[Foundation-l] Wikimania and the Muhammad pix
innocentkiller at gmail.com
Thu Feb 21 15:47:24 UTC 2008
Also could be attributed to the fact that fawiki is
less known than the primary few languages.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> The fact that fawiki is not receiving any significant complaints on
> the topic is quite telling that there is little unanimity within the
> Ummah about whether the images should stay up, or indeed whether they
> even are depicting Muhammed (as opposed to depicting an interpretation
> of him).
> On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Aphaia wrote:
> > I have talked with several muslims and either they are Sunnis or
> > Shiias, they share the same opinion: "depicting the Prophet" is an
> > absolute no-no.
> > Recently I had a conversation with a fawiki friend and asked if fawiki
> > have any problem about hosting those images on their article. First he
> > seemed to be very surprised to know fawiki hosted "Muhammad's images".
> > After giving a glance, he got his calmness again and said they were
> > not "depicting Muhammad" and Muslims know that. There are rather
> > products of imagination by each artists. So they are okay. And
> > interestingly I haven't heard anyone complaints about fawiki hostings.
> > In other words ... how about thinking that those images are okay as
> > long as they are not taken as "depicting / illustrating / portraits"
> > of Muhammad? And if it isn't taken so (and I understand that is the
> > case of enwiki), it would be a serious offence (and perhaps it would
> > be historically errors too, if it is true these artists didn't aim to
> > portrait him)
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Robert Stojnic
> > <rainmansr at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Not long ago when I was randomly browsing through a mosque's library
> >> in middle east, I found a children's book about Islam, and I remember
> >> seeing people in it.. E.g. when Muhammad was leaving Mecca there
> >> was a picture of *some guy* on a donkey followed by people.. There
> >> wasn't exactly an arrow point to him saying Muhammad, but it was
> >> pretty
> >> clear from context..
> >> So, my impression is that the pictures are not huge taboo unless
> >> they are
> >> misused. Now, how can a single pictures stir some much controversy?
> >> Well, for that to understand you need to try to put yourself in a
> >> third-world
> >> position. So, imagine, that western culture is not dominant in the
> >> world,
> >> imagine it's chinese. And, all your kids read chinese literature,
> >> dress
> >> chinese way, write in chinese script (since roman is no longer cool),
> >> watch chinese movies, learn chinese in school, look at chinese
> >> websites,
> >> etc... And imagine that only thing that keeps you as community is
> >> your
> >> religion considered by china as barbaric, and you as possible
> >> terrorist and second-class citizen... and that somewhere in
> >> well-off china, someone posts cartoons of baby jesus being pissed
> >> on by buddha and confucius... Would you be offended? Would it be
> >> by the picture itself, or by it representing a symbol of
> >> humiliation and
> >> power of the first-world to desecrate even the things you find most
> >> sacred and all in the name of free-speech?
> >> I'm not trying to advocate anything, just to draw a picture of how
> >> I've
> >> seen people feel - which not might be fully representative, but might
> >> give some insight ..
> >> r.
> >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Dan Rosenthal
> >> <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Nada,
> >>> I'm not sure you're representing the position accurately of Shiite
> >>> muslims. Far from all muslims take offense. Many, but not all Sunnis
> >>> do, and some, but not nearly as many Shiite's do. Furthermore, I'm
> >>> not
> >>> sure I believe you are in a position to state that there will be no
> >>> demonstrations. There have already been demonstrations, as
> >>> reported in
> >>> the news. You cannot predict the future, and is both folly and
> >>> dangerous to give assurances that you have no ability to uphold.
> >>> Finally, I would appreciate that the conference organizers not
> >>> dismiss
> >>> something that potentially could affect the safety of conference
> >>> goers, and not assume that skepticism and criticism equates to poor
> >>> knowledge of Islamic belief, or uncivilized behavior. That was
> >>> dangerously prevelant within the Alexandria bid team during the
> >>> Wikimania bids, it's dangerously prevalent in Egypt's demonstrations
> >>> (and official state action, no less) today, and it seems borderline
> >>> prevalent in the tone of your post.
> >>> When the government of the country that we are hosting a major
> >>> conference in, completely bans the sale of foreign newspapers for
> >>> displaying pictures of Muhammed, and chastises the ambassadors from
> >>> other countries for doing so, we have every right to be concerned
> >>> about the status and safety of Wikimania. And we have every right to
> >>> express our dismay in the heavy-handed censorship displayed by the
> >>> Egyptian government, censorship which is fundamentally opposed to
> >>> Wikimedia principles.
> >>> -Dan
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >> foundation-l
> > --
> > KIZU Naoko
> > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
> > Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l