Over 130,000 Muslims have demanded that Wikipedia take down depictions of Muhammed.

In yet another attempt to make non-Muslims follow the rules of Islam, thousands of self-righteous Islamists have signed a petition pressuring Wikipedia to remove depictions of Muhammed. I would post those pictures here but I don’t want to risk getting sent to the hospital. Are you proud of yourselves, now?

A message to Islamists: If you do not want to see depictions Muhammed, then don’t look at the pictures. If you do not want these pictures placed publicly, then do not put them up yourself and try to make a public case for not putting up the pictures. And if people do not listen, tough luck. You may view Muhammed and Islam as holy, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else does. And trying to bully the rest of the world into revering your sacred items is only going to create contempt, not reverence.

Hat Tip: Mark W


Note: I have replaced the word Islamofascist with Islamist. Islamism appears to be the most appropriate term here, as it refers to the Islamic revivalist movement that is often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to impliment Islamic values in all spheres of life. (Dictionary.com)

13 Responses to “Over 130,000 Muslims have demanded that Wikipedia take down depictions of Muhammed.”
  1. Mark says:

    When will this demand for respect of religous beliefs end? Soon we’ll be banning blood transfusions to respect the Jehovah’s Witnesses…

  2. matt says:

    I agree with everything except the islamofascist part. I’m not really sure if that’s the best word, it strikes me as more of a knee-jerk phrase. It was, after all, recently brought into the spotlight by David Horowitz, who seems to be more of a neocon figure these days….

  3. ronbrown says:


    It is a form of Islamofascism, though. It’s an attempt at unilateral obstruction of the freedom of others that don’t believe the way one believes. Hmmm, but it’s a governmental thing…. Maybe you’re correct. I’ll do an edit.

  4. Jan says:

    Dude you guys should respect other peoples religion’s. Muslims don’t believe in any depiction of muhammad b/c lwe don’t want to start worshipping him like the christians did with Jesus. Oh debted!

  5. L. Ron Brown says:

    Jan: Why should I respect other people’s religions? I’ll respect different cultural practices to the degree that they make sense to me in terms of their reasoning on ethical and pragmatic grounds. And I’ll respect religious beliefs to the degree that they hold up to rational scrutiny. But I won’t respect religious beliefs simply because people believe them.

  6. black wolf says:

    I know of at least 2 atheists who signed the petition. One of them was me.
    WHAAAAAA?? you say…
    let me finish: what I posted in their petition form was a quote from an Islam scholar who is regarded as canon until this day.
    What he had to say is, Islam forbids the depiction of ALL humans and ALL animals by yourself, an artist, or any other means of producing pictures. A muslim is NOT allowed to produce or keep any such depictions within his house.
    Maybe a few of the rabidly signing zealots read my post, or the recipients or reviewers of the petition did. Hopefully someone learned something and thought about it.
    The information is easily available on teh internets, so anytime you see another fucktard spewing this lie, you can correct him if you want to bother. They have the choice of either rejecting islamic law or throwing out all of their family pictures and their childrens’ schoolbooks, and any other books, posters, paintings with such depictions. Have some fun with Islam!

  7. black wolf says:

    to add: the above also officially includes videos and any other moving picture media.

  8. evolution says:

    Just want to make the point that the reason pictures of the Prophet are not allowed is actually a good one. Hear me out…

    Human nature inevitably makes revered figures look like what they want to look like, to the extent that people start using this to make judgments about race – this is why Jesus is depicted as being white. But a central tenet in Islam is equality and respect for all races and creeds (note, I say in Islam – clearly, this is not reflected in the behaviours of some Muslims). Therefore, we don’t allow pictures, because we don’t care if Muhammad was white, black, Asian etc.

    Actually, we even see this today – the Prophet is depicted as Arab with a beard to draw similarities with the terrorists. The truth is, we don’t know what he looked like, and that was intentional, because it should irrelevant.

    I agree that Wikipedia is free to do whatever it likes, but I just wanted to make the point that forbidding of pictures had good intentions- i.e to prevent racism. And, it’s only for the Prophet and members of his family – not ordinary Muslims.
    Blackwolf, you say some Islamic scholar says the opposite, that means nothing to me since Muslims have many different interpretations between them. The school of thought I belong to, says the rule only applies to the Prophet.

  9. evolution says:

    One other point: I don’t know where this banning of pictures trend came from.

    Muslims make a choice fot themselves not to have these pictures, but I think it would be wrong to impose this on other people. I’ve just looked at the Wikipedia page and lot of the pictures come from a children’s book (history of Islam) I’ve had since I was a little wee youngster. 🙂 Ok, yeah I wouldn’t have pics of the Prophet, but they have existed for about 1400 years. I seriously doubt people protested about it the way they do today.

    Also, I think Muslims have equated ordinary pictures with the Danish cartoons. The problem with that was not depiction of the Prophet, but the fact that they were vindictive. Nevertheless, I am inclined to think censorship is never the answer.

    On a less serious note, I really wish you atheists guys would protest over pictures of Richard Dawkins being published haha 😉 I don’t really like looking at his smug mug (eww!) but I guess I’ll have to live with it!! :-p

  10. Stoobs says:

    Technically, Christians labor under the same restriction – the original intent of the ban on worshiping graven images was that pictures and statues not be allowed – the idea was that worship should fall on gods word, not his image. Any church which includes depictions of god or Jesus is committing idolatry, a sin.

  11. George O'Well says:

    Worshipping graven images was seen to lead people away from the Word of God. It had it’s historical good reasons.
    But in modern times with our extensive education, access to information and intellectual freedom to explore, the desire to control peoples waywardness borders on the tyrannical.

    Eating pork is to some objectionable not because of the probable original reason that is was found to make people ill more easily than other types of meat, but because it is an old established tradition. The ancient authorities knew nothing about modern scientific causes of disease so they could only forbid and sanction using laws attributed to God.

    Traditions, positively seen, are not only meant as a protection but also a means of giving identity and meaning within the struggle of daily life. The greatest danger for the survival of a group as seen by the group is the neglect of these traditions. But groups have survived the turmoil of the replacement of out of date traditions with new ones.

    The banning of eating pigs, or anything with a cloven hoof is no longer necessary health-wise, if you ignore the chemicals pumped into them. But it still has it’s social functions. I would view the banning of idols in the same way: no longer applicable for those historical necessities but still having a relevant role in the groups identity.

    However, when it is considered that traditions are made by God, therefore sacrosanct and the breaking of them not just illegal but evil and worthy of punishment then our response should be a non-tolerant one.
    As Ron Brown explains above -bullying creates contempt. The violence of Islamists and other groups in forcing non-members to toe their line is an abuse of the tradition of treating people with respect, understanding and compassion. This tradition will last longer than any brutal ones if we stand up to reject them.

    The tradition of allowing ourselves the freedom to examine using the considerable powers of our intellects has reduced the devils and witches of ages past to nothing and replaced them with a heightened awareness of being responsibility for our actions. There is no evil save that which we do to others. The greatest spiritual mistake is to believe you can use force or punish indiscriminately for a cause you say is God’s . God, if he exists, would prefer to let us get on with it in any fashion as long as we encouraged each other in co-operating in, and the recognition of, that single boat that we are all sitting in. Why should He punish us for facing west instead of east, or condemning the colour and fashion of our dress?

  12. professional says:

    Hello. I think you are eactly thinking like Sukrat. I really loved the post.

  13. Mark says:

    In the West we have something called freedom of speech, they have no right to tell us how to live our lives and nobody is forcing them to look at the pictures. They need to chill out and move ito the 21st centuary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: