Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies

1866:, while it is obviously the case on all of Knowledge (XXG) that non-scholarly sources are acceptable there is a trend of unreliable sources being presented as reliable in this article. One currently extant example as of this comment is Bill O'Reilly, who is a pundit and commentator. WP:RS, and simple sense, warns that they are rarely reliable sources for matters of fact. In this article right now there's nothing sourced to an opinion piece that isn't also sourced to a more reliable article, but it has happened in the past and given the obvious political minefield that is this topic it would be wise to adopt as consensus a reminder to editors to practice due caution in selection of sources.-- 4421:

Tax-collector that warned of the economic consequences of forced conversions, Almohad believed in their ability to keep creating wealth by eternal Jihad using the seemingly unlimited supply of converts to impose the smaller Islamic tax on a bigger population, opposed to the double-tax on the Dhimmi subjects. Dawn prayer daily headcounts were enforced, muslims and converts who didn't appear in dawn prayer rosters were persecuted on a regular basis. Almohad strict censorship played a major role on the reactionary inquisition that enforced a similar reverse censorship campaign.

3837:, censorship for both socio-political and religious justifications was widespread. In particular, the Iraqi Law on the Censorship of Foreign Films of 1973 banned the showing of anything with "the propagation of reactionary, chauvinistic, populistic, racialist or regionist ideas, of favouring the spirit of defeatism, serving imperialism and Zionism", prohibiting as well anything "defaming the Arab nation and its goals". Hussein's government effectively had the ability to ban any film for any reason whatsoever at any notice. ( 2466:. Roscelese's comment above objected on the basis of "actions of private individuals ... against other private individuals ...." Subsequent to her opposition, I struck through the "individuals" part of the definition, to where it now reads "governments and private organizations." Do you have an objection to the definition now, since it excludes individuals? If so, may I ask what we would need to change, so that we can come up with a workable definition? Perhaps "private organizations 2716:

entities even when there is a stable political structure can be confusing. I'm a little less positive about including "media outlet" in the definition. If a media outlet decides not to run a story, that is an editorial decision, regardless of the reason. Making editorial decisions (and self-censorship by the media) at the behest of Government, OK as censorship; decision not to run a story because it might offend, not OK as Censorship in Islamic Societies. Still, good progress.--

2032:- gee, I guess y'all are mindreaders? Contrary to Roscelese's assertion, I believe that there has to be some tie-in to censorship to be useful, but also believe that this can be determined by context. On sources that raise questions, it is simple to go to the talk page for discussion and consensus. If either Rocselese or NarSakSasLee have a suggestion(s), I am not married to the current proposal. I'm sure we can find something that will be workable. 3466: 403: 382: 413: 1361:"? *double facepalm* - I mean if you don't feel that this is worthy of discussing, I don't have a problem with adding it back into the article. As a second point, prior restraint, something that chills free speech by governmental action, such as by religious or "thought" police is also a form of censorship. If needed, I can produce plenty of articles from both legal and academic journals that are directly on point. 314: 293: 262: 190: 514: 504: 233: 483: 3418:

aside), resulting in a scattershot list that doesn't give any idea of the topic. If this were treated as a parent article for the articles on censorship in the various countries in question, focusing on the more religious bits but ultimately using summary style and keeping the details in the country articles, that right there would be a better start. –

592: 3757:

happened to the Dutch-- which was the work of isolated madmen, people who were not acting as any kind of organized government representative of anything. Perhaps one can compare it to Apartheid South Africa's racial policy to, say, anti-black hate crimes that have made news in the U.S. recently (done by lone wolf madman, prosecuted by the state).

2393:. I can see your point on private individuals and have struck that from the proposal. I am not sure on private organizations, as there are clearly some that operate to censor in various societies (not just Islamic, although that is what we're dealing with here). Just for information, the definition used here was pulled directly from the 1504: 1972:. I think it's more complicated than that, and some incidents clearly constitute censorship if they meet the definition of such even if the word has not been used. However, GregJackP is clearly hoping that enough support here will get him around the requirement that sources demonstrate any relevance at all, and so I must oppose. – 2667:"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations acting at the behest or with the approval of government. 3448: 3913:

The actual quote is "Islamic law is frequently cited as a justification for censorship, though in practice it is a combination of religious and political factors which motivate the regulation of cinema. The far-reaching nature of censorship is exemplified by the Iraqi Law on the Censorship of Foreign

3579:

Alternately, every time you try to drag the article down even while we were trying to discuss it, "one editor" would always revert it back to a more stable state. If the page wasn't protected, you would have continued until the page included that time your local Muslim organization ran a newspaper ad

3417:

Your point about such an article ideally being an overview is very sound. One of the huge problems I've been facing in my editing of this article is users' tendency to throw every individual incident they can at it to see what will stick (most of it doesn't stick because it's not censorship, but that

3086:

because it makes it less likely that people will !vote to delete because "well, almost nothing in the article is censorship, clearly they're trying to make an article on a topic that doesn't really exist" and they don't want to (and don't want readers to have to) sift through a lot of irrelevant crap

2963:

iscussion on the talkpage, including a RfC. You do not get to edit under the presumption that everything you remove is dull and bad unless there's a consensus for the removal - it works both ways. Let the process play out, let's see what the consensus is, and we'll go from there. I assure you that

2830:

There are many people who are currently engaged in discussion at AfD and on this talk page. Please wait for a day or so and let them respond before removing sourced materials from the article. At this point, I would rather wait and see what other people think before responding here in detail. Thanks,

1500:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage

3756:

The intellectual distinction that he (I assume you're a 'he') is drawing, however, is an important one. What occurs in Iran where books are banned by constitutionally-organized government crony organizations that scrutinize minor details in the name of Islamic purity... is rather different from what

3704:

or it simply shouldn't be mentioned. A murder in a country which is not governed in any way by any Islamic organizations does not appear to me to be even remotely close to the slowly developing consensus of what censorship is on this talk page and thus I believe that it and anything like it warrants

2375:

When you speak of censorship IN ISLAMIC SOCIETIES, you are clearly not speaking of reminding yourself not to mention Aunt Lily's large mole (aka self-censorship) nor a company's redaction of outgoing communications to insulate from lawsuits or divulging corporate secrets. This is about the different

3894:

The above text is perhaps technically correct but also misleading (because of what is left out). The source explicitly states that both religious and socio-political concerns played a role in Iraqi censorship. The description of the government as "secularist" is true, but the text should make clear

3881:

Censorship for political reasons also exists. The Iraqi Law on the Censorship of Foreign Films of 1973 banned the showing of anything with "the propagation of reactionary, chauvinistic, populistic, racialist or regionist ideas, of favouring the spirit of defeatism, serving imperialism and Zionism",

3746:

I'm not sure that I agree with Talain in terms of the 'definition of censorship'. The article refers to the murders as Islamic censorship right there explicitly. Thus, the sentence referencing Misters Gogh and Pim was included. Although it is a blog post being cited, that post is from a 'news blog'

1682:

We request that editors comment on the following issues: 1) does this article require the use of solely academic sources; 2) does the article require explicit use of the word censorship in the source; and 3) is a restricted definition of censorship to be used, i.e. only by governmental agencies, or

1466:

that discusses the incident is not sufficient to label the incident as "censorship." The writer appears perfectly competent and presumably could have described it as censorship if she wished; other examples in the section include placing the Quran in washrooms or defacing a poster of the Quran. I'm

4420:

The disenfranchised inland Berbers revolutionaries replaced the orthodox Almoravids and enforced an even stricter form of Islam, especially in Andalusia. Almohad medieval state-media promoted forced conversions of the double-tax Dhimmis. Opposition including the newly forcefully converted Jewish

3558:

I agree, but everytime we would try and improve the article, including using the academic sources demanded, one editor would always revert it as "not relevant" or "coatrack" even while we were trying to discuss it. If the page wasn't protected, she would have continued until there was no content,

3248:

interested in solving the coatrack and RS problems, and answer the questions anyway. Incidents of non-censorship which do not elaborate the ostensible topic of the article - like murders by individuals, threats by radicals, "controversy" about depictions of Mohammed, and the existence of religious

2116:

Thanks for asking. My position is always that an intelligent reader can easily discern whether a source discusses the topic or not. I support the wording above: a source "does not need to explicitly use the word" in order to be useful. I take a very dim view, however, on tangential and peripheral

2803: 2715:

Much better, I think you have to include "other controlling body", since in many parts of the world, who is the government is a question. Also "private organizations acting at the behest or with the approval of government." is necessary, since the division between government an quasi-goverining

1950:

for example. The article includes a lot of materials that are directly related to the subject and necessary to explain the concept, but probably do not mention word "censorship" (IP blocking, DNS filtering, etc.) By the same token, one can use here sources that provide background information on

3923:

example it even specifies that what was here an ostensibly religious reason for censorship was really a political one. Basically, I think you're reading the source as saying "here are examples of religious censorship mixed with politics," but what it is actually saying is "here are examples of

3858:

Censorship for both socio-political and religious justifications, intertwined, was widespread in Iraq's government in the 20th century. In particular, the The Iraqi Law on the Censorship of Foreign Films of 1973 banned the showing of anything with "the propagation of reactionary, chauvinistic,

1570:

I'm confused. You voted to keep the article, but now you seem to be trying to get others to delete it, by adding more and more irrelevant rubbish and refusing to gain consensus. (Slightly less facetiously, if you're actually planning to step away from the article, I assume you won't object and

3390:

To take articles in isolation and claim that we either need a corresponding and balancing article about another faith ("Islamic sex abuse cases in Ontario" for example) or addition of material to "balance" the article (so that we, for example, should merge the articles on heresy in different

1639:

I can just make declarations, too. See: It should not be included. But that isn't helpful to you or to me, which is why I have repeatedly explained that not every "limit on freedom of expression," to borrow the inventive term inserted by users who couldn't come up with any instances of actual

1521:

Questionable source aside (dude, we are not basing our article on the work of an author who openly advocates Islamophobia), this refers in what way to material I removed? I retained the Satanic Verses material, which appears to be the only overlap between Bloom's ridiculous article and ours.

2306:

for a similar reason as above. Sound in theory, but this RFC is being called because GregJackP and MVBM want to claim that the actions of private individuals (or other things that are not a "controlling body") against other private individuals constitute censorship, and that is not right.

1065:

While this restriction certainly won't stop editors from adding non-censorship, news incidents, and stuff that belongs in country articles if they really want to, I'd like to suggest that editors try to use scholarly sources when writing the article, rather than synthesizing news sources.

3859:

populistic, racialist or regionist ideas, of favouring the spirit of defeatism, serving imperialism and Zionism", prohibiting as well anything "defaming the Arab nation and its goals". Iraq's government effectively had the ability to ban any film for any reason whatsoever at any notice. (

1471:

of people I'm dealing with, here. I know I suggested using scholarly sources, but if you're going to demonstrate that you're incapable of reading a source, perhaps you should limit yourself to suggesting material on the talkpage and letting people who know what they're doing help you.

1503:". This is not necessarily government. Of course killing or putting people in prison simply for telling something (which would be nothing special in any western society but was condemned as offense to Islam or Mohammed) belongs here. And it was described accordingly in sources, like 3535:

additions to the article), so it could possibly be useful if the topic is demonstrated through reliable sources which discuss it, but because of the stated fact that a lot of this isn't about religion but politics, I'm not sure that it can itself be used to demonstrate the topic.

2224:"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations." 2252:"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations 1170:

As I said: I removed material that was not censorship. You are not being censored every time a Muslim disagrees with something you say. Censorship entails some entity with the authority to do the censoring - protests, threats, and even murder do not constitute censorship.

1147:

I'm coming into this as an uninvolved editor and I'm concerned about the mass removal of sourced material. Can you please explain why each is not appropriate? Otherwise I'm inclined to revert the removal. Please remember, there is no requirement in Knowledge (XXG) that

1831:

no article is above and beyond our policies - that said counter view points by prominent/influential individuals and organizations in Islamic society should be considered valid for the topic if there positions are viewed at large by the populace (this society) as

1383:

in the case of a blasphemy prosecution for a teddy bear's name. Is the name "Muhammad" being censored? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Empty threats to restore the inappropriate material because you haven't got your way in the talkpage discussion are beneath you.

1000:

for everything you personally dislike about certain Muslims; "censorship" actually does have a meaning. The way to convince people that this is a legitimate article is to add good material, not to restore rubbish that other users have done the work of removing.

2849:, but that also wouldn't belong in this article. Please get off your high horse; you added the material a day ago, it's not as though there's some consensus state that you're protecting and I'm violating. As the editor adding the material, it is in fact 3063:

opposed to removal of significant portions of text, complete rewrite or whatever. I only suggest that they worked toward improvement of the article, rather than toward proving that the subject does not exist by removing as much material as possible.

3871:

And that is completely correct, as per the source. Admittedly, more information is needed about what censorship existed before the 20th century, what censorship exists there today, and... many more things could be added. At least, this is a start.

3918:

exemplifies religious censorship in addition to exemplifying carte blanche for the secularist Ba'ath regime; the preceding paragraph, indeed, is extremely clear about the fact that the examples it's presenting are generally political, and in the

3895:

from the context that a secularist government can impose religious censorship. That is exactly what also occurred under (as already cited in this article here elsewhere) Mubarak's Egypt as part of bargaining deals with political opponents.

995:

to talk about whether that belongs in this article or in another article, please find a reliable source, not a joke source. As well, I have again removed the material you restored which is not censorship and so on. This article is not a

2612:

Its important to note that censorship can be done by private organization and governments. The fact that private organization engage in censorship, based on various concerns related to Islam, is important to note in the article.

153: 3580:(because if they ran an ad, someone else must have been prevented from running one! censorship!) and every individual Palestinian terror attack (because those Israelis might have produced things were they not killed). – 1443:

Look on p. 682 of the BYU L. Rev. article, in addition to other spots throughout that article. It specifically discusses the use of defamation of religion laws to censor minority religious views, among other issues.

1334:

I thought it was obvious, but your recent comments are making me think that it is necessary to state explicitly not only that censorship entails the existence of an authoritative body doing the censoring, but also of

661:. Please do not revert. Give me a few days to research and source this a little. Frankly, I found it wrong that article was proposed for deletion without any discussion here. I will return to editing later. Thanks. 3766:

As long as no more sources are brought up explicitly linking the Dutch murders to 'Islamic censorship', then I suppose Talain has made the right move. I don't particularly have a strong opinion. More discussion is

2696:. Censorship can come from non-government sources. Example: media self-censorship in the USA during WWII to prevent images of wounded and dead Americans from entering American newspapers, magazines and newsreels. 2094:. You state that you oppose, but then your comment says the exact same thing that you're opposing. I'm don't understand. Are you saying that the word "censorship" does or does not have to appear in the source? 3118:

I disagree, but I'm not going to revert. Since you won't let the RFC or AFD play out, I've requested that an admin revert your last deletion and protect the page until we can come to some form of consensus.

3990: 3631:

or something like that with discussions on what exactly (in terms of hadith, et cetera) is cited in support of censorship. Comparisons with Catholic church censorship and other cultures would be fantastic.

2427:

as a part of the subject. Having certain similarities does not mean that Islamic censorship is not a well defined independent subject. Let's simply use the most commonly accepted definition of censorship.

2804:

List of times Muslims assassinated or attacked people, and also every way in which religion forms part of the state apparatus, and also the times when political censorship took place in a Muslim-majority

2751:"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a person or group of perceived authority" 1420:

Since you haven't bothered to make a convincing case for including this incident of non-censorship, I've removed it again until such point as you can find a source for it that demonstrates its relevance.

3530:

one is on "self-censorship" in a particularly tangential way. The other LA Times or AP article is good in that it discusses an issue rather than an incident (which has been the problem even with the few

4320: 3387:

and so on and so forth, not to mention the martyrs such as More, Latymer and so forth. We also cover contemporary issues such as ] the Catholic abuse cases (about which we have almost 300 articles).

3295:

I hope I'm not covering old ground here and I'll admit I'm an atheist, albeit one with an above average understanding of both the new and old testament. If the article included the tragic history of

4449:

The government has used article 44 of the new Egyptian Constitution as justification for their measures, which states "insult or abuse of all religious messengers and prophets shall be prohibited".

3398:

My main concern with this article title is the breadth of the topic, and it should ideally become an overview article, since we are talking about dozens of societies over more than a millennium.

2921:

it. As I said above, it's not as though I came into a stable article and shook everything up; y'all added a lot of random crap in the past two days and are now treating it as a sacred cow. –

1793:, I note the successful use of an academic study of gypsies by 5 local authorities which allowed proper discussion, previously deemed racist to take place. I also note difficulties with the 3882:

prohibiting as well anything "defaming the Arab nation and its goals". Iraq's secularist government effectively had the ability to ban any film for any reason whatsoever at any notice. (

147: 2807:. Y'all are claiming that there's a topic here, but your editing isn't bearing that out - if "Islamic censorship" is a thing, then why has nearly all the material added to this article 3444:

Personally, I think full protection while an AfD is going on is ridiculous. We should be allowed to edit the article to improve it. But, whatever, here's some sources we should use.

44: 243: 3849:

That is, indeed, flatly factually wrong. Saddam personally was not responsible for those actions (being enacted before he had that sort of administrative control in Iraqi history).

3170:

DF, Roscelese won't pay any attention to your comment. Numerous editors have commented on that to no result. The page had to be protected to stop their vandalism of the article.

2964:

I'll go along with the community consensus. It's not something that has to be determined immediately - what's the hurry? It may end up being moot if the AfD closes for deletion.

1947: 1556:

Frankly, the article is not in a good shape right now, but I do not have time at the moment and prefer wait and see if it will be kept. If so, I would revisit and improve it later.

3884: 3861: 3839: 2917:

That isn't how it works; you do not edit under the presumption that everything you add is shiny and good unless there's a consensus against it, you need to demonstrate consensus

4294: 3991:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130120105458/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/YouTube-links-to-anti-Islam-film-blocked-in-Jordan/articleshow/16525579.cms

2899:

I've reverted because it is relevant. Please do not remove sourced material that is subject to a content dispute until: a) you have consensus, and b) the RfC is closed.

3522:

Sigh. I was initially positive about this list, but then I took a closer look and three of the sources are obviously ridiculous, two are duplicates, and one is about the

3222:

Only by identifying the specific problems can we work on correcting them, or in the event of a disagreement, work at determining what the consensus of the community is.

4362: 4358: 4344: 4206: 4202: 4188: 4030: 4026: 4012: 3216:

Please identify exactly which references do not meet Knowledge (XXG) standards, either by templating the reference or identifying the exact reference on the talk page.

1402:

Obviously you do not understand censorship - the mention of the name Muhammad in a derogatory way was prohibited, i.e., censored. I've restored that to the article.

4321:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120405173540/http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/article/anti-hindus-misc/attacks/book-on-islam-banned-author-s-house-raided-in-mumbai.html

364: 2986:

Talking the talk isn't enough, man. You boldly added material and you were reverted, and you haven't made even a pitiful attempt to gain consensus for your change. –

1918:

An article does not need to explicitly use the word "censorship" in order to be useful as a source, so long as the meaning is clear from the context of the article.

4542: 3994: 560: 2753:

since often times a religious organization can censor, as can a governmentt, and in the case of Islamic Societies - there often is no difference between the two.

2117:

sources brought in to coatrack a topic, or to create a synthesis of views. The source, in this case, should be discussing Islamic censorship, not something else.

4512: 354: 3898:

Thoughts? (P.S. Did not mean for "Please actually read the source cited" to sound like a personal attack, in retrospect it might and that was not the intent.)

79: 4324: 1310:; the arrest, trial, conviction, and imprisonment of a British schoolteacher in Sudan in 2007, for allegedly insulting Islam by allowing her class to name a 3041:

In addition, I posted the RfC in order to generate discussion. You cannot just arbitrarily remove sourced material while it is under discussion. Regards,

4537: 4158: 2415:

Actually, I would like to disagree with crossing this out and with the argument by Anonymous209.6. The Islamic censorship is special because it comes from

210:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. 3776:

Roscelese, I'd like you to be specific about what exactly in this article right now is a problem. The majority of the article is largely well-cited, no?

3391:

religions to show "balance") is to miss the point. The first approach would result in spurious articles, the second in a spurious and specious balance -

4517: 4507: 4502: 1023:

Wikis are not reliable sources. Especially WikiIslam as has been discussed before in the reliable sources section. Scholarly sources would be adequate.

330: 2329:

Not only censorship can be conducted by another person (for example your boss), but it can be conducted by the person itself, which is widely known as

4310: 4144: 1125:

Some of them are reliable sources, but in order to keep the article about the ostensible topic, not a list of synthesized anti-Muslim news crap, I am

570: 197: 4126: 3635:

In terms of nations, everything could be expanded. There's nothing right now on Morocco, Yemen, Bosnia, and many other majority Islamic countries.

85: 4330: 3384: 1897:

There is a clear consensus, that the word censorship doesn't need to be explicitly used in the source, if the meaning is clear from the context.

1683:

is the definition used in the Knowledge (XXG) article correct, where censorship may be by the government, media, private groups, or individuals?

465: 1814:

but such scholarly sources are the best possible ones. Unopposed scholarly sources help us make statements of fact in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice.

1589:

Sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Yes, I voted to keep article. Was that a problem? How am I "refusing to gain consensus"? What rubbish?

3317:, as well as other books on the same subject that can be found even by Google book search. We also have a page on the more general subject of 3244:

I've been identifying the coatrack material for several days now, but unfortunately you keep reverting me. But I'll pretend that you actually

168: 4483: 4295:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120114155541/http://minivannews.com/politics/blog-crack-down-is-just-the-beginning-warns-censored-blogger-28433

2354:

Same reasons per Roscelese. Get rid of "individuals" and "private organisations" and I'll support. There are nutters in every society. Can't

2150: 1764:. I have requested that users prefer scholarly sources in order to move away from their previous practice of adding as many flash-in-the-pan 3600:

Yeah, i've dealt with that sort of thing before. I guess I should just post these example sources in the AfD, so people there can see them.

321: 298: 135: 4527: 3461: 3272:

I've decided not to bother with this anymore. I'll just prepare another article in userspace. It's not worth trying to improve one here.

455: 30: 3720:

Indeed. I hope that the users who have been strenuously working to brand anything bad individual Muslims do as "Islamic censorship" will,

1494:

You removed a lot of sourced materials as "non-censorship". Who said it was not censorship? You? According to most common definition (see

4547: 3314:

The article is not an attack on anything and a perfectly legitimate encyclopedic subject because there is a book with exactly same name

4116: 536: 3980: 3783: 2192: 1850: 1608: 1307: 4298: 1189:

I don't have a problem with that, however not all of the removals are so limited. For example, what is the basis for removing this:

213: 201: 99: 4532: 4522: 4340:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2769: 1271:

However, neither of the sources had anything to do with depiction of the prophet or with any other censored material. Fancy that. –

104: 20: 3995:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/YouTube-links-to-anti-Islam-film-blocked-in-Jordan/articleshow/16525579.cms

3899: 3645: 2511:. We accept definitions used by reliable sources. If the source describes a situation as one of censorship then it is allowable. 129: 74: 4268: 4106: 4090: 3952: 3933: 3733: 3589: 3545: 3427: 3262: 3197: 3096: 2995: 2930: 2862: 2820: 2316: 1981: 1777: 1649: 1580: 1571:

continue edit-warring when editors interested in policy instead of coatracking improve the article by removing said rubbish.) –

1531: 1481: 1430: 1393: 1348: 1280: 1180: 1138: 1075: 1010: 24: 3664:

This whole section is a bit problematic but I've removed the previously closing section as being particularly unencyclopedic.

273: 2376:

approaches of GOVERNMENTS in different Islamic Societies to Censorship, or it really isn't an Article that belongs on WP. --

1014: 670: 3315: 527: 488: 125: 65: 4325:

http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/article/anti-hindus-misc/attacks/book-on-islam-banned-author-s-house-raided-in-mumbai.html

2660: