What is Digg?952 Comments
- radiantarchon, on 02/18/2008, -26/+1644good for wikipedia.
- swicken, on 02/18/2008, -22/+495As well they should refuse. If you really want to be neutral then you shouldn't give in to one groups demands.
Plus, it's pretty abusrd on the part of the Muslims protesting to expect a website not professing to be of their religion to follow the tenets of their religion. Maybe I'll carve Muhammad into a pumpkin for next halloween. - bobzorz, on 02/18/2008, -6/+389As a Muslim I have to side with Wikipedia. There really is no reason for wikipedia to take down the image. Just because we can't make images of the prophet doesn't mean other people can't or won't. I really don't understand the view of the petition signers at all, I mean this is like going into ihop and asking them to remove bacon from the menu just because we can't eat pork. People who call themselves Muslim should know better than to force their beliefs on other people.
- limezor2, on 02/18/2008, -25/+326If they're such hard core Muslims, why don't they stay on the Arabic version of Wikipedia? They don't have a picture of Mohammad.
- epyon180, on 02/18/2008, -77/+350Towel-head? good job with the racism..... *****.
- Theoxenmooving, on 02/18/2008, -32/+247http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8073/mohammadla ...
- thebellmaster1x, on 02/18/2008, -18/+233You know, it's possible to disagree with somebody and not be a dick about it.
- eon42, on 02/18/2008, -13/+176go ahead and bury me for this, but i support wikipedia for not giving in to the pressure of these ppl being all "offended" by something that is not even doing anything to them
- highPhone, on 02/18/2008, -4/+145Dugg for linkng directly to print view
- minnymoo, on 02/18/2008, -20/+143i almost dugg you up, but then saw the word "raghead." -grow up.
- GhostyBoy, on 02/18/2008, -11/+127Wikipedia did the right thing here. Unfortunately, demanding that someone not show a particular image is just not practical in our modern age.
It's time that people start dealing with actually reality, instead of the reality they want to force on people. Religion is meant to give people an understanding of their world, and a way to live within it. If a religion cannot adapt it becomes obsolete. That's how evolution works and no amount of denial can change it.
As for the bigotry expressed above, the time has come for you to adapt to religious, cultural and racial equality, because the people who share your ignorant way of thinking are a relic of the past, and an obstacle to evolution. - 10001110101, on 02/18/2008, -14/+125Here is my depiction of Muhammad:
. O - Hurrah for Allah!
--|--
/ L
So.. Will that be censored? - Rodman930, on 02/18/2008, -4/+105"[The editors] say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them."
LOL - Ameenakel, on 02/18/2008, -7/+104Yeah! You stick it to 'em! I'm sure the next time they come over to your house, turn on your computer, and log in to XP they'll sure be offended!
- whataboutdave, on 02/18/2008, -3/+98Jimbo Wales speaks English, so the English language Wikipedia is the definitive Wikipedia. You can read it in translation, but all true followers of Wikipedia aspire to the original English. The metres and cadences of the English language Wikipedia are singularly beautiful.
;) - inactive, on 02/18/2008, -111/+204What a pleasant surprise! Someone at Wikipedia finally grew a set of cajones.
Not Mohammed - the lying, pedophile, war monger...but close enough.
http://www.stewwebb.com/BushShiitPetTerrorist.jpg - cheezintern, on 02/18/2008, -7/+99Personally I'm offended by simple minded Muslims demanding the rest of the world cater to their demands and follow their narrow minded world view. But I'm just an infidel what do I know.
- AydenV2, on 02/18/2008, -18/+110Are you dense? Since when is "Towel-head" not a racist remark? He isn't talking about all islamists, he is talking about middle eastern people and you know it.
- xkorbin, on 02/18/2008, -3/+94Wikipedia, for defending Free Speech, I salute you.
- dualityim, on 02/18/2008, -4/+91Religion is frequently unfriendly to logic. This is just an obvious case of it. Wikipedia is setting a stance for all to follow, that the pursuit of knowledge and the freedom of information shall not be hindered by dogmatic principles.
- thedragon4453, on 02/18/2008, -5/+91If they take Muhammed down, I don't see how they could justify not giving into everyone's demands. Wiki is supposed to be neutral, but if they acquiesce to every groups demands, it won't be a [halfway] decent resource for much longer.
- anidal, on 02/18/2008, -1/+84If you want an Islamic perspective, here it is (as I understand it):
The Quran doesn't explicitly forbid images of the Prophet. Not anywhere that I know of at least. The 'ban' in most Islamic societies is due to people taking the image as representative of worship. Since Islam explicitly forbids idolatry, images of Prophets are banned as they may lead to it.
Since the ban is self-imposed, and nowhere does it say that it should be extended to other cultures, I fail to see the reasoning behind why so many muslims try to impose it on others. And even if it IS wrong, its not any of them that have done it, so the 'sins' aren't theirs to bear anyways... so.. again... why the outcry. - reventlov, on 02/18/2008, -27/+106The One True God called, he said to shut the ***** up and stop using his name.
- echolyean, on 02/18/2008, -1/+79Your comment is not offensive and I believe most rational people would agree with you.
- themastersb, on 02/18/2008, -2/+74All of a sudden I feel like donating money to Wikipedia.
- grungegbunny, on 02/18/2008, -2/+72sometimes?
- DefenceMinister, on 02/18/2008, -2/+67We Muslims have no business trying to censor things for others. If you object to an image of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) then don't look at it. It's so simple, yet in their minds, they must control everything for everyone else because they personally feel that as Muslim they have to whine about it and in some cases become violent. Definitely not me.
- DefenceMinister, on 02/18/2008, -1/+64Couldn't have said it any better...
- Yodan1, on 02/18/2008, -2/+62Thank you!
- JavertHolmes, on 02/18/2008, -1/+61In other news, 180,000 people are about to learn about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- inactive, on 02/18/2008, -18/+75I'm going to buy a bunch of pork chops and arrange them in a depiction of muhammad.
- Tangaroa, on 02/18/2008, -14/+70> I'm a no know......
Yeah, we get that impression from your use of "ragtops". - cptsmidge, on 02/18/2008, -0/+55It was poking fun at the Koran being read in Arabic. Bravo Dave. That made my night.
"Mohammad spoke Arabic, so the Arabic language Koran is the definitive Koran. You can read it in translation, but all true followers of the Koran aspire to the original Arabic. The metres and cadences of the Arabic language Koran are singularly beautiful." - riskybeats, on 02/18/2008, -2/+55wow, you are taking offensive to a whole new level with your awesome blend of wit and satire.
- epyon180, on 02/18/2008, -9/+60And I smell a racist piece of *****.
- whatthefu, on 02/18/2008, -2/+53To read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ
- INTERNETMASTER, on 02/18/2008, -10/+60good for them. this "demand" is very silly and doesn't even warrant a response.
ascii muhammad:
[0]
-|-
[^] - inactive, on 02/18/2008, -5/+50Fanatical Muslms have sort of made it a habit of trying to force people of all religions to follow the tenets to Islam.
- toolsdrummer, on 02/18/2008, -4/+49*cojones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cojones - mille716, on 02/18/2008, -1/+40I'm referring back to a religious studies course in college so forgive me if this is off a bit. The Prophet spoke Arabic and the Qur'an is written in Arabic. Most Muslims believe you should know Arabic to properly understand the texts so nothing is lost in translation.
- luftrofl, on 02/18/2008, -2/+40Oh no someone doesn't agree with me :(
Better complain! - cidman2001, on 02/18/2008, -1/+38Thank you bobzorz...if more moderate Muslims would speak out against radicalism, perhaps we could all be spared the hatred and bombast. The silence of the moderates in the middle east (I can understand why they would be afraid) just makes the situation worse. When I hear the intolerance on both sides, it makes me ashamed to be a human. I think deep down, most of us don't wish any harm or want to force our ideals on others. We just want to live our lives....
- mille716, on 02/18/2008, -1/+37There's another way to look at this too. If Wikipedia gave into the 180,000 Muslims who are demanding the removal, there has to be tens of millions of other people that would stop trusting/using Wikipedia. Giving in could absolutely destroy the popularity of the site and therefore is not even a viable option for Wikipedia.
- etherreal, on 02/18/2008, -2/+37Why should we accomodate it? I am not a Muslim, and I am sure a good share of Wikipediots are not Muslims either. There are lots of other "-pedias" out there designed to fit a particular purpose (ie, Conservapedia). If it pisses off the Muslims, then they can make "Islamopedia" if they like.
- RaysinX, on 02/18/2008, -31/+65Even diggers are sometimes ignorant idiots...
- Zarokima, on 02/18/2008, -6/+40So, not giving in to irrational demands is ignorance? And yes, the demand is irrational: as swicken said above, it's absurd to expect a neutral organization to adhere to the tenets of their religion.
- pinstripewizard, on 02/18/2008, -2/+36Have you seen these pics? There is no difference in the appearance between Muhammad and the other people. You could put a dozen lego guys on a board, and say one of them is Muhammad and suddenly it's offensive... Either make you deity more unusual (look at Buddha or FSM) so we actually know what you're so pissed about, or stop whining.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 922 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
