Muslim Groups Want To Impose Religion On Wikipedia?

Islam forbids portraying the prophet Muhammad - no paintings, no drawings, no Danish cartoons. As we've seen from that cartoon debacle, not to mention the horrific ordeal of a British schoolteacher in Sudan who faced corporal punishment after allowing her classroom to nickname a teddy bear "Muhammad," this is a clearly particularly sensitive issue and the media should treat it with care.

However...

A Wikipedia article on the Prophet Muhammad has been targeted by Muslim groups because of images of the prophet taken from medieval manuscripts. Islamic tradition bans depictions of people in general, but especially Muhammad. The Muslim argument is that it's insensitive to print the prophet's picture - the counterargument is that it's absurd to expect the rest of the world to follow one's own religious beliefs out of, what, politeness? Methinks not.

There's a fundamental clash of cultures here, of course, that isn't so glibly resolved. But one thing is certain: the internet isn't big on either censorship or sensitivity. When you go online, you're exposing yourself to what folks around here call the "World Wide Web," that name being fairly explicit about the "World Wide" bit.

Furthermore, the notion of a reference resource choosing sensitivity over performing the job of a reference resource is both antithetical and flat-out backward. From Wikipedia itself:

“Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.”

So: it's not personal. Victorians may see exposed piano ankles. Christians may see evolutionary theory. And Muslims, when looking up their prophet in an international online encyclopedia, may see his picture.

Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized [NYT]