Online petition ask Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad
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.
I’m all for religious tolerance and being respectful towards other people, but isn’t this a bit of an over-reaction? The pictures of Muhammad were taken from historical documents and were presented in an academic context. How are we to study and learn about Islam if we are not allowed to view the “entity” behind the religion?
Related posts:
February 9th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I would think that it was an overreaction except for one thing: Both attempts to find middle ground were not shot down by the Muslims, but by the Wikipedia and/or editors and/or administrators.
There are very simple solutions that would not be censorship. The Wikipedia chooses not to use the middle ground. Had they chosen the middle ground AND the Muslim folks turned it down… I might think it is an overreaction.
While more visible, this is pretty standard of Wikipedia admin - to choose not to change and to be rough when things could be handled in a much more humane way. The Wikipedia may be trying to make knowledge available, but the wisdom is certainly not keeping pace.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:33 am
But you have to admit, the Muslims are generally hostile towards anyone who displays images of Muhammad. Look at the furor over the Danish cartoons. Christians don’t create this much uproar over pictures of Jesus.
I respect the Islamic religion but I just don’t understand why it is so bad to view what Muhammad looked like. Why is it so bad to see his likeness?
February 9th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Well, are you saying ‘Muslims are generally hostile’ in much the same way that Muslims might say, ‘Westerners are generally hostile’?
And as far as Jesus - please explain to me why there is a separate page about the Race of Jesus on the Wikipedia (no kidding):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus
As far as bad to see his likeness, from what I have read - recently - its about the same issue of the ‘Race of Jesus’. The idea is to avoid what Muhammad looked like and focus on the religion. And you know - apparently he had a point, because the Race of Jesus has apparently kept people so busy that they might have forgotten some of his teachings.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:17 am
I mean no disrespect to anyone. I respect all religions and I try constantly to understand everyone’s viewpoints. This is why I am asking these questions. My best friend is a Muslim and so I want to understand her and understand what she believes in.
The only point I am trying to make is that there are pictures and statues of Jesus (or what people think Jesus looked like) everywhere in churches and in peoples homes. Christians don’t seem to have a problem with Jesus’s likeness being publicly shown.
However, Muslims on the other hand, really don’t want Muhammad being shown and precedence has demonstrated that some radical elements of the religion resort to violence if they perceive that their religion has been insulted in this way, either intentionally or unintentionally.
I just don’t understand it that’s all. I can understand that the focus should be on the teachings and not on one specific person. But to react in such an extreme way over a likeness in a historical document?
February 9th, 2008 at 2:06 am
You missed my point, I think. I wasn’t saying that you were being disrespectful. I was simply asking you if you had considered that tossing all people of a general faith, with all of its idiosyncrasies, was fair. The people who got upset about the Danish cartoons may not be the same people who are asking for the image of Muhammad to be removed, just as people who are Christian don’t necessarily go around blowing up abortion clinics. Are we on the same page yet?
That said, they have their reasons. Is it fair to condemn those reasons because we don’t understand them? Is it fair to understand them first before trying to condemn them? Or is it a true attempt to understand when the underlying purpose is to condemn? I am not painting you in any light, mind you, but I have been looking at this particular issue with interest as it pertains to cultures that don’t have as much of a digital presence as… the predominant culture on the Internet. I have a list of bookmarks with very intolerant comments directed at Muslims, while the Muslim request seems very sincere and even polite in contrast.
Yours is one of the best I have read so far, because your question is sincere. You still haven’t answered my question though - why is there a separate page on the Wikipedia regarding the Race of Jesus? That is really the core of the argument for those Muslims that are trying to affect a change. They say Muhammad did not want his image displayed because the core of Islam had nothing to do with the way he looked. And, too, lets look at the timeline in which those images are from - one of the bloodiest periods of religious violence. And then, let us consider who created those images. And why. And how. There is subtlety in such things, and an image can have a point of view as much as a line of text - even more so.
So, when you can explain to me why there is a separate page on Race of Jesus - and why - I think you’ll understand the sentiment that these particular Muslims have. And you might also see a bit of hypocrisy in the Wikipedia’s turning down of very much the same resolutions… by their own editors.
Let me ask you this:
If the Wikipedia allowed the images to be viewed only by those who chose to and explained the why of it - wouldn’t that be of more use in an article? A functional work, of culture combined with shared knowledge?
Obviously, this matters to at least a small percentage of the fastest growing religion in the world. The trouble with knowledge is that if wisdom does not keep pace, knowledge is wasted. This is an opportunity that is being wasted.
Quite sad, really. I have no sympathy for either side. But I do see a lot of ‘this could happen to whatever Wikipedia feels like’ written all over it. Trolls usually hide behind the ‘Freedom of Speech’ tag. And ‘Censorship’. This is not good company for the Wikipedia to be in.
Take a moment and read what I wrote here:
http://www.knowprose.com/node/18431
And even more interestingly, the discussion with one of the people who started the original petition here (in the comments):
http://www.knowprose.com/node/18427
Isn’t it odd that people are making judgements on this without… even talking to the other side? Seems to me that this is ingrained in cultures around the world. Now that we can actually talk to each other and explore each other’s opinions… shouldn’t we?
February 9th, 2008 at 11:28 am
very very very very long comment, I’ll try to explain the roots of the ban on images as I understand them. I wrote such a long reply because I really don’t think it can be explained in a few words and because you said you really wanted to understand why.
what makes it very confusing is the fact that there are medieval texts with images of the prophet and many of these books and drawings where made by muslims.
first of all one has to understand that there are many many many interpretations of Islam and that Islam spans many cultures, Islam in egypt where I live is very different from Islam in Saudia Arabia or Morocco and these are all Arab speaking countries with alot of shared history, so you can imagine how diverse the culture of Islam would be if you look at Indonesia or South Africa or any other country with a sizable Muslim population.
all these people of course share core values, abide by the same holy book etc. but in many visible issues they differ, these issues seem to stem more from local cultural and historical aspects.
but as a result of globalization you there is a trend where a single interpreatation of Islam is spreading out of it’s local context (salafi wahabi islam rooted in Saudia Arabia and spreading very quickly in the Arab speaking world and beyond), this arab centric Islam is the most vocal among the migrant communities in the west too, and since the middle east is always in the news it gets to a point where the only islam you see is the salafi wahabi islam.
the rule that the prophet and is core followers are never to be visually represented in anyway comes from Wahabism, and these are the moderate wahabis the hardcore wahabi believes that all drawings, sculptures and most works of art are forbidden. while the blanket ban on art never caught on the idea that it is forbidden to represent the prophet is beyond debate in any culture where wahabism has some influence.
now I’m a bit biased here, Salafism and Wahabism are destroying my country and the very values I was raised on, it’s a very rapid process to an Orwelian degree, certain practices where common and even considered part of religion and all of a sudden everyone agrees they’re the work of the devil.
but still to understand this you need to look at the roots of wahabism and try to see their logic. Wahabism started as a religious reform movement much like protestantism, the early wahabis thought that the prophet and his family and early followers where being treated as gods (you must understand that in Islam only god is holy and god has a single abstract aspect, prophets are special people but they are just people in the end), they saw old gods being converted into holy men with mythologoies around them transforming into islamic mythologies (similar to how catholic christianity adopted many saints, traditions and ruitals older than christianity). the early wahabis where puritans who felt that the faithful where adopting false idolsand set out to destroy these false idols. images of the prophet represented a threat to religion because people tend to attribute supernatural powers to such images.
now there is also political apsects to the story. the more you revere the prophet the more powerful his family and original tribe become. the power struggle in Saudia Arabia always involves descendants of the prophet (which explains the close relationship between the current ruling family and the wahabis). but it doesn’t stop here, most of the “false idols” where readaptations of the old gods and holy people of the colonies and not Arabia, in Egypt we celebrate “mawaled” the birthdays of holy people, among them the prophet and his wives and daughters but also mother Mary and many local personalities who people believe could cure the sick and punish the tyrants by the power of their faith.
now these mawaled do no correspond at all to any recorded birthdays (except the prophets) and in fact most of them are not even measured by the Islamic calender, these are celebrations much older than Islam and their times correspond to harvest and things like that.
now some of these traditions, ruitals and personas spread across the islamic world with the rising influence of the colonies (Arabs from Arabia ruled the islamic world in the early days only, the various khalifet and sultans and kings came from all over the world).
so wahabism when it emerged in Arabia was also an attempt to maintain a “pure” local culture and power structure (that was in ottoman time when the rulers of the islamic world where turkish, the wahabism rebellion was crushed by the Egyptian army under ottoman rule and since then became an underground movement until the modern history of Saudia Arabia).
this struggle over influence continues but it’s scope is no longer Arabia but the world, modern wahabism wants all muslims all over the world to abandon any local cultural influences (we are told that even celebrating the prophet’s birthday is a sin).
but then there is a third more modern political aspect which explains why great numbers of sunni muslims are adopting the no images rule. in Shia islam images of the prophet and his family are revered much like icons of jesus, mary and saints are in catholicism. relics are holy, mosques built by past imams are holly places etc.
to adopt a no images rule means you create a clear distinction between yourself as a sunni and the wicked Shia, it also makes it clear how sinful and clueless they are, it is fodder in Islam’s biggest conflict and rift. and since both Iran and Saudia are aiming at becoming the most influential powers in the Islamic world the rift is not just about faith.
many of the medieval texts with images of the prophet where destroyed so the majority of the ones still intact are of persian origin, or happen to be in the hands of Shiite institutions.
now I think it is ridiculous to ask wikipedia to remove these images. from an encyclopedia’s perspective it can’t ignore the existence of such medieval drawings and the fact that the people who drew them believed this to be the likeness of Mohammed, it should mention that the whole image thing is controversial but it shouldn’t be asked to abide by the rules of any religion (otherwise we’ll be having debates over the articles about evolution, species, the planets etc.).
also what I can’t understand or explain is how thousands of muslim moved the issue from whether it is forbidden or not to whether it is insulting to them or not, the reaction to the cartoons while extreme was at least understandable these where satirical images after all, but why feel offended just because the rest of the world which you know very well does not follow your religion is not following your rules?
February 9th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Good stuff, Alaa. Thanks. Do you think that making the images optional would be something that would allow a better article on your prophet? I am not going to get into the internals and politics of what you wrote, and I do understand the nature of that which you speak… but here’s my thought:
Making the images optional and explaining *why* they are optional takes a flat article on Muhammad and offers more insight into the diversity of Islam itself, such that someone outside of Islam would better be able to understand the diversity.
My own belief - and I’m not speaking religion here - is that more can be learned from understanding the diversity and roots of different aspects of the same thing. Your circumspect comment, which I truly appreciate, makes me believe that you may like finding such things yourself - your delving into the roots of Wahabism, for example.
Could a better, more informative article be had without censorship but while respecting the beliefs of others?
There is also a larger principle here for me. In my travels, I have met with several people of Native American descent in the Latin America region, as well as people from different cultures around the world. Some things to them are sacred. If something like that were to show up on the Wikipedia, they would have no recourse - and their numbers are so few and internet access so infrequent that they would have no say. There is, in my mind, something wrong with that. In this issue of Muhammad and the Wikipedia, I see that issue as a recurring nightmare that can rob people of something that is important to their own identity and dignity… all in the name of ‘no censorship’ and ‘NPOV’.
What do you think?