Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:18, 30 January 2006

Why cant we see the images of Muhammad on Wikipedia?

...because none exist!

Well, there you are. It's a low-res picture though, as it is easier to justify fair use then. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 14:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish Prime Minister has now commented on the issue (http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3564679 [dk]), so I removed that paragraph. Only the first part of it was documentable anyway, the rest was speculations.

Muhammad paintings in historic perspective

Well my main source for that paragraph was my religion teacher who showed us painting from Shi'a muslim books, but I can't remember the names of the books. I've tried to search the web and found some pages containing pictures of the Prophet Muhammad:

I'll try to look up some more sources through the weekend...

Snailwalker 12:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Pictures' at commons shall not be published as Pictures of Mohammad because it is probited in Islam to depict the Prophet. Also, some of the paintings either carry inaccurate details (aside from showing Muhammad's face (sAaws)) or represent events that has not been mentioned in the Quran (e.g. remove a dragon ?!)

It would be much appreciated if these paintings and visualizations of prophet Mohammad are no longer shared or spread in respect to our religion, Islam.

thank you Omernos

The day Wikipedia surrenders to religious censorship is the day I surrender my faith in freedom and rights. Joffeloff 19:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articel states: "In addition, later interpretations of the Koran have forbidden muslims to make paintings of the prophet."

1 - How does this relate to a newspaper making images of him?? What is the relevance? The newspaper is hardly muslim.
2 - Could you provide some sources for that statement? Prefferable from the Quran. A human 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Quran does not specificialy state that drawings are illegal, as far as I know, but the Old Testemony has a law against drawings. The source of the statement is my religion teacher, I'll try and ask him for some more soureces...Snailwalker 09:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article

I think the name of the article should be something more specific. --128.214.205.4 08:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICJ

"The case is now being brought to the International Court of Justice."

What case? What is the specific violation of international law that would be basis for a case before the ICJ and who would bring it? I'm removing this, probably just a part of this campaign of misinformation against Denmark. --Bjarki 12:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions in Denmark

I live in denmark, and first off I'd say it's hard to say that there is such a thing as a "General Oppinion" to be found among the public concerning this subject. I think that statement should be reconsidered.

Secondly, there is evidence that the online poll from Epinion for DR was manipulated, probably by muslims, but I won't draw any too fast conclusions. They received 20,000 votes between a saturday night to the next sunday morning, which is something never experienced before. Such a great number of votes online is highly unlikely, considering that the danish population count is below 5.5 millions.

That was another poll DR (Danish national broadcast) initated on their website, but that they cancelled due to manipulations [1] Bertilvidet 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At last, I just read in a danish newspaper that both the danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen along with Jyllands-Posten apologized for the drawings. --Akuen 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting newspaper, none of the big ones have that news. I would suggest you to get another paper Bertilvidet 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read that Anders Fogh Rasmussen apologized to the Afganistan president, the article came along with a picture of them both, and I saw the same thing in the TV2 news just minutes ago. Jyllands-Posten are apologizing to everyone offended through an open letter. Here's the Arabian version: http://www1.jp.dk/indland/doku/jp_brev_mo.pdf and here's the danish version: http://www.jp.dk/meninger/artikel:aid=3523372/ I'm going to translate the letter from danish into english, and post it on here. --Akuen 18:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akuen, that will be really good if you translate the letter from Jyllands-Posten to English to document their position. However, they do not apologize the drawing - but basically say that they have been misinterpreted. Bertilvidet 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I'm translating it right now. They do say that they regret it and they're sorry about it. I interpret that as an apology, but perhaps I am mistaken. --Akuen 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have translated the open letter from Jyllands-Posten, and I am going to post it in the article. I just discovered that a new open letter has been released by Jyllands-Posten on their website, but I'll translate that at a later time.

--

Hi there, I'm not familiar with updating and/or commenting, but just wanted to point out that the Danish prime minister has commented on the drawings on several occasions since they were released. He hasn't argued elaborately, but it's not true to state that he hasn't commented on the topic at all. [User: I don't really know how to upload this] --

Histrorical pictures

I think we should keep the paintings of Muhammad, the old ones, from Commons. Does anyone disagree?? Snailwalker | talk 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]