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
    #201
    Still not answering the questions then ala?
    SEMrush
     
    stOx, Jan 18, 2008 IP
    SEMrush
  2. gauharjk

    gauharjk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    135
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #202
    I would like to attempt to answer your questions.

    Numerous passages in the Quran prohibit idolatry, and worshipping statues or pictures. It is true, that the Holy Quran does not mention pictorial prohibition of the Prophet. It was the decision of the prophet, so that people may not start worshipping him instead of worshipping God. That was good thinking by the Prophet.

    I believe it may no longer be necessary. But it has become an important part of our culture. Muslims worship a God who has no form. If the images of the Prophet were in circulation, then we would be committing a sin by assigning a partner to God. It is said in the Holy Quran, that all messengers, including Prophet Muhammad, were humans, and that God has no partners.

    Shias have, in the past, allowed depiction of the Prophet, I agree.

    It is true that their views are not considered, because they have violated the command of the Prophet.

    Some Shias, especially the Alawees Shias of Iraq, Iran and Syria, have distorted the Holy Quran, added their own chapters, and these people consider our Prophet's Companion "Ali", to be the real prophet.

    You know, changing any portion of the Quran, any addition or deletion, is prohibited to keep the Holy Book corruption free. But Alawee Shias broke that rule.


    No, it is not possible. I only want respect for all religions, regardless of whether it is an idol, or nature. The only problem with Wikipedia is that those images are on main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

    This page comes up first, when someone searches Muhammad. Muslims would only request that any illustrations showing the Prophet should be moved to a different page. Those who want to visit it, may do so on their own choice. But those images are insulting to Muslims when placed on the main page.

    IMO, Private organisations have that right. I believe all sources of offense should be removed in order to promote love and unity.

    It is a way of life of some people. Some people are Vegan, some only eat Kosher food, people like me prefer Halal food (If I have no alternatives, there are fatwas that allow non-halal food also).

    This is a person's personal choice IMO. The 1857 mutiny of soldiers in India began because of a similar reason.

    See, these things are considered important in this part of the world.

    No, I don't believe any such thing should happen. I know, there are extremists on both sides. I believe in mutual respect for all religions. Basically, messengers of God were good people, all of them. They brought a message of love and peace. it may be Gautam Buddha, or Lord Ram, or Moses, or any of the thousands of messengers God has sent to earth from time to time, for all people.

    Menstruating women are taboo in some way in nearly all cultures. IMO it is wrong. These are cultural rules of primitive societies, and we should not be bothered about them. :D

    In Islam, menstruating women are free not to pray during the period of menstruation. Also, they have the freedom to skip fasting during this period.


    As we have discussed before, these rules were formed by the Prophet and his companions, possibly after studying the pros and cons of such a decision. Maybe at one point of time, the Turks found it unnecessary to enforce these rules. I am OK with it.

    Those images depict Prophet Muhammad teaching a group of people. How can that be harmful?:eek:

    Description is not something people can start worshipping. The only "motive" behind this decision was that people should worship God alone, and should not associate any partners to Him. See, today, Shias have associateed Hazrat Ali as God's partner (Source: http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/ya_allah_or_ya_ali_ya_hussain.htm)

    It is the same in Christianity, where Christains worship Prophet Jesus Christ & Mother Mary instead of God. This is the situation our Prophet wanted to avoid. That was the motive of his decision.

    Agreed. The only conflict is that those images are on the main page which purportedly declares to be sharing information about Prophet Muhammad. Let those pictures be anywhere else, except the page on which thousands of people visit everyday.

    There is nothing harmful in those pictures, in fact, those pictures symbolize the love people have for the Prophet. But most Muslims still consider it as wrong.

    I still believe Wikipedia should show some discretion. But since they are an open encyclopedia, it would be sufficient that the kind editors of that page shift those images to another page, and confine those illustrations to that page only. I do not believe those images are harmful. But some of them like South Park cartoons being featured there sure cause an uproar in our part of the world (India)

    No. I actually met a Muslim editor maintaining another page of "Images of Prophet Muhammed" on Wikipedia. We had a lot of argument, but in the end, he was right. Those images inform people, even though I personally wouldn't want to see them. I left it there.

    But publishing those pictures on the main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad is very wrong IMO.

    I tried my best to explain the general position most Muslims have. You had very valid questions, and I am happy I attempted to answer them.

    I would love to continue this discussion on this page.I know we have different viewpoints on some issues, but that is the ingredient which makes life more colourful... :D

    If everyone agreed with me, then life would get really boring, don't you think? :D
     
    gauharjk, Jan 18, 2008 IP
    wisdomtool likes this.
  3. ala101

    ala101 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #203
    1. There is authority in the Quran to follow Hadith,
    what is Haram in Hadith has same prohibition value of what has been prohibited in Quran.
    what is indicated in Hadith is to be taken literally or contextually .
    - If we want to consider this issue literally : there are several Hadiths that scholars depended on them in order to say the Fatwa of prohibiting depicting prophet Mohamamd pbuh.
    - If we want to consider the issue contextually , in that time of history there was painters at the time when our prohet lived, nobody has ever drawn or depict our prophet at all .


    2. That's completely wrong about Sunni muslims.
    All Sunni refuse those depictions .

    3. This point is outside the discussion so what i like to say is that idols in islam are Haram, it is forbidden to make an idol of any holy figure in islam.
    We know that there are idols everywhere in the world. And we also know that there are depictions and offensive materials against islam anywhere , but here we are talking about an image displayed on wikipedia not a mambo jumbo website.

    4. Yes.




    This is different issue that you seem to misunderstand my friend :)
    Muslims have to eat halal food, but others have not .. it is simple , and if others (non-muslims) are eating food that is not halal to us then this is not offending to us in anyway .


    who can forbid women from Menstruating ?
    actually in islam Menstruating women donnot have to pray or fast till they end the Menstruating .
    If , a muslim, did something that is not allowed then that something remains not allowed in Islam. Even if that thing is history now.
    It is ok to have the physical description of our prophet , we have and we know this description correctly as it has been mentioned by our prophet's friends and that description arrived to us by certified correct ways with nothing incorrect.

    Freedom of speech doesn't means insulting others, as gauharjk said before.
     
    ala101, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  4. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #204
    The only link at the end of the "imperialism" was to "rosywounds." This was the the only material on that page:

    Your post is a non-answer.

    I apologize on the PM. I received a PM entitled Ala101, and mistook that for being sent by you.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  5. ala101

    ala101 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #205
    that link is for a wiki editor , i took it from the talk page of prophet Mohammad pbuh article , so if you visit it you will see the quote at the end of the page under the title "Removing the depiction of Mohammad"
    I thought that link will direct to that position on the wiki not to his profile. Sorry about it.

    no problem at all.
     
    ala101, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  6. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #206
    Thank you for the reply, Gauharjk. The basic trouble I have with your view, is that you have basically said your view, and the view of others who share it, is right, and others, such as the shia you mention as heretics, is wrong. And while I understand your sensitivity to this, the implications of what you are asking is very grave, to me. The world doesn't operate by adhering to one particular codus - and again, there are those who view these respectful images as exemplar of Muhammed's life, and it is a disservice to them to ignore their view.

    Secondly, I'd like to ask - do you know what your statement:


    Really means? Again, there isn't a thing extant in the pool of human cultural or artistic work that doesn't offend someone, somewhere. So, this is my trouble with your contention - to follow it out, there would be no works to show. I cannot support this.

    There are other points remaining, for me, but it really does come down to this, at least for me.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  7. gauharjk

    gauharjk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    135
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #207
    I was only talking about Alawee Shias, not all of them. My grandmother is a Shia, married to my grandfather, who is an Orthodox Sunni. His son, who is my uncle, is an Ahle Hadees man. See, I am his grandson, a Tabliki Sunni. We have beliefs which are a little different in detail. But we live together, we love each other.

    But Alawee Shias have actually corrupted the Quran. Just look up google.
    http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/ya_allah_or_ya_ali_ya_hussain.htm

    I understand your point that the images were drawn out of respect and admiration. My only point is that those images should be shifted to some other page. That would ease a lot of tensions.

    I agree with your point. I was only talking about private organisations.

    Private organisations, like private schools, clubs, discos, workplace, have their own code of ethics, their own rules of conduct, their own culture. They are free to chose IMO.

    Internet is a public place, and I have learnt to respect other's viewpoints, many of which I do not subscribe to. But I respect people for who they are. I have no control over anything other than my actions, and do not wish to control anything else either.

    The only point I'd like to make is that Wikipedia should shift those illustrations to some other pages. Thats why there is a petition.
     
    gauharjk, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  8. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #208
    My issue with the hadith, as with all books as the source of faith (such as the Bible): It is either to be taken literally, or not. If literally, there is no interpretation - it is what it is, and so things I find troubling - such as the discussion I had with Gauharjk, re: the killing of unbelievers - would still apply today. If open to "contextual" interpretation, then all of it must be open to interpretation - there is no hybrid between literal and contextual interpretation. Picking and choosing from between the two is problematic.

    I'm guessing your saying that Gauharjk is wrong, and that any Sunni who believes as he is saying are not "true" Sunni? If so, again, I take issue with taking an action (in this case, removing the images) based on one view, while others feel differently.

    This doesn't make any logical sense to me. You are asking people to join a web demand to Wiki, to remove images because they offend you and those who share your view. Idols are offensive to Islam. There are countless other things in the public world, housed in private organizations, that are offensive to Islam. It must follow from your view, that anything offensive to Islam, as you declare it to be, anywhere, must be removed. Again, it necessarily follows from your position. There is no mitigating second path.

    4. Yes.

    Which I find ridiculous, for reasons stated in my reply to Gauharjk. Since there virtually isn't a piece of material in the world today that doesn't offend someone, somewhere, your logic demands empty bookstores, websites, museums. DP for instance - a small sample of this P&R forum, for example. My impassioned defense of the preservation of artistic and cultural works is offended by your position here. Your views should be removed as offensive to me. You cool with that? On into infinity.


    My point is that non-halal food is proscribed by Islam. By the logic of your argument here, anything proscribed by Islam should not be in the public weal. But I understand and accept your point.


    I wasn't speaking about Islam, necessarily. I am saying that there exist taboos everywhere, for many different things. By the logic of your contention, taboos are to dictate how private organizations conduct their affairs. Since many cultures prohibit women from being in public during their menstrual period, museums, for instance, should post guards at the door to ensure no woman in menses is allowed in. This necessarily follows from the logic of your stand.


    And, again, this is problematic. It was Islam, until someone said it wasn't. Your interpretation is but one. Why should the world conform to what you declare as the only "true" interpretation? See also my discussion of literal/figurative with respect to the Hadith, above.

    This is also in reply to Gauharjk's response re: description. I said this above, and I'll repeat it now:

    Freedom of speech doesn't means insulting others, as gauharjk said before. [/QUOTE]

    It actually means what it means. Beyond, many don't find this insulting, but edifying.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  9. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #209
    OK, Gauharjk, again, thank you for the considered reply. But I don't think it stops there. Do you honestly believe moving the images to the "depictions" page will solve anything? Take a look at Ala's reply - anyone accepting this isn't Muslim, and any images, anywhere, are offensive. And the problem starts anew.

    Which is, at the heart of it, a very basic problem I have with this whole thing - a million people, a million viewpoints. No one must needs steward those viewpoints, except the viewer. One can click.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  10. ala101

    ala101 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #210
    This issue is correct , iam with you .
    But actually islam scholars who say fatwa have all agreed that drawing or depictions of prophet Mohammad is prohibited.
    not really, as i said " All Sunni " maybe the correct is to say "Most Sunni" and like so me and Gauharjk are agreeing to each other :)

    idols are offensive to islam if muslims worship them . We have no problem with others if they have idols or if they decide to worship them. That doesn't offense me at all coz that's freedom of worshiping, freedom of religion. I have quoted some verses from Quran in a previous post that explains this.
    look , our islamic rules are applicable on us, muslims , and the rest of the world has the freedom to follow whatever religion they want.
    But the point here is that we want others to respect our belief same as we do.
    Our belief in prohibiting depictions of our prophet means that no depictions of him should be displayed on a page that is on wiki to teach ppl about Mohammad pbuh.
    :)
     
    ala101, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  11. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #211
    Admitting that the Hadith are open to interpretation, you admit that this is a tradition, following from fatwa, conceived by men in their interpretation. There have been fatwa for many other things - for example, killing an author (Rushdie) for being deemed blasphemous - and so I would say, once the window of "interpretation" is opened, it is opened; there is no "partially" opened. And so, here, why anyone should take an action based on anyone else's interpretation seems problematic, to me.

    There is a world apart from "all sunnis" and "most sunnis." Once you admit some don't, you ignore their view, should we hold to your contention.

    Please provide the information you previously posted, explaining the issue of idolatry.

    You are avoiding the implications you have made, of saying - "yes, anything that offends - remove it." I repeat my contention:

     
    northpointaiki, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  12. ala101

    ala101 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #212
    There is an interpretation in Hadith .
    But the issue of depicting Mohammad pbuh doesn't have any interpretation Hadiths .
    Islam scholars have agreed on the same fatwa of forbidding any depiction of Mohammad pbuh.

    Well, Sunni muslims follows Quran and Sunna (Hadith) so that means they believe in Hadith , Hadith says it is forbidden to depict the prophet Mohammad, so this means all Sunni prohibit depictions of prophets.
    Now when we say "Most of Sunni" that doesn't mean some Sunni (the rest) allow such depictions .
    here you are :

    109. The Disbelievers

    No , my logic doesn't demand that at all.
    We know that there are a lot of offending materials in the world.
    But our case here when wikipedia is that it is a public encyclopedia that is supposed to give encyclopedia information and useful information to people all round earth.
    Similar to Britannica.
    Britannica has information about our prophet Mohammad pbuh but doesnt show any depiction about him.
     
    ala101, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  13. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #213
    You're really just repeating yourself, Ala, but you aren't answering anything. I don't want to merely repeat the questions again - sorry.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  14. ala101

    ala101 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #214
    accept my regards
    :)
     
    ala101, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  15. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #215
    I'm sorry - I didn't acknowledge it. Sincerely, thank you for the information on idolatry.

    But I don't feel anything was answered.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  16. Will.Spencer

    Will.Spencer NetBuilder

    Messages:
    14,789
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    375
    #216
    These two statements are in conflict.

    In the first, you claim that you have no interests in forcing your beliefs upon other people.

    In the second, you go back to trying to force other people to follow your beliefs.

    If you don't like pictures of your god, don't make them. But please, stop trying to tell civilized people how to behave.
     
    Will.Spencer, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  17. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #217
    A thing just occurred to me. If you cannot show pictures of him, did he really even exist?
     
    Mia, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  18. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #218
    I would ask why a picture of a prophet is so important if he was just a prophet? Why would people worship the picture? I don't understand that line of thinking. To give mohamud status equal to god by saying that you can't have a picture of him is a form of worship. You worship mohamud as if he was god and equal to god, yet saying he isn't.

    Now I am confused...
     
    debunked, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  19. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #219
    It's kinda like the over importance of the Virgin.. If you are not Catholic, you'd swear that Catholics worship the virgin... Maybe Muhammad was a virgin or something.. Who knows..:rolleyes:
     
    Mia, Jan 18, 2008 IP
  20. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #220
    I don't think that is the case, they like bill clinton for similar reasons they like mohamud. Notice that so many people in certain parts of the country love bill clinton, and if you ask why it has to do with how he gets the women?

    Ya....
     
    debunked, Jan 18, 2008 IP