The Observer reported:
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.
More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopaedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.
The images at the centre of the protest appear on most of the European versions of the web encyclopaedia, though not on Arabic sites. On two of the images, Muhammad’s face is veiled, a practice followed in Islamic art since the 16th century. But on two others, one from 1315, which is the earliest surviving depiction of the prophet, and the other from the 15th century, his face is shown. Some protesters are claiming the pictures have been posted simply to ‘bait’ and ‘insult’ Muslims and argue the least Wikipedia can do is blur or blank out the faces.
In response, Wikipedia references the non-universality of the prohibition on the depiction of Mohammed and affirms that “is not censored for the benefit of any particular group”.
It is very strange, but the Observer seems not to have published the pictures in question. They are rather beautiful:
The petition is here.
The blog of the creator of the petition is a United Kingdom based chap called Faraz Ahmad here. He appears to model himself on Borat.
This, apparently, is why he decided to launch the petition:
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.
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…
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.
This bowling topic? Is this something to do with ball tampering?
And why would a discussion about the publication of some ancient and rather beautiful Shi’ite devotional pictures lead Mr Ahmad to want to hold forth on Hitler’s hero status, and the Holocaust?