PDA

View Full Version : Please help remove images and falsehood from the page about prophet muhammad(saw)



alihasnain
12-12-2007, 07:26 AM
On wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad


Please contribute and improve this page.So many people are keen on vandalising this page,lets fight vandalists.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ali.
12-12-2007, 05:13 PM
How do we improve it? It won't let me edit it.
Reply

------
12-12-2007, 05:15 PM
:salamext:

I think u have to Sign Up
Reply

snakelegs
12-13-2007, 04:35 AM
Originally Posted by alihasnain
On wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad


Please contribute and improve this page.So many people are keen on vandalising this page,lets fight vandalists.
you may have trouble removing the images. the prophet was often portrayed in persian art.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Qingu
12-13-2007, 04:41 AM
Why should Wikipedia remove images of Muhammad? Wikipedia is not subject to Islamic law.

And as snakelegs pointed out, Muhammad was often portrayed in Islamic art anyway. Why don't you urge Muslims to destroy all these paintings, while you're at it.
Reply

genki
12-13-2007, 06:26 AM
Brother you cant go destroying all the paintings, carpets, canvas etc that his images were made or painted on.

Besides none of those pictures are alike because none of them lived in his time to know what he looked like.


All you can do with wikipedia is let them know its not right in Islam to make depictions of the profit and if they could kindly take it down since its insulting.

There are more important things in your life and within you to worry about.
Reply

Anwarica
12-21-2007, 03:00 PM
:sl:
Finally, seems there's one last hope for that as someone started this petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/rem...from-wikipedia

More than 10 thousand signature so far.
Reply

Qingu
12-22-2007, 03:13 AM
Originally Posted by Anwarica
:sl:
Finally, seems there's one last hope for that as someone started this petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/rem...from-wikipedia

More than 10 thousand signature so far.
Why should Wikipedia honor this petition, even if it has 1.8 billion signatures? Wikipedia is not an Islamic organization.
Reply

Talib_Rayhan
12-22-2007, 04:04 AM
Wikipedia should honor the petition because the imagery is insulting to a large number of the earths population, Are you saying that all non-Islamic organizations have the right to insult Islam?

And excuse me for asking, But why on earth do you care either way? Your an athiest right? Your two posts in this thread are arrogant and if we were in a real life situation, Im sure I wouldnt take kindly to your tone of voice...
Reply

Qingu
12-22-2007, 04:26 AM
Originally Posted by Talib_Rayhan
Wikipedia should honor the petition because the imagery is insulting to a large number of the earths population,
So what?

Are you saying that all non-Islamic organizations have the right to insult Islam?
Of course! Just as Islamic organizations have the right to insult non-Islamic organizations if they so choose.

And excuse me for asking, But why on earth do you care either way? Your an athiest right?
Atheists don't care about things?

Your two posts in this thread are arrogant and if we were in a real life situation, Im sure I wouldnt take kindly to your tone of voice...
I actually think if we were talking in real life, you wouldn't get the impression that I'm being arrogant at all. I think I write more forcefully than I talk, which sometimes gives the impression of arrogance where none is intended.
Reply

truemuslim
12-22-2007, 04:29 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
So what?


Of course! Just as Islamic organizations have the right to insult non-Islamic organizations if they so choose.


Atheists don't care about things?






nope...




oh and yes muslims do have the right to do that, they just don't cause they aren't worried about the other religions to spread.
Reply

Talib_Rayhan
12-22-2007, 04:38 AM
Qingu, As I can see from your reply, You beleive your tongue is sharper than most swords. You are sorely mistaken.

Your whats known in these parts as a 'Smart-Ass' and as the saying goes, "Nobody likes a smart-ass"

I beleive you to be of those destined for HellFire, and on that note I cease communications with you. Allah (SWT) will do with you as He see's fit.
Reply

DAWUD_adnan
12-22-2007, 05:05 AM
Originally Posted by Qingu
Why should Wikipedia remove images of Muhammad? Wikipedia is not subject to Islamic law.

And as snakelegs pointed out, Muhammad was often portrayed in Islamic art anyway. Why don't you urge Muslims to destroy all these paintings, while you're at it.
IT is not Islamic art, its PERSIAN! nothing, nothing to do with Islam, get your facts str8 !

Bloody persians can't even draw, they got the description all wrong.. first the buraq and now this, its just nasty, im starting to hate them...
Reply

Isambard
12-22-2007, 07:05 AM
Originally Posted by Talib_Rayhan
Qingu, As I can see from your reply, You beleive your tongue is sharper than most swords. You are sorely mistaken.

Your whats known in these parts as a 'Smart-Ass' and as the saying goes, "Nobody likes a smart-ass"

I beleive you to be of those destined for HellFire, and on that note I cease communications with you. Allah (SWT) will do with you as He see's fit.
When unable to reply, resort to an ad hominem. Nice tactic:thumbs_do
Reply

czgibson
12-22-2007, 07:44 AM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by DAWUD_adnan
IT is not Islamic art, its PERSIAN! nothing, nothing to do with Islam, get your facts str8 !

Bloody persians can't even draw, they got the description all wrong.. first the buraq and now this, its just nasty, im starting to hate them...
I'll ignore your hatred and concentrate on the 'buraq' - could you elaborate on your meaning here?

Peace
Reply

snakelegs
12-22-2007, 07:47 AM
Originally Posted by DAWUD_adnan
IT is not Islamic art, its PERSIAN! nothing, nothing to do with Islam, get your facts str8 !

Bloody persians can't even draw, they got the description all wrong.. first the buraq and now this, its just nasty, im starting to hate them...
erm... persians are indeed muslims.
Reply

Talib_Rayhan
12-22-2007, 07:59 AM
Originally Posted by Isambard
When unable to reply, resort to an ad hominem. Nice tactic:thumbs_do
Theres a big difference between being unable to reply and choosing not to waste time on ignorant people.

PEACE!
Reply

czgibson
12-22-2007, 08:06 AM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Isambard
When unable to reply, resort to an ad hominem. Nice tactic:thumbs_do
It's a tactic that's gaining popularity all the time, it seems. It's a real shame that there are so many people here who genuinely haven't got a clue how to discuss things productively. Still, there are a lot of kids on the forum - they're still learning, so perhaps we ought to give them a break.

Peace
Reply

mohsen1985
12-22-2007, 08:27 AM
:sl:
I'm from Iran (or a Persian as called in the previous posts). I don't think offending another nation's history, art and literature, especially an Islamic nation, does any help. Us muslims have enough enemies in the world as it is, why turn on each other instead of being united and like brothers and sisters?

I am against paintings and portraits of the prophet also, but you must also think that the painter is not offending the prophet. Maybe it was his love for him that made him express his love to the prophet by drawing a painting?
Reply

Isambard
12-22-2007, 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by Talib_Rayhan
Theres a big difference between being unable to reply and choosing not to waste time on ignorant people.

PEACE!
Another ad hominem to justify the one before it.
Reply

Talib_Rayhan
12-22-2007, 05:44 PM
It seems you like to band those words around, You just learn them? Say it with me now.... Ad-Hom-In-Em...

If there was any substance to what Qingu was saying, I might have justified him with an answer/explanation, But there wasnt...

When I said... "Wikipedia should honor the petition because the imagery is insulting to a large number of the earths population"... His reply was "So What?"

Now to me, "So What?" isnt even a valid question, Its something a young child might say when they know they have no argument to put forward...

If you expect me to engage in intelligent debate with a person who answers "So What"... You truly are foolish

I see a pattern emerging on this site, It seems Athiests like to try and get a rise out of religous people by adding stupid comments to discussions or opposing the discussion with no real evidence, and/or adding what they think are clever remarks, rather than using thier brains, thinking about something and replying in a positive, constructive manner.

You know as well as I do that images of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are highly insulting to Muslims and that it would take one Wikipedeia employee around 5 minutes to rid the page of these images... Therefore there is no argument you or Qingu could put forward for keeping the images up, Which tells me your only posting in this topic because you dont actually like Muslims and take some pleasure in seeing us frustrated.

Now... I feel I have wasted more than enough time on you, Qingu and your comments, and I will NOT be adressing this topic again unless you can actually put forward reasons why these images should be kept... Then I'd be happy to argue/debate that with you.

Other than that, Stick to your own affairs... Because strictly speaking, This issue really doesnt concern you in anyway whatsoever except as as bystanding outsider.

Wa Salaam
Reply

Fishman
12-22-2007, 06:25 PM
:sl:
As long as these pictures exist or have existed, they will be on Wikipedia, as the Wiki is an attempt to gather all human knowledge and put it in a an easy to use format that anybody can look at. It is not Islamically acceptable to draw the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), but that does not change the fact that somebody did draw him once. The Danish cartoons are on Wikipedia. A picture by Salvador Dali that shows the Prophet (peace be upon him) being torn apart in hell is on Wikipedia. Dante's Inferno, which depicts Islam in a very unflattering light is on Wikipedia.

Just because something is wrong it does not mean it didn't or doesn't happen. Wikipedia even has pictures of dead bodies, pornography and people being executed, which most people will find offensive or wrong, but Wikipedia allows it for the sake of letting people know about the world that we live in.
:w:
Reply

Isambard
12-22-2007, 08:20 PM
Originally Posted by Talib_Rayhan
It seems you like to band those words around, You just learn them? Say it with me now.... Ad-Hom-In-Em...

I wouldnt have to say it if you didnt keep doing it. Seeing how this post has them as well I suggest you learn the meaning and why its a logical fallacy.

If there was any substance to what Qingu was saying, I might have justified him with an answer/explanation, But there wasnt...

When I said... "Wikipedia should honor the petition because the imagery is insulting to a large number of the earths population"... His reply was "So What?"

No it wasnt. Thats what he opened with and then continued to explain how Wikipedia has no reason to give muslims special treatment.

Nice strawman

Now to me, "So What?" isnt even a valid question, Its something a young child might say when they know they have no argument to put forward...

If you expect me to engage in intelligent debate with a person who answers "So What"... You truly are foolish

Strawman

I see a pattern emerging on this site, It seems Athiests like to try and get a rise out of religous people by adding stupid comments to discussions or opposing the discussion with no real evidence, and/or adding what they think are clever remarks, rather than using thier brains, thinking about something and replying in a positive, constructive manner.

We di have smart comments and constructive bits in our discussions. You're inability to read and reliance on logical fallacies means you cant see that.

You know as well as I do that images of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are highly insulting to Muslims and that it would take one Wikipedeia employee around 5 minutes to rid the page of these images... Therefore there is no argument you or Qingu could put forward for keeping the images up, Which tells me your only posting in this topic because you dont actually like Muslims and take some pleasure in seeing us frustrated.

If you dont like Quingu's arguement, then look at Fishman's. Its the same arguement which you have once again failed to rebuttle

Now... I feel I have wasted more than enough time on you, Qingu and your comments, and I will NOT be adressing this topic again unless you can actually put forward reasons why these images should be kept... Then I'd be happy to argue/debate that with you.

Of course youve wasted your time. You havent addressed any points and have resorted to strawman and ad hominem arguements

Other than that, Stick to your own affairs... Because strictly speaking, This issue really doesnt concern you in anyway whatsoever except as as bystanding outsider.
Actually it does. If you dont like discussion on a discussion forum, the solution is simple. Dont participate. Wiki is not an Islamic site nor does owe anything to muslims.

It is secular meaning we both have a say.
Reply

snakelegs
12-22-2007, 08:26 PM
ignoring the image issue for the moment, what are the specific falsehoods in the text that you object to? (i haven't read it)
Reply

Talib_Rayhan
12-22-2007, 08:50 PM
"If you dont like Quingu's arguement, then look at Fishman's. Its the same arguement which you have once again failed to rebuttle"

How have i failed to rebuttal Fishmans argument? Fishman posted after I did.... I am aware that we have free will and so do the owners of wikipedia, The difference betweem Fishmans entry and Qingu's entry is that Fishman actually said something that made sense... Qingu didnt, he asked simple questions like... "So what?" and "Athiests dont care?", I answered his question... "Why should wikipedia remove the images"...

And if your saying that Qingu's response of "Of course! Just as Islamic organizations have the right to insult non-Islamic organizations if they so choose" is the same as Fishmans entry, You should compare them again.

And I stick to what I said, Your an atheist... So, IMO... The Prophet (PBUH) is none of your concern... Id be interested to learn how you think anything to do with The Prophet (PBUH) has anything to do with you
Reply

Isambard
12-22-2007, 09:21 PM
Originally Posted by Talib_Rayhan
"If you dont like Quingu's arguement, then look at Fishman's. Its the same arguement which you have once again failed to rebuttle"

How have i failed to rebuttal Fishmans argument? Fishman posted after I did.... I am aware that we have free will and so do the owners of wikipedia, The difference betweem Fishmans entry and Qingu's entry is that Fishman actually said something that made sense... Qingu didnt, he asked simple questions like... "So what?" and "Athiests dont care?", I answered his question... "Why should wikipedia remove the images"...

You "argument" implies knowledge is some sort of democratic process. It offends therefore its wrong. Even at that it failed because the majority of ppl in the world ae not muslims.

So because knowledge offends a minority it should be changed? Sry no. You havent answered this.

And if your saying that Qingu's response of "Of course! Just as Islamic organizations have the right to insult non-Islamic organizations if they so choose" is the same as Fishmans entry, You should compare them again.

Perhaps you should read Quingu's original post and his response in context. Wiki owes nothing to muslims and is a general knowledge site.

And I stick to what I said, Your an atheist... So, IMO... The Prophet (PBUH) is none of your concern... Id be interested to learn how you think anything to do with The Prophet (PBUH) has anything to do with you
Wikipedia, the open discussion forums here, and the process of knowledge in general does.

A shame you cant seem to grasp that.
Reply

aamirsaab
12-22-2007, 10:48 PM
:sl:
I can understand why one would want the pictures of the Prophet taken down. However, the internet is the internet. Most of the internet is full of crap (case in point, wikipedia) so there's no real point in getting angry at a pile of crap that's actually part of an even bigger pile of crap.

If you don't like this view point, fishman's post says it all.
Reply

truemuslim
12-23-2007, 03:20 AM
^^^ exactly...internet is crap... unless we make it not be anymore.......hehe
Reply

DAWUD_adnan
12-23-2007, 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


I'll ignore your hatred and concentrate on the 'buraq' - could you elaborate on your meaning here?

Peace

1stly I know how it came over, it was an early morning and i wasn't thinking clearly, sorry. What I meant was that most images made about The Messenger of Allah or anything in our religion were made by Persian (of old not now).

And to be honest they are UGLY drawings, I mean if you are going to draw it at least make it look cool:okay:

hating people just cos they are persian is WRONG, I meant those early dudes and dudettes that did that.

and you know what? They ALWAYS get the description wrong, SubhanAllah.

About the Buraq, someone posted a picture of it, it was digusting to me, half animal half woman?

WHAT THE HELL!

Ugh... i get the creeps just mentioning it because the Buraq isn't even half human, its FULL animal.

This prooves that the early guys who made these things did not know anything about their religion, and it is because of things like this. We get the whole Jesus was black, Jesus had blonde hair and blue eyes dicussions.

( he was white though) lol
Reply

DAWUD_adnan
12-23-2007, 02:47 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
erm... persians are indeed muslims.

Uhmm... NO



Just Because you are Persian you are not automatically muslim.
Reply

snakelegs
12-23-2007, 07:41 PM
of course all persians are not muslims. but the majority are, even if you consider them "misguided".
Reply

mohsen1985
12-25-2007, 11:28 AM
Erm, I'm new here, and don't know a lot about the people here. But from the posts in this topic I can tell some people hold a grudge againt Persians . . .
Is there a specific reason why it is so?

Also, that is one person's paiting, it doesn't represent an entire nation! The religious leaders here are all against paitings of the prophet and his family. They have all made fatwa against it. But you still run into these paintings sometimes.

In every country there are intelligent people as well as idiots. It's not fair to judge everyone else based on the idiots.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-13-2016, 07:49 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-27-2012, 07:33 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-27-2011, 01:47 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-24-2010, 04:55 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!