This message consists of two parts: Please read both before commenting.
I've been following the discussion about images of Muhammad with some
interest, and with your permission, I'd like to make a few comments on it. It is
not an attempt to resolve the problem—and I believe that there is a problem—but
rather to offer some thoughts as to how the problem is currently being
tackled.
To begin with, there seems to be some misunderstanding about the history of
the ban on images of Muhammad. To clarify this, there seem to be several
schools of thought here. Note that much of what I am writing summarizes Wijdan
Ali's "From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development of the Prophet
Muhammad's Portrayal from 13th Century Ilkhanid Miniatures to 17th Century Ottoman
Art (http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf)
1. Pictures are permitted: This seems to have been the case in the
thirteenth century, and the images may have even served a pedagogical purpose. It
seems to me that this position is closest to the one Wikipedia is now
suggesting.
2. No pictures of Muhammad are permitted: This seems to be a later
interdiction, and is not universally accepted. According to my source above, some
Shi'i artists continue to portray Muhammad even today. Nevertheless, it has
become accepted among more mainstream fundamentalist groups, including
Wahhabis (a Sunni group, especially prominent in Saudi Arabia) and Iranian Shi'a.
3. Veiled images of Muhammad are permitted: This seems to have come
into vogue in the 16th-17th centuries and could, perhaps, serve as the basis for
a compromise position.
Complicated? Yup. The uninitiated already have to start figuring out who the
Ilkhanids were, what the exact differences between Sunnis and Shi'is are,
and how Wahhabism fits into all this. Wikipedia is a good place to start, but if
you have some time, I'd suggest Hourani's "History of the Arab Peoples."
Nor does the fact that something was accepted once mean that it is accepted
now. For example, Abbasid poets wrote extensively of the joys of women and
wine, and in the 11th century a Persian poet, Omar Khayyam, wrote: 'Wash me in
wine when I go. For my burial service use a text concerning wine. Would you
find me on the Day of Doom, look for me in the dust at the wine-shop's door."
Yet no one would suggest that modern Persia should permit wine based on a
ruba'i by Khayyam, and don't even get me started on Abu Nuwas. So, the question
is: what is the accepted norm for today?
see Part II
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
There seems to be a porn link in metadata (metadata topicon) that is
vandalizing our main page. I'm trying to hunt it down, but perhaps one
of our experts can get there faster.
--
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki(a)gmail.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229
In a message dated 2/17/2008 12:08:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
raphael(a)psi.co.at writes:
We don't have to think about extremists, who don't want to see *any*
picture, since they are probably already surfing with a text-only
browser. ;-)
------------------------
Exactly. And those extremists who want to remove Muhammed's picture are
being contradictory and illogical. They are mis interpreting the tenets of their
own faith for strictly polemic reasons.
That's what an extremist is.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/18/2008 11:19:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ian.woollard(a)gmail.com writes:
You're not really helping the discussion here either way, Will.
-----------------------
I'm here to counter any positive statement that lacks evidence.
That's a useful function.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/18/2008 6:19:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ian.woollard(a)gmail.com writes:
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?>>
---------------------
You can't prove a negative statement.
There is no basis, in evidence, to say that this view is the majority view.
That's my opinion, based on the fact, that no evidence has been presented.
I cannot prove that no evidence exists. It's an impossibility.
If such evidence exists, then it behooves the person making the *positive*
statement to show it.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/17/2008 6:10:11 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
raphael(a)psi.co.at writes:
No it's not. It is a very common view to oppose images of Muhammad.>>
------------
The basis for the opposition is unfounded. Also it is not common, it is
rare. The vast majority of Muslims have no problem with images of Muhammad in
books like encyclopedias.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 15/02/2008, Common Peasant <common.peasant(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/02/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 14/02/2008, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This was sent directly to me and not to the list, but I'm replying
> on-list.
> > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:08 PM, AB <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > On 14/02/2008, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I'd rather we be considered
> > > > > insensitive than unecyclopedic, considering that we are an
> > > > > encyclopedia.
> > > >
> > > > No, WP is not an encyclopaedia. No encyclopaedia I know of
> > > > sends violent thugs to threaten to turn its critics black and blue.
> > > > WP does. WP is a mob.
> > >
> > > Please provide a citation for this claim. I am not aware of any such
> incident.
> >
> >
> > Please don't feed Armed Blowfish on the list.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> Sorry, I don't want to feed the trolls, but this is a serious
> allegation. Shouldn't we look into it, regardless of the source?
>
> Not that I believe any Wikipedian in a million years would do such a
> thing, but is it worth the risk of being wrong?
Has a moderator looked at my message yet?
Again, if Armed Blowfish's allegation has already been looked
at an proven false, I am sorry to disturb, but when it comes to
such serious matters, I am obligated to ask.
In a message dated 2/17/2008 7:53:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com writes:
Err, the number of individual human beings signing the petition
probably consists of several thousand now, given the recent publicity.
If you actually cared, it'd be pretty easy to parse the signatures
for duplicates and remove them - the signing bot isn't very subtle.>>
------------------
My point being that they might be being deliberately deceptive. You can't
catch that with a de-dupper. I could sign any name I choose, and 15 different
ones. You wouldn't know.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Since the loss of [[User:StatusBot]] and its first replacement bot, I have
brought it back under [[User:EBot IV]] and promise to keep it going and
maintained.
Due to the downtime of both bots, my bot has now been approved and has
updated (at the time of writing) over 70 entries of statuses from the
[[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] category of people who utilize
StatusBot since being turned on at 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
Bug reports are to be sent to https://jira.ts.wikimedia.org/browse/ET
Enjoy and thank you.
-James
________________
E
Administrator | English Wikipedia
e.wikipedia(a)gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:E
In a message dated 2/17/2008 6:27:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Photos and paintings come under a slightly different ruling.>>
-----------------------
If you mean photos as opposed to paintings, I'm not sure that view is
supportable.
The underlying law only mentions something like "representations". Of
course they did not have photographs when it was originally penned.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)