but today was the third in a series of epidurals at L1/L2, and my back is killing me. Live to come back another day, and all that rut.

    Actually, before I close. Any shia on this site? Any other sunni Muslims - do you have any views on all the above? This is a huge thread and I wouldn't blame anyone from staying out - but I do invite a look. I contributed from, I think, truly, 77 on. But it is an important subject, I think, and with respect, would invite your views.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 16, 2008 IP
  10. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #190
    Actually, I don't give a damn about Ala. I am somewhat familiar with the hadiths. If these were some self-developed ideas, that would be one thing, but to many Muslims, the hadiths are at or near scripture status. That they are divinely inspired.

    I've already explained, personally, morally, I draw the line at challenging anyone's God.

    Give me more credit than that please Paul. I'm not trying to devalue your contentions. I think you're taking this a lot more personally than I intended any of my comments.

    I'm not supporting his right to impose his will on anyone. I am supporting his right to his beliefs, and I do believe the most equitable way to reconcile that is compromise. Without conflating this (which I am also guilty of doing with my own radical lines of argument) I just don't see the intellectual argument that maintains those images HAVE to be on that page. To the contrary, I actually think that they are out of place, given the position of the hadiths as I understand it.

    And if he is unwilling to accept such a compromise if it would be possible, then in my mind, he has a conflict between property rights and his belief system he will have to resolve. I do think that whoever had a petition going was on the right track. Lobbying for change is an effective and peaceful way to negotiate.

    No worries. I don't like these debates at all. It's not easy to quantify and explain logically my instincts and biases. Obviously, we all come at these situations from different perspectives, and with different goals.
     
    guerilla, Jan 16, 2008 IP
  11. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #191
    Fair enough, and enough said, probably. Only to add I do give you a lot of credit, Guerilla, and wouldn't dishonor you otherwise. It isn't personal at all - just a factual response to the question:

    Which I felt was unnecessary. As, I felt, the "art" question, or the "radical line of argument" thing. I don't feel they rest on substance, at least not to me.

    Anyway, peace.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 16, 2008 IP
    wisdomtool likes this.
  12. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #192
    Another thread, to be sure. And yep, sometimes it sucks. There are lots of stuff I pay taxes for, that I not only disagree with, but never use. Certain roads, for instance. I never use them. Would it be better that a guy stands at every intersection and demands a quarter for the passage to the other side of the street? I think not. Money in the banks, FDIC - abolish it? Air - pay for only that clean air that I use? On into infinity, it seems to me.

    I maintain: by definition you do surrender some of your free will, as an agreement to live within society. We are not Hobbesian banshees - know what I mean?
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 16, 2008 IP
  13. gauharjk

    gauharjk Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    135
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #193
    @ Guerilla and Northpointaiki

    The points made by both sides are valid. Northpointaiki is pushing for sort of libertarian ideals, freedom to do anything.

    Guerilla talks about discretion while using freedom of speech, coz you have to live with the consequences of using that freedom. I agree with this point more. Thank you friend. You are awesome. :D! I salute you...

    People, we live in multi-cultural societies. Thomas Friedman says "The World is Flat". So, without Mutual Respect and understanding, you cannot coexist. Disrespecting the beliefs of more than 1 billion Muslims, because you can, under the guise of Freedom of Speech is alien idea to me. It sounds like bullying.

    IMHO, it would be better if Wikipedia just moves those images to some other page, that would be more appropriate.

    I live in India. I have been to Temples, Gurudwaras and Churches so many times. My friends come from all backgrounds, all religions. But they are close friends. The only reason is because we understand each other. I wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, neither would they. Discretion is th better part of valor.

    P.S. I am very impressed by the kind of English you both use. I am sure you've never needed a dictionary in you life. I am preparing for GRE exams, so that I can get admission in Canada. Your command over English is amazing, very impressive indeed.
     
    gauharjk, Jan 17, 2008 IP
  14. wisdomtool

    wisdomtool Moderator Staff

    Messages:
    15,825
    Likes Received:
    1,367
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    455
    #194
    Those two Guerilla and Northpointaiki are exemplary gentlemen engaging in a discussion of a sorely divisive topic with emphasis on the substance and not depending on the rhetoric of their statements. It is enriching and intellectually stimulating to go through these posts. Fantastic!

     
    wisdomtool, Jan 17, 2008 IP
  15. Will.Spencer

    Will.Spencer NetBuilder

    Messages:
    14,789
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    375
    #195
    The Muslims are disrespecting the beliefs of Wikipedia, and indeed of the entire Western world, by demanding that Freedom of Expression be abolished.

    Freedom of Expression is one of the civilized worlds most cherished beliefs.

    We accept that the Muslims may prevent themselves from utilizing Freedom of Expression, but we will never accept the Muslims placing such barbaric restrictions upon us.
     
    Will.Spencer, Jan 17, 2008 IP
  16. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #196
    Gauharjk, I'm sorry, but in my opinion that is completely off mark. You haven't addressed the many points I have raised throughout this thread, and you are incorrectly labelling my views as libertarian. At the heart of it, I suppose I am a secular humanist, who holds a great deal of curiosity for the world's religions, as they are part of the human cultural pool. I am also an impassioned defender of the artistic and historical treasures from human antiquity, and it is from a deep sense of tragedy over their loss, at far too many times in world history, that I find my impetus to speak out.

    While I can understand why you might conclude as you do, that doesn't make it valid, and I can't agree with you. I have made an extraordinary number of concrete points throughout this thread, and I think it would better serve your contention to address them specifically over a blanket, vague, and incorrect conclusion of my ideals. If you would like a brief restatement of those several questions, please let me know.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 17, 2008 IP
  17. wisdomtool

    wisdomtool Moderator Staff

    Messages:
    15,825
    Likes Received:
    1,367
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    455
    #197
    I beg to differ on this, it is a group of 30 000 plus petitioning for the removal of some contents. I won't consider it as a demand that Freedom of Expression be abolished. A petition is a group request not a demand.

    The Muslims are disrespecting the beliefs of Wikipedia, and indeed of the entire Western world, by demanding that Freedom of Expression be abolished.

    I agree with you as below, I find it quite frustrating about the individual actions of some of the Muslims crying jihad over ice cream cones etc and Burger King having to defer to their wishes.

    Freedom of Expression is one of the civilized worlds most cherished beliefs.



    For this I beg to differ again, they had not placed any barbaric restrictions on us, nor will we agree to any barbaric restrictions.

    We accept that the Muslims may prevent themselves from utilizing Freedom of Expression, but we will never accept the Muslims placing such barbaric restrictions upon us
     
    wisdomtool, Jan 17, 2008 IP
  18. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #198
    Because this is an extraordinarily long thread, because I feel it's an important discussion, and because of Gauharjk's latter-day post above, I do feel it is important to restate, in brief, the source of my contentions with the issue of removing this content from a private source. These questions have been asked by me throughout but as of yet, I don't really feel they've been answered directly:

    1. There is no authority in the Qu'ran, from what I can tell, for the prohibition of images of the Prophet of Islam. The tradition grew from the Hadith. Gauharjk, you, for one, have indicated that the Hadith isn't to be taken literally, but with an understanding of the historical context giving rise to the various topics discussed within the Hadith and Sharia. Given that, why is it that this pictorial prohibition, as discussed in the Hadith, is viewed from an absolutist position, while other topics are given a contextual analysis?

    2. Most Shia, and many Sunni, do not have a problem whatsoever with these images. In fact, within Shia schools of thought, my understanding is that these images are seen as morally good and useful tools for the teaching of various aspects of the Prophets life. Why are the views of these Muslims dismissed in this argument? (See, among others, post 143, 157). Additionally, is this your view - that Shia Islam is "SHITAT" Islam?, as it is described in the OP's referenced webpage?

    3. Staying to Islam, as only one example, I noted that the Qu'ran does specifically preclude idols. Yet wiki, museums, historical societies, schools, are replete with examples of idols from across human history. There isn't a culture or religion from the mind of Man that hasn't, to my mind, at least touched, at some point in its history, on idol worship. By your argument, as idols are offensive from the perspective of the Qu'ran, all idols should be removed from public view. Should this not be done? Why or why not?

    4. Many religions and creeds have taboos that extend to just about anything one could find within the public arena. (For a start, see post 80; see also post 133). You have said mine is a strict libertarian view, and that Guerilla, for one, is advocating discretion, and that this "discretion" means complying with a given sensibility by removing content deemed offensive. I maintain I am speaking from an unbiased viewpoint, and that this idea of "discretion" must extend to all cultures, all religions, all creeds, if we are to be balanced and fair. Are you, then, arguing these sources of offense should universally be removed from public viewing, among private organizations?

    Some examples - only a few, immediately off the top, as the list of world taboos is infinite. But I am hopeful it makes the point:

    Kosher, Halal, religious vegetarianism: Only approved Kosher, Halal and strict vegan foods should be served in private organizations, since foods outside these certifications are offensive to faiths that require such certifications in their daily practice. Right? Why or why not?

    Restricted Visual Content, Written or Spoken Words: across a host of religions, among them, your interpretation of Islam. Any instance of this taboo content should be removed, as these are offensive to someone, somewhere. Bookstores, for instance, are prohibited from carrying any content that offends someone's religious sensibilities. For the monotheistic religions, this would include, by way of example, sections on pantheistic religious practice. On into an empty bookstore. Isn't this what you are necessarily advocating by your argument here? Why or why not?

    Menstruating women: Menstruating women are not to be allowed in public, and that, of course, would include at a private museum. Right? Why or why not?

    5. The two images on the page in question stem from Islam. It is only with the Ottoman Empire, from what I can tell, that this prohibition was put in wide practice - and today, these very images are on display in the Topkapi Museum, Istanbul, Turkey (see post 136, among others). Why should this be the determinant view, given that world Islam did produce these images at one point in its history? How is this anything other than opinion, drawn from the mind of Man, and not grounded in a determinant matter of religious doctrine? (Please see post 77).

    6. If the issue is that the paintings may induce the gullible to idol worship - because of placing an image on the Prophet, then how are the exacting physical descriptions of the Prophet, contained in:

    http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf

    not, in essence, the same thing - is this not the same thing, in written word - is it not "painting" the Prophet, placing an image in place, for the would-be believer? (See posts 77, 80, 88).

    7. "Freedom of Speech". There is a difference between forcing one's views on another, by way of captive audience, and merely saying one's mind - where the listener is free to leave - or in this instance, to click the mouse. Right? Why or why not?

    8. Your "on another page." There exists another page, and there are images of your Prophet there. If these images are offensive on religious grounds, what difference does it make where they are placed? Wouldn't one expect a similar web-drive to remove all web content showing your Prophet's depiction? Why or why not? (See post 143, among earlier others).

    9. Don't know if you concur with Ala's cut and paste, contending this is western imperialism at work (see post 153). I don't believe that to be true. (See post 156). Is this merely western imperialism at work?

    Ok, enough for now. I hope that these questions are addressed on the merits, this time around. I ask them in sincerity, I do not shrink from my own faults in reasoning, and do not shrink from asking for a straight answer.

    Entirely my choice, of course, to spend these inordinate amounts of hours here doing this, when I should be writing elsewhere. But I really don't want to waste time. If what we end up with is not based in solid discussion, grounded in fact, there isn't any use. A straightforward consideration of the above questions would be appreciated.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 17, 2008 IP
  19. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #199
    Nothing. Close to 200 posts, all kinds of vague statements, a concise restatement of the many direct questions throughout and it comes to this?

    Kind of get the feeling that whatever will serve for the moment, rather than a true statement of standing principles.

    By the way - to clarify - I think Guerilla and I have done quite a bit of discussion on this, and with respect to my fellow member, we probably both feel we have said our peace. I really was hoping Gauharjk and others who have made some contentions known would come forward to directly address the questions I have raised throughout this tome.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 17, 2008 IP
  20. ala101

    ala101 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #200
    the link is there at the end of the quote..
    maybe you mean , it is some guys or people , but not islam coz islam has never ever drawn an image of a holy figure like prophet Mohammad pbuh.
    These days i have been busy with my graduation project, that's why sometimes i login to see new posts but donnot reply at the same time.
    I wonder which of your answers have really solved the issue !
    iam Sunni so iam not in the position to talk about Shia, but i think Shia doesn't allow this kind of depictions..
    Even if they allow that , we have no problem with that . We are Sunni Muslims.

    sorry but are you kidding ?
    have i ever pmmed you ??!!

    I have never ever pmmed you northpointaiki.
     
    ala101, Jan 18, 2008 IP