Wikipedia Refuses To Remove “Muhammad” Cartoons

Back in 2005, a Danish newspaper published 12 cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad in some controversial poses, including the most famous image of him wearing a bomb as a turban. This led to a load of riots and protests in the Muslim world, and more than 100 people died as a result.

Of course, the images were on the internet within hours, and so they were never going to disappear completely. The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia was unsure whether to allow them on their article covering the controversy. The subsequent debate went on for almost two years (officially starting on 11th April after Wikipedia removed the images).

However, two days ago the debate ended and the decision was made to reinstate the images in the article, but to tag them with an id so people can remove the images from their view of the page.

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article

It’s a long deserved victory for those who support freedom of speech and expression, and another blow for people who think that religious rules should be followed by everyone. We live in a secular society, and freedom of speech should be respected, especially on the World Wide Web.

Thanks to Spread Rationality for the link!

  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Twitter

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. February 28th, 2008 at 01:27 | #1

    Freedom is the only way forward.

  2. February 28th, 2008 at 01:31 | #2

    Glad to hear this. :)

  3. John
    February 28th, 2008 at 02:02 | #3

    I agree that wikipedia shouldn’t be at all concerned with whether the images are shown or not, since it is a only describing the controversy, and as such one owuld think the cartoons would appear there, since it is ABOUT them.

    I still say it was a numbskull move to publish them in the first place, however, since it basically amounts to the print version of what we call here on the internet a “flamer” or “troll”. The comics didn’t have much value beyond shock, and basically look like the kind of crap you see in Cracked or Mad.

  4. enrs
    February 28th, 2008 at 21:56 | #4

    dont know its just ‘about’ them. cause we’re the devil.

  5. pedro
    March 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 | #5

    I am an iranian ,I’m really happy to hear that. I think the free world should publish more,much more of those,you might not realize that but I’m an iranian and my country is being ruled by these beasts.

    I tell you sth.we hear a lot that bush is this,bush is that,but if these mullahs have a chance they will kill you all because in their concept people who are not muslim are not humans as well and should be killed(its in Quran).
    so we’re really concerned about this atomic issue,I can’t imagine the massacre that is to occur if they are not stopped ….

  6. Moosa
    March 28th, 2008 at 10:21 | #6

    This is not about freedom of speach man its about people’s feelings. If someone abuses you or even if I abuse you then will you be glad because I got the freedom of speach or will you be angry?
    And one more thing that it is not in the Quran that people who are not muslims are not humans, please if you dont know anything then dont say about it and one more that about these sucide bombers who say we do all this stuff because of Allah, well Allah says in Quran that if someone kills an innocent human a muslim or non-muslim, his sin is equal to killing the whole humanity and he is not a muslim either, he is excluded from Islam right away.

    If you have any misunderstandings about Islam then please give me a chance to remove it…my email is: chris_incomplete47@hotmail.com

  7. March 28th, 2008 at 13:25 | #7

    Moosa,

    Of course naturally I will be angry because you “abused” me, but that won’t change my opinion on freedom of speech. I may not have liked what you said to me, but I will stand 100% behind you for your freedom to say it!

    That’s the beauty of freedom of speech, it gives everyone an equal platform or respect, where any view can be established. Now, I’m perfectly in support of the Muslims voicing their opinions over the drawings since he is their prophet. However, I expect them to allow anyone else to voice their opinions, and to draw things like the cartoons in the first place. Sure, it may have been a cartoon over-exaggerating the Islam religion, but the artist felt he was getting a message across, and he has ever right to do that.

    Let’s turn the situation around. Say some artist drew or painted a load of atheists, and set the background as Hell. The work would be called something like “Atheists: Your Final Destination”. Sure, it’s insulting to atheists, and I’m sure I would write a lovely long blog post to rant about it! However, he has every reason to feel the way he does, and to paint what he painted. I would never ask him to take it down, as long as he never asks me to not voice my opinion.

    Freedom of speech and expression are the most important values in our society. Everyone is equal under them as the system works, as long as everyone respects each other’s right to opinion.

  8. Moosa
    April 3rd, 2008 at 09:27 | #8

    I agree with you but its a little diffrent reason over hear. If someone if drawing your potrait without seeing you he is not able to know how you look. Same is with these cartoons and personally and you also may agree that these pictures are little bit funny looking. Thats why we are against it. The qualities that God gave to him or even you cannot be pictured by a human being. It is just like discuesing a topic without any information. I hope you people understand.

  9. April 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 | #9

    The quality was off because he was a cartoon artist, not a portrait artist. One would expect cartoons to have that “shabby” look about them. Yes they are funny looking, if you take the word “funny” to mean “absolutely hilarious and that artist should be a billionaire”. At the end of the day, the artist was working on basic Islamic beliefs, that he was an Arab and being such had a beard. The cartoon depicts a bearded Arab…how much other basic information do you want him to give? Perhaps a name tag that says “Prophet Muhammad” or something? Only that wouldn’t be keeping with the time period would it. Heck, he even drew the bomb as one of those old round ones with a fuse like they used to use, as opposed to the more recent computerised ones.

  10. Moosa
    April 7th, 2008 at 08:02 | #10

    hey did you deleted my post?

  11. April 7th, 2008 at 12:10 | #11

    Eh? Your posts are still here…

  12. June 29th, 2008 at 22:38 | #12
  13. Phil E. Drifter
    April 16th, 2009 at 02:41 | #13

    Stupid religitards.

  1. March 1st, 2008 at 12:55 | #1
  2. March 18th, 2008 at 21:59 | #2
  3. April 14th, 2008 at 14:54 | #3
  4. December 11th, 2008 at 17:10 | #4

Please copy the string wgLN9C to the field below:

The Atheist Blogger