| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"The Prophet." Everyone knows who that is. No need to say "Muhammad." No need, above all, to say "the Islamic Prophet." Not over at the reliably dhimmi Observer, which is, after all, an arm of the Guardian.
Anyway, while I respect this "defiance," ordinarily talking about Wikipedia defying anything is silly. Wikipedia doesn't defy. For the most part it is a sandbox with no grownups. Anyone can come in with a can of spray paint and "vandalize" any topic he chooses. Just the other day I was alerted to the fact that on my ridiculous bio there, a poster had added "died 2008" after "born 1962." Classy! It's gone now, but it demonstrates anew how worthless Wikipedia really is, despite its good stand on this issue. It is too easy to sow disinformation (and, in my case, make threats) there.
Still, the refusal to kowtow is refreshing.
"Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet," by Caroline Davies for The Observer (thanks to Davida):
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopaedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.
The images at the centre of the protest appear on most of the European versions of the web encyclopaedia, though not on Arabic sites. On two of the images, Muhammad's face is veiled, a practice followed in Islamic art since the 16th century. But on two others, one from 1315, which is the earliest surviving depiction of the prophet, and the other from the 15th century, his face is shown. Some protesters are claiming the pictures have been posted simply to 'bait' and 'insult' Muslims and argue the least Wikipedia can do is blur or blank out the faces.
Such has been the adverse reaction, Wikipedia has been forced to set up a separate page on its site explaining why it refuses to bow to pressure and has also had to set up measures to block people from 'editing' the pages themselves.
In a robust statement on the site, its editors state: 'Wikipedia recognises 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 Shia 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 US state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed because people find them objectionable or offensive.'...
Posted by Robert at February 17, 2008 8:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
amazing Wikipedia actually has the backbone to stand up to Muslim whining and crying and intimidation tactics
Posted by: doglover![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 17, 2008 8:57 AM
Now, would Google do the same, if faced with Muslim demands to remove images of Muhammad from its database?
Posted by: Vee at February 17, 2008 9:23 AM
I have a new respect for Wikipedia.
Posted by: darcy at February 17, 2008 9:25 AM
I'm not suprised by this at all. Wikipedia could not function if it conceded to any insane demands from political or religious groups, and the users probably wouldn't be very happy. For the most part Wikipedia's content is determined by its users, and not by the people who run it.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at February 17, 2008 10:12 AM
Why are muslims such hipocrates?
Why is it not ok to show images of mohammed, yet it is ok for almost all muslim men to have mohammed as their first name?
Surely that should be blasphemous to them aswell???
NIV Bible - Matthew 24:51 "...and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
at February 17, 2008 10:22 AM
....I think the Muslims are ashamed to admit that the images of Mohammad clearly show, that in reality, he was nothing more than a man...just like everyone else...nothing divine or mysterious about him....
... I particularily like the painting where MO is handling the black rock....which by all appearances appears to be a metorite, not at all unlike many such black rocks found in the Arizona desert or in Africa, Russia, or even Japan....
...a Black rock by any name is just a black rock...
....perhaps the 7th century caravan raiders were intrigued by the flaming rock as it fell from the sky....surely a sign from "Allah"....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 17, 2008 11:57 AM
Chalk one up for 'freedom of speech'. Wikipedia showed good judgment in not bowing to demands of a sect cult of Mohammad's for removal of ancient illustrations of their prophet, a restriction which should apply to the sect cult followers only and not all humanity. Freedom of art is not to be dictated for the world by any sect cult 'religion' on the basis of universal freedom of expression. If it offends them, they must not look at it, and not restrict the rest of us from looking at it.
Freedoms of speech, and art, are not up to a vote. We are free to draw any image we wish, or look at any image we wish, even if their sect cult forbids it. This freedom is universal as a human right, a universal right not reciprocated by the Moslem world. They have no right demanding removal of such freedoms.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 17, 2008 12:00 PM
Robert said
on my ridiculous bio there, a poster had added "died 2008" after "born 1962."
This is not a joke, classy or not. It is a death threat. It is an attempt to intimidate.
There is the theory of "broken windows" in law enforcement: if you don't force landlords to fix their broken windows, the neighborhood starts to look run-down, which attracts drug-dealers, which causes the murder-rate to increase. So, don't have any tolerance for the minor infractions, and you stop the major infractions.
Death threats and intimidation have no place inside a free and democratic society. They may be de riguer in Dar al-Islam, but we absolutely should not allow one bit of it here. No "Death to Those Who Insult Mohammad" posters, no "Slay the Infidel" sermons in their mosques, none of it.
I am positive that no-one will investigate this, and no-one will be punished or even warned; which will only embolden the jihadis, and force us to deal with a much larger problem.
I lack the (publishable) words to express the extent of my frustration.
Posted by: special_guest at February 17, 2008 12:18 PM
180,000 demands?
In other words there are 180,000 people out there with nothing better to do than get worked up over a stupid 'toon of Muhammad. These same 180,000 people could make better use of their time demanding an end to terrorism.
Posted by: champ at February 17, 2008 12:55 PM
I avoid Wikipeia.
I read somewhere that every mosque in Arabia had it's own black rock pre-Mohammad, Maybe Robert or someone could throw some light on that...
Posted by: duh_swami at February 17, 2008 1:22 PM
. For the most part it is a sandbox with no grownups. Anyone can come in with a can of spray paint and "vandalize" any topic he chooses. Just the other day I was alerted to the fact that on my ridiculous bio there, a poster had added "died 2008" after "born 1962."
If I may?
Wikipedia has flaws in any area as contentious as the discussion of Islam always is, but apart from that it is excellent. In science and in much of history and philosophy, the scholarship is often surprising and an excellent way to get started on a new subject. Michael Shermer, head of the Skeptic's Society, ran an analysis of it, and found most of the material better than Britannica.
Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at February 17, 2008 1:27 PM
Wikipedia "has also had to set up measures to block people from 'editing' the pages themselves."
If I were them, I would rethink the whole enterprise: they surely have enough money to hire a staff of college graduates and/or grad students, whose duty would be to vet all entries and check all sources of each article. In addition, they would put out the official warning that whenever any entry is found to have two false pieces of information, then "measures to block people from 'editing' the pages themselves" would be permanently put in place, and furthermore that the "editors" who had contributed the false info would be banned.
Posted by: cantor at February 17, 2008 1:33 PM
Robert said
on my ridiculous bio there, a poster had added "died 2008" after "born 1962."
This is not a joke, classy or not. It is a death threat. It is an attempt to intimidate. --special_ guest
Yeah, when I read that I felt so angry. Whoever did that is a human the world would be better off without. Funny - there's a lot of those.
Posted by: darcy at February 17, 2008 1:36 PM
The disconnect from reality here is that the images that are the subject of the maumauings are Persian and Ottoman. Excuse me but the Persians and the Ottomans were Muslims.
So to get this straight, the persian and ottoman mahometans made little pictures of their revered prophet, the "perfect" man, and now other Mahometans are crying about this?
So they are saying that the Persian and Ottomans were not as cognizant of their own religion as the people of today, who are hundreds of more years removed from the source?
Or maybe this is a duel between brands of Mahometanism? A Wahabbi might see a blasphemous image where an Ottoman might see an idealized illustration?
As far as I am concerned the protests are more a symptom of people with too much time and leisure on their hands, as the old saying goes, "idle hands are the devils playthings."
Posted by: stickman at February 17, 2008 2:37 PM
Observer: "Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet"
Good.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at February 17, 2008 3:58 PM
GOOD
Posted by: ooddballz at February 17, 2008 5:35 PM
I agree, stickman. This is a case of Muslims complaining about a piece of art created by other Muslims.
Makes no sense to me.
Posted by: tanstaafl at February 17, 2008 6:51 PM
"The Prophet." Everyone knows who that is. No need to say "Muhammad." No need, above all, to say "the Islamic Prophet." Not over at the reliably dhimmi Observer, which is, after all, an arm of the Guardian.
And with what robust defiance was this story reported in the utterly non-Dhimmi American press?
Oh wait. It wasn't reported at all. Ooops.
Posted by: Britvic at February 17, 2008 7:52 PM
Its hard to imagine 180,000 computer literate moslems, let alone 180,000 also be motivated to complain.
I expect the complaint would be orchestrated by clerics, but it looks more like a hack or somebody's script witting handiwork.
either way smells like dog dodo.
at February 17, 2008 9:47 PM
special-guest:"Death threats and intimidation have no place inside a free and democratic society.
Posted by: ewha1 at February 17, 2008 10:02 PM
Well said, special-guest
Posted by: ewha1 at February 17, 2008 10:03 PM
Would these people protesting against depiction of Mohammad's image in wikipedia agree that content of Koran is offensive to Jews, Christians, and idolators, atheists, homosexuals, people having sex without marrying, lovers of alcoholic beverages and music? Or do they think that only they have right to be offended and infidels have only right to submit to their whims. All civilized world would agree that the depiction of image is much less offensive then the severe condemnation and even ordering gruesome killing of even worst criminals, not to say about the killing innocent people.
What is next if wikipedia agrees? No one should utter the word 'Mohammad' without adding Prophet and Peace be upon him?
Has any infidel claim that they are offended by numerous idiocy practiced and preached by so many Muslims. Unfortunately even the teacher punished in Sudan says Islam is religion of peace.
at February 17, 2008 10:39 PM
Would these people protesting against depiction of Mohammad's image in wikipedia agree that content of Koran is offensive to Jews, Christians, and idolators, atheists, homosexuals, people having sex without marrying, lovers of alcoholic beverages and music and should be deleted? Or do they think that only they have right to be offended and infidels have only right to submit to their whims. All civilized world would agree that the depiction of image is much less offensive then the severe condemnation and even ordering gruesome killing of even worst criminals, not to say about the killing innocent people.
What is next if wikipedia agrees? No one should utter the word 'Mohammad' without adding Prophet and Peace be upon him?
at February 17, 2008 10:40 PM
Stickman wrote:
The disconnect from reality here is that the images that are the subject of the maumauings are Persian and Ottoman. Excuse me but the Persians and the Ottomans were Muslims.
...
So they are saying that the Persian and Ottomans were not as cognizant of their own religion as the people of today, who are hundreds of more years removed from the source?
................................
Many pre-Islamic societies in the Arabian peninsula had absolute or partial bans on images.
When Islamic hordes conquered Anatolia, Persia, and parts of India, they were attempting to suppress cultures with rich traditions of picture making. I myself wrote a paper on Mughal miniatures (Muslim Indian book illustrations and miniature paintings) when I was at University. Some of them are quite beautiful.
There were depictions of landscapes, gardens, animals, people, and even "the Prophet Mohammed" in all these cultures. Sometimes he was shown with a full (imagined) face, sometimes with a white veil, and sometimes with an oddly blank visage.
These traditions lasted from Islamic conquest through the Middle Ages. Like other "Islamic golden ages", these represented in large part an earlier, pre-Islamic tradition, and were eventually stamped out by more hard-line Muslims.
If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that all of these images of Mohammed are respectful--and yet these Muslims are still up in arms. For an image that would really set them off, there is Giovanni da Modena's 1415 fresco in Bologna's Church of San Petronio, depicting Mohammed in Hell, being tormented by demons.
Here's a link:
http://www.armyofgod.com/Mohameddemons.html
Posted by: gravenimage at February 18, 2008 12:50 AM
gravenimage said
there is Giovanni da Modena's 1415 fresco in Bologna's Church of San Petronio, depicting Mohammed in Hell, being tormented by demons
Have we sunk so low, that nowadays we don't even dare display the images of Mohammad that Muslims themselves created?
But again, kudos to Wikipedia for sticking to their policy of freedom of speech.
Posted by: special_guest at February 18, 2008 1:35 AM
After reading all the comments, my first thought is 'ROBERT, SURROUND YOURSELF WITH SECURITY, SECURITY, SECURITY!!!WE NEED YOU TO CARRY ON FOR US! WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE YOU!"
Posted by: youngtimer at February 18, 2008 12:26 PM
"Have we sunk so low?"
Yes. We have to start standing up again before it's too late.
Posted by: darcy at February 18, 2008 12:56 PM
Fanusi Khiyal: "Wikipedia has flaws in any area as contentious as the discussion of Islam always is, but apart from that it is excellent. In science and in much of history and philosophy, the scholarship is often surprising and an excellent way to get started on a new subject."
You're absolutely right. Wikipedia is, indeed, excellent in many non-controversial areas, most notably science and mathematics. In general it is an excellent resource that makes it easy for anyone to explore areas of knowledge they might not otherwise explore.
Kudos to Wikipedia for doing the right thing. If muslims don't like what's there they are certainly free not to use it.
Given the proven track record of the complainers, it seems likely that some of these "180,000" complaints cross the line separating respectful objections to Wikipedia content from threats or intimidation. The complaints should be scanned for any that contain threats, explicit or implied, and criminal proceedings undertaken if appropriate.
Posted by: Eastview at February 19, 2008 5:54 AM
> 'So long as they are relevant to the article and do not
> violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of
> the US state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted...
Geez, Wikipedia; why not give the cretins your ISP servers' GPS coordinates while you're at it?
If you idiots were smart, you'd claim they're in geosynchronous orbit, like the snarky lads at PirateBay do.
Posted by: Mike Schneider at February 19, 2008 4:15 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)