Muhammad at the Ka'aba, a 16th-century Ottoman miniature: posted out of hatred?
Jihad Watch reader Brian has sent me this most interesting message about the attempt by Muslim Wikipedia readers to impose Islamic sensibilities upon non-Muslims:
Mr. Spencer:I thought you might be interested in the "debate" that rages on this Wikipedia page.
The "discussion" consists of outraged Muslims periodically posting "requests" such as:
In Islam, depiction of ANY one of the prophets in the form of pictures and so forth is prohibited. What is your basis for not removing it? I'd like to amicably ask for the removal of the prophet's pictures. I find some of the pictures to be pretty insulting. I do believe that some of the pictures were posted not out of hatred and possibly simply due to the love of knowledge. But the priority would be not to offend people of different faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmihamid (talk • contribs) 09:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)This is typically met with some well-meaning and clueless Wiki-user answering good-naturedly that Wikipedia is not censored based on religious beliefs, and that many of the people who view Wikipedia are not Muslims, and therefore should not be restricted by iconoclastic Islamic precepts.
What is amazing to me is that no matter how often these "requests" are posted (see the extensive archives), and no matter how many times the same Islamic arguments are made, the affable but clueless Wikipedians fail to understand the nature of the demands being made upon them. They foolishly believe that the "request"-makers are unaware of the totalitarian nature of their demands, and blind themselves to posts like this, which seem pretty blatantly threatening to me:
please remove the pics of prophet muhammed. it is true that we can change the settings of our browser but how can we muslims be in peace when we know that some muslims and even non muslims look at those pictures and study them accidentally or even on purpose when we know that pictures of living things are prohibited in islam? i beg you in the name of all muslims to remove those pictures because its an insult to our prophet ant our religion. please understand our feelings. no one would appreciate someone else insulting their religion. i know in this modern world pictures are common but no matter what religion is the same and we have the right to tell you what its like in islam. as you know there are stuff from non muslim biographies of prophet muhammed too and we feel its a must to remind you that in islam this is an insult. please please think about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.130.48 (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)I thought that, if you were unaware of this discussion, it might interest you and possibly be something worth blogging about on Jihad Watch, your well-justified animosity to Wikipedia notwithstanding.
Regards,
Brian
Wickedpedia is nasty. They refuse to tell the truth about everything historical. They refuse to properly translate the part of 'The Reliance of the Traveller' where is says that clitoridectomy is mandatory. Here's an article about that. AIM is down right now but I would encourage people to try the link again later. It's a good article, and a scathing indictment of both Wickedpedia and Islamic jurisprudence and dogma, as well as of a few famous imams and Yusuf Irfan, Sheik's favorite person.
It has been rumored, and arguably verified, that Monica Crowley slept with the owner of Wickedpedia to get the fact that she's a plagiarist (several times over) removed permanently.
I just checked it yesterday and it said that Edward Said was born in Jerusalem. He's from Cairo.
I hate Wickedpedia. Who needs Big Brother when you have Muslims and useful idiot to rewrite the truth and history?
What doesn't insult or offend Muslims? They demand that we bend to their will while all the time insulting our religious teachings, our freedom of expression, our determination for equality of the sexes,our choices of food and dress,our respect for all human life. They hate much of what we stand for and yet they still demand that we respect all their religious pecularities at the same time or they will kill us.
There are and have been many depictions of their prophet Mohammed over the centuries.
See this Mohammed Image archive established after the Jyllan Posten Cartoon depicting Mohammed on the Jihadwatch website:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Imperfect as it is Wikipedia is a sort of public space and Muslims have no more right to forbid images of Muhammad there than they have to forbid the bas-relief sculpture image of Muhammad (naturally clutching his sword) on our Supreme Court building
http://archief.retecool.com/mirrordir/Mohammed%20Image%20Archive_files/scotusnfrieze.jpg
It's reassuring to know it's still there (and in their Islamic faces as it were).
This prohibition, IMO, is really a (blasphemous) veiled attempt to elevate Mo to the status of a deity since images of a person makes them (psychologically)finite and as vulnerable as any other object.
Finally, I found something useful on wickedpedia.
Mo's real name, and purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahound
It was especially connected to the belief that Muhammad was a god worshipped by Muslims, or that he was a demon who inspired a false religion
( hurry, info is being deleted as we speak, {or read})
Cluelessness or shrewd faux condescension veiled as cluelessness?
Considering the inevitable stream of vitriol awaiting if they address the ideological issues here, it may not be a bad strategy to pretend not to be aware of them.
So long as the entries are not censored, the principle of free inquiry is not affected. And the ideological issues remain to be addressed in other areas of Wikipedia.
sh007r, Heh.
Heads are exploding as we speak. Heh heh.
Since der desert-rat, child-molesting, camel-seducing, louse-ridden turbaned führer never used the web, muslims should consider internet-surfing haram, and therefore keep away from it. The same should apply to cars, planes, cell phones and all those things invented by infidels which they love so much.
Well, who am I kidding here? They always show enormous flexibility in determining what's halal and what's haram whenever using something haram suits their supremacist, nazi, racist, misogynist agenda. But they won't do it when it comes to interpreting Mein Qurampf.
Dear Brian,
I read only the first two sentences of your "most interesting message about the attempt by Muslim Wikipedia readers to impose Islamic sensibilities upon non-Muslims:" to Mr. Spencer. It was more then henuogh to trigger my right hand middle finger to click this:-
1- Wikipedia is not a stage for Jihadistic propaganda! Never was and never will be!!
2- Islamist are more then encouraged to initiata an "Jihadpedia" of their own! (Provided that the same rules will applly as on Wikipedia)! I have tons of stuff (ready on my HD)to be sent to the Chief editor of this future "Islamistic Original Work of Art and a free gift to Humanity"!!...
Please Brian,send these "Outraged Muslims" to hell and spare Robert's valuable time to be spent on what HE knows the best e.i.;-
EXTRACTING JIHADISM FROM WIKIPEDIA!!
"...how can we muslims be in peace when we know that some muslims and even non muslims look at those pictures and study them accidentally or even on purpose when we know that pictures of living things are prohibited in islam?"
Life's tough. Deal with it. Or maybe you should just consider leaving Islam and joining the modern world. That would solve a lot of your problems.
"i beg you in the name of all muslims to remove those pictures because its an insult to our prophet ant our religion. please understand our feelings."
Well, my dog has feelings too, but he doesn't make the mortgage payments around here. Sorry.
To:-
Proud_Kafir7908
===================
I like your comment.
You know how to use words!
Icould not found better.
JewishOdysseus, my guess is that you're right. Feigned cluelessness and innocence are sometimes very useful defensive strategies in dealing with irrational people. Anyone on the receiving end hates this kind of behavior, of course, assuming their BS detector is working and they detect it, but in the present situation it may be just the right response.
Did you know that at the battle of Tours, it was 50%likely the Muslims just ran out of falafuls and then went home? Wiki teaches that.
And this week I learned the Muslims destroyed the Spanish Armada, not the British. Amazing world.
Abuamnon
There is a Mohammedan Wikipedia
http://www.muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php/Main_Page
"..how can we muslims be in peace when we know that some muslims and even non muslims look at those pictures and study them" ?
Some of us are offended by muslims sensibilities. Some of us are offended that muslims think they have the right to impose thoughts and the restriction of thoughts on folks who live in lands where freedom of speech and expression are as natural as calling a politician a hypocrite. If there are things your minds cannot handle please look elsewhere. Pull the hijabs, burkhas and turbans right down over your eyes too and if you cant do that at least please shut up about it. Please notice I am not insisting you shut up. No threats, no demonstrations. Just a suggestion. Thanx.
"Thus, Muhammad is mentioned, as Mahāmada, in III.3.3.5-27. The passage portrays him as a dharmadūṣaka ("polluter of righteousness"), a preceptor of paiśācadharma ("ghoulish religion"), and a reincarnation of Tripurāsura, a demon whom Lord Shiva will destroy again."
"The belief that Muslims worshipped Muhammad was common in Medieval Europe. According to Bernard Lewis, the "development of the concept of Mahound started with considering Muhammad as a kind of demon or false god worshipped with Apollyon and Termangant in an unholy trinity [in the song of Roland]. Finally after reformation, Muhammad was conceived as a cunning and self-seeking imposter."
"Mohammedan (also spelt Muhammadan, Mahommedan, Mahomedan or Mahometan) is a term used as both a noun and an adjective meaning belonging or relating to either the religion of Islam or to that of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The term is now largely superseded by Muslim, Moslem or Islamic, but was commonly used in Western literature until at least the mid-1960s. (See for instance the second edition of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage by HW Fowler, revised by Ernest Gowers (Oxford, 1965)). Muslim is more commonly used today than Moslem, and the term Mohammedan is generally considered archaic or in some cases even offensive."
Mohammedanism is considered offensive...hahahahaha, no it is actually the truth when referring to Muslims.
Infidel Pride, thanks for the link to MuslimWiki.
Scanning through the site is liking taking a stroll through an alternate universe! Check out the article on Christopher Columbus. Did you know that his visit to America was preceded by Muslims, who first landed there in 1312?
"liking taking" = "like taking"
It would be really nice if Muslims stopped forcing their religious views down everyone's throat, telling others what they can or cannot say or do about Islam. Their "rights" end where my rights begin.
Anyways I'm glad Wikipedia doesn't cave in to their unreasonable demands.
Oh, but they do, Abad. Check out my first post on this thread. Check out anything historical on Wickedpedia. Try "Yom Kippur War," for one. Did you know that the Arabs won it instead of getting their asses handed to them by the Israelis?
The anti-jihad movement will not make any progress until the majority of people in the world understand how Islam wants to completely control their lives.
Although I have to say these particular "requests" are pretty mellow compaired to other "requests" I have seen from the Religion Of Peace, the story is the same.
Comon' people....wake up!
Next, there should be a sequel to Fitna that has a background image of that one classical Christian illustrator's depiction of Mohammed in Hell.
Heads will roll.
Outside of Islam we are often given the choice whether or not to view an image of human life brought low. It about our sensitivity. What is all the fuss about people of Islam being extended the same respect?
David, given the first part of your post where you mention "choice," your question at the end doesn't quite fit. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should not post the images in question?
Except when it's child pornography for furthering the jihad, huh?
"we know that pictures of living things are prohibited in islam?"
Don't forget the beheading videos. Those seem to be halal. Taped stonings also seem to fall within this exception.
Marwan'sDaughter,
Maybe it's because the living thing is about to become dead.
No, wait--that wouldn't include the ten Mohammedans in the background, chanting, in a tone more appropriate to orgasm, "Allahu Akbar".
Imagine that: muslims being outraged. I am just amazed. Wow. Wow.
I never go to wikidpedia...But I did go to a link provided and found out that Mohammads real name is Mahound...Now I will have to start referring to Mohammadans as Mahoundians. I like the sound of Mahoundians better, has the word 'hound' in it,
Ma-hound...My-dog...
The founder of Islam is MY-dog...
What a revelation that is, I never knew...
I guess I will have to quit feeding him left over pork chops...
Allah was so kind to bring this to my attention...
ANT? Muhammad was an ant?!!! LOL!
"...its an insult to our prophet ant our religion."
Posters of 'marytrs' everywhere.
Posters of the "Magnificent Nineteen".
Posters and tee-shirts of Osama bin Laden.
And paintings and posters of imams on every building.
It's ok when they want it to be.
East is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet. Peacefully, that is.
Eastview,
When presenting a mutilated human body, MSNBC & others will often warn that the viewer may prefer not to click and hence view the image. I would give the same choice regarding images of the prophet, but certainly not of me or other humans.
It is a different time; images don't really connote the same things that they did centuries ago, except of course, to those who manipulate by presenting themselves as transcending time.
David, got it, thanks. If you go to the Wikipedia link in the story, then view the comments, you'll see that your suggestion is extensively discussed, and from what I can discern has, in fact, been implemented. This doesn't seem to be enough for some Muslims, however, who want the offending pictures removed completely. If you read the full set of comments at Wikipedia you can sense the mounting frustration of the editors as the discussion escalates. For the record, I'm behind Wikipedia's editorial policies and practices.
Quite so. As you can see from the excerpt Robert posted above, the issue is not whether Muslims are forced to view the images (they are not), but that they don't want ANYONE viewing the images.
I imagine people are aware of it, but you may be interested in wikiislam (http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Main_Page), a wiki devoted to free criticism of Islam.
Foolster41, thanks for the link to WikiIslam. This is much more interesting than the propagandistic MuslimWiki provided by Infidel Pride in the 1:31 PM post.