This is not a big deal. Don't turn an issue on its head.

The only reason Islam prohibits images of the holy prophet is to discourage people from worshipping that image. I don't see people starting to worship the pic on Wikipedia.

The more alarming thing is that most people in Pakistan have come to the point where they either love the prophet as much or more than God. They have truly left the religion of Islam and accepted a new religion whose God head is Muhammed.

In mosques across the country, you will usually find the name of Muhammed and Allah hanging next to each other; doesn't that subliminally suggest equality?

Allah is addressed as Ya Allah, as one would address a friend while the name of the prophet is mentioned with great reverence and people start kissing their hands, touching their eyes, holding their ears and what not upon hearing it.

His image, (the way he dressed, walked, looked, etc) has been idolized. They forget that it is the prophet's faith, perseverence and hope that we have been asked to emulate not the persona.

TAIMUR ASGHAR QURESHI.

How can we be sure that those pictures are really pictures of Muhammad (SAW).AL -Barani or anyone else no artist ever saw prophet Muhammad (SAW) .

UFO,

What is your reasoning behind this outburst and can you please share the ayat pertaining to it so we may also achieve enlightenment?

Farooq,

l invite you to debate on this issue and please do provide references next time. Also take some time to read my posts on this topic

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MAKING IMAGES OF THE PROPHET, of course this does not include the dispicable act of mocking the prophet. That is a seperate issue

1. Pictures in general are not haram, however, images, statues, etc created solely for religious motive (to be worshipped, etc) are haram.

So if we paint a face and write underneath it, "Artists depiction of the prophet based on Islamic texts", then that is allowed. However, if we depict the prophet so that his image can be worshiped or kept on ones person as a lucky charm then that is haram.

Proof:

" The halal is which Allah has made

Allah has not forbidden images or statues expect in the context of worshipping them so he has in essence 'kept silent' on this issue. Even then the occurence of the following ayat may even convince me that he approves of these if not done for the sake of worshipping them.

And to Solomon (We subjected) the wind, its morning (stride from sunrise till midnoon) was a months (journey), and its afternoon (stride from the midday decline of the sun to sunset) was a months (journey i.e. in one day he could travel two months journey). And We caused a fount of (molten) brass to flow for him, and there were jinns that worked in front of him, by the Leave of his Lord, and whosoever of them turned aside from Our Command, We shall cause him to taste of the torment of the blazing Fire.They worked for him what he desired, (making) high rooms, IMAGES, basins as large as reservoirs, and (cooking) cauldrons fixed (in their places). "Work you, O family of Dawud (David), with thanks!" But few of My slaves are grateful.

Saba 34:12-13

Here is another proof from the Quran

2:104

O ye of faith!

Say not to the prophet ra'ina, but say, unzurna and hearken to him

To those without faith is a grevious punishment

Meaning:

The word ra'ina was used by the Muslims to get the prophet's attention but it was used, with a little twist, by the enemies of Islam to be a derogatory term. Hence Allah's commandment to use the more unambigous word Unzurna instead. In other words, God does not tell the believers to start burning flags and effigies but to approach the problem rationally.

So if we apply this to the cartoon episode, then Allah's guidance could be applied thus:

Don't react rashly to the provocation but be more diplomatic about it. The first and best reaction should have been to ignore the provocation and instead use it as an opportunity to enlighten people about Islam. What we have ended up doing is confirming that we fit our racial profile, perfectly, as rash individuals

I provided Quranic references which are plain and unambiguous. As you should know, you can quote a million hadith but they cannot supercede even one verse of the Quran

I can quote several hadith, wherein it is mentioned that Hazrat Aisha was playing with DOLLS in the presence of the prophet, etc. So you see, the hadith have a strange way of giving everyone what they are looking for.

Finally, for evey evil/sin that is so vehemently discouraged (as pictures in these hadith) there has been a prescribed punishment in Sharia. However, I have failed to find a reference for a punishment when it comes to making images.

I guess you are missing the point. Pictures of living objects are not discouraged; it is the reverence of these images that is discouraged. And looking at the mental advancement of the entire human race, it is highly unlikely that we will revert to worshipping images anytime soon. Even Hindus have changed their argument and now stress that just as Muslims call Allah by his name, the images are a personification of his qualities

Then there is the further problem of the following if images were forbidden

1. Medical books would have no images of the human or animal body

2. No TV

3. No video confrencing

4. No ID cards, No passports

5. Trees are alive as well

and the list goes on.....

By the way the reasoning that one shareat is different from another is incorrect. There may be changes therein created by men but the basics are the same.

None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten 2: 107

FIRST ensure that NO website anywhere in the Islamic world has anything on which is offensive to Christians or Jews, and THEN worry about the content on non-Muslim sites.

oh really Richard???? is this freedom of expression reserved for u ppl only?n even if we do remove the offensive stuff (which would b nothing more than a reference to holocaust i m sure) whats the guarantee u ppl will respond in kind???

Richard bro, i was referring to the brutal n inhuman treatment they r subjected to...how Holy Quran is desecrated over there besides other stuff which i can't even write

were u in hibernation somewhere when all this happened???????????

n so far as world trade center thing is concerned??where is the evidence????we r still waiting for it..it was just a pack of lies by ur notorious CIA to give n xcuse to attack Iraq.....

n treatment of hostages by us????? an American female journalist (or was she British? someone plz come up with her name)converted to Islam after being taken hostage by taliban....have u got any parallel???

u seee what u want to seee....i m sorry i can't change the colour of ur shades

to my compatriots: kahan ho tum log???apni ghairat ko lalkaro..behn ko akaila chhora hoa hai.........

   kafir hai tu shamsheer pe karta hai bharosa

   momin hai tu bay taigh bhi larta hai seepahi

"You are both, of course, trying to move away from the original subject.."

Ricky dearest, looks as if you really like to argue for the sake of argument

You pass sweeping judgments on the Quran without ever having read it

You then post on this buzz without apparently having read it at all as well.

I have, in every post on this buzz, emphasized that there is nothing wrong with the depiction of the prophet as long as the depiction is not insulting because at that point it ceases to be free speech and becomes hate speech which is unlawful in almost all bastions of free speech. So I would recommend that you revise your understanding of  'opposing points of view'

Futhermore, I have also emphasized a need for the Muslims to ignore the pictures that are insulting to the prophet rather than raise a hue and cry about it since that does not serve any purpose at all.

So should a petition be started agains Wikipedia? No!

" they let dogs bark at them and took nasty pictures" I guess you missed the picture where the pretty lady is giving a thumbs up in front of a dead inmates corpse?

The most dispicable act I can think of is to try and justify barbarity

Rick,

"is that it is WRONG to suppress the freedom of expression of others. It is WRONG to try to force Wiki to remove pictures that they have chosen to post, just as it would be WRONG to force a Muslim newspaper to remove from their website their cartoon of a Rabbi cutting of an Arab boys head for a feast. "

What you are quoting here is "hate speech" and not 'free speech', it cannot be condoned or supported under any circumstance

"On a far broader front, it is WRONG for a Muslim country to deny freedom of religion to people who hold to religions other than Islam, it is WRONG for the government in a Muslim country to place restrictions on women that they do not place on men, and it is WRONG for a Muslim government to make non-Muslims obey Muslim religious rules. If a Christian in Saudi Arabia wants to open a Church, hold Christian services, and then serve roast pork for dinner afterwards..... that is his inalienable right - and it is simply and undeniably WRONG of the Saudi government to prevent him from doing so."

You are absolutely correct, this restriction of religious freedom is wrong and abhorrent both from an Islamic perspective and from that of a civilized society

"I have read the Koran. I took classes in comparitive religion both at high school and college. "

Reading excerpts from the Quran does not constitute having 'read' the Quran, I am familiar with these 'comparitive' classes and they do not provide you even with a cursory introduction

"Then why do you try to justify the barbarity of 9/11 by passing the blame away from the Islamic "martyrs" that carried it out?"

Apparently you have NOT read this buzz since I have made no such insinuations and have been vociferously opposed to all forms of narrow mindedness and conspiracy theories