Talk:Muhammad

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

Please note that discussion on this talk page has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article and any removal of the pictures without discussion here first will be reverted on sight. If you wish to discuss the inclusion of pictures in the article, please read over previous discussions here, here, and here and the Muhammad article FAQ at this page.

For all questions relating to the addition of (pbuh), (peace be upon him), or other honorifics: Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Muhammad for current Wikipedia guidelines on this issue.

---

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Image archives 1, 2, 3, 4 Mediation Archives Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive Index

Need clarification

Hi folks, just asking for a clarification here: " and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca." In this instance, does "conquered" refer to a violent event, or is it meant in the spiritual sense? Thanks, Duagloth (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reflist & Notes

Why can't we merge notes and references together? Or better yet, why can't we fit it into a box and attach a scrollbar on the notes section? It is easier to read that way. And the whole thing doesn't take a long time to come up. It does seem to have more references than any I have seen ever before... LOTRrules (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen some articles use the scrollbar method but I think it is particularly ugly and makes it very difficult to browse citations. Hopefully in the future that will be an option in your CSS where you can change <references/> into being into a box or not.

As for merging the two--they provide difference purposes. You can have the first note give full bibliographic information and all of the subsequent just use the author but I find that makes it harder to compile a list of references. By separating them you allow for small notes and full references. One problem in this article is that we seem to use full bibliographic information in the notes for online references. gren グレン 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling attention to the FAQ list

The large STOP hand was a good idea, but the colors need work. Various flavors of purple on a pink background makes for bad contrast. Frotz (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have the visibility and contrast problems solved, how about if we move the FAQ notice at the very top of the talk page and delete the three notes about pictures, honorifics, and censorship? All three are covered in the FAQ. Frotz (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to improve the text below images

The text in the article below the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg says, "The earliest surviving image of Muhammad ...". I hope it will help resolving the controversy to some extent if the text is changed to reflect the fact that the image does not necessarily bear any resemblance to the actual personality and is purely imaginary. The text at the moment, particularly "the earliest surviving" part is a bit misleading in its own right as it may suggest a false originality associated with the image, while there was surely no way of capturing the true look of Mohammad (SAW) after almost 6.5 centuries of His death. I agree that technically the word 'image' should be enough to suggest what I have explained, but keeping in view that we have a huge number of international readers, one cannot deny the connotation this text has, and we should be ready to make it clearer if possible for non-native english speakers. I hope my request is quite reasonable and shall gain some endorsement on the forum.

Kind Regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarosh Alamgir (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the captions have since been improved with these concerns in mind.--C.Logan (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I havent nocticed any improvments in these captions, and i perfectly agree with his request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

why cant i edit this page ?

last time i heard every one was allowed to edit wikipedia, what happened to that ? this is sad. please explain the reasoning behing this.

--digitalSurgeon (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Roughly speaking, persistant vandalism of the page has forced us to disabling editing for anonymous editors and new accounts. Accounts older than four days can still edit normally. Although sad, it's truly necessary, feel free to peruse the history to see what's happened when protection has been lifted. WilyD 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is fully protected now (i.e., not even fully registered ordinary editors can edit), presumably because of a petition currently circulating against Wikipedia protesting the inclusion of images. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The page was fully protected due to the edit warring over the images. Nakon 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fully protected because editors keep coming in and removing the images, changing them, or just in general creating a ruckus. Jmlk17 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So it was, I'll change the template. WilyD 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the FAQ

The problem with Talk:Muhammad/FAQ is that, since it's already in the Talk: space, there's no obvious place to discuss it. At least one person has inserted his arguments in the middle of the page, and this will probably keep happening. Maybe this could be moved to Wikipedia: space? Just a thought. Are there other articles that have editing FAQ sub-pages? How do they deal with this?—Chowbok ☠ 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution also has an FAQ page. I guess we should discuss it here. Hut 8.5 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On the evolution FAQ, they seem to direct accounts that do this to talk.origins, and revert the changes. I don't think that this is really an applicable situation here. See their history page. I'm guessing a gentle revert and a reminder that the FAQ page is not the place to do such things is probably be the best idea here for the moment. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

For what it's worth, I copied the design of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ from Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

More calligraphy please

The article really should have an example of Sini script. For exampleIslamic Calligraphy in China, figure 16 shows an honorific of the Prophet, although the most mind-blowing are probably figures 6 and 15. What a fantastic artistic tradition! Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think C.Logan and I have agreed that more calligraphy could be useful. You do bring up a good idea.. I had already brought up Nastaliq as another style that we could use (since its common for Persian and Urdu). Sini calligraphy seems even more interesting, since it differs so much in its look (Nastaliq is more simplified, with an emphasis on Arabesques). The Chinese already have a strong calligraphic tradition of their own, so I'm sure their styles do carry a sense of uniqueness, even if they are written in modified Arabic script. -Rosywounds (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Figure 8 is my personal favorite, but I fear it's not quite distinct enough (when compared to the more traditionally Chinese-influenced forms displayed).--C.Logan (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I find the calligraphy offensive. It has no representative function for anyone who cannot read Arabic. And it is also far more recent than the pictures. Why should it be the first image shown? TharkunColl (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming (hoping) that is sarcasm. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm or not, it is a refreshing change of pace. In any case, I'm beginning to wonder how one would respond if the comment above is indeed serious.--C.Logan (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't sarcasm. Why is there a calligraphy image given pride of place? TharkunColl (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate on this argument.--C.Logan (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

All articles on historical figures - especially important historical figures - have an image at the head of the article of that figure. The fact that this article consigns those images to secondary places is itself censorship, and we really should put one of them - say the Biruni one - at the top. Besides, the calligraphy image is repeated just a few inches further down in the info box. TharkunColl (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do disagree with you here. Visual imagery has always taken a secondary role when it comes to depictions of Muhammad; for that reason, giving heavier emphasis to an art form that conforms to Western aesthetic comes across as somewhat of an intellectual imperialism. I am not pro-censorship (in fact, I'm Shiite), but I still think the calligraphic styles and veiled styles, which represent the more typical forms, should taken precedent here. The reason most articles do not use such examples at the top is because most other historical figures have not been depicted in such a way. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that we might want to choose a less redundant calligraphic representation. As far as the images are concerned, I have no greater preference for either.--C.Logan (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the "lead" image is calligraphic, with the other images relegated to below the fold, as a deliberate concession to the people who don't want the images here at all. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable and appropriate compromise. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This also seems a sensible compromise and basis for a policy to me. I do not support wholesale removal of all the images in question, but there's no point in rubbing them in the noses of Muslims who find the pictures offensive by cramming as many as we possibly can into the top 10% of the article. Especially when there is calligraphy and other images available that can illustrate this article just as well. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

In no other instance do we put pictures of the subject "below the fold". Treating this article differently because of the objections of a vocal minority would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. We should treat the article about this man no differently than an article about any other man.—Chowbok ☠ 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only, I argued for calligraphy first (and I wanted fewer images, not none) because it is by far the most common representation of Muhammad in Islamic history and an important part of Islamic tradition. gren グレン 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

use of "to conquer"

Don't do this please. You r not alloed to Draw Picture of Muhammad (PBUH) Please Rempve them Adnan (ISB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.177.146 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 212.116.219.107 (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Irfan

Sure we are, wikipedia is not an islamic encyclopedia. We don't follow islamic law. Zazaban (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You dont have to follow islamic Laws to give respect to others' feelings. and to what laws do u really follow ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is different than respecting others feelings. Should we delete the article on Masturbation or anal sex because the subject matter is often considered offensive? No. And about the laws; I am an anarchist, so I don't suppose I do follow a set of laws. I don't find them to be useful or justified. Neither is censorship. Zazaban (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, you are missing the point Zazaban. I suggest you get yourself more educated on the prophet Muhammad, before posting comments.

^^^ This is hilarious. I actually almost because a muslim once, and joined an islamic forum. Not to mention the huge interest I have in religion. I've read the entire history of Muhmmad's life several times for god's sake! I suggest you get yourself more educated on Zazaban, before posting comments. Also, how on earth am I missing the point? Could you be willing to explain that one? Zazaban (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, you are missing the point Random Anonymous Person, I suggest you get yourself more educated on the website Wikipedia, before posting comments. JuJube (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that.--C.Logan (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is full protection necessary?

Is it necessary? Most of editwars seems to come from new accounts or IPs. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A number are coming from sleeper accounts as well though, hence the full. :) Jmlk17 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, blocking such persistent accounts seems to a better choice because after expiration of this protection, the edit war may resume again. Those accounts have to learn that like it or not, they are a pushing a minority view. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll reduce the protection to semi for a while and see what happens. If the edit warring over the images resumes, I'll reprotect. Nakon 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it as well. Let's hope it works! Jmlk17 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand, since many editors are editting the images, then obviously there is a quite enough number of writers who want these images out... isnt this the purpose of wikipedia. Or those images are so important to stay that you even violate the whole reason wikiperdia was established on.

Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia... constructively. This whole removing the established, purposeful, and relevant image thing isn't constructive. Jmlk17 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Since people refuse to talk on this talk page, and continue to remove and revert the images out of the article, it has to be fully protected again. Jmlk17 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By your logic, since there's quite a number of editors who seem to think the Earth article should be replaced by "Mostly harmless", we should go ahead and let them. JuJube (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, remember that wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, but a ... fact-ocracy. NPOVarchy. Whatever. Those are the principles on which WP was founded on - principles trump concensus.--Wikinterpreter (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Appearance of Muhammad

Any idea how one can incorporate this kind of information to the article [1]? in a table with the subtitle "Appearance and Manner"? --Be happy!! (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My question would be - is it necessary to include such a level of detail in physical description in this article? It is fairly long as it is. ^Avruchtalk 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the appearance information seem to be interesting especially when we have reliable sources talking about it. Some readers might be interested to see how Muhammad looked like. That would in part address some of the objection made above regarding the informativeness of the drawings.--Be happy!! (talk)

I'm not sure how - I would much rather see a visual depiction of his appearance than try to imagine it based on written descriptions. Not the most neutral of descriptions in this case, either. ^Avruchtalk 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is important to have these descriptions, because these descriptions are more valid and correct, since it came from people who actually saw the prophet. While the depiction, no one can be sure of its truthfullness since, non were drawn while he was alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And we know that how? JuJube (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

you will find that documented in all the Islamic books talking about the prophet peace upon him. the same description is everywhere. no one has changed or added to it a single world. that is verified scientifically. You may refer to any book talking about the descritpions of the prophet, and make sure yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk • contribs) 18:39, February 3, 2008 (UTC)

FAQ improvement possibility.

Even though it seems that nobody even bothers to read the FAQ, it could certainly be a bit more solid and developed. We've gotten a few arguments which, while still utterly flawed, are semi-common and deserve a clear response (lest others follow in these same footsteps).

There are, I think, some fundamental misunderstandings between the resident editors and these concerned visitors. Notice, for example, the difficulty found in grasping simple concepts such as "illustrative depiction". Notice one of the poorest and yet most prevalent argument: that the images are "incorrect".

The FAQ touches on these arguments, but it could certainly do much more. Let's not let this plague of topics and repetitive posting go to waste- incorporate some of the discussion into the FAQ. Perhaps it would be best to start with an introduction which explains- generally- the concepts of "depiction", "neutrality", "censorship". After this introduction, a presentation of the common arguments/questions would be appropriate. I hope somebody agrees on this; the FAQ is a nice tool that we can turn to, but it's only moderately effective at this point. Improving it will save everyone quite a bit of time in the future, as all major arguments will already have a clear response.--C.Logan (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Want me to give it a try? Maybe I should try it anyway... Be bold and all. What do you think? -- RaspK FOG (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

pictures, wikipedia servers

Since Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, does that mean if someone proposes an initiative in Florida to ban pictures of muhammed from being shown and it passes then Wikipedia would have to remove thier pictures no matter what the consensus is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.251.11 (talk • contribs) 04:33, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)

no, the proposition would have to be passed into law, and that would never happen. Zazaban (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not at all how it works. That would be complete and utter censorship, as well as a free speech issue. Jmlk17 10:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The servers aren't all based in Florida, and the company is now incorporated in California. Still, if California tried to pass such a law it would get knocked down pretty quick in federal court. Good thought though. ^Avruchtalk 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

First amendment, anonymous genius. JuJube (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, JuJube. I was going to say that... haha. нмŵוτнτ 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lamest Edit Wars

I've just nominated this article for Wikipedia: LAME. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I suggested that ages ago. Zazaban (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It really is not a candidate (perhaps why it was not adopted months ago ;-P) . Whether Wikipedia is censored according to religious sensibilities is actually an important issue. If instead this was a 12 month debate about the positioning of an apostrophe in the article instead, then you may have had a point... --•CHILLDOUBT• 19:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not entirely the subject, but how it's actually being done. The actual debate being done is very lame indeed. Go over the history back to Faraz Ahmad and the petition that started it all. Because this whole war was brought on by people who have probably never used wikipedia before in their lives. Also, 'cyber crusade' is just plain hilarious. Zazaban (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is serious, but this whole page is lame. We are not a forum but we just don't effectively deal with good faith / trolls / and in between which come here en masse without any editing experience. gren グレン 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

remove the picture it is against us laws ~thankyou

Yeah, but the servers are in Florida, so only Florida laws need to be followed. нмŵוτнτ 16:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A new suggestion

I have a new suggestion. The page Muhammad redirects into a disambiguation page like this [2] in which two versions of the article are presented. One with images and the other without images. The editors can then choose the version they want to see. This is not censoring because the readers can simply choose their preferred version. It will not set a precedent for say pornography pictures because those who get offended by the pornography pictures are not very likely to visit the related articles while those who are Muslim are likely to visit Muhammad, so the very higher chance. So it can not serve as a precedent as such. Furthermore, it will not really be a fork because the two versions differ only in terms of the images. In fact, we may be able to recall the same article with a parameter showing the choice of pictures being shown or not being shown (just like templates can receive parameters)--Be happy!! (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am against this idea. I understand what you are saying, but where would we draw the line? This could easily start a precedent where we have a censored and uncensored version of Wikipedia for everything potentially offensive. What's next? An article explaining pornography without images because someone might get offended? I'm not trying to compare the two, but I hope you get where I am coming from. Jmlk17 10:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is where we draw the line: If many editors visit an article while not expecting to be exposed to an image causing "shock, disgust, or revulsion", then that should be avoided without any prior notification. This is like the R-rated notice at the beginning of films, or other such notices that are common. When an editor visits pornography articles, by virtue of doing that, he should however expect to see something of that sort there and no prior notice is necessary. I think this can be made more precise if needed. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure how others feel about the issue, but at the time I see no problem with the possibility of "warnings"- we have them already, I believe, for plot information and the like. Of course, I'm speaking of warnings which would be placed on the page itself. The inclusion of a warning or note on the page (as is the case on the Bahá'u'lláh page) is hardly objectionable.--C.Logan (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it NOT a content folk? This will never fly because of the precendent it would set. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Placing this here due to edit conflicts:

It is really up to community judgment whether or not this would count as a violation of WP:POVFORK. Additionally, this will still likely set a precedent: other articles with "offensive" imagery would have a prior case for the justification of "censored" forks being created in those instances as well.

These are all simply patchy solutions to a problem which exists only in the minds of a particular group of users- a group which, as has apparently been evidenced, misunderstand policies and concepts which drive Wikipedia and other encyclopedias as well (no offense to Aminz, who is clearly trying to provide productive solutions to satisfy all parties).

I am no veteran of prior discussion on this issue, so I can't say I am familiar with the original arguments "for" and "against" the inclusion of these images in the original discussion (which led to the current decision). Therefore, I am unaware as to whether or not anyone has elucidated on Muslim concerns with both articulation and familiarity with policies (and a thorough understanding of opposing arguments). The current posts, sincere though they may be, are entirely useless as they do not understand the requirements placed upon editors and/or the founding principles of this encyclopedia.

I personally do not quite understand the stigma with images in the context of an encyclopedia reporting in the interest of neutrality. I see images which may seem offensive to me, but I do not object to the right to intellectual interest and freedom. I can separate, in my mind, that which I believe and must ascribe to and that which is apparent and which, quite simply, is "out there" in the world. Because I feel this way, it is difficult for me to agree with requests for removal out of "respect", as it appears quite clear to me to be an infringement upon my own personal rights and upon the rights of other users who aren't obligated to abide by religious requirements.

There are two possible solutions for bridging this apparent gap in thinking: first, that we utilize the most recent discussions as a guideline to expand the FAQ. This will save us a great deal of time in the future, as I feel that if the FAQ reaches a point where it can truly "speak for itself", then we will have more time to devote to actually improving the article. Second, I feel that a user who may understand the concerns of these users should address the issues with policy in mind; for example, Aminz or any other user who may themselves be more familiar with these concepts may wish to point out which arguments should be discarded completely (being indefensible in the face of policy) and which should be given due consideration (preferably because of the possible flexibility of policy rather than due to the personal feelings of the user).

I suggest this latter possibility because it will improve the FAQ itself, and because I worry that, as I have noted above, there appears to be a mistranslation between the (largely "Western") editors here and the anons/new users so concerned with removing the images. While I feel that "no censorship" is a policy we should abide by without compromise, I also feel that we should be respectful of the concerns of others (no matter how many times arguments are heard and how "straw-grasping" they may seem to us) and should be certain that we answer all concerns so that, if even by a remote chance, one might leave the discussion with a sense of understanding as to why Wikipedia is so staunch in keeping the pictures, and why (despite what our underlying suspicions may cause us to believe) no one is intentionally trying to anger or offend anyone else.

The freedom we cherish in the Western world can be a double-edged sword, to be sure- but the risk is worth taking. We do not censor material, and if the integrity of the site is to be preserved, we will never do so. Let's keep in mind why we're here, and make sure that the uninitiated may understand why as well.--C.Logan (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments about offensiveness etc. aside, there is another argument that doesn't really wash. That is the contention that it's not an accurate reflection of its subject. It's quite clear that we aren't attempting to depict the topic, but rather show how he has been depicted in tradition. The contention raised by myself and others during mediation was that the tradition of depicting Muhammad, while it indeed existed, was itself not highly prevalent in Muslim hagiographic representation or veneration. Thus, to prominently place several depictions is too overt, too flagrant, and unbalanced. It's an overstatement of a relatively minority tradition, and this is where IMO WP:UNDUE comes into play. I have no problem with two depictions (for example) in the article, one in the depictions section, and another which illustrates a significant event like Isra/Mi'raj. To me, that's a balanced representation, and while this issue was debated for months a number of us saw this as the middle way between incendiary picture-spamming and censorship, as well as being based upon sound understanding of policy. Perhaps this perspective can be revisited, and hopefully result in a more stable article in the long run? ITAQALLAH 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Zazaban (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But why would it? Who's turned up asking for only one image to be presented? nobody. It wouldn't solve a thing. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still a good idea regardless of whether it would help in this catastrophe. Zazaban (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick, I think a lot of people feel offended because of how overt it is in the presentation. To be frank, it just looks like it's calculated to offend, and I can understand why many people who may be more 'moderate' would instantly feel provoked when barraged with a string of depictions (which itself is an unbalanced representation). I might also note that many of those who had strongly 'opposed' any sort of images during the mediation were indeed willing to accept images in the article so long as they weren't of the kind of overtness we see now. ITAQALLAH 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe Itaqallah has a valid point. I read some comments comparing the depicting of Muhammad with the depicting of Jesus, this is unfair. I believe the depicting of Jesus is a common practice in the Christian history, unlike the depicting of Muhammad in the Islamic history. So putting 3 pictures in the article is an overstatement of the practice. (Imad marie (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

It is not the purpose of the article to adhere to Islamic practice. Even if Muhammad was never depicted by Muslims - which is not the case - it would still have no bearing on the article. Wikipedia is not bound by Muslim law or tradition. TharkunColl (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what he said, or did you just write a knee-jerk reply? Zazaban (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said it was, TharkunColl. ITAQALLAH 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice to all those who wish Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad

Please place your requests for Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad in this dedicated page or they may be removed. TharkunColl TharkunColl (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: if this is the page now in use for these particular topics, we may want to change the banner near the top which explains that no changes will be made without discussion on this page.--C.Logan (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

most people are never going to read it - it would actually make more sense for the rest of us to leave this page to the "please remove" crowd and do all of the real work on a sub-page. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, this may be the case if the reaction to the FAQ is any indication.--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this notice to the bottom where I suggest it remains, so that everyone sees it. TharkunColl (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to TharkunColl: I'd reverted your removal of the "a new suggestion" topic, because I feel that this is a topic which is mostly productive and should not be included along with the rest of the "request" posts, which are typically by anonymous or new users with little or no knowledge of Wikipedia policy. As far as I can see, this is not a "request" which would justifiably need to be moved to the new page for such posts- doing so would "drown out" the points raised by Aminz, because I can't help but feel that this new page will be one that is afforded little real attention or concern (though one can't be blamed for this attitude considering the route the discussion has taken).--C.Logan (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

though the images are not yet removed, but i have to thank everyone who took the time to participate in this discussion. Those who are in favor of the removal or not, I thank everyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk • contribs) 06:48, February 4, 2008 (UTC) (UTC-5)

There is no "yet" my friend. Jmlk17 11:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your page to Talk:Muhammad/images whic is the original title under which we did image discussions. I'm sure you realize what you were doing when you called it "censorship requests" but our goal is to make this a manageable issue that does not clog the talk page, not belittle the people making these requests. gren グレン 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Depressing Comments

It is more depressing in wikipedia to read that Picture will not be Removed .Though there may be some Consensus but that does mean that on those articles where Consensus has been Reached there cant be any Change.It seems frankly an Organized propganda of Editors to

• To harass Muslims when they Constitute a good concentration of WIKIPEDIAN editors and Readers .

• To hurt their feelings in the name of Consensus by inserting someone else Picture with the name of Prophet S.A.W

• To show arbitrariness on wiki by writing that PIC will not be removed What does that mean?

• It shows finally wikipedia a tool to harass Muslims in the name of freedom of Expression.

• I fear that this arbitrary Step of wikipedians to not allow the removal of Pic may Lead to Confusion and Unrest in the Muslim world.Shabiha ^(t 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not another conspiracy theory... Zazaban (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Depressing comments indeed. The quality of the arguments to remove pictures surely has to improve soon? •CHILLDOUBT• 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it "harrassment"? Nobody has to come here. If you go to a restaurant and you don't like the food, are they "harrassing" you by serving you food you don't like?—Chowbok ☠ 17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think my earlier suggestion has merit - leave this page to the "please remove" crowd and do all of the discussion about the article on a sub-page". --Fredrick day (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"I fear that this arbitrary Step of wikipedians to not allow the removal of Pic may Lead to Confusion and Unrest in the Muslim world." Is this a threat of violence? Because it sounds suspiciously like one. TharkunColl (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When isn't there unrest in the Muslim world?—Chowbok ☠ 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no concerted conspiracy against Muslims within Wikipedia, contrary to the claims above. On the contrary, there does seem to be a disorganized effort to force Wikipedia, and by extension, those who edit regularly on Wikipedia, to bend to the will of Muslims. The restaurant analogy noted above is accurate -- and by extension, would you appreciate it if I came to your house and insisted you believe/say/do as I say, contrary to what is already status quo (and is already not illegal) within your house? Certainly allow me to do so in my own house. Bottom line, if it offends you so, choose to go elsewhere. The Internet is a big place. --Mhking (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Must remove

Because calligraphy of living things is not allowed in Islam so this is unacceptable for muslims to see such art work....remove as soon as possible. Zaidi (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, just don't look at it. As I understand it, the consumption of pork and alcohol is also banned in Islam - should we therefore stop consuming, or even writing about those things so as not to cause offense to Muslims? TharkunColl (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All restaurants must stop serving non-Halal food to avoid offending Muslims.—Chowbok ☠ 19:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, calligraphy is bad now? Zazaban (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm offended by onions, as noted on my userpage. Please stop eating them. Resolute 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're so offended by the images...

...why not start your own Wikipedia mirror? All the text here is licensed under the GFDL, which means you can copy all the text to your own server. You can download the entire database of articles here, and the Mediawiki software, which powers this site, here. You could have your very own Wikipedia where you make your own rules, like "no pictures of prophets". If you do that, I promise you none of the editors from here will go over there and add images to your Wiki. Live and let live.—Chowbok ☠ 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha,.. honestly, whats happening to the authors.

Petition to keep images.

Since the people wanting the images removed have a petition (on the front page of www.thepetitionsite.com no less,) I have taken the liberty to created a petition against the deletion of the images. Anyone wanting to preserve free speech on this site please sign. Zazaban (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC) http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-censorship-off-wikipedia

Won't that just inflame the situation? We've been arguing that petitions are meaningless and that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so I don't see what good this will do. Personally I'd recommend striking this whole conversation... Dchall1 (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, is that their petition is on the site's front page. As long as that's there, this page will be bombarded by people demanding the images to be removed. Our side of the story needs to be represented. Zazaban (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't just delete this because you don't like it. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Zazaban (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is just going to inflame the situation, and goes against our stance that off wiki petitions should not influence on-wiki decisions. It's also not going to help us with dispute resolution. ITAQALLAH 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying, the only reason this debate is so overwhelming is because of their petition. I figure that having our own might make it manageable. Zazaban (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't allow wikipedia to be used to canvass for off-site petitions - the removal of it is a) routine and b) in line with existing practice. Moreover, the petition has NOTHING to do with improving this article, which is what this talkpage is about. This stance is likely to inflame the situation and no good will come of it. I have started a thread on AN/I asking for the removal of this link. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Petition websites aren't enforcable on Wikipedia, and if we end up being overrun by SPAs and meatpuppets, that isn't likely to affect change either. Tempest in a teapot, imo. Resolute 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if that petition is featured on the front page. It is entirely worthless (from a standpoint of authoritative value) and is driven by religious fervor and complete ignorance of Wikipedia and how things are done here. The joke is on those who bear the petition as if it were some sort of magic dust; we already know that many individuals dislike the presence of images, and it makes no difference in the face of Wikipedia's policies. Just ignore it.--C.Logan (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The results of both the for and against petitions will not amount to a hill of beans when it comes to making decisions on what to do in the Wikipedia regarding this issue. This entire subsection is entirely unnecessary; there is no reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines that would allow for the removal of the images in question. There's really nothing to worry about here, and little need for counter-petitions. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want this article to start running again. Zazaban (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Zazaban, I am really suprised by this, honestly i was expecting something more, help me with the word, mature maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)