QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Tue 17th April 2012, 12:15am)
The problem is with people who come to the article and don't know fuck all, can't tell the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni, nor between the light verse and a limerick, except they know that "muslims don't like figurative images of Muhammad".
That is pretty much the golden definition of a bleeding-heart, the same that wring their hands over nativity scenes in the town square. Those sorts of people can go fuck themselves.
QUOTE
No one argued that there shouldn't be any figurative images of Muhammad in the article.
You missed many sterling arguments made by Hans Adler and Ludwigs2, both of whom wanted none, with an honorable mention for Elonka who expected the article to retain a few images but would've been fine with zero.
QUOTE
They're important enough to have a couple. Just that there were so many, it was really quite like having three images of Jesus as a woman in the article on Jesus.
This ignores the reality that Muslims who are offended are offended by
any image inclusion. Retaining 2-3 won't mollify them, it'll only make those (the arguers) feel better in a "well at least we did something" kinda way. If an act of appeasement is going to accomplish nothing, then there's really little point in doing it.