Ironic Surrealism II

News flash! An online petition has surfaced protesting the public display of Muhammad images. Who are they going after? Wikipedia. What do ya bet they cave? Wikipedia that is.

Wikipedia refuses to bow down. See update below.

Removal of the Pics of Muhammad from Wikipedia

Target: To tell wikipedia editors to respect other peoples religion
Sponsored by: Faraz Ahmad
In Islam pictures or Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other holly figures are not allowed, but on wikipedia they has published some pictures that are showing not only a body with white face but an image that has a complete face.. that is even not allowed by SHITAT fact of Islam.
i request all my brothers and sisters to sign this petition so we can tell wikipedia to remove them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
specially this image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg

A body with a veiled face? OMG! The horror!

A 16th century Ottoman illustration depicting Muhammad at the Kaaba. Muhammad’s face is veiled, a practice followed in Islamic art since the 16th century.

Ancient artwork.
Muhammad at the Ka’ba
Siyer-i Nebi: The Life of the Prophet.
Istanbul, 1595.

Here is the image that Faraz Ahmad wants Wikipedia to “specially” remove.

15th century illustration in a copy of a manuscript by Al-B?r?n?,
depicting Muhammad preaching the Qur’?n in Mecca

Hello they are ANCIENT works of art!

Since we are on the subject of blasphemy…

An anachronistic offence

There is a sense in which the debate about whether to repeal the blasphemy laws or not feels too anachronistic to be taken seriously. These statutes stem from a time when the Anglican Church still enjoyed real power in the land. They bear as much relevance to modern British life as laws forbidding MPs from wearing armour in Parliament.

In any case, the laws are inactive. No one has been imprisoned for blasphemy since 1922. The legal community generally accepts the judgment of Lord Denning in 1949 that the blasphemy laws have become a “dead letter”. Even the Church of England is not particularly interested in defending them. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, signed a letter this week calling for their abolition.

By the way, I came across these stories while researching atheism. Crazy huh?

Update:
Talk:Muhammad @ Wikipedia

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

Further down there was this discussion.

REMOVE PICTURES OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMED PEACE BE UPON HIM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.140.121 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we won’t remove the pictures of Muhammad. But thanks for demanding. –Mhking (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC

Emphasis mine.

Related:
Drop the Insanity!
Submission: The Death of Art in the Free World
Mo Cat Got Your Tongue
mo cat protests
Lars Vilks Art Project - Join Now!
Mo’s Dog Days of Summer [updated bumped]

Now for a word from my sponsors.
Brought to you by Muhammad.

Browse My Amazon Shop