Wikipedia: 107,000 demand Wikipedia remove this image of Muhammad
Now aint that a bitch...
Printable View
Wikipedia: 107,000 demand Wikipedia remove this image of Muhammad
Now aint that a bitch...
Why, what's wrong with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgang
apparently no images of the gent in question are allowed.
and what a nice way of making the request. via a petition. these people should be praised not fucked with. express any opinion you want just dont kill folks over it. kudos to them.
Good on Wiki for not knuckling under...as they rightly point out it is an encyclopedia, so this work of medieval Islamic art, just one of many painted by Muslims, has historical relevance and should not be prevented from being displayed in order to please the vocal minority. In medieval times such depictions were not only common but popular, and through various periods and places the peasantry were treated arbitrarily and sometimes as often as annually to the medieval equivalent of exhibitions by their ruling classes, for entertainment, reinforcement, and conversion.
Also, the drawing in question does not actually name anyone and could just as well be an early Islamic meeting at which Mohamed (SBUHH) was not present, but as he is claimed to be the director of miracles and supposedly had dealings with god, one should fairly expect him to be a celebrity and subjected to modern day celebrity interest. Still, I can understand that some Muslims may be offended, in which case I'd suggest they don't look at it.
A serious question, though the swords of glory need not respond as they're on ignore...We often hear that 'good' Muslims are those that comply with the teachings, commands and guidelines as dictated by Mohamed, to live as clean and righteous a life as they reasonably can. In this case why should his image be taboo and not that of any other Muslim? Fair argument that it's not easy to live in the modern world with the baggage of ancient customs and tradition and rituals, but one would be hard pressed to list not having one's photo taken as deprivation. This applies doubly underlined to the hypocritical radicals yearning for civilisation's return to the 7th century, where cameras were unknown, yet who are first in line for the photo ops.
Also, and I stand to be corrected on this one, my understanding is that though Shias were among the Islamic uprising against the Danish cartoons, albeit some 5 months after publication, this is because the collection was marketed to the masses as an infidel insult against Islam...and in fact it was the single cartoon depicting Mohamed as a terrorist that they took offence to, not the others, because under normal circumstances Shias have no objection to 'respectful', images of Mohamed, subject of course to consultation and permission from the ruling elite.
No images of Mo Ham Head on Teakdoor!
I will issue a Fatwa!
Haram!
Allah U Akbar!
helpful point.Quote:
Originally Posted by keda
Well it's a fcuking awful picture anyway. Couldn't anybody draw properly in medieval times? :bunny3:
^Actually, draftsmanship technique was still more stylized than realistic in the middle ages, so one could indeed say they did not know how to 'draw properly'.
I have now increased the number with another 12 demands;)
If we agree that no photograph of Mohamed exists, unless a lifelike 7th century portrait of him has survived the ages there is no way any person living today could possibly know what he looked like. With nothing to compare against, just seems odd that a drawing said to be of him is so readily accepted to be him, unless for grounds to protest.
I just hope Islam's ruling elite handle it with tact and don't get caught up in trying to emulate the Thai-YouTube fiasco; all that would do is trigger another round of baiting. Otoh, that may be what certain elements would relish.
plus that, maybe they looked that way a couple thousand years ago,, them be ugly assholes now so who to say that they looked any better then?:)
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
What this image??? ;)
^ Is that a stick of dynamite in his hand? No wonder the audience look nervous. :bunny3:
nope. its a teakdoor amulet.
Which one is Muhammed?
They all look pretty much the same except for the two shady characters on the left and the kid next to the guy with the block of semtex under his green dress.
Sure is, he gonna give it to the kid, they were using them even way back then,,Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerbil
Yea thats the one..Quote:
Originally Posted by britmaveric
Why do all these holy types have beards?
The Creator, Moses, JC, Mohammed are all very hirsute.
Is hairiness next to Godliness?
Probably easier to grow and trim a beard in the old days than stay clean shaved.
The real reason they don't want his picture displayed is because they do not want everyone to know that he was black
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2008/02/333.jpg
People create gods in their own likness. Simple as that.
My god has a huge fcukin beer belly, farts a lot and always turns to see the young lady's ass that just walked by.
In all probability, Mohammed was much like me. 'cept for that funky beard thing and all the explosives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
mmm (strokes beard while looking thoughtful) not sure.
107,000 virtual protests ain't that much. I'f the Christians worldwide had internet when the The Last Temptation of Christ was released I'm sure they'd be up in the millions by now.
good point.