The 'Great Satan' (as you refer to us) invented the internet, if you don't like the pictures on the internet then get off the internet.

And by the way, is there a petition that I can sign that says that we want to KEEP the pictures posted?

And wasn't these paintings painted by muslims? YES.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at February 6, 2008 5:47 PM

We Spencerdanist[cf Dr. G. Marranci] cultists DEMAND that Wikipedia IMMEDIATELY remove the PROFANE and IRREVERENT photograph of our Beloved, Benificent, Sainted Great Leader from its BLASPHEMOUS accursed webpage given to his defamation!!

Posted by: John C at February 6, 2008 5:50 PM

Ignore them, don't even acknowledge their requests. Just send them the wickipedia terms of use.
As a joke casual reference it's ok, just like the internet. For serious academic study, it's a joke, just like the internet.(although the internet is handy for porn)
I bet they change their policy, under the deluge of death threats from enthusiasts for the religion of peace. I bet they do.

Posted by: Ian at February 6, 2008 6:10 PM

Muhammad as a pirate (((P~{>

(think they'll protest this one?)

Posted by: champ at February 6, 2008 6:21 PM

Hey the picture has gone. Discretion is the better part of valour.

Posted by: johndoe at February 6, 2008 6:23 PM

.....that's an image of Muhammad dressed up as Captain Jack Sparrow (sounds less offensive).

Posted by: champ at February 6, 2008 6:24 PM

Why is Fox news referring to him as a Prophet?

Mohammed or Islamic prophet, maybe. But don't confer prophethood on him.

Posted by: Celsius at February 6, 2008 6:46 PM

It almost seems as if jihad apologists are standing by, ready to make sure their spin goes into and remains within any article pertaining to jihad and Islamic supremacism.

I'd say jihad apologists are not only standing by, but are well funded and many have tenure.

Posted by: Beagle at February 6, 2008 6:52 PM

Online encyclopedia Wikipedia has again stirred up controversy

Uh, no. Muslims have again stirred up controversy. This time it's about Wikipedia. Before it was about Salman Rushdie. And Dutch cartoons. And Theo Van Gogh. And Pope Benedict XVI. And Tasleema Nasreen.

"Thanks for respecting Muslims beliefs. Peace and Light."...

"PS. If you do not comply with our demands within 24 hours, there will be huge nuclear fireballs of heat and light over your filthy kufir cities, one by one, until you submit to Allah and grovel in agony before Him. Oh, and blessings of the holy Prophet Mohammad be upon you."

Posted by: special_guest at February 6, 2008 7:08 PM

The easiest way to avoid controversy, is to ignore it. Wikipedia should wait until the media catches hold of it - if they say something, Wikipedia can publicly denounce it and keep the pictures; if the media ignores it, so can Wikipedia.

Posted by: Blue at February 6, 2008 7:10 PM

I cant believe they havent crumbled already

Posted by: GrennBeck at February 6, 2008 7:10 PM

Zombietimes extensive Muhammed Image Archive

The Mohammed Image Archive is a compendium of images that depict Mohammed (the 7th-century founder of Islam), spanning all historical periods, cultures and genres.

The inspiration for this Archive came from the global controversy over the publication of Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and the need for a comprehensive and even-handed look at the wide variety of Mohammed depictions in Islamic and Western societies from the Middle Ages until today. It will remain online as a resource for those interested in freedom of expression. (Please note that the Arabic name "Mohammed" has over the years been transliterated into Western languages with several different spellings -- some of which you'll encounter on this site -- including Mahomet, Muhammad, and Mohamed.)

I keep this link bookmarked for occassions such as this - simply to provide documented evidence that even muslims have images of muhammed throughout the ME.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at February 6, 2008 7:34 PM

These people ought to go back to the desert and take the picture with them.

Posted by: lonewolf at February 6, 2008 8:28 PM

What is Muhammad holding in that drawing?

Posted by: champ at February 6, 2008 8:34 PM

Champ, it's the Ka'aba. The story was that the Muslims were fighting (huh?) over which tribe got the right to put the black stone in it's place at Mecca. Muhammad placed the meteorite on his jacket, and had each of the four tribes hold a corner of his jacket, and lift it together.

Why didn't Allah put it there Himself? I guess for the same reason He has to have Muslims do all His killing for Him.

Posted by: special_guest at February 6, 2008 8:49 PM

I'd like to make a few comments about Wikipedia in general, and the the encyclopedia entry on Muhammad in particular.

Wikipedia has a seedy underbelly. The "distortions" Mr. Spencer notes come about partly through writing-by-committee. Howwever, there is another factor also. Simply put, Wikipedia is ruthlessly manipulated by every possible interest group. This can include people simply trying to push vanity pages, but I'm speaking more specifically about the encyclopedia entries being edited by conspiracy theorists or people who otherwise have some kind of axe to grind.

For example, the article on the Apollo missions to the moon are perpetually under attack from people who believe the moon landings did not occur, and that there is a government conspiracy to hoodwink the public. No amount of scientific evidence or historical documentation can satisfy these people. They "work the system" using alternate accounts editing files on NASA or the Apollo landings, and they abuse Wikipedia's internal arbitration protocols to stifle opponents.

For almost any political issue you can find this sort of manipulative behavior going on behind the scenes, under the "discussion" tabs. With any controversial topic, there are people trying to "game the system" to score the advantage of controlling what is displayed.

Though the manipulation of the Apollo mission entry is pretty bad, the circumspection and duplicitousness surrounding the Muhammad entry is a thousand times worse.

Pages on Islam are constantly under attack from Muslims trying to make them conform to pro-Muslim viewpoints. The page for Muhammad himself must be under constant edit protection, or the images will be stripped from it. The discussion behind the scenes has raged for years. No matter what compromise position is proposed by non-Muslim authors, it is never good enough to placate the faith-led demand to remove the images. No matter how many times people say that Wikipedia need not conform to Muslim sensibilities, pro-Muslim authors reject it, claiming that their views must be followed.

I once tried to add a third party voice to the discussion, and was called out to be a "hater of Islam" among other things, for simply suggesting that every other major religious figure has a picture, and that Muhammad should have one as well.

Wikipedia really isn't all that important. It is not the on the front line of the propaganda war. I don't consider it a scholarly resource, and I don't consider it particularly reliable. Anyone who gets involved editing Wikipedia will surely run into the gamesmanship that I have.

Posted by: deer.valley.ed at February 6, 2008 8:54 PM

Reading the "discussion" page at Wikipedia gives hope.

In summary it is a very polite and very firm "No". These are our values and these are our rules, and we are not going to change them for you. Thank you.

That is exactly how to deal with these situations. This is exactly what needs to be said.

Posted by: special_guest at February 6, 2008 8:58 PM

deer.valley.ed, the pictures of Mohammad are still there. No, the Muslims will not relent, but the pictures are still there. They do their edit wars and sock puppets and anonymous edits, but the pictures are still there.

Posted by: special_guest at February 6, 2008 9:03 PM

Thanks, Special_Guest!

Posted by: champ at February 6, 2008 9:28 PM

Muslims should just start their own Islamic version of Wikipedia and use that. To you, your Wikipedia, and to us, our Wikipedia.

Posted by: Hugh at February 6, 2008 9:43 PM

Wouldn't that be in violation of UNHRC, and akin to genocide?

Posted by: special_guest at February 6, 2008 10:17 PM

An innoculous picture at best. They could have shown him, the 50-something year old warlord comsummating his relationship with his 9-year old child bride, Aisha, but they didn't.

Kudos to wikipedia.

The "perfect" man, indeed.

Attempted suffocation of the 1st amendement this is.

Why am I writing like Yoda speaks?

Posted by: awake at February 6, 2008 10:43 PM

I don't like Wikipedia and try to avoid it. However, I just looked up the Wikipedia entry on Robert Spencer.

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

I don't see anything objectionable there.

After simple biographical information (nothing there about him being a "Jew" or about him being anything weird), they offer brief information on "Views on Spencer and his works" (including Pipes and Carl Ernst), then they offer a brief synopsis on "Spencer's responses to critics" with two good quotes from Spencer. After that, there's a little bit more, than a list of footnotes. I fail to see anything out of order there.

Posted by: cantor at February 6, 2008 10:44 PM

Whatever one thinks of Wikipedia's accuracy, the important issue here is the stand they've taken against that petition, and those signing it.

Additionally, I liked their stand on religious honorifics.

Here's an items from their Manual of Style (Islam-Related Articles):

Quran
Holy Qur'an (or Holy Koran, Holy Quran, etc.) — recommended action is to NPOV to "Qur'an". Reason: Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia.

But, let's cut to the chase. Here's the real problem (from this section of their site):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#use_of_.22to_conquer.22

"Don't do this please. You r not alloed to Draw Picture of Muhammad (PBUH) Please Rempve them Adnan"

Response:

"You are not "alloed" to tell us what is allowed and what isn't allowed. Most of the world isn't Muslim, doesn't want to be Muslim, and would fight if Muslims tried to impose it on them. Get over it."

Posted by: PRCS at February 6, 2008 11:04 PM

Muslims should just start their own Islamic version of Wikipedia and use that. To you, your Wikipedia, and to us, our Wikipedia. Posted by: Hugh

They do. They have MuslimWiki - at least, that would deal with Mohammed as they deem fit. Ali Sina has a competing WikiIslam site, which is a project he's dedicated towards.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 7, 2008 12:08 AM

That is exactly how to deal with these situations. This is exactly what needs to be said. Posted by: special_guest

I agree. Reading the Muhammad/FAQ gives one hope. In particular:

"Images of Muhammad should be removed"

First and foremost, what seems to be the greatest issue here is the historical accuracy of the depictions of said images, as well as the feelings they invoke in all Muslims worldwide and what the effects of the above would be; the following paragraphs deal with these issues.

"It offends Muslims"

Wikipedia recognizes that there are cultural traditions among some Muslim groups that prohibit depictions of Muhammad and other prophets and that some Muslims are offended when those traditions are violated. However, the prohibitions are not universal among Muslim communities, particularly with the Shi'a who, while prohibiting the images, are less strict about it. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive.

The traditional reason given for the Islamic prohibitions on images of prophets is to prevent the images from becoming objects of worship as a form of idolatry, where the image becomes more important than the subject it represents.

However, Wikipedia uses the images of Muhammad as examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context. Therefore, there are no concerns that the presence of the images on the articles will result in the practice of idolatry among Muslims.


"Muhammad's name should be followed by (pbuh) or (saw)"
It is recommended to remove all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precedes or follows Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the Islamic prophet Muhammad is the recommended form.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 7, 2008 12:18 AM

Wikipedia locked the editing. From the looks of the conversations happening, it'll stay that way while this petition garbage goes on. This'll make all the other garbage that they've gone through look like a walk in the park. Looks like as long as followers keep telling Wiki that they can't do this, Wiki will just dig their heels in deeper.

Posted by: Kevin at February 7, 2008 12:48 AM

Infidel Pride,

The name-word, "mohammed", meaning something like "praiseworthy" in arabic, is itself an honorific title, rather than a birth name. Part of the muslim propaganda mind game is to control thoughts by controlling language (since much conscious thought is done in the words of one's native tongue). They have more recently redefined the Land of Israel as "Palestine", and its supposed indigenes as "Palestinians". They have redefined the concepts of "human rights" and "freedom" and "peace". But early in the apotheosis of the freak they call "mohammed", they instituted that exact reverential and deferential reference, "mohammed". Any thought of that freak, by anyone, would therefore and subsequently be framed in reverence.

Wikipedia staff might therefore wish to remove the name "mohammed", itself, from wikipedia.

I would suggest replacement with the phrase "the paedophile prophet of islam". It is perhaps a bit windy, yet is also incomplete in its description of the pillaging rapist and control freak ("mohammed") worshipped by his cultist followers (muslims). But at least it starts to describe him realistically.

Posted by: del at February 7, 2008 1:02 AM

Why aren't JWers constantly monitoring the key entries in Wikipedia and battling there to maintain a semblance of the truth? Entries such as jihad, Islam, sharia, dhimmitude, Banu Qurayza, Islamic slavery, Bukhari, Naskh, etc etc? Is it because we rather hang out here and whine about Islam? Because we don't know enough and let others do the doing? Or because we aren't organised? Someone, please, a response.

Posted by: dlp at February 7, 2008 1:46 AM

Muslims: create your own Wikipedia and ban images of Muhammad there.

Posted by: dlp at February 7, 2008 1:48 AM

Here's a more fitting drawing of Muhammad:

http://static.flickr.com/32/100948920_3d37f3e194.jpg

Posted by: champ at February 7, 2008 2:44 AM

One tip:

We can contribute to sanity there. For example, they were discussing the use of 'conquest' when Muhammad took over Mecca, some arguing that this would be a much too violent word to apply to a 'holy' person.

Bringing out my copy of al-Tabari, it was easy to show that the word is appropriate, even mild, when referring to the battles in the life of Muhammad.

One of the great problems of Wikipedia is the use of 'weasel words', where events are described in a matter that is technically correct, yet leads to a very misleading conclusion. Battling this is a bit of an art, but having relevant documentation at hand makes it doable.

Posted by: Henrik at February 7, 2008 2:50 AM

Is that a bomb in his hands? Well well, no wonder the cartoon saga pissed them off...they had it on his head.

Posted by: herself at February 7, 2008 6:20 AM

Thanks for respecting Muslims beliefs. Peace and Light."...

But, we DON'T "respect" Muslim beliefs. And Newsflash: We Don't Have To!

Peace and Light? Sorry, but Islam is a religion of War and Darkness...

Posted by: darcy at February 7, 2008 9:11 AM

Here's a more fitting drawing of Muhammad:

http://static.flickr.com/32/100948920_3d37f3e194.jpg

Posted by: champ at February 7, 2008 2:44 AM

Thanks for furnishing that realistic depiction of the "face" of Mohammed, champ.

I printed it and put it on my bulletin board.

Do you know what newspaper that comes from, and when?

Posted by: darcy at February 7, 2008 9:21 AM

"The name-word, "mohammed", meaning something like "praiseworthy" in arabic, is itself an honorific title, rather than a birth name."

Whoa, I did not know that, del. Thanks for that info!

So, what was "Mohammed's" REAL name, then? Adnan, lol?!

I think we should start referring to Mohammed as Adnan - maybe it'll catch on! Or, Houari or Marwan or Mohsen? Anything BUT "Mohammed" since the Profit (spelled that way on purpose) is NOT "praiseworthy."

Posted by: darcy at February 7, 2008 9:30 AM

Cantor (Hi, Remote!):

I have not looked at my Wikipedia bio in quite some time, and have no intention of doing so now, but Henrik put it best: "One of the great problems of Wikipedia is the use of 'weasel words', where events are described in a [manner] that is technically correct, yet leads to a very misleading conclusion." There were when I last looked some actual falsehoods there, but they were small things that hardly anyone would notice, such as the subject of my Master's Thesis (although that comes from an inaccurate summary at UNC). The problem is that what was said was presented in a manner so as to lead the reader to conclusions that are false in a big way.

But on the other hand, why would you, who have indulged in the same thing, notice something like that?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 7, 2008 9:50 AM

"Why aren't JWers constantly monitoring the key entries in Wikipedia and battling there to maintain a semblance of the truth? Entries such as jihad, Islam, sharia, dhimmitude, Banu Qurayza, Islamic slavery, Bukhari, Naskh, etc etc?"
-- from a posting above

Where should time be best spent? In the case of Wikipedia, is it not a sweeping-back-the-tide problem? Changes made to falsehoods are then quickly changed back. The time required, the manpower required -- how can this be done with Muslims everywhere intent on removing every bit of the truth that offends them

There are two ways to handle this. One is for the American government, and other Western governments, to have departments that, as part of their own efforts at self-defense, will have people (and computer programs) working (or whirring) full-time to keep putting back what Muslims, organized or un-organized, keep taking out. The second is for governments to mandate that certain facts about Islam were not the subject of debate but, like what is called "Holocaust Denial," are no longer to be permitted because of their malevolent effect.

Muslims are offended when Infidels find out, for example, about the contents of the Qur'an and the "authentic" Hadith that among themselves they know only too well, Muslims are are worried about Infidels learning about the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf, or the attack on the Khaybar Oasis, or the decapitation of the Banu Qurayza or the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya as a model of "Muslim treaty-making" or a few dozen other important events in the life of Muhammad - which Muslims do not, among themselves, deny but are perfectly ready not only to accept but even to find ways to praise. Well, that's too bad. Infidels have a right to learn, and to have posted, on the world-wide web that is a product of Western technology and Western ingenuity, the truth of the contents of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.

Government fiat would do this most efficiently and without having to go over the same ground again and again. But if some are unwilling, then let the governments of the West employ a small army of computer experts whose task it will be is to ensure that the truth cannot continue to be removed or hidden, and will be able to conduct the cyber-war of self-defense that is now being conducted, I gather, mostly by private parties who, while they are brilliant and tireless, simply can be overwhelmed by the relentless and numbers of a sinister enemy.

Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2008 10:08 AM

if Muslims are offended. Big deal, Muslims are always getting offended by everything. They are champion whiner and complainers, and when they're in charge. They are champion tyrants

Posted by: sheepdog at February 7, 2008 11:25 AM

Zombietimes extensive Muhammed Image Archive - I really liked the pictures of the prophet watching the punishment of women in Hell. Allah is soooo merciful and compassionate.

Just wondering - is there a link between sado masichism and the practice of Islam?

Posted by: tanstaafl at February 7, 2008 12:37 PM

"Cantor (Hi, Remote!)"

Awesome!! Welcome back, and thank you, Robert!

Posted by: champ at February 7, 2008 1:01 PM

"I request all brothers and sisters to sign this petitions so we can tell Wikipedia to respect the religion and remove the illustrations," the creator of the petition at The Petition Site asks. [...]

I request all brothers and sisters get a life, and refuse to let your immams make sweat the small stuff. Otherwise, they're likely to box you into a corner that we'll all have to fight our way out of.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at February 7, 2008 1:41 PM

"The problem is that what was said [in Wikipedia about Robert Spencer when Spencer read it in the past] was presented in a manner so as to lead the reader to conclusions that are false in a big way."

That may well be true. All I'm saying is I didn't see it when I looked yesterday. Perhaps some conscientious person helped, in the meantime, to clean up the Robert Spencer entry. The problem with Wikipedia is that tomorrow, some Islam apologist can go in there and alter details. Given Wikipedia's influence -- as well as its equal opportunity capabilities -- it seems a front worth keeping an eye on.

Posted by: cantor at February 7, 2008 2:34 PM

Thanks, champ!

Posted by: cantor at February 7, 2008 3:23 PM

Yeah! I had NO idea that you were cantor, so it's GREAT having you back on board. BTW, terrible smack down on thesaracen the other day. I read your comment to him and thought "who IS that funny guy?", I should have known :-)

Posted by: champ at February 7, 2008 3:46 PM

Remove the petition to remove the illustrations of Muhammad from Wikipedia
petition overview | letter

Target:
To request wikipedia editors to respect other peoples freedom of speech
Sponsored by:
Free People in a Free World
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia

This is to protect anyones right to view images or any entity without influence or threats from religion or government. If said religion or government does not like the content, it is free to not view or to punish it's followers to do the same.

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2008/02/sign-up.html

Posted by: shiva at February 7, 2008 3:55 PM

NOW HERE IS THE REAL LINK

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/remove-the-petition-to-remove-the-illustrations-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia

Posted by: shiva at February 7, 2008 4:06 PM

cantor - I meant to say "TERRIFIC" smack down, not terrible (oops!).

Posted by: champ at February 7, 2008 4:18 PM

Wiki is handy for odd and uncontroversial data (Gilligan's Island trivia; notes on boson particles, etc.), but not dependable for accuracy on anything that attracts partisan crankiness, and the site is fatally prone to the defacements of revisionist liars, scurrilous trolls, conspiratorial loons, unshelled nutjobs, malicious weasels and paranoid imbeciles.

However, I applaud and salute their stand against censorship of images to pander to intolerant theocratic maniacs.

(Especially laughable, in this instance because, these Muslim "iconoclasts" fail to grasp that Muslims, themselves, painted these Mo images.)

*~@):~{>

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 7, 2008 6:35 PM

There are two ways to handle this. One is for the American government, and other Western governments, to have departments that, as part of their own efforts at self-defense, will have people (and computer programs) working (or whirring) full-time to keep putting back what Muslims, organized or un-organized, keep taking out. The second is for governments to mandate that certain facts about Islam were not the subject of debate but, like what is called "Holocaust Denial," are no longer to be permitted because of their malevolent effect.
-- from a posting above

I'm not confident in any government to perform these tasks. Why the confidence when encroaching governmental dhimmitude suggests that this needs to be an independently organised initiative?

Posted by: dlp at February 7, 2008 6:53 PM

Hugh-

About Mohammedans creating their own info site:

Their's would have to be called "Wudupedia".

Wiki is too Tiki.

By the way, the "wudupedia.com" name/web address is available for anyone with $11 -and a sense of humor- to register.

(I have too many other domains cooking at the moment to juggle it.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 7, 2008 9:06 PM

For Mohammedans, I think the appropriate domain name would be "pedopedia.com".

Posted by: cantor at February 7, 2008 9:56 PM

darcy,

It is not clear what the freak's "birth name" was. According to muslim sources, I think he was known as a son of his father, ie ibn abdallah, although I kinda like sunuvabint instead.

Then again, it is not entirely clear that this freak actually existed. Some have more recently suggested that he was concocted decades later and that the koran is a gargled, garbled, and regurgitated Aramaic Christian lectionary, or book of readings for prayer.

Posted by: del at February 8, 2008 12:06 PM

Hi,
I'm not sure you've seen this, but there is now a petition to remove the petition :)
I've just signed it and left a comment.
For anyone interested in doing so, this is the link :

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/remove-the-petition-to-remove-the-illustrations-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia

In case you've already seen it, please ignore my post.

Posted by: Infidelia at February 9, 2008 6:40 PM