In the interests of bringing this thread back on-topic, I'll not be responding to irrelevant posts, however disagreeable, and I urge others to do the same…okay, back to the depictions:
QUOTE(Nathan @ Sun 30th December 2007, 9:47pm)
OK, let me get this straight:
Muslims consider photographs of Muhammed (or any other prophet) to be "haram" (sinful), but there are pictures of Jesus all over the place (Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet) and they haven't complained about that.
That's hypocritical.
Not if understood correctly (and, actually, it's even worse: there's a depiction of God in the article God, which is far more unambiguously forbidden than a depiction of any prophet.) I asked about this on several occasions. The issue boils down to perceived communal ownership: the Jesus article belongs to Christians, thus Christian practices are followed even though Muslims don't agree with them. God, too, belongs to Christians, because the article isn't "Allah" (though of course it is, in direct translation.) Muhammad, on the other hand, is the communal property of Muslims, thus Islamic practices should be followed on this article.
If you read Talk:Muhammad, the same people who are complaining about the images also say that Christians and Jews (atheists, by this millet-logic, are varieties of Christians and Jews) have no business writing articles about Muhammad at all. And look at the sources cited: where non-Muslims see secular academic scholars, Muslims often see a list of Christians and Jews:
QUOTE
"why i only allow you people to edit this article and then say its a article about Islam but in reality its just represent bulk non Islamic views of Muhammad(PBUH)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180199734"Well , if you want to write about Islam and Muslims, its not you who should do so , you have no right to claim things about Islam and Muslims while you are not even a Muslim…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180625361"But most of the articles releated to Islam are derived from Western, Non-Muslim sources while Christian and Jewish articles are written with Christian and Jewish perspective."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=179224376"…Muhammed article should be re-written according to muslim scholars… after all Muslims do not learn about Muhammad's life according to the Oxford dictionary, Watt and or Richard Bell…This article needs to be completely re-written according to Islamic history by Islamic scholars…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170957998The reaction to the images doesn't draw its power only from religious taboo, but the perception of communal humiliation.Here, Muhammad is portrayed as a disgraced relative:
QUOTE
"Mr. Bush is very popular, if he says Merzbow's sister looks like this when naked, will you justfy that he is the president of America so his imaginative naked picture about your sister should be cited everywhere? How will you feel? Enjoy?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107092921"Since there are no prohibitions , then i can make a page about someones father , with a draw that puts him on a dog body ??"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180659639From this perspective, Muslims are obliged to defend their communal honor. The point of contention is real in itself, but schematically is as arbitrary as the proverbial chip on the shoulder.
Illustration of Muhammad, Censorship or respect for diversity?
