Well this is a new one

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I think I'm WAY off with this, but it's something to do with the idea that Mohammed and/or Allah are already perfect, human beings are flawed, and anyone who does create an image of Mohammed/Allah has most likely made several flaws in the process.

Although it doesn't excuse the fact that the mosques that DO go all out are beautiful on the inside (a number of mosques are fairly straightforward)

The belief/law is called aniconism.

Aniconism in Islam is a proscription in Islam against the creation of images of sentient living beings. The most absolute proscription is of images of Allah, followed by depictions of Muhammad, and then Islamic prophets and the relatives of the Prophet, but the depiction of all humans and animals is discouraged in the Hadith and by the long tradition of Islamic authorities, especially Sunni ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam

(Also, heading off the "OMG YOU WENT TO WIKIPEDIA?!" Yes, I did, because I already knew of it but wikipedia offers better summaries much more quickly. Wikipedia also has a requirement of SOURCING your information, therefore is not as poor of a reference as people think of it.)

[fireheart17]

The belief/law is called aniconism.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam

(Also, heading off the "OMG YOU WENT TO WIKIPEDIA?!" Yes, I did, because I already knew of it but wikipedia offers better summaries much more quickly. Wikipedia also has a requirement of SOURCING your information, therefore is not as poor of a reference as people think of it.)

OK, so I wasn't ENTIRELY off base.

[Nekojin]

(Also, heading off the "OMG YOU WENT TO WIKIPEDIA?!" Yes, I did, because I already knew of it but wikipedia offers better summaries much more quickly. Wikipedia also has a requirement of SOURCING your information, therefore is not as poor of a reference as people think of it.)

Tangent: Wikipedia is an excellent source for broad, general, and non-contentious topics. If something is a hot-button issue right now, I'd avoid using Wikipedia, as there are sure to be some people who are posting misinformation or heavily-slanted information for one reason or another. For less contentious topics, It's generally fine, as long as you don't need fine details.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

For less contentious topics, It's generally fine, as long as you don't need fine details.

If you do need the fine details, you just need to scroll down and look at the list of sources and go research into those for more information.

That's what I would do for a lot of my papers in college. I'd get a broad idea of the information I needed, then go down to the sources and find the exact information that would really help to shape my essay.

[Panacea]

Wikipedia actually does a pretty good job with both history and science.

It's politics and biography you have to be careful with.

[EricKei]

If something is a hot-button issue right now, I'd avoid using Wikipedia, as there are sure to be some people who are posting misinformation or heavily-slanted information for one reason or another.

I have heard that pretty much any page about a sitting or former President, or candidate for the same office, is likely to be edited/vandalized so frequently (multiple times a minute, at times) that they tend to be pretty much worthless for anything more important than the spelling of the person's name. Then again, I heard that on the internet, where everything is true , so take it with a grain of salt ^_^

Back kinda OT -- In some cultures, artisans will traditionally introduce at least some minor flaws into their works *intentionally*, whether for the sake of "uniqueness" or because the presumption is that, nothing a mortal hand makes can ever be truly perfect, so you might as well choose at least one of the imperfections, yourself. I suppose

[Panacea]

I have heard that pretty much any page about a sitting or former President, or candidate for the same office, is likely to be edited/vandalized so frequently (multiple times a minute, at times) that they tend to be pretty much worthless for anything more important than the spelling of the person's name. Then again, I heard that on the internet, where everything is true , so take it with a grain of salt ^_^

That tends to be a problem with biographies in general. However, the editorial staff is getting better about stopping that sort of thing. Still, you have to be careful and any controversial subject should be approached on Wikipedia with a grain of salt.

Scientific articles are usually well written and stable, unless the topic is controversial.

[BookstoreEscapee]

There is (or at least was; I haven't heard of them since the 80's) a group of Mennonites who do drive cars, but they not only have to be black, but any chrome or other shiny parts they paint black too, so as not to show off.

Not all Mennonites are Amish. I went to college in "Amish country" and while I didn't see too many Amish around the immediate area where I was, there were plenty of less strict Mennonites out and about. They are not so cut off from the world as the Amish try to be. We once went miniature golfing and there was a Mennonite family behind us on the course. (Though I did once see an Amish family getting on the subway in Philly when I was working in that city about 10 years ago.)

New Jersey used to allow non-photo licences if you were over 21 (which was handy when I had to renew my license in college as I was able to do it by mail and not have to wait until I was home on a break.) Now you have to have a picture, though.