Omansour

March 2010

This is the only warning that you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Muhammad, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jarkeld (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning that you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Jerusalem. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not continue to delete well-sourced material and make changes to the existing version contrary to the consensus established through discussions recorded on the article's talk page, including its archives. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you would trouble yourself to read the Qur'an you might be surprised to notice that it does not specifically forbid depictions of Muhammad. It does forbid idol worship, but I doubt many people are worshiping these images. The Qur'an does state quite unambiguously that what is not forbidden by the Qur'an is permitted. And so, it is obvious to all that images of Muhammad are indeed permitted - though worship of these images is not. And so we ask you to leave these images in place so that we might better understand how mankind has viewed Muhammad over the centuries, and kindly suggest that you refrain from worshiping them, if that is your concern. Rklawton (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear RKlawton, I understand your good faith of maintaining the view of how different people are viewing Mohammad. The matter of removing these pictures from Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean that Quran has forbid or allowed that, its established since the time of his companions and Muslims have avoided making any portraits for him or even the companions themselves. So in order to keep the pace of Wikipedia development and maintain its reliability I think it should be made clear the Muslims do not portray Mohammad in any sense. This is an important contribution to the article I believe. I think the article on Mohammad should not reflect any kind of 'offensive' forms of behavior and expression by depicting pictures that are not acceptable by Muslims. I think it should reflect the true understandings about how people really view him and not depicting him in pictures is part of these understandings. Further, depicting these pictures has nothing to do with the core message about Mohammad in the article except some visual representation of him teaching his followers. For the sake of showing respect to the feelings of millions of people and to maintain reliable, accurate scientific writing everyone shall refrain from doing and forms that may offend other people. --Omansour (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In the history if Islam, this is a recent development. For many centuries, Muslims have been making images of Muhammad to illustrate books and stories that help communicate his message. Indeed, most of the images included in the article were made by Muslims. The fact that the Qur'an does not forbid images of Muhammad should show you how these ignorant people have completely reversed Muhammad's message. If anything, we should add to the article how crazy people have hijacked Islam and turned a religion of peace into a religion that is mocked world-wide and abhorred for its violence. I think it much more likely that millions more Muslims would find removing these images far more offensive as a perversion of their religion. There was a time when Islam promoted scholarship, science, medicine, poetry, and intelligent debate. As Muslims are well aware, this golden age has passed, and they should ask themselves "who did this terrible thing?" They will find part of their answer in requests such as yours. Rklawton (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any references for "Muslims have been making images of Muhammad to illustrate books and stories that help communicate his message". Islam is Islam and when you need to learn about it study Islam itself do not study Muslims who may or may not reflect false understandings and extremism. To remain in the context of Wikipedia, Images depicting the prophet is an offensive behavior and scientific writing shall not attempt to offend anyone as this is part of the ethical conduct. Wikipedia editors should rethink these images of the prophet. I have still not removed them again to maintain a democratic atmosphere so we discuss it until we reach consensus as well as I need to find reliable references to support this act. I really hope that you can realize that these images will cause harm for millions of people and this would be much more important and ethical than depicting images of the prophet for whatever purposes. Islam didn't stop to promote scholarship and learning, the very first word in Al Quran was an order to the prophet *READ* which forms a basis for all Muslims. --Omansour (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The very first word in the Qur'an is not "read." Look, if you haven't read the Qur'an, you really shouldn't be trying to edit an article about Muhammad. References? Sure - the books some of these images were used to illustrate - written and published by Muslims. If we removed these images, people would not know this. Since we don't promote ignorance on Wikipedia, the images will remain. The images can't harm anyone. They're just images. Publishing these images may be offensive - but only to people who have not read the Qur'an - and even then, only to the few of these who believe the religious extremists. Those who have read the Qur'an already know that such images are not forbidden. If the number of people potentially offended is in the millions, then this number represents an illiterate and sadly misinformed minority. First, educate yourself. Then, go out and educate your brothers and sisters. But don't try to corrupt the work of scholars with your religious extremism. Rklawton (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the Quran very well and by claiming this I started to wonder if I should continue this discussion. The very first word of al Quran is "Iqra" meaning "Read". The images are not forbidden by Al Quran and that doesn't mean these images are ok to be published and harm millions of people. I will make sure the images are removed. You're talking to a Ph.D. person and you seem to lack knowledge about Al Quran or even misinterpret it purposefully and for that I ask you to reason about what you're saying and stop being offensive. I will not continue talking with offensive person like you and even more than that illiterate and doesn't respect others for the sake of satisfying flawed unrealistic desires in the name of truth. Go understand how to speak and discuss with others, also take a look on how scientific writing should be conducted ethically without causing harm to anyone.--Omansour (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Go back, open it, and look again. Let me know what you see. Various translations show the first line as follows:

• "All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds."
• "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful."

That which is not forbidden is permitted. The Qur'an is written plainly so that all may understand. These images are not forbidden, so they are permitted. About this there is no doubt, and so we publish them here. No one has been harmed, and more people are educated. Rklawton (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Do not argue based on false understandings. You have not complied with the rules for a democratic discussions and used offensive words. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia made by people, I guess with some efforts these images will be deleted sooner or later. Now let people learn! from the pictures.

About what am I mistaken? And what offensive words have I used? Surely you don't object to my quoting translations of the Qur'an? The Qur'an itself says that it is written clearly. There is no opportunity to misunderstand. The Qur'an does not forbid images, and that is that. Also, the first word in the Qur'an is not "read" it is "bismillah." If you read the Qur'an, you would know that all but one chapter begins this way. If you had a Qur'an by your side, you would know this. If I am wrong, then show me, but do not argue pointlessly. Rklawton (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You have previously accused me of religious extremism and I guess you are capable to realize that this is an offensive behavior!. You seem to have a good background of Al Quran but you miss somethings here. You are wrong when you say that "bismillah" is the first word of Al Quran. I dont want to argue that bismiallah refers to praising God before starting to read al Quran and is not part of al Quran. Al Quran is the words of Allah which was delivered to prophet Mohammad by Gebreil. The very first night when Gebreil met the prophet in the "Hira" cave where has was regularly contemplating, Gebreil said "Iqra'", meaning "Read", and he repeated this three times and proceeded with Surat "Al Alaq" versus 1. This was the first thing in Al Quran and I hope this would make you change your misconceptions as well as check other references and share it with me if there are different views about this. Although, however, this wasn't the core of our discussion but its good that you enrich yourself and look for reliable information. Pictures are now allowed to be published in Wikipedia and I will delete them as harming millions of people violate scientific writing and further there is no informational value in depicting harmful images. These can be replaced by text describing the way he was teaching others etc.

You can't delete the images as you've been blocked from editing. Only extremists want the photos removed. Just just aren't aware of how far removed you are from normal thinking. If you want to ignore praises to Allah, then you may do so (I wouldn't), but even so, the first word couldn't translate as "read" because Muhammad was illiterate. A better translation would be "recite" or perhaps "proclaim." Rklawton (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll see Mr. Klawton. Even now when you have no argument you're still strong minded with no appropriate reasons. I came to understand that you just need to have these pictures just to have them even you consciously know that they harm people under the slogan of "freedom" and accusing other with extremism. I think you're one of those who spread and foster such differences among people with these ideas. I know I am blocked and I send a message to the admin who did that. I wait for answer, if this conflict has not be resolved then I will use the same means by which Wikipedia is created to remove all offensive forms in the article. I will also organize a community of well-educated people to argue against those who wants to spread false pictures and harm the feelings of millions. Now I will end up my discussion with you. Wish you a life free of false understandings.

All efforts at removing these images have been tried and have failed. I recommend you make more productive use of your time. Rklawton (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

After reading the arguments above, I remain unconvinced that Omansour is knowledgable on the matter of images produced by Muslims throughout history. Having a PhD in one area of expertise does not qualify one as an expert in others; in fact, many PhDs seem ignorant about subjects outside their specialization.

Omansour: Your arguments are already addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which you evidently failed to read.

There is no conflict to resolve, except in your own mind. You have a choice about what offends you. The images harm no one, and they improve the historical encyclopedic quality of the article. The Qu'ran does not prohibit them. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not bound by the rules of Islam, least of all rules invented by some who choose to take offense. Furthermore, the article has Muslim editors who agree that the images should be included. Even the Persian Muhammad article, which I presume is maintained mostly by Muslims, contains these same images.

The aforementioned FAQ contains instructions on how to configure your browser to avoid seeing these images; I suggest you follow them. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)