WIKIPEDIA site has published the image of our prophet Mohammad SAS
submitted 5 months 21 days 1 hour ago by: zaigham : 50 comments
For latest updates please visit: http://the-petition.blogspot.com/
Please act now, this issue has been seriously taken on worldwide level sometime ago, and someone again did it. Lets spread the word, ask your family, friends, muslim brothers and sisters to read this and sign the petition.
If possible please post on your blogs and sites as well. Thanks.
WIKIPEDIA site has published the image of our prophet Mohammad SAS. Please sign the petition on the below mentioned link to have it removed.
Please act now! JAZAKALLAHU KHAIRA
Also please forward the link to all your Muslim contacts.
FOR THE REMOVAL PETITION TO BE SIGNED; PLEASE LOG ON:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wi...
Source:
A Pakistan News
In Islam pictures or Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other holly figures are not allowed, but on wikipedia they has published some pictures that are showing not only a body with white face but an image that has a complete face.. that is even not allowed by SHITAT fact of Islam.
I request all my brothers and sisters to sign this petition so we can tell wikipedia to remove them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad specially this image ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg
Source:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wi...
http://zidesigns.com/petition1.html
Comments
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.
Totally agree with the commenter, Khalifah.
STop this hooliganism and start understanding how the Prohphet PBUH himself dealt with abuse. And this is not even abuse, but 14th century artistic renditions of him (not even pictures) made by muslims themselves.
ANd if u do read the WIkipedia FAQ, I dont there should be any more fuss, not in the society, not in your head either.
Do you guys know that these pictures are not made by Non-Muslims but great Muslim Scholars? One of the picture was painted by Al-Baruni.
Purpose of the picture was to educate people and they are available in great works in Museums worldwide. These pictures are not meant to be accurate, but they depict what happened. For example, central asian Muslims have made 'chinese' or 'mongol' features of prophet and companions because for them beautiful people were like that.
Try to understand and don't become gangsters. They are not insulting cartoons. They are pictures (painted with love by Muslim scholars) to depict important incidents. Even Christians didn't use to allow picture of Christ. Now when we see picture of Christ, this does not mean that we stop respecting him.
It is sad that the Muslims always fight over petty things. Can we stop non-Muslims from doing all this considering the fact that they do not believe that Muhammad(SAW) was a prophet? What purpose is served when we resort to violence in our own countries over this issue.
To me this is the best tool in the hands of the west to keep Muslims countries disturbed. If you love the prophet so much, why dont you practise what he has taught?
Ahmed Deedat, the great scholar, once rightly said that we Muslims are prepared to die for the Book but we are not prepared to live by the book.
May Allah show us guidance.
This Truly is nothing to fight about.. i agree with all the posters above..
all the images depicted in Wiki. were made by Muslim scholars and they were made not just yesterday but over 100 or even thousand Years ago..
It is the Idolism of the image not the Depiction of the image that should be taken into question.
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) .
may allah forgive all those of bad doing
Wikipedia is secular company located in the USA. Wikipedia, and everything and everyone else in the USA, except muslims, do not live by , obey , or recognize the laws of Islam. In the USA, we live by the laws of the United States Constitution, which does not prohibit the publication of pictures.
Attention: Wikipedia
This is a fact many muslims use this web site to attain knowledge and there is no harm in providing such kind of information related to religion(Islam). May be these information are true to the faith and believe of Muslims and may not be, in both the cases non-mulims can enjoy the right to comment but they DO NOT DO HAVE the right to humiliate, humble or let down any religion by publishing the pictures of its messenger. If there is any cretecism regarding Islam they should invite Islamic scholars for controversy in a scholarly way of discussions.
Non-muslims know even experinced a wide volume of condeman world-wide when the Denmark's carricatuers published the picturers in 2007.
This is an in-humanistic way of harrasment to hit that part which produce pain.
Allah has never sent SWEET HADRAT MUHAMMAD only for Muslims, remember he was sent for the entire world.
I STRONGLY CONDEMN THIS ACT OF FEELING BARBERISM.
I LOVE THE SWEETEST MUHAMMAD, I AM DEVOTED TO YOU. I LOVE YOU.
i vehmently denounce siners of this act to make joke of muslims.
faraz ahmad
they donot know how the blood pf muslism so warm.
how dare these so called 'muslims' say that making pictures of our beloved Prophet sas be alright and ok in this modern and secular age. how dare you. you people are destroying this ummah. do you pray five times a day as ordered by allmighty Allah swt, do you practice this wonderful deen of ours? No. because if you did you would be equally as outraged as Muslims all over the world are. Go and join your shaytaan secular friends you dirty disgusting drop of dirty fluid. i would never have thought anybody claiming to be muslim would think this way; i only expected this off the kuffar.
MAY ALLAH SWT DESTROY THOSE WHO TRY AND DISGRACE ISLAM ESPECIALLY THOSE HYPOCRITE MUNAFIQ PROCLAIMING TO BE 'MUSLIM'. AAMEEN
For up-to date information, please visit: http://the-petition.blogspot.com/
thanks.
---------------------------
"Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending". unknown
visit http://zidesigns.com
UFO,
What is your reasoning behind this outburst and can you please share the ayat pertaining to it so we may also achieve enlightenment?
Asslam O Alikum to All Muslims!
The muslim brothers who are saying that the picture doesn't matter, How they dare so?
You don't consider it the insult of Holy Prophet?
Allah Says in Quran much about the Holy Prophet personality, manners, deeds. How some one can sketch HIM, whether muslim or non-muslim. Islamic Shariat doesn't allow the picture of any living things except vital cases. (Note: this was laterly allowed by Scholors (mujthaid) under the rules of Islamic Law (fiqha)).
The west always try to hurt Muslims and this the part of muslims heart. Even a muslim who not fundamentlist, have love of Holy Prophet.
I STRONGLY CONDMN THIS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR
Web Designer, please stop hearkening to the local Islamic priest (Maulvi) who has misguided you.
Islam does not prohibit pictures, etc. Sure there exist some weak hadith to that effect but if we really look into the matter then it becomes clear that images could have been frowned upon so that the newly converted pagans didn't start worshipping an image of the prophet. A facial image, however, does not disrespect the prophet in whatever convoluted way you choose to look at it and nor should it dampen the love of the prophet in anyone's heart.
As I mentioned before, please make sure that the love for the prophet does not exceed the love of the prophet's creator in your heart.
The expected results out of all this heated debate are evident.....
Lack of tolerance,
absence of perseverance,and
the glaring rise of the conflict between the so called fundamentalism and secularism....[ most of us dont even know the meanings of these words]
And the answer to all this arguement is..What really is this controversy doing good to Islam and humanity by erasing the image of a tolerant Islam spread by Our Holy Prophet SAW?
Do you realy love him? If you do, then you ought to prove it via your attitudes and behaviours...Pardon me !
Asslam o alaikum to all of my Muslim brothers;
i am astonished to hear about some comments from some people who are trying to misguide muslim community. i think it is not a new thing. Non believers raise such issues to check the passion and strength in their belief. i say, don't forget the person who made images of our Holy Propthet (S.A.W), killed by Muhammad Nasir Cheema (Shaheed). I want to clearly state that Islam strictly prohibits, making images of the Holy Prophet whether for worship or not for it. I ask u, have u considered the ideal personality of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) in images or cartoons. Remember that no one in this world is like my beloved Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) as he said once
"WHO IS LIKE ME AMONG U?"
ALLAH Has created anyone like him and no one is allowed to give his examples by comparing any thing or any person.
I can state many references from the HOLY QURAN and THE HADITH SHAREEF on this topic but for brevity, i request to all of my Islamic brothers not to follow those scholars (MOLVIES) who state against the HOLY QURAN and the HADITH SHAREEF by making false explanations, which u can see is the beleif of jews and chiristians. Remember! this is the beleif of AHLE SUNNAT WALJAMAAT and we should follow it as it is the way taught by saints and by the fellows of the HOLLY PROPHET(S.A.W.).
AT THE END, i strongly emphasize on wikipedia team to respect our religion and remove these images.
WASSLAM!
Muhammad farooq Qadri
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
Mr. Khalifah,
I think you are out of your mind. Please read the HOLY QURAN which said that pictures of any living thing is not allowed. Then how can a true muslim make a picture of HOLY PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM). Shame on you to say that this is not a big issue. By your comments you have hurted many muslims.
No by my comments I have only hurt ignorant fools who regurgitate hearsay rather than picking up the Quran and reading it for themselves.
The Quran (at least the copies I have read) does NOT forbid "pictures of living things".
Shocker, Isn't it , now go do what the Quran says------ Iqra! (Read)
plz remove the picture.
i only wanted to say that
ok Mr. Khalifah!
first u clear ur opinion and reply point by point. I'll answer ur questions one by one INSHALLAH.
ALLAH HAFIZ
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
Lawful in His Book, and the haram is
that which He has forbidden and that
which He kept silent about is permitted
as a favour to you."
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
Don't play with the sentiments of the Muslims.OK
Otherwise................................................
It's not sentiments, its ignorance, Asif
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
Here is another one Mr. Qadri
Quite a number of the people of the book wish they could turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the truth hath become manifest to them.
But forgive and overlook, till Allah brings about his command, for Allah hath power over all things. 2:109
I m back now Mr.Khalifah!
Sorry i could not reply you early as i was busy but now i m ready to
answer to your questions. I have read your comments and arguments about
the topic on which we had decide to debate. Truly saying, i was
laughing at your fool arguments which u have given in the favor of your
opinion. Actually, what i have suggested about yourself after reading
your posts, that u even do'nt have the basic knowlege of Islam but trying to represent Islam .I'll reply to your questions one by one.
Q1>>>> You had given the argument about making images by 'jinns' of
the age of HAZRAT SULEMAN (A.S.) and referneced a verse from the HOLY
QURAN of the sura(SABA), ayat (12-13). By refering this ayat, you had
said that as jinns made images so it means that they are 'HALAAL'. Ok! is it
so?
Ans>>> the simple answer is that you had not studied the 'TAFASEERS'
about the exact meanings of this verse. The truth is that making images
of living things was allowed in the 'SHAREEAT' of HAZRAT SULEMAN(A.S.)
and not in the SHAREEAT of our HOLY PROPHET(S.A.W.). Read the Tafseer
'KHAZAAEEN UL IRFAAN' along with the translation 'KANZUL IMAAN' by
ALHAHAZRAT IMAM AHMED RAZA KHAN (R.A).
Q2>>>You had said,"Islam does not prohibit pictures, etc." (quoted 9
days before) and also said that until pictures are not used for worship
,they are allowed?
Ans>>>O'man! Read these references and try to correct your thoughts
please... its very clear if u want to understand.
Hadith - Bukhari 3:428, Narrated Said bin Abu Al-Hasan
While I was with Ibn 'Abbas a man came and said, "O father of 'Abbas!
My sustenance is from my manual profession and I make these pictures."
Ibn 'Abbas said, "I will tell you only what I heard from Allah's
Apostle . I heard him saying, 'Whoever makes a picture will be punished
by Allah till he puts life in it, and he will never be able to put life
in it.' " Hearing this, that man heaved a sigh and his face turned
pale. Ibn 'Abbas said to him, "What a pity! If you insist on making
pictures I advise you to make pictures of trees and any other
unanimated objects."
Hadith -Bukhari 4:47, Narrated 'Aisha
I stuffed for the Prophet a pillow decorated with pictures (of
animals) which looked like a Namruqa (i.e. a small cushion). He came
and stood among the people with excitement apparent on his face. I
said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is wrong?" He said, "What is this
pillow?" I said, "I have prepared this pillow for you, so that you may
recline on it." He said, "Don't you know that angels do not enter a
house wherein there are pictures; and whoever makes a picture will be
punished on the Day of Resurrection and will be asked to give life to
(what he has created)?"
Hadith - Bukhari 4:448, Narrated Abu Talha
I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a
house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human
being or an animal)."
Hadith -Bukhari 5:338, Narrated Ibn Abbas
Abu Talha, a companion of Allah's Apostle and one of those who fought
at Badr together with Allah's Apostle told me that Allah's Apostle
said. "Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a
picture." He meant the images of creatures that have souls.
Q3>>>You had quoted a HADITH SHAREEF as under and explained it
according to your will as
" The halal is which Allah has made
Lawful in His Book, and the haram is
that which He has forbidden and that
which He kept silent about is permitted
as a favour to you."
Ans>>Look my friend, tell me where in this HADITH SHAREEF is written that
pictures (of living things but espacially of the HOLY PROPHET(S.A.W.))
are allowed. why did u interpreted it yourself without consulting any
good scholar? Remember now i m telling u a general rule of interpreting
any issue in islam.First of all, if we've to judge something, we'll
take guidance from the HOLY QURAN. But if we'r unable to find a clear
guidance (though everything is discussed in the HOLY QURAN), but due to
lack of our knowledge, then we'll consult the HADITH SHAREEF. The
Hadith Shareef is actually an explanation of the HOLY QURAN. But again,
due to lack of our knowledge, if we are failed to find the clear
meanings of some issue, then we'll find the solution from the lifes of
the great followers of the HOLY PROPHET(S.A.W.), and then from the
other saints who came afterwards(IMAM ABU HANEEFA, IMAM SHAFAI, IMAM
BUKHARI, IMAM MUSLIM,IMAM GHAZALI,GHOS E AZAM (R.A.A.) etc). Tell me one thing, is there anywhere in Quran said that the dog or donkey is 'halal' and if no and surely no then according to your explanation of this HADITH SHAREEF it can be said that as it is not discussed and silence is used about them, so they are allowed i.e. 'HALAAL'.SO here, it is quite clear from the foresaid AHADITHs that pictures of
living beings (whether they'r for worship or not) are strictly
prohibited and a true lover of the PROPHET (S.A.W.) would never like to see his beloved PROPHET(S.A.W.) in cartoons or images.
So my dear, at the end, i want to just say u that the wise persons get correction from advice.
ok! ALLAH HAFIZ
DO REMEMBER ME IN YOUR PRAYERS
MUHAMMAD farooq QADRI & MUHAMMAD saqib ATTARI
PAKISTAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
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
What Islam says about portraying images of Mohamed is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an Islamic site, nor is it run by Moslems, so they are under no obligation to obey Islamic law.
Would you expect a web site in Pakistan, run by Muslims, to be required to follow Catholic law, or the edicts of the Pope?
The rules of a religion apply only to the followers of that religion, so there is nothing wrong with Wikipedia posting pictures of Mohamed.
Mr. Khalifa!
I think you r out of your mind. You have disgraced islamic teachings just by using your own thoughts. You have denied a number of Quranic verses and AHADITHs only by using your own explanations and translations of Quranic verses. I had qouted the reference of Tafaseers and nothing was said by myself, but in the response, you just denied those facts by making false explanations of the Holy Quran,I just say, from which tafseer have you taken these ideas. But actually, the fact is that you are making your own tafseer of the Holy Quran by your own ideas. Remember! Your explanations do not have any worth.
At the end, i just say that if, in your opinion, making cartoons of the Holy Prophet( S.A.W. ) is good, then why not you publish the cartoons of your father, mother and sisters?
Now don't talk me any more on this topic and stop you non sense.
There is no concept of clergy in Islam which is exactly what the tafseers amount to if taken literally--- Papal edicts
Religion is not a verifiable subject like Math, physics or chemistry; it is based on pure reasoning and as such is open to interpretation.
Lakum deenukum waliya deen
It is surely a nastiest activity done by Kafer. Please stop it.
You're all completely missing the point.
Wikipedia is NOT a Muslim site, nor is it it registered or hosted in a Muslim country.
Whether anything they choose to allow is offensive to Muslims is therefore *totally* irrelevant. They are under NO obligation whatsoever to avoid giving offense.
Webistes across the Muslim world are replete with content offensive to Christianity and Judaism. 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.
As Jesus Himself said... "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
In other words.... put your own house in order before worrying about what others are doing.
Richard
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???
[image]Al-Watan, February 3, 2004 (Oman)
Translation:
On left - Feast of the Immolation
On right - The Islamic World's Attitude?
Is this "nothing more than a reference to the holocaust"? A cartoon showing Rabbis cutting off Arab childrens heads for a feast?
"is this freedom of expression reserved for u ppl only?"
And you continue to - deliberately I'm sure - miss the point. Freedom of expression applies to EVERYONE. The Islamic media has the freedom to print cartoons showing Rabbis cutting off Arab kids heads... and Wikipedia has the right to show pictures of Mohamed. They're not even deliberately offensive pictures - in fact, they're paintings BY Muslim artists of their own prophet, while the anti-Jew cartoon I referenced was deliberately offensive.
My point is that if *you* want to make the argument that a site in a Christian country should NOT be allowed to exercise their freedom of expression by posting these pictures, then look first to restricting the freedom of expression in your OWN house.
When you can go to Wikipedia and say "I know that you have the legal right to post these pictures that we find offensive, but look - we have removed ALL offensive material from our websites, will you do the same?" then you have the moral high ground.
At the moment, you don't because the entre Muslim world is awash with anti-Jewish and anti-Christian websites.
Richard
anyone help me please, i havn't got a photo album of Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) prison....
they have such a high moral advantage that there is no hope for us to get level with them.....
"anyone help me please, i havn't got a photo album of Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) prison.... they have such a high moral advantage that there is no hope for us to get level with them....."
Thank you. I'm glad you recognize that. The murdering terrorists at Gitmo are being held in prison, fed, clothed and heltered. They are even allowed to read the very Koran that led them to their terrorist acts in the first place. They are being tried in fair courts, and allowed lawyers to represent them.
Compare THAT to how Muslims treat their enemies... Daniel Pearl beheaded alive in front of a TV camera, truckdrivers for a charity dragged from their trucks and murdered and their savage killings posted on the internet, contractors just doing their job in Iraq kidnapped, hung from a bridge and burned alive, random rocket attacks fired at civilian towns in Israel... not to mention, of course, Islams great moral stance of flying airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Richard
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
Rick,
It really amazes me when people who have never even 'seen' a Quran, let alone read one, pass judgment on it.
And please get your facts straight, most Gitmo detainees are still being denied due process except maybe those backed by foreign govenments, Britain and Australia
Also, I see that you have conveniently turned a blind eye to the horror stories about the conditions in Gitmo that prompted several detainees to try and commit suicide.
We won't even start on Abu Ghuraib, remember that sweet little innocent Christian girl 'playing' with the detainees there?
"brutal n inhuman treatment they r subjected to..."
Brutal and inhumane????? Getting your head sawn off on worlkdwide TV is brutal and inhumane. The way the terrorists live in Gitmo is better than most of them lived before their terrorist acts.
"how Holy Quran is desecrated over there:
Total BS.
"besides other stuff which i can't even write "
Because you haven't made it up yet.
"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..... "
Still waiting for the evidence? Like the 19 good religious Muslims that did it? If I thought for an instant that you believed that and weren't just trying to pass the blame for your faiths savagery, I'd think you must be mad.
"We won't even start on Abu Ghuraib, remember that sweet little innocent Christian girl 'playing' with the detainees there?"
Awww, they let dogs bark at them and took nasty pictures. Yes, that compares with being hung from a bridge in barbed wire and burned alive.
You are both, of course, trying to move away from the original subject. This thread started as a petition to demand that Wikipedia remove pictures of Mohamed because you think they're offensive..... WHERE are the Muslim petitions to demand that Islamic sites remove pictures offinsive to Christians or Jews?
One of the biggest differences between a civilized society and a barbaric one is how they deal with opposing points of view. I live in a mostly Christian country, and within a mile of me there is one of the biggest Sikh Temples outside India, a Hindu Temple, at least two Mosques and at least two Synagogues. Where I to look around in Riyadh or Medina, how many Synagogues and Christian churches would I see? There's a large Mosque a stones throw from the Vatican, and Rome has dozens spread throughout the city..... How many Christian Churches are there in Mecca?
The repression of opposing points of view and other religions is an absolute sign of barbarism.
"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
besides other stuff which i can't even write "
Because you haven't made it up yet.
i m a decent Muslim female, my upbringing commands against using foul language n the treatment they got over there is so hideous that it can only be described in the language i would rather not use....don't label my silence as weakness
Rigged Trials For Gitmo Detainees: “We can’t have acquittals, we’ve got to have convictions.”
By: Nicole Belle on Friday, February 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 AM - the story that the White House had decided to pursue secret trials of six detainees, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed for their roles leading up to 9/11, the comments for those posts were full of accusations of kangaroo courts. Sadly, but not surprisingly, those fears were right, as The Nation has found:
(A)s the murky, quasi-legal staging of the Bush Administration’s military commissions unfolds, a key official has told The Nation that the trials are rigged from the start. According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo’s military commissions, the process has been manipulated by Administration appointees in an attempt to foreclose the possibility of acquittal.
more at http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/22/rigged-trials-for-gitmo-detainees-we-cant-have-acquittals-weve-got-to-have-convictions/
its just the tip of the iceberg a mild overview...the reality is when and if they r released they r worse then dead...
to give the devil its due out of my natural fairness i would say it for u it takes a lot of guts to raise a lone voice in a hostile environment
"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"
Not at all. My reply to this buzz was in response to the original post - "WIKIPEDIA site has published the image of our prophet Mohammad SAS. Please sign the petition on the below mentioned link to have it removed."
My original position - which I have not budged from - 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.
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 pass sweeping judgments on the Quran without ever having read it"
Ah, but there you are wrong - I have read the Koran. I took classes in comparitive religion both at high school and college.
"You then post on this buzz without apparently having read it at all as well."
I've read the whole buzz too.... including the attempts to distract the subject from the original posters demand.
"The most dispicable act I can think of is to try and justify barbarity"
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?
And we in the west do no such thing anyway. What the guards did at Abu Ghraib WAS barbaric (although nothing like as hideous as the barbarisms practiced daily in the name of Islam)... and they were punished for it. Did the leaders of Al Quaida punish the barbarians who cut off Daniel Pearls head while he was still alive? Did the leaders of the Iraqi insurgency punish their members who hung contractors from a bridge and burned them alive?
Of course not.... To punish those who transgress is the mark of a civilized society.
Richard
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
"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"
While the MUSLIM cartoon I referred to could be classified as "hate speech", the pictures of Mohamed - painted, I'd note again, by MUSLIM artists - on Wiki are not hate speech in any possible twisting of the phrase.
Rick
AS SALAAMU ALAIKUM
according 2 me this is the most foolish n stupid act n wrong way to show any islamic thing or show MUHAMMED (S.A.S) PIC or EVEN his COMPANIONS
this work is most probably done by an ammature and half knowladged person bcoz in islam it is said it's haram 2 draw pic or take photos dats alright but no 1 should hav darred 2 do this GUNNAH E KABIRA i protest aganist this fake pics n demand 4 its removal from the web page
If it waz a muslims work ALLAH will surely look after u in grave n jahannum or if it was an un beliver they are not in our counting also bcoz after death they will be dwelling in hell fire sad to say dat
i think it is only due to the fact that we muslims forgetted the teaching pf holy prophet .we must act on that.to resolve this issue we must consult the prophet teaching and sayings(hadees)
as the people who made all these rubbish things or caricatures uptill now their outcome is very bad,some one burt himself,someone burn his family with him etc.so Allah is giving them severe punishments and inshALLAh at the day of judgemnet they would be in worst condition.as far as reaction of MUSLIMS is concidered its all right,we all love our Prophet Hazrat MOHAMMAD (S.A.W) and always redy to bow down our lives, our every thing for our beloved Prophet HAZRAT MOHAMMAD (S.A.W).BUT the reaction shown by people like they are destroying,killing,burning,damaging their own people.their own country,blocking the trafic without caring ambulance awaiting in that trafic also and peoplelost their lives at the very moment,its not good they have to destroy those ridiculous,vagabond people who are responsible for all these matters.
IF WE 'MUSLIMS' UNITE AND PROTEST AGAINST THESE RIDICULOUS ACTIVITIES AND DESTROY THEIR NATION WHO ARE DOING ALL THIS,THEN NOTHING CAN RESTRAIN US FROM DOING THIS.WE CAN DESTROY THOSE NATIONS COMPLETELY AS THE GREATEST POWER ALLAH IS ALWAYZ WITH US.
west has its hypocricies. when its these cartoons theyll let them publish in the name of 'freeom of speech' but they have their own taboos. try talking against the jooz or israel or say any sh*t about holocaust and freedom of speech goes to hell.
i think muslims should respond worldwide by targetting taboos of west including making fun of jooz and holocaust on an international scale. then only they will recognize their hypocrisy
although personally i feel that as long as they are true to their freedom of speech principle then i wont even oppose the publsihing of prophet mohammds cartoons even though it offends me personally
Post new comment