Muslim Groups Attempt to Censor Wikipedia

Nom du Keyboard writes "The New York Times is reporting that Muslim groups are attempting to censor Wikipedia because of images of Muhammad contained in the article about him. 'A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site's polite but firm refusal to remove the images: "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." The notes left on [online petitions against the page] come from all over the world. "It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately."'"

Better login into wikipedia host asap

[ccguy (1116865)]

jimw@wiki:/var/www/wikipedia/wiki>tar cz * |uuencode /dev/stdout |mail -s "Just in case" [e-mail]

Re:Better login into wikipedia host asap

[ultranova (717540)]

Unneccessary, since the Wikipedia database contents are already available for download for all interested parties. See this page [wikipedia.org] for details.

That said, I don't think that this is offtopic. This being Islam we're talking about, it propably won't take too long before death threats start flying, and it's always possible some lunatic will decide to carry them out, or take less drastic action, such as a cyber-attack against the Wikipedia servers. Making sure that the database is safe from any such attacks is only common sense; and the easiest way to accomplish that is to back it up and spread the copies to as many places as possible.

Cue a hundred replies claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance; and maybe it is - I wouldn't know, since I haven't read their holy book. All I know is that it certainly seems attract lots of bloodthirsty lunatics who use their religion as an excuse to live up to their murderous nature.

Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[eldavojohn (898314)]

These pictures aren't so bad! Here [wikimedia.org] he is betting his followers that he can slide all the way down a railing without falling off. Here [wikimedia.org] is his senior picture. Here [wikimedia.org] he is preparing to be tossed into the air on a blanket. Here [wikimedia.org] he is on fire (about to be Super Saiyan 2). Here [wikimedia.org] he is full blown Super Saiyan 3 complete with human headed horse. Here [wikimedia.org] he is at an Ozzy Ozborne concert (far right). Last but not least, here's what you'd have to print to be murdered in Europe [wikimedia.org].

All of that on Wikipedia? How does Jimmy Wales sleep at night?!

Oh, I am so going to end up trapped in my grave being tormented by djinns until the end of time. After that, Shaitan be kickin' me old school. Hope he likes classic rock and indie bands!

The notes left on the petition site come from all over the world. "It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately."

Perhaps you should instead choose simply not to use the site? If you believe that to be true, you should be condemning images of him everywhere at once, not just on Wikipedia. Why aren't you petitioning against all of these sites [google.com]? Why are you picking on Wikipedia?

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[MenTaLguY (5483)]

It's worth noting that a number of those pictures were made by Muslim artists, too.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[januth (1000892)]

1) Target Wikipedia 2) ? 3) Prophet

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[techpawn (969834)]

This is why I prefer atheism. It's a non-prophet religion...

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[Bogtha (906264)]

They should complete this survey [b3ta.com] so we know exactly how far we can go before offending them.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[fullgandoo (1188759)]

On a side note, portraits of Muhammad and others are everywhere in Iran. You can even see them painted in cafes depicting various scenes from Muhammad's life. So how come it is OK for Iranians to do this but not anyone else? I would have thought this would be grounds enough to nuke Iran long ago!

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[antifoidulus (807088)]

Iran is one of the few majority Shi'a states. this [wikipedia.org] explains it nicely(It even mentions Iran directly).

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

These pictures aren't so bad!

Did you get all those from Mohammad's MySpace page?

Seriously, it's important that we realize that religion makes people nuts. Of course, there are degrees of nuttiness, and certainly marching around in front of Women's Health Clinics and screaming at young women going in to get a pap smear and throwing lamb's blood at them isn't quite as bad as strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing folks up, but crazy is crazy. I think we really have to try our best to encourage people to keep their religious insanity to themselves and to their own little groups. The early Christians had the right idea, meeting in secret in caves. If only we could get the contemporary ones to follow their lead.

Judging from the results of the recent presidential primaries, it looks like the wave of militant religious has finally crested and is now starting to recede. It can only make life better for the rest of us.

As always, the best tool is ridicule. Whether Tom Cruise or Mormons or Ted Haggard or "evangelicals" or fanatic muslims, ridicule is the key. Somehow, it seems like all forms of political correctness have been beaten back except when it comes to religion. For religion, you are absolute required to be politically correct, especially if you're talking about a rich, white, religious person. How silly.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately."'

Ok, muslims...time to get with the 21st century. It is ok to have your religion, and rules, but, they do NOT apply to everyone else in the world. No religion gets "respect". People can freely show insensitivity to Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers....(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so).

So, get with the times. You are not special in this world. Geez...I get so tired of very group being so freakin' sensitive, and whining all the time that we're not thinking of their feelings.

People, get a grip, quit wearing your feelings and your religion on your sleeves. Man up...get on with life.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[geekoid (135745)]

".(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so, anymore)."

Minor correction.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[MenTaLguY (5483)]

Well, almost. The first, third, fourth, and fifth images linked to by the GP are certainly examples of such Islamic art just as you say. But how comfortable Muslims were with depicting living creatures (let alone Mohammed) has varied a lot across different places and times -- it's the reason Islamic cultures tend to favor abstract/geometric decorations. You can't say that images were never forbidden before, only just that the ban was never universal.

Re:Why Are They Only Targeting Wikipedia

[eldavojohn (898314)]

Oh yeah! Thanks for pointing it out. Obama is muslim. So US needs to be involved.

Well, from his website [barackobama.com]:

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

You seem to be confused. Obama is not a Muslim. Did you mean Osama Bin Laden?

Good luck

[tulmad (25666)]

Good luck with that. People all around the world of all religions and beliefs need to learn that not everyone in the world will bend your views all of the time.

Re:Good luck

[IPFreely (47576)]

People all around the world of all religions and beliefs need to learn that not everyone in the world will bend your views all of the time.

I'm pretty sure that should apply to you and me as well.

Just an observation, but do the admins at Wikipedia allow casual profanity in articles? I haven't seen any. I doubt that they take that lightly. It's probably scrubbed out pretty carefully.

Why would profanity be actively cleansed? Because the admins believe it is not appropriate? Because a large enough group of people using Wikipedia believe it is inappropriate? Who is the judge?

Profanity in language is just as much a subjective measure of acceptability as these pictures. Some people don't care about profanity and use it as casually as any other word. They get all uppety when someone tells them not to use it in public or something. I've certainly met people like this.

So ultimately, Wikipedia can't really claim thay are neutral if they choose one form of censorship due to one measure of public acceptibility but not another. It does not really matter what that other is or where it is from.

But it probably feels easier for them to swallow the hypocracy if they can call one "religion" and the other "social", as if that makes a difference. People are people and it should not matter that much when it comes down to it: offensive material is offensive to someone. If Wikipedia only censors what is offensive to them and not what is not, they are not neutral.

Re:Good luck

[JohnFluxx (413620)]

The difference being with Christians is that it's only figuratively speaking when you say 'up in arms'.

Re:Good luck

[mike2R (721965)]

Just because Christians have been forced to be a bit more sophisticated than killing Dutch filmmakers and trying to bully online encyclopedias doesn't mean they aren't every bit as fearful and hateful of freedom as their Muslim counterparts. They've just figured out the best way to go about it is to hire lawyers.

Lawyers aren't great, sure. But they're a hell of a lot better than armed mobs.

Re:Good luck

[Shakrai (717556)]

The end result is the same. Less liberty, more ignorance

"Less liberty"? The last time I checked you can still stand up and oppose Christianity in the United States or Europe. Try flying to the Middle East and speaking out against Islam in the city square and let me know how that works out for you.....

Re:Good luck

[Liquidrage (640463)]

Just because Christians have been forced to be a bit more sophisticated than killing Dutch filmmakers and trying to bully online encyclopedias doesn't mean they aren't every bit as fearful and hateful of freedom as their Muslim counterparts.

No, actually it does. While I have many issues with the Xians in this nation, they are no where close to having the issues Islam has. Christianity has had it's reformation. The Muslim world is just 500 years behind and counting.

Re:Good luck

[JeanPaulBob (585149)]

You see the difference between murdering filmmakers and trying to change science curriculum as one of...greater sophistication? What a fascinating moral philosophy!

Or were you implying that Christians involved with trying to affect science curriculum would murder the science teachers if they thought they could get away with it?

Where do people get this stuff? And how are there even two people out there that think it's "insightful"?

Re:Good luck

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833)]

the KKK was also a Christian organisation. and they didn't stop their bullying and murder because we showed respect for their beliefs, they stopped because decent people got together and demanded they stop.

appeasement does not work. see WW2 for details.

Re:Good luck

[Foofoobar (318279)]

No we dont. Alot of us are atheists. Fuck Jesus and his fucking whore of a mother. There? See. I'm not offended at all.

Re:Good luck

[mike2R (721965)]

Oh hell, people in the West get all up in arms if someone says something perceived to be blasphemous against Jesus Christ.

Not so sure about that. Or at least the 'up in arms' bit is only a figure of speech.

Say what you like about Christians (and I frequently do) but they do seem to take criticism and mockery a hell of a lot better than Muslims.

Can you imagine if Monty Python had set 'The Life of Brian' around Mohammed?

He's not the prophet, he's a naughty naughty boy!

Someone would get killed.

Re:Good luck

[eln (21727)]

You're painting both Christians and Muslims with a very broad brush. Moderate Muslims have no particular objection to these images. It's the crazy fundamentalist Muslims that kill people over stuff like this and try to get laws passed requiring women to wear burquas all the time, just like it's the crazy fundamentalist Christians that bomb abortion clinics and try to force school boards to include religious indoctrination into the curriculum.

Every religion has its crazy wing, and every religion inspires certain people to be violent. The only difference these days is that the crazy wing of Islam is very well funded and better organized than the crazy wing of Christianity. In times past (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc) that situation was reversed.

I am offended

[Timberwolf0122 (872207)]

As an atheist I am offended by this Muslim group deciding what I can an can see baised on a set of beliefs and ideals that are not my own, I demand that they stop bothering wikipedia it shows a total lack of respect and understand to athiests.

Re:I am offended

[PunkOfLinux (870955)]

Thank you! I don't understand how they can do some of the things they do (like denouncing christianity) then going and saying "How dare you insult my religion!" Eat your own shit.

Re:I am offended

[MightyMartian (840721)]

Quite frankly, I think the Western countries should collectively get together and declare one day as "Mock A Tradition Day". On that day, every sacred cow ever invented by any group is trotted out and made fun of. Whether it's Mohammed, Confucius, Jesus, Zeus or Joseph E. Smith, they all should be mocked, hopefully with lots of scatalogical humor, insinuations of homosexuality and beastiality, baseless accusations of every manner of immorality, and to end with a public pissing contest over images of them all.

Re:I am offended

[geekoid (135745)]

I think they should replace airline security with the option of drawing a picture of Mohamed and then pissing on it, then eating pork, denounce any existence in god. Maybe watch 12 minutes of two men kissing.

I'd fly on that plane and feel perfectly safe.

"Welcome to Atheist Airlines."

BA announcement

[thewils (463314)]

I'm reminded of a (legendary) announcement from a British Airways cabin crew member on arrival somewhere in Saudi Arabia.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Riyadh (or wherever) please set your clocks back five hundred years.

Re:BA announcement

[MLCT (1148749)]

A more recent version that I always remember was from the UK satirical news quiz HIGNFY. When covering the story of the Miss World contest that had to be abandoned in Nigeria and quickly held in London due to Muslim protesters. Team Captain on HIGNFY Ian Hislop commented, "for us, Miss World is about 30 years out of date, for them it is about 500 years ahead of its time"

Honestly...

[Pendersempai (625351)]

You know, I am generally pretty politically correct, and I totally understand the need to let a thousand flowers bloom.

But in this case, it really seems like people are trying pretty hard to be offended. It's fine if your religion prevents YOU from creating pictures of your prophet, or eating meat, or working on Sundays, or using vowels. Best of luck with that. But it's a different thing entirely to tell ME that I am not allowed to either.

Re:Honestly...

[bkr1_2k (237627)]

Ah, but the point of religion isn't just to control me, but also to control you. Why bother if it can't do both?

"It's totally unacceptable..."

[The Ultimate Fartkno (756456)]

"It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture?"

Oh, really?

Centuries of your own culture's actions suggest otherwise, sweetie. Sorry to have that little inconvenient truth drag you kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Try the veal...

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ [zombietime.com]

I am Muslim and...

[HerculesMO (693085)]

Honestly, Muslims around the world need to shut the fuck up.

If you complain about something, especially on the internets -- people are going to do it MORE. What happened after the complaints on the drawings of Muhammad? MORE were made by random people all across the internet.

You cannot expect people to respect your religion just "because". Jews, Christians, etc... are all mocked all over the internet on a daily basis. Muslims are no exception to this.

The inherent problem is, that they are quick to complain and rarely change anything in a negative light about themselves. It's why I am non-practicing now, even though I do stick to the tenets of morality (which are largely the same as Christianity or Judiasm -- because they are frankly just stolen and modified) the religion preaches. I cannot get along with people who are so virulent in their attacks of the "West", "blasphemers" (like they think of those editing Wikipedia now), etc.

Besides... as a friend told me -- Wikipedia is a "non prophet organization".

So why are they worried ANYWAY? :)

Censor Yourself!

[MightyMartian (840721)]

Five seconds on Google got me this:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/ [zombietime.com]

These are pictures from Islamic illuminated manuscripts showing pictures of Mohammed. These pricks are as ignorant of their own history as they are of the notion of liberty and free exchange of ideas.

Maybe they should just cut their access

[instantmatthew (861096)]

... by severing all their access lines. Wait... what's that? (whisper in the background)... sorry, someone has apparently already followed that suggestion. Well then, if that doesn't work, perhaps they can start logging in from China.

Mohammed image archive

[Animats (122034)]

Zombietime's Mohammed Image Archive [zombietime.com] has a collection of most of the available images of Mohammed. The oldest dates from 67 years after his death, and is from a coin in the British Museum.

The site also has an archive of their incoming hate mail on this subject [zombietime.com], some of which is quite funny.

Misguided fanatical legalism

[Lucas123 (935744)]

While I'm not a Muslim, I have looked into this issue out of curiosity and found a few interesting similarities between Judeo-Christian and Muslim religious laws. And, Muslim "outrage", like all legalistic religious outrage, seems quite misguided. There is no verse in the Koran, per se, that forbids images of Mohammad or Allah. In Chapter 42, verse 11, the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him." So the interpretation is that to try to reproduce Allah in whatever form you choose -- and by extension His prophet Mohammad -- is an insult to God. The Koran also states in Chapter 21, verses 52-54 that "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'" This verse is probably far more applicable to this modern outrage we're experiencing, and it mirrors the Judeo-Christian law (in the Ten Commandments) that forbid "graven" images of God. The reason behind it is quite simple: Man is prone to worshiping idols, which takes his attention off the creator and places it on the created. Religion is about creating a relationship with God. The first chapter of Romans in the New Testament of the Bible also addresses this. Much like Christian's have tradition, Muslim tradition, or Hadith, points to Muhammad and his companions explicitly prohibiting images of Allah, Muhammad and all other major Christian or Jewish prophets, but it doesn't explain why. So, at least on the surface, Muslims appear to be taking to a legalistic extreme both law and tradition by threatening death to anyone who might break such a law, when, like all Biblical laws, they were created for our own good, not God's. And, perhaps this is the greatest mistake of all that religious zealots make: God doesn't need a defender; He's quite able to defend Himself.

Not for prophet

[InbredTom (1189565)]

The pictures should be removed as Wikipedia is a non-prophet organisation.

Sorry, was that obvious?

My idea to offend everyone.

[DdJ (10790)]

I still want to make one of those pin-on buttons that simply consists of a red circle-slash on top of a simple stick figure.

When people ask what it means, I can explain that it's an iconic representation of the idea that there should be no graphical representations of Mohammed.

Some people will be offended because the button promotes censorship, and other people will be offended because the button uses a (poor) representation of Mohammed to do so! Everybody wins!

Why shouldn't muslims censor wikipedia....

[owlnation (858981)]

after all everyone else does...

Including, and most especially, those who work for it. For example [theregister.co.uk]. Just another scary example of the lack of ethics at the heart of wikiality.

Or you could chose this [theregister.co.uk] further example of its integrity.

Wikipedia is perfect for everyone with an axe to grind or an agenda to push. It's just the best site in the world for fundamentalists. Why should Muslims be exempt from that opportunity?

The title of this article sucks

[n1ghtstr1k3 (106718)]

How is a group of Muslims signing an online petition "attempting to censor" Wikipedia? The title makes it sound as if they've engaged in some malicious activity to shutdown Wikipedia.

An actual Muslim perspective

[sky7i (1067592)]

It is very misleading to say that "Muslim groups attempt to censor Wikipedia".

First of all, we are not talking about Muslim "groups" like CAIR, or the OIC, or the like. The article only mentions a lowly internet petition-- one with just 80,000 signatures, many of them anonymous, most of them probably just kids. Who takes these petitions seriously? This is not even a noteworthy protest, let alone a fearsome act of censorship.

Second, even if you do accept the use of the term "Muslim groups", it should read "*some* Muslim groups". Although many ill-informed Westerners look at every wacky thing that emanates from the Muslim world as being typical of the whole 1.3 billion-strong community, the reality is that there is a heck of a lot of diversity in the Muslim world. 99% of the actual Muslim world thought the whole teddy bear thing was an idiotic fiasco, but people took it as being representative of Muslims generally.

The reality is that there are no established, representative Muslim groups behind this mostly anonymous petition. Neither CAIR, nor the OIC, nor any other major body that legitimately represents a substantial number of Muslims has attempted to censor Wikipedia.

For an idea of what mainstream, traditional Muslim scholars -- the legitimate representatives of the religion -- have to say, read this article by Imam Zaid Shakir [zaytuna.org] or this article by Fareena Alam [radicalmiddleway.co.uk].

Re:Ok, I'll bite

[thewils (463314)]

But you can't explain religion, it's correct by axiom and any proof is superfluous.

Re:Ok, I'll bite

[gnasher719 (869701)]

I gotta know, why is it so disrespectful to show a picture of Muhammad?

It is not disrespectful of Muhammad at all. It is exactly the opposite. Muhammad feared that people could be misled to believe that he is more important than he should be; he is just a prophet, not a god. Muslims should pray to Allah, not Muhammad. So by having no pictures of him, the danger of a cult developing is much reduced. You could say that he just didn't want to end up like Elvis. In Christianity, in some parts of Europe there are a few people who are a bit too much in love with Mary (for my taste), that wouldn't have happened if there were no pictures of her around. So from his point of view, it is a very sensible thing not to want any pictures. Muhammad wouldn't be insulted if you had his picture on your wall, he would be worried that maybe your beliefs are going off into the wrong direction and he would say that it is in your own best interest to remove it.

"Irony" defined.

[warrax_666 (144623)]

Muslims should pray to Allah, not Muhammad. So by having no pictures of him, the danger of a cult [around him] developing is much reduced.

Yeah, and just look how well that worked out.

Re:Excuses in 3. . . 2. . 1. .

[MightyMartian (840721)]

Actually, I think Christianity is every bit as morally bankrupt, worthless and vile as Islam, it's just that most Western societies long ago castrated churches, leaving them largely impotent. On occasion you'll get bands of them a bit more active and politically motivated, but look at how the Republicans are tearing themselves to shreds right now precisely because they sold their souls to a pack of moralizing lunatics to win some elections.

Some day it will happen to Muslims. They'll wake up one morning and realize the mullah they've been listening to is no authority, that his use of political clout is completely improper and counterproductive, and will also realize that he has been in league with politicians to manipulate the populace so as not to have to modernize and liberalize society. On that day, those mullahs better bloody well hope that the revolution is a gradual and peaceful one, and not the violent, bloody kind which they so often preach.

Re:Go jump in a lake

[mh1997 (1065630)]

I am soooooooo tired of the muslem community pushing their views on everyone else.

Other than arresting a women for going to a Starbucks with men, stoning a woman for meeting with unrelated men, blowing up hotels, blowing up misc. buildings, blowing up schools, and blowing up children, attempting to force sharia law in England, crashing planes into buildings - name one instance where a muslim pushed their views on anyone else.

Re:This profit's image is also censored.

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

"As the profit of the universe..."

Funny, I never received my check...

No, you just get the bill. Haven't you heard of Thermodynamics?