Muhammad And The Wikipedia
Submitted by Taran on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 01:33
I first saw it here - something that came up on my multiple RSS feeds and email alerts. I don't remember which it was, but I remember passing over it without too much consideration. It references a petition here for the removal of images of Muhammad from the Wikipedia.
A hornet's nest if ever I saw one. Tonight, with some time to spare, I ended up coming across the same blog with a separate entry - the posting of the Wikipedia's reply on the Prophet Muhammad.
My first thought was, this is how wars start. This isn't a reference to the Christian-Muslim tension in the world right now, which is mainly due to extremists of either side. Its the matter of two sides with different perspectives not being able to find a middle ground. I decided to check out the appropriate Talk Page to see what had been said, and who said what, and so forth. Despite poor English, the request to remove the images was polite and based from an Islamic perspective. I do not know that it is a majority or minority perspective, but it most certainly is a perspective of someone who is Muslim. There are only 61 signatures on the petition. And the 'NPOV' issue of the Wikipedia - which it usually doesn't have in the English Wikipedia due to the bias I have seen for things unfamiliar to editors and administrators - is hardly a good response.
I'm a Buddhist. Not a Muslim. I don't know that I could speak for anyone of the Muslim faith even if I wanted to. And I don't know that the Wikipedia should either, if you take my point.
We can look at this in a variety of ways. We can look at the Wikipedia as a place where there should be no censorship, but there is censorship via editorial and administrative bias - especially considering less than 20% of the planet is online in the first place. We can look at it as some Muslims being 'too sensitive' - but let's be frank, Muslims weren't the ones blowing up abortion clinics. Everyone has their sensitive spots, and working with them is more important than slapping a 'NPOV' message together and sending it to someone.
But even at its core, this is not black and white. One comment on the Talk page referenced the CIA fact book as a reference, which would probably not be considered too accurate in most parts of the world - including Trinidad and Tobago. In traveling and seeing parts of the world, I've found many errors in the CIA Fact Book. But here's the thing: the Wikipedia requires 'authoritative sources'. So if 1 million people say, "It is not so" but the CIA Fact book does - the Wikipedia will go with the CIA Fact Book. If someone appears on television in St. Lucia, there would be no reference on the Internet. But dog poop girl? Right. Tell us again about no bias?
And that is really what is at the core of this issue. Bias, plain and simple. I read on that same talk page that someone had proposed - again - to hide the images and allow them to be clicked on when someone wished to see them. A voice of reason in that madness! And that voice of reason - who proposed a reasonable thing - was told it could not be done. Why?
This issue highlights the trouble with the Wikipedia, and what trouble it will continue to see as more and more people come online to find themselves at odds with administrators who are not familiar with the cultures of other people, and who follow what 'NPOV' means by their own biases.
The obvious resolution to this issue is to permit the images to be hidden, as was suggested, and only viewed by those who consciously wish to see them. There is no 'censorship' in that. There is cultural sensitivity, there is perhaps some compassion, and there most certainly is a lot of common sense in doing that. It is a good compromise, and one that meets people halfway.
But is the Wikipedia willing to meet anyone halfway other than those that define NPOV by their own rationale? That, really, is the question here.
As a sidenote, discussing that on the Talk Page and saying that it was not done because of some porn does not demonstrate sensitivity to the topic.
Difficult questions
You raise some interesting questions, and are right that this kind of issue will likely arise in other contexts. What for instance of a belief system which holds that certain ceremonies or places are privileged and not to be shared indiscriminately? Is respecting that censorship? On the other hand, what are the criteria for excluding or limiting access to particular information or images? Compromise may not be so simple, but I'd agree that a spirit of respect and yes, compassion, is necessary to work these thing through.
You don't even know what the
You don't even know what the belief system of Islam is. We have certain restrictions and rules that should be respected. (PERIOD)
Which was the point I made.
I don't know, and neither do other people, so they should respect that.
Being rude to someone who agrees with the principle of that certainly doesn't make a better case.
Re: You don't even know what the
You don't even know what the belief system of atheism is. We have certain restrictions and rules that should be respected (PERIOD)
Right....
That is a pretty sophomoric comment. Please complete your education and get back to us.
Out of proportion
I think this is being blown out of proportion. It is not stated anywhere that you should not have pictures of The Prophet in books or something like that. You should not have them hanging around your house or in the Mosque. For all that matter if it is meant for education it is allowed to have drawings and paintings in the libraries and stuff like that.
People should be better informed. I don't think it is a form of disrespect that the wikipedia placed the drawings/ paintings on their site. I think they did the Muslim community an big favor by explaining about the prophet. Now everybody can read all the information and can see that the Islamic belief is not all about terrorism as a lot of people think.
Apparently it is stated.
Not everything comes out of a book. In fact, most things in books come out of word of mouth. Buddhism, for example, didn't have anything written down for about a century. Then people started writing things down. If they wrote them down for the first time now, would the Wikipedia permit it? Would anyone permit it? Probably not. What happened in the last few millenia? Did we suddenly become untrustworthy? :-)
As far as being blown out of proportion, I agree. The answer is really quite simple, as I stated above. Just allow the images to be viewed when people wish to see them. There is no rocket science in that. What, everyone should compromise except Wikipedia admin?
Oh. I'm sorry. That may not be NPOV. :-)
The Land Of Pure
I wonder if you are extra ordinary genius to come up with this analysis though you are not even Muslim or do we Muslims speak some other alien language that others dont understand us. I am sure it didnt take you centuries to realize the simple point of cultural understanding but the people sitting on the other side dont get them always.
I am sure they wont get it ever and that is probably the reason people on our side also lose hope and take the harsh path of violence. It take me ages to convince one such person here that all people living on the Western side of the world are not bad but with such acts as that of wikipedia, i personally find it hard to explain or justify to them not to be violent. I dont understand why half of the european union punish you for challenging holocaust but there is no law to punish someone for hurting the feeling of more then 1 billion muslims.
Moreover to bring it into your notice, there is also another petition
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia
Probably it got a much wider audience so it is not a matter of numbers becuase if it is for numbers, am sure Wikipedia will be short of support but it is the lobby that matters more to them.
Anyways thanks for your support in this matter. We really appeciate your just stand.
One day, it could be me.
That is one way of looking at it. So when it is me, on that day, I hope you will remember.
We Do Remember
Today my country Pakistan is at the cross roads. We have been forced into a war, which was never ours and we adapted it for the greater benefit of the humanity. We are fighting the war of terror and we did alot more then what the Unites States have done, though primarily it was their war. As i said earlier, i still dont understand, why the people are teaching us as to how to follow our religion when we never told them how to follow theirs. I don't know if they really think that Muslims are short of any knowledge and sense that they are telling us that Wikipedia is doing a great service to us by publishing an article about Muhammad (SAW). To make things straight, there are enough of information on Prophet Muhammad (SAW) already availble both in print and online so this article by wikipedia was not something new or a great service to Muslims. Even the best biography on Muhammad (SAW) was written by a Christian Martin Lings, who later converted to Islam and is now known as Abu Bakar. Therefore, i dont understand what extra knowledge these pictures have added to the readers of Wikipedia other then to incite religious hatred and violence. Hence i won't be wrong in terming it a worse form of terrorism. We are even told that if you disagree with the famous NPOV of Wikipedia, stop using it and come up with something of your own. Now can anyone in the civilized world tell me which type of people would give such an innovative response other then a decadent and bias mind which is full of evil. Taran, as a matter of fact, one of my old and best friend is Buddhist, belong to Sri Lanka and i have learned alot from her about Buddhism. The very reason i studied about Buddhism was not with an intention to abandon my religion but to better understand her. I would suggest and invite the other fellows who want to stop this clash of civilizations, have to develop a flexible attitude and try to read about others to better understand them. While sitting in a western chair and wearing a western culture all on your mind, you cannot understand what people in the east think. Let me tell you that i can easily claim that an ordinary Pakistan knows alot more about international politics and the way we are victimised and hence a lot more retribution is expected of such people.
Anyways, i hope the limited number of writers in the Wikipedia also understand this issue.
well...
I don't know much about Pakistan other than what I read here and there. I don't know enough to really comment in a sensible way about it. But at least with the web we can have conversations - something that we are doing right now. I know the media spins in whatever direction the wind blows in a country as well - that is par for the course.
I honestly don't know about the image of Muhammad. I don't actually have an opinion on that aspect, because I do not feel that I am entitled to one - as someone pointed out before, I am not a Muslim. That is true. But when people who are Muslim say something - well, lets get rid of the 'Muslim' bit. If it were a bunch of druids who didn't like images portraying trees in sexual acts (I am reaching really far here and sincerely hope that it is far enough that I do not offend anyone!), then I would say... listen to the druids.
As a sidenote, I was surprised to find out that the images of Muhammad weren't actually... images of Muhammad. So I learned something of this. And the philosophy explained that I read, where Muhammad seemed to say that he didn't want his image to affect the way people view the religion (or something to that effect) certainly makes sense.
I've noted that on the Talk page, people have said that there could be two versions of the Wikipedia entry on Muhammad. I think that would at least demonstrate that there was some sensitivity, but then people say... "Oh, no, then what about other pages like that and this and that and this..."
There is something here that I will say, and that I hope a few people take to heart. The Wikipedia can be forked. It takes some money, yes, but it can be forked. And I see that coming down the road - its a matter of time before some interest group or another forks the Wikipedia.
You and I - a Buddhist and a Muslim - are having a sensible discussion about beliefs. If that discussion cannot happen on the Wikipedia, then the right thing to do might be to heed their advice. If they don't want to respect your wishes, then do you really want to use it anyway? That is about where I have reached with the Wikipedia. I used to advocate it, but I have seen some really biased attitudes coming out of the Wikipedia administrators on many issues... enough so that I no longer advocate it.
But while I may criticize, I have to admit that don't have a better way to do things. Its not perfect, and I think a lot of that has to do with the people who make decisions about content. The system might work with the right people, but I don't really know. What I do know is that whether it intended to or not, it continues to demonstrate the same problems that it was created to solve.
Well Said
Mr. Taran i think in you i have found a very sensible person. It is not because you agree or you disagree with my thinking or my thoughts but because you try to do justice to yourself and others. I would look forward to keep in contact with you. I am from Pakistan and if you ever have a chance to visit my country or even this part of the world (i dont even know where you are based), do let me know and i can always be your host. Moreover, if you ever need any information on my country, try to visit our new blog site, which we created to present information about our country Pakistan from our point of view.
remove the pics of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) FROM WIKIPEDIA.
ONE SHOULD RESPECT OTHERS RELIGIONS SO THEY WILL GET RESPECT. THIS KIND OF ISSUES CAN RAISE UNEASE AND WE HAVE SO MANY EXAMPLES. IN OUR RELIGION THIRE IS NOTHING IN THE FORM OF SKETCHES OR DRAWINGS WE HAVE OUR RESPECTED QURAN AND SUNNAH TO FOLLOW IN WRITTEN FORM. FROM WHERE DO THEY GET THESE PICS OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE FAKE.
Thanks.
Next time, the Caps Lock off might help you get your message across a LITTLE BETTER. ;-)
this is not a gud attitude
this is not a gud attitude towards muslims. Islam is very peaceful religion and by this issue they make muslim violent
Every Man in a Turban is NOT our Prophet...
First of all i would like to mention that Taran, you are doing a good deed by spreading this issue...
secondly.. Me as a Muslim, was offended by the pictures of our Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) and disturbed why a resourceful site like Wikipedia, where the whole world goes for research lacks in research of their own..
i came across that article before i heard about the petition.. it was like.. WHY do they have pictures on an article which doesn't support such matter.. Wikipedia doesn't have the pictures of many Hollywood celebrities but! they surely can manipulate old Mughal paintings and depict our Beloved Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).. how convenient, and what a source of resourceful material.
Then comes the NPOV (whatever)...
Wikipedia does not even know the alternative English spelling of "Quran".. thats how you spell it. not Koran.. and its Makkah, not Mecca..
We as Muslims have enough studies that we should follow in the form of the Quran, and Hadees and Sunnat.. we do not need to rely on a website created yesterday.. Yes but if the website states that its the ocean of knowledge, then atleast it could do is not come up with an NPOV but provide authentic information for everyone based on the topics and respecting all beliefs in consideration. I believe the creators of Wikipedia may not be Muslims or they do not cater to any religion for that matter.. they provide information.. that's what they should do..
As far as the petition is concerned.. i would spread the word of signing it.. for that is the least we can do to create awareness...
I am not a scholar in Islam but i am not among the non-believers as well.. so i state on my teachings:
We Muslims are living in hard times.. and rivals of Islam will make every effort to break us down.. today its the illustrations, tomorrow it might be something else.. And Muslims shouldn't forget, the Quran states about people against Islam ‘Summun Bukmun ‘Umyun fahum laa yarji’oon’ (They are deaf, dumb and blind. They will not return to truth)
‘There ears are not fit to hear the truth, their tongues are not ready to talk truth and their eyes are not capable of seeing the truth. How can there be any hope for their leaning towards or reverting to truth.’
muhammed (pbuh) is the best
muhammed (pbuh) is the best person and he is the prophet to all people not just arab and he was the sender of mercy and justice .All the world must respect our prophet or they will blame their selves.
tolerance
I'm hearing a lot of cries for respect here. For example, from "muhammed (pbuh) is the best", who claims that "all the world must respect our prophet..." Why? And what does this "respect" entail? Does s/he mean that non-Muslims should behave like Muslims with respect to the Muslim prophet, Muhammed? Apparently so. To me, that goes beyond respect to conversion. But what if I don't want to be Muslim? What about respecting me? Do I have as much right to respect as a dead Muslim? Do the signers of the petition see my non-Muslim behavior with regard to their prophet as an affront to Islam? Yes.
For example, if I were to state my educated belief that Muhammed raided the caravans of Jewish merchants, murdered them, and stole their property in order to fund his new religion--that would be offensive. And yet this is just historical information. And what about respecting my desire to share such information with others? I'm not allowed to be respected in that case, because respecting my anti-Muhammed beliefs would be in itself blasphemous.
You see the trouble here? There is a lack of tolerance on the part of these petitioners. Tolerance means you allow people with other beliefs to exist. You don't try to intimidate them into changing their beliefs. You don't try to convert them. You don't expect them to obey your doctrines. If they want to ridicule your prophet (and thereby disobey one of your doctrines), you take it in stride. That is tolerance. Is your faith really that flimsy that it can't withstand a little ridicule? All the other major religions of the world have been withstanding ridicule for centuries. Why should Islam be afforded any special "respect" beyond what Christianity, Judaism, etc. enjoy? Because of the threat of violence? Of course.
This is exactly why people who love and believe in liberty will not back down to such hollow and hypocritical cries for "respect." For one thing, respect is a two-way street: we who love liberty would like to see liberty respected, and we who really love liberty are not going to be dissuaded by threats of violence. For another thing, it's not respect these petitioners want, but obedience.
All of that said, I believe the compromise described by the author would be a sensible and tolerant concession to an intolerant group.
tolerance
First of all, I must admit confusion at the phrase 'educated belief'. That seems like a rationalization, and in my eyes there is plenty of that in religion. I also think mistaking the actions of some for that of the whole is less than ideal (understatement). Consider: When Christians were blowing up abortion clinics in the US, did that represent all of Christianity? Of course not.
Truth is, people hardly ever hear on the news about people living peacefully because that is not considered news. People living peacefully is, for all intents and purposes, not even considered history. So in that, I must say that the spoon of hate doesn't mix well with the cup of peace. I hope I made that point, for I intend to make it again over this weekend, as time permits.
Remove all pics
its is my striclly demand that all pics for Muhammad salalah o alehe wasalam urgentlly
removal of pics of Mauhammad (saw)
i stricly condem this act it is sick and wrong.
remove the pics
plz remove the pics from the disgusting site as its not gud for the world
remove
plz remove the pics as you dont even know the importance of muhammed (pbuh)he is prophet of the world
remove the pics of our BELOVED PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH).
Do respect for other religions as you will receive for yours......
OUR BELOVED PROPHET(P.B.U.H.)
Muslims should the respect of Islam!ans abolished all evil roots wohse in denmark !MUSLIM!killed the jury thats made these Snaps!i will killed him INSHALLAH!
removal of pics of muhammad (saw)
i urge the entire ummah to consolidate to remove the henious pics
remove the pic
some son of a bitch,mather fucker made this cartoon,plese remove this and tell these mother fucker that we will fuck u verry soon......................................
Do respect for other
Do respect for other religions as you want other do
respect of your religion.
Post new comment