[WikiEN-l] "I want to at least kill the responsible person."

[Wily D]

On Feb 5, 2008 11:02 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Meg Ireland wrote:
> > I've been going through the Koran on this issue. Perhaps someone more
> > knowledgable in this area could inform me but it's my understanding
> > that the image ban pertains to Allah, and the only ban I can see on
> > Muhammad is on people "worshipping" images.
> >
> > Chapter 42, verse 11: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and
> > the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."
> >
> > Chapter 21, verses 52-54: "[Abraham] said to his father and his
> > people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They
> > said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you
> > have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"
> >
> > In a wider context it includes all images, not just Muhammad. It's
> > down to defining what exactly is "worshipping" when placed in an
> > encyclopaedia.
> >
> > There is also the issue of Persian art where Muhammad is depicted.
> > Apparently the Shia, as opposed to Sunni, are less strict on their
> > interpretation on where the image can be shown.
>
> It's not in the Koran, it's in the Hadith.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith
>
> Islam, like all the major religions, is a mixture of holy books and
> established traditions. The petitioners seem to be almost entirely unaware
> of the history of their traditions. Some of them claim that the image in
> question couldn't possibly be of muslim origin, because no muslim would
> create such an image.
>
> But that's not my problem, it's not my job to tell them how to live their
> lives, or how to interpret their holy books. Many Christians are unaware
> of the history of their tradition to completely disregard Old Testament
> law -- a tradition begun by Paul some time after the death of Jesus in
> order to encourage non-Jews to join. That's not my problem either.
>
> What is relevant is what offends people here and now. This one image in
> question obviously does. It's a pity we don't have any representatives of
> those offended here on this list to mediate a compromise -- it seems to me
> that both the people suggesting compromises in this thread and the people
> refuting them have very little understanding of what is actually necessary
> to answer the objections of the moderate petitioners.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
Tim, feel free to read Talk:Muhammad & Talk:Muhammad/images to get an
idea of what various protestors are asking for, but the more common
points are: complete removal of any images that represent Muhammad,
the article be written from an Islamic POV, non-Muslims be prohibited
for editing, et cetera.

Cheers
WilyD