+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/21/2018 01:44 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  13.033 Visits   13 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/19/2008 02:01 AM ID: 68585 Permalink   

Wikipedia Won't Remove Pictures of Prophet Mohammed


The Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia is defying more than 180,000 who demand that photos of medieval paintings depicting the Prophet Mohammed be removed from its pages. Islam prohibits any depiction of Mohammed.

The images appear on most European versions of Wikipedia, not Arabic versions. Still, some users claim the images are simply posted to bait or insult Islamic readers, and want the encyclopedia to at least blur or blank out Mohammed's face.

In a statement posted on the site, Wikipedia said that it recognizes some Muslim groups have traditions that are offended by depictions of Mohammed, Wikipedia aims for a neutral point of view and won't censor content for any particular group.

    WebReporter: l´anglais Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
they is gonna blowz up the intertubes!

Seriously though. Good for Wiki. As indifferent to Islam as I am, I am getting tired of the pandering.

  by: Rislone   02/19/2008 02:24 AM     
  Plus this is different  
This is a reference related site not some propagandistic outlet. Well its reference related most of the time. I admit due to the nature of wikipedia, some things are very opinionated.
  by: slavefortheman     02/19/2008 02:59 AM     
  Warn them?  
Maybe where the pictures depict his face they could have a warning you need to click to see the image... I sure as f*#^ don't want to be censored by some one else's religion but i also can't see the point of needlessly offending Muslims.
  by: lachs     02/19/2008 03:23 AM     
Wikipedia has actually offered a fix for registered users who don't want to view the images. You do have to have an account, but then you can add some code to your CSS settings and it will block images of Mohammed.

Wikipedia also makes a good statement about the photos -- the main objection among some groups in Islam is that depictions of Mohammed might lead to idolatry, but the purpose of having the photos on Wikipedia is clearly not to promote idolatry.
  by: l´anglais     02/19/2008 03:32 AM     
  This is just insane...  
The Prophet PBUH wouldn't care, if it offends you don't look.
  by: Zmethod     02/19/2008 04:19 AM     
Extremists wouldn't bother trying to rationalise the reasons wikipedia posts images of the prophet, they would simply see an affront to Islam punishable by death. Look at all of the people killed in the riots over the Danish cartoons, and they were all Muslims!
I just don't want any of the Wiki mods to get hurt =)
  by: lachs     02/19/2008 04:57 AM     
It offends them even if non-muslims look at the pictures?

Well I guess it's a good thing that the internets is a series of tubes and not a dump truck then.

Dump trucks = easy to blow up.
  by: silentrage   02/19/2008 07:04 AM     
I really dont see the reason why they keep doing this, first denmark then denmark again and now wikipedia, i mean what does demark have against the muslim world to show this and insist on keeping it.. i can tell u that a big deal of their exports is to the arab world and on the first cartoon, all arabs stopped buying their stuff and denmark lost a big deal of the countrys income.. this is not like the usa or uk were they "fight" terrorism, so there is a spark between em and muslims, but denmark? wtf? they arent involved in the world politics, its a peaceful quiet country? so why they did it i dont know maybe to make news and be talked about since it wasnt getting any attention..
and now wikipedia didnt they see what has happened when denmark first did it, is it really hard to respect one of the major religions, if u dont like muslims then dont they arent waiting for wiki or denmark to like them, but just dont insult needlessly for absolutely no reason, i know most of u will say its just a picture no big deal, but atleast show some respect
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 07:05 AM     
  how come  
so when an egyptain player Abou Treka in the african cup 2008 lifted up his shirt and he wrote under it "Sympathize with Gaza" and israel made google remove it, was that an insult to jews?, and i read in here before that they are sued google for showing palastinian old village names on the "used to be palastine land, but now is israel land" dunno if it was removed or not, but u get the point...
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 07:11 AM     
Muslims are forbidden from creating pictures of mohamed.

I am not a muslim

Therefore, I can draw whoever a picture of whoever I like.


Its quite simple really,just like

Muslims are forbidden from eating pork, I am not a muslim, so I can eat pork.

Not being a muslim is not an insult to Islam, is it?
  by: AnsweringQuestions     02/19/2008 07:19 AM     
when u eat pork ur not effecting anyone around u, i dont care what u do to urself that muslims find forbidden
but dont go around drawings pictures of the prophet and broadcasting it around the internet
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 07:55 AM     
I dont think that u or anyone else would like it if someone who doesnt know about ur religion and how muslims find the prophet to be holy, comes and draws pictures of someone that u love and respect more than ur own father. So AQ do u think its allright to offend more than a billion muslims around the world coz u can?
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 08:04 AM     
Google <> Wikipedia

Besides which, as I understand it, it isn't about showing the images it is about idolising Mohammed (which most already do) and I don't think you will find in the Koran, "Don't make any pictures of Mohammed".
  by: jendres     02/19/2008 08:06 AM     
F*** Mohamed

That answer your question?

You worship him, good for you, whatever floats your boat.
I dont, and have no intention of changing my life to suit whatever little rules you want to follow.

Ifg I choose to draw pictures of Mohamed having a gay orgy, I will, and yes, because I can.
Not that I do, but I could, if I felt like it.
  by: AnsweringQuestions     02/19/2008 08:12 AM     
Yes it is not mentioned, but from his dayz until now, all the books that were written with him drawn, his face wasnt shown, either blurred or covered with a white cloth, it was made forbidden at that time(after he died) so ppl wouldnt worship him after he died which will ruin what he was doing from the begining coz he didnt want ppl to worship him. He asked ppl before he died not to show him so that reason.. thats the least wiki could do.
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 08:19 AM     
  @Bastrel 2  
I'm a Galgamechian

We believe the letter B is sacred and should not be used as the first letter in a name.
Why do you think its ok to offend over 300 Trillian Galgamechs?
Should we just forget about the galamechs?
Are we somehow less important?

Change your name to avoid offending my religion, and I'll look upon your stance with less sarcasm.
  by: AnsweringQuestions     02/19/2008 08:20 AM     
i wont reply to someone low like u, coz this seems like a typical behaviour someone would have with a small mind like urs...
dont get mad then when bin laden bombs ur ass, coz oh yaa he can and he will if he feels like it
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 08:24 AM     
Hey you're so not a Galgamechian...

If so what's the fisrt rule of the Galga
  by: Zmethod     02/19/2008 08:35 AM     
Annoy fools who insist on trying to force others to conform to their beliefs.

Wow, I got you to threaten murder in an hour and three internet posts, you are truely a poster child for those who dislike your religion.
  by: AnsweringQuestions     02/19/2008 09:22 AM     
I just want to comment on one point you made.

"i mean what does demark have against the muslim world to show this and insist on keeping it."

The simple answer: nothing at all. One guy drew a cartoon, not the entire country. You could, at most, hold the newspaper responsible. Then again, you can't really hold other people responsible for your being offended because it's your decision to be offended.
  by: erasedgod   02/19/2008 09:25 AM     
i know am not talking about all ppl, but what i meant is ppl who are responsible for doing this, (the newspaper), and i also blame the government coz they had the power to stop the newspaper from making all muslims hate denmark, i know most ppl in denmark dont agree with the newspaper. one more thing, when the pictures were first published muslims first asked kindly for pictures to be removed but the newspaper insisted coz of the publishing right, but lets be honest removing the picture wont hurt the newspaper or denmark in any way, so is it rly worth buying the hatred of all muslims and arabs which hurts the countrys outside business, simply coz they didnt wanna remove the pic. and on top of that if u looked at the picture they made u will obviously see that they gave him a scary looking face (terrorist).
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 09:35 AM     
Why do you continue to insult my religion with your blasphemous name?

"i know am not talking about all ppl, but what i meant is ppl who are responsible for doing this, (the newspaper), and i also blame the government coz they had the power to stop the newspaper from making all muslims hate denmark,"

Perhaps they would rather have your hatred than exist as a vassel state?

Why should the Danes nopt print pictures of mohammed?
Are you going to start eating Danish Bacon in compromise?
  by: AnsweringQuestions     02/19/2008 09:45 AM     
i just dont like fools like u to write whatever shit they want..
and i rly dont give a f*** if u dont like my religion. and yaa u dont mind ur ppl killing inocents in afghanistan, iraq, ...soon iran and syria.. i wont mind bin laden dropping planes on ur head again...
(sry for everyone else, but i just had to say this when a noob is talking shit about my ppl)
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 09:46 AM     
it seems to me that most ur reply comments are based on "jokes" to get away from the points am trying to make, dont u have good answers to what am saying? or u just trying to "act smart" with ur stupid -wannabe intelligent- comments
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 09:50 AM     
you're so silly. Yes. Silly.

Bastrel, if a government steps in and stops a newspaper from publishing something, that's censorship and is pretty frowned upon in these parts.

Why do Muslims then hate a country for something a cartoonist has done. Why hate in the name of religion at all? Does that not also take away from the work of your prophet? Why, when a Danish newspaper publishes something featuring Mouhamed, is the UN attacked, literally? Why is viewing a picture of someone considered worship? Bit old fashioned, isn't it?
  by: NuttyPrat     02/19/2008 09:57 AM     
as i said before, the decision to forbod the drawing was made in the old dayz where ppl would of worshipped him, and until this day this is how its still been. so why would a non muslim person in a coutry that never had conflicts with muslims draw a picture of our prophet making him look like a terrorist for no particular reason.
yes i can believe its frowned upon when its either true material, but these drawings are fake.
and trust me our goverments are weak, its the ppl who got angry the most and pushed their governments to blame denmark and ask the UN to interfere, coz i live there and trust me when the drawnings came out ppl went crazy.
its just a simple request, prophet mohammed could be a normal man to non muslims, but to us he isnt, so ofc that would make ppl angry and create hatred
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 10:17 AM     
i know there is a right for puublishing but with limits, they knew even before publishing the photo that it would create a problem but they still did it, so what was the point
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 10:20 AM     
  It's called political satire  
And the fact of the matter is, extreme Islamists blow themselves and innocent bystanders up in the name of Mouhammed. Portraying Mouhammed with a dynamite belt was a way of dealing with bombings and threats that are being made daily across the European continent in your prophet's name. You don't see Americans attacking random buildings with Molotov cocktails because Bush is often portrayed as a crazed murderer. You wouldn't see it if it was Jesus, either.

The fact that people got violent about it did nothing but prove the cartoonists point.
  by: NuttyPrat     02/19/2008 10:28 AM     
"i know there is a right for puublishing but with limits, they knew even before publishing the photo that it would create a problem but they still did it, so what was the point"

No, the point is you think its ok to kill someone for drawing a picture of your prophet.

Thats the only point that matters.
  by: AnsweringQuestions     02/19/2008 10:30 AM     
just to make it clear most muslims hate the extremists that call themselves muslims, they are ruining our reputation i dont disagree with u on that.. but dont u think if they drew a picture of a normal man with an explosive belt and on top they called him an extremist, would of been better than drawing the same picture and call him prophet mohammed when he actually is a peaceful man, and he himself would of called these extremists non muslims..
but with naming the man mohammed it doesnt only point to extremists but to all muslims
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 10:40 AM     
Thank you for your point of view on this issue. I think your position is very important for non-muslims to hear so we can understand each other.

You wrote:

' ppl wouldnt worship him after he died which will ruin what he was doing from the begining coz he didnt want ppl to worship him.'

My questions:

... so you aren't supposed to worship Mohammed? If so, then why all the violence directed towards non-muslim westerners who may or may not have drawn pictures of your prophet? It sounds like you ARE worshipping him, which is against his wishes. Therefore, everything you do is against Islam? So, according to this logic you are against Islam by worshipping Mohammed?

I simply do not understand this. Please explain!
  by: theironboard     02/19/2008 10:40 AM     
What we believe that he was a normal man like anyone of us but was chosen by god to guide us to the right path, he wasnt chosen by random but coz of his wisdom and good qualities, if u read books written on him even by western writers it will tell u that too.
regarding how we would do this for him, he is the man who showed us the right way and suffered the torture physical and by tongue, all this coz he wanted us to go to heaven. he has brought peace and justice between different tribes and united them under islam.. he is someone that we love and respect and look up to(not worship), and when someone who doesnt know about islam comes and draws him as a terrorist u dont expect us to get angry?
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 10:49 AM     
will give u a simple example...
if someone came up to u and said rly bad stuff about ur mom or dad, wouldnt u get angry and beat them up.? why is it becoz u worship ur mom and dad? no, coz u love and respect them.. imagine if they said the bad stuff about someone that u love and respect even more than ur parents..doesnt mean that i dont love my parents, if they were on my top list, prophet mohammed is even more
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 10:56 AM     
Thank you for your answer.

In answer to your question, would I beat up someone if they insulted my mother and father?

Actually, no! You see, I am aware that people who do things to provoke an angry response from someone else usually has some other reason other than just insulting me (and my parents).

To react violently to a drawing is childish (undeveloped maturity) or indicates some emotional disturbance that requires treatment. I am a teacher- this is how I see things.

The world is filled with angry thoughtless people. What good are they doing anything, and would their prophets and gods approve of these actions?

It seems to me that angry Muslims need to calm down and react maturely to see that the cartoon is a satire to provoke thought over the misperception of the Islamic prophet Mohammad as the cause of terrorism. Waging jihad against a cartoonist will not solve anything, destroying US and Danish embassies will do nothing except provoke others to respond angrily.

Ask yourself: What would Mohammad do if he were alive today?
  by: theironboard     02/19/2008 11:11 AM     
to be honest i wouldnt stand still and let someone insult me and my family coz that would give ppl the idea that am weak so more ppl would do it and i will be a pushover...
regarding why they acted violently...
i dont know actually if u rly know whats going on these dayz or if ur just believing what ur media is telling u. but know this we muslims are one nation regardless if we have different countries, for a long time the usa and israel have been killing, begining when they planted israel in palestine, do u know how things are there tight now, on my way to work when i hear the news..4died today, 8died today, 19died goes on and on. then when usa attacked afghanistan they killed lots of ppl while going after bin laden with no proof that he was after the 9/11.
then they went to iraq, coz sadam had nuclear? no he doesnt and the UN said so to prove, was bush going for oil? no but it was a bonus. its to tell the arab world that this what happens to u when u oppose us which made our governments chicken even more afraid of losing their positions. did the war make iraq better? no it didnt
and to mention when israel attacked lebanon,(lebanon btw is the paris of the arab world)its so beautiful and they depend alot on tourism. israel with their powerful military forces attack a coutry which doesnt have an army only militia, ppl died in the thousands including women and children not to mention their economy went on a crisis, so why something like this takes the UN a month to interfere, why did kofe anan resign? isnt it coz UN is controlled by the usa, and usa favors israel..
why isnt iran allowed to have a nuclear power plant when israel owns nuclear weapons, if they say they wont use it then why they have it?
is whats happening in guantanamo fair for the prisoners they have? not to mention that most of em are properly have nothing to do with al qaida
going back to the iraqi war, dont u know how they torture men and women in a humiliating inhuman way? they rape the women?use dogs and electricity? and videotaping them just to watch and laugh about when they go back home?
and on top of ALL what i just said someone draws our prophet as a terrorist? we simply cant take a humiliation anymore
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 11:37 AM     
why do u think alot of muslims approve of what bin laden did in 9/11 (if he were the one) is it coz he killed americans? no, not becoz he killed innocent ppl coz we know how it feels we live it every day. but he wanted to show the usa government that if u think u can raise caos in our lands and kill our ppl while keeping ur lands and ppl safe then its not gonna happen, I(bin laden) too can reach ur lands
  by: bastrel   02/19/2008 11:44 AM     
  @ AQ - Hell Just Froze Over !!  
Because I agree with you adamantly ...... <deleted by admin> Mohamed. I'm sick of everytime this name comes up, there is someone behind it trying to DICTATE to me what I can and can not do with it. I'll do anydamnthing I want with the name and/or likeness, not because I am a "free American", but because I am not subserviant to another mans way of life.

Mohamed in Wikpedia, fer <deleted by admin> sakes bastrel, it's a friggen ecnyclopedia -- GET OVER IT!!
  by: Discarded Vet   02/19/2008 01:24 PM     
You're not a pushover when you refuse to inflict needless harm. You are a pushover if you are as easily manipulated as you seem to be.
Allowing a simple insult to anger you is petty and useless.
  by: Ec5618   02/19/2008 01:35 PM     
I thank you for respecting my religious beliefs :p
  by: AnsweringQuestions     02/19/2008 01:38 PM     
  I have said it before in another post  
It is not forbidden to show a picture of Mohammed.

I saw a documentary (on the BBC I believe) where a Danish journalist went to Iran to see why the folks there went nuts about these cartoons.

Surprisingly enough you could buy in stores posters of Mohammed. He bought the last though. The shopowner stopped selling them from then on just because part of the community (the sunni's I believe) don't like it.

So even there it is not strange to have pictures of Mohammed.
  by: Flutje   02/19/2008 01:47 PM     
Just a pet peeve of mine...
"making all muslims hate denmark" (quote from you)
You don't "make" anyone hate anyone else. They "choose" to hate. People are responsible for their own actions.
  by: Svengali   02/19/2008 02:25 PM     
  Well played Wiki.  
It's wrong for a "Muslim" to have an image of Mohammed. Muslim rules DO NOT apply to non-Muslims.

And with religion, giving it an inch really is giving them a mile. No matter how trivial that initial inch is.

I'm just as strongly behind Wiki as some Muslims may be against it.
  by: EeekiE   02/19/2008 02:44 PM     
  @Astrel - LOL That still cracks me up!!  
"so why would a non Muslim person in a country that never had conflicts with Muslims draw a picture of our prophet making him look like a terrorist for no particular reason"

Quite simple really, "Shit Sticks"!

Muslims need to learn to take a joke. Until that happens you will always be “The Joke”!

I appreciate you fighting for your corner of the world and westerners aren’t angels ourselves but... Do us all a favour, take all the f***ing Muslims who live in the western world and can't deal with the fact that Islam is no more important (often less) to westerners than their own leftovers from a meal... And f*** off back to the deserts of Africa and the Middle East.

Do you really think we want people in the western world who openly call for blood in the streets every time their brain washed beliefs are challenged? You're damn right; "NO" we don't!

It took AQ 3 posts before you started openly supporting the Muslim Extremist Bin Laden. The same extremist you also claim to despise for calling himself a Muslim

"just to make it clear most Muslims hate the extremists that call themselves Muslims"

Sorry but I have zero time for your kind (other than to flame you). Please stop assaulting my eyes with your drivel <:)

*As usual, I invite people to call me a liar and flame away*
  by: spacechimp     02/19/2008 02:53 PM     
  The long and short of it  
is murder and violence in no way whatsoever are on the same level as articles of media, if you can't understand this you are seriously mentally deficient.

People have a right to get offended by things, they don't however have a right to do anything about it especially calling for murder because they see something they dont like.

As for all this petty infighting seriously grow the f*** up, I don't give a sh*t about your stupid scraps it's not related to news stories so stop posting this nonsense in the comments. The only thing you achieve by acting like that is to make yourselves look like imbeciles.
  by: Oook!   02/19/2008 03:02 PM     
There is one very simple and fair solution to all of this crap.

Put every one who thinks it’s OK to kill in the name of religion onto an island. Then let them get on with it. The winning side will then get to claim their God is the strongest.

We’ll give them a couple of days to run around cheering, shooting AK47s in the air etc. Then nuke the island.

Thus leaving the rest of us to kill for the more traditional reasons (resources, money, Jealousy, Spilt pint).

Oh and Astrel my friend I understand English may not be your first language. But can you please make some effort with the basics. Typing “Ur”, “Coz” and “Ppl” just makes you sound like a Chav. I can turn the other cheek to a hate filled Muslim extremist who wants to kill people over a f***ing cartoon. But I draw the line at Chavs.
  by: mrploppy   02/19/2008 03:39 PM     
  Can we watch the language?  
I realise I started it, but it was 7 am and I'd been up for two hours already
  by: AnsweringQuestions     02/19/2008 03:53 PM     
  I have  
a little white X on a red background that whenever I don't want to see something I click on and the offensive pictures just magically disappear. Is this some how different to a muslims computer?
  by: stretchman     02/19/2008 04:16 PM     
  I'm a Druid.  
No pictures of bush.
  by: walter3ca   02/19/2008 04:25 PM     
Why is it ok for people to name themselves muhammad? It is the number one name in the world
  by: syoware   02/19/2008 06:14 PM     
or whatever you name is...

Yes, send Bin Laden right over. We'll have an old-fashioned necktie party for his sorry ass. Maybe one for the ass he rides in on, too, that sorry MoFo.

AQ has it right this time. Bring it on.
  by: LeePIII   02/19/2008 06:28 PM     
  We need a wiki article  
that has all three religions and nothing but pictures that mock all three religions. Then sit back and see which countries start having car bombs go off over it.
  by: RyanB     02/19/2008 06:39 PM     
I'm not quite sure which way you view things. Do you object to mohammed being drawn because it might lead to idolotry, or b/c he is a holy figure? If I drew a picture of mohammed molesting young boys and only showed it to my friends would that bother you? or if I drew a picture of just how I thought he might have looked back then in a non-offensive way and put it on display in a gallery would that offend you?
  by: RyanB     02/19/2008 06:44 PM     
has been a member for SEVEN days, and already been breeding hate and discontent. A GOOD example for all religions to hate the one that he espouses. (HE or SHE)
  by: old man   02/19/2008 06:52 PM     
Man I love Muslims coming on here trying to show their peace loving side and failing miserably.

What you completely failed to grasp is that if someone does not believe in Islam then the laws of your religion are just as irrelevent to them as AQ's Galgamechian rules are to you.

I can understand believing in something, but pretty much the whole muslim world fails to grasp that many people do not have the same beliefs. As a result of this they have absolutely no sense of humor, or even proportion. Yes the cartoon is offensive, boycott the paper, write to the government etc, but why show up your whole religion with violence? Violence is the reaction of the unintelligent, just as your statement about how you wont be a man if you let yourself get pushed around, what you mean is that you are a child and will act like one when you want to act like one.

Take a step back from this and realise it is only a picture, it means something to Muslims, who know enough to disregard it, and it means nothing to anyone else - so no harm is done.

Oh and either support Bin Laden 100%, or say he is an extremist and do not support him at all, you cannot disagree with his views, but agree with his actions, or vice-versa.
  by: Anglo_Englishman   02/19/2008 07:22 PM     
I'm closing this thread for now. Further action pending.
  by: Lois_Lane     02/19/2008 07:25 PM     
  Will only harm wikipedia.  
I'm for free speech or whatever we have left but this will only harm wikipedia. I mean the whole world seen what happened with the denmark situation so I see this as a instigating move which will only cause more unrest in the world. put it don't do something that is STRICTLY forbidden, in this case in ISLAM and expect no one will get offended.
1.5+ billion muslims in the world. World population 6.6 billion which means wiki is insulting 23% of the WORLD population.
Growth rate 1.84% = fastest?
  by: maxxed   02/19/2008 07:28 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: