Searching for Taqwa – 29 Results That May Surprise You
Taqwa.com, a new search website, tries to provide a Muslim point of view on search items.The website, whose homepage is about the coolest image ever (take note: Google), otherwise functions much like Google and seems to return similar results, organized similarly by web/image/news/video.
An added touch is the ability to add hearts, skulls, or question marks to search items results that may be either fantastic (or “superhalal” and adored by Muslims), haram, or questionable.
The site clarifies its intentions: “Something may be perceived as haram or halal socially but scientifically or religiously it could hold an educational purpose. Talk about it!”
Taqwa.com has an admirable aim to be sure. And I very much like that the search engine does not censor its results (not sure if that’s true for its Chinese users). Instead, it let me decide whether or not to view the content with a “skull” image and a warning. That is, until I hit two very bad searches.
So read on. The results will surprise you!
My Taqwa.com Test Drive:
I start simply enough. Figuring “Haram” will yield the red and black “haram” icon and “Ramadan” would bring on a purple heart of goodness, I type these two in:
1. Haram – top results: Wikipedia article on “Haram”, other general info on “Haram”; punk rock band (Haram!!!) in Washington, DC.
2. Ramadan – top results: Wikipedia, Holidays.net (general info)
Hmm… not too controversial or loveable there. Interesting. Let’s try something more dodgy:
3. Miss USA – top results: Miss USA Pageant homepage, Pageant Life NBC.com. Still nothing? After this week’s elan post (and accompanying comments) on Miss USA being Muslim, I would’ve expected more!
Let’s try another one:
4. Israel – top results: Standard enough. But wait! RED ALERT! There is a picture of a skull with a no smoking red strikethrough (I suppose, suggesting that death is not allowed here?), and then a warning: “the results for your search item ‘israel’ may return explicit results.” Looks like we hit a soft spot…I’m wondering what the logic is that determines whether something is “explicit.”
5. Palestine does not attract the Red Face of Horror mark…
6-11. Jew returns the Red Warning… but Muslim does not. Atheist does. Christian does not. Shia does. Sunni does not.
Something strange and possible untoward going on here. But I will reserve judgment until I understand the programmer’s logic. Continuing on…
12. Smirnoff – links to the British-owned Vodka company are preceded by another “Death not allowed” skull with the same warning: “the results for your search item “smirnoff” may return explicit results.”
13. Prophet Muhammad Cartoon – top results: revealed another Pirate Flag warning, warning of explicit content, but did not seem to block anything (many images are still available for viewing if you so desire; I averted my eyes thankyouverymuch!). So I can see some sense behind the Skull of Islamic Warning (except for “Israel” as an entry). I wonder…
14 & 15. Taqwa & Google- top results: Wikipedia article on “Taqwa.” “Google” returned http://www.google.com. Confirming that Taqwa.com makers are not narcissists. Also confirming the notion that it is much better marketing to name your website a totally nonsense word.
Surprisingly, several words I would have expected to conjure up a purple heart of Muslim approval yielded Skulls of Death!
16-21.
- Harry Potter
- Starbucks
- Halal
- Sawm (fasting)
- Quran
- Muhammad
22. Thankfully, my next search term returned just a Wikipedia article, free of the Black Mark: “Allah.”
23-27.
But, don’t get too excited. Las Vegas also returned a Death-Mask-free set of results. As did Jersey Shore and Pork Belly. Lady Gaga content was also unblemished (thankfully; but I’m just saying, Harry Potter gets a warning but not Lady Gaga?) Similarly, ”Obama” gets off scot-free, but “Muhammad” has a warning mark?
Just when I thought the site didn’t actually censor anything:
28. Playboy
Blocked. With an enormous death mask of haram-ness face, warning: “The word ‘playboy’ has been filtered from the search results.” Along with a basic definition of what is “haram.”
Beyond the fact that playboy is also a functioning word of the English language and can refer to many things beyond the notorious magazine, I’m a little disappointed with this search.
I would dare to venture further, but my search results are tracked, and I don’t want anyone looking up my history wondering why I was so desperately seeking illicit content on the web.
What I am now desperately searching for (and it does not appear to be searchable on the search engine’s own site, how ironic) is the logic behind what makes something trigger a “haram” filter.
It should be prominently published somewhere on the site.
I do applaud the landing page artwork. The site has a link for “Expression,” soliciting creative artwork for its homepage background, stating “Art is an avenue for expression, and understanding.” On a whim, I decide to see just how open to “Expression” and “Art” the search engine is.
29. I type in ”Picasso.” I click the purple Search button. A big Haram mark informs me that the results are filtered for the word “Picasso.” There are no search results allowed. A definition of “haram” follows.
Maybe it’s time to reprogram. I’ll enjoy the background art in the meantime.
