Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Troubled by Civility Issues

In 2006 when the caricatures of Prophet (PBUH) were published in some European newspapers, strong protests from all over the Muslim world erupted as a response. I am terribly fail to understand that if almost one third of the world population has some reservations on the publication of these caricatures, why it is not stopped, especially considering the fact that they are not real images, and are only imaginative figures. I request all the supporters and pro pounders of Inter-Religion harmony, to take a step against the mutilation of Muslims' religious sentiments. If Osama is extremist because he tries to impose his own view point on others, so are all these people who support these caricatures, knowingly that it will hurt the feelings of 1.8 billion Muslims. I therefore request the moderators of Wikipedia to remove these images of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to take back there decision of not removing these caricatures from this article. I hope my request will not fall on deaf ears.

I'll begin by saying that I support the images. I agree with the principled decisions made to keep the depictions, and approve of their inclusion. On the other hand, it is not difficult to be civil to those who disapprove of the images. While I do not agree with them, I'm fully able to empathize with them. A belief is a powerful thing. I've noticed that a lot of the responses have bordered on being inflammatory and self-righteous. Certainly, I sympathize; I don't appreciate it when people request that I censor myself, or that I adhere to religious beliefs that I do not hold. Nonetheless, I tend to agree with an editor above. A simple link to the FAQ should suffice, but if further communication is required, it just seems like you've all got to take a step back. Nothing to gain by being argumentative, nothing to win by being witty and sarcastic. Obviously, as someone who edits very little, it might not be very fair for me to comment. I'm simply saying that the article, in most respects, is good, and you've already won the war; there is no need to try and keep winning battles. Cheers, 97.73.64.167 (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - if ya can't respond nicely, let someone else do it.Rklawton (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The problem I see most of the time is that a first-time demand from someone to remove images is often written in a fulminating, immature, demanding, or otherwise un-civil way, and it is human nature to respond accordingly. I have advocated before that the correct response to such requests (regardless of their tone) is a terse, non-emotional one-liner: "Your concerns are already addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ." ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support. I'm a huge advocate of the images, and I feel that we do owe kind responses to those who come here. These are not mere trolls looking to stir up trouble-- these are people doing their best to understand a very foreign and alien worldview. The comments received here are, usually, the first encounters these individuals have with Wikipedia, and sometimes, one of the first encounters they've had with western cultures. If you can't say something understanding, just point them to the FAQ. But they're not doing anything wrong by asking-- indeed, given their religion, they would be hypocrites if they didn't at least ask us to take them down. I very much understand getting frustrated by the monotony of it-- but we must all guard against lapses into incivility. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I disagree with you Alecmconroy. I'm going to assume that these contributors can atleast read (afterall they did get themselves to this talkpage) and therefore assume that they have completely ignored the big red box at the top of this page that clearly addresses their concerns. I'm sorry, but all I see in the repeated condemnation of the images is trolling. RaseaC (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I second that. "...these are people doing their best to understand a very foreign and alien worldview." How does trying to shove personal religious beliefs down other peoples throats equate to tolerance and understanding? "these are people" who obviously believe in the supremacy of their religious ideology, answering such contempt with kindness and understanding only encourages them. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia not in terms with US Constitution

Ok I'm sorry, because I know they said no one should post here about the removal of Muhammad's (PBUH) pics, but it seems no one brought up this controversy to this. According to this: "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity", Wikipedia is a U.S registered foundation. Now as a U.S foundation it must come into terms with the U.S Constitution and as the U.S Constitution states to have religious freedom and in the first amendment it states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". (U.S Constitution) Now correct me if I'm wrong but the showing of Muhammad's (PBUH) images is in complete defiance to the US Constitution, in the religious freedom aspect, which could be a case that could be taken to the Supreme Court. Please tell if I have made a mistake in saying this and I'm sorry if this has been posted before, but I'm just a concerned Muslim like the other Muslim's that posted here. This is my first post on a talk page so I'm not really sure how to sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Great1122 (talk contribs) 02:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not congress and we are not making laws, so you are wrong. Private organizations, even nonprofit charities have the right to make editorial decisions in their publications. Also religious freedom does not mean you have the freedom to make others obey a religion, rather it means people can make their own decisions about religion. Chillum 03:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia as a private foundation does have the freedom to publish anything it likes. This is an exercise of precisely the freedoms you quote. Wikimedia would even be legally free to publish anti-:religious rants, it just chooses to aim for neutrality. NPOV and "anyone can edit" aren't legal rights anyone can demand of Wikimedia, they are just private statements of intent. Wikimedia does enjoy "freedom of speech" within the US, but no user enjoys "freedom of speech" within Wikimedia. It is appalling how many users find this difficult to understand or accept. --dab (𒁳) 05:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, technically the Wikimedia Foundation is not a private foundation. Technically it is a public charity. Doesn't matter either way though, everybody is still legally free to pick their own religion or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.134.218 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question, Great1122, and most welcome. The answer is that the US Constitution is largely a restriction on government actions, not individual or other groups. So, for example, most US schools are run by local governments-- and so they cannot promote any particular religion. Muslim children, therefore, can't be forced to pray to Christ-- indeed, they can't even be forced to sit through prayers to Christ. The school, because it's run by the government, can't promote any religion at all. Furthermore, if a parent wants their child to get a religious education, they can go to a religious school that isn't run by the government. Or, they can teach their children at their home instead. Since the private schools aren't run by the government, they can teach whatever they want.

Another great example is the US Military. Since it is run by the government, they are not supposed to promote one religion over another. There are Muslim chaplains, Muslim prayer rooms, etc. Muslim soldiers can often get special leave to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, etc. In theory, all religions are supposed to be treated equally, because it's run by the government.

So, if wikipedia were run by the government, then we would be required by law not to promote one particular religion over another. If wikipedia were run by the government, we couldn't have the Jesus article describe him as the "One True God", for example.

But-- Wikipedia isn't run by the government. It's a private group of people who got together to make an encyclopedia. Under US Law, we can take any position we want on religion. By choice, we try to be neutral-- but legally, we have the freedom to make any kind of encyclopedia we wanted.

So, for example, a different group of people have made other encyclopedias that represent their views. So, for example, there's a different project completely unrelated to Wikipedia called Conservapedia that overtly promotes a Conservative Christian point of view. And, if someone hasn't already done it, soon enough people will probably get together and make an encyclopedia that promotes a Muslim point of view.

Please don't feel that Wikipedia has singled out Muhammad or Islam-- every religion has to deal with the fact that Wikipedia tries not to endorse their point of view, but instead tries to choose a "neutral" point of view. Wikipedia isn't a "Christian Encyclopedia" any more than the US is a "Christian Nation". (And for that matter, Wikipedia isn't even particularly American. The physical computers are in the US, but the whole english speaking world has equal access to editing the encyclopedia.

Hope this helps somehow. Welcome to the Internet, Great1122, I'm glad you're here-- conversations like this are how countries will stop killing each other and start learning from each other. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ironically enough, the Supreme Court itself has a representation of Muhammad carved above the bench.—Chowbok ☠ 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Every religion teaches that one should respect the religion of others. Islam strictly prohibits drawing illusions of any kind, let alone the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H). So who ever has written this article should at least do what their religion asks them, "respect the religion of others." These pictures are extremely offensive for all Muslims so they should be removed immedietly. I dont understand why is it so difficult for wikipedia to remove these pictures? If millions of people are protesting against it, then why on earth do they have such an adament attitude? I know for a fact that if some Muslim would have done the same thing, he would have been imprissoned or stoned to death by now. It just seems like the authors of this article have delibrately put up these pictures. Please I request you, remove these pictures. All the Muslims will highly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faiza6 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing respectful about demanding conformity. Wikipedia is not a religious endeavour, so religious teachings have no bearing on our policies. I would ask that you respect our beliefs that this is relevant and useful information. We state the fact that many modern Muslim teachings prohibit the depiction of images of Muhammad, and we provide you with a way to hide the images on your browser without forcing your beliefs onto everyone else. Resolute 02:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

i would just like to point out that freedom of religion doesn't imply you are granted protection from having your religious sensibilities offended, simply that you are free to practice whatever religion you like. so even if this provision of the US constitution did apply to wikipedia, it still would not prevent these images from being shown. 76.10.173.92 (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

indeed. just like "freedom of speech" doesn't mean bullshit is protected from being called bullshit. These freedoms in essence grant you the legal right to be a bigot and/or a moron, but they do not protect you from the consequences inherent in being a bigot and/or a moron. --dab (𒁳) 08:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

images

moved from main talk page Nableezy (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, Pleasee take out the pictures. Everyone should respect everyone's religion. It's not Muslims who are against it, it is Islam. Please.... take them out. They are very offending and that is just cruel of you to put pictures up when you know for a fact that it is disrespectful to do so. If something was offending Christians, you would be somehow forced to stop it; so why can't Muslims get the same treatment? Why can't EVERY religion get the same treatment? Please take them out...:'( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyukarrahai (talk • contribs) 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, there's a lot in Wikipedia that's offensive to Christians. Here's an example. Muslims may ask for but will not get special treatment. Rklawton (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In my religion it is offensive to not show pictures of Muhammad. ðarkuncoll 08:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to post my opinion about the above stated comment: The opposition to having the images is not entirely due to the religion aspect of it. Historically, there is little to rebuff the fact that Muhammad, himself, has been against depictions of humans and deities, let alone himself. It is only sane for a publicly edited encyclopedia to respect the wishes of a person no longer in this world. If muslims were really against depictions as a whole, as their religion would want them to, they would have objected to all the numerous pictures of people that are out here, including Jesus, Moses and perhaps Greek gods. Why the centerpoint of this discussion lies on Muhammad's talk page is because he was the person who was so basically against pictorial representations of great historic personalities. I hope you are getting my point. Hasan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.26.166 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We need a variant of the "notabilty, not truth" maxim for this. I mean, "notability, not nicety". Stuff on Wikipedia isn't necessarily considered nice or non-offensive by anyone. It can be offensive as hell and we'll still keep articles (and pictures) of it just provided it is notable. Nobody in their right mind would describe World War I as "nice" and we still have a large number of detailed articles about it. Imagine the sort of pathetic family-friendly, Disney-approved "encyclopedia" this would become otherwise, presenting exclusively the part of the "knowledge of mankind" that cannot possibly be considered "not nice". --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't get in if offensive to British people, or their war heroes [1]. Tfz 02:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

no, it doesn't get in if it is badly sourced rumour of dubious notability. "Churchill was gay" doesn't get in on the same grounds as "Muhammad was a pedophile". --dab (𒁳) 13:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well sourced, but well hidden, maybe in a 100 years time it might be ok to say that. Tfz 14:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between respecting a religion and obeying one. You have our respect, not our obedience. Chillum 14:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tfz-- I want to let you know that in my experience, there are a lot of "Wikipedia -vs- Religious Censorship". By far, most involve christians who are offended by the content in wikipedia. (Probably just because the encyclopedia is written in English and Christianity is the most common religion among English-speakers).

So please, don't think Muhammad is being 'singled out' in any way. Wikipedia has hundreds or thousands of these sorts of debates, where some readers are offended by some content, and wikipedia refuses to delete it on the grounds the Wikipedia isn't censored. It's a general commitment to the ideal of freedom of information to anyone who wants it-- the reason the images aren't going to get deleted have nothing to do with religion, race, or nationality. If wikipedia has an ideology in how we run our policies, it's some sort of computer nerd inspired point of view. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

also, if the Islamic World could bring itself put knowledge, curiosity, intellectual honesty and tolerance above petty bigotry, who knows, it may once again rise to the stature of its heyday instead of languishing away in the "second world". It is definitely time for the Islamic World to recognize that its plight is self-made and can only be overcome from within. The self-caricature of Muslims as a mindless angry mob brandishing clubs over cartoons or similarly anally retentive trifles only perpetuates the image of Islam as backward. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of debatable points there. The Islamic World's ailments aren't purely self-made-- between imperialism, cold war politics, and oil politics, the Islamic Work had had more than it's share of help from the rest of the world in developing its ailments.

But, with the internet, all the rules are different now. Cross-cultural communication is possible like never before. So we just have to do our best to explain why Wikipedia would keep up pictures that we know offend people-- and we have to listen to try to better understand why some in the muslim world find that so upsetting.

Ideally, I wish we could have statements from respected leaders in the Muslim world, written also in Arabic and Farsi, in which they give a quick run down on why The West is so into "Free Speech", to the point that we would include images that we know will upset some, despite not wishing any ill will to those who are offended by them.

What I worry is happening on this page is that readers from muslim nations are coming here and concluding that the purpose of the image _is_ to intentionally upset them. It's a reasonable guess-- the english speaking world and the muslim world haven't been on the best terms this decade. But that's sincerely not why we have the images, and I wish there was some very eloquent way to explain that to our muslim readers. "Wikipedia is not censored" _is_ a difficult concept to wrap your brain around-- christian readers who have live their whole lives in the US have difficulty grasping it all the time too, so I know it must be quite a hard sell for some readers from Muslim nations who have never experienced "radical freedom of information". Since I argued strenuously for the inclusion of the images, I've kinda felt it my duty to try and reach out, when I can, to reassure people that we're not trying to upset them-- but I don't know how successful I've been.

I wonder how we could go about finding someone who could write such a comment. Perhaps someone in academia or a very liberal religious leader? --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad's Picture

Why do you have pictures of facsimiles of Prophet Muhammad when no one knows what he looks like because it is forbidden to picture him or show any image of him to avoid persons from worshipping him- for he is just a human being, not G'D! So, to put images of him in your article is really blasphemous and should be removed. Otherwise, your actions are looked upon as being very unrespectful of the religion of Islam.

The purpose of Wikipedia, I thought, was to inform, not to make mockery of... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.134.65 (talk)

The Wikipedia's readers are better informed by displaying images of Muhammad, as they are historically relevant to the subject here.. Your arguments are without merit, and we do not censor material here. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A little harsh there? I realize these requests may get bothersome, but we should still be able to direct well-intentioned posters to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ with a minimum of criticism. Respecting the views of a majority of the members of a major religion is a meritorious argument, even if it is not the viewpoint that has won out at Wikipedia. In answer the original poster: Wikipedia attempts to adopt a balanced, secular style in the coverage of all historical figures and religions. The intent is that no single group should be given deference to control how content is portrayed. That applies equally to Muslims and Muhammad, Jews and Israel, Catholics and the Papacy, and many other contentious faith-based issues. This is discussed further in the FAQ page I linked above. Dragons flight (talk) 21:42, 25

June 2009 (UTC)

Harsh is shoving your religious beliefs down other peoples throats by trying to control what they may see, do and hear. Rejecting an argument made on religious grounds with the intent of restricting freedom of speech is common sense. Why should those people be granted exemption from the same contempt they show for our freedom to post these pictures? 76.10.173.92 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Because mutual contempt won't solve the world's problems. Empathy might. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain, ignore, repeat. Chillum 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

this is not about "the views of a majority of the members of a major religion". The majority of Muslims may believe it is improper for a Muslim to depict Muhammad, but it is hardly the view of the majority of Muslims that Wikipedia should be pressured into becoming a Muslim project. Also, Alecmconroy, we are not here to solve the world's problems, or to practice empathy on people, we are here to build an encyclopedia. This is a very narrow scope, and we should work to stay on this narrow scope. The more we go out of our way to practice empathy, the more people will feel justified in expecting Wikipedia to behave empatically towards their sensitivities. This is making the problem worse. --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

if you are not here solve the world's problem than why you are asking a donation from the world? & than what is the purpose of the encyclopedia?. even what i assumed is that this encyclopedia is not for Islam because all the information related to islam overe here are false.

Absolutely true on the article pages-- whatever makes the best encyclopedia, that's the way it should be.

As far as solving the world's problems on the side on the subpage of a talkpage, yeah-- I don't know where to be on that. Maybe we should dialogue, maybe we should just point to the FAQ and let it go at that. I'm not sure which is better. We definitely shouldn't be hostile though. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"... mutual contempt won't solve the world's problems. Empathy might." empathy has never been a succesful tactic in dealing with muslims at any point in history. it is taken by them as a sign of weakness and only encourages more attacks. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE remove the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It offends all the muslims. PLEASE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitaf3604u (talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of Muhammad

There pictures are not His! These are fake! Muhammad PBUH has no pictures available any where in the world! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.89.215 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ posted above. Resolute 04:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

this is completely true. They should be removed..... BY not doing so, Wikipedia is directly insulting the prophet, and the religion of islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.151.220 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

They will not be removed. Please read the FAQ. Frotz (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Many Muslims will start donating Wikipedia if the images are removed and if not you will not get a penny of donation from the Muslim world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.151.98 (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well. I suppose we'll just have to get by without accepting bribes (explicit or implicit), then. RavShimon (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This too has been discussed already, and we're still waiting on the $1tr requested.RaseaC (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not pool that money and make a Muslim-friendly Wikipedia mirror? Both the content and the software is free, all you'll need to do is pay for hardware and bandwidth.—Chowbok ☠ 21:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Already been discussed, can't be bothered to find where, you can if you want, but the answer was no.RaseaC (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Whose answer was "no"? How can the answer be "no" when I was just stating facts?—Chowbok ☠ 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I support dab's previous suggestion that if we are to be bribed the medium of exchange should be ponies. Honesty compels me to admit that my niece is now 12 so I have strong ulterior motives. The bottom line though is that anyone who wants to bribe us would just have to ... pony up. Doc Tropics 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

indeed. But I do trust that one billion Muslims should in theory be capable of WP:FORKing Wikipedia into a halal version if they really make an effort and pool their resources. Or if that is asking too much, they could perhaps just compile and distribute an adblock file that every Muslim can install in their browser. Individual factions could even have fun issuing fatwas against every Muslim failing to browse the web without the adblock file approved by the Mullah of their choice. So, think of all the pious things you could do with Wikipedia if you would put the time spent for pestering this talkpage to some use. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Chowbok, I misread your comments.RaseaC (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

god forbid that wikipedia should miss out on the economic might of the islamic world. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

yes that is a good idea brother. all muslims should stop so called "donation" to wikipedia if they dont have an affection for the muslims religion & their prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

exactly, problem solved... WookieInHeat (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I found Wookie's comment hilarious. Just doing a quick check, "$500 billion in assets around the world were managed in accordance with Sharia, or Islamic law". Which is just a weak estimate. Compared to JUST the United States (a predominatley Christian Country) which has a GDP of $14.3 trillion. Wikipedia really doesn't need their money. --174.103.224.13 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You think that's funny? Look back in the archives to where one concerned contributor actually tried to bargain with us. Anyway, we're transgressing and almost (arguably already) breaching WP:TALK, and rules is rules. RaseaC (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Image Violation

Dear sir, I want to say that the two images here in the chapter of Conquer Of Mecca is clear violation of image. These Cartoons showing Prophet (SW) with his companions should be removed. It is totally forbidden in Islam. These cartoons Of Prophet (SW) must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahadhuzur (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Your concerns are understood, and have been addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. I hope that will answer any questions you might have. Doc Tropics 15:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

no there is no answer.....for this question....the images are fake & has nothing to do with our prophet & Islam than why wiki has posted these images & it clearly shows that they post what they grab from unauthentic sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Forbidden by your laws, not ours. If you had a law forbidding websites, we would be no more compelled to dismantle the Wikipedia servers. --King Öomie 13:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Images not respectful of Islam

Hello All Editors of Wikipedia Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, open content and free to everyone to use. As a source of knowledge we must understand that true knowledge comes when we are humble and open to the beliefs and concerns of other people. As such, you must understand that the Muhammed (peace be upon him) images on the page are completely irreverent to the Islam religion. Dear Scholars of wikipedia, is it necessary to blaspheme the prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) when making an article on him? This would be a violation of the NPOV stance that you have adopted. So in conclusion you must please remove the images, there is to be no discussion on this matter because it is clearly in disrespect of the Islam Religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.150.20 (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you figure it's NPOV, if we must, without discussion, take your POV on the matter? I think maybe you need to look up what NPOV means. I know it's been explained already, but you're mistaken. If other people want to view the images, they can. If it's against your religion to do so, then don't. I'm still not getting why you think everyone else must be required to observe this one aspect of your beliefs. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of respect for Muslims who do not wish to see the images, we offer a means of hiding images on your browser, as described in the FAQ. Ultimately, it comes down to individual right to choose, and it is up to you to honour your beliefs. It is not up to us to honour them for you. To censor historical material like this to suit one group would be to disrespect the majority who wish to have as much information available as possible. Resolute 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolute, that was perfect expressed. Thank you, Doc Tropics 16:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

since Wikipedia isn't even attempting to be "respectful" towards anybody, this is hardly a complaint, just a statement of fact. --dab (𒁳) 16:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

you religion does not compell you yo use the internet or read wikipedia just as it does not compell us to not show images of muhammad. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

what your religion compells you..??? to spread wrong information of other religions...!!! this is what we see here in this article wrong information every where & above all wrong & fake images....which has nothing to do with prophet & islam. you guys even dont know islam & mohmmad how suppose you are writing fake articles & posting fake images & more intrestingly claiming that its true & authentic i feel pity on you because never in this feild has much been done so badly by so many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet you fail to give one example of "wrong information". If you don't say what is wrong and why, your comment will be ignored as a diatribe. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A neutral islamic point of view !

I appreciate the way Wikipedia is supporting free discussion and its neutral points of view as you always say. BUT , when we come to religion , I think we should better listen to those who have faith in this religion rather than ignoring them. I don't want to say repeated words about forbidden images nor about the criticism of our prophet Mohamed (PBUH). But you know this is real , Our religion , ISLAM , forbids any pictures , images or even imaginary paintings of prophets , angels & of course GOD . Prophets are distinguished people , they are unlike anybody else . We should show the utmost respect when we talk about them. Wikipedia is now almost the only reliable source to get info , so why don't you tell everybody that religion is a RED LINE and prophets are far from being ordinary people and far from being criticized , only if ............ YOU ARE GIVING A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW

thanks for reading my note , DR. A.M --Amino158 (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not true that Islam 'forbids any pictures'. Please see the aniconism in Islam article, where you will learn that

Sunni exegetes, from the 9th century onward, increasingly saw in [certain Hadiths] categorical prohibitions against producing and using any representation of living beings.

and where you will also find that Wikipedia is indeed "listening" very closely to Islam, for the purposes of compiling well-referenced encyclopedic articles about Islam, and is in fact better informed about Islam than most Muslims. --dab (𒁳) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback , but i didn't say that Islam FORBIDS ALL PICTURES . As a Muslim , I know a story telling us that " in past times there were a group of very faithful people who worshiped God sincerely & the whole village loved them. But when they died , the villagers thought of idea to make them remember the good people so they made statues of them & instead of praying for God the villagers started praying for the statues and worshiped it"

This is the kind of pictures which Islam forbids , pictures of extraordinary people . I don't want to see some muslims in the next years taking this 'unreal' pictures of Muhammed (PBUH) and praying for it.

That's it ,,,, and special thanks to wikipedia for opening this productive discussion FULL OF RESPECT which is also one of our Islam teachings .--Amino158 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having expressed your concerns in such a civil and scholarly manner; such discussions serve both to improve the articles, and to educate the editors themselves on topics that are not well-understood in the West. It is a great strength of Wikipedia that we can discuss these topics with respect for one another, even when we sincerely disagree. Because this is a secular project to gather, preserve, and pass on knowledge, it is likely (even mandatory) that religous articles will continue to adhere to the same standards and policies that govern all other articles. Having said that, let me also note that there is a significant need for scholarly participation in many Islam-related articles, and you would be most welcome to contribute to any of them. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 18:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I seond that, and I would welcome your suggestions at Talk:Aniconism in Islam to improve our coverage of this topic. --dab (𒁳) 18:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish to express my respect for Dr A.M.'s view, but I disagree profoundly with the argument that we should treat religions differently from any other topic. I respect everybody's right to believe in their own religion, but nobody, whatever religion they profess, should have the right to impose their own religious restrictions on other people.Jeppiz (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

we treat each field from the point of view of the relevant academic discipline. Religion from the point of view of religious studies, politics from the view of politology, society from the point of view of sociology, etc.

This is the inherent bias (yes, bias) we have, and which many people fail to see, mostly because the term "academic" doesn't resonate with any concept they are familiar with.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is indebted to the western (yes, western) enlightenment philosophy that gave us the notions of "neutral", "critical" or "encyclopedic" in the first place, which in turn gave us science, technology, modernity, and of course also less savoury items like world wars, world hunger and climate change. Wikipedia cannot and is not trying to transcend this bias inherent in encyclopedicity itself. People who are unhappy with this are wasting their time if they compile arguments against this approach, they would be better served by forking off and creating Islamopedia, Christopedia, Conservapedia or UFO-pedia. Such projects, which decide to explore a subjective and unverifiable point of view or ideology, in an above-the-board manner, can be perfectly respectable. This simply isn't what Wikipedia aims to do, and Wikipedia's success compared to such projects is another testimony to the fitness of the method behind it. Which in turn makes Wikipedia attractive for people who want to not just present their ideology, but who want to misrepresent their ideology as sanctioned by neutral assessment. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"and of course also less savoury items like world wars, world hunger and climate change." In the modern period perhaps so, but the first true "World War" as such could arguably have been the Muslim Arab conquests of the 7th century, and they led to the first recognisable period of very widespread hunger and rapid climate change. Such was the extent of the depopulation that it is visible in the types and levels of polen found in archaeological deposits (i.e. higher levels of tree polen - signifying a dramatic reduction in cultivated land and that unused land becoming covered in trees). Meowy 16:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

of course it "can be argued". That is the position we describe at Islamophobia. But I do not think it will be very helpful to burden this page with Islamophonic outbursts. Successful cultures are always successful at the expense of others. The trick of the nationalist's mind is to revel in the success of one's own chosen culture while denouncing as barbaric cruelty the success of others. And of course, the "natural borders" of your own territory are always those of the historical point of greatest expansion, aren't they. --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, Dbachman's dbachmanisms. The concept of "can be argued" is actually the foundation-stone of critical thought: presenting an argument and being prepared to argue its case. It is Dbachmann's "and of course" that is the hallmark of the fanatic with a closed mind. Meowy 14:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the original concerns presented in this section have been addressed sufficiently; the thread is veering into personal discussion best suited to editors' talkpages rather than project space. Time to let this go and move on everyone. Thanks, Doc Tropics 16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"I don't want to see some muslims in the next years taking this 'unreal' pictures of Muhammed (PBUH) and praying for it."

How likely is this, really? Are picture of Mohammad so irresistible to reverence? Any serious practitioner of your faith KNOWS that it's blasphemy to raise the prophet up to the level of a deity through prayer. Most NON-muslims know that, thanks to the rioting that followed that comic scandal. --King Öomie 13:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

founding of islam and the pictures.

The definition of Muslim is 'The one who submits his will to Almighty Allah' and well known Definition of Islam is 'way of life'. Islam was founded during Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH) time, also Holy Quran was revealed in his time. All those prophets(PBUT) and messengers(PBUT) who came before him, came with different revelation and different way of life (when compared to prophet Muhammad's(PBUH)) which Muslims call them as vedas, gospel and bible and they were all muslims and believed in the oneness of god. This is mentioned in the Holy Quran. Holy Quran which is a revelation from God was revealed in the 6th century but it also gives an explanation of times before Prophet Muhammad(PBUH).

As we dont judge a car like BMW or Ferrari with its driver similarly we should not judge islam by seeing its bad followers. follwers may always have contradicting opinions. The best way to judge Islam is to find its origin which are the scriptures( The Holy Quran and the Authentic Hadith), which all the muslims follow. I would suggest people reading this article to study those scriptures, only then they can have correct picture of Islam. These Scriptures are available in every Country in different translations.

The pictures of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) in the wikipedia are not authentic, the source may be authentic but the pictures are not. This display of Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH) pictures in wikipeadia does not benefit anyone in any aspect except those who are anti islamists. Instead this pictures will upset all the muslim readers of wikipedia. The use of Honorifics like PBUH has not been used after Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH) name which again upsets majority of muslim readers.

Over a billion of the world's population respects and follow Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and Islam, if wikipeadia cannot respect that then it has no right to insult their feelings and thoughts. I would request wikipedia to remove this whole article of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) because it has not been edited properly and no one is forcing wikipedia to put an artilce on him(PBUH).

If wikipedia wants non muslims to know who Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) was then get the explanation from Holy Quran or Authentic Hadith. This is the best and the ultimate sorce from where you can know about him(PBUH). Most importantly these are the sources from where Prophet Muhammmad(PBUH) and Islam are and will always be defined in the modern world. You can ask this to anymuslim and majority of them will agree to this.

I hope this makes it very logical and gives a clear understanding. If anyone has any questions please to write to me on my email rockyprime@yahoo.com Rockyprime (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All of your concerns have already been addressed. If you can be bothered to write all of that (which I assume was a moan, I can't be bothered to read it all) then you can be bothered to read the previous discussions/FAQs. THanks for your thoughts but the article stays and the pictures stay. End of. RaseaC (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rockyprime

Hi, I dont know why you assumed that I have not read the above discussions. All the above discussions are leading to a meaningless debate. You say my article is same as the above and you also say you did not bothered to read it and beleive that it is a moan. How is it possible you did not read it fully and consider it as same. You seem to be more holding stiff with your ego rather than being problem solving.

Suppose I make a website, it becomes very popular, I post some pictures of my friends mother, my friend becomes aware of it, gets furious and I tell him my website has an option using that he can hide those pictures. Will he calm down? Very logical, No. Similarly, Muslims give utmost importance to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) more than their father. You must respect it and please give me a reason why you want this article to stay and also the pictures. Rockyprime —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.52.209 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A reason why? Simply put, this is not a Muslim project. It is a secular one, and Muhammad was a key figure in history in general. We aim to show all views of his history, not just the Islam approved version. Quite frankly, Islam does not own a copyright on history that its adherents feel is important to them. Included in this effort to show history are the images, which were overwhelmingly drawn by Muslim artists. We can't tell you what and how to believe, but I would hope you would have enough respect to afford us the same courtesy. If you wish to offer input on how to improve this article within the confines of Wikipedia's policies, your input is most welcome. However, this article and its images will not be deleted, nor will it be converted to an Islam only format. However, out of respect for Muslims who wish to honour their beliefs as it relates to the images, we offer an explanation of how you can hide the images on your own browser in the FAQ above. That is as far as the Wikipedia community is prepared to go. Resolute 23:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess my response is that I do have the right to post a picture of your mother, or anyone's mother, assuming it was legitimately obtained. Why wouldn't I? Why do you get to tell me that I can't?—Chowbok ☠ 02:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"If you can be bothered to write all of that (which I assume was a moan, I can't be bothered to read it all)" Let's be civil here. We won't gain anything from being rude or dismissive. If we can take the time to respond, we can take the time to read it, too, no matter how much it makes our blood boil. Eik Corell (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rockyprime makes a few valid points about Islam and the perception of Islam. But he shows no awareness of our FAQ on the Muhammad images. Politeness goes both ways, if you expect people to read a lengthy paragraph of yours, you can also be expected to read the lengthy FAQ page that was already in place and react to it. Otherwise, this isn't a discussion, it is just a text archive.

Showing historcal images of Muhammad isn't in any way disrespectful of anyone. Rockyprime completely fails to recognize that these images were painted by Muslims. Even discussing positive anti-Islamic sentiment, with images, isn't disrespectful of Islam, any more than keeping an article on antisemitism is an act of antisemitism. Rockyprime needs to read encyclopedia in order to understand what we are doing here, and specifically WP:NPOV and WP:TIGERS to understand how we go about doing it. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dab, the link to Beware of the Tigers seems especially appropriate to this article and some of its close cousins. I was thinking of adding it somewhere in the FAQ, but doubt it would do any good there since our poor FAQ is so often ignored. Let's keep that one handy for these talkpages though, shall we? It goes straight to the heart of many of the issues that we've seen come up. Doc Tropics 17:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To Chowbok,

You mean to say if I make a website it becomes popular and for instance suppose I got some pictures of your mother which are inaccurate and are in a form of cartoon and I post them on the website without informing you. Will you not be offended? Will you not dislike it? You may reply No, but you know it and those reading this article that you will be offended and will dislike them. I know you can post anyone's pictures on wiki but all I am saying is its not a right thing to do if anyone gets offended.

I do read the FAQ's before posting a reply. I addressed few bits which had already been discussed in my artilce to make readers understand the neutral point of veiw in a more clear and precise way. I mentioned in my article ' the source may be authentic but the pictures are not' which I think you skipped.

In the FAQ's 'might the images offend Muslims' it says yes it offends many muslims. My question is why do you have to put the images even if they offend many muslims. Is anyone being offended in there are no images?

You are openly saying, we have a good popular website, we post what we want, nobody can stop us, if we get any sort of pictures from any legitimate source we will post it, no matter what, if anyone finds it offensive, we dont care. This is not a right thing to do.

Recently a news was published, saying police got some nude pictures of a VIP( who happens to be a wife of a country's president) . The Police is making sure of evry bit that they do not get leaked and are not made public. Do you think if they would have got from a legitimate source they would publish them?

You say images are necessary for a biography but it says in FAQ's 'it is not claimed that the images are accurate' then why do you have to post inaccurate pictures.

To dab,

It wasn't requried to express my views on FAQ's( so as to show my awareness on FAQ's) since my article was already lenghty and they say their blood boils reading them.

This battle will never end but I am giving a last try. Suppose, you take the pictures out of wikipedia, no muslim will be offended, actually nobody else will be offended. You can simply mention that images are offensive to muslims and exist nomore on wikipedia.If you think logically nobody can be benefitted by those images and neither can be of any help to anyone(sice its not benefitting). People are making community protest on Facebook, Twitter, etc., just for this images. There are so many posts, discussions and you guys are replying to every1 even though your blood is boiling. You dont have to do this if images are out.It is just the few staff of wikipedia who must be thinking they will loose the battle if images are removed.

You guys will understand the pain only if you are in those shoes. I am very hopeful, you guys will, at somepoint.Rockyprime.

If I may disavow you of an illusion, I would be offended if the images were removed, and while I will not speak for anyone else, I doubt I am alone in that thought. I, personally, find the censorship of historical images to suit a single group's whims to be intellectually dishonest, and a complete violation of what Wikipedia stands for. The remainder of your arguments are red herrings that have, yes, been discussed repeatedly and are reflected in both the archives and the FAQ. You have the option to hide the images for yourself so as to respect your own beliefs. It is not Wikipedia's job to force everyone to follow your beliefs. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, arrogant and disrespectful. Resolute 03:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I too would be offended if they were removed and am also offended by your attitude. Islam is your religion, not mine. Your views are your own, not mine. Your beliefs are your own, not mine. RaseaC (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

you are worrying about your own concerns ...if you get offended by the removal of pictures than who cares....!!!i give a damn about these pictures. these fake images has nothing to do with prophet muhammad & with islam. Grab and post whatever you like no one cares for that but dont reveal Islam in a wrong way & that is what you guys are doing.even every muslims knows about that non neutral article which is also been edited very poorly & without authenticity. but no one is caring for that, like, how many people will get offended and are being offended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the content disclaimer. We will not remove content because you are offended. Resolute 15:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would feel very much offended and frightened if the pictures would be removed. I have many books with these Turkish and Persian miniatures of Muhammed and I even have a book featuring only pictures of him. This is not 'fake' or a 'lie' and noone sais he is the man depicted. That would be stupid since it is a picture, and nobody at that time could paint an accurate picture of anyone. So offcourse Muhammed does not look like the man in the picture! It is just a very nice piece of art showing the artists interpretation of the profet and his doings. Wikipedia is not an Islamic institution so there should be no place for Islamic rules. Muslims should not feel offended so quickly. You have your own belief, others have theirs and again others dont have any belief. Why sould the Islamic law be more important than any other? I get offended by alot of things I find on Wikipedia, but I dont go around yelling that they should be taken off. NeoRetro (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to be polite, courteous, and patient with good faith editors who have concerns; almost all the regulars on this page are. However, IP 212 has repeated the same complaint over 50 times and made no useful contributions to any article at all. That's not a good faith editor - that's a troll. Doc Tropics 15:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Doc sums up my feelings perfectly, and I'm sure I'm not the only one! I'll state here and no that I am still for deleting comments such as the above. RaseaC (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"if you get offended by the removal of pictures than who cares....!!!"

"My question is why do you have to put the images even if they offend many muslims."

I think there's no question here which viewpoint we're supposed to find more important. --King Öomie 13:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

i give a damn about these pictures. these fake images has nothing to do with prophet muhammad & with islam. Grab and post whatever you like no one cares for that but dont reveal Islam in a wrong way & that is what you guys are doing.even every muslims knows about that non neutral article which is also been edited very poorly & without authenticity. but no one is caring for that, like, how many people will get offended and are being offended.

That is exactly the reason why we can't take rules of any religion as our rules here in Wikipedia. These rules are "holy", and we can't accept any rule as "holy" here. The only thing we can accept as "untouchable" is the very personality of a real, living human being. So we don't have the right to spread lies about someone's living mother (as in your example). But of course we document things that have been important in the public view about things like, let's say, a country named Great Britain. Even if they ruin the name of this country, which means everything for so many Brits. Same with religions. Because every religious person is insulted when another point of view than his own is taken, we never can really follow any religious point of view. So, what sources do we have to take to write about a person like Jesus - just the bible? - Disrespectful to all muslims! Also the quran? - Disrespectful to all christians, because Jesus is not Christus in the muslim`s perspective. So what will we do? - We cite al relevant points of view about one topic, and we heavily cite 1. the versions which truth has been tested with scientific means and 2. which have been relevant in history. And not only the versions that any 1 billion people nowadays like the most! Here, we have pictures that are supposed to show the Islam prophet Mohammad, which tells us a lot about the way people have thought about Mohammad in different times and in different places. And that is something no holy book could ever tell us.--JakobvS (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's attention is drawn to a page on facebook.

Due to my liking of the online repository of world's knowledge I feel obligated to draw attention of decision makers at Wikipedia to a "Cause" page on facebook which is about to reach 300,000 members. If Wikipedia doesn't take note of sentiments of its Muslim users it will lose some valuable ethical ground.

http://apps.facebook.com/causes/57379/58852744?m=646ae194&ref=nf

Kind regards,

Muhammad Altaf Hussain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltafhussains (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we will lose ethical ground if we capitulate to interest group pressure and go against our stated ideals.—Chowbok ☠ 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My father is muslim, my grandparents are muslim, but still we own books featuring Muhammad. Because they were not drawn out of hatered but out of love and appreciation. They are historic and should be shown. Its insane to bann a picture on the basis of religious belief. Wikipedia is not a religious institution but rather a scientiffic and historic one. If these pictures exist, they should be able to be seen. You dont have to look if you dont want to, or you could accept that someone did not agree with you on the illigality of making a drawing. Allah wont judge you for something someone else did. You just have to make sure you dont try to draw or 'recreate' muhammed yourself. NeoRetro (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, these guys have you beat: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/61443 —Chowbok ☠ 01:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these petitions crop up regularly. Reviewing them leaves one profoundly disappointed with education levels in today's world....Doc Tropics 02:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia will "lose ethical ground" by ignoring a facebook group operated by Muslim teenagers competing in "recruiting" signatures to the online petition?

Wikipedia has covered this thing here since it first went online. How about that for "ethical ground". It's not like the petitioners have the decency or "ethical ground" to point people to the relevant Wikipedia policy pages in return as a service to people interested in understanding the issue before signing, now, is it.

So these pictures could "lead to idolatry"? The only idolatry I can see here is Muslims worshipping their own petty sense of outrage.

Perhaps they should stop to think about this, is Islam about God, or is it about online popularity contests, virtual poo-flinging or gripe-fests. --dab (𒁳) 10:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If an image leads to idolatry, then the person threatening to idolize a picture should either examine the strength of their own faith or avoid exposing themselves to images that would bother them. In neither case does Wikipedia hold any responsibility toward the actions of an individual. We provide information, what one does with it is their own decision. Resolute 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

the "images lead to idolatry" idea dates to medieval Arabia, when every image around the house was likely an idol. Today, the situation is inverted. Images of ordinary people are extremely common, and nobody would dream of worshipping somebody because they are shown an image of the person. It is conversely the case that prohibition of imagery is a sign of religious worship (aniconism, prohibition to depict God in the Mosaic commandements). All Muslims making this fuss over respecting Muhammad should stop to think if what they are doing isn't exactly the Muhammad cult that early Islam was trying to prevent from developing. --dab (𒁳) 21:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel obligated to draw your attention to the FAQ, which specifically addresses these petitions that you are referring to. Atleast have the decency to read the information you are provided, seeing as you apparently like us!!!!RaseaC (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Haney G.

Islam prohibits portraying God, prophets, or angels out of respect to them. That is why all of the icons that picture Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are considered imaginative figures portrayed hundreds of years after his death.

The question now is why does Wikipedia insist on using such imaginary material to back up such an article in the presence of several real photos of the Prophet's tomb, sword, and footprints? Such pictures would be very interesting, reliable, and noncontroversial.

It is not about censorship, it is about showing what is true. If an icon is set into a museum, it means it is old but not necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haney G. (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is about censorship. If you and others were really so concerned about "imaginary material", we would be hearing this same argument at Homer, William the Conqueror, and Genghis Khan. The pictures there are just as "imaginary". It's clear that this is just a red herring.—Chowbok ☠ 06:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading my comment and responding that fast. I believe this discussion is specifically about the article Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) & images. The real "red herring" is moving us to Homer, William the Conqueror,or Genghis Khan. Let us keep these articles for other occasions, and leave them for people interested. Please do no blame me for having priories or interests. Allow me to state this in other words: I am concerned with the "imaginary material" in the article about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). My regards --Haney G. (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to treat the Muhammad article differently than any other article. It's as simple as that.—Chowbok ☠ 14:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been argued repeatedly, and rejected repeatedly. The reasoning is contained in the FAQ on the main talk page for this article. We accept that you have a concern, but will not remove the images to. If you would like to hide the images for yourself, the option to remove them on your account is also provided in the FAQ. We will not, however, force everyone to conform to your beliefs. Thank you, Resolute 13:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

i am amazed to see the picture on the top of the article one more thing why we keep on hearing that dont force your beliefs we can see very clearly that who is forcing his beliefs/ethics on others. muslims are only requesting a removal of pictures but wiki is forcing their beliefs on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 10:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is true. If you wish to use/edit Wikipedia you should be aware of our core guidelines and five pillars. These beliefs are "forced" upon all readers and editors. If you don't like them, you are welcome to work to change them or create your own fork of the encyclopedia. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no one is forced to visit Wikipedia. Auntie E. 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, but do you differentiate between "force" and "addiction"? Because I probably have issues with the latter myself : ) Doc Tropics 19:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say "compelled" now, did I? :) Auntie E. 18:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

if you "see the picture on the top of the article" you should have your eyes examined. There is no picture of Muhammad at the top of the article. The picture in question is the name of Muhammad wrtten in calligraphy. Sheesh. At least have the decency to even look at the thing you are going to complain about. Also, do us the courtesy to read the FAQ before "asking" things that are explicitly answered there. This page is for people who have (a) seen the article and (b) read the FAQ and then want to raise some point not already covered there. --dab (𒁳) 20:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Muhammad template briefly had a picture of Muhammad in it, and did when he left that comment.—Chowbok ☠ 23:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

better idea

hi, i have readed all the requested subject and the responded answers and i felt very sorry about the Wikipedia website. we also didnt expect such answers from one of the biggest site that we have knows ,like wekipedia In my opinion why you will not remove the whole (PROPHET MAHAMMED'S)SUBJECT I have noticed something from non-muslims that you always wants to hert muslims .....i dont why .Even we are not touching you

So either correct it by removing the picture or remove the whole thing about our Phrophet(PBUH)

PLEASEIT IS SERIOUS to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.41.98 (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long list of guidelines on how subjects should be treated and what can or cannot be added, and what can and cannot be removed. In this case, these images hold historical significance, so they are relevant to the article. The WP:NOTCENSORED policy (you can click that and read it) states, "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.". On another subject, I don't understand why you would want the entire article removed. You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but if you cannot comply with WP:NOTCENSORED for religious reasons, you might want to check out religious alternatives to Wikipedia such as muslimwiki.com. Also, there are Muslim editors here who don't want the images removed, so it's not just non-Muslims editing here. 09:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

REMOVE THE IMAGINARY PICTURES OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH)

This is not true to add the picture of Holy Prophet MUHAMMAD (Peace Be Upon Him). Either you remove this picture or give me the permission to remove the pictures. This is totally false picture. Nobody can draw the image of Muhammad (PBUH). This is a way by which Muslims are going angry and International world say that Muslims are extremist. While Muslims are not extremist but these types of actions (which are not TRUE but TOTALLY FAKE) are creating the grounds.Mpkhalid (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We will not remove the pictures. You will not remove the pictures. What you can do is read this talk, Muhammad talk, the FAQ, our countless policies, WP press releases, many articles, etc. etc. etc. that address your concerns so you see why we will not bow to your demands. RaseaC (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The knowledge that some images, which happen to be prolific all over the internet, are being shown on an encyclopedia page should not be considered legitimate grounds for extremism, so I don't see the point of this complaint. I'm sorry you feel this way. Auntie E. 19:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove pictures. It hurts our sensibilities. It is about respecting tenets of the religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.152.56 (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of redacted statement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
:::::Um, "Either you remove this picture or give me the permission to remove the pictures." seems like a demand to me. Regardless, it is highly inadvisable to insinuate another editor hates Muslims or is an Islamaphobe. Please see WP:NPA. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC) It kind of is an us-vs-them situation- Wikipedia editors vs the demands of religious dogma. If there was a large religion somewhere in the world that forbade large repositories of knowledge and relied solely on storytellers to pass on history, surely they'd demand Wikipedia be taken down in its entirety- it cheapens the value of their storytellers! They'd need Wikipedia to be gone. But that doesn't mean we're under any obligation to comply. --King Öomie 13:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC) It might be useful to know the Knight Prince was recently blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for persistent personal attacks, as can be seen from his talk page (before he removed it). He was only allowed to come back after he promised never to do so again. Obviously he wasn't serious when he made that promise or he forgets very fast.Jeppiz (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Refactoring or removing talkpage comments is largely viewed as inappropriate (including by me), except in the case of blatant vandalism (which isn't the case here). There's no consensus on removing personal attacks. Of course, it's a blatant display of bad faith from him to not redact that comment of his own accord. --King Öomie 16:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC) ::::It was a clear insinuation. Please strike or remove your comments above. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Alright, its been done. By the way, I do apologize since it wasn't a positive post. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Struck my comments. Any object if I remove everything after my first reply? --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Go ahead and do so. It would only make sense to strike everything after your first reply off. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I'd rather it be {{hat}}ted. --King Öomie 17:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

no, no, he means the IMAGINARY PICTURES. The FAQ just addresses the actual jpeg files. I second this complaint, imaginary images have no business whatsoever to hang around non-imaginary Wikipedia articles. I do call upon all imaginary editors to do their duty and remove any remaining imaginary pictures asap. --dab (𒁳) 21:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Even though I disagree strongly with Mpkhalid, I don't see how mocking editors who aren't fluent in English contributes to a better Wikipedia. I suggest Dbachman strike his inappropriate comment above.Jeppiz (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dab has done quite a lot to contribute to discussions on this page, admittedly in his own 'special' way, but he has contributed nevertheless. A lot of his comments are close to the line but on this occasion (although I hold Dab in high regard) I do think he was commenting more on the contributor and not the content and would also encourage striking that comment. RaseaC (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A new(?) idea

I understand the concerns on all sides, but I'm not sure the current solution is ideal. One glaring problem with the current solution is that hidden away on the talk pages, there's a note on how to prevent the browser from displaying (all) images, but the vast majority of people using Wikipedia would never find it; any effective warning would have to be in the namespace.

So, I have an idea: we could create a subpage called Muhammad without depictions or whatever, and have a hatnote guiding the user there as an alternative. It could be automatically updated by a bot to be exactly the same as this page, less either images of him or all images. It would be fairly easy to implement (I think) and it would go a long way towards making it a lot less offensive. Thoughts? Oreo Priest ^talk 16:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I also feel I should emphasize that the uncensored version would remain the primary version. Oreo Priest ^talk 16:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Been suggested before and decided against as that would constitute a content fork. See Wikipedia:Content forking. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, given that we already encourage people to have their browser suppress the pictures. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are part of the content and we don't have two articles with substantially the same content on Wikipedia. If we did, we'd have to do the same thing with articles on body parts and functions some people find pornographic. Readers are of course free to control what they see on their personal browsers and we tell them how they can do so. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If that is a distinction without difference, then your idea is a solution without a problem. Individual users are given the means to honour their own beliefs. As such, there is absolutely no need to fork this article, even if such forks did not run against policy. Resolute 00:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, users are free to configure their browsers to not show the images if they wish, that's enough. A censored version of the page isn't necessary. RaseaC (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's licensing allows anyone to put their own copy of this article on their own website as long as they give credit to the original. Once on your own website you can show or not show what you desire. Anyone can do this, but Wikipedia itself will not be doing this. Chillum 15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why even have the pictures?

What encyclopedic information do they advance? Do they help advance the quality of the article? Do they help advance any encyclopedic POV? Do they help the article in any way? The answer to all of this seems to be that no they do not. It seems that they only degrade the article and cause it controversy. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how they are not relevant and encyclopedic? They show how he has been depicted throughout history, of course this is encyclopedic. Chillum 22:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, why have pictures in most articles? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Historical relevance. I would argue that they enhance the article, and that their existence causes controversy is irrelevant. Resolute 23:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The images were carefully chosen, they properly illustrate the article, and they have both artistic merit and historic value. The entire point of this project is to provide free, open access to knowledge, not to hide things that might make some individuals uncomfortable. Doc Tropics 14:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one upside to the image controversy is that those in this article are probably some of the most discussed on WP. A good cross-section of contributors, with all sorts of backgrounds and experiences, have argued both for and against inclusion and, given that the consensus is that they stay, these are probably the most legitimate images on WP. An article about any person, even an historical figure, benefits from images of how that person has been perceived historically. In short, the images are a good thing. RaseaC (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides, the images of Muhammad are themselves notable, having been covered in many third party sources, and are thus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. 68.83.179.156 (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The only issue I have with those images is that the oldest ones date back to several centuries after Muhammad lived, and thus may tend towards high medieval dress instead of the clothes Muhammad and contemporaries wore, and the environment of Muhammad's day. But then again we don't really know what Columbus looked like, and yet we show paintings anyhow. 68.83.179.156 (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Most images of Jesus Christ portray him as a white man, also, which is absurd. --King Öomie 13:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you are quite correct about the notability of these images. Each of them should probably have their own article - just as we would have articles on notable songs, books, buildings, etc. Rklawton (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

About the images of Phrophet Muhammad

I would like to complain that showing the images of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)in the article is not very logic. Because in Islam, it is forbidden to view any of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)faces, especially in pictures.

As a Muslim, I should respect for him; and to my opinion, showing his faces are the most "ridiculous" things I have ever seen.

Thank you, Salam--Muhammad Mukhriz (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it not logical? Wikipedia is a secular project, not a religious one, so an article on Islam for example cannot and should not conform to the religious ideals and norms of Islam. There are religious alternatives that do adhere to such standards like Muslimwiki.com. This is not in any way to say that Muslims cannot edit the page; anyone's welcome to contribute as long as they do it within the guidelines. WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N are some of the most important ones. Also, check the top of the page - Wikipedia is not censored, and removing these pictures would effectively be an act of censorship. Eik Corell 13:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of Muhammad

moved from main talk page. Jarkeld (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I request wikipedia on behalf of all muslims to remove these pictures..first of all because there were no pictures at that time..n in islam it is forbidden to draw pictures or cartoon imagery of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) or any messengers..so it would be a cause offence to muslims all over the world..i have come across manyy petitions on the web including groups on facebook that condemn this n request wikipedia to wipe these pics out..i suggest wikipedia pay heed to them..

there are many pages on wikipedia that don't have pictures..why can't this page be one of them considering the fact that this is not really the Prophet himself and there is absolutely no need for one here..why make one picture a reason to spark tensions? wikipedia has a extremely wide user base of which many are muslims..as a favor to those users and respecting their views, i ask wikipedia.com to delete them. it will be highly appreciated.

m.a.j, pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.178.250 (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in favour of blocking these people, we do it to vandals, why not people that continually disrupt WP through re-introduction of this rubbish? To answer your frankly offensive request; no we will not remove the pictures. Go ahead and look through this page for the reasons why, it's been stated a million times. If you don't like looking at the pictures, don't look at them! You've managed to construct a somewhat legible sentence so I'm going to assume you're not a complete idiot and can therefore READ what others have already said on this page. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC).

I would like for someone to EDIT (not remove) the pictures that are depicting Prophet Muhammad.

It is forbidden to draw pictures showing his face. would someone please blank out the faces.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilRazi (talk • contribs) 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction; it is forbidden according to sharia law. Wikipedia is not bound by sharia law. Zazaban (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that the purpose of banning images of him is to prevent idolatry, maybe we should mention in the general disclaimer that no Wikipedia article should be worshipped as pagan god.

We can't dictate how people worship. If someone wants to worship Mohammad as God or his image as it appears here as a god - then that's their right, even if some people find it offensive. Rklawton (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So we can phrase it as a warning: "Some Wikipedia articles or images therein may cause you to abandon your religion and start worshipping them. The Wikimedia Foundation takes no responsibility for loss of eternal paradise due to article-worship." I think a lot of debate could be avoided by adding some passive-aggressive sarcasm to EULAs. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think all policies regarding the exclusion of disclaimers should be ignored in favour of Artic.gnome's suggestion! RaseaC (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You are stubborn.

Picture at the top?

I think it shouldnt show any images indicating Prophet Mohumad as a respect of feelings for all muslims allover the world

Such acts will make feelings of hates among nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.140.174.83 (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I called up this article to see if Muhammad was usually drawn with a beard, and I had to scroll halfway down to find a picture! Jesus has a nice portrait, why not Muhammad? I know there's some issue with muslims but that's not our problem. .froth. (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Scrolling a bit isn't exactly a huge burden either. Some things can be compromised on that don't defeat the underlying principles. Resolute 23:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Froth. Probably the Muhammad template ought to have a picture, rather than calligraphy.—Chowbok ☠ 01:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I second that, it is generally standard for biographical articles to have pictures of their subjects at the top of the page. Frankly, I find it odd otherwise, especially in this case because the same image is repeated right below the template. The controversy should not change that. Zazaban (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. This article should not be treated any differently, and we should definitely have a picture of him at the top. Same goes for the template. ðarkuncoll 07:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it fair that there are pictures only at the bottom. As there is still doubt about their existence, there is no picture of Muhammed like there is no picture of Jesus. St.Trond (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a picture of Jesus at the top of his article! As for doubts about their existence, this is a red herring - though I've never heard of any historian who doubts Muhammad's existence. ðarkuncoll 07:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this Hadith the Quran was defended by Sham (Syrians and Christian Syrians) against the Iraqi. Earlier had Jews and Christian fought about its reading. The Quran changed its written dialect and the originals were burned. There are linguists who find that the Quran is easier to read as a Syrian text. This indicates a non Arabic origin. St.Trond (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

All very fascinating I'm sure, but it has no bearing on the picture issue - real or not, Muhammad deserves a picture at the top like everyone else of such importance. Jesus has one, and so does King Arthur, who likewise may or may not have existed. ðarkuncoll 12:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the picture you claim to be of King Arthur, is of anything else than a random male. St.Trond (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should have read the caption, which would have assuaged any such doubt. It's a statue of King Arthur designed by Albrecht Dürer in the 1520s. But again, this is not in any way relevant to the matter under discussion. ðarkuncoll 12:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that perhaps editing those pictures would be better; a very small minority of Muslims in the world have even tolerated depictions of Mohamed. This is different than Christianity as the depiction of Jesus' crucifixion is evident in almost all Christian denominations and people believe this is what Jesus looked like (Doubting his or Mohamed's existence is silly; billions believe in them.) Now there has never been an "official" description and any physical description is never to be taken as proof of how he looked like. 41.235.146.188 (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To: 41.235.146.188: In my opinion your ignorant imagination presents Christians as idolaters by claiming "people believe this is what Jesus looked like". They may however believe that Jesus (or the illustrated person) behaved as shown. Here is a link to the Dome of Rocks Mosque, which shows that while texts external to it were naming Muhammed, the texts internal to it were identical, but naming Jesus. How would Muslims then be able to tell the difference between a picture of Muhammed and a picture of Jesus? Why do you stop at pictures of Muhammed, when Muhammed claimed that one should not have a picture of a person or an animal? St.Trond (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If Then The history, say'd Play Would You find The (Koran); The Religion To Have , shall we say. The old bible & the old Number's & Acts part Of muhammads' life in a game of China and Number's And Nato un De liber to germany's Acts ' terrorism. Then history again?We can't Cannon the bible.We must Know You too Anonamus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.128.233.93 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that you Happy Noodle Boy? Zazaban (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

if you wanted to know "if Muhammad was usually drawn with a beard", your answer would be, if you bothered to read the article, that Muhammad is not "usually drawn", at all. So what if you had to scroll halfway down to find a few of the depictions that do exist. Wikipedia articles are for reading, not just for looking at the pictures. --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said dab.

This has been discussed before. Overloading the article with Mohammad's pictures is WP:UNDUE; the depicting of Muhammad was an uncommon practice in Islamic history, unlike the depicting of Jesus in Christian history. This article should be used as a tool to promote Muhammad's depictions. Imad marie (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't overload the article with images, but I do think that we should have an image of him at the top of the page. Making this one of the only biographies where the image is not at the top of the page is giving him special treatment, and I don't think an encyclopedia should give any subject special treatment. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't special treatment. The picture at the top of the article shows a depiction that is commonly used throughout the world; i.e. calligraphy. Such a depiction is appropriate for the top of the article. If we singled out an image that almost no one ever uses in common practice to depict Muhammad, that would be special treatment. =Axlq 05:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

See here: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0058.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.210.174 (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)