“In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed,” says the petition.
One of the images has the face veiled but, that’s still “offensive to Muslims” and, “I request all brothers and sisters to sign this petitions so we can tell Wikipedia to respect the religion and remove the illustrations … specially this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpgsays,” it declares.
But Wikipedia editors aren’t caving in to the demands.
“This page was created in response to certain topics being brought up again and again on Talk:Muhammad, wasting many editors’ time and energy by forcing them to respond repeatedly to the same issues,” says a FAQ, also stating:.
If you are offended by the images (and you have an account), you can change your personal settings so that you don’t have to see them, without affecting other users. This is done by modifying your CSS (Cascading Style Sheet) page, which is individual to each user.
The FAQ also says:
The traditional reason given for the Islamic prohibitions on images of prophets is to prevent the images from becoming objects of worship as a form of idolatry, where the image becomes more important than the subject it represents. However, Wikipedia uses the images of Muhammad as examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context. Therefore, there are no concerns that the presence of the images on the articles will result in the practice of idolatry among Muslims.
 Aren’t the images false?
So are the images used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, and Jesus. As there are no accurate images, it is best to use images that are historically significant and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Longstanding tradition on Wikipedia favors any images even representing part of a tradition over none at all.
It is important to understand that these depictions do not mean to present the face of Muhammad; rather, they present the person in the way the artist was more comfortable with and hold no immediate religious value on their own. It is of particular interest that these means of portrayal generally convey one and only one aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, as is the case with Western depictions of combat training. The depictions are, thus, not meant to have any accuracy to them, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted.
None of these pictures are meant to hold a prominent place in the article, as evident by their placement in the article, nor are they meant as an assault to Islam. As an analogy, Jesus has been presented in a multitude of ways, most of which are entirely inaccurate (Jesus being, according to tradition, a Jew, whereas he is generally depicted with distinctively Byzantine or Caucasian features). It is also worth noting that several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (which resulted even in hostilities), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are (i.e. existing depictions of said people) – there is no unspoken insult intended.
Muslims were similarly outraged when cartoons of Mohammed which’d originally appeared in a Scandinavian newspaper start showing up on- and offline
“What can be better than greeting this new 2006 year with a bit of happy and joyful laughter,” posted democracyfrontline.org. “Better still, if we can share this happy occasion with our Muslim brothers and sisters and so I decided to re-post the Jyllands-Posten Mohammedan cartoons.
“This is also to answer the request of our great friend American Crusader who apparently haven’t [sic] had the opportunity to see the cartoons.”
They’re still online.
Jon Newton - p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribeto p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.