New in PJ Media:
A few days ago, the government of Pakistan charged my website, Jihad Watch, with blasphemy. I can’t say that I was particularly shocked at this development: I have stood for years against the efforts of Pakistan and other Islamic entities to intimidate the West into curtailing the freedom of speech and adopting Sharia blasphemy laws by outlawing images of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Standing up for the freedom of speech is something that is certain to annoy the good folks in Islamabad. But now the same Pakistani government has taken aim at hyper-woke Wikipedia, accusing the Leftist Big Tech giant of hurting Muslim sentiments. How crestfallen they must be today in Wikipedia’s San Francisco headquarters: for years they’ve been smearing critics of Islam and whitewashing Islamic doctrine and history, and this is the thanks they get.
The Associated Press reported Monday that the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority “blocked Wikipedia services in the country for hurting Muslim sentiment by not removing purportedly blasphemous content from the site.” The Authority had given Wikipedia 48 hours to remove this allegedly blasphemous content, and when the online encyclopedia did not comply, they slapped on the ban. Malahat Obaid of the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority explained matter-of-factly, “Such things hurt the sentiments of Muslims.”
Well, we can’t have that. It must be nice to expect the whole world to cater to your hurt feelings and jump to remove the source of the hurt, but Malahat Obaid and her colleagues are likely so used to authorities in the West taking exactly that course of action that they’re shocked Wikipedia isn’t likewise rushing to make them feel better. For years, Wikipedia has followed the Left’s warmly favorable line on Islam, which as a non-Christian, non-Western, and largely non-white religion checks all the boxes for something the Left would love. Add in the fact that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, enjoined obedience to the ruler in virtually all circumstances, and Islam coalesces nicely with the Left’s increasingly open authoritarianism.
Wikipedia’s far-Left bias has been noted almost from the moment the site began. Since it incorporates material from earlier encyclopedias, it has some value for material that isn’t remotely controversial, but it’s absolutely worthless for any political or otherwise controverted matter unless you are looking for the Left’s line on a given issue. But perhaps out of some residual sense of responsibility before the public, to keep up some nominal appearance of objectivity, or simply out of carelessness, it does contain material that some Muslims would find highly offensive. In the entry on the initial controversy over cartoons of Muhammad printed in a Danish newspaper in 2005, it includes the cartoons themselves, although at such a small size that only the most fanatical blasphemy hunter would be able to see anything offensive.
There is more. Read the rest here.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Pakistan vs Wiki? Another case of Alien vs Predator. Actually, 2 panhandlers at each other’s throats. Worth all the popcorn and more!
Keith O says
I’ll bring the beers, you bring the snacks!
Keith O says
I have often wondered if there are some of these leftist groups out there, and some of them are really “out there” actually employ people to search for crap to be “offended” by, but then I realised that none of them actually work or contribute to society or the human race for that matter.
When it comes to the mudslimes, I think most of them have taken the concept of being offended and turned it into a hobby. They have to have something to occupy their time, lets face it, they can’t drink (there’s no fun in Islam).
The don’t dance or party, same reason as above. So the only enjoyment these arseholes get is making other people miserable, causing unrest and complaining.
James Lincoln says
According to the feature article:
“Wikipedia…has some value for material that isn’t remotely controversial, but it’s absolutely worthless for any political or otherwise controverted matter unless you are looking for the Left’s line on a given issue.”
How true.
It’s amazingly accurate if you really want to know the specs on a ’65 Mustang K Code Fastback, or the detailed results of the 1986 PGA Masters tournament.
But for anything political, it takes a hard Left turn…