Please help remove images and falsehood from the page about prophet muhammad(saw)

  • Thread starter Thread starter alihasnain
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 31
  • Views Views 4K
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
 
: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:
 
Talib_Rayhan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ignoring the image issue for the moment, what are the specific falsehoods in the text that you object to? (i haven't read it)
 
"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
 
Talib_Rayhan said:
"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
Click to expand...

Wikipedia, the open discussion forums here, and the process of knowledge in general does.

A shame you cant seem to grasp that.
 
: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.
 
czgibson said:
Greetings,


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

Peace
Click to expand...


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
 
of course all persians are not muslims. but the majority are, even if you consider them "misguided".
 
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.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top