Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

Muslim Groups Attempt to Censor Wikipedia 1730

Posted by Zonk
from the where-free-speech-meets-the-road dept.
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."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Muslim Groups Attempt to Censor Wikipedia

Comments Filter:
  • by ccguy (1116865) * on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:22PM (#22336880) Homepage
    jimw@wiki:/var/www/wikipedia/wiki>tar cz * |uuencode /dev/stdout |mail -s "Just in case" jimw_backup@gmail.com

    • by ultranova (717540) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @03:09PM (#22337796)

      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.

    • by Squiffy (242681) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @03:24PM (#22338084) Homepage
      Whoever modded the parent offtopic needs to be metamodded into oblivion. Since when does Slashdot give mod points to people who don't know UNIX?
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOspAM.gmail.com> on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:22PM (#22336890) Journal
    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?
    • by MenTaLguY (5483) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:29PM (#22337036) Homepage
      It's worth noting that a number of those pictures were made by Muslim artists, too.
      • by flyingsquid (813711) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @03:27PM (#22338132)
        Frankly, I am appalled by the irreverent joke comparing Mohammed to Super Saiyans. This is exactly the type of disrespectful behavior that the article is complaining about, and you ought to be ashamed for making fun of other people's religions. Is it that hard to have a little respect and basic tolerance for other human beings? I find it disturbing that people are so ignorant and prejudiced as to mock our Prophet in this fashion. We faithful take our Prophet, the Super Saiyan known as Goku, very seriously.
    • by januth (1000892) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:31PM (#22337076)
      1) Target Wikipedia 2) ? 3) Prophet
    • by Bogtha (906264) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:32PM (#22337108)

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

    • by fullgandoo (1188759) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:36PM (#22337184)
      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!
    • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:39PM (#22337238) Homepage Journal

      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.
      • by BytePusher (209961) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @03:31PM (#22338220) Homepage
        "The early Christians had the right idea, meeting in secret in caves. If only we could get the contemporary ones to follow their lead."

        I really don't think you know what you're saying. Early Christians met in secret caves in order to avoid being killed by people who didn't like them. If you're going to try to compel contemporary Christians to behave the same way, you'll probably have to treat us the same way. So calling religious people crazy and then endorsing killing us is no different than being crazy yourself.

        I look forward to a day when religious tolerance and freedom means respecting all human rights to and for all people, including freedom of speech and expression.

        I don't know how to get this message across, but people are people, religion or not. Religion is often times used as an excuse for bad behavior, but removing the religion will not remove the bad behavior.

        I might also add that Christianity has promoted many significant reformations of cultures that anti-religious people enjoy. Read about William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King Jr., Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, Thomas Aquinas, etc... Almost without fail you'll find the most influential men and women who brought about significant positive cultural change were worshipers of Christ. Granted, you'll find some people who've done some really evil things in the name of Christ, but you'll find really evil people pretty evenly distributed throughout the entire world, religious or not. The truth is, you and I owe quite a lot to religious people before us, who put their lives second to the lives of the poor and oppressed. It's hard to find the motivation to do that if life is simply from dust to dust.
  • Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tulmad (25666) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:22PM (#22336894)
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by IPFreely (47576) <mark@mwiley.org> on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:56PM (#22337584) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • I am offended (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Timberwolf0122 (872207) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:23PM (#22336918) Journal
    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.
  • by thewils (463314) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:27PM (#22336998) Journal
    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.
    • by MLCT (1148749) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:47PM (#22337430)
      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... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pendersempai (625351) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:27PM (#22337000)
    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.
  • by The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:28PM (#22337018)
    "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... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HerculesMO (693085) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:29PM (#22337026)
    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! (Score:5, Informative)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:29PM (#22337028) Journal
    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.
  • by instantmatthew (861096) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:30PM (#22337052)
    ... 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.
  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:35PM (#22337158) Homepage

    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.

  • by Lucas123 (935744) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:35PM (#22337172) Homepage
    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.
  • by InbredTom (1189565) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:37PM (#22337202)
    The pictures should be removed as Wikipedia is a non-prophet organisation.

    Sorry, was that obvious?

  • by DdJ (10790) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:54PM (#22337550) Homepage Journal
    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!
  • by owlnation (858981) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @02:59PM (#22337634)
    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?
  • by n1ghtstr1k3 (106718) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @03:03PM (#22337706)
    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.
  • by sky7i (1067592) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @03:08PM (#22337790)
    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].
  • My faith... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Critical_ (25211) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @03:17PM (#22337950) Homepage
    I'm an American Muslim who was born and raised here. While I choose to reserve my opinion over the images of the Prophet I do find a lot of the comments on Slashdot to be disappointing. I've been a part of this community since its very inception and have done my best to contribute my expertise to relevant topics. However, its troubling to see that whenever anything Islam-related is posted, there are endless tirades painting my faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance.

    As I've seen in the past, this sort of post always garners responses such as: "well if you're so level-headed then why aren't you changing the Muslim world?" Unfortunately, all 1+ billion of us are treated as if we're one big happy family. I have no more power to change the world of Islam than I do my own country's domestic and foreign policy beyond the established routes (i.e. voting, debates, etc). We make small but significant gains in our own ways but none of possess earth shattering abilities to make miracles happen. If we--as westerners--are really bastions of knowledge and free thinking then I'd do far more to educated the masses about my religion instead of having it hijacked by both non-Muslim Islamophobes and international extremists.

    I will say that discussions littered with such ignorance and hate don't help people like me when we try to open up dialog with members of our religion. As much as people here may call the anti-portraitists relics of the past its very difficult to defend enlightenment and modernism when its laced with veiled Islamophobia [1]. Its even more difficult when people outside of the religion have the audacity to tell Muslims what is and isn't antiquated or kosher. Defining our religion for us wreaks of orientalism and causes even the most moderate to stop listening. I certainly hope I don't get modded or flamed into oblivion because this discussion needs to start somewhere.

    [1]: Lets not beat around the bush and call it what it is when 15 century old stereotypes are thrown back in our collective faces even though they may have been debunked already. It even offends me.
    • Re:My faith... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by afabbro (33948) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @03:44PM (#22338488) Homepage

      I'm an American Muslim who was born and raised here. While I choose to reserve my opinion over the images of the Prophet I do find a lot of the comments on Slashdot to be disappointing. I've been a part of this community since its very inception and have done my best to contribute my expertise to relevant topics. However, its troubling to see that whenever anything Islam-related is posted, there are endless tirades painting my faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance.

      Within an hour of the SlashDot article, news broke [cbsnews.com] than an American businesswoman in Saudi Arabia had been arrested because she'd sat at the same table as a man at a Starbuck's. She spent a night in jail, was forced to sign a false confession, and was informed by the "judge" that she was going to burn in hell.

      Muslims do not need any tirades to paint their faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance. They're doing a fine job by themselves.

    • Re:My faith... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Creepy Crawler (680178) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @04:10PM (#22339068)
      ---I'm an American Muslim who was born and raised here. While I choose to reserve my opinion over the images of the Prophet I do find a lot of the comments on Slashdot to be disappointing. I've been a part of this community since its very inception and have done my best to contribute my expertise to relevant topics. However, its troubling to see that whenever anything Islam-related is posted, there are endless tirades painting my faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance.

      Listen to the words of the president of Iran and his position on the Holocaust and his opinion of the Jews. Now, tell me those views aren't shared across most of the Muslims of the world...

      I've heard directly from other Muslims, both in real life and over the 'net. Most, if not all of them have a hatred of Jews and a disdain of other religions. I'm not exactly inclined to be around people who hate so much. What makes Islam interesting is that this hatred seems extremely widespread, even including forcing of Sharia law upon countries and general (what I would call) evilness.

      And we can also see the "religion of peace" by the way families strap bombs to their children's waist and tell them to kill those infidels. Real peaceful.. Pieceful as in gibs if you ask me.

      ---As I've seen in the past, this sort of post always garners responses such as: "well if you're so level-headed then why aren't you changing the Muslim world?" Unfortunately, all 1+ billion of us are treated as if we're one big happy family. I have no more power to change the world of Islam than I do my own country's domestic and foreign policy beyond the established routes (i.e. voting, debates, etc). We make small but significant gains in our own ways but none of possess earth shattering abilities to make miracles happen. If we--as westerners--are really bastions of knowledge and free thinking then I'd do far more to educated the masses about my religion instead of having it hijacked by both non-Muslim Islamophobes and international extremists.

      I know about your religion. I am.. no, was a Catholic, and was taught about the big 5 religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism). I may not know exactly know every detail about your religion, but I also do not know everything about mine.

      From what I see, 500 years ago, Christianity was about equal on the violence scale to Islam, if not slightly more so. During these times, the countries representing Islam faith stayed stagnant in terms of technology and rights to the people. Christian nations grew technologically, bypassing the Muslims, and along with that, gained more rights and freedoms not "allowed" by Islam and their holy laws. Our country was founded to keep YOUR holy laws (and everybody elses', for that matter) out of our country.

      The countries that represent majority of Islam have not had the sort of epiphany the Christians did in regard to freedom, and have effectively repressed it. I find that disgusting, and suitable for disdain.

      ---I will say that discussions littered with such ignorance and hate don't help people like me when we try to open up dialog with members of our religion. As much as people here may call the anti-portraitists relics of the past its very difficult to defend enlightenment and modernism when its laced with veiled Islamophobia [1]. Its even more difficult when people outside of the religion have the audacity to tell Muslims what is and isn't antiquated or kosher. Defining our religion for us wreaks of orientalism and causes even the most moderate to stop listening. I certainly hope I don't get modded or flamed into oblivion because this discussion needs to start somewhere.

      Since you like in the US, as do I, then perhaps you can appreciate my analogy.

      I'm in Indiana, the state with the founding of the group called the KKK (spit). You ever hear of them? They were individually nice people, you know, Christians and whatnot. But, as a group, they'd hold lynchings to scare everybody else that wasn't in their gr
    • Re:My faith... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Deadplant (212273) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @05:08PM (#22340082)

      I'm an American Muslim ... I do find a lot of the comments on Slashdot to be disappointing.
      ya, it is not exactly hard to become disappointed by slashdot posts for oh so many reasons.
      (your post was very nice btw)

      ...whenever anything Islam-related is posted, there are endless tirades painting my faith with a broad brush of extremism and ignorance.
      Let me explain... it is not because we think you picked the wrong religion or simply because you are different.
      You and your religion will be mocked because you proclaim a serious belief in invisible sky-wizards.

      Every one of the major religions requires that you believe things that the available evidence indicates are false.
      By having faith in a religion one is displaying an unwillingness or inability to make rational decisions.
      It is logical and reasonable to fear irrational people because their irrational behaviour can harm us.
      It is also usually pointless to argue with a person of faith because they have by definition already eschewed logic.
      Thus we are left with trying to shame you into giving up on the sky-wizards and unhelpfully venting our frustration by saying mean things.

      ...when people outside of the religion have the audacity to tell Muslims what is and isn't antiquated or kosher.
      I don't want to tell you how your religion's rules should be written. I want to tell you that the entire concept of faith and religion is antiquated and should be abandoned for your own good and the good of humanity.
      I do not have to be a member of any particular sect or ethnic group to make this statement.

  • by dreamchaser (49529) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @03:23PM (#22338064) Homepage Journal
    "It's totally unacceptable to crash airplanes into buildings and commit suicide bombings," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards innocent people and should be openly condemned by all Muslims immediately."'"

    Karma be damned. Most people would post this as an AC, but I am totally sick of the bullshit. They've RIOTED AND KILLED PEOPLE over posting images of their Prophet already. I'm tired of seeing people kowtow to this so called 'Religion of Peace' out of fear of 'offending' them. I applaud Wikipedia for their stand on this.
  • by RexDevious (321791) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @03:36PM (#22338334) Homepage Journal
    "Being unable to use either computers or electricity hath made our task quite trying", said Brother John.

    With the help of the entire community, the were able to build a server entirely of wood and mud, but attempts to connect it to the secular internet have so far been unsuccessful.

    "Getting our horses to carry packets was quite easy, but teaching them to shake hands with each other has proven nearly impossible", the Elder continued.

    "At this point, we're considering scrapping the whole horse protocol and using dogs instead, as shaking hands is something they do quite well. The problem is were not 100% if it's the Muslim's who hate dogs, or us, or both. We'd look it up on Wikipedia, but..."

    In light of set-backs, another Amish community farther north has taken different approach. So far, they've managed to forge no less than 87 cast-iron "token rings", and are getting quite good at passing them around.

    "Once we figure why exactly we we're doing this, we should be well ahead of our brothers to the South with their fancy-schmancy wooden server", lead researcher Brother John (no relation, yet) commented.

    "But", he continued, "if Muslims can figure out who's publishing pictures of their prophet, when by definition they'd not have an original picture to compare it to - I'm sure we can figure out what we're doing too".
  • by fudgefactor7 (581449) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @04:52PM (#22339828)
    What is the deal with these Muslims, anyway? They're offended; that's fine. But why is it that they think they have the right to dictate to others what to do or not do? Muslims represent roughtly 30% of the world population, that's not a majority; yet they think they can boss everyone else around. 70% of the world is not Muslim, what about their sensitivites or feelings? Immaterial? Seems to me that the Muslims of the world are just a bumch of whiney cry-babies. Why is it only their opinion matters? As one boss I had once put it: everything is a matter of perspective, but your perspective doesn't matter.

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming

Working...