wikipedia does not respect religion

if you believe that holocaust was a real event , then why holocaust deniers are being arrested ? where is the "Free of Speech" ? they should be free to believe that it is fake right ?

it is forbidden in islam to burn or bomb an embassy . Islam is a religion of peace not war. it taught us how to live in peace with other people with other beliefs on earth . We respect them and they do the same to us.. that's why we live in peace for example in my country , Jordan.

 

Yup, you can do that... but that's about what I'd expect from a religious extremist.

So now since Wikipedia's breaking some kind of "law" that applies only to Muslims, you're willing to completely destroy it, aren't you? And if I were to put some historical paintings, like the ones shown on wiki, in my house, you'd bombard my peaceful home (not with "hundreds of postings" but with real explosives) wouldn't you? Nothing too surprising here.

I mean, all my life I've seen Islam as a peaceful religion and a way of life but when that same concept of religion is provoking you to be destructive, it simply means that you, as a person, don't know where to draw the line.

And about the Piss Christ, it's artistic expression. You can never revoke a person's right to express himself. And no religion or law can ever tell me not to express myself regardless of whether or not I offend anybody. I have every right to offend you, speak ill of you or whatever I want to do as long as I'm not shoving it in your face. It's like, you don't like what I'm doing, don't read my stuff or listen to what I'm saying. So if Wikipedia offends you, don't read it anymore.

Now, I really think that your "bombarding wikipedia" idea won't be much of a success because all you haters would get banned before you know it. You think Wikipedia can't handle a bunch of extremists who take offence to every frivolous addition to their website? Well, good luck buddy.

But, what I'm trying to stress here is that if you don't like the Prophet's pics on Wikipedia, make a petition (which already seems to have been done). If your petition isn't accepted (within legal bounds), then it means there's nothing you can do about it. Get over it. There's more to life than spamming the most extensive and respected human knowledge base to ever exist.

Peace be with you.

 

Ala (I also have an Omani friend by the name of Ala ), I understand perfectly that Islam is all about peace and I'm very happy about Jordan being a peaceful place.

But don't you think that Islamic laws should be restricted to Muslims alone? We're not talking murder or rape or any serious crime here. We're talking about an exclusivity here. And moreover, the pictures on Wikipedia are paintings which definitely have historical and intellectual value. Why should Wikipedia remove those when they're not bound to do it? And wait, why should Muslims be offended? It isn't done to offend anybody... it's only done to educate the world, tell people that paintings of the Prophet (whether accurate or not) do exist. And if they were removed, wouldn't that be like hurting free education?

 

godofwriting, you are welcome to visit Jordan anytime my friend . Specially now we have 1 of the new 7 wonders of the world (Petra)

I agree with u , muslims laws are for muslims.
But in this wikipedia case we are talking about a page on wikipedia called "Muhammad"
Which means it is supposed to introduce certified correct info about our prophet . Not fake info . and the law is clear here that info should come from certified resources.
those images (illustrations) are fake .. and anybody who studies history can easily find out that coz our prophet died in 6th century where those images appeared after several centuries

 

Yes, that's definitely a point to consider. But, here's what I've found:

The description for this image says:

Though it isn't very noticeable, this clearly implies that the picture is Al-Bīrūnī's depiction, not an actual image of the Prophet. An artist's depiction is simply representation which doesn't necessarily claim to be accurate at all. In fact, on the painting, everyone looks almost the same; dressed in traditional Arab clothing. The artist, in my opinion, is simply expressing himself. He isn't trying to show people how the prophet looked like; he's simply trying to emphasize the prophet's teaching to the people.

There are a couple of other images where the descriptions and the images themselves seem to claim, to some degree, that they're portraying the Prophet with some accuracy. This, I definitely agree, is wrong and should be corrected by Wikipedia.

 

I understand your concerns, Ala. But on that same page, you see this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammed

It isn't introducing "fake info," then. It is providing educational information, which appears to be correct - no?

I do not understand your point: "the law is clear here that info should come from certified resources." The images are offensive to you, but I don't understand you're calling them "fake." Fake, to me, is a forgery, not an actual piece of art. I believe you mean "sacrilegious," or "prohibited." And you are of course free to believe and say that. But again, Wiki is a private, secular site, and can do what it wishes.

It seems to me, too, that within the Muslim world, this prohibition was not universally followed. Gauharjk, you mentioned, in another thread, that there are many things in the Qu'ran, Hadith, Sharia, that are to be followed with an understanding of historical context. Isn't it possible - given the fact that there appear many Muslim artists who have made these paintings - that this, too, is to be taken into context, that a painting showing your Prophet preaching, for example, is a respectful, and not a disrespectful thing?

 

What nation are we talking about here? There are only two country exceeding 1 billion population 1) china 2) India. And last I checked none of them is Islamic nation.

Freedom of speech is fine but when you break a country's law, you'll be punished. In Austria, it's against law, hence a crime to deny holocaust. So when you are in Austria, you are not FREE to speak against holocaust. USA or any other country has nothing to do with it. So detention of that guy is not a violation of freedom of speech, because that guy never had any freedom to speak against holocaust.

 

I understand that some artists had made some paintings during the Ottoman era out of respect and love for the Prophet. I agree.

But the main concern of the Prophet was, if such images were common, then people would start worshiping him instead of the Real God.

That is the reason why most Muslims would like to keep it that way.

Wikipedia is one of the most widely used sources of information online, and should strictly consider which illustrations of the Prophet are unnecessary, or have little educational value. For example, I'd seen a South Park Cartoon illustration named Muhammad on that same page some time ago. I'm not sure if it is still there, but it was very insulting, and not necessary.

 

I understand, Gauharjk. And I agree with your last paragraph. I don't think it's funny, or appropriate, either.

 

So you're saying that some JPEG on Wikipedia is somehow going to undermine the Qu'ran, centuries of tradition and teachings, and make sensible Muslims suddenly worship the Prophet instead of Allah?

If the actual concern was to prevent diverting of the people's attention from God to Muhammad, then within the context of debate, Wikipedia can fully publish those paintings because I don't see it as damaging to God's value among Muslims at all.

 

I too support this cause of yours., I hope wikipedia will remove the pictures of the prophet,

 

Pictures subject to this thread are not from Ottoman Era, Al-Biruni and Rashid al-Din are Persian, both lived before Ottoman. Ottomans' Islamic art is greatly respectful and respected.

 

every muslim on earth belong to the islamic nation :

so our nation is larger than 1.3 billion people.

now this is a clear contradiction my friend
so when there is a "country law" , there is no "Freedom of speech".
Ok, now iam talking about religion law , so there is no "Freedom of speech" too.

my friend , please have a look on my previous posts and see that that link on wikipedia is supposed to show info from its real certified islamic resources because it is talking about Muhammad , the prophet of islam .
We donnot accept to put fake images of him or any cartoon on that page coz that is a direct offense to our religion and to our beliefs .

the case is simple , nobody has ever got a real image of our prophet . And our religion prohibit it to anyone to draw any prophet or god .
Have you watched Mohammad, Messenger of God (film) ?

 

Thanks a lot Sarathy for your support.

 

Since you mentioned about Moustapha Akkad, I loved his film lion of the desert and is in my top 5 list ,
Sorry for being offtopic

 

Democracy isn't letting Muslims get their way each time they complain about something so incredibly trivial. Please re-read the definition.

Also your holocaust denier claims are totally irrelevant considering the U.S doesn't prosecute them. Not to mention I don't think you should be able to be prosecuted in the first place.

I still find it sad so many people are offended by a simple image. I can't think of a single image in this world that I could care about enough to complain to the person hosting it. Yeesh.

 

Mehmet, the 16th Century Ottoman picture in the wiki article, with the veiled face of your Prophet, is referenced by a fascinating article (also in the wiki article), From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development of the Prophet Mohammed's Portrayal from 13th Century Ilkhanid Miniatures to 17th Century Ottoman Art

Sorry about the extracts - the article is a PDF and I can't cut and paste - I have to type the extracts in. But I read the article and found some fascinating information. Germane to this thread:

I viewed the picture, and it clearly shows a representation of Muhammed's face. The picture hangs today in Istanbul, at the Topkapi palace. Several other paintings from this Mir'aj-name show the Prophet in full facial representation, and they all exist as part of this collection. I understand these are Ilkhanid Dynasty representations, but they do hang in modern day Turkey, as part of a public gallery. Similar paintings, with representations of the Prophet's face, apparently exist, and are shown, from the Timurid Dynasty. The article does say:

-But the fact apparently remains these earlier paintings remain publically shown, today, in Istanbul. What are your feelings about this?

Additionally, I see that beginning with the 17th-Century Ottomans, the tradition of the detailed, written descriptions of the Prophet's physiognomy were undertaken, in the Hilye. These descriptions are to the point where the color and "waviness" of his hair, his height, weight (not too fat), facial shape (longish face, ruddy skin), eye color and eyelashes, etc., are all written down, in detail. In other words, at least as I read it, a painting in words. Can you discuss why this would be, from an Islamic perspective, allowed, while a literal painting would not be?

I ask, because in a further fascinating portion of the article, it states that one reason the literal representations were not pursued since the 16th century is because of the feeling that there was no way to truly represent "the absolute" in art, namely, the transcendent quality of a holy man or woman, soul, I would say. For example, a man ages - and a painting freezes that man, and thus is a shortfall when it comes to conveying all that a man - especially a holy man, such as your Prophet - is. Now, that said - doesn't the hilye do the same thing? Don't the very detailed, image-intensive words used to describe the physical characteristics of the Prophet essentially "freeze" him in the mind's eye of the reader?

I don't understand the difference, really. I'd appreciate some thoughts.

Fascinating discussion, actually. I love the article cited above.

 

yea this is the main problem , as wiki is considered as a source of education it should show correct info . As those images are not correct of our prophet .. those illustrations were done by artists imagination.. and as in islam its not allowed to draw any prophet , and so any publishing of such any fake image is considered as offense .. same as the Denmark cartoon..

no problem whether u prefer calling those images as forgery or sacrilegious i called them fake coz i didnt use those 2 words before i read them in ur post (iam not native english).

Thanks for your post and i hope wikipedia will delete that image and respect our petition
(the number of signatures is now 32,770)

 

It CLEARLY states it's an illustration and depiction. If you have an issue with the painting not being accurate then why not complain for every other wiki listing that uses illustrations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware.png

You can start there.

 

My point, Ala, is that the article specifically discusses that this is considered taboo by the majority of Muslims. Again, by saying:

By saying this, it is very much stating your opinion.

Further, it isn't trying to comply with your sensibilities, but is there to serve as an educational resource.

Let me give an example - I hope this helps better make my point.

At a history museum, detailing the history of the Inquisition, there hangs a picture showing a nude Christ, being wrapped in his burial shroud by his mother and Mary Magdalene. Or, another example, a picture drawn from classical, Roman influence, depicting some mythical event - say, a centaur and a half-nude maiden by a sylvan lake. Below the picture, there is a description of the painting, and a discussion of its relevance to this period of history. The description reads, in part:

In other words, the painting, and the description of it, very much serve an educational purpose. I find exactly the same thing in Wiki.

Beyond, and I hate to say it - but if you find it offensive, why not just not go to the site? Again, the site isn't Muslim, it is private. In particular, the pictures there are very much a part of Islamic history, and as such, and as the article is intended to educate, what is the issue, beyond your offense at the presence of such pictures?

Beyond that, strictly speaking, though I roundly condemn the use of blatantly offensive pictures - such as Gauharjk made mention of, as did you, and that "godofwriting" seems to feel necessary to do now, in his avatar - I have no say over what a private site wishes to do with its content, any more than I do with respect to posting an image of Christ in a jar of urine. I do not find this "Piss Christ" to be "art," but self-indulgent crap. Just my taste. Others find it offensive, by their religious sensibilities. But no one has any right to demand wiki do anything. It's their site.