Wikipedia faces wrath of Islam

Anyone else notice that The Inq has been a little sloppy with the links lately? A little more on topic, the people that people that are really up in arms about the picture of Muhammad are the same extremists that take the Koran in a literal sense. I'm all about equality and sensitivity but if a Christan suicide bombs a cafe it's murder while if a Muslim does the same thing he's glorified as a martyr. There will always be some crazies in any civilization, but that doesn't mean we need to bend to their every whim especially when everyone's freedom of information is at stake. And yes I know in the Koran it states that no depiction of Muhammad should be created, but this is meant to be taken as to prevent the worship of idols. If someone is worshiping a picture of Muhammad on Wikipedia they need to get a grip on reality.

And so the full force of UK Law will be unleashed upon offenders.

Abhorrend the way over 135000 petition signers call out to organised iconoclasm of a wiki showing an old religious MUSLIM art depiction of the big Moh. This is an ultra modern version of the medevil religious book burning mentality that is so much the essence of islam. Scary how the rabid talibanisation of the world even extends to science, independent information and art. I am disappointed in TheInq for placing the link, without offering a link to a petition supporting the WIKI in the name of freedom of speech, religion, thought, science, art and history. I hope someone starts such a poll soon.

These people are just nuts. They are complaining about the pictures of a picture of mohammed. They are photos of illustrations. So, why aren't they having a conniption over these ancient illustrations that are in some museum somewhere? Why only the online pics of these illustrations? Anyone remember the nutcase taliban taking rocket launchers to ancient statues in Afganistan because they DIDN'T depict islamic gods?

Lets not forget the link to the petition to remove the petition to remove the images of muhhamed from wikipidia, with all of 143 signatures as I post this: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/remove-the-petition-to-remove-the-illustrations-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia

why should we respect other peoples delusions? well old mo wasn't as deluded as made out to be. lets not forget that this 7th century fellow inspired scientific inquiry, and is accreditted with remarkably accurate statements of a scientific nature in which he had no peer. things like the big bang theory, and how the universe was still expanding, the water cycle (that we all learnt about in school) and how the origin of life was aquatic, and that plants have gender. and much more. i think what we really disagree on is his insistance that it was God who revealed these facts to him to ponder over.

any1 who believes in any other god apart from richard dawkins is deluded and should be regarded as a legacy, faulty product of the human race that will hopefully fall out of existence so mankind can move on

Kelly O'Connor of the Rational Response Squad covered this issue here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/still_dont_think_that_theism_is_a_mental_disorder The third, and final, course of irrationality that I'm going to serve will be the petition floating around the interwebs demanding the removal of drawings depicting Mohammed from Wikipedia. The text states that, "In Islam pictures or Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other holly figures are not allowed, but on wikipedia they has published some pictures that are showing not only a body with white face but an image that has a complete face.. that is even not allowed by SHITAT fact of Islam. i request all my brothers and sisters to sign this petition so we can tell wikipedia to remove them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad specially this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg ." Wikipedia is not run by Muslims, and therefore has no obligation to adhere to your silly laws. The rest of us are free to depict him however we choose. Just for good measure, I've included some pictures of Mohammed. Feel free to start a petition to have my blog removed from the internet, barbarians.

It's interesting how many people signed it that aren't in muslim countries, typical, and strangely a good number in america, seems money talks and muhammed comes second then eh. Also many 'signatures' are anonymous, well I can see how you'd want to be discreet/anonymous but I don't think you can count anonymous 'signatures' and I don't think people should speak of those as they do when they say "the petition has x number of signers" And I agree, wikipedia isn't muslim and therefore is not subject to their religious rules, and the respect should come from the muslims because of that. Someone should teach these people the meaning of those common words already.

What more needs to be said. Now back to contemplating if I'm going to have a fatwah laid on me, or perhaps I'll be the subject of the local jihad chapter.

If you have the time, and you fancy a fairly in depth analysis, please do read the link on the American Muslim site posted at the bottom of the article. It's very good, and explains a lot about why the petitioners are wrong and some very interesting ideas about the origins of Islamic artistic practices.

"Abhorrend petition Abhorrend the way over 135000 petition signers call out to organised iconoclasm of a wiki showing an old religious MUSLIM art depiction of the big Moh. This is an ultra modern version of the medevil religious book burning mentality that is so much the essence of islam. Scary how the rabid talibanisation of the world even extends to science, independent information and art. I am disappointed in TheInq for placing the link, without offering a link to a petition supporting the WIKI in the name of freedom of speech, religion, thought, science, art and history. I hope someone starts such a poll soon." The guy above is an IDIOT. Just because you think it is okay to do things that will offend other people's religion, doesn't mean muslims have a right to protests something that they find offensive, albeit, peacefully not violently like some muslims have done. It's not okay to do something that others find offensive, unless of course you are a racist, and think is perfectly fine. Muslims take offensive to pictures of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), Got it?

I'm offended by all religions. They are dangerous cults and attempting to indoctrinate anyone under the age of 21 should be procecuted as child abuse.

Go to any market in any muslim country and you will see hundreds of pictures of the prophet, including massive posters. None of the market traders had a problem and most have pictures of the prophet on the wall at home. It is not an issue beyond some political point scoring.

...where is the pic? Inquiring minds want to know (and see)! :D

"why we should be expected to respect other people's delusions is a 21st century conundrum" It's really not so much of a conundrum if you are a decent human being. Dawkins himself could be thought of as a person clinging to the age old delusion that order arose from randomness all by itself. When it all comes down to it we all believe something (even science is open to interpretation and personal beliefs) and disrespecting another person knowingly for no other reason but to provoke that person is in my opinion not something a decent human being does. Why we keep making fun drawings of Mohammed is beyond me, just because we are used to a christian mentality that says we should turn the other cheek doesn't mean that every culture will let our insults go unanswered.

i find it very pathetic and petty how they preach about it, when the images clearly look as thought they were originally drawn by islamic scholars in the first place, its not like they put up images that portray their religious leader in a negative way and i agree very much as to why we should respect the delusions of others when most have no respect for others beleifs and ways of life reading the comments on the petition most sound like overzealous evangelists

They could turn the fake-penis dude into a muslin

I am of Muslim origin, and I laughed at the "praise be" part.

Wikipedia is not exactly dodgy, used in the right way is can be very informative. I wonder how anyone actually knows whats a genuine picture of Mohammind anyway, its not like someone snapped a quickie with their digital camera 2000+ years ago is it?

at least wikipedia strives to be factual and objective unlike some of the bigoted and misinformed responses that we have seen here. petitioning isn't illegal, and widening the debate with urelated matters such as immigration, suicide bombings, taliban etc etc only indicates that we lack studied opinion.