Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Removal of the Pics of Muhammad

Muslims strongly believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him)is the last messenger of Allah, all mighty. No one is allowed to make pics of Muhammad (peace be upon him)or make any sketch that relates to Muhammad (peace be upon him) (No, Muslims aren't allowed). It is humbly requested to remove these pictures from the article as it can cause serious reactions from the muslim community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atifgil (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no humility in your request, given the longish discussion we had on this, and also seeing that you couple your request with a threat. No-no! Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, come to us on hands and knees, and the editors of the Muhammad will forgive your sins. Atifgil, we had long and horrible discussions about this. Make sure you read Wikipedia is not censored, WP:NPOV, and our policies in general before trying to argue against pictures. I argued for fewer pictures for the sake of more accurate representation. But, please don't argue that they shouldn't be here because they offend some Muslims, because that is not a good justification. gren グレン 06:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Atifgil, if you would like to comb through the discussion, please see Talk:Muhammad/images/archive. If you can find a new point to make, then feel free to voice it. --Hojimachong^talk 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I do realize that its your ideology and belief, I dont think religious laws or censorship is followed on wikipedia. If that be the case then each group will start demanding removal of pictures offensive for them. For example, atheists will ask for the removal of Jesus article and pictures. Then Muslims will ask for removal of pictures of pork as its offensive to them. Then we might have the request for the removal of the pictures of all kinds of meat because vegans might find it offensive. I dont think this works. If someone doesnt like it, they can prevent the images from showing in the browser. Images of Mohammed are available all over the internet anyway. NapoleansSword 06:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In actuality, NapoleansSword (Napolean for short?), the arguments presented by both sides were much more complex, thought-out and valid than the simple manner you presented. The link I provided in my last edit may be of interest to you, as it presents these arguments. --Hojimachong^talk 01:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that pictures should be removed instantly because they are offensive to Islam and to Muslims. Besides, whpever wrote the article should be a Muslim expert or at least a muslim for that matter! I strongly suggest the pictures showing our beloved Prophet Muhammad's face must be removed. If a strong-powered Muslim defender sees this article, there might be some problems that will face Wikipedia and its owners. This is not a threat! This is a something to make you think of what may happen if these pictures are kept on the article further more. Please keep this in mind, and I hope you remove them as fast as possible. - Simsimtigger 28 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Simstiger, please understand that Wikipedia means no disrespect to Muhammad or Islam by including images of him. We here at Wikipedia have taken a vow to try to treat all subjects and all articles the same way. We have promised our readers that we will do this. This means we try to show images of ALL biography subjects, even though we know our Muslim readers very much wish we didn't include pictures of Muhammad. We don't mean to insult Islam or its rules regarding depictions of Muhammad-- but we can't obey those rules ourselves and still be true to the promise we have made to our readers. See Wikipedia is not aniconisitic. --Alecmconroy 15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If the policy is a problem, then change the policy. Even the current policy itself states that images should only be added if they help the article. Frankly, I question how an image would help the article. It seems just the opposite that its inclusion is only a source of friction and pain. I reject the "no censorship arguement." There are no authoritative pictures of Muhammad.--Bill Bisco 05:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest removing the facial pics of Muhammad (PBUH), it is strongly against faith to see his face since it can never be accurately depicted. Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.48.48 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Please Remove the Facial Picuture of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H), and respect all religions..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarmaan (talk • contribs) 09:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anywhere in quran that says "don't show pics of prophet muhammad".That is made up after him

In Alhadeth Alsharef (prophet Mohammed sayings) sketching pictures is prohibited, it's like matching Allah creations. Please respect Islam and remove the pictures.

• • • I want to confirm that "There are no authoritative pictures of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH)", so how can wikipedia put somthing which is not confirmed as true??! Tarek.

just remove these pictures ok!--Mohammad ka (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just stop telling people what to do, OK. TharkunColl (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do read the FAQ at the top. --Farix (Talk) 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pics of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) & about this page..

With reference to the discussion about pictures depicting the Prophet (PBUH) below, I'm sure that all of my fellow Wiki-users will admit to the fact that the Wiki foundation really does a lot of homework & that in Wiki's process of letting the masses access such information without any hindrances, they have to let go of certain rules which may openly flout Islamic teachings/ law. One of the pillars of Islam which form what Muslims call 'Iman' is 'Shahadah' or in other words, Muslims all over the world testify to the fact that there is no other God than Allah & that The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is his Messenger. It vehemently condemns & prescribes severe punishment for those Muslims who associate anything/anyone with Allah. It also strictly forbids the reproduction/creation of any live creatures created by the Almighty. Now, when we talk about a Muslim's, let alone the Prophet's pictures being taken, created & distributed, it can be plainly termed 'haraam'. One must try & understand that the Prophet had the same restrictions/freedom as a normal Muslim had & has till date. As per a user's comment that tomorrow, a Muslim might claim that pork is forbidden in Islam & that they might request removal of pictures depicting swines from the Wiki pages. My friend, Muslims are forbidden from consuming pork & not viewing them through what we call 'eyes' , bestowed by the Almighty. Any questions on the above is welcomed.

I would also like to add, if this page is ever unprotected, please include a disclaimer that would hold individuals who edit information otherwise not included in this article by Wikipedia or any other allied subsidiary/partner, for the authenticity of the information that they append. For the general public: Please try to understand that any wrong facts stated herein may hurt people of various religions - Christians, Muslims & Jews and all others that follow the same ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.mzq (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you combed through Talk:Muhammad/images/archive? --Hojimachong^talk 20:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that what is needed is an analysis of why these pictures are justified and included. Images of the Prophet is a special case and deserves more than just a simple statement of consensus since I think it is safe to say that Islam is underrepresented among Wikipedia editors. There are many examples of major mainstream media observing this practice of avoiding images of the Prophet or his immediate family members. Is it too much to ask that a coherent statement be composed so that those who do not prevail can be referred to some coherent statement of judgment? If such a statement were coherent and fairly comprehensive, I expect that such a statement would go a long way towards building a genuine consensus and mutual understanding.--Createinfo2 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what an analysis will reveal that hasn't been revealed by the constant discussion that goes on about this. No new information or justification for censoring pictures of Muhammad have yet been presented. What the "major mainstream media" does is irrelevant to how we do things on Wikipedia. Mainstream media is notorious for censoring things for the sake of political correctness. We don't do things like that on Wikipedia nor do we candycoat things. Unless something new and compelling comes up as to why pictures of Muhammad should be censored, this subject should be considered settled. Frotz 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No favoritism

Wikipedia is encycolpedic, and will not show favortism to any religion. For example, if we removed the images of Muhammad, then that would be showing favortism to Islam over Christianity because we still show images of Jesus. But if we removed all images of Muhammed and Jesus, then we will be showing favoritism to other religions like Buddhism by showing images of Buddha. And if we remove all images of Muhammed, Jesus, and Buddha, then we would be showing favoritism to Islam and Christianity, because images of Buddha are very important to Buddhist. You can see that we have no choice but to uphold the Wikipedia policy of showing depictions of all subjects of a biography article. --MahaPanta (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see removing the photos make any favoritism, as Buddhism want their photos so this is fine to them. But muslims want the illustrations to be removed. --Basio (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with favoritism its about truth and reality, you people are just pushing a anti Islamic agenda under these banners. I regard it as a attempt to stain the Islamic values and history, and show new students only western view Islam and its Prophet, Wikipedia did not put any offensive picture on other topics just on topics related to Islam then try to show them as part of Islam. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE PICTURES OF THE BELOVED PROPHET(peace and blessings be upon him)

In the Name of God, the Beneficient, the Merciful Excellence Belongs to GOD As Salaam Alaikum and peace be upon all of you who view this article. I am writing as a concernced human being and a concerned striving Muslim. These pictures are a defamation to humanity, Islam and Muhammad(SAW). It was previously addressed to remove the pictures but No attention has been given to this Great Concern. We kindly ask both pictures be removed, due to the fact that it is strongly fordidden in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Pictures of true messengers and servants of GOD create barriers, SUPERIORITY COMPLEXES, stereotypes, and many other vices that hinders one's perception of truth and justice. We all know history and seen what false images of the prophets have done to the minds of billions of people. Please honor this request. All PRAISE is for God, creator of all creation wa salaam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh and peace be with you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.43.1 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

short answer. No. We have discussed this extensively; it isn't going to happen. If you want to know why, read the archives. Yahel Guhan 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is important for all parties to remember that these are obviously not pictures of Muhammad. They're not even paintings of Muhammad, not unless you believe you can paint the picture of someone you've never seen, without so much as a drawing or much of a description to go by. At the utmost they can be said to be illustrative historical fiction about Muhammad, if that. 70.15.116.59 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that they are about Muhammad. Good, thank you. It can thus be logically deduced from that point that these images are of Muhammad as the author imagines him. Fortunately for everyone the images are preserved in that context and no claim is made that they are an exact likeness of Muhammad as he was. --Strothra 01:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor-- please understand that Wikipedia means no disrespect to Muhammad or Islam by including images of him. We here at Wikipedia have taken a vow to try to treat all subjects and all articles the same way. We have promised our readers that we will do this. This means we try to show images of ALL biography subjects, even though we know our Muslim readers very much wish we didn't include pictures of Muhammad. We don't mean to insult Islam or its rules regarding depictions of Muhammad-- but we can't obey those rules ourselves and still be true to the promise we have made to our readers. See Wikipedia is not aniconisitic. --Alecmconroy 01:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad/images/archive. --Hojimachong^talk 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe they're still bringing this up every now and then. The more you ask us to remove the pictures of your beloved prophet, the more pictures we're going to add. — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What a childish attitude!Itsmejudith 14:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... No. It's understandable that new people will keep bringing it up. We should expect this to continue indefinitely, and we should try to be as kind and understanding as possible. It's a wonderful thing, two completely different cultures communicating so totally for the first time. And even if we can't conform to their customs, we should try to be respectful of them insofar as possible. (comment continued below) -Alecmconroy

Childish attitude is to complain and nag for over a year about pictures of their "beloved prophet" who happened to kill people who opposed him. Seriously, get over it, we have pictures of Muhammad here on Wikipedia, and they're not going away, whether you like it or not. — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Right-- this is a perfect example of what we SHOULDN'T be doing. --Alecmconroy 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My grandfather has this crazy idea that wearing a hat indoors is a horrible insult to the homeowner. If someone in the teens or twenties should ever walk into his house and not take off their hat, he feels deeply offended by the hat. Where he got this tradition I have no idea. The teenagers who on occasion offend him through their hatwearing have no clue that a hat indoors is offensive-- but he gets offended all the same. So when I go to visit in his house, I try to remember his bizarre hat etiquette, and do my best not to upset him without need. Although we are from the same nation, he and I are not from the same culture, and I try my best to be considerate of his culture, in so far as is possible-- even though I can't imagine how he got it in his head that my wearing a hat would be an insult.

The people who come here complaining about pictures of Muhammad are somebody else's grandparent, or parent, or sibling, or child. They care about Muhammad far more than my grandfather cares about hats. They live in a culture where what we are doing on this page is seen as a horrible insult. When they ask for removal, we must decline-- but we must decline with politeness, empathy, and consideration. We must underscore we're not trying to insult. We must try to be understanding, even if we can't really can't truly understand. And we must never ever present are actions in displaying pictures as signs of animosity. --Alecmconroy 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone's clearly wearing rose-colored glasses. Anyway, get back to a discussion of the article and article edits. This discussion should have been over once the policies were reiterated. If you want to change the policies, go to the respective policies and discuss the issue on those talk pages. --Strothra 17:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A reminder that we must collaborate in a fair and friendly manner is always acceptable. Itsmejudith 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is also a key policy along with the guidelines WP:AGF & WP:BITE which should be followed - and there really is no excuse for longstanding editors to ignore these. → AA ^(talk) — 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge fat warning sign at the top of the page, saying, and I quote: This has been discussed extensively and consensus was to include the images. Please see the archives for why the images will not be removed; comment here only if you have something new to say. — Seriously, this topic has been discussed to death. Some of us are sick of reiterating it. We just want to move on and edit the article professionally. — Mega Man (talk · contribs) 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mega Man, Paul and whoever doesn't understand a simple clear message. Do not place pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) on this website! If your sick of hearing this then it means its quite serious and offensive to muslims. Also you will not even find an accurate picture of him anyway, as he was against any portrait being made of him in his lifetime. Anyway, you people are not important or significant enough to be making comments and decisions on whether to view pics of prophet mohammed(pbuh) or not, and it doesn't matter how you feel about this so I suggest keep to your lower places and move onto other things than meddle in things that you don't know! EddyJawed 01:22, December 12, 2007 (UTC)

Please make your points rationally, respectfully, and civily. Your rancor is not doing you or your position any good. Frotz (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the topic "has been discussed to death" is no justification for biting the newbies, please read WP:BITE. Paul August ☎ 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If it bothers you, don't respond to them. I fought hardest to have the image on the page-- I feel like it's my duty to (try my best to) personally respond to each unique individual at least once to try my best to politely explain just why the image is here. If they protractedly argue, that's one thing-- but if somebody makes an account to politely ask us to make a change that's super important to them, they deserve one uber-polite reply saying why not. --Alecmconroy 19:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frotz (talk • contribs)

I still think that the best course of action is to politely refer them to image discussion archives, and be accommodating as to their questions as per Alecmconroy. --Hojimachong^talk 05:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the teddy bear image with the original image that was at the top of the article as I considered it to of been vandalism. I don't think either image is the one you discussing. But I had a similiar discussion to this on [1] and found that Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer satisfies these concerns.petedavo (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE IMAGES

Please: remove the alleged images of the Prophet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.87.183.204 (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor-- please understand that Wikipedia means no disrespect to Muhammad or Islam by including images of him. We here at Wikipedia have taken a vow to try to treat all subjects and all articles the same way. We have promised our readers that we will do this. This means we try to show images of ALL biography subjects, even though we know our Muslim readers very much wish we didn't include pictures of Muhammad. We don't mean to insult Islam or its rules regarding depictions of Muhammad-- but we can't obey those rules ourselves and still be true to the promise we have made to our readers. See Wikipedia is not aniconisitic. --Alecmconroy 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy-- Please do not patronize us by saying that the wikipedia community does not want to insult Islam. There were no pictures on this page for a very long time and when we tried to remove the one image posted the community responded by posting multiple images. By the admins enforce the posting of unnecessary images the are willfully and purposefully insulting the Muslim community. I understand the images are going to stay but just be honest and say it the way it is. --Autoshade (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles that have grown past the stub stage typically have pictures. Frotz (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No. And please read to top of the page were it clearly states that any requests to remove images of the prophet will be ignored/deleted. (Butters x 11:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

The point is why to pick up so many pictures of Prophet Muhammad painted or drawn while this is highly controversial and no real picture of him. Does saying that articles that have grown have pictures mean that you post the Danish cartoons as well. That means you should post all the objectionable pictures pertaining to Judaism and Christianity as well. Honestly reply.--Muneeb smw (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If we were doing an article about negative cartoon depictions of religious figures then yes I would say that we should post those. However, the depictions (or rather depiction since I think at this point there's only one) of Muhammad in the article is a legitimate image of historical, cultural, and religious value to someone trying to understand the disparate viewpoints in Islam and how the Islamic religion has viewed its most important figure. Therefore it can, will, and should be included in this article. This is not an insult its just the way wikipedia works. RecentlyAnon (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Danish cartoons are available in Wikipedia in the article concerning the controversy. Further, additional works with muhammad's image are available at Depictions of Muhammad.--Strothra (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't repeat what has been said before about removing those offensive Pictures...I just want you to know about http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia#signatures those 13600+ and counting who voted for the removal...so where are the people who what the pictures to be published????????

Wikipedia is not censored we do not remove things just because people find them offensive. The censorship policy can be found at WP:CENSOR. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not function by snout-counting. We have rules, the number of people who want something to be removed is irrelevant if the rules say it should stay. We operate by consensus but this isn't a democracy. Again the images aren't meant as an insult you have to realize that the whole world doesn't live or function according to the laws of any one sect or religion. RecentlyAnon (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in Islam it's a sin to show or draw pictures of prophets, the Wikipedia staff should understand and respect this, so please, remove the pics which "show" the prophet mohammad (peace be upon him), and at least "unlock" the page so we can do this ourselfs. 84.235.26.248 (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This has already been widely discussed as you can see on this page as well as the archives and the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, and the decision has been made that the images will stay. Thanks for your input. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the Illustrations

Good Morning.

It would be very considerate and kind of you, if you could remove all the Illustrations depicting Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W S.A.W S.A.W) that you have included in your article.

I very much appreciate that you are very respectful in the development of this article, and I believe that by you being kind enough to remove the illustrations I am refering to, would be a gesture of further respect towards Islam.

I came to this article with much happiness, but as soon as I saw the illustrations, I had no alternative but to leave. It is for this reason that I have not even been able to read the atricle yet.

At the end of the day, you are writing an article related to Islam, and you should be considerate towards the teachings of Islam and feelings of the believers.

By removing the Illustrations, you will not be making the article incomplete - it does not make any difference to this article if the illustrations are not there.

In Islam we know that Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W S.A.W S.A.W) has no shadow, no photograph or portrait was ever made of Him, and the same goes for any illustrations. Therefore, HOW can you put illustrations that have no authenticity?

Warmest Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.216.65.57 (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If the images have no authenticity, then what do you care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being so polite. But were still not going to listen to you. (Butters x (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Unfortunately, conforming to stringent Islamic requirements regarding pictures would be the end of Wikipedia Commons, as not just pictures of Mohammed are forbidden, but all pictures of things with a soul. Please see Kitaab At-Tawheed Ch.58 and Sahih Bukhari V7B72N833-846 for some information regarding that. I hope that Mohammed's face being veiled in most pictures and your ability to not look directly at these pictures will be enough to allow you to visit and read this page (and others). Apologies for the inconvenience. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

can u plz make sure that u delete all the picz which mentions or potrays MUHAMMED (PBUH) because that completly forbidden in islam. do this ASAP. thankz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaiz1 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is making a very big mistake by not removing these pictures of our prophet! This issue has already created many problems, as another muslim i am requesting Wikipedia to remove these pictures of our prophet as this is very offensive to the entire muslim community at large! Muhammed could be described as long as its accurate but this is an extreme offense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.145.253 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the replies above and do not create new sections. Thank you. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 09:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is encycolpedic, and will not show favortism to any religion. For example, if we removed the images of Muhammad, then that would be showing favortism to Islam over Christianity because we still show images of Jesus. But if we removed all images of Muhammed and Jesus, then we will be showing favoritism to other religions like Buddhism by showing images of Buddha. And if we remove all images of Muhammed, Jesus, and Buddha, then we would be showing favoritism to Islam and Christianity, because images of Buddha are very important to Buddhist. You can see that we have no choice but to uphold the Wikipedia policy of showing depictions of all subjects of a biography article. --MahaPanta (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up before in [2] as well.petedavo (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be do-able to add a special attribute to images (maybe a very specific HTML comment in the caption?) which some Muslims might find offensive, and then have a bot-generated copy of the page that omits those images, and then put a link between the two pages at the top? That would hopefully satiate those who find such images offensive, without compromising our core policies. Lankiveil (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

That sounds like a comprimise to me. --MahaPanta (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

we as Muslims have not received any picture of our prophet, unlike christians for example, they have drawings of Jesus in every Church, so please do not compare us to christians, it's not acceptable at all to show these pictures, no human being will ever be able to copy Muhammed, even these pictures are historically recorded, but still can not be used in the difinition of Muhammed, please understand this, many non muslim will visit this page we do not want them to see Islam this way, we want to show the true Islam, and in true Islam we do not have any pictures of Muhammed.

if you go to the Arabic version of Wiki and see Muhammed's page you will not find any picture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abboodeh (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should add some, or are the rules different for the Arabic wikipedia? If they are that's nifty but the rules here say that we include images in biographies and that we don't cater to specific religions. RecentlyAnon (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia says "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view)", this is good, but what about the correctness of information.putting these illustrations of prophet MUHAMMAD (PBUH) gives a wrong information that muslims have drawings of prophet MUHAMMAD (PBUH) which is not true. so you have to remove the pictures containing the illustrations or if you didn't do that, then a least make a clarification or qoute or add another section saying that the image is not true and in islam it is prevented to draw prophet MUHAMMAD (PBUH) and no one made a copy of him. this is if wikipedia do care about the correctness of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagibcs (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

Images posted are totally irrelevant to the article,wrongly quoted,and fake,they are not medieval ages pictures and have no relevancy to the article.Stop using wikipedia to set your personal scores. I am removing them..IF you have any doubts,please discuss on this page

Ther French National Library says they are authentic, is there any reason to doubt them. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wrote in the wrong place.. But I totally agree that some of the pictures are fake and I wish someone can remove it.. I tried to search for someone who have the authority to do so but I don't know who to contact.

Alkami.h (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Second picture

I'm sure that there's a reason since it's been like this since February, but why has the second picture been stretched to show only the Kaʿbah instead of the Kaʿbah and a veiled Muhammad as the caption describes?Rdr0 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the changes that distorted the image and removed the figure. As far as I know there wasn't a good reason to censor the image and it might have violated the GFDL. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I normally would have been bold, but I'm not a regular contributor and the image situation in this article is so tense that I was worried I might accidentally set off World War III. Rdr0 (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

create a new article "illustration depicting Muhammad"

I think the topic of removal Illustrations of Muhammad(PBUH) has gone to long and we should finish it with making a new topic and change then name of this topic "History about Muhammad" if admins of wikipdia want to keep these illustrations, as every body knows that almost all illustrations comes from Shi'a branch of Islam that is a small minority and majority of them are also against this illustrations. because this article is part of "Series on Islam" that mean every reader will think that it represent Islam but in reality it is not! we can place a link for such thing in also read or all positions where current illustrations are. I know these Illustrations are reality but that is bad reality and we should not hide it but try to contain it with proper care just like nuclear wast.

--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

See Depictions_of_Muhammad. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for that that answer my one query but second query is still there i am backing by request with a petition [click to see Petition], I am also against censor but still book are rated. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Muhammad in general and should stay that way. It includes views of Muhammad from numerous groups including those that created images of him, this page should not cater to one specific view point, that is the definition of neutral point of view. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

this article is not about some man you can treat like this. and it can provoke a big trouble for wikipeia organisation. and you are provoke and carrying an agenda of a specific group, so only request admins to move all illustrations to a portion and put a link in also read poriton that will do. and surve the wikipedia. if u think see this petition [ http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia]--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments below. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is absolutely wrong! because these illustrations are just imaginations and belong from a band group with in Muslims, so if u thing then we should put some very bad illustrations of other leaders but u will not do that, i believe you Christians are doing this in to provoke a uprise within Muslims and wikipedia in a place for knowledge not to fight so cool your religious or offensive motives and remove the illustrations. Faraz Ahmad (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so we're getting into conspiracy theories now? First of all, MarussellPESE is not a christan, and neither am I. Like I said, this is not an islamic encyclopedia, it does not conform to islamic law. Zazaban2 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that any body of you is Christian, i just give an example. and its not about Islamic law, its about the freedom to express truth, i know Muslim editors are in minority on Wikipedia and non Muslim editors are pushing to express there view of Islam under the non sensor and policies banner. this is misleading and i can't let it happen--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this article could use more images

They would really enrich the encyclopedic experience. --NEMT (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What kind of images you want, because there is not authentic images of Muhammad(PBUH), so we can only put images of Madeena and the grave of Muhammad(PBUH).Faraz Ahmad (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

please remove the pictures

please remove the pictures that show prophet mohamed's face,these pics are offensive to us as muslems,in this page you can find more than 14,000 signatures from people demanding the removal of these pictures

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashwaa (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:CENSOR. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

please remove the pic for mohamed this pic too bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.37.61 (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remove all photos refer to our prophet Muhammed.

Everybody should respect our religion.

these phots are not accepted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.187.13.60 (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Your superstition is not an acceptable reason to degrade the quality of wikipedia articles. If you're offended by images of muhammad you are not obligated to view them. I suggest you use Muslim Wiki instead. --NEMT (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your point of view, but describing certain Islamic beliefs as "superstition" is needlessly offensive and uncalled for. Please try to keep your cool. Lankiveil (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Dear Wikipedia, Please remove all refer to our prophet Muhamed. This act is not acceptable at all. Please respect religions, Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia and we respect its site, and we expect that Wikipedia doing the same. thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirag (talk • contribs) 05:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remove all photos refer to our prophet Muhammed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.221.243 (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

dear sir I AM REFUSE TO BUT PICTURE TO OUR Prophet MOHAMED IN YOUR PAGES PLEASA REMOVE IT

AHMED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.36.128.243 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remove all photos refer to our prophet Muhammed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanzur (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No. This is not an islamic encyclopedia. Zazaban2 (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments below. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We know wikipedia is not sensored but it should arrange its material according to there merit. and only expert on articles should edit them not some freek and anti religion person. this article is about Muhammad(PBUH) and is part of Islamic topics so it should represent only islamic view of Muhammad(PBUH) if you want to add your bullshit create another article and put your material there. other wise stop calling wikipedia as a free encyclopedia, and its distribution in schools so next generation can be saved from your evil motives. Faraz Ahmad (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to remain civil. I realise that this may be frustrating to you, and I do sympathise, however using inflammatory language like that will not get anyone anywhere. Lankiveil (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

No, we should portray it from a Neutral point of view, not the islamic point of view. I don't think you understand wikipedia guidelines. Please look them up. Zazaban2 (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to be as polite as i could, but i am trying to show the actual facts in my words. because i did not see any of you expert on any topics you are tying to moderate. I know Wikipedia guidelines and also understand the long time effects of Wikipedia. and my struggle to neutralize long term effects of this editing. As Wikipedia is used in Schools and by young student as first stop for knowledge your misguided views can damage the reality of a Religion. As happened with other religions. i hope you get this point and try to separate points. i am also against censorship but will not support damage of a religion.

• also one non related point in first statement "Muhammad was the founder of Islam" i think it should say "Muhammad is the founder of Islam"

--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said it's an Islamic Encyclopedia; however, it doesn't need to be Islamic to respect Islam, and it doesn't need to be Chrestian to respect Chrestianity. Sir, the matter of respect is not tied to certain religion. If you feel that the encyclopedia is hurting Chrestians in any way, it's your full right to express that and request to change it.

What I want to say here is that such pictures for Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) do really hurt all Muslims all over the world. And if this encyclopedia really aims at being the most popular, reliable, and neutral one, it should care about the feelings and beliefs of 1/6 of the world popluation.Ossama Rashed (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Determining what is "respectful" and what is offensive can come down to a very fine line. To some, the lack of honorary blessings is also "offensive" or disrespectful. For example, "Chrestians" is offensive to me- does that seem unreasonable? Please understand that- as we have already seen- many Muslims don't have a problem with images, and indeed, the majority of the images of Muhammad that I have seen were created by Muslims themselves. On that point, you are incorrect. Your own plea for neutrality is incongruent with the request for censorship: Wikipedia is not censored, and certainly not in the interest of respect of religion.--C.Logan (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to know just how does the two Islamic depictions of Muhammad "hurt all Muslims"? The first depicts him kneeling before the Kaaba as if he was in prayer. The other images show him teaching his message to others. Neither of these images depicts Muhammad in an unflattering or vulgar manner. Just because a depiction of a person is a taboo in one culture doesn't mean it is taboo for all, especially when the taboo is mostly a modern invention. And if there are Muslims who are simply offended because there are depictions of Muhammad to begin with, we just point them to our content disclaimer. --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

none

we must remove it NOW .. please remove that picture, it is not allowed for us to put such things..

Wikipedia is not an islamic encyclopedia. There is no rule that says we cannot put that picture there. Zazaban2 (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The pictures in the article are tasteful and from Islamic sources. Historically here on WP illustrations are intended to enhance the reader's experience. If an reader considers an illustration to be offensive, then present an argument, and seek consensus on a case-by-case basis for the illustrations. Arguments that "The mere presences of this picture is offensive to us" will not pass muster. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your actions are provocative and base on hate not for knowledge, so if you really want to put these illustrations on wikipedia just put a link is "see also" section of the topic Faraz Ahmad (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem with the way things are set up now. The pictures are staying. Zazaban2 (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You might not has problem but lot of other people has, and we are determine for a change its not your wikipedia its a open source so all views should be respected specially the concerned party. if you don't know how to treat sensitive issues then you has no right to discuss them. Muhammad(PBUH) is the most special person in Human history and this article need to show that.Faraz Ahmad (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored. Also please dont say that Muhammad is the most special person in human history. Only a fifth of the world believes that, I dont for example. But as someone said, this is not about religious differences, its about policies. Read the link before I gave you. Also, not all muslims find pictures of Mohammad offensive. Just read that link. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not making that up this is an undisputed fact that Muhammad(PBUH) is the greatest person in history and u can not dictate lie against policies. on the contrary you has no right to edit this article. as you are an ex-Muslim(nothing personal), i know for sure that all Muslims found pictures with face shown offensive, --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd to state that anyone is undisputedly the most special person in history. Christians will dispute that, Jews will dispute that, Baha'is will dispute that, pretty much every non-muslim will dispute that. Zazaban2 (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Faraz, how do I not have any right to edit this article? Whether someone is a muslim or a non-muslim is of no importance here. Wikipedia policies are. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

@Zazaban2:I provided the refrence and i did not write that encyclopedia or not some un-matured person, so much evidence can be provided to support that argument.

@Matt57: Because of your personal experience you are tended to be anti. there are some issues that are not mention in policies. and you people are also not following them by pushing your agenda.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To be totally honest, your the one pushing an agenda, not us. Zazaban2 (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference Ahmad provided does not say that Muhammad was the "greatest person in history" it says he "was one of the great figures in history." To say that the article should show that he is the most "special person in history" is as far from a nuetral point of view as you can get. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You can play this game of denial as long as u wish. yes i am fighting for a agenda but my motive is improvement and respect. not just denial and provoking hate. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You claim your motive is respect, but you have not shown any of us any respect the entire time you've been talking here. How are we in denial? How are we provoking hate? Zazaban (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not say anything about your religion or your believe. go and read the article you will see so many disputes about contents and neutrality, and when ever i put one on the top you people delete that. in the discussion uncountable requests to remove such material but all requests ware declined because all admin posts are filled by non Muslims. and majority of material is from western sources and even then contradict other big encyclopedias and biographies in west.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you're not accepting decisions because the admins are not muslim? Uh.... On a completely unrelated note, I think this has long since earned it's place on WP:LAME. Zazaban (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you are making up stuff, and paling blame game. i said that even non muslim(wester) writers of this article contradict other others in west who write about Islam or Muhammad. yes it is obvious to alarmed when other people take such deep interest in non related matters. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I apoligise, it can be very hard to understand the point you are trying to get across sometimes. Zazaban (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait Wait, Did I *JUST* hear somebody say 'its an undisputed fact that muhammed is the greatest person in history'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.222.194 (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

none

i am sorry

Thanks a lot for hearing us and also for your patience and our conversation is only just a view we Leaves to you Freedom Disposition and a Freedom discretion about it .. but we hope to remove it and finally thanks again .

Arbitration Request created

I has created an Arbitration request this topic so top level administration in Wikipedia can be involved in this sensitive topic. you can see that can contribute in so your opinion can count Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Muhammad
--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death over and over again. This nowhere near warrants a arbitration, the decision was made long before you showed up. Zazaban2 (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this has already been resolved. I can't remember exactly where I read it. What's the best link to give someone relating to policy re images of Muhammad? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Several masses of long debates in the archives. Zazaban2 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I already has gone through all previous discussion and i thing it was discussed between a majority of non Muslims oppressing and targeting Muslims. i did not find any common ground reached in previous discussions about Pictures, Illustrations or material in this topic. this is a anti Muslim version of article forced on readers by majority no Muslims editors of Wikipedia. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No new arguments have been introduced that have not already been resolved. There is no need for arbitration, it will be fruitless. This action is a violation of WP:POINT, please allow us to edit the article constructively and move on from this sophomoric debate that goes nowhere. --Strothra (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Faraz, cease your personal attacks now. Assuming a victim mentality and declaring your opponents to be "oppressing and targeting Muslims" will not advance your argument. Read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Strothra (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not see common grounds reached what i can see i a continues request to remove hate material and denial from other group, and both groups are divided on religious lines. why i only allow you people to edit this article and then say its a article about Islam but in reality its just represent bulk non Islamic views of Muhammad(PBUH). and already Wikipedia size limit is exceeded on this article so my suggestion is to make to articles out of it. one Islamic view of Muhammad(PBUH) and other Contemporary view of Muhammad there you people can put what ever you wish other --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Faraz, read this carefully. Simply put again, Wikipedia is not censored for religious sensitivity. This is a core policy. Also remember that not all Muslims find images of Muhammad offensive, so please let it go. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Faraz, you continuously draw divisive lines by making statements such as "you people" and calling edits "hate material." Such behavior is not conducive to constructive editing - Wikipedia is supposed to be a community of editors working together. We are all editors here and most of us are not divided along religious lines, but are simply working within Wiki policy. If you wish to change the policy, this article is not the correct place to do so. To change policies, you should discuss them on the talk pages of the respective policies such as WP:CENSOR. --Strothra (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me link of WP:CENSOR talk page. but i only talk about what i see here. and i am not insisting to WP:CENSOR anything i am saying to separate both views so readers can distinguish between both views, current article is cocktail of views, confusing and distractive for new readers. i think we can make a pole here and the rule of pole could be

• name of user
• believe Muslim or Non Muslim
• vote Yes to change or No to cahnge

then we can decide what is the line of devide
--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, this has been done before. We cant keep doing this every 3 months or thats all we'll keep doing. Read the past archives. Realize that the same situation will happen if another "poll" is taken. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks Matt57 for that reference it reads "The issue surrounding depictions of Muhammad on Wikipedia has been of considerable dispute. Some users argue that such images which may be highly inflammatory to some Muslim readers should not be used, or should be used lightly at the very least. Others disagree with this sentiment on the basis that Wikipedia is not censored and that the images are acceptable as they don't offend "typical" Wikipedia readers." its says some Muslims but in reality all Muslims do and they are over a Billion in this world. i did not say that to oppress others but pinpoint where these statements are faulty and misrepresent facts. but i can see the result of that pole clearly --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that we've all behaved ourselves and the Arbitration Committee will reject such a case as a "content issue" - apart from other reasons. WilyD 05:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct to say that Faraz is engaging in off-wiki canvassing? He has this petition with 15,000 signatures which explains all the people coming in to remove the picture. I think he should either stop editing here or take down that petition, correct? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not taking town that petition and i am not doing editing or undo like any other. check the history of article. i am just trying to make a point and trying to tell you all to respect others so they respect you. if you thing arbitration committee will reject the request then why are u people trying to stop me, if in case they reject then i will use other mean like i will take Wikipedia into court to resolve this issue, that petition is a clear indicator who much damage is done by Wikipedia to let such things happen.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, do the arbitration if it will make you happy. But whatever they say WILL be final. Understand? Zazaban2 (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Faraz, I removed the legal threat you made to Wikipedia, which typically results in a block but since you're new so now you know. Anyway this is not an issue of respect, its a matter of censorship. The fact that you made this petition and are causing these people to come to Wikipedia to remove the images will not help you much.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I put the threat back, there's no point in censoring somebody's post. If he wants to make threats, let him, he has to deal with that happens after. Zazaban2 (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way Faraz, I highly doubt any court will take your case. This has been decided upon again and again and again, it's like trying to taking somebody who's been elected to office with an overwhelming several times to court on the grounds you personally do not like him. Zazaban2 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion, in reality is not just personal matter its about a religion, culture and most of all a case of more then a billion people. i am making saying any thing but just using ........., what a power of people can do. and one thing is sure all one billion agree on this point. I personally believe some people are still in this world who respect others. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the world in general, I'm talking about right here. As of now you're the only person in opposition to the pictures. You're outvoted. You have your petition, but can europeans vote for an american president? Zazaban (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Faraz Ahmad, if the ArbCom declines to hear an arbitration request, what will you do? What if they rule against you; will you accept their decision or will you continue to lobby for change? Lankiveil (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

I am also talking about here the Wikipedia as it effect the life of all people who read it, i am not a single person, read the archive and u will find the request to remove the picture, you answer your question does a non-Muslim will write an honest view about the Prophet of Islam, when followers of that prophet are in state of war with other non believers. i regard this as a cyber crusade. i will lobby for change, but before arbitration i will check the ArbCom members because this is a complex world --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they are still outnumbered. Sybercrusade eh? Zazaban (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"i regard this as a cyber crusade" ...do we really need to hear anything else? --NEMT (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm going to notify and admin. Zazaban (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the policies which have been demonstrated are clear enough. Wikipedia is not censored, and it certainly does not cater to religious demands. There is no obligation to Wikipedia or any of its editors to remove these pictures. Those without such strict religious obligations might actually learn something from these pictures; last I'd checked, that's the reason people turn to encyclopedias in the first place. It's clear that the issue is beyond settled.--C.Logan (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also clear that Faraz Ahmad is never going to back down no matter what we say. Zazaban (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Faraz Ahmad has also been, with less attention, trying to POV push Nazi agenda and holocaust denial. Zazaban (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think then Wikipedia and its editors has no right to offend others Religion and to undermine there right in a large society. i am not asking to remove the pictures but to move them in a separate section and keep them there so they serve there purpose. because i regard the current view as aggressive and Wikipedia require neutral and consensus. but i did not see any of them here. only one group think its settled and give no weight to other opinion, its also against Wikipedia's policies. I will only back down when a trust worthy conclusion is reached. NEMT its literal crusade go and read the definition.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And I assume you get to determine what a trust-worthy conclusion is? Zazaban (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NO, i can't because i am pushing for this change only the readers or scholar will determine. and Wikipedia will stop receiving such requests --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Zazaban (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, you may want to check out what's happening over at your disscussions in Talk:Adolf Hitler and Talk:Holocaust. Zazaban (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your answer on Talk:Adolf Hitler has really exposed you, one one topic you are pushing for un-censorship but on the other forcing censorship. that will really help me in final discussion thanks for reminding me --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling somebody a hero is clearly unencyclopedic. It's not censorship. Zazaban (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

But i think encyclopedia is about facts or aspect about any topic? that is a fact although minor but worth mentioning --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTE. Zazaban (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I know these topics well and both of them are very popular and well discussed in African and Asian countries, but is censored in Europe and America by laws. I read so many articles on such topics back in home country but i know Europeans will deny that --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So, do you think that Hitler was a hero? Zazaban (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, it's not our discussion. As a professional editor, you should concentrate on the topic under discussion. We have nothing to do with Hilter here! Again, not being censored does never justify being offensive! What a 1/6 of the world population see as offensive should be so! no matter on what basis do they judge this as being so. Guys, we need to live in a world of cooperation, peace and respect. Not choosing this option will lead us to an enless loop of hate and conflicts. Let's understand this very well and remove the pictures please! Ossama Rashed (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thant is my personal opinion and depend what aspect of his life we are discussing, i think we should stay on course and discuss the topic we are debating --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try not to incriminate yourself with extremist opinions. Hitler is certainly a great figure in history, but the manner in which you are expressing seemingly laudatory opinions of the man without justification makes you appear rather warped, and this certainly hurts your case. It's best to keep these opinions to yourself (if not to drop them entirely).--C.Logan (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the proof ??

The claimed picture has no proofs , and the other people in that strange paint are all look alike , so why wikipedia insists to keep the picture .. its not in any way related to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) , i don't think that the administartors will keep the picture , they'll remove it soon , if they are honest with theirself .. and despite that we know the characteristics of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) , but it is prohibited to try to draw This characteristics to shape even a close imagination of his Holy Person. So stop argue about this "Mr wiki admins" , so you dont loss our trust ..

ISLAM is PEACE
--Basem3wad (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Clicking on the image gives the information which you are requesting. The picture does indeed depict what the article says it does. Additionally, please note that Wikipedia is not censored, and is an objective project- catering to religious beliefs is not something that the encyclopedia is entitled to do. No one is forcing you to look at the picture; not everyone has the same religious obligations as you do. It's akin to asking someone to stop selling alcohol because you are obligated to abstain from it. I, for one, am interested to see the depictions of Muhammad in Persian and Indian art.--C.Logan (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

About the source , its not a verified source, its a French website , that has nothing to do with islam , and this site claims that the picture is from the book "Al-Bîrûnî, al-âthâr al-bâqiya" , i'll review the book sunday Dec 12 2007 , And if the book contains nothing about this image , then the French site will be asked about this , and the reasons behind it, also you will remove the image , and also you need to listen to us not only to argue us , we only seeking the truth , and tell me how in the world that image can be true , it even does not look like a baby paint , these information on wikipedia does not give any helpful information about prophet Mohammad (PBUH) , because you need thousands of pages to tell about him.

and asking me just not to look at the picture, is a stupid solution , do you think you solved the problem ?? and since wikipedia is not censored, then it is not trust worthy anymore.

No need to remind you that we don't need to have religious obligations to ask wikipedia to remove untrue ,untrusted , and uneeded pictures or articles on the wiki pages , maybe you can't see that a new trusted encyclopedia will face the wikipedia , but which is more developed than this used one, YES , its been used by those who knows nothing but hate to other religions , cultures , those who want to give the picture they want about what they want , your way in discussing this article shows that you're NOT neutral , & that you hang on to your mind despite of the thousands of explanations from us , and the thousands of signatures of just who knew about this article , check this petition Remove it wiki and keep your interest to yourself , you're so far from the scientific honesty. this article will give a bad reputation about wikipedia , and it will make wikipedia just a place where you can find a little information to seek the truth , not the place where you can find the truth , this encyclopedia will fall down , if you do not give attention to a billion Muslim , with many non-muslims , who objects to your policy. --Basem3wad (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see this site. You have to be aware that the illustration of Muhammad has not been taboo in every culture under Muslim influence. The Persians created many illustrations on this subject, and al-Biruni illustrated Muhammad specifically in the book in question (the site concerns an exhibition of the illustrations).

Also, please relax. When you say "how in the world that image can be true", it makes me worried that you don't understand concepts like illustrative representation. This intrigues me, because it may be a cultural misunderstanding produced by the iconoclasm in your particular region/division of Islam (presumably Sunni?). Representations are extremely important in the Western concept of learning. Visualization goes far beyond anything which descriptive text could allow. The images are not intended to be accurate; at least, they make no claim to do so. When I see the Pantokrator in church on Sunday, I do not expect it to be an accurate picture of Jesus. It is a representation which facilitates my understand of a particular aspect or act.

I'd have to second Strothra's concern below me. You misunderstand the value of anti-censorship rules and regulations; as it is, I can't appreciate your sentiment in any way.

Most of the rest of your post makes little sense, I'm sorry to say. I would suggest that you cease wasting time promoting that petition, because it really doesn't make a difference- we already know the objections and who objects to it- seeing signatures by Muslims is redundant, because we are aware of the iconoclastic viewpoints of a portion of Muslims.

Please do not go into some long rant concerning Wikipedia's worthlessness in your opinion. As of this moment, it appears that you are claiming that Wikipedia is not truthful or trustworthy because it does not censor an image that proves to be informative, inoffensive to the vast majority of the world's population, and in truth, created by a Muslim in the first place.

If a lack of censorship equates to a lack of trustworthiness (as you apparently claim), then I'm afraid that you are severely misguided- I don't believe the encyclopedia is going to change any policies for someone who can make such an absurd statement in all seriousness. As far as I can see, you misunderstand Western society, and the sort of freedoms which we appreciate; freedoms, as it is, that we have incorporated into this encyclopedia. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I'd rather you not waste your time by using an entirely alien system of reasoning.--C.Logan (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You Need to watch your words too , there is no need to insult me by such a words, you'll be always beyond knowledge like most western people whom repeating phrases and words just like parrots ,anything you said will not change the fact that we Muslims ,does not trust your wiki anymore ,and for those who want to know about Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) , they will not refer to such an absurd Encyclopedia , By the way , Keep it Locked ,Because its Obvious that you have no scientific honesty , saying that internet resources are enough resources to Document a life of the Greatest Mankind Ever been on earth , These words is By Your Non-Muslims chroniclers,Like: 1.Bernard Shaw who said That Mohammad is the humanity savior and more ,2.Tolstoy , 3.Thomas Carlyle , 4.Michael Heart , 5.Arnold Toynbee and a lot more , another thing Mr " Clever " you know .. since i'm FOOLISH , why the wikipedia deleted the Arabic discussion about Mohammed (PBUH) ??? and why there is this word in the article " Tradition " , "According to their tradition " , like you're trying to say that Islam is a culture not a religion , you racial actions shows nothing but that you're not accurate , and since there is no trusted admins from all around the world ,then this is not a free encyclopedia , and since it obeys its anonymous admins pleases , put your dirty hands off our religion , you're not helping , this is not the right way to live hand in hand in peace , these actions will not lead but to violence ,any kind of violence is rejected even the words violence , specially when it concerns holy beliefs,this wiki is just increasing the hole between religions and cultures and people around the world,Islam Is PEACE ,So stop accusing Muslims ( real Muslims ) and do not Judge us through fake claimed Muslims, and check out Who is Mohammad (PBUH) before you do such insults To US,Finally Delete this article is much better , since it is all not accurate depending on week resources .

--Basem3wad (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"since wikipedia is not censored, then it is not trust worthy anymore"????? You make me appreciate the fact that I live in the West - thank you. --Strothra (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh .. so do you believe in the ultimate freedom ?? do you believe that no rules should control us ?? means that no rules must control such an arbitrary encyclopedia , which is a place for anybody , even psycho to play with ??? so what are you saying ??

Besides .. you left everything i talked about and you just hold on to this sentence , well.. this makes ME appreciate that i'm not living in YOUR west !!

--Basem3wad (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because, my friend, you introduced no new ideas that have not already been discussed to death and decided upon. Rules are necessary in a civilized society, yes. However, censorship is one rule that makes a society less civilized because it suppresses those who live within it. No such "society" can exist in the long term for it will foment revolution among the masses particularly when that censorship is divided along religious sectarian lines. It is for this reason that we do not respect censorship. --Strothra (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The images are part of Islamic tradition... and Islamic tradition is what is represented here to a great extent. I was one of the editors who thought that the tradition of images was over represented but that does not mean it is not a valid tradition. Not all Muslims throughout history have believed it was improper to draw Muhammad. Many have. The article should make that clear. gren グレン 23:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; this is an important fact that is often forgotten. Some people may be generally surprised to note the Islam is not monolithic in many of its seemingly "essential" beliefs; I happened to spot a picture of some U.S. soldiers in an Iraqi home which had a very large hagiographic painting of Muhammad hung above their couch.--C.Logan (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad is enormously important outside of Islam as well, which is necessarily represented as well. While we (necessarily) dwell extensively on his importance to Islam, outside of Islam he's still incredibly important. WilyD 01:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well , if you want to write about Islam and Muslims, its not you who should do so , you have no right to claim things about Islam and Muslims while you are not even a Muslim , even if you are a Muslim you should be verified as someone who has the proper knowledge to talk about Islam , so to all of this site administrators , you lost the trust , you have no right to close this article and you have no right to put such allegations . and if you want to see a little reaction to this article which you claim that it has been reviewed and It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow , you can check out the objections of some of us who knew about your illegal article just go to this link and see some of the reactions , then you might think again of your reply.Removal Of the pics from wikipedia--Basem3wad (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We have every right! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity is one of the most important things to consider when creating an encyclopedia, or any other work which claims neutrality. Wikipedia makes such a claim. The encyclopedia endeavors to include views both from within Islam and from those who exist outside of the religion.

Unfortunately, it would seem that your own solution has its flaws as well. You repeatedly ignore the fact that your own iconoclastic views are not universal, even within the religion itself (these pictures are evidence of that in and of themselves). Nobody has to be an expert to add anything to the encyclopedia; they merely have to depend upon sources. The reliability of the sources is one of the deciding factors when considering the inclusion of a particular piece of information.--C.Logan (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The petition is meaningless garbage and POV pushing which will have no affect on Wikipedia. You are also borderline trolling with your assertions that only Muslims have the authority and credentials to write articles on Islam on Wikipedia. --Farix (Talk) 16:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

maybe you need to watch your words before you expect me to talk to you.

--Basem3wad (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do remain civil, please. The simple fact is that there are no prohibitions on Wikieida to depict historically significant persons. Muhammad is undoubtedly one such historical person. The taboo on images of Muhammad is purely a cultural one, one that has only been bantered about recently, but not it's one that Wikipedia is obligated to follow. In fact, is shouldn't enforce such taboos runs contrary to Wikipedia's own censorship policies and content disclaimers. --Farix (Talk) 19:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Even Though i think you really should read this civil, But i wont lose anything to show you the following,

Since there are no prohibitions , then i can make a page about someones father , with a draw that puts him on a dog body ?? ha?? ,since there are no prohibitions , then you can tell that Christians are animals , and since there are no prohibitions , then we can say that wikipedia is place where mixed untrusted and untrue articles is written , ???

and since there are no prohibitions , then why should we live like we do , lets steal ,cheat , lie , kill and eat each other ..Remember "Since there are no prohibitions" ..

in a matter of fact , those people who signed the petition thought that wikipedia respects the others beleifes and can write articles since its not in any way disrespect others , otherwise it has no difference than any racial community that are opinionated .

so if wikipedia are such a community ,then let them Publish that they are along with their policies.--Basem3wad (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But wikipedia isn't such a community. We are one however that insists on having relavent pictures in our articles. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm always troubled to see people mock rules and beliefs that they don't even understand. Wikipedia understands the taboo on images in some Islamic cultures, but disregards it in the interest of free speech and the transmission of relevant information to anyone else so inclined to learn about this subject.

To respond to your scenario: no, you can't make a page about someone's father unless that particular individual meets the notability guidelines. WP:BLP determines strict rules concerning the creation and editing of articles which pertain to living persons. Additionally, defamatory images are generally not tolerated unless the image has particular relevance and notability; a political cartoon mocking the president, for example, may be permissible. Your illustration would not because of several reasons, most clearly your own lack of notability and the image's lack of notability. An illustration of an individual is perfectly fine, as long as it satisfies the inclusion guidelines- which includes specifics concerning defamatory images.

Wikipedia is also not a place for personal opinions: no editor is allowed to submit his or her own opinion or personal judgment into the article text. On the other hand, if a person of notability and relevance to the subject manner made such a statement, then it can be included. For instance, a statement expressing that the contributions of Muhammad to the world brought only negative consequences would not be allowed as an editor's opinion, but as a quotation of Manuel II Paleologus (note the recent controversy with the Pope and these statements), it is certainly allowed and notable within the relevant context.

The rest of your musing on the "lack of prohibitions" only makes you look foolish. There is no room for such fallacious logic in this discussion, and it would be appreciated if you considered the arguments and suggestions of Wikipedia editors who are familiar with the policies in question.--C.Logan (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

could someone who is good at archiving a heated page, please archive?

It's taking ages for letters to appear as you type in the edit window, because the page is overburdened. The top of the edit window suggests archiving. But I didn't like to go ahead and archive because I'm not an expert and wouldn't label what's in it well, etc. All archiving appreciated.:) Merkinsmum 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done I also straitened out the image archives a bit. --Farix (Talk) 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, this is much easier to parse through now. Thankyou! Lankiveil (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Oh brill, thanks TheFarix, now I can write more easiily (poor you lot lol). Merkinsmum 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is this 'we' so many refer to here?

I think it interesting to see comments (like the one by User:TharkunColl above) that ask things like "Is there anything we can do to stop Muslims coming here ...". I take it that most people here assume that "we" (meaning those contributing to wikipedia) and "believing Muslim" are mutually exclusive categories (or, at least those who insist on keeping pictures of Muhammad from long after his death, do so believe). This, to me, is rather instructive as to the self-imagined community of many wikipedians: by self-definition, exclusive of Muslims (and perhaps all non-western POVs?). Sad, very sad indeed. 68.215.218.14 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think it is interesting that you misrepresent TharkunColl's comments by cutting off the end of his statement, making it sound as though he simply wants to keep out all Muslims, when if one were to read his original comments, he was referring not to Muslims in general, but to those whose only activities on Wikipedia involve coming here and demanding that the pictures be removed. TharkunColl goes on in the post to offer a very sensible solution to a problem that arises every couple of days. As you can see from the above comments, there are several Muslims involved here who also believe in the principles of Wikipedia and the principles of a open and free press. If there is a we/them dynamic at work here, it is not Non-Muslim vs. Muslim, but rather editors who want to keep Wikipedia secular, informative and independent, vs. the fundamentalists who come here and demand that we adhere to a specific religion's wishes. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(I have re-added this section as it appears it was accidentally removed in a revert) Lankiveil (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a Muslim and do not oppose the pictures of Muhammad. The pictures do not impede your ability to practice Islam as you wish to if one posts a picture of Muhammad here no more than it is an obstruction to your ability to practice if someone else has premarital sex or if someone else consumes alcohol. Do what is best for yourself, but this page should not be censored for all. This page is not written by Muslims for Muslims. Moreover, this page does mention the sensitivity associated with depictions of Muhammad, even if the page itself includes the pictures. Several views are represented in this article, including the Sunni view and Shi'a view. -Rosywounds (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

It looks like there is a conflict between those who want the picture in here and those who want it removed. Cant there be a compromise, like we keep the picture in there but it is hidden so that if you want to see it you click here but if you don't want to don't click here. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Example:

16th century Ottoman depiction of Muhammad

Kind of like Mohammed playing peek-a-boo? Haha no I don't think it will help. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not a laughing matter... Its a lot better than having hordes of people editing the page everyday trying to remove the pictures. If you want to see it, click on the box, if you don't want to see it then don't click on it. We aren't censoring anything as the picture is still up but hidden from view. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really addresses the issue. They'll just then move to "It's already hidden, why not just remove it completely" because there issue is the use at all of such images. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Those who support the inclusion of the pictures would still argue that this is censorship, and those against the pictures would still argue that it is profane. Interesting idea, though. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was funny. Anyway I don't think it will pacify those who don't want it available at all, just have to deal with it like every other article that is vandalized often. The only way they are going to accept it is if they go study some more Islam to see that the picture isn't evil, but only worshiping it like Jesus is, as I said elsewhere.

Since Jesus is also an important prophet in Islam, I might be a lot more sympathetic if they protested the same way in the Jesus articles over his pictures since they are definitely used to worship him. In failing to do that they are being hypocritical and/or way off base in their priorities, in my opinion. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To expand: the intent of the prohibition is so you don't have things to worship Mohammed by. But it's obvious some do worship him above other prophets since they don't raise the same fuss over Jesus, when in fact the Quran says all the prophets are the same, just servants of God and not to be worshiped. So they are actually destroying the meaning of the very ideal they claim to uphold. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This compromise would be satisfactory to me (as a "keep the pictures" person), but I doubt it will be acceptable to a lot of the Muslims making complaints. It seems the attitude is that the images must not be shown or used at all (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). Lankiveil (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

That is exactly what has been done after a lengthy debate at Rorschach inkblot test, so there is precedent for it. I actually think it would make people be more aware that showing images of Muhammad is prohibited, when they might not already know that, so I'd have no problem with it. MilesAgain (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would object to doing it for that reason since it would be an editor created device used to teach Islam. A similar exercise would be to use lowercase for judaism and christianity throughout an article to teach that Islam is superior to those religions. The images should stay as regular thumbnails, as they are on every other Wikipedia article. Mob mentality can't be allowed to dictate policy and practice here. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comparison to capitalizing letters is like comparing apples to oranges. Hiding a couple of pictures doesn't "teach" a religion. It is simply respecting it. We capitalize names of religions because it is a proper noun, not because one is superior. Also, as shown by the Rorschach inkblot test, not every image is a thumbnail and exceptions to policy and practice can be made (see WP:IAR). --Hdt83 ^Chat 09:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that if your sole intent was to help teach people that Muslims don't like images, it would be the same as using lowercase to teach that other religions were inferior to Islam. You need a citation to say that Muslims don't like images, not a popup.

Rather than a sign of respect, I would probably take it to mean that you thought I was too stupid to know they were still there, if I was the type of Muslim who believed in that. A lot of things on Wikipedia offend, depending who you are. But try it if you want, when it doesn't work you'll just have some hidden pictures, then someone else will probably change them back later anyway. -Bikinibomb (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion has been discussed before. It is still a form of censorship either way, makes the article more complicated to view, and makes the images less useful to the reader by restricting their immediate access. The Wikipedia:Content disclaimer clearly states, "Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to."--Strothra (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A question for those dying to have a picture of the Prophet Mohammad here: Can you be certain that a certain picture is His? Obviously No - because no one has His picture, or can verify it. Thus it will be incorrect to post a picture here that you only 'think' is His. It would definately be equivalent to spreading false and unverifiable information. Personally I find it surprising why some people are bent upon having a picture here. Majority Muslims' point of view is to not have the picture and that I understand; but that of those demanding the picture, obviously mostly non-Mulsims, I don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.177.100 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The images are depictions of Mohammed, not a real picture. The artwork is generally understood to represent an artist interpretation. Like Jesus is probably not blond and blue-eyed. It's not like someone Photoshopped a real picture showing Mohammed in a compromising position, which is more what your argument would apply to. If you are worried about Mohammed's image, have you ever voiced the same concern for pictures of Jesus since he is a prophet equal to Mohammed? And worse, pictures of Jesus are actually used to worship him. If not, why not? I think the answer is, too many Muslims put Mohammed up on a pedestal above all other prophets in a form of man worship, which is exactly what the image prohibition is trying to prevent. So this motivation to enforce Muslim rule is actually violating the intention of the rule. Any Muslims here understanding that, or not? -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bikinibomb, I wonder how is it that making fun of other people's prophet is laughable in any way... Mohammed playing peek-a-boo??! what a silly comment. Unfortunately wikipedia has turned into a method for many editors to express their anti-Islam feelings (Imad marie (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

Not actually Muhammad

The images a question aren't even very faithful depictions of Muhammad as he is described in hadith. They are, thus, quite useless in depicting Muhammad as a real person. Aliibn (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And the same would apply to pictures of almost any medieval figure. Would you wish to remove all of those from Wikipedia too? In which case I suggest you propose it as a general policy change. I strongly suspect you will not succeed, however. TharkunColl (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, yes. If a painting, sculpture, etc. of a pre-modern figure is known to be drawn from life (i.e., they actually posed for it or it was copied from something that was), I'd say keep it. Ancient and medieval coins, deathmasks, etc. have a fairly good likelihood of showing something like a 'real' person, but modern reconstructions (like the one on this page Zenobia ) are, frankly, useless if not misleading and of no particular use (unless in an article or section on 'modern depictions of x').

With these images of Muhammad, one can tell quickly that the artists didn't even bother to _attempt_ an honest depiction. Various hadith give fairly detailed descriptions of Muhammad's physical appearance; these hadith were not consulted.

Considering these _facts_ and the _fact_ that a great many people are irate about the inclusion of such material (and considering that wikipedia's administrators _do_ make strenuous efforts not to offend Jews, African-Americans, and other groups, a fact that demonstrates that the 'free speech' issue is a red herring), there seems no reason other than an actual desire to offend as many Muslims as possible for keeping them. Aliibn (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, a great many medieval figures are not drawn from life. Take the statues of Alfred the Great for example, who was known to not wear a beard. This is a complete red herring I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not bound by religious taboos of any sort. TharkunColl (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus not all Muslim even accept Hadith, some go by Quran only, so that description of him may be wrong too. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if I understand you two correctly, whatever Muslims say or think or whatever the facts in the matter, it doesn't matter. Offense must be given and facts be damned; the benighted Muslims are the enemy ...

Pathetic. Aliibn (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The enemy is religious dogma trying to impose its views on others. TharkunColl (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that whatever Muslims say or think does not have more importance than what non-Muslims say or think. Pulling out the religious persecution card for this is laughable -86.141.103.218 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you more concerned with resisting a Muslim "dogma" - or with your own wish to impose a Western i.e. Christian European convention on an encyclopedia that is meant for everyone?

Illustrations are meant to illustrate some point in an article (we do not add images solely because we happen to have them around). The question is, what would a portrait of Muhammed illustrate? I completely understand those people who think "It would illustrate what Muhammad looked like" or "It would illustrate what people thought Muhammad loked like." But does an article really need these kinds of illustrations? Some may take it for granted - it is obvious! I however do not. What people consider appropriate illstrations is not universal. Therefore what people consider appropriate illustrations is a matter of convention. I suspect that many people contributing to Wikipedia think that an article about someone should have a picture of that person, because they grew up in countries where there is a strong tradition of figurative art. Certainly, representations of Jesus and the saints have been central in the history of European art and culture, so long dominated by Christian practices. So it is a perfectly reasonable convention to people who grew up in a culture that was long dominated by Christianity to have the convention, that bigraphies should be illustrated by a portrait of the person.

But this is just a convention. There is not absolute or universal logic behind it.

Here is another way to think about the issue: followers of Muhammed have a strong tradition opposed to figurative art. Wouldn't the best - meaning the most appropriate illustration to accompany an article on Muhammed be something that illustrates this Muslim convention? Maybe the best illustration for this article would be an empty box with a caption stating that Muslims often oppose representations of Muhammed.

To do so would not be to "bow down to religious pressure." It would be to illustrate an article with an illustration that is appropriate to the article; something that actually illustrates an important point in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, is the short answer to that. An encyclopedia should describe dogma, but to be bound by it would compromise its independence. What else would people think we had missed out so as not to cause offense? Censorship compromises our credibility. TharkunColl (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. You are not responding to what I wrote. i never said Wikipedia should be bound by religious dogma. Never. I defy you to show me where I wrote that. I didn't write it because I do not believe it. What I did say is that what we think of as an illustration should not be dictated by a single (supposedly universal?) convention. Illustrations that accompany an article should actually "illustrate" the article, i.e. convey something meaningful that is in the article. In other words, the appropriateness of an illustration is relative to the article it is meant to illustrate. And I believe, firmly, that on these grounds alone (and not religious dogma) that a picture of Muhammed would be an illustration that "misses the point" and fails effectively to illustrate the article. An effective illustration might be an image of some text, or an empty box that illustrates a very important legacy of Muhammed, which was his influence on conventions of representation. That would be a meaningful illustration that would help educate people about Muhammed. I am opposed to your "one size fits all" approach to encyclopedia articles. It is very bad pedagogy. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein makes good points. As it is now, the first two illustrations that appear from the top of the page are not problematic for Muslims (a page of calligraphy and a veiled picture of Muhammad). No one, AFAIK, has asked that those be removed. Aliibn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, in my humble opinion, the Dogma being demonstrated on this page is in the uncompromising attitude of militant Secular Humanism; and that is the one unwilling to compromise or 'play well with others'. Aliibn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic value of Image:Maome.jpg?

It is only a representation of Muhammad; i.e. it’s not a photo, or a sketch or a painting that is true to life. It does nothing to illustrate any particular point brought up within the text. Why is it there? Censorship only comes into play if there is a genuine reason to include the material. If such a reason does not exist, then there is no censorship issue. If there is not censorship issue, then consensus should hold sway. See Wikipedia:Consensus Brimba (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, censorship applies when someone tries to remove content on the grounds that they find it offensive. The image complies fully with Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. Hut 8.5 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship also exists when, as in this case, a small coterie of devotees of one particular dogmatic sect -- in this case Atheism -- refuse on a priori grounds any divergence from their pre-conceptions and become bullheaded and belligerent in defending their personal belief, regardless of costs to intellectual honesty or credibility of the overall wikipedia project. Aliibn (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For starters you are asserting that refusal to remove information from the public eye is censorship. Secondly, unless displaying pictures of religious figures became a core doctrine of Atheism recently I suspect these people just don't want to bow to pressure from a minority of vocal religious people who insist we abide by their traditions. Thirdly there are plenty of theists who have argued and continue to argue to keep the pictures. -86.141.103.218 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone provide a cogent explanation for why the article must include a portrait of Muhammad? What is the point of adding such an illustration, and why is it an important point? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, what is the encyclopedic value of the picture? Or if you’re going to point me to policy instead of giving an answer, then how does it meet the “Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic).”? Why should it not simply be copyedited off the page? Thanks for the above non-answer. Brimba (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been asking these questions for a long time and have never received a satisfactory answer. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently a page has been created to address these frequently asked questions. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You want someone to explain why we want a picture of the subject matter in the article? If there are no actual true to life portraits of him painted then the illustrations by Islamic scholars will have to do. Whether they improve the article or not is a matter of opinion but so far the majority opinion is the affirmative.-86.141.103.218 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Muslims never bother arguing that the statue of Alfred the Great is inaccurate and should be removed, and similarly on countless thousands of other articles, proves that they don't really care about such things and are using those arguments tendentiously. The truth is that they are trying to force Wikipedia to adhere to their religious taboo. TharkunColl (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. 84: Um, are you incabable of answering my question, or do you simply not want to? You write, "If there are no actual true to life portraits of him painted then the illustrations by Islamic scholars will have to do." Why? "Why do they have to do?" I do not see why they "have to do." You have not answered my question, why is it necessary toinclude an image of Muhammad? You write, "Whether they improve the article or not is a matter of opinion." Well, okay, you are of the opinion that it improves the article. Okay, but I asked you to explain to me why you think this. How does it improve the article_ Why? Please justify what you advocate. If you have no reason, your edit is irrational and can be discounted. TharkunColl continues to use a red'herring by playing some religion card. I am not Muslim and seek neither to adhere to nor enforce an Islamic taboo for religious reasons. What I want to know is, I repeat, why di you want to include a portrait of Muhammad to the article? What is your reason? Again, if you cannot provide a reason, you are being irrational. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The images illustrate the subject matter of the article. TharkunColl (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find they don't. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, they do. Same as the statue of Alfred the Great. Not taken from life, but a representation of him nonetheless. TharkunColl (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The benefits illustrations provide to literature and learning are actively researched and well documented by educational psychologists.-86.141.103.218 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"The images express the subject matter of the article." How? It is not obvious to me so you need to explain it. The subject matter of the articl is a man who was a "statesman in Medina, a rebel in Mecca," a prophet an reformer ... how does a portrait of Muhammad illustrate this subject matter? I could see a map of battles, a chart of kinship alliances, a summary of his propohesies, as all illustrating the subject matter. but simply a picture of Muhammed? What pray tell content is being illustrated? The article says that people write his name with reverence - okay, I can see images of his name in writing illustrating the subject matter of the article. But an image of his face? Why? How? Can you explain it? And really, educational psychologists have demonstrated the benefits of providing an illustration of Muhammed´s face? PLEASE provide me with the citation to that study. The article already had plenty of illustrations, no one is arguing against illustrations in general. The question is, what is an appropriate illustration i.e. one that further conveys an important point in the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is called "Muhammad" and there are pictures of Muhammad. If it was an article about a battle then the battle chart would be approriate. It's not rocket science. Your point, I believe, is tendentious in the extreme. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not being tendentious - is this how you respond to anyone who asks you to justify your position? I iimagine you spend much of your time with people who think as you do so you never have to justify your views. Guess what: you have now encountered someone new, who does not accept unquestioningly your own beliefs. Pictures are not always appropriate. It depends on the subject matter. Itsmejudith provided a rational explanation for how o illustrate this article, So far you have not. Please, lket's be rational. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I think the pictures and statues of Alfred "the Great" should be labelled to indicate when they were made. I wouldn't mind if all the silly romantic Victorian images of English kings were stripped from the encyclopedia. However, painting and statuary are within the English tradition of aesthetic representation. Muhammad is nearly always represented aesthetically by calligraphy. Therefore Muhammad's name in calligraphy is a more appropriate illustration than any portrayal on both aesthetic and informational grounds. Agree that illustration is good in principle. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that's an explanation that makes sense to me, it is well-reasoned. Sounds good to me! Why is it that the people who disagree with you, Itsmejudith, cannot offer any rational explanations for their views? What is important here is to act rationally; thank you for presnting a rational proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And an example of calligraphy is already in the article. To exclude the pictures is not logical, since we can have both. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The reasons we use the illustrations is because it aids the reader in identifying with the subject. Without an illustration, it is merely a name and not a person. A word description or calligraphy can't replace that. --Farix (Talk) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Says you. For many people in the world pictures are irrelevant to portraying a person. A person is portrayed through stories about him or her. You have your won POV approach to what makes a name a person, and it is not shared by all. This is Wikipedia and you need to work within a framework where your own beliefs are not necesarily shared by others, and you need to be able to work with others who are different from you. You do not own this space. This means you must be held accountable. I have asked for a satisfying reason why a portrait of Muhammed is necessary and have yet to receive one. So far only Itsmejudith has provided a reational answer. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that no explanation would satisfy you as you have already made up your mind. To censor an image here would make people wonder what else we have censored to avoid offending Muslims. TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked for an answer, several reasonable answers were given. The fact that you completely dismiss them out of hand indicates that you really have no interest in an answer. --Farix (Talk) 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this sort of reasoning places you. By the removal of images, you are again appeasing the viewpoint of only one particular group of people. It's nice that other cultures use verbal and written communication alone (as you claim; this is not, however, a universal Muslim belief by any means), and it is apparent that the article does quite enough in this respect as it is: the written aspect of conveying who the individual was has been satisfied to quite an extent. However, one must be mindful of the fact that the great majority of the world finds images to be an acceptable and useful tool by which one might express a person, an event, a location, and so on.

In Western culture, this is especially acceptable and it can be considered rather important (though it would be hard to find many cultures for which the depiction of human images is actually taboo, even in the most sacred representations). I understand why Slrubenstein might question the relevance of the image, but again, your logic here seems misplaced. One could follow it to find that we should remove all images of individuals because of the atrophic/taboo role of illustrative representation in a particular culture.

Once again, the image was created by a Muslim with the intention of representing Muhammad (specifically, it seems, by the request of a fellow Muslim). The usage here is relevant for several reasons. First and foremost, it is a historical representation of the subject. No illustrative representation can really be "accurate", so drawing lines here is splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned. There is also the issue itself concerning depiction- namely, that many Muslims find it taboo, while others do not see it as such. We include hagiographic images of Christian saints, and similarly, it is not rare within a Shi'ite household to find just such an hagiographic representation.

The image itself is relevant enough, as far as I am concerned, for what it is to begin with: a representation of an individual for whom many Muslims find representations to be taboo (many, again- not all). Again, this is a secular encyclopedia. I am a Christian, not an "atheist Islamophobe", so anyone bringing up that sort of nonsense is simply making themselves look silly. I do not believe in the censorship that some individuals are absurdly requesting, and I also disagree with Slrubenstein on the relevance of this image. I first found this image in a promotional story for an art exhibit which displayed the art and work of al-Biruni; as it was, and as it is, I find this image to be of great interest, and it is most obviously pertinent to the subject.

The reasons being given for the removal of images (in this particular topic), in all honesty, seem less like genuine and insightful reasons for removal, and more like red herrings being given in the interest of the appeasement of a group of individuals whose requests would otherwise seem plainly and clearly misguided and unconstructive (and additionally, prohibiting of information which others find to be of great interest and use). I'm not claiming that this is anyone's actual intention, because I certainly couldn't be certain of that; however, that is the outward appearance being given- the fervor in the matter by the typically more productive editor Slrubenstein is what puzzles me the most.--C.Logan (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

“The article is called "Muhammad" and there are pictures of Muhammad.” The point is, its not a picture of Muhammad, its only a representation, and a minority one at that. We do not know what Muhammad looked like, other than that he did not look as portrayed in the illustration. So why is it included within this encyclopedia? Brimba (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you actually read? This has been covered exhaustively. See Alfred the Great. TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

“Can you actually read? This has been covered exhaustively.” So no answer will be forthcoming. I see. I second Slrubenstein. Well stated. Brimba (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Muhammad is among countless medieval individuals for whom no contemporary likeness exists. Articles on these people contain later representations. TharkunColl (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You and Slrubenstein have continued to ignore any answer that doesnt support your position. The fact that illustrations improve readability is a basic and staple cornerstone of communication theory-86.141.103.218 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So several good reasons have been given and I just ignore them? Really? And what are these so-called reasons? So far I just see irrational dogmatism. So farf all he so-called reasons boil down to "qarticles about people must have pictures about people" but this is kind of circular reasoning that goes nowhere. And I am NLT closed minded. I will give you a good reason for including a picture of Muhammed: IF how he looked were of some importance historically or culturally that would justify including a potrait. But no one has argued this and I do not think it is the case. Anyway, get hysterical, obviously you are used to bulying yoru way and not used to having to justify yourselves. Sorry, hee you Do have to provide a rational explanation. It isn't even clear to me why you think this matters! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments apply equally to Alfred the Great and countless others. Why single Muhammad out for special treatment? TharkunColl (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a non'sequitor. But I will assume good faith that maybe you have a valid reaoson for asking. Is this your only objection to my postion? I won´t bother answering it unless I first know what difference if any my answer will make. I don´t feel like playing games. I want to know if this is a serious question and what the consequences of my answer could be. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't feel like playing games? In that case just answer the question. TharkunColl (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. I do not see how talking about Alfred the Great is necessary to improve this article, which is why I think your asking the question is playing a game. I admit I may be wrong! But I need you to explain it to me. How would discussing the Alfred the Great article help us improve this article? To be clear, what I mean is this: How would my answer to your question about Alfred the Great make any difference here? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said of figures as important to history as Jesus and Buddha. Jesus was Middle Eastern and Buddha was Indian, even though they are rarely ever portrayed as such. At least this argument is a bit more rationalized than the previous ones. -Rosywounds (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: this page is for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. Not the Jesus or the Buddha article Slrubenstein | Talk 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read, the objection to a drawing, painting, sculpture of Muhammad seems to be that there is no life image of him (please correct me if I'm wrong). The counter-argument seems to be that there are no, or few, life images of Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses or any of the other great figures of religion. But I suspect a religious motivation too, if I can read between the lines. Religious sentiment should not be a consideration. Now given Islamic tradition it would be small wonder that there wasn't a true image of the Prophet. So any full facial portraits of the prophet are going to be Western. So a case can be made for a traditional Islamic representation, just as images of Jesus are usually traditional Western images or images of Buddha are traditionally Asian images. Wasn't he traditionally portrayed in a veil or a halo? Perhaps such an image could be inserted?--Gazzster (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one strong argument against including images. However, I have a different argument. My argument is (1) that illustrations should illustrate important points made in an article, (2a) that the reflex to illustrate all biographies with images of the subject of the biography is purely a convention, one that represents a specifically Western tradition of representation, but a convention that ought not be followed blindly, (2b) that a biography be illustrated by a portrait of the subjct of the biography only when there is a compelling reason e.g. where an image of the person reveals important information about the person, or illustrates some important point about the person, and finally, in application to this article specifically, (3) that a portrait of Muhammed not only fails to illustrate any important point about Muhammed, it in fact muddles one very important point about Muhammed's legacy, which is the way he influenced a vibrant tradition of representation in the Muslim world that stands in marked contrast to the tradition of representation dominant in Christian Europe (or Hindu India ... anyway, the Caliphate's principal neighbors). Slrubenstein | Talk 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. I have often thought that, in the West, convention is a sort of idol that stops people thinking outside the box. And convention is the god of Wikipedia. I believe Wikipedia is a tool to stop people thinking, not to encourage it. Why am I still here? I just love the stimulation, I guess. And yes, I agree-why should a western convention dominate an article about a non-Western figure? Thank you, I am learning a lot from our exchanges. I think I'd agree with you now. Tell me though, the veil and halo thing? What do you think of that?--Gazzster (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad my most recent comment more effectively explains my view! thank you! As for your veil and halo comment ... I am not the right person to respond. i am no expert in the history of representations of Muhammed, or Islamic art, and would have to defer to someone who is. My comment was based entirely on (1) a general view I have about illistrations and Wikipedia articles and (2) my reading of this article in particular. Beyond that I have no special knowledge of Muhammad or Islam. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) Among other reasons, illustrations can be used to illustrate an important point. That is not the only reason and others have been stated, such as readability and the beneficial effects images have on learning. (2a) On the same lines, given the discussion the inclusion of images has spawned I dont think that is a danger. Tradition and resistance to censorship are not the only reasons given for keeping the images. (2b) I dont remember that rule. Why should an illustration in a biography be included if and only if it illustrates an important point that text cannot convey? I realise doing otherwise might not be Islamic tradition but this is not an Islamic encylopedia, and that includes articles relating to Islamic topics. (3) There are various sections in the article pointing out that Muslims in general are not wildly keen on illustrations of Muhammad and a link to an article dedicated to the topic. I disagree that the inclusion of the images makes this point less clear. -AlexCatlin (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some ideologically based POVs more equal than others?

I must say that the above is very instructive. User:Slrubenstein and User:Itsmejudith make valid points and ask for reasons. None are given but are replied with vague sophistries, evasions, and ideological triumphalism. Allow me to make a couple of points: 1) There are two illustrations on the page that are completely unproblematic for many Muslims. One is calligraphy, the other is an illustration of Muhammad with his face veiled. So, the issue isn't for Muslims all illustrations but of specific ones. 2) The illustrations in question do not follow the descriptions of Muhammad in hadith nor do they date from any time remotely near his life. They thus add nothing to anyone's knowledge base. 3) The false issue that no one has any problem with using modern fantasy illustrations of medieval figures (such as Alfred the Great raised by User:TharkunColl is completely bogus. He raised it before; I answered him that, yes, those are problematic as they also do nothing for adding knowledge. I even attempted to add a tag to that article ... so his claim is utterly baseless and deceitful and he is fully aware of that. If one wishes to fix up the Alfred the Great article, why not add illustrations of the Alfred Jewel or of his coinage (like this http://www.pewterreplicas.co.uk/second%20site%20pictures/alfred%20the%20great%20coins.jpg )? 4) TharkunColl and other users on this page claim that removing the pictures of Muhammad that are problematic means giving in to a religious POV. Perhaps.

But ... LEAVING THEM UP DOES JUST THE SAME! There IS an ideology (as promoted by people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens amongst others) that demands deliberately offending the religious (of all religions) as part of its own goals - a sort of militant Atheism, hostile to all theistic religions. And leaving up the pictures is very much Appeasement of that ideology. So, it's not a decision between 'freedom of speech' and 'censorship' but between actual knowledge and working towards a global consensus on one side and a militant ideology trying to foment anger on the other. Aliibn (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you add a tag to all the countless thousands of other medieval person's articles? The issue here is one of censorship in the name of religion and freedom of information. Pure and simple. TharkunColl (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's one of pushing an ideology, militant Atheism and Islamophobia, over Facts or good-taste. The opposition to removing these couple of pictures will brook no compromise, reardless of how reasonable, but demands that its viewpoint be the only one allowed and all dissent be squashed. (And, by the way, I won't hold my breath to see if he Alfred Jewel or Alfred's coinage gets added to you to your precious King Alfred page; while it may seem a reach, I would venture you are more motivated by Anti-Islamic ideology than by any concern for truth). Aliibn (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

whatever Muslims say or think or whatever the facts in the matter, it doesn't matter.

I am Muslim, and I've already explained that the real prohibition is against worshiping pictures, not against pictures themselves. I might be more sympathetic to fellow Muslims if they had a valid point but they don't. So I for one wouldn't remove the pictures simply because it's only reinforcing bad theology. Aside from secular issues of censorship. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, bikinibomb, the point is that many users want something and there interests are banned by people pushing a very harsh and militant Anti-Muslim agenda. Compromises are suggested, simple questions are asked, and no reasoning comes from them. Aliibn (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I said I would ban the request on religious principle alone, that the image prohibition is a corruption of the original command not to worship pictures. If I am going to respect a religious principle, it is going to at least be a valid one, not one based on fable and twisting by Muslims over the years. And also, based on man worship of Mohammed as being too "holy" when, who lifts a finger to protest pictures of other prophets equal to Mohammed? So I'm also not going to encourage things that go directly against Islam, lifting up one prophet over all the others. Go hang with the Jesus or Moses articles for a while protesting their images, then I'll see some consistency. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, when all else fails just play the "anti-Muslim" card. TharkunColl (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

When all else fails, the Right wing Pipesian bigot starts using standard talk radio speak. Funny how that comes out, no? Cheers, Munafiq! Aliibn (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea what you're talking about. What's "Pipesian" for example? And what does "Munafiq" mean? TharkunColl (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny how this one [[User:TharkunColl}} refuses to answer any points raised by anyone but resorts to juvenile arguments. Should I wait for rationality from the Cult of Reason? Or stoop to their level of baiting? Aliibn (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have answered all the points, tendentious though most of them were. Now, what do "Pipesian" and "Munafiq" mean, please? TharkunColl (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the ever wiser and most reasonable one in this discussion, as you've clearly demonstrated. Reason and logic are strong in you; they let you penetrate through the veils of simple minded illusions cast upon we lesser folk. And you are far better educated and capable of research than any of us simple-minded believers (especially those from lesser breeds) so, I'm sure you can decipher such on your own. Cheers!Aliibn (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well according to Wikipedia itself, Munafiq is a person who outwardly practices Islam but doesn't actually believe it. Muhammad says "hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them". What a nice man he was, that Muhammad! Not at all violent or vindictive or insane! By the way, I'm not a Muslim so I'm not a Munafiq, which means you're not allowed to stone me to death or whatever the punishment is. TharkunColl (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was quite possibly the most uncalled for thing I've ever seen on this site. Islam isn't the only religion with a hell. Zazaban (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Though he seems to be banned for the above comment, it would be important to point out that the term also means, more generally, "hypocrite".--C.Logan (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The matters of the images aside, that description of Muhammed was uncalled for, TharkunColl. Please try to respond in a civil fashion, even if you feel yourself that you are being attacked. I think a dose of assuming good faith on all sides of this argument would really help right now. Lankiveil (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Firstly, he called me a hypocrite. And secondly, I said that Muhammad was not at all violent or vindictive or insane. TharkunColl (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not excusing his behaviour at all. And it might be possible to interpret your words as sarcasm, especially in light of your other contributions to the debate, so it might be best to think about how your words might be potentially misinterpreted before you hit the "Save Page" button. Lankiveil (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Is this conversation actually going anywhere? Look if you find the pictures offensive don't look at them but Wikipedia is for everyone so let us have access to the pictures. No one is being forced to look at this article after all. 00:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs)

Probably not - the "these images are false" argument is a complete red herring - it has nothing to do with the issue at all, and wouldn't exist if not for the other complaint. WilyD 04:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The conversation appears to be going in circles with those against the images refusing to be willing to compromise or offer any alternative that maintains the free exchange of the image or the integrity of Wikipedia. They appear to only be interested in imposing their will, everyone else be damned. --Mhking (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Above, Bikinibomb writes "I am Muslim, and I've already explained that the real prohibition is against worshiping pictures, not against pictures themselves." But I am not a Muslim, and have made it clear that I object to including a picture of Muhammad on non-religious grounds. Since we now have one Muslim who does not object, and a non-Muslim who does object, I think we can now safely abandon the claim that excluding an image of Muhammad is a form of dogmatic religious censorship!!! Abandoning that red-herring, maybe we can have a more reasonable discussion. That said, I have one other important and constructive suggestion: let us have an end with TharkunColl's arguments involving "all the countless thousands of other medieval person's articles." His/her comments - at least along this specific line - are examples of WP:DIS and [[WP:POINT] because the purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvemenst to this article. Widening the discussion to "countless thousands of other ... articles" is an obvious disruption of this talk page. Not only is it simply inappropriate, it is obviously impractical - if we widen this discussion to include thousands of other articles we will never reach a resolution. We make improvements by focusing on the article we are trying to improve, not other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Although TharkunColl is inarticulate, the point remains - what makes this different from how we'd treat any other historical subject of equivalent importance? (although on a List of people by historical significance, Muhammad might well be #1, and by some margin). Other such articles serve as an excellent "sanity check" in this case, I would suggest. The only real difference seems to be that some large number of Muslims have a religious and/or cultural objection to such depictions. WilyD 21:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article. It is not for discussing improvements to other articles. If you want to discuss an improvement to another article, we should do it on the talk page of the other article. And I repeat: My objection to the depiction is not based on my being muslim and it is neither religious nor cultural. But I have already explained my reasoning, at length, at leaast twice, above. We could discuss my objections to including an image, and reasons for including an image, in this article. But you and others repeatedly prefer to discuss other articles. this should a serious absense of good faith and disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that much is definitely true. We aren't writing an article on Muhammad in isolation - and the context of "how do we generally write articles about historic people" is important. We're all amateurs - at the very least, I'm not an historian, or a theologian or a professional encyclopaedia or biography writer. It's an important question to ask "What should or shouldn't an encyclopaedia article on an historic person contain?" in this context, because it's the central question we should be asking - "How do we write an encyclopaedia article about Muhammad?" requires knowledge of both encyclopaedia articles and Muhammad, and the "anti-image" people seem to have lost sight of the nature of encyclopaedia artices. I'm not sure how to response to the bit of personal attack at the end there, since I'm unsure where good faith is not being assumed, nor where editing is being disruptive ... Cheers anyhow, WilyD 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this talk page very long, but please allow me to comment. Now it is true that Islam has been one of the most misunderstood and maligned religions in the West for the past 1500 years. In a forum like this we ought to show respect for the religious sentiments of others. But as for encyclopedic content we conduct ourselves by academic standards. Religious sensitivities just don't come into it. The sentiments of those who profess one particular creed shouldn't be seen to be deserving of greater respect than those of other creeds. Now TharkunColl's comment was definitely out of line, and he has been blocked for it. But he might not have been given occasion to make it if editors hadn't made religion an issue in the first place.--Gazzster (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this image has historical value and should be left in the article, if it is really the earliest to be had: Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg The earliest surviving image of Muhammad from Rashid al-Din's Jami' al-Tawarikh, approximately 1315, depicting the episode of the Black Stone. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A wise, balanced comment Wily.--Gazzster (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Above, Gazzster responds to my comment, and it is clear that Gazzster did not read my comment. With respect, I ask that Gazzster read all my comments on this page (they are not many) before commenting on my views. It offends me when my views are misrepresented; from the beginning I have made it explicit that I am not primarilly motivated by religious sentiments, and while Gazzster is free to disagree with what I say, it is wrong for him/her to claim to disagree with me while misrepresenting what I have said. In fact, in a way I am trying to do just what Gazzster says, to conduct myself by academic standards. Specifically, I am following the example of anthropologist Michael taussig, in his essay "Maleficium: State Fetishism" in his book The Nervous System (Routledge).

To reply to WilyD, perhaps we have a misunderstanding. My accusation of a lack of good faith is explicitly aimed at those who have argued that we cannot decide this question concerning this article without considering "countless thouseands" of other articles, which is patently absurd and inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. I strongly object to a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to articles. But if I may assume good faith on your part, WilyD, I think you are now raising a slightly different issue which is that how we respolve questions concerning one encyclopedia article ought to be based on principles that could apply to other encyclopedia articles. If this is what you mean to say I agree 100%. But I think there is a world of difference between sahying that we should apply principles that could apply to other encyclopedia articles, and saying that we should follow the exact same practice on all articles. Now, please do me the favor of reading my original comment in the section above. It is my first comment on this page, and my first comment on this topic. I believe that I framed my reasoning in a way that assumed or proposed a principle that could be applied to all encyclopedia articles. if this is not clear to you I would ask that you read my second comment. I sincerely hope my first and second comments make my position clear. I want to emphasize that while I oppose including an image of Muhammad here, it is based on a general principle I would apply to any Wikipedia article. I hope in this regard WilyD you and I can agree.

A final point: someone challenged my good faith and credibility by asserting that I would reject any argument for including an image of Muhammed. this was a scurilous accusation, in fact a pathetically defensive tactic since I was in fact asking people to provide rationales for including Muhammed's image, and no one could provide me with one. I can now say that C. Logan has provided what I consider a reasonable argument for including an image of Muhammed int he article and I thank him for it. I happen still to disagree, but people in good faith can disagree. At least he took the time to provide a reason. This shows more respect for Wikipedia and this article than some of the other people who have been commenting on this page. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, I think I referred to TharkenColl's posts as "inarticulate" - and it's no secret I've called him worse things in the past ... but I don't think my point was different, just better articulated. I've read your first post above, and seen that general argument articulated several times, but it just doesn't hold any water, for a couple of reasions:

• Muhammad is enormously important outside of Islam. If not one Muslim walked the Earth, Muhammad might well be the tenth or so most important historical personality, rather than occupying his current position (which I, as a heathen person without formal religious affliation (although suspected theist), would reckon as first), but this remains true. Muhammad is not soley important is a "Muslim" context, he's also enormously important in an Asian, European and African context, and all their derivitives. We should be striving to represent all of these, not just the one that (and even this is arguable) is apparently considered firstmost. We do do this by including other "representative imagery" like the calligraphy.
• Muslim & Islamic cultures are far from monolithic, and to represent "no imagery" as a uniform Muslim tradition is wrong. All the images that appear in this article are from Muslim cultures (although I've argued this unduely weighs the presentation towards a Muslim POV, it's not the end of the world) - indeed, I would expect that the Farsi Wikipedia would have mostly Muslim contributors, and they elect to display a (veiled) painting of Muhammad there.
• Apart from "representing" Muhammad here, we're also writing to an audience which is first and foremost native English language speakers, and secondarily second (or further) English language speakers. To some extent we do need to "write for these two populations". This is a much smaller consideration, but remains real. How much weight we give to each of the two is debatable (english's Lingua franca status, and the higher level of completeness here than on other projects are major factors.

I'm not sure what else, but there certainly are other considerations, no doubt. The discussion is heading in unhelpful directions however (and the article remains in otherwise poor condition too, which should be of more concern) and I'd like to see it turned around, but I'm not even sure that's possible at this time. WilyD 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration of what I've written. We can obviously disagree, but hopefully in a manner befitting that of encyclopedia editors (as we could be called, anyway). It seemed apparent that the discussion was getting too fast and too simple, and many individuals were beginning to lose their composure, especially when non-AGF accusations started flying about.

Though I agree with the users who are in favor of maintaining the images, I felt as if no one was really stating their thoughts as to why (possibly supposing that the preceding discussions did that job well enough, which is true to an extent- although this discussion is ostensibly concerning a separate topic, it is easy enough to see why some would assume that the main issue is a motivating factor here as well). I hope that my own comment provided at least some of (what I see as) the obvious reasoning behind keeping pictures such as these.--C.Logan (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the earliest known image of Mohammed would have historical value? -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do think you raise an important point. However, I still don't support adding images here. What I would propose (though some Muslims may really object) would be an article specifically on figurative representations of Muhammed, and theological or legal debates over images of Muhammed. In the context of such an article the image to which you refer would be very importand indeed - part of the article would be art-historical, perhaps exploring how different images of Muhammed reflect changes in Islamic culture or views of Muhammed. I think this would be a very interesting article and yes, the earliest known image of Muhammed would indeed have great hiswtorical value. My point is, it would have value for an article on the history of images in Islam, not on the life and teachings of Muhammed, if this makes sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To Slrubenstein - I truly apologise that my comments appear to offend you. But they were not aimed at you, but to the discussion in general.--Gazzster (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I came about another encyclopedia-type website that even made two separate articles out of "Artistic depictions of Muhammad" alone, one which discussed the topic throughout history (sans images), and one with examples and specific details. I'm not saying that this is a way to go, but it's at least a working example of such an idea (not quite, however- the link to the non-image article simply redirects to the image-laden article, to the consternation of many, I'm sure). You are correct that the images would be more relevant there, but that certainly doesn't mean that their relevance here is in doubt; at least, not in my opinion. I would certainly support the inclusion of the images on such an article, for obvious reasons.--C.Logan (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay - thank you! Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, there's Depictions of Muhammad.--Goon Noot (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I did not know about this. It is interesting, but underdeveloped - Bikinbomb, perhaps you would be well-suited to begin an improvement drive? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In the mediation from a while back myself and some others basically argued that although a depiction may have been warranted, 4-5 was overkill, especially when having them positioned prominently in the article. I still think that. I think the aim of showing how tradition (although most, if not all it surrounds the Shi'ite Safawid era) has depicted Muhammad can be achieved through one or two such images, in a section such as Muhammad#Depictions_of_Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I say just keep the one claimed to be the oldest and ditch the rest, that at least shows compromise while still retaining historical value of an image which pertains directly to Mohammed and is appropriate for the article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

neutral point of view

i read FAQ and so Wikimapia use false images.. Images are put to prove/clearify topics/articles not just DECORATIONS

so the images are not proved (cant be prove) to be Mohammed (pbuh) and there are alot of pictures that can be used instead instead(his grave picture,his cloth..ect)

Knowing its offensive is something to consider and that doesnt make you unprofessional if you remove the pics and put others pics proven/used

and if you really wants to mentain the neutral point of view then you should use the right pitures respecting all people .

i really hope you can be more open minded about it and use real pictures of current items(left) instead of some unknown drawings of unknown people..

Glassflowers (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are apparently no true to life pictures of Muhammad then depictions by Islamic scholars are the next best thing and will have to do. The images do improve and clarify the article, and offend a small enough minority of people that leaving the pictures in the article is worth it. -Wherethere (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as it can benefit neutral point of view to mention outside opinions of Muhammad, it can benefit NPOV to present outside depicitions of Muhammad (where such are noteworthy). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi... May I edit this article? There are some things left out. and can u contact me on my page so that I know when you do? Thx.--CherryBlossom93 (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected - if you account is more than four days old, you should be able to edit. WilyD 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How To Get Wikipedia to remove the Pictures of Mohammed

The only way, to do this is a) write or contact heads of muslim countries requesting they block wikipedia as it contains offensive articles on the prophet Muhammed. This can easily be organised just through the muslims who have requested pictures removed from this article, after all they come from many countries b)Initiate a media campaign , saying Wikipedia deliberately insults Islam

I know many internet providers currently block offensive Wikipedia articles in various countries

Alternatively you can do your best to knock wikipedias article of Muhammed(pbuh) of the top spot in google searches by promoting the muslimwiki articles on Muhammed (pbuh)

Asking a US centric bunch of contributers to do you a favour is not going to happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.223.147 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Offensive" Wikipedia articles? How is this "offensive"? If anything, is not your attempts to censor the free exchange of ideas, images and other information as offensive, if not more so? --Mhking (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

US-centric? Now that is offensive. Lankiveil (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Removing the depiction of Mohammad

I hope the editors of wikipedia will delete that image because it does not illustrate anything in the article of Mohammad pbuh. If you really need to put an illustration , there are hundreds of useful illustrations that suit this article without offending Muslims all round the earth.

If you want to reply to me and claim that you have your own rules or regulations , then please have a look at this rule : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR

If you like us to provide the article with more info about our prophet mohammad, please let us know, and we will be happy to provide you with great more details about him. There are tens of certified resources about our lovely prophet Mohammad, regards, Ala' Alsallal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.241.173 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the presence of the Muhammad image. In my opinion, it should remain as a descriptive element of the article, despite your choosing to conveniently invoke WP:IAR, when the consensus dictates otherwise. --Mhking (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which is linked to at the top of the page. IAR does not mean we can ignore rules and regulations just because we feel like it. Hut 8.5 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Images can serve a historical importance and certain ones (e.g. the earliest recorded depiction) would be valuable to an article. However, as it stands, including 3-4+ images seems as though it is being done with the intent to spite Muslims, not because it necessarily contributes to the article, particularly since visuals of Muhammad have rarely been used to depict him in the first place. Including images that contribute nothing simply because that would be Wikipedian procedure comes across as somewhat of an intellectual imperialism; there have been similar discussions about this on articles like Humanities, which fail to provide a worldwide view for that very reason. The Humanities article does not give a worldwide view because philosophies that pertain to Humanism and the divisions between the spiritual and the earthly are, in essence, a European phenomenon. Although India, the Middle East, and China all had complex civilizations which were, for most of history, equally, if not more technologically advanced than the West (pretty much until the end of the 16th century), the East never made a similar, lasting distinction between the Earth and the Heavens. For that reason, putting Sufi philosophy in an article on Humanities, for example, would be defining a non-Western phenomonenon in terms that are alien, if that makes sense. And as it has already been discussed there, it amounts to intellectual imperialism (meaning that Non-Western ways to classify things are intrinsically inferior, therefore they should be discarded and all articles, even if they are on non-Western thought, must conform to Western classifications and standards).

Similarly, an article on Muhammad should not necessarily be defined solely on Western terms; Muhammad is, after all, not a Westerner and those that documented most of his life rarely, if ever, depicted him. So with that said, I think one or two images could serve a purpose; I think placing images of him in this page for no reason other than to put them there is going to naturally come off as though these pictures are being added maliciously to spite Muslim sensitivities "because we can," whether or not it is true. Moreover, it appears as though there are more images of Muhammad than there are traditional Muslim forms of depiction, which then poses the question of undue weight and POV editing. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is this article defined on Western terms? It is a large article, and, as such, has a decent amount of images to help the flow of the article. Removing the images is itself conforming to a non-world view. Jmlk17 05:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my statement. I did not say all of the images should be removed; however, it is quite bizarre that an article on Muhammad would have more Western-oriented depictions than Middle Eastern ones. Arabesques, geometric art, and calligraphy have been the dominant art forms used within the Muslim world, particularly when it comes to depictions of Muhammad. While I don't necessarily think all of the images should go, it does seem like intellectual imperialism to make this article primarily Western oriented even though it is based on a non-Western man. The Humanities article, for example, also does not conform to a world view, since the Humanities are essentially a Western subject. Other cultures have had philosophy, science, and art, but they have never defined or classified them in the Western style. For that reason, they are not included in depth in that article. Similarly, Muhammad is traditionally not necessarily depicted in the way that Jesus is depicted in Europe or Buddha is depicted in East Asia; it seems odd to give undue weight to Western-oriented images that represent an overwhelming minority of the depictions available. Moreover, the article on Jesus does not include a single non-European depiction of Jesus (and the Jesus article is almost FA!). I didn't say all of the images should be removed; I simply think that it is odd for there to be almost as many, if not more, actual depictions than there are calligraphic images.

The long article needs images to "add flow" is a very weak argument, IMO. In the first six sections alone, for example, there are three images of Muhammad, and only one piece of calligraphic art. I could probably find at least 10-20 times as much calligraphy than I can actual depictions (since that is how he is depicted within every single mosque), so that certainly is undue weight for the Western perspective, and that is why I feel as though it looks like intellectual imperialism. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which of the Muhammad images were made in the West? The mere depiction of Muhammad isn't universally rejected by Muslims, just like the rejection of music isn't either. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Music is only rejected by Wahhabis and Salafis. However, 85% of the current Muslim world is Sunni and, prior to the Safavid Empire, it was close to 100% of the Muslim world. Every major school of Sunni Islam is opposed to iconography. Yet, calligraphic images are underrepresented. Catering to a minority view by loading the page with nontraditional images is a POV edit, IMO. None of the images were made in the West, but they are nontraditional images that conform more so with Western religious art than traditional Muslim art. As I said, the fact that three out of the first four images of Muhammad are all nontraditional suggests that this article is biased against traditional Muslim depictions. Similar articles (e.g. Jesus) do not provide any nontraditional depictions whatsoever. Certainly one image, maybe two, could serve a purpose here. Adding them for the sake of adding them seems reckless; adding them for the sake of "avoiding censorship" is simply nonsense. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see two images showing his face, both of which were produced in a Muslim world/area before it became common practice to shield his face. I could agree if it was say a 20th or 29th century depiction, but one from the 16th century, and another from 1315 (which in itself is a notable thing) certainly are historical. Jmlk17 06:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• My objection would be that they are placed so high on the page. They should rather be around some of the lower sections that are actually relevant to depictions and the view on Muhammad. Three images might also be a little over the top. Funkynusayri (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What does their current positioning have to do with it? Jmlk17 07:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, if placed next to the "depictions" section, they would actually be relevant. Also, location expresses significance. Funkynusayri (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that also. Most of the traditional art is at the very bottom of the page near references, whereas nontraditional art is bunched up at the top (three of the first four depictions of Muhammad are noncalligraphic). I agree that location does have an effect, especially if an image is completely disjointed from the content (e.g. an image of Muhammad preaching is right next to etymology for his name). -Rosywounds (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I support at least moving them around to sections where they are relevant, and maybe eliminating one of them completely, like the one on the right, which doesn't even have a caption in the article, and is of every bad quality. Funkynusayri (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is quite normal to have these images placed highly and prominently in a biographical article. See James Garfield or John the Baptist for instance. --Strothra (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but on those pages, the images are relevant to the text next to them (picture as a youth next to the "early life" section, etc). The ones in this article aren't, they just seem to have been randomly thrown in there. They could of course be moved further down to fitting texts. I'll do it if no one minds. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

plz remove that picture from mohammed page or it add to the artist page.Emmanzur (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How about having a number of 'images' of Muhammed? A calligraphic image, which we already have. A traditional Islamic image, Persian, Ottoman, whatever, and a Western image? I think that could be quite enlightening to make a comparison.--Gazzster (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, such would be more fitting in the article depictions of Muhammad. I still think the pictures in this article that show specific events should be moved to fitting sections instead of just being at the top for the sake of it. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There should be a depiction displayed at the top of the article in place of the calligraphy as is standard in biographical articles. All depictions of the individual are relevant to a biography. The depictions of muhammad article serves moreso to explain the history of how such depictions are controversial yet have evolved over time. --Veritas (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet there is another image under the etymology section, which is irrelevant to the text next to it, and which furthermore screws up the layout. Such images should be moved down to the sections they actually illustrate, like on all other pages, see Jesus as example. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the image of Muhammad preaching in Mecca down to the "Mecca" section since it correlates better than up in the etymology section as suggested above. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the validation of the pictures.?!! if you cant validate then remove it..!!! as easy as that.

well, we all know that encylopedias must only include validated data, information, images, diagrams, etc.. but here on this "Encylopedia" they dont do that.. then how can we trust their articles and the data they provide on this website ?..

what wikipedia did is that they (those who run it) added a picture claiming that is belongs to the prophet Muhammad peace upon him, but where is there proof?! have they really seen him and validated it? what also puzzles me that they have two pictures claiming that they are of the prophet, but the funny thing is that they dont even match... so how can the same person have two different looks?!

what i want is that, they either validate the truthfullness of their information and validate it, so that its accurate. or simply dont add images, dates, diagrams that they cant be sure if its right or not...

if they fail to do that, and they still keep those images which i find is weird then how can we trust the other articles they have.. to support my point, i am studying in one of the most prestigious universities in the world, and when i prepare my reports the inctructors (non muslims), dont allow us to use wikipedia as a trusted source.

now, adding to that all the approved laws in the united states and the laws passed to organize the internet, prevent the release of contents that might be abusive to others, and this policey is maintained in all respected websites. so, all we are asking is to bind to the law, authenticate your data and remove any abusive content.

a person might argue that these pictures are not abusive. Well, as a reply to that, a person that is not a muslim might fail to see the harm of these pictures, but we cant rely his point of view because he simply doesnt know Islam and doesnt know what is abusive adn what is not to muslims, and their prophet. what must be done to know if these pictures are abusive to muslims or not, is to simply ask a muslim. To help wikipedia ask muslims, a petition was formed signed by 40 thousand muslims and adding agreeing that they find this picture is abusive to all muslims.

so, as these pictures remain on this website i come to two conclusions. 1) that Wikipedia cant be trusted as a real source of valid information or as an encylopedia because they have unvalid and wrong information in their articles. so as a user how can i know which article has good information and which dont.. simply i cant. 2) Wikipedia, doesnt bind to the law of united states, united nations and the laws passed to regulate the usage of the internet, as they are publishing on their website a content that is agreed by thousands of muslims as abusive to their religion and believes. in other words.

I hope this will change soon. and our points be taken into considerations.

just a last remark, someone might argue that this is a freedom of speech. But we all agree that a freedom of speech must not cause harm to a group of people.

THE IRONY, IS THAT AT THE BUTTON OF THIS PAGE, WIKIPEDIA OFFICIALS WRORTE "ENCYLOPEDIC CONTENT MUST BE VERIFIABLE". how did they verify that those images are really of the prophet Muhamad, keeping in mind that they are putting two different images of the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.53.178 (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are verifiable, the artists who drew them did actually draw them. They are art, depictions of the subject matter. They dont have to look like the people depicted. Furthermore, no law of the united states or UN say you cant publish images which make certain Muslims angry, and any internet laws are valid on a country by country basis. This freedom of speech usage does not harm anyone either, if people protest about it and get killed as happened with the Denmark cartoons, that is their fault. In conclusion, you accuracy argument is invalid, your legal argument is false and your 'must do no harm' argument is both.--172.215.138.37 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are of Muhammad, they are easily verified and have been for hundreds of years. My question is, why would the images be removed? We are not censored, do not remove things that offend people, and never will. Wikipedia is about education and educating people, and by conforming to a minority, that would be detrimental to our very basis. Jmlk17 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no one has made the claim that they are the exact likeness of muhammad. However, they are depictions of muhammad important to the historical record. --Veritas (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Jmlk

i will give more explanations to my points... soon. 17 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

35,165++ users want the images to be removed ...

Sir , request you to remove this picutre as this hurts the sentiments of Muslims. We have great respect for Wikipedia, but this should not be abused in the name of freedom.

regards

Hussaine

Ok, please try voting here, it's only voting to say yes remove these pictures from Wikipeda, this vote for muslims only who want to remove these pictures, just if clicked here, this mean you are agree to remove the pictures. and this will increment a counter. for more transparency, please every muslim to vote once time.

Vote please here: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.135.9.86 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone could just reload that page all day and increase the count, so that vote doesn't really indicate anything valid. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So that, asking every muslim to vote once time. or suggest to embed a real voting here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.135.9.86 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

so, if consensus and democracy mean anything, it should be ... http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia

or are only opinions of westerners allowed to matter here? Aliibn (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC) — Aliibn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy, and consensus does not work that way. To understand why such petitions make is essentially impossible to ever consider removing the images now, see WP:CANVASS. Cheers, WilyD 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of bullying in its most blatant form. Wikipedia editors are not at all likely to be impressed by such tactics. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As others have already said, the petition is meaningless. For starters, it's easy for a handful of people to forge hundreds, if not thousands, of signatures. A simple can fill in the petition form for you with only a few random variables to make them appear different. This is especially relevant when you see that many of the so call "signatures" are exactly the same with only minor changes. This is why all online petitions are never taken seriously no mater who does the petition or why the petition was created.

Second, consensus must be formed on Wikipedia. It can't be created off-Wiki in a clearly bias venue and then brought here as if what goes on elsewhere applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has policies against sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Accounts with no edit history other then in a specific issue are often ignored for this particular reason.

Third, the petition is irrelevant as a poll as there are no other options to choose from. Either you agree and sign the petition or you don't and move one without the ability to voice your disagreement. Also, polls are only used to enhance a discussion about an issue; it is not a substitute for discussion. (see WP:POLLS

Fourth, the people who want the images removed do not understand Wikipedia's policies against censorship along with the content disclaimers. These actually forbid the removal of content because someone may/is offended by it. Just because there is a cultural taboo from one group doesn't mean that Wikipedia must oblige their taboo. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Farix. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written from an outside perspective; it is not written for any specific audience, nor is it written from the perspective of a Muslim. As mentioned above, we do not vote or petition at Wikipedia; there are no referendums at Wikipedia. Things placed on Wikipedia are (ideally) factual, unbiased, uncensored, and informative, even if they are potentially offensive or hypersensitive. It is unfortunate that pictures of Muhammad have offended many Muslims, but this topic has already been discussed thoroughly and these threads are becoming redundant. It should be noted, however, that Shiites often times do, in fact, depict Muhammad and (more commonly) Imam Hussein. The view that Muhammad should be free of any depiction, thus, is a sectarian issue; it is not even a universal position throughout Islam. Even if it were, the fact of the matter still remains: Wikipedia does not censor and Wikipedia is not a democracy. I do not know whether or not it is a violation of censorship policy, but perhaps we could include a warning of these images at the top of the page on Muhammad? This is becoming nauseating. Regardless, the notion that we are going to adhere to Islamic taboos, as already mentioned, is out of the question. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't include a disclaimer at the top of the article - Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The article is already covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which says Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to and Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. --Hut 8.5 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means consensus of editors on wiki. Anyway, millions of people might want the image kept, to some extent for all we know, they just haven't made a petition because it is being kept, and because they have great numbers but don't care enough. We went to war against some countries precisely to encourage democracy rather than a smaller but extremely irate group imposing their will and beliefs on others. Merkinsmum 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear, it is not a matter of democracy, it is a matter of respect, and love. as muslims we love him more than we love ourselves, and so we cannot accept any behaviour that is against his teachings. would it be democracy to put your naked mother image on wiki ? will you be happy ? this behaviour for muslims means the same of that behaviour to anybody who respects and loves his mother. Neutrality of Wikipedia requires to be neutral, if we feel that it is against our religion we talk, otherwise nobody have the right to talk. Please show some respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talk • contribs) 09:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

what is with that all the power and control of the english wikipedia editors...just make a very simple vote and all of us will know what shuold be done 41.235.129.205 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC) .

. What I fail to understand is why the writers of this article are making a fuss out of it all.Why cant you just refer the names of the books that contains the images and get it off your back.And write over there why the images were removed.Whoever is so adamant to see Muhammad's pictures would do it on his own damn self. Stop making more mess, as if we all are already not in a mess of dictating other peoples life and countries and now in this instance their religion.71.238.39.86 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

more image talk

About the images attched here in this geat article, first, I need a proof that Al-Bīrūnī is the owner of the picture attached, I can't blieve that he draw it anyway.

I ask to remove these pictures anyway; because democracy dosn't mean anything here. we are Muslims all rejecting these pictures, we don't need it,

would it be democracy to put your naked mother image on wiki ? will you be happy ? this behaviour for muslims means the same of that behaviour to anybody who respects and loves his mother'.

To prove the democracy here, I agree with making a vote to remove these picture, in the condition that Muslims only who asked to vote...'''' ==

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Hut 8.5 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and neither a place for showing religious beliefs. It is a biographical article about a person, from an encyclopedic point of view. Mohamed 10:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm NOT a Muslim, i do not wish to share personal info so that should satisfy you for now.
2. I respect all religions inlcuding Islam.
3. I'm a proud editor of Wikipedia and i LOVE wikipedia!
4. This is not a matter to be disputed in the first place! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... It contains, or should contain to be more techincal, ALL info on the subject whether you look at it from evolution's point of view or a religious one or even from a Denmark newspaper's point of view... If there's info out there, it should be added!! Discussing if the info is correct or not, that's not the point of discussion here and now!! But to remove any info what so ever, whether its in the form of pictures or in any other form, you offend Wikipedia that way!! so sorry, i am completely AGAINST removing the pics! KEEP Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)