Talk:Muhammad

Question about Muhammad

Is it true that Muhammad was Christian before he discover Islam? I heard from an Old Book, it was a book that was passed down in my family for the past 1,000 years and it says that Muhammad was Christian, and one day after a fight with the priest that Muhammad when out an found his own religion. I research this and found that his first wife was Christian, and back in the day that was very rare that a christian would marry someone who did not have a religion. And I found that Muhammad did not remarry until his wife died, very weird. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.3.210.48 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

One click to the Pic

Hi, I'm the guy who posted sometime back about the veiled pic. The discussion changed to one of silhouetting the image, which I think misses the point. In my understanding, after reading this debate, most of the issue is about whether or not the image(s) should be here at all. If the images are not included on the main page, or filled with solid black fields, then a casual observer could click on the image and see the picture. This puts the image one click away. I don't understand why this wouldn't be done. Silhouettes change the representation of the image, which rings of censorship (whether people agree or not.) To have "No Image" but make them immediately accessible seems to me to solve everyone's problem. (Except for the people who don't believe any rep. of M. is okay, but they will never be happy with anything on this page as far as I can tell.) This at least limits the "accidental exposure" to the image. I'll listen off-air :-) Menkatopia 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is very unencyclopedic to modify images in that way. This is not a bowdlerized encyclopedia. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it can work, given that we do not have that image on top. There is no policy regarding bowdlerized and wikipedia is censored (see my arguments on mediation Some Censored pages. --- ALM 18:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ALM, but you are wrong. bowdlerizing is a form of censorship, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. You cannot say a policy does not exist by finding examples of where you don't think it is being applied. If you think the policy is being broken, address that, but don't say the policy does not exist. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Specifically from WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements" ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To do this would be to treat Muhammad's article differently to that of any other major historical figure. If our readers feel that the article has been censored for religious reasons, they will cease to trust whatever else it says. TharkunColl 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.' - is why there's no child porn, as far as I can tell, none of your other claims actually have examples of censorship. For what it's worth, blasphamey is certainly not censored. WilyD 19:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this violates your sense of "encyclopediadness." the point is not to remove the image from WP, but to show we are sensitive to the surprise some may feel at being shown this, and giving others a way to see the images if they choose. Maybe you could explain why this solution is unfair? Menkatopia 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Surprise? You go to an encyclopedia, look up a person, and see a picture of that person and you are surprised? What would you expect to see? We try to have a picture for every subject we can. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just read Wily's comment. I can see how this would be taken as censorship, but I think making the pics easily accesible would answer that complaint. Menkatopia 19:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Those comments aren't Wily's, only the last two sentences are. The first part is part a quote from our core policy What Wikipedia is not. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not surprised, nor am I the issue. But, as this is a sensitive issue for some, and cause us a lot of trouble rv'ing abuse, this seemed like a solution that would be viable to unlock the page. We were encouraged to think outside the box (see above) and that is what I attempted to do. If you are asking me, personally, I would love nothing more than to have this image front and center in the article, but as it is vandalized repeatedly, making it a click away might slow action in that arena. Maybe, High in BC, you can try to ignore what you think is my motive and look at the result. Thank you. Menkatopia 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many, many articles that suffer from constant vandalism. To use this as a reason for removing content, is to let the vandals win. TharkunColl 19:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I really am, to keep jumping in, but I wanted to point out the misuse of the term Bowdlerize. I am not suggesting we remove the image from anyone willing to click on a box, just from the top level of the page. And they are not terrorists, I am suggesting taking away the bait. Menkatopia 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This idea has been brought up and rejected over and over. This article get no more vandalism than regular articles of this importance. The page is protected because long standing editors are edit warring. I don't attribute any motive to you. I also did not mean for my response to mean just you. I don't see why anyone would be surprised when they looked up Muhammad in a non-Muslim encyclopedia and saw Muhammad. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean "bait"? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparable suggestions come up in every article that's vandalised every day (I myself watch a few.) They never fly. Because it's pretty much a comprimising of the article, which just works against everything we're trying to do. I watch a few articles that are vandalised every day - it's part of the job. WilyD 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant, by bait, that by making the image, in essense, a click away, then there would be one less thing to vandalize on this page. I know this page doesn't get substantially more or less vandalism than other controversial topics, but this might be a way to deflate their effort. As was mentioned with Harry Truman's S, it is such a constant target, taking it off the main page, yet making EXPLICIT the link and it's connection to the content would, in my estimation, limit this particular subject of vandalism. I do not agree that doing this "let's the terrorists win" or some other Cheney-ism. It isn't that simple. But making it clear that we want this image available, do not want to offend either side's sensibilities on the matter, I think we satisfy both camps. Now, my boss is going to put me in a pair of cement shows if I don't get back to work. :-) Menkatopia 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You people who actually want pictures don't get it, do you? You come back from work/school, check out how the discussion pages is going, and post something controversial you don't even care about. But Muslims actually do care about this and are offended by those pictures. Why can't you understand that? If you keep on just posting these pictures that hurt people, it just shows how selfish and how much of a jerk you are. Done, done, and done.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iman S1995 (talk • contribs)

I think it's about time you review Wikipedia's personal attack policy. Not only are they illogical, but they're also against the rules.

Concerning your claim that we don't care about this issue, well, it's somewhat insulting. Who are you to decide what's offensive to who, and who cares about what? The fact that many users on the pro-inclusion side care deeply has been discussed here multiple times. --Hojimachong^talk 05:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why I cannot edit the article

Hi, Why I cannot edit the article ? --- SciAndTech 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's temporarily locked due to an edit war. WilyD 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why no obvious link to Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

If the page is at all important to the resolution of this mess, there ought to be a prominent link at start of this page. If instead people feel that page is embarrassing I can see why there's no link.

The page Talk:Muhammad/Mediation was started 19:25, 2 November 2006. I'd say almost four months with no resolution or apparent hope of one is a verdict on that effort. When does this go before the community as a whole? I really think the list of options must get put up before a larger, hopefully more dispassionate, audience and just get decided. Shenme 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the link to the top of this page. --Sefringle 03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally mediation is geared towards individuals who were involved in a conflict. The way the mediation process works, parties needing mediation must all agree to undergo and abide by it so if a link is provided to the mediation case then it should be clear that it is not particularly meant for additional parties to join. (→Netscott) 03:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Alim777

"User:Alim777," whose only edits to Wikipedia have been to remove depictions of Muhammad (first on Jyllands Posten, now here) and add the title "Prophet" to mentions of his name, has just removed a depiction, immediately after the article was unprotected.[1]Proabivouac 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Report him at WP:AIV as a vandalism-only account. --Hojimachong^talk 19:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't know about this user, but i endorse the removal as per my comments above. ITAQALLAH 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Aminz's idea that during the mediation process it would be fair to have the image be on again off again. There's no denying that the image has been displayed in a locked state for weeks. Since mediation is still continuing and a final decision hasn't been reached would it not be a good faith gesture to leave the image off for some time? (→Netscott) 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the user is probably a sock, and his only edits have been trolling, vandalism, or edit-warring. --Hojimachong^talk 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

there is nothing about his latest edit, nor his other contributions, which strike me as malicious "vandalism" per se. which is why he has been given a test warning. furthermore, i see no trolling or edit-warring. ITAQALLAH 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, I don't know. As the German and Spanish Wikipedias have still more depictions, and as the edit-warring has been constant, a good case can be made that the last version was already an incompletely censored version, yet some have proposed "compromises" splitting the remaining difference (e.g. one or two depictions) premised upon the idea that possession is 9/10th of the law. I have little doubt that someone say, "someone removed it during mediation, and the world didn't come to an end/no one seemed to care," pointing to the stability of the page (if it's allowed to be) after this move as proof that it is the right "compromise." Conversely, the willingness of aniconists to disruptively edit-war has always been their strongest argument.Proabivouac 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I unblocked him (leaving a message with the blocking admin). Even malicious vandalism doesn't get you blocked after one warning and he, at least, didn't add "penis" to every page he could see as is ever so popular. I explained to him the situation about why it's a bad idea to change images so... if he does it again a block may be in order. But, the first time is a little harsh considering we really don't know if he's privy to these conversations. I hadn't see this section when I did it, but, if he does something again tell me. gren グレン 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion of images

(split from above discussion)

Well it is disruptive to other editors who want to edit in other areas of this article not related to imagery to constantly be finding it in locked state. My thinking is in the direction of, "What can we do to avoid edit warring during mediation so that the article can be improved irregardless of the question of images of Muhammad?". (→Netscott) 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If any particular editor is going to reintroduce the lead image can it be done via this transclusion? → {{:Muhammad/lead image}} with a little disclaimer that the transclusion should not be removed from the article but its contents edited directly there? (→Netscott) 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking a transclusion like this might be a good idea, from a practical/technical standpoint. Is there any problem with transcluding content in articles? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically all images that show Muhammad could be done via transclusion with the agreed upon principle that directly removing the transclusions would be viewed as disruption. Then if editors want to bicker and be dispruptive about such images this disruption can be limited to the transclusions. I don't think there's any particular policy prohibiting transcluding content. The only caveat is that doing this would be a bit exceptional in the grand scheme of Wikipedia. My thinking is just to limit the disruption to a limited area temporarily at least until some sort of a consensus about these images and/or the mediation concludes. (→Netscott) 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm, when has a technological 'solution' ever fixed a sociological/political/religious problem? Unless you can protect the area that contains the transclusion request, it won't be protected, and the changes will continue. Even if you define that altering the transclusion and its page is a 'no-no', that won't have altered the current situation where pictures are included, which already is a 'no-no' in so many minds. 'Playing' with 'no-no's is just playing. And the mediation has been going on for four months... Shenme 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying let the image related changes happen only on the transcluded part. That way if disruption returns surrounding the images the disruption can be limited to just the transclusions. (→Netscott) 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear how this would help. Does this somehow allow people who don't like seeing Muhammad automatically block such pictures? Frotz661 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There are people who want to edit on this article on things unrelated to images. This "image war" has been going on for awhile and it is disruptive. I'm proposing that images of Muhammad be transcluded onto the article with an ad-hoc rule that if editors remove the transclusions doing so will be viewed as disruptive and they can be blocked for it. This way if editors want to fight back and forth on the sole idea of images of Muhammad they can do so only via the transclusions and not directly on the article itself... thereby non-image centric editors can continue on improving the article. (→Netscott) 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds good. Why did you remove the leading image? I can't see what you're referring to in your justification. Frotz661 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, you just now put an empty template there, so I filled it with the leading image and caption. That should have been okay, but you removed that template reference in favor of the old inline approach. I don't think using a template like that would have been controversial in the slightest. Frotz661 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is worth giving the template a try. I'll watch Muhammad/lead image, and edit that if I want to change anything. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it, we can keep the main article unprotected that way. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't very insistent in my little <!-- note --> so if someone else wants to word that a bit more insistently (maybe with a small mediation explanation) by all means please do so. (→Netscott) 00:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

For those not aware of it please note that there is discussion about the lead image here: Talk:Muhammad/lead image. (→Netscott) 02:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just plain silly. If there is an edit war, it will never be confined to another image. For example, if the image is locked, then people will edit the main article to revert to their version. A second article does not help.

I don't think the transclusion should ever be locked myself so long as people abide by WP:3RR. It is just a nightmare to have sockpuppet IPs and the like come in and edit war over this on the main article page and ruin editing for everyone else. (→Netscott) 04:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If people who otherwise disagree about the images agree about the transclusion, at least we can keep this page unlocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you guys are living in a dream world. 90% of the problem here are random edits by people demanding no images. When they see an image of Muhammad, they instantly hit edit and remove the image. You don't honestly think such people will be willing to go to a second page, and edit that.. when the whole goal is to allow easy reversion?!

We have people coming in, and placing religious sayings such as "peace be upon him" throughout the whole article. We have people coming on, and changing anything that does not appear 100% religious, to a fully dogmated article. Catering to such people won't help, and showing such a sign of weakness isn't going to help either.

I liked the idea at first, assuming it might work(naive). However, it does not seem to be reducing the disruption to the article. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This disruption is stemming from the Canadian editor Bbarnett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) utilizing sock IPs to avoid 3RR. Read his talk page and you'll understand why he's doing that. (→Netscott) 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be creating more problems than it is solving, and has caused quite the edit war the last several hours. --Hojimachong^talk 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

One editor utilizing sockpuppet IPs making disruption... again read User talk:Bbarnett who vowed to keep the image on the article regardless of 3RR. (→Netscott) 04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it - what the point (for anyone) of attacking the transclusion?Proabivouac 04:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Blind determination? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed because I can see no logic behind it, except that it will create more work. Now, some people might edit the second article with the image, and others will just edit the Muhammad article. Some will edit both. Locking the image article will instantly lead to vandalism of the original article.

All three IPs are from Canada (one specifically tracks back to Montreal). Review Bbarnett's edits and see his Canada centric editing (Bloc Quebequois, etc.) (→Netscott) 04:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Netscott.[2]

Bbarnett, what are you thinking? There's no point at all in attacking the transclusion.Proabivouac 04:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. As I've stated, it's quite detrimental to the article. It creates two articles to edit and repair instead of one, yet it provides absolutely no benefits. In each case that someone claims it provides a benefit, I can provide logic that it does not. It will duplicate edit warring, yet prevent no warring.

Hehe, nice. Nothing like a sockpuppet responding (and thereby confirming) to a question posed to his sockpuppeteer account. (→Netscott) 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! You know I've been using IPs to anon edit! This was determined, what... two hours ago? Clearly I am not overtly concerned, or I would not have edited with my bbarnett login when anon editing came into play. Regardless of this, I still fail to see how this misguided change will help with anything.

It's stated in WP:3RR that 3RR applies per person, not per user. If you're socking (which you've admitted), you're breaking that guideline. --Hojimachong^talk 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What IP editor is going to be making an edit to the little boondock town of Aylmer, Quebec [3] that editor Bbarnett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s going to be editing on himself? (→Netscott) 05:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm. Yehaw, that makes lots of sense. You're right, we should all start to purposefully damage pages that everyone here has worked on, because you (netscott) can't keep your hands off of a page in mediation. That's a great idea. I guess I should start to do something incredibly complex and difficult and utterly so sophisticated as list your edited pages, because it shows.. what?

That I know how to click a mouse?

Hmm, looks like blocking is in order for again violating WP:3RR (and sockpuppetry to do so to boot). (→Netscott) 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Netscott, you are guilty of the same. 3RR applies regardless of reason.

Bbarnett, I would guess that you will soon be blocked for this disruption. Until then, could you at least sign your posts?

For whatever it's worth, Netscott did not violate 3RR, but even if he had I doubt he would be blocked, given the nature of this incident.Proabivouac 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A mediation has been going on for over FOUR MONTHS, over this image. In 24 hours, a tiny cabal of three users decided to modify this article, and in a harmful fashion. It is harmful because it does nothing to protect the article, but does everything to create more work and effort for editors. The people out of line here, are those that tried to modify the subject of mediation, just as much as anyone that tried to remove that image. That image needs to stay, and static, and as it sits, until mediation concludes.

Bbarnett, was this also you?Proabivouac 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Another sock? --Hojimachong^talk 05:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, or it could just be an editor who's not aware of the transclusion due to User:Bbarnett's disruption and removing that as an option. (→Netscott) 06:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the account is newly formed and the only edit has been to the Muhammad article. --Hojimachong^talk 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The account was created on the 7th... so while the account is "newly formed" I wouldn't chalk it up straight away to some other editor sockpuppeting here. (→Netscott) 06:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this makes me feel weird. I find that I've recently expressed at least two of the same opinions as the 'outlaw' in the same timeframe that sockpuppets are being discussed. I assume that my comments will be devalued thereby. What is one to do?

My opinions about articles are mostly driven by this: what will best serve to impart the information in the article to the reader?. I can agree with most any option that serves that goal well. I will have to take the time to review more of the archives, to understand the stumbling blocks here. For one thing, I did not realize that there had been a real attempt at an organized mediation, disrupted when the mediator had to leave. But even after the reading I have done so far, I worry how much of the intentions here have had both the article and the reader as their prime focus. Or, at least, how much of those original good intentions still remain, uncorrupted. Shenme 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I anticipate that once the bid to censor the article is put to rest, we can return to the usual business of improving it without further disruption. We shouldn't have to worry about whether we are either disrespecting or capitulating to aniconist Muslims, as this is all quite off-topic to the creation of a qualilty encyclopedia.Proabivouac 08:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know why I wonder where the impetus for "we have to do it this way" comes from, it's because I really don't understandsome of the thought, or lack of it. Shenme 08:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some ideas to improve the chances that the transclusion method will work (as a method of allowing the main article to remain unprotected a larger proportion of the time while this dispute is worked out):

• Make the name of the transcluded article seem open to both sides of the dispute. To me, the word "image" in the name "lead image" suggests an image of Muhammad. Actually, this file could contain either an image of Muhammad, or a different image, or more than one image, or no image, and/or other things besides an image (e.g. text). A more neutral name, to increase the chance that the transcluded file will be edited rather than deleted from the main article, could be: "top of article", "lead section", "part before opening paragraph", or "image or no image", etc.
• I suspect that many of the editors who delete the image know little or no English. I'm guessing they know Arabic. (Maybe someone else can guess better than me what languages are likely involved.) For practical purposes, I suggest putting a bilingual or multilingual message (English and Arabic) in the comment section of the wikitext. I.e. Have the following (or something similar) appear in both English and Arabic in the wikitext: "<!-- Per this article's talk page and in the interest of reducing overall disruption on this article, kindly do not remove the above transclusion but rather edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad/lead_image What image is appearing and whether or not one appears in the lead is due to the state of the above transclusion. -->" (That's what the most recent transclusion version said, I think.) I think I can translate it into French and Simple English -- perhaps that would help.
• Also add a bilingual or multilingual message in the wikitext comment "Please participate in the debate (in English) on the talk page before adding or removing the image of Muhammad." both in the main article and in the transcluded page.
• I just had another idea: Have the Muhammad article be just a lead image (or none) and a transclusion of "Muhammad/rest of article", with everything else from the "Muhammad" article moved there. Then when the "Muhammad" page is protected, the rest of the article can still be edited.

I welcome comments on these ideas. --Coppertwig 12:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig changing name of that page or writing message in multiple languages will not help. The thing that can help if both side are willing to compromise. There is no rule of wikipedia that say that not having picture on the top is censorship in case it is against tradition of that personality. However, this thing they are not willing to understand. --- ALM 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Conflict is on all the THREE images on Muhammad page. Why you have moved one image to show that conflict is only on the lead image? At least represent the conflict properly. --- ALM 12:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I've edited in accord with your concern here ALM. (→Netscott) 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(section)

The image should be removed. It does not add to the quality of the page but seems to act as a way for editors to be able to frustrate visiting muslims to wikipedia. It seems to limit the number of actual people able to visit this page in peace. The muslim religion forbids looking at pictures of the prophet but it seems quite ironic that they are present on the page of that religion. I like the idea of a link to see the pictures but the pictures dont seem to make or break the page so removing them wouldnt do any harm. Keeping them is offending for people visiting and may be interpreted as a non muslims only page. If you want to anger people and be disrespectful to people keep this picture. But at least put some sort of warning saying they are there. I personally dont really mind but there are people out there who do. Thank You! (Ssd175 05:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

This is an encyclopedia, not a religious treatise. Frotz661 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, images are necessary- it is not as if the image depicts him in an offensive way or anything. Astrotrain 15:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are allowed to show good taste. The mere fact of depicting him is offensive to some people. Why do you say images are "necessary"? How about putting them somewhere where they're less likely to be accidentally seen by people for whom absence of the images is necessary? --Coppertwig 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia may contain content that is offensive to some readers. --Hojimachong^talk 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"May" -- not "must". The policy says offensive material is to be left out if it's not informative. The principle here seems to me to be a balance of good taste and provision of information. It doesn't say offensive material must be included and must be placed at the top of the page where everybody will see it. --Coppertwig 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And that is the argument, whether or not it is informative. As a visual thinker, the image adds a great deal to the article for me. I don't speak for all, but for me the image does make the article more informative. Most readers of the article would probably agree with this, if they could get past the "It's offensive to Muslims" argument, which has no place here per Wikipedia is not censored. --Hojimachong^talk 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why this mess

Why cannot we keep all discussion in one place. Is that possible that someone move it all on mediation page and enforce to keep it there? Doing so will make it easy to follow. --- ALM 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion of images screws up references

Now that that images are transcluded, the reference shortcut buttons in the captions don't work. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there is a bug in the MediaWiki system. I have copy-edited and changed the ref. in response. (→Netscott) 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now Muhammad preaching appears to be in the transclusion but not in the article. From a partly technical standpoint, I think the page needs to always reflect the transclusion, or else we need to drop the transclusion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Images should be removed

These images are not of Muhammad. These three images are persian kings, Zoroaster, and ruler who built kaba in 1100 AD. These images should be removed. And secondly there should be respect for every religion. You are adding images which were/are never part of Islam. This article is getting less informative but more hurtful for muslims. Wikipedia readers are not only christians,jews, or hindus. Muslims also read wikipedia. So it would be better to show respect for religion rather finding ways to hurt muslims. Funnypop12 09:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Kaaba was built in 1100?Proabivouac 09:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Funnypop12 is referring to this, which would be something like 500 BCE. A fairer response, Proabivouac, might have been to address the underlying concern, and suggest that Funnypop12's dating might have been off.

Are the images of Zoroaster?

Whether they are or not, we must expect variations on precisely this comment, and we must expect them hundreds, thousands of times in a row, from this point forward, if the rub-their-noses-in-it camp carries the day. Is this really how you propose that such should be addressed, Proabivouac? By fixating on a dating error in the message? Suppose the next message comes from someone who does not make a dating error? BYT 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point editors can edit Muhammad/images (read Talk:Muhammad/images as well). Consensus appears to be that there needs to be image(s) in the lead and that there needs to be an image or two of Muhammad somewhere in the article. I would recommend attempting to edit corresponding to that. (→Netscott) 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the images are not of Muhammad is completely OR or, if copied from somewhere else, fringe at best. That images were not "part of Islam" (whatever that means) is beside the point, that they are not photographs of the man is beside the point. Using images doesn't imply disrespect towards Islam. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is essentially correct - if they're verifiably images of Muhammad, then whether or not they are images of him isn't for us to decide. If another verifiable source disputes this, then we should discuss replacing them with a different image. As long as we're not including every image ever produced (which is likely) then disputed images shouldn't be used unless they're particularly notorious. WilyD 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So far there is no disputed image, as no one of those uttering those claims have provided any shred of evidence for this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute in this context offers no judgement of the legitimacy of the dispute. So there is a disputed image. WilyD 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to a back-up of the dispute by references. Otherwise it's OR. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is simply, basicly forbidden, images of Muhammad. There is nothing hard to understand that, it is a sin in Islam and forbidden. Simple right? Do you get it? Please respect others beliefs. For an atheist, Jesus's gay pictures on Wiki is nothing important, but for Christians and Muslims, it can not be acceptable. Same here, any of Muhammad's pictures may seem nothing bad for you but for Muslims, it is a sin. Please remove.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lardayn (talk • contribs)

So what you're saying is that we should censor Wikipedia to cater to the demands of a specific religious group. I'd like to direct you to Wikipedia is not censored. --Hojimachong^talk 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lardayn, on the topic of respect: were we to log onto an Islamic site such as Islampedia and post depictions of Muhammad there, that would be disrespectful, and you'd have a point. When you come to Wikipedia and try to impose your standards on others who prefer to contribute to a project which is free from religiously-motivated censorship, who is disrespecting whom?Proabivouac 02:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What Im saying is, this topic is about a Prophet and pics are nothing to do with Him. Those pics are from Persia and they were created after hundrends years, and the creators never seen Muhammad and most probably, they've never seen an Arab in their life. If the topic was "Persian art about Muhammad" or "Pictures of Muhammad" there may be those pictures. But however, this is not cencorship, this is an act against human rights. You can not show pictures of photos of someone if he does not want. Doing this would be attacking personal rights. Not about cencorship. Respect other religions, what you do here is a part of Islamaphobia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lardayn (talk • contribs) 13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

in 1100 there was a ruler who constructed boundaries around squre Kaaba. So no error in date. It is not picture of Muhammad. Miraj.jpg is pic of zoroaster. You can see clearly fire in Miraj.jpg. Old persian religions had strong concept of fire as God. 1st disputed pic is pic of persian king. It represents time period of Ottoman empire. Disputed images!!!!!!Funnypop12 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, were are the citations. "a ruler" is hardly anything to go by. The picture definetely is Muhammad. Zoroastrian iconography might have informed this Persian depiction of Muhammad but it is nonethless him. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, that image is definitely one of our worst-- it can't be seen at thumbnail size. I've replaced it with a different (but still veiled) image. --Alecmconroy 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it quite good and typical of this kind of picture. And your removal of it put the new picture in the wrong place. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we want to use Image:Miraj2.jpg, our only choices are to crop it or to enlarge the thumbnail. Or we could switch to a different veiled image. I'm open to all three possibilities, but in its current state, I daresay there isn't a person on earth who could tell me what it's a image of. --Alecmconroy 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Calligraphy: Maybe people already know this, but here's another calligraphy image: on the Dutch (Nederlands) page they have the image Muhammed.gif which is black-and-white calligraphy. (In case anyone is looking for more calligraphy images.) I can't seem to find it at Commons, though. --Coppertwig 01:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Alecmconroy here save for the fact that the image that he's referring to (the Miraj image) actually corresponds to that particular section of the article it currently is displayed in. (→Netscott) 03:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Do all of the images we're currently using have a reliable source backing up the claim that they are in fact intended to represent Muhammad? - Merzbow 04:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like the look of the current version.[4] Liberal Classic 05:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re this version I agree. My only changes to the images would be to put a note like in the dutch version to the calligraphy (that this is a common practice among Muslims) and to removed the uncited (and after the mentioned addition also unneeded) "though depictions of Muhammad are culturally important, no undisputed record exists of his actual appearance".

I like the current calligraphy better than the dutch one (presuming that the calligraphy is accurate). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As do I. It combines the calligraphy and Maome quite well. --Hojimachong^talk 05:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how people are insisting that images are an essential part of the page. Were they made in the time period of muhammad anyway? Are they an accurate depiction of this man? If not then imsges are useless. You might as well draw some random person on a piece of paper and call it muhammad.(Ssd175 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

• Given that this "point" has been addressed several times at great length on this talk page, as well as the mediation page and so on, perhaps you could be specific on what you're unclear on. WilyD 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do people need this image on here so badly if its not necessary and all its doing is causing controversy. This image itself is just causing trouble and will only create more work for revisionists due to muslims taking it out all the time. Millions of people visit wikipedia and these images are bound to be taken out over and over again. Why not take it out and make it easier for everyone? It's not like the images are going to make or break the article. They dont even represent an accurate depiction of the prophet himself due t the fact that they were created hundreds of years after his death. (Ssd175 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

Fear of vandalism is not a reason to break Wikipedia policy; What do you think Westboro Baptist Church would look like if this was the case? --Hojimachong^talk 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not only fear of vandals but the controversy that will arise. I mean come on, look at the discussion page already. Its extremely long covering only images. If you take them out everyone will be content, and if people want to see pictures we can make a section at the bottom of the article providing links to images or the images themselves (with a warning beforehand of course).

The talk page pretty clearly demonstrates that the controversy has already arisen. The whole page is a debate about the controversy of including the images. --Hojimachong^talk 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to allow this type of pressure to influence our editorial style. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:NPOV and WP:NOT exist for this sole reason. Do you think anybody gives Fred Phelps any kind of respect? If WP:NPOV didn't exist, it would be a slur-fest against his bigotry. --Hojimachong^talk 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well after realizing that wikipedia is not censored it is useless arguing whether the images should be put in this article (although they are not necessary). They do have a right to be there although i still believe there should be some kind of warning at the top of the page before we reveal these images. A link to pictures would be ok too but i guess Wikipedia doesnt require anyone too (although it would be respectful). (Ssd175 03:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, funnypop, for your contribution. Of course, if the pictorals of Muhammed are evidently incorrect because they identify someone else, they should be removed. However, does it mean that no pictorals should be allowed ? From the encyclopedia's point of view, textual representations of the subject is in the same thrust and timber as that of other religious or cultural articles. Because the inherent discussion is not cloaked in reverential dogma, then comments, versions, even "facts" are subject to an honest debate. If that be true of what is written, then that be equally true of what is portrayed as a pictoral. The key perspective is that the encyclopedia is not influenced by spiritual piety in relating information about any of the religious subjects. Therefore, pictures are a must. However, for faithful adherents of any particular religious persona, the issue of presenting pictorals is more demanding. How can there be a concrete pictoral of a spiritual body; even a representation can be embarrassingly profane. In short, no picture is justified. Is Wikipedia responsible for altering its approach, when religious concerns arise, in order to satisfy the faithful, if in doing so, the historic integrity of delivering "objective" encyclopedic content is diminished. --Free4It 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Censored? Oh Really?

Please sign your name below my comment IF you think wikipedia is NOT censored. Its a serious call, and I will right here debunk this absured claim forever. Guaranteed.

If you win (i.e. censorship is not applied in wikipedia) then I will support the inclusion of pictures in this article. If I successfully prove that censorship is indeed applied then you must abstain from mentioning this absured claim of 'no censorship' and will have to apply the same censorship which I will prove the existence of. VirtualEye 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This voting is already done Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Another_vote_.28yawn.29:_Let.27s_keep_it_simple. --- ALM 10:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, VirtualEye, for your contribution. Is Wikipedia censored? Before there is a consideration of that, it would be necessary to acknowledge that the encyclopedia is largely text-based. Given a body of text, the very inherent nature of which necessitated editing, before it is even presented; given a body of readers, the very description of which necessitated a bias of one shade or another, even before the actual lecture; given a body of "editors", the very motivation of which necessitates adding their own colour, even before some sense of duty obligates them: given all that, as a minimum part of the text composite, and one cannot, apart from fact confronting opinion, not find censorship. --Curious2george 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Curious2george, but What do you mean? Please structure your thoughts from Shekspere's English to a simpler English. Sorry, I dont understand your points correctly. VirtualEye 14:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shahada image

We obviously need an image of the Shahada; however the flag of Saudi Arabia is, for a number of reasons, not the best choice. ALM has found many images of Islamic calligraphy recently, some of which are historically significant. Perhaps a better example may be found among these?Proabivouac 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad and Jewish tribes

Sefringle, please take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete --Aminz 02:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It says that usuaully is an acceptable reason to delete, and in this case it is.

F.E. Peters states that Muhammad's treatment of Jews of Medina was quite extraordinary and is "matched by nothing in the Qur'an, and is quite at odds with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he encountered outside Medina. We must think then that his action was essentially political, that it was prompted by behavior that he read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God."[39]

I removed this paragraph because it is POV pushing and really doesn't add any valuable knowledge about Muhammad. It is only praise and nothing more.--Sefringle 02:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be polite Sefringle. That's all Peters says about the matter in his book and it contains valuable knowledge about Muhammad. For example the nature of his behavior, Qur'anic view on the matter and comparison with Muhammad's behavior towards Jews outside Medina. --Aminz 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, 'that' stuff might be relevant, however we are discussing the paragraph above, and that paragraph is POV pushing. What part of the above paragraph is informative and not an opinion?--Sefringle 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, what do you mean by POV pushing? It is what Peters say, his POV. Posting his POV is not POV pushing. --Aminz 03:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

yes it is, because it is only an opinion. Opinions don't belong on this page. Only facts. We've settled this way back. (see Talk:Muhammad/Archive 12#Aisha criticism)--Sefringle 03:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what he is saying is a fact. Do you have any sources against it? --Aminz 03:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not a fact... it is very contested how and why Muhammad treated the Jews. gren グレン 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My whole point is that even if assume that the view is not neutral, it shouldn't be removed per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete --Aminz 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Even though that section says:

"The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly."

That section says it should be deleted under these circumstances.--Sefringle 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It says:"Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright." And lastly, we are talking about a respectable scholar so his POV has weight. We can not say his views are biased. That's not appropriate. --Aminz 03:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has a bias. We most certianly can say his views are bias. However the policy says we should present the facts without stating his opinion. That way we are minimizing POV.--Sefringle 04:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what is your suggestion? Which parts are the facts and which parts are his biased views? --Aminz 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. and the paragraph above is an opinion, and really doesn't belong here.--Sefringle 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, I am open to your suggestions. There are several points in the quote: 1. It was extraordinary behavior because Muhammad's treatment of the Jews is matched by nothing in the Qur'an & 2. Muhammad's treatment of Jews outside Medina was different. So, He thinks the action was "political that it was prompted by behavior that he read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God." These are points which we can check if they are true or not. Please let me know which of these points you dispute. --Aminz 04:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of historical process is always opinion to some extent. I don't understand your objection but I have never seen a place stating that opinion isn't valid. Scholarship is much of the time opinion because it's not about simple facts it's about processes. gren グレン 05:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I especially have a problem with this sentence:

Peters argues that Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina was "quite extraordinary", "matched by nothing in the Qur'an",

does this sentence provide any factual information other than a POV opinion?--Sefringle 05:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

One interpretation might be that it was "quite extraordinary" and "matched by nothing in the Qur'an" because later Muslims didn't do the same things to the Jewish communities rather they provided them with the pact of "Dhimmi". --Aminz 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, I have found another discussion of this topic on another page of the book which I think would bring more balance to the section. --Aminz 05:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It provides the opinion (which a scholar tries to form based on their interpretation of fact) that the treatment of Jews at Medina is very different from treatment of other Jews. I don't understand your problem with this. It's one scholar's attempt at analysis of the situation and trying to explain why Jews were treated differently at Medina. It doesn't need to be right but I see no reason why it's an opinion that needs to be removed. The fact that it contains opinion is rather meaningless. NPOV is not about removal of scholars' opinions. It's about neutrally representing them and not trying to pass one off as truth. No? gren グレン 05:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In page 7x of the book the author discussed the same issue but had a different approach. So, I added that as well. --Aminz 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the opinion of a scholar... it can be problematic how it's used but this and other articles are laced with opinions (both explicit and implicit) as is any piece of writing. gren グレン 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Section on "Miracles in the Muslim biographies" hardly mentions anything about miracles

Half of the section on "Miracles in the Muslim biographies" makes absolutely no mention of miracles. Instead, it details Carl Ernst's views on how Muslim authors viewed Muhammad's social and political contributions. Historical views of Muhammad's social and political contributions should be covered in the article, but not in a section on "Miracles in the Muslim biographies". Patiwat 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Patiwat, if you read the previous paragraph, it says: "The pre-modern Muslim biographies of Muhammad .... Modern Muslim biographies of Muhammad however...", so there is a change. The next paragraph makes it clear why this change happened. --Aminz 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that it is relevant because it's explaining why miraculous explanations of Muhammad have become less important. So, in the sense that it's talking about a negation of the use of miracles in biographies it is about miracles. I think you can surely improve how it's written, but I wouldn't remove it. gren グレン 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad's attitude

Karl, I don't think that is disputed. --Aminz 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving the pictures down

I would like to move the preaching picture image down in front of the beginning of the Qur'an section as that's what the picture is talking about. Is that okay to most of us? --Aminz 02:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no consensus for that. As the Qur'an is mentioned in paragraph two, and as this is for what Muhammad is most famous, there's no credible objection after topicality. Of course, you might strengthen your argument by removing mention of the Qur'an to the section where you feel it (along with the image) more appropriate.

I did propose a solution which would have kept any depictions out of the lead, but this element of the solution was a compromise, only operative if a plurality of editors opposed to depictions agreed to the other provisions. Even among those editors opposed to religiously-based censorship, it seems I'm a bit isolated - the prevailing opinion might be aptly summed up as, Wikipedia isn't censored, period.Proabivouac 03:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture is about Muhammad's preaching which is only indirectly connected to the Qur'an. In front of the Qur'an section, we can have an image of an old-Qur'an. Muhammad, to Muslims, is known for being a messenger of God, not directly for his preaching in front of people. The picture is most relevant to a section on Muhammad's invitation of others to Islam: i.e. the section in the beginning of the Qur'an --Aminz 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there fair use/free content pictures of the JFK autopsy on Wikipedia/The Commons? If so, go propose addition at that page, and see what people say. But just because you find examples of where the rule isn't being enforced, does not mean that the rule does not exist. Comparisons don't add anything; we're supposed to be focusing on the policies and guidelines. --Hojimachong^talk 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad

On Talk:Muhammad saw (an article I listed on afd) a Muslim user expresses concern about the pictures of Muhammad in this article. The trouble is that he feels he cannot contribute to this page as it would cause him to see things he considers sinful and blasphemous. Now wikipedia is not censored, but would it really be censorship to confine the pictures to the Depictions of Muhammad article that we already have? It could certainly be linked to provide that information in a perhaps even more comprehensive way. I'm agnostic on this issue, but I can't help thinking that the pictures of Muhammad are only included here to make a point. Deranged bulbasaur 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that if the conservative element of the Muslim faith feels too aggrieved to contribute to this article on these grounds, it could greatly compound systemic bias. Deranged bulbasaur 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, the rationale for inclusion is that the pictures represent a part of the cultural entity that is Muhammad, but I find instead that such depictions are a marginal phenomenon. Certianly it should be handled on wikipedia, and that it is, however if Muslims do not percieve this to be important to their faith, perhaps it's culturally insensitive to effectively say: "No, you're wrong, these pictures are important to our outside understanding of your prophet (pictures are part of how *we* do biography), so we'll include them in an article that's ostensibly about your beliefs in spite of you." Deranged bulbasaur 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree on most of the thing you have said. However, he can still contribute here by using some blocker etc. I agree that the pictures represent a minority tradition however they are there presenting to the reader as they represent majority tradition. I have no doubt that they are there in prominent places to make a WP:POINT and violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight. However, sadly many people here even after seeing multiple references (that drawing picture of Muhammad among Muslim is very rare trend) are not agreeing to remove picture from the top. --- ALM 10:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia do ot spreads lies and fictional. i dont see the importancy of the image, all the details should be included in the articles, afterall its wikipedia, not picturepedia. albiru do not live at the time of Muhamaad s.a.w., what make such picture relevent to this article? no censor again? wheres the real picture again?--Towaru 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to deranged bulbosaur, since this debate has stirred up so much discussion, it has been agreed that any removal of the pictures now would be a conscious effort to remove it based on the whims of one group of contributors. The argument you use ("conservative Muslims won't contribute") is flawed, because it's not our job to keep everybody happy. All of the other topics of discussion have been exhuasted, and now the only debate (at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, at least) is whether or not keeping the pics at the top violates the undue weight policy. --Hojimachong^talk 15:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this is not an article about Muslim tradition, but about Muhammad, who's some guy (of variously stated importance, the true value of which I don't know). All the articles about Johnny Nobody or Mr. Important have a photograph, painting, sketch, sculpture (photo thereof) where available, regardless of the importance of that particular image, or the general pictorial representation of that person. WilyD 15:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is false to assign motivations in a blanket fashion to all editors who want an image of Muhammad at the lead of this article and doing so runs heavy against the assumption of good faith (a Wikipedia policy). I would argue that there is no doubt that such pointed motivations are in the mix but that at this point it is my impression that the majority of editors wanting a lead image of Muhammad on this article are pushing for that in a good faith way. (→Netscott) 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this directed at me? Maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet but I'm not sure how this reponds to my claim or what you're saying here. My (only) point was that Islamic Tradition should not be the sole (or even necessarily principle) guide for this article regarding style and the like. The article should not be trying to represent Islamic Tradition, but to represent Muhammad, who was an actual guy (this is fairly uncontraversial). Every article about Guy X includes a likeness of him if we can obtain it, even when there's no reason to believe it's accurate, as long as it's verifiable. WilyD 15:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I think we should follow the precedent of not showing the likeness that has guided this page for at least three or four years is pragmatic: unlike Guy X, people will constantly be appealing to remove the images of Muhammad, or simply removing them without discussion. That makes this article different than, say, Michael Jackson or John F. Kennedy, and frankly the perpetual distractions on this article are keeping us from getting good work done on the article. Some articles are about unique topics. The last time I checked, there was no image of a gaping head wound at John F. Kennedy autopsy and no plans to include them, despite attempts to add the image. Help me out here -- is that censorship? BYT 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"...frankly the perpetual distractions on this article are keeping us from getting good work done on the article."

If that's your concern, why not start by dropping the matter yourself?Proabivouac 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If we removed everything that was a target for POV pushers and vandals, there'd be no encyclopaedia left to build. Some articles just require vigilance as part of the nature of the Wiki - there's not much you can do. WilyD 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Kennedy, I can't find any of the image discussion, so I can't comment. But things like Piss Christ definitely have religiously offensive image(s), for instance. Anyways, one cannot fight every battle, and it's more important that Muhammad is a first class article than it is that John F Kennedy Autopsy is a first class article. WilyD 04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the point, there isn't any discussion about the JFK pictures at this time. AFAIK, there are not even any pictures such as this which exist on Wikipedia. --Hojimachong^talk 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is perfectly true. We should get off the image already. As i mentioned earlier it is not a major part of the article. So if you dont mind i am going to begin editing this page for information and historical accuracy.(Ssd175 02:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Go right ahead, just be careful not to do anything inflammatory (anything that could possibly be construed as POV, removal of pics, etc.). --Hojimachong^talk 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about an image that had been drawn base on fiction not fact, and please dont similarize Muhammad s.a.w. with any other human.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.92.234 (talk • contribs)

Um, why not? Is it not a fact that Muhammad was a human? Was he not born a man? Did he not live as a man? And like all humans, did he not die? Muhammad may hold a very high place in religious history, but he is a human just as you or I are human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.92.235 (talk • contribs)

He was a Human, He die as a Human. He still a Human. He is a Human. But unlike any other Human. He is an Religious figure. Hes not like anyother Human. Hes been respect by all Muslim (and orientalist, perhaps). He changed the humanity from bad to good. The value He has, can not be similaries with anyother human.--Towaru 03:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

...Which is your belief system. There are plenty of other religious figures, Muhammad is not the only one, as you imply. Jesus, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Baha'u'llah... the list goes on and on. All of these people have great religious value to a specific group, but are often vilified and hated by other groups. This is why the not censored policy exists, to make sure that opinions (such as yours, or mine, or anybody else's) don't make their way into articles. The facts are what matter to Wikipedia. --Hojimachong^talk 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should we not "similarize" Muhammad with any other human? I'd like to hear your views. --Hojimachong^talk 06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the anonymous contributor actually hits the heart of the matter-- the issue is whether we treat Muhammad like we treat everyone else or whether we treat him as a unique individual unlike everyone in Wikipedia. --Alecmconroy 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I am quite familiar with this IP's prefix... It is yet another meatpuppet/sock of VirtualEye (Along with User:60.52.18.34, User:60.52.46.24, and User:60.52.87.230). All of the IP's trace back to a company called "Wisma Telekom" (running an RIR on them reveals this). --Hojimachong^talk 06:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, u right, thats what i mean. and that picture is base on fictional imagination of an artist. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Hojimachong, if that make somebody or everybody to be virtualeye, why dont u just ban our isp from accessing wikipedia? over 20% malaysian populasion uses that isp, its hard to tells. and Im not virtualeye. probably u just like somebody who want to destroy other user, just because ppl dont agree with ur POV. --Towaru 06:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Making out everybody to be VirtualEye", eh? Sorry, it's sort of suspicious when four editors from the same area and IP prefix (who have never edited Wikipedia before then) come straight to a debate, like they know exactly where it's going to be. And I think you need to review the personal attack policy, because what I did falls more under WP:CIVIL, as making an accusation. --Hojimachong^talk 06:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"over 20% malaysian populasion uses that isp, its hard to tells."

Um, yeah, right...VirtualEye, it's actually quite easy to tell from the character of your posts. Why are you wasting everyone's time?Proabivouac 06:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

oops sorry did i accuse somebody with anything related to them?im not virtualeye :) . just because or maybe my POV is same with virtualeye (eventhough its not), its doesnt proves anything :). just like that picture its doesnt proves thats Muhammad s.a.w., cool ur head down. and calm down. and think again. cheers. sorry.

Towaru has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

sincerely from --Towaru 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) not virtualeye lol.

Stop assuming bad faith I beg you to stop assuming bad faith towards each other. VirtualEye is a Pakistani and came from Germany I believe. Towaru is Indonesian. I beg from you guys to have little bit of following of WP:AGF. Please. Otherwise end these accusations and perform the check user. --- ALM 09:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ALM, I totally agree with your call for assuming good faith. However, I would prefer if you did the same. Instead you posted this. Anyway, Towaru's being or not being a sockpuppet of anyone else makes no difference to me: his postings completely miss the point, hashing out the pseudo-objection that this is not actually M., that the painter had not seen M. Well, countless articles on WP do contain such images, a perfectly normal thing and not "fiction". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Im Malaysian. Sorry. I will ignore these guy for accusing me to be virtualeye next time. Let them be. Sorry. Lets end these.--Towaru 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why no admin warn these people so that they can stop having bad faith assumption. Where are admins? --- ALM

WP:AGF Applies until it is obvious that one side is not assuming good faith. By using socks (probably not all of the ones accused, but definitely some), the policy states that we must not AGF in unreasonable situations. AGF applies for the first several posts. This mediation/discussion has far surpassed that, and VirtualEye has demonstrated that he is not assuming good faith (by using the sockpuppets). --Hojimachong^talk 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is an ongoing disgrace

This talk page is an ongoing disgrace and a total waste of time.Proabivouac 09:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fiction vs fact

the picture that were used on this respective article are in fact fictional, whereas Muhammad s.a.w. is a real human. if its okayto put the fictional picture on an articles, its doesnt suit the articles.--Towaru 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see our policy on inclusion of material which notes the criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It explains why this argument must be rejected. WilyD 17:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the word "fictional" is not really accurate here given the context. Words like "representation", "depiction", "portraial", or "artist's rendering" are more appropriate. Obviously, the technology was not available at the time to produce an accurate picture of Muhammad, so what is shown is indicitive of what was available at that time in history. Note that none of the images here depicting Muhammad claim to be 100% accurate. They speceifically state that they are images, depictions, etc. And this is completely with the depictions of countless historical people made throughout Wikipedia, the Web, and accepted scholarly works throughout history.

Please, if you take issue with the act of depicting Muhammad, then state it as such, but don't veil it in misinformation.194.98.134.18 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Depictions or fiction, same thing in this context. Both don't have truth in them. 216.99.58.6 00:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth - roughly speaking, this is because none of us have the slightest clue what the truth is - about anything... WilyD 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Combining archives

Since archives 14 and 15 are both really short, if nobody objects, I am going to combine them.--Sefringle 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, check the "What links here" page for 15 and fix any links. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Sefringle 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise on Pictures

How about including the paintings that show Muhammad vieled only? I don't see the need to have so many paintings of him, as part of his teaching was not to have any, and that very few existed, and are based on guesswork. The absence of paintings of him is a reflection of the history of the individual, and his impact, so absence itself illustrates the character of Muhammad & his legacy. Paintings of him don't add any value to the article either, it's not an issue of censorship, would you include photographs of gutted bodies after an explosion, in an article about a bombing incident e.g. in Northern Ireland? Aaliyah Stevens 13:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This page's lead image is a stack of corpses, for instance - not censored really means that. WilyD 15:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/images#Original_Compromise_found see the voting going on here. --- ALM 13:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No muslim would prefer a picture of Muhammed. Period. For Muslims, are there any grounds warranting a pictoral of any visual effect ? Probably, not. Therefore, it is not a stretch to realize no argument purporting a visual would be accepted by a believer. That eliminates a further fair discussion of the issue, does it not? An encyclopedia [not a religious body], historically, attempts an objectifed perspective on all subjects, those of a religious or cultural nature included. That very point of view, in itself, would prove offensive to faithful adherants. If you're a believer of any religious persona presented, prepare to be misunderstood and bothered. It's just that disturbingly simple. --Curious2george 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't make generic attacks against all Muslim editors - some are very reasonable. I'm unconvinced the percentage is any different than non-Muslim editors. WilyD 09:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack? Interpreting Curious2george as an attack on all Muslim editors is misguided. The word editor was never used. Are there Muslims who believe "it is better" to have a pictoral of Muhammed than to not and in the same numbers as non-Muslims? To have such a preferance, is it not contrary to the wish of Muhammed? Would Allah endorse a pictoral of Muhammed? You are convinced that followers of Muhammed and the teachings of the Koran are as fully willing to have a pictoral of Muhammed placed in an encyclopedia as non-Islamic editors? You are convinced that Muslims and non-Muslims alike embrace, and in equal numbers, the willingness to portray varied visual representations of Muhammed? --Curiouscdngeorge 01:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The merits of undue weight

Having given the Undue Weight argument (advanced primarily by ALM scientist?) a fair bit of thought, as well as the including quote-fictional-unquote images and its WP:V countering, I've come to conclude the following:

1. Iff (and I believe this to be the case) veiled images are more common historical representations than unveiled images, and iff no unveiled images are believed to be accurate historical likenesses (which I also believe to be the case) then a veiled image is a more appropriate lead, because through WP:V we should see this as a more typical likeness and therefor a more majority point of view on his appearence.
2. Given that numerous unveiled representations exist, they cannot really be considered a fringe position, and merit significant-ish inclusion.
3. Given Muhammad's importance outside of Islam (which I won't pin down, but is undoubtably extremely high) some non-Islamic representation(s) of him should be included.
4. I like wiki-markup too much, but generally I italicised things when I believed they were unclear, but even in the vagueness I think my point makes sense.

• Then be it resolved, I'm going to rework the image choice/placement a bit. I trust it'll be to the satisfaction of few, but I've come to believe it's actually the proper choice. WilyD 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Point 1, misinterprets our verifiability policy. The threshold for inclusion is not truth, but attribution to a reliable source. If the source says it is a depiction of Muhammad, then the truth means nothing. Wikipedia's job is not to find the truth, but to reflect what reliable sources have to say. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've read this comment several times, and I don't follow at all. Point 1 does not discuss inclusion, so (with regards to it) I don't think anything else you say applies to it. Can you elaborate? WilyD 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am saying that we do not attempt to determine the truth of a fact on our own for any reason, that is OR. We have attributable sources saying it is a depiction. The fact that it does not necessarily look like him has no bearing, the calligraphy does not look like him, the veil does not look like him. But the picture Image:Maome.jpg for example has a citation saying it is a depiction of him. So where is the undue weight? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Many verifiable sources say the veiled images do look like him - and that's good enough for me, and should be good enough for any Wikipedian. I'm not convinced either way as to whether the caligraphy can reasonably be considered a representation. The undue weight argument is subtle, but the principle does say we should use something more widely considered an accurate representation more prominently. Plus, aethetically, I actually like it better - your milage may vary on that last point. WilyD 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many other pictures with citation then why this picture? What is special about it? --- ALM 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We have more veiled images with citation. We have only single freaky non-veiled images with good citation. Right? I have found three images veiled with citation.

• Topkapi Museum
  • [5], Nakkaş Osman
  • [6], Siyer-i Nebi, 1595

They are older and well citied right ?

• Los Angeles County Museum of Art
  • [7].

--- ALM 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with you undue weight claim? The crux of your claim seems to be either that depictions are so super rare that they don't deserve such a mention(no proof for the presented yet), or that it is not an accurate image of him(citation disagrees, the alternative, veiled and calligraphy, are not accurate images either). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have given you so many citation if you close your eyes then what can I do. See these citation and more Blair/Bloom state: "Pictures of Muhammad are extremely rare in Islamic art ..." and there are other citation of BBC given to you Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or decorative . You do not listen to them. --- ALM 16:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And I have given you citations showing that there is a long history of such depictions. I can dig it up from the mediation if you like, I will even find more. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

One can find citation for any thing. However it is a fact (see Depiction of Muhammad) page that they are only from 1300 to 1600. (300 years out of 1400 history). Just like BBC says Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found. --- ALM 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On the WilyD Solution and his Four Points

The status of the page (as it currently stands at the time of this writing) is entirely consistent with policy as I understand it. I would summarize this solution as:

• Caligraphy first
• Veiled right beneath it
• No other limitations on images (aside from the limits that would be found in any Wikipedia article)

If that's an accurate reflection of what WilyD's saying, then I can't find anything to argue with about it. His version makes ample use of images throughout the article-- so it's hard to accuse it of censorship. His version makes use of a veiled in the lead, so it's hard claim it's giving undue weight. I have no problems with it.

Of course, I'm longwinded, so I can't help myself-- I have to ramble on a bit. I disagree with the theory that that unveiled in lead would, necessarily, constitute undue weight-- but I get the "vibe" from Wily's wording that when he says "undue weight", he's using it only in a very subtle and more-tentative way-- not as an outright prohibition against unveiled images, but just as an argument that maybe could be used to "tip the scales" towards veiled in the lead, in the absence of any other compelling reasons. I can easily live with that. :)

As I've said in the past, I don't think unveiled in lead is any sort of "outright violation of policy". We haven't seen any sources that prove unveiled are particularly uncommon. Unveiled images certainly aren't harder to find online-- I haven't had to go out of my way to look for them: just type in Muhammad into image search and you find plenty. In order for us to claim "undue weight", I would expect us to have some really good evidence that unveiled is an extreme minority-- but no such evidence has presented itself. Even if it were true veiled were historically the norm, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. And it's not our job to go out and research the historical prevalence of different artistic styles in order to painstakingly construct a page that perfectly mirrors the net sum total of human artistic history. IF we don't introduce any further bias of our own, we're not giving undue weight. NPOV requires us not to give something undue weight. But if the world prefers seeing faces and has devoted a greater attention to the unveiled images, that's completely acceptable. If unveiled images have become the most popular, we should reflect that trend, not try in vain to overcompensate for it.

But at the same time, veiled images are certainly quite prevalent it wouldn't be undue weight if one of those was the lead image either. There are no depictions of Muhammad's face that are historically accurate, so no information is being lost. In the end, it seems like either option is consistent with Wikipedia policy. I'm comfortable veto removals of unveiled images when those removales seem motivated entirely religious concerns, but nothing make the thing WilyD is doing that.

Image:Muhammad at Kaba c.png has a lot going for it. It's the most visually appealing to my eyes, but that's worth almost nothing. It's an image of "Muhammad the Religious Figure", rather than "Muhammad the Historical Ruler"-- and that is probably a good thing since his religious role is the one that's had the greatest effect overall. It's a veiled image, which gives us a opportunity to talk about that whole debate of Muhammad's Depictions. And because of the veil and the Kaaba, this image is probably the only image that I could have looked at and instantly deduced it was an image of Muhammad.

Image:Maome.jpg, meanwhile, has its advantages. It's the most "historically accurate" of the images we have. Except for trivials like clothing color and halos, it depicts a scene that we are 100% certain actually happened-- Muhammad leading and speaking. The image seems to intentionally depict his followers as ethnically-diverse, which underscores an important theme about Muhammad's life. Muhammad is unveiled, which is univerally agreed to be the more historically accurate rendering.

In the end, either is fine with me, so long as we're not just trying to eradicate unveiled images from the article. --Alecmconroy 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Muhammad walk round with a white handkerchief over his face and his head on fire? TharkunColl 00:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The flames are like the halos-- I think everyone understands that they're a reflection of the artist's religious beliefs-- i don't lose any sleep worrying people will interpret the image as that of a burn victim. Now, the historical inaccuracy of his wearing the veil definitely is worth weighing, although I think it's within the realm of what could be addressed by a caption. --Alecmconroy 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, more or less, although there a few nuances I'll shed light on

1. I definitely very strongly disagree with this: Even if it were true veiled were historically the norm, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. And it's not our job to go out and research the historical prevalence of different artistic styles in order to painstakingly construct a page that perfectly mirrors the net sum total of human artistic history. IF we don't introduce any further bias of our own, we're not giving undue weight - I will say, for the record or whatever, that a "perfect page" will reflect the views/thoughts/whatever of all times equally for something like art (the same does not apply to say, gravity). It's not usually practical, but an encyclopaedia should not reflect just current opinions and thoughts - that would be a newspaper.
2. As a person, I may believe that unveiled images are better representations of Muhammad than veiled ones, but I certainly do not believe this as a Wikipedia editor. Our policy on verifiability leads me to the conclusion that the most accurate image is the one supported by the most verifiable sources - so if veiled images are more common from verifiable sources, then they're more accurate (in a Wikipedia way). This is really the critical point of reason that leads me to place a veiled image in the lead (plus I really don't care for Maome aethetically).
3. Generically, I appreciate the point that Images should appear in some proportion (not necessarily linearly) to their prominence in the subject, when not used for specific purposes, but for general illustration. This may be a lot of words to cram so few ideas into. Any noteworthy genre of image should have at least one representation - for instance, I'm fairly sure the article really needs a non-Islamic image or two - for the European/Western cultural development, Muhammad is one of the may ten most important empire rulers/builders - he's an immensly important figure in the west as the builder of a (historically very important) empire - this should be reflected, somehow.
4. I'm not sure I agree with this point: It's an image of "Muhammad the Religious Figure", rather than "Muhammad the Historical Ruler"-- and that is probably a good thing since his religious role is the one that's had the greatest effect overall. either. I've started to suspect it may not really be true, and that it's certainly not true to the level people seem to believe it is, nor to the level the article represents it as.

Anyways, you're milage may vary - I was trying to find a version of the article that reasonably represented the concerns of everyone involved within the context of the relevent guidelines and policies, within the context of providing readable encyclopaedic information. WilyD 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling you and I have very similar thinking styles-- there are some excellent points there.

The weighting of the past vs the present is a really interesting theoretical question. In articles on science or math, for example, we would obviously be 100% weighted to the present. For the right historical articles, we might could see something weighted almost exclusively to the past. It's hard to come up with a good rule of thumb. Best I can come up with is to use the analogy of a teacher-- drawing upon whatever images would best explain the subject itself without grossly misrepresenting other subjects So, for example, for Muhammad, we might draw upon images which are less "historically representative" than ones we would use for "Islamic Art" for example. Interesting question-- I'll have to think on that whole 'past-vs-present weighting' thing.

Normally, I would tend to agree that Veiled and Unveiled were equally supported by verifiable sources, regardless of my personal preferences. But I think that even the original artists and othes who make use of veiled sources agree that the veiled images are less accurate than unveiled. Sorta like George Washington chopping down a cherry tree-- it's widely attested, but I don't think the sources say its accurate. On the other hand-- a simple line in the caption can fix it. On the other hand, sources similarly agree that the faces shown in the unveiled images are inaccurate. On the whole, unveiled comes closer to approximating what Muhammad would have actually looked like-- but that doesn't have to be definitive.

When you talk about Muhammad's important to the non-muslim world, I definitely agree. Some people basically have argued that Islamic imaging practices should apply to Muhammad, which I think missed the point that Muhammad, as an actual historical individual, doesn't "belong" to any one religion or culture-- whereas say, Lord Ganesha might reasonably 'belong' to hinduism for example.

All and all, the page is really shaping up. Aside from the block of editors who just want to have all the images deleted for personal reasons, the rest of the editors seems to be converging on the current solution. Thank you for your help with it. --Alecmconroy 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism versus vilification

According to critic article, "critic is a person who offers reasoned judgement or analysis, value judgement, interpretation, or observation." - A dictionary also writes "The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works."

While "vilify" means "To make vicious and defamatory statements about."

Now, Esposito, Watt, Schiemmel all says Muhammad has been vilified in West while Muslims mythified Muhammad.

E.g. Watt says:

"Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad. We saw above how this has come about. For centuries Islam was the great enemy of Christendom, since Christendom was in direct contact with no other organized states comparable in power to the Muslims. The Byzantine empire, after losing some of its best provinces to the Arabs, was being attacked in Asia Minor, while Western Europe was threatened through Spain and Sicily. Even before the Crusades focused attention on the expulsion of the Saracens from the Holy Land, medieval Europe was building up a conception of ' the great enemy '. At one point Muhammad was transformed into Mahound, the prince of darkness. By the twelfth century the ideas about Islam and Muslims current in the crusading armies were such travesties that they had a bad effect on morale. Practical considerations thus combined with scholarly zeal to foster the study and dissemination of more accurate information abo Muhammad and his religion.

Since that time much has been achieved, especially durin the last two centuries, but many of the old prejudices linge on..."

--Aminz 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to my dictionary: "Fable" is "A falsehood; a lie." but "Theory" is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

So, they are not equivalent. --Aminz 10:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To characterize anyone's criticism of or position on Muhammad as "vilification" or "old prejudices" as you have done in your most recent edits is not neutral. I'll revert your latest edits per WP:NPOV. -- Karl Meier 16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages don't have to conform to WP:NPOV or most other policies...WilyD 18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, but my above comments was also about Aminz's most recent edit to the article, and not his comments on the discussion page. -- Karl Meier 21:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources say "VILLIFY"; that's different from "CRITICIZE". "FABLE" is different from "THEORY". --Aminz 10:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I am aware that you are great at finding sources that advance your personal point of view. The problem is that your personal point of view is not NPOV. Your sources might say "vilify" and call specific positions ""old prejudices" but Wikipedia shouldn't make any such judgments. Read WP:NPOV and edit according to that policy. -- Karl Meier 11:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me chime in: Aminz, you are saying that criticizing and vilifying are not the same thing. You are correct in that assessment. But then you turn around and treat them as synonyms in the article. My edit tried, among other things, to make clear that there were both criticism and vilification in the Middle Ages. Naturally, since a writer who vilifies also criticizes, the criticism is a more frequent phenomenon. Hence I have written: "has often criticized and sometimes v"

Furthermore, "The medieval scholars and churchmen" makes the following a general statement about all scholars and churchmen, whereas most didn't care to write about Islam or M. I recently peeped into Peter the Venerable's writings about Islam and this is what he complains about: that noone else wants to tackle writing about/against Islam. Our sentence here should either be prefaced with "Some" or with out an article.

As for the "666" fable. I don't know from what obscure source this comes from (I am referring to the medieval writer who said this) but I for my part have never heard of it. That doesn't mean that it is inaccurate (though I could think of other reasons behind such a figure), only that it is obscure. I see, obscure as it is, that it has a part in article focusing on M's image in the medieval west, but: this is the overview article about M and this has no place in here. The article doesn't lose anything by dropping it, unless this passage tries to make the medieval critics look like fools, in other words: to vilify them.

Ah, and Aminz: name calling such as religious censorship are not quite helpful, especially when inaccurate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, many of such fables were created during the wars between Muslims and Christians in Medieval times. For a comparatively more positive view of Muhammad ("after reformation" as Lewis puts it) [8]

Still, this modified view is described as a vilifying Muhammad. --Aminz 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think I shouldn't have written the "religous censorship" bit. --Aminz 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I am glad that you take that last bit back.

The question is not whether many fables were created but how representative they are of medieval writing about Islam and how notable the fable is. The 666 bit is IMHO not notable and actually not needed for classifying Islam as the Antichrist (let me state that I don't agree with it but I can see how one can come to this conclusion), which BTW is not a fable but an assessment in a certain theological-religious framework.

You have not answere my query about your practically (maybe unintentionally) identifying criticism with vilification. Both were present in the MA.

Your link doesn't provide anything useful. Maybe you shouldn't be googeling so much. The page contains "villified" once and "Muhammad" several times but a whole lot more and nobody I hope advocates including this in an endorsing fashion into this (or any other) article.

From my observation (which doesn't matter much article-wise) I can not confirm that the reformation as such has resulted in a "more positive view" of M. (leaving aside hypocritical statements by Luther about the Pope and the Sultan). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, Please take a look at pages 45 and 46 of Lewis's book here (last paragraph) [9].

I have read these information from various places and have no doubt that I am correct on this point. --Aminz 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Aminz, I have read and have found nothing in there that's disputed between us. Though I think the Mahound thing is overdone (but maybe that is a phenomenon of the English-speaking world), you could very well use the first sentence of that paragraph as an attributed quote. This is much better than the "fables". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "fables" has too much moral baggage associated with its use; I think another word is more appropriate. - Merzbow 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I also suggest that you read (if you haven't done so yet) this article by Watt, which I found on the al-Kindi article. Apart from minor squibbles (re the Crusades and the concept of "protected" "minorities"), I think it is a good outline of Muslim-Christian Encounters. Given your record regarding Watt, I think will appreciate this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a quick look. Does he disagree with what I have said? --Aminz 08:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when could a "source" not disagreeing be the basis for including a statement? The thing is that you beloved Watt manages to writes an article without referring to this silly fable. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) PS. Does the word mythify exist? I have found no evidence for that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This Edit War Should Stop

Really, 'Islam' actually means Peace, so why can't we keep it like that? The users who want the picture, I totally know what your saying, but it's really offensive to Muslims and hurts them. The veiled picture of Muhammad (PBUH) is alright I guess, since his face is covered. But the one where his face is completely exposed isn't so nice, and is very offensive. If your so concerned about how he looks, why don't you give him a physical description or something? All I'm saying is that this edit war really, really sucks and we should stop fighting. Iman S1995 14:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No Islam, means submission to God.

If you despise this edit war, why don't you stop it? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal is not in line with our policies. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The arguments you make have been discussed on this page already, multiple times, in great detail. Archives 6 and 7 may shed light on this for you. --Hojimachong^talk 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And of course, members of the "anti-Muslim brigade" reply first as usual. Some things never change ... 216.99.60.136 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that speaks for our dedication to the subject, which some people (up at Talk:Muhammad#One click to the Pic) seem to think we don't have. And we're not anti-Muslim. --Hojimachong^talk 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, if you're going to be using anon IP's, please take care that you don't say or do anything you wouldn't be willing to say or do under your regular username (e.g. vote-stacking, personal attacks, vandalism.)Proabivouac 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue of what you are trying to say ..... :D 216.99.60.136 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad and the Jews

Arrow, we are explaning Muhammad's view of Jews and its development. That Christians and Jews had disagreements isn't blaming them. It is sourced. --Aminz 04:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "when" blames the Jews and Christians. Arrow740 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Encyclopedia of Religion says that Muhammad was shocked to see that the community of one God is divided into warring sects because of a few theological disagreements. So does Encyclopedia of Islam says that Muhammad's view regarding Jews and Christians changed upon informing the internal disagreements between Jews and Christians and within themselves. How are Christians and Jews blamed here? --Aminz 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea of a "community of one God" became dar al-Islam versus dar al-harb pretty quickly. This is saying that they were responsible for Muhammad's negative opinion of them. In fact they weren't; they were minding their own business and he took it upon himself to butcher most of the Jewish males he encountered and enslave all the women to concubinage and so forth. It is not fair to his victims to blame them for Muhammad's ideas about them. Arrow740 06:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

When I look at the disputed passage:

Muhammad referred to Christians and Jews, sharing the same scriptural tradition as his, as "People of the Book". Muhammad's favourable attitude towards Christians and Jews started becoming negative in late Meccan period when he became more aware of antipathy between Jews and Christians and disagreements between members of the same religion.

I have two issues:

1) It is stylistically bad to start the section like that.

2) It is indeed pushing a POV, that Muhammad's attitude changed because of the antipathy between Jews and Christians. Fact of the matter is, that he changed it when other would not accept him as prophet. Also, if M. was so concerned about the community of God divided why did he create a third grouping instead of joining one or the other. It is indeed unacceptable to blame Jews and Christians for divisions.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Fact of the matter is, that he changed it when other would not accept him as prophet."

Indeed, this is also easily sourced, as we are well aware. My impression is that this is be the majority view. Even Haykal concurs. The question is, do we wish to launch into an extended discussion on why Muhammad's attitudes changed? If so, then it should be balanced and appropriately placed.Proabivouac 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Norman Stillman also agrees "This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion."

Encyclopedia of Religion also confirms that.

Then what's the point? Now it is POV-pushing?! --Aminz 09:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you please clarify what does "It is stylistically bad to start the section like that" actually mean? Or Arrow740 thinks it is bad because it is blaming Jews and Christians for having disputes! I hope that doesn't classify as religous censorship. --Aminz 10:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, Just because Stillman and the EoR say that doesn't make it any less POV, to claim that as the sole and main reason for M's change of mind. Stylistically, it is better to first relate what happened and than give an analysis of the possible reasons (note the plural). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is far from apparent that Stillman means Muhammad became more hostile towards Jews and Christians because he became aware of interreligious conflicts. This idea would fly in the face of the conventional wisdom that Muhammad disparaged Chrisitans and, especially, Jews for rejecting his claims to prophethood. The passage in question is not entirely clear to me on its own, and it cannot be included unless we know more about Stillman's line of reasoning. Beit Or 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To Str, "Just because Stillman and the EoR say that doesn't make it any less POV". I will attribute it to them.

To Beit Or, you have access to Encyclopedia of Islam. --Aminz 08:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

<reset>

Why are you removing sourced material Arrow? --Aminz 06:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that edit summaries are not a reliable source for my views? Arrow740 06:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not understanding why Aminz is being reverted. These are verifiable quotes aren't they? (→Netscott) 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you were completely obscuring Stillman's point. The full quote is balanced. I've never seen such blatant cherry-picking to advance a POV before. Arrow740 07:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My advice: {{sofixit}}, don't just blindly (and easily) revert Aminz's edit out... add to it what needs to be added so that the quote is balanced. (→Netscott) 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, you don't stop being rude, do you? --Aminz 07:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hidden table of contents

I see that Netscott has recently auto-hidden the table of contents on this article and the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. What do people think? Is it an improvement over the versions with the standard layout: [10][11]?

My initial reaction is to be a little hesistant-- it seems like the standard layout works well. There's something to be said for inter-article layout consistency. And in general, I usually don't want to have to click on something in order to see valuable parts of the article. But that's just my initial impression. Have we hidden TOCS elsewhere? What do other eyes think. --Alecmconroy 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Plus I don't see any alternative that could look any better. - Merzbow 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to hesitate about removing it if you feel it's a distraction User:Alecmconroy... I'm just BOLDly putting Template:TOChidden out there gradually and seeing how folks are responding to it. So far it's only been removed from one article that I have placed it on (that I have noticed) but concurrently placed on another (and some user's are putting it on their talk pages). (→Netscott) 07:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad died in 666

I've read a lot of material, but I've never seen the claim before that someone claimed that he actually died in 666. I'm suspicious of this claim, I'd like to see it quoted and cited. Thanks. Wjhonson 06:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that the reason I'm suspicious is the use of "666" as a year. I'm not sure that someone living in 666 would actually understand that they were, and that typically *years* were expressed more in the form of "in the 8th year of the reign of King Gundapharas" and so on. Wjhonson 07:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a fable. He didn't die in 666. --Aminz 08:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that. I'm asking for what the citation is for the *claim* that he did, as was posted to the article. That claim has no citation and it's suspicious. Wjhonson 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And, as I stated above, the "fable", even if actually really brough up (for which we lack the reference), is in no way representative for how M was viewed in the Middle Ages. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas

Although I do understand that this has had a spotty history of controversy here, I think there is some room to *mention* that this work exists and speaks of Muhammad. Whether it's spurious, fraudulent, or any other argument doesn't really speak to the fact that it *should* be mentioned in some context, even if only due to that very controversy. "A more detailed mention of Muhammad can be found in the Gospel of Barnabas, the earliest version of which has been traced to the late 16th Century. Gospel of Barnabas online Wjhonson 07:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, mentioning that the work exists, in no way asserts that its useful, factual, non-POV or any other thing. It merely asserts that it exists and mentions Muhammad and is notable. Wjhonson 07:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many completely ridiculous (yet sourcable) things have been said about Muhammad over the past thirteen centuries, and how long (and bizarre) this article would be if we listed them all?Proabivouac 08:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like what's in GOB is ridiculous or bizarre. But it does seem notable. Wjhonson 08:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a Renaissance-era forgery, and of basically no importance to this article.Proabivouac 08:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac: i totally agree with wjohnson,that was my point all along.you definitely went overboard.besides,we are not citing "ridiculous (yet sourcable) things" as you said.st barnabas still has followers and his churches are still alive in u.s-there's one beside my place actually-regardless of what you may believe.if something doesn't make sense to you then know that it doesnt necessarily mean that it doesn't make sense to everyone as well.i don't know how religious you are but if you are christian then remember this:jesus(peace be upon him) was never hateful or rude as much as you are,you should be ashamed of yourself to be that biased.i would really appreciate if you can take users wjohnson or netscott as an exmaple on how to talk with others.hopefully US muslims can teach how to follow a loving person like jesus.its 3 am now i will hopefully attend to this laterGrandia01 08:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)..

Do not speculate about my religious beliefs, for it is incivil, or discuss yours, for they are completely off topic to building a neutral encyclopedia.

Just because your forgery is called "St. Barnabas" doesn't mean that institutions named after Barnabas follow it.Proabivouac 08:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Gospel of Barnabas is relevant to this article. What might be relevant is the belief of Jewish communities in Arabia before Muhammad that God would choose a prophet from Arabia (though he was supposed to be a Jew and not a Gentile). --Aminz 08:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with aminz.that doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.the reason why i want to include the gospel of st barnabas is because he is still looked at with respect from christians and he still has followers.i don't see any reason why he shouldn't be included.Wjhonson clarified my point.please help me with any tips on how to include my entry as well as include yours.thank you Grandia01

Proabivouac: 1)thank you for teaching me how to talk to others,i always value other's opinions and advices.i just hope that you can also direct your precious advices to yourself as well.hopefully that will make you more respectful to others as well,even those who don't necessarilly agree with you. 2)so what do you think about my entry and Aminz??or are we going to just keep on entering and deleting entries randomly forever??hope to get a constructive opinion from you this time... Grandia01

Ahmed Deedat was not any kind of reputable scholar, either academic or religious, nor a respectable mainstream interpreter of either the Qur'an or renaissance-era forgeries, but a proselytizer in the mold of Zakir Naik. His talking points are about as relevant here as are those of Jimmy Swaggart, whom he debated: that is, they're not. Perhaps another article List of marginal views about Muhammad would provide a good home for this material. Otherwise, it should appear only in the Ahmed Deedat article.Proabivouac 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should mention the gospel of Barnabas' relevance to Muhammad. Doesn't matter if one editor thinks it's forgery or not, that's just their opinion.206.126.82.92 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

my question is not whether to include the gospel of barnabas entry or not.but rather how to write it.i agree with Proabivouac's point of mentioning ahmed deedat's analysis in his page but what of the gospel of barnabas thing??i also agree that it is definitely relevant to muhammad's page.regardless of what he or anyone else thinks.can someone please help me finalize this before i-or anyone else-enter it again??also,Proabivouac,please let me know of any recommended edits that you may want to include,i will listen and consider any opinions you may have.thank you

It's just fine to write on the Gospel of Barnabas. It just doesn't belong here. Frotz 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Frotz and Proverbiouac; I know this sounds odd, but the Gospel of Barnabas is, um, not a very verifiable source. There are many forgeries attributed to some prophet or another; we can't list them all. Patstuart^talk·edits 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what verifiable means in wikicontext. Verifiable only means that the average editor could go look it up themselves and proves that it says whatever it says. That is, you can verify the quote or summation matches the source. Verifiability says nothing about whether the source is truthful.Wjhonson 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides here,but Wjhonson so far has provided the strongest arguments.so now what??how should i post the gospel of barnabas entry again??if so,can anyone provide any suggestions on hwo to do so so i can write an entry that everyone agress with??i already withdrew a lot of my previous ideas so i can be in agreement with everyone.please be fair and open-minded.i believe that i've done my part-that is to do my best to write an entry that everyone could agree on-and i hope that i find appreciative ears...Grandia01 07:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Patstuart didn't quite state it correctly. The reason why the Gospel of Barnabas does not belong here is that it's a forgery and therefore not a source of prophecy, as you suggest it is. The fact we can point at the document in a museum or library is not relevant. One can also point to documents claiming that Jesus was a space alien. Note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (also a forgery) is not mentioned in Judaism. Frotz 09:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it a forgery (which is the main point), it is also a forgery not very relevant to the person of Muhammad or to Islam. The former lived in the 7th century, the latter started at that time, almost 1400 years ago. The "Gospel of Barnabas" was forged around 1500, more than 700 years later, when Muhammad was long dead and Islam had fully formed. Or can anyone tell me the impact of the GoB on Islam? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys: 1)for the millionth time,just because this gospel is looked at as mere forgery by some doesn't mean that it is so in the eyes of everyone else. 2)please,provide any useful advice in re-constructing this entry so everyone else can be happy about it. 3)again,i've done my part of listening to your advices and actually took them into consideration.can someone do the same??4)Dear Patstuart:we have discussed this before and it was decided to omit this entry for the time being.but i still didn't get any tips from you on how to make this entry agreeable with everyone??i respect your character and i hope to get some sincere advice.and I thank you for your discussion with us so far.hope to get more ideas from you.5)last but not least,none of you editors represent ALL Christians therefore you can't say that it is definitely a forgery.even if it is forgery in your eyes,it is still notable to mentioned because of other’s different views concerning all this(and-obviously-no they are not merely a minority).thank you for your kind attention everyone and i apologize in advance just in case if i offended anyone,please know that i didn't mean to...Thank youGrandia01 07:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "represent[ing] ALL Christians," or anyone's religious beliefs. It should be obvious by now that there is no consensus, and likely will never be a consensus, to include this marginal material in this article. My advice, therefore, is to write about this in places where it is accepted as sufficiently topical.Proabivouac 23:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And where would you suggest that??Grandia01 02:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone,i will take Proabivouac's suggestion and start a marginal new article titled: "various other views of muhammad" where all editors can include as many views of muhammad as possible.agreed??Grandia01 09:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The Jews

That section is badly written and takes Muhammad's side. Arrow740 03:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Should I tag it with {{sectionrewrite}} or {{balance}}?--Sefringle 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

{{sectionrewrite}} inserted. BTW, I don't feel the section is really necessary, as it is a detour from the chronological layout of the article. Beit Or 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree; although some of the material is fine, it should be presented chronologically along with the rest of the biography.Proabivouac 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember you welcomed having this section? --Aminz 21:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The material is fine. I am only saying that the biography portion should proceed chronologically rather than thematically. As it's from the same general period, all the material will wind up nearby the rest anyhow. Generally, the article should be structured as follows: I. lead, II. sources, III. biography, IV. legacy (including "views").Proabivouac 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that disagree with what is written here? --Aminz 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please state why you think the section needs re-write? --Aminz 21:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So Proabivouac, you only disagree with the order/placement of the section, not the content itself?Bless sins 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article locked

Why is it locked/protected from editing? And if yes, where is the tag? 206.126.81.88 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing of this article is restricted to established editors in order to protect it from vandalism. I have no idea where the tag is. Galanskov 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So called "Images of Prophet" are NOT part of islam

These images are Not part of islam but actually they are part of middle eastern and persian art traditions. These images cannot be linked with islam. There are many saints of islam who came after Muhammad to preach islam , these images could represent them but not Muhammad. There is simply no evidence in that case. If you have evidence you can show it up here Funnypop12 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)