mimo2005

107,000 protesters have signed an online petition demanding that Wikipedia take down this medieval image of the prophet Muhammad.



http://valleywag.com/353698/107000-d...ge-of-muhammed




Wikipedia link :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images

Responses from most Wikipedians on the talk page is fantastically fascinating to read, hundreds of muslims spamming the talk page, hoping to get their way, followed by simple replies of "a) No, you don't get it. b) You misunderstand Wikipedia. c) This is not a vote." amazing to see the 'might' of the religion flawed by such simple defiance, and the outrage it causes.

I mean, the religious are just so used to getting their way. It's amazing to see the tantrum they pull when they don't.

__________________

TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help


"Gutta cavat lapidem,
non vi sed saepe cadendo"

Nik00117

I would not remove it.

Regicide

Why exactly is it bad? Why don't they like seeing pictures of their prophet?

40sondacurb

It's just to prevent Idol worship, but extremist, being what they are, get a little too sensitive over the issue.

__________________


Donate to keep the forum running

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
-George W. Bush

Chode

In the strictest sense, the Islamic prohibition against Idolatry is often interpreted to forbid the portrayal of the human form in art. But this view has never been universal in the Islamic world, as even a little casual research shows.

What seems really strange to me is that Wikipedia gets singled out. I just googled images of Mohammed, and I can assure you that of the over 2 million hits, many illustrations are far more inflammatory.

Still, I'm not too surprised at the outrage, it's typical of extremists of all stripes to be outraged when the rest of the world refuses to conform to their vision.

__________________
Sweet!

mimo2005

Did you know that there's a statue of Muhammed in the US Supreme Court?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=48695

__________________

TSF has outgrown its server, again. Please help


"Gutta cavat lapidem,
non vi sed saepe cadendo"

Nik00117

One of the worst ways for muslims to protest something which calls them violent is to be violent. I mean the danish cartoon showed how narrow minded some mluslims maybe, i know most of them aren't like this but a lot of poeple need to understand theres a thing called free speech in most of the western world, and most poeple really don't care if it offends others or not.

truthseeker

I found this webpage very interesting:

http://www.islamexposed.co.nr/

yustr

It would have been more interesting if the racist author had the guts to sigh his name. Or to reference any of his racist statements. Or to corroborate any of his racist "facts". But other than that, both paragraphs that I bothered to read were... interesting...

__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

In Vino Veritas

truthseeker

Define "racist".

You obviously have no idea what the proper definition for racist is. There is not a single racist comment on that website.

Drew1369

How can you be racist against a religion?

__________________
Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill!
Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

EnglishPaul

Interesting thought. So are the Jews a religion or a race?
Surely, whenever a religious people choose not to integrate with the society in which they live, but instead choose to live in their religious culture; then they become a race as well as a religion. Otherwise what is a race?

yustr

Ignoring the fact that one of the accepted definitions of Racist is discrimination based on religion, the point of language is to communicate. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind what I meant by my statement about the webpage that truthseeker found so interesting? Didn't think so.

__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

In Vino Veritas

skipidybebop

Draw a balaclava on it!

Then nobody would recognise it because it would look like any other regular muslim and nobody would complain.

Simple!

truthseeker

Where did you get the above definition of racist? From your cereal box?

rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Notice there is nothing in the proper definition of racist to support your comments.

yustr, you need to get educated on proper and accurate definitions before you make false accusations against others.

Drew1369

truth you are new so this is just some advice... I ask that question when ever someone points out that someone says someone is racist against a religion... its just that yustr is the first one to comment on the question... and EP gives a very pointed response to it... but there is no need to go that far indepth and then insult someone who not only other people respect, but a moderator on this forum...

__________________
Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill!
Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

EnglishPaul

Its a tricky one. I greatly respect Yustr. I also think that it is far too easy to dismiss uncomfortable views with the label of racism.
There must be ideas that are born out of racist tendency or upbringing, yet are robust ideas and observations.
But for a logical debate, we need logic. And if an article lacks references or corroboration of 'facts', then it falls short of the logical debate. And that is actually worse for the cause, as instead of making points which may be valid, it just tarnishes. The tarnishing of a religious group may not fall within strict definitions of racism, but I think most people can see where Yustr is coming from.
As Drew says, a logical argument should be argued with logic, not made with a character attack. Attacking someone is counter-productive to the argument, and it is just not nice (unless you are George Bush, and then you are fair game).
And that is where race debates always seem to end. They always seem to boil down to discrediting the other side, not dismantling the other side of the argument.