Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images

obmar · Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images

Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of
the Prophet
Caroline Davies The Observer, Sunday February 17 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/17/wikipedia.islam

Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing
to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet
Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from
Muslims demanding the images be deleted.

More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online
protest claiming the images, shown on
European-language pages and taken from Persian and
Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th
centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any
representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of
the encyclopaedia insist they will not bow to pressure
and say anyone objecting to the controversial images
can simply adjust their computers so they do not have
to look at them.

The images at the centre of the protest appear on most
of the European versions of the web encyclopaedia,
though not on Arabic sites. On two of the images,
Muhammad's face is veiled, a practice followed in
Islamic art since the 16th century. But on two others,
one from 1315, which is the earliest surviving
depiction of the prophet, and the other from the 15th
century, his face is shown. Some protesters are
claiming the pictures have been posted simply to
'bait' and 'insult' Muslims and argue the least
Wikipedia can do is blur or blank out the faces.

Such has been the adverse reaction, Wikipedia has been
forced to set up a separate page on its site
explaining why it refuses to bow to pressure and has
also had to set up measures to block people from
'editing' the pages themselves.

In a robust statement on the site, its editors state:
'Wikipedia recognises that there are cultural
traditions among some Muslim groups that prohibit
depictions of Muhammad and other prophets and that
some Muslims are offended when those traditions are
violated. However, the prohibitions are not universal
among Muslim communities, particularly with the Shia
who, while prohibiting the images, are less strict
about it.

'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.

'So long as they are relevant to the article and do
not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor
the law of the US state of Florida where Wikipedia's
servers are hosted, no content or images will be
removed because people find them objectionable or
offensive.'

The traditional reason given for the Islamic
prohibition on images of prophets it to prevent them
from becoming objects of worship in a form of
idolatry. But, say the editors, the images used were
examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various
Islamic sects through history and not in a religious
context

Radiate_Truth

Danish Cartoons of Muhammad: We Have a Right to Criticize & Comment on Islam

From Austin Cline,

What Were the Danish Cartoons of Muhammad?:

On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 commissioned cartoons. Cartoonists were asked to express their impressions and feelings regarding Islam. For a long time, nothing happened, but some radical imams took them to the Middle East and there fomented violent reactions. Muslims rioted, burned embassies, and staged boycotts of all Danish goods, not just the newspaper which published the cartoons. Many died because of Muslims offended by cartoons which they said mocked, insulted, and defamed Islam and Muhammad. They claimed a right not to have their religious sensibilities offended.

Why Were the Danish Cartoons of Muhammad Created?:

According to Flemming Rose, editor of Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten which published the cartoons, “I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. ...a Danish children’s writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences.” There was thus a serious issue to address, namely a growing fear that anything that might simply be perceived as critical of Islam could not be created.

Why Did More Newspapers Republish the Danish Cartoons of Muhammad?:

The original cartoons were published on September 30, 2005. Other European newspapers republished them in 2006 — also not for the purpose of provoking and insulting, but because, like the Jyllands-Posten, they believed that freedom of expression was under assault from extremists using violence and intimidation. They were showing solidarity with the Danish press by taking equal responsibility for the publication rather than engaging in self-defeating self-censorship. They believed they had a right to publish material critical of Islam, Muslims, and Muslim figures like Muhammad even if some find it offensive.

What if Similar Cartoons Were Created of Jesus?:

Satirical cartoons of religious figures like Jesus are common in the West. Flemming Rose, editor of Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, said: “The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.” Some in the West would ban (officially of unofficially) sacrilegious use of religious images and blasphemy, but there are no riots when such expression occurs. No religion should be exempt from criticism, critique, attack, or even mocking. No one can claim that their religious sensibilities should take precedence over others' rights to free speech and free expression.

Shouldn’t the Media Show More Respect for Islam and Muhammad?:

What does respect mean? Flemming Rose, editor of Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, said: “When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.” People are demanding deference and submission, not mere respect. Non-believers are not obligated to respect religion or religious beliefs in this way. Outsiders have a right to criticize.

What About European Bans on Holocaust Denial?:

Holocaust Denial is criminalized not because it’s “offensive,” but because it’s part of Nazi ideologies they are trying to keep out of their political systems. Aspects of Nazism are banned to prevent a return to murderous, fascist, totalitarian regimes; banning the cartoons could not conceivably be done for any remotely similar goal. Bans on Holocaust Denial may also be wrong, but it’s not the same as banning blasphemy, offensive insults, or material which is “insulting” to a religion. Holocaust Denial isn't even criticism of a religion or of religious beliefs, so it's not in the same category of speech.

Are the Danish Cartoons of Muhammad Inherently Insulting?:

Feelings of insult are based upon interpretation. Flemming Rose said: “Angry voices claim the cartoon [depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban] is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. ...The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune.” Muslims are saying that their interpretations of the cartoons should determine whether they are legally permitted or not.

Should Offensive Material Critical of Religion Be Protected as Free Speech?:

Unless the freedom to express unpopular and even offensive ideas is protected, then there is no real freedom of expression. Popular ideas don’t need official protection because no one is interested in suppressing them. People who object to protection for unpopular and offensive ideas are objecting to freedom of expression itself; in effect, then, Muslims in the Middle East rioted against liberty, democracy, and freedom. People cannot protect their religion, religious beliefs, religious figures from criticism simply because such criticism offends them. Freedom of expression includes freedom to criticize or even mock.

Should Muslims Just Ignore the Danish Cartoons of Muhammad?:

Muslims who rioted were not upset that they were forced to view images they found offensive; they were upset that the images were created at all and that anyone, anywhere in the world might see them. This isn’t a case where one can say “if you don’t like it, turn the channel or read another newspaper” because Muslims sought the total elimination of such images, past and future, not merely the ability to ignore them. Other religious leaders supported them in this, arguing that religion, religious figures, and religious beliefs should be immune from criticism. They want a religious expression to others' liberty.

Should Such Danish Cartoons of Muhammad Be Banned?:

Some Muslims called for a ban on anything that insults religion or religious figures generally, not just their own. Who will decide whether a religion or religious figure has been insulted? What if religious believers have different reactions to what I say — what if some find what I say insulting, but others simply regard me as annoying and not guilty of creating insult? How can the courts privilege the reaction of certain Muslims or Buddhists over the reactions of others? Can or should any state single out particular religious believers to speak for an entire religion? Should perhaps the state make such determinations on its own, without input from religious leaders?

Why stop at religions and religious figures? Why should deceased religious figures like Muhammad be singled out for special protection but not deceased political figures like George Washington, or deceased philosophical figures like Karl Marx? Why should religions like Islam be singled out for special protection, but not secular philosophies like Marxism or Existentialism? Why can't we protect atheism and evolution from "insult" and that make it a crime to associate either with Nazism and the Holocaust? There’s no precedent for this in American law and it would be difficult to defend in most Western nations.

The message of the cartoons was, at least in part, about how Muslims resort to violence and terror as part of their religious reactions to events, and this is precisely what we saw in their reaction to the cartoons. Political cartoons typically do their job not through reasoned philosophical arguments, but through quick jabs, mockery, satire, and generalizations. Expecting the former in a single-panel cartoon is unreasonable, yet few if any complaints about this are raised when politics is the target. When it comes to religion, though, people want special privileges and protections.

Such cartoons should not be published merely to offend Muslims or because they offend Muslims; the cartoons should be published, however, because Muslims’ religious objections to the cartoons have been riots, violence, terror, and suppression of free speech. So long as the dominant Muslim reaction to things they find objectionable is call for violence against and/or government suppression of objectionable material, it’s the duty of others to comment on this — especially when such commentary itself falls within the “objectionable” category.

This About.com page has been optimized for print. To view this page in its original form, please visit:

http://atheism.about.com/od/danis...nsofmuhammad/p/DanishCartoons.htm

Radiate_Truth

That is a tough one, Obmar!

What do you think???

Radiate_Truth

After finding this...
I'm not sure what all isn't good for the goose is also good for the gander...

Iranian Cartoons