Tuesday, February 26, 2008

The Peninsula - Sign up against Danish cartoons

i was reading the news coverage about this petition and fond an article in The Peninsula, a Qatar's Daily English daily.
it was mention there that 10000 signatures are enough to force Wikipedia to remove there images. but i like to clear the world that was my personal estimate, not a Wikipedia policy. so i encourage more and more brothers and sisters to sign this petition so we can put strong and constant pressure on Wikipedia. As Wikipedia is hosted in California only public pressure or California state can force Wikipedia to remove such hate material. hope somebody from California will help us to take this petition to concern authorities.
here is another good story related to my petition.
Wikipedia accused of 'US-centric bias'

Monday, February 18, 2008

17 Danish newspapers reprinted one of the 12 Muhammad cartoons

I request All Muslim Nations to block all Economic and Military relations with this Nation. Specially Pakistan has to block all Supplies going to Danish forces serving in Afghanistan. Nothing less then this.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Why this fuss?

This fuss is all bout respect. This is to save the ideology of religion. When we grow up in a world where religions are targeted and ideologies are criticized, where freedom of speech is used as freedom to abuse. Kids grow up watching such motive, TV serials and internet entries they became insensitive about these things. They start thinking its normal. And Anti social behavior become a symbol of pride. Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is used to promote extreme point of view.

In such situation we have to do something it’s a moral obligation of every citizen.

So I start my contribution with this petition.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Why I use word westerns in this?

I use word westerns to point those people in society who think they can do any thing in the name of freedom of speech. They can write any thing on Wikipedia if they find on internet. That is called original research and Wikipedia is also against original research. Because during discussions when I ask Wikipedia editors what they know about Islam? There answer was just through media nothing more then that. So it’s a open question are such people are eligible to write such important article about Islam.

Wikipedia and wikiIslam

Surprised to that a wikiislam existed, but biggest shock is it’s the property of wikipeida and I also edited by same peoples who edit Wikipedia. And most shocking thing is that on the home page of this wikiislam a cartoon form Danish newspaper is shown. I don’t know from how many ways they will try to deceive readers about Islam. So I request reader to guard your children from going on such websites.

News coverage about this petition

Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized



Published: February 5, 2008

An article about the Prophet Muhammad in the English-language Wikipedia has become the subject of an online protest in the last few weeks because of its representations of Muhammad, taken from medieval manuscripts.

In addition to numerous e-mail messages sent to Wikipedia.org, an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images of people.

The petition has more than 80,000 “signatures,” though many who submitted them to ThePetitionSite.com, remained anonymous.

“We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails beginning mid-January,” said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco, which administers the various online encyclopedias in more than 250 languages.

A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site’s polite but firm refusal to remove the images: “Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.”

The notes left on the petition site come from all over the world. “It’s totally unacceptable to print the Prophet’s picture,” Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. “It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately.”

The site considered but rejected a compromise that would allow visitors to choose whether to view the page with images.

Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, “Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent.” He added, “Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad.”

The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. With the Wikipedia entry, he added, “what you are dealing with is not medieval illustrations, you are dealing with modern media and getting a modern response.”


Wikipedia Prophet Images Irk Muslims


CAIRO — More than 90,000 people are asking Wikipedia, the biggest multilingual free-content encyclopedia on the Internet, to remove medieval images it says are of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).

"We Muslims respect all religions and expect the same respect from all," Nayyar Iqbal, Pakistan, wrote on Tuesday, February 5, adding his name to the online petition.

"Kindly remove the illustrations of our beloved prophet from the Wikipedia."

The petition, posted on ThePetitionSite.com, was created on December 4 by Faraz Ahmad from the United Kingdom.

When IslamOnline.net last checked it at 18:30 GMT, it was signed by 90,245 from 83,691 a day earlier.

Check Petition

Skimming through the entities, which are both dated and serially numbered, suggests the petition has been signed by people from almost every world country.

Many just write their names and country while others add their own comments but all agree on thing; Wikipedia must remove the photos.

"Please remove the false photographs of Prophet Mohammad as he himself in his own life had prohibited for his portraits," wrote Samad Ahmad, Albania.

Some of images, which are believed to be drawn in the 12th century, are not merely illustrative, but offensive.

One of them portrayed the Prophet as an idol to whom Muslims prayed for aid in battle. Another represents the Prophet as a monk and cardinal.

Prophet Muhammad forbade Muslims to make images of living beings whether human or animals let alone himself.

He feared that these images would lead to idolatry as images of pious and religious figures were often worshiped by many people in Arabia at the time as well as in other cultures and societies.

No Compromise

The San Francisco-based Wikimedia Foundation has been inundated by emails, urging it to remove the imagery.

"We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails beginning mid-January," Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation, told The New York Times.

Wikipedia considered but rejected a compromise that would allow visitors to choose whether to view the page with images.

"Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group," it explained the refusal.

But the petitioners are not satisfied with this response.

"I strongly condemned this act by wiki and I demand immediate removal of the picture from wiki pages," Pakistani Hassaan Mustafa wrote Tuesday.

"Freedom of Speech doesn't mean that u start hurting millions humans personal feelings. Respect Every One."

In September 2005, Danish mass-circulation Jyllands-Posten published 12 drawings including portrayals of a man the daily called the Prophet, wearing a bomb-shaped turban and another showing him as a knife-wielding nomad flanked by shrouded women.

The cartoons, considered blasphemous under Islam, triggered mass protests across the world and strained Muslim-West ties.

Islam Online

06 September 2008


Wikipedia defends its right to publish Muhammad images

Wikipedia February 04 2008

Please note that discussion on this talk page has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article and any removal of the pictures without discussion here first will be reverted on sight. If you wish to discuss the inclusion of pictures in the article, please read over previous discussions here, here, and here and the Muhammad article FAQ at this page.

(Debate from the Wikipedia Talk page)

Notice to all those who wish Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad

Please place your requests for Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad in this dedicated page or they may be removed. TharkunColl TharkunColl (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: if this is the page now in use for these particular topics, we may want to change the banner near the top which explains that no changes will be made without discussion on this page.--C.Logan (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

most people are never going to read it - it would actually make more sense for the rest of us to leave this page to the "please remove" crowd and do all of the real work on a sub-page. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, this may be the case if the reaction to the FAQ is any indication.--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to TharkunColl: I'd reverted your removal of the "a new suggestion" topic, because I feel that this is a topic which is mostly productive and should not be included along with the rest of the "request" posts, which are typically by anonymous or new users with little or no knowledge of Wikipedia policy. As far as I can see, this is not a "request" which would justifiably need to be moved to the new page for such posts- doing so would "drown out" the points raised by Aminz, because I can't help but feel that this new page will be one that is afforded little real attention or concern (though one can't be blamed for this attitude considering the route the discussion has taken).--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

though the images are not yet removed, but i have to thank everyone who took the time to participate in this discussion. Those who are in favor of the removal or not, I thank everyone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 06:48, February 4, 2008 (UTC-5)

There is no "yet" my friend. Jmlk17 11:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your page to Talk:Muhammad/images whic is the original title under which we did image discussions. I'm sure you realize what you were doing when you called it "censorship requests" but our goal is to make this a manageable issue that does not clog the talk page, not belittle the people making these requests. gren グレン 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad

Online encyclopedia Wikipedia has again stirred up controversy — this time over a biographical entry on the prophet Muhammad.

Nearly 100,000 people worldwide have signed a Web-based petition asking Wikipedia to remove all depictions of the Prophet from its English-language entry, viewable here.

"I request all brothers and sisters to sign this petitions so we can tell Wikipedia to respect the religion and remove the illustrations," the creator of the petition at The Petition Site asks.

Opposition among Muslims to images of Muhammad has its roots in the prohibition of "graven images" in the Ten Commandments, but has varied over time.

"Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent," Notre Dame history professor Paul M. Cobb told the New York Times. "Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad."

All four images on the English-language Wikipedia page are rather lovely Persian and Ottoman miniatures from the 14th through 16th centuries. The two later ones depict Muhammad's face as covered by a white veil, but the earlier pair show his full face.

"Please take off those pictures or leave only the digitally blanked out faces please," writes one anonymous petitioner from Belgium several times on the petition site. "Thanks for respecting Muslims beliefs. Peace and Light."

Wikipedia has entries on Muhammad in several dozen languages. A quick survey found images of the Prophet on the Dutch, German, French, Spanish and Russian versions, but not on the Arabic, Turkish, Chinese, Albanian, Urdu or Bahasa Indonesia versions.

The Croatian edition depicted Muhammad, but the version written in the nearly identical Bosnian dialect did not, reflecting Bosnia's Islamic identity.

Surprisingly, one version in a language spoken overwhelmingly by Muslims had several images of Muhammad, both veiled and unveiled — the Farsi edition, legible to Persian-speakers in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and in the Iranian and Afghan diasporas worldwide.


Dispute about images of Mohammed at Wikipedia

The iconoclasts are once again taking the foreground at the free online Wikipedia encyclopaedia. In an online petition, more than 90,000 Muslims demand that images of the Prophet Mohammed be deleted. The Wikipedia community refuses to do so.

The bone of contention is a miniature from the 15th century showing the face of the Prophet Mohammed. The petition states, "In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed." Although most images do not show the face of the Prophet, the petition states that the mere representation of him is an affront to Muslims. While those who signed the main petition have only issued urgent appeals, some individual hotheads on other websites have not shied away from threats of violence.

In a dedicated FAQ, the staff of Wikipedia say why they are going to keep the image online: while "Wikipedia recognizes that there are cultural traditions among some Muslim groups that prohibit depictions of Muhammad and other prophets and that some Muslims are offended when those traditions are violated.", the tradition is nonetheless not a ban that applies for all Muslims. In particular, Wikipedia points out that the Shia are less strict on this issue. "Wikipedia is a project for the establishment of an encyclopaedia, not a venue for a debate between Muslims", Wikimedia Deutschland's Mathias Schindler explained in a conversation with heise online.

Unlike the dispute about Danish caricatures of Mohammed, the debate at Wikipedia does not concern insulting representations of the Prophet, but merely medieval depictions of the founder of Islam. Islamic tradition prohibits representations of the Prophet for the purposes of idolatry. However, some interpretations of traditions go so far as to reject all images of living beings. The images at Wikipedia are medieval works by Muslim artists created long after the Prophet died. The online encyclopaedia explains the concerns about depictions of Mohammed in detail in several places.

Indeed, disputes about images are nothing new for the free internet encyclopaedia. Just last December, the vice-chairwoman of Germany's leftist party Die Linke file charges against Wikipedia for publishing symbols of organizations that are declared enemies of the German constitution. The politician retracted the suit when Wikipedia reduced the numbers of images published in the German article on Hitler Youth. Wikipedia continues, however, to document the symbols used by Nazi organizations. (Torsten Kleinz) / (jk/c't)

'Muslims should boycott Wikipedia'
Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:19:30

An Iranian official has urged Muslim states to boycott Wikipedia after the encyclopedia published a series of blasphemous cartoons.

An informed cultural official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Sunday that the web site's moderators are well aware of the insulting nature of the cartoons of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) and their refusal to remove them is a deliberate and offensive move against Muslims.

They refused to unpublish the cartoons although more than 180,000 letters of protest had been sent to Wikipedia, he added.

The official called on Muslim states to boycott and block the web site to counter 'the divisive and anti-Islamic move.'


Muhammad, Wikipedia and Media

After a month long break today I decided to write something more about this bowling issue that is made global by my petition.
I stop taking any action when I was blocked by Wikipedia to edit and then failure the negotiations between me and Wikipedia about unblocking me.
In this duration I receive many comments and suggestion from peoples. And that is why I decided to keep this petition open for signatures. But one thing I notice and like to share is that almost all comments through private messages or through signatures was peaceful.
I personally think that is due to the negative propaganda in international media that Muslims are violent and only know aggression.
I favorite TV channel is Peace TV now a days. And that help me lot to stay calm in this tense moment when both my nation Pakistan is the hottest issue in world media and my efforts about Wikipedia are going forward. That TV channel helped me to answer so many questions raised by media.
Why I decided to write today?
Today I receive an email from NOAM COHEN a writer from The New York Times, asking for an interview about this. But unfortunately I read that email after 8 hours and i replied him/her and also give a call but only reach voicemail. After that i decided to Google this thing and when i search Google news about Muhammad I was surprised that my voice is now reaching the newspaper. And i find 2 entries about this. One form a EuropeNews, Denmark Wikipedia defends its right to publish Muhammad images
This article is about the defiance by Wikipedia to publish images. And it just copy past some discussion from Wikipedia Talk page.
And the second is published in New York Times, United States Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized by NOAM. He gives a break introduction about this issue and then goes to explain the relation between petition and Wikipedia. And then explain the view of Wikipedia. And at the end give a view from Paul M. Cobb on this issue.
But one thing was missing my view and the original view of Islam about this.
So I decided to write my view on this issue in great detail.
The first question is. Is pictures or illustrations of humans are allowed in Islam?
And the answer is NOT. And this is exactly opposite to Paul M. Cobb. This Islamic Law is derived from Quran and authentic HADITH, and both Quran and Hadith belong from the life of Muhammad to its not a 20th century Law. I know before 20th century there was no Fatwa about this but there was a common understanding between Muslims on this issue. The art of pictures and illustration of Muhammad (PBUH) was only practiced in Iran or Shia Muslims. One thing is very important in this issue, not all Shia practice this. Even then painting of face was not allowed in Shia community. That is why you will find majority of illustrations with a white blank face or a face covered with Vail. But in 20th century some illustrations showing face were discovered and then Muslim scholars decided to put a Fatwa or Islamic Law in place to block this move.
The second question is why I am trying so hard to remove them from Wikipedia?
Wikipedia as an open source of information is highly popular between all kinds of peoples, especially kids, who are growing up in an age of Google. And Wikipedia is the top destination for information because of many reasons. It’s free and it’s available to edit. When you search for word “Muhammad” in Google it’s the first result, in LIVE.com it’s the 7th and that is just wiki commons Original article in on the 4th page. In Yahoo search it’s the 1st result. On Ask.com it’s the 9th result. On Dogpile.com it’s the 3rd ... that simply mean that almost 98% who search for Muhammad read Wikipedia’s view on Muhammad. I deliberately use the word view because I know that is not actual reality.
The third question is who are the editors of this Article about Muhammad on Wikipedia?
Through my personal experience while editing Wikipedia, reading the profiles and edits by these editors. I find that majority of them are non-Muslims, in a rough estimate about 85% of them. Majority of them are Atheist living in Western Europe. Where religion is vied as an evilest thing happened to humanity. They already has removed religion from there social and personal life and now targeting other religious communities. One fact about this is majority of anti Islamic literature originate from Denmark. Even this time the whole cartoon issue, and the first news to defend Wikipedia on this issue was from Denmark.
I will complete this topic in few days so keep browsing.....

Truth about Wikipedia

I feel really sad to expose the reality of Wikipedia, i was a great fan of that work and try to contribute as much as i could. but during that straggle i cam across the reality of Wikipedia.
I found Wikipedia a voice of Atheist who is working to undermine the role of religion, insulting the followers of religions and changing the history of religions.

To support there agenda Wikipedia is using some big banners and ambiguous rules.

when i was reading the article about Muhammad (PBUH) on Wikipedia, i notice illustrations of Muhammad places on this article. so i made a petition to tell wikipedia to remove them, but wikipedia refuse that by saying "wikipedia is not censored" and it does not respect any petition. they also threaten me to block my account if i did not take back my petition.

So i tried to contest that matter with wikipedia Admins on discussion page. and find that all Muslim editors of that article are trying to take these illustrations out of that page but all Atheist editors who are also the admins of wikipedia are apposing that. they are saying that wikipedia is not censored, and they regard Muhammad(PBUH) as an ordinary man in history. they did same with my arguments. one by one all atheist admins answer my request by same argument. and finally when i show them the mirror. they threaten me by giving me warnings. and accuse me hate speech.
so then i decided to twist the argument by raising some controversial questions.
my questions were:
"Hitler as Hero?"
Add views of other nations about Holocaust
they contested these arguments and block me from wikipedia by declaring me as a "
neo-Nazi Holocaust denial ". I think both were valid questions under wikipedia policies. as it was clear that wikipedia is following a hidden agenda. that agenda is created by admins who are west European and Atheist. so by nature they are anti religion and anti Nazi.
I know one thing, that my these two points put them on fire http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14993&st=0
and came to believe that, i am not the first or last in this struggle, believe in Allah and go on...

on Jan 4 when i try again to contest my block
and put this on
user B and
The Evil Spartan who answer my unblock request
"I am not responsible of others action. if some other people are removing these things why you block me. i limit my self only to discussion pages. and if you think i am only involve in off the site activities then see this [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keeping-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-on-wikipedia |Keeping of the Pics of Muhammad on Wikipedia]. and the archive discussion you linked in my blocking is not about me its about some other user.
There is no evidence i go against the policies of wikipedia. so there is no other point then CABAL.
the user B block my ip till 11 Jan and undo my discussion on discussion pages not just on his discussion page but on also the user The Evil Spartan.
they say me i am crying the CABAL against me then any body tell me what is this.

some people will ask why i touch this bowling topic?

After long hard and frozen discussions I decided to show Wikipedia some harsh realities Wikipedia is going through, when on some topics to keep the neutral view they censor some topics but on other issues they are refusing to do so. It has nothing to do with Muslim or my personal view on these issues.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Positive Email Feedback recieved

Feb 5, 2008 3:45 PM
Considering the goal was 10,000 signatures... when do you intend to submit this petition? Maash'Allah It has grown exponentially in just 2 months.

Feb 5, 2008 12:39 PM
ery good idea to remove this kind of act

Feb 5, 2008 12:57 PM

Feb 5, 2008 12:59 PM

Feb 5, 2008 2:05 PM
u r doing great... but can this petition remove the illustration from wikipedia??

5 Feb 2008 06:34:57 -0800
I am working for a local Radio Station and wanted to know if anyone would be interested in talking about this issue in detail. Please let me know. Thanks

Feb 7, 2008 from UK
You guys are taking feedom of expression to the next level. The feeling I have at the moment is the same as if someone took pictures of your infant child without permission and gave it to pheodofiles. How would you feel??? You would feel sick!!! That's how I feel.

Offensive Email Feedbacks received

5 Feb 2008 11:36:34 -0800

Tell you what, clown: get accustomed to being offended. The non Muslim world has ahd about all it cares to have of your desire for everyone conforming to YOUR standards. I'm offended by barbaric practices carried out in the name of the pedophile child molester that passes in your world for a prophet, but I don't care if you follow him around. And you're going to have to live with being offended by us.

You don't like that? Tough shit, raghead
5 Feb 2008 08:06:41 -0800

I think his face looks like a pig's ass.

Feb 5, 2008 3:47 PM

Any Muslim that finds this offense needs to get a grip. It's a freaking picture. Warm up the suicide bombers, time for global jihad against Wikipedia. The religion of peace, right. Time for another Crusade.