More Mohammad outrage… How dare Wikipedia display images of artwork that portrays the image of Mohammad… Screw them, Wikipedia keep the pictures up and let them cry. Do not pander to them.
And just for those those crybabies…
Online encyclopedia Wikipedia has again stirred up controversy — this time over a biographical entry on the prophet Muhammad.
Nearly 100,000 people worldwide have signed a Web-based petition asking Wikipedia to remove all depictions of the Prophet from its English-language entry, viewable here.
“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.
Opposition among Muslims to images of Muhammad has its roots in the prohibition of “graven images” in the Ten Commandments, but has varied over time.
“Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent,” Notre Dame history professor Paul M. Cobb told the New York Times. “Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad.”
All four images on the English-language Wikipedia page are rather lovely Persian and Ottoman miniatures from the 14th through 16th centuries. The two later ones depict Muhammad’s face as covered by a white veil, but the earlier pair show his full face.
“Please take off those pictures or leave only the digitally blanked out faces please,” writes one anonymous petitioner from Belgium several times on the petition site. “Thanks for respecting Muslims beliefs. Peace and Light.”
Wikipedia has entries on Muhammad in several dozen languages. A quick survey found images of the Prophet on the Dutch, German, French, Spanish and Russian versions, but not on the Arabic, Turkish, Chinese, Albanian, Urdu or Bahasa Indonesia versions.
Surprisingly, one version in a language spoken overwhelmingly by Muslims had several images of Muhammad, both veiled and unveiled — the Farsi edition, legible to Persian-speakers in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and in the Iranian and Afghan diasporas worldwide.
Isabelle Duerme – AHN News Writer
New York (AHN) – The Internet encyclopedia database Wikipedia has announced its refusal to remove photos of the Muslim prophet Mohammed, defying the demands of more than 180,000 people who cry foul at any depiction of the prophet.
An online protest called for the website to take down images of relics from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, all of which depicting the Islam prophet. The main argument was that the religion strictly and vehemently prohibits any depiction or representation of Mohammed.
Wikipedia replied to the cries by saying that the photos will not be taken down, and that those offended by their public display will merely have to adjust their computer settings to conceal the offending photographs.
A statement from the company was posted, saying that the religious observations are recognized by the company. However, the traditions are not universal among Islamic communities.
“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,” said the statement, as quoted by The Guardian.
It continued that content would only be taken down if they violated either the company’s existing policies, or the federal laws of Florida, where the company is based.
Wikipedia has for some time been the subject of debates on content accuracy, as some people have condemned the website an unreliable information source due to a feature that allows “anyone with an Internet connection” edit an entry’s content.
The Editors Weblog reported that several newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal, have provided its journalists leniency when using Wikipedia as a reference source.
However, some papers, such as the Agence France Presse and the Philadelphia Inquirer have discouraged its writers from the use of content from the website, which they have deemed “false” and “unverifiable.”