Talk:Muhammad/images

If you wish to discuss the inclusion or removal of images of Muhammad in the Wikipedia article Muhammad, please do so on this page. Previous discussion of this matter can be found at the FAQ and in the archives here, here, and here.

Please be aware that this is not a vote, and not a petition. Simply repeating the same demand that others have made is not likely to have any effect on Wikipedia.

If you would like to prevent your web browser from displaying any images in the Muhammad article, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.

Painted by muslims

The pictures were painted by muslims and Wikipedia is not a religious site. If it offends you, dont come here. KEEP THE PICTURES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.111.208 (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is Pointless

Wiki has clearly stated the pics will be staying, nuff said. There is nothing any of ya can do about it.--DanteAgusta (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove

It is simply unacceptable for a Muslim to let anyone draw and publish images of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). By publishing the hand drawn images of our Prophet on Wikipedia, you are humiliating 1.7 Billion Muslims in the world. No law in the whole world allow you to humiliate the feelings of even a single person. So please remove these images to stop humiliating all the Muslims across the world. Zamirza (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To "let" anyone? Trust me. You are not "letting" anyone post anything. Wikipedia is a secular site and not governed by Islamic law or guidelines. Period. --Mhking (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just put a disclaimer that these pictures are not original or are not copies of any original and simply imagination of some artists who possibly could not have any knowledge of details about Muhammad's figure and complexion. See, even though Muhammad did not let any of his image be drawn or survived is because he never wanted to become an object or worship in the way Jesus became (though with the imaginery pictures). Muslims should understand that some these pictures were drawn during the Muslim rules and survived many years during muslim rules. If they could understand these as just imaginery things, contemporary Muslims should also accept that. Besides Wikipedia did not produce something derogatory or blasphamous, merely reproduced from historical sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.150.230 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove,

Freedom is very important, but should not be abused, something look right to us however may not be to others. As we can read from other posting, freedom, freedom, and freedom. If the pictures are removed they offend no one whereas if they are kept they offend many. Isn't it better to unoffend everyone? Different people, different cultures have different needs and freedom means to respect them. This is true freedom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaan (talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are Muslims whining about these pictures, they are part of their heritage and they can do nothing but complain and say those pictures are not "accurate". These pictures are all over the internet, in books, and all sort of literature. Why are these Muslims here @ WP? Why come to a site that offends them? What do they hide under those burkas? What are they so afraid of that everything has to be offensive and banned? Where do "THEY" draw the line, if "WE" don't?

Goto a nice Islamic site that adheres to your rules and philosophy. Abandon all hope in forcing people who do not want your way of life or your whining of offensiveness. No one gave you the right to NOT be offended.

I think Islam focuses too much on "PRIDE" and "DOMINATION" and not enough on "HUMBLENESS" and "UNDERSTANDING". Too much pride, alone, is deadly to any race/religion as history has shown and will soon be repeated again and again, unfortunately. Guess this will be removed. A Muslim was offended.

Can you imagine at the end of movie credits, "No Muslims were offended during the creation of this film!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xman1001 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove

"After all, nobody goes around making fun of the Holocaust or JFK or 9/11 or of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." You obviously have never watched Family Guy, The Simpsons, Southpark, or been to 4chan. JFK Unleashed? Christians don't get outraged about Raptor Jesus (Paintings and other artwork of Jesus which has Jesus's head replaced with a dinosaur; along with offensive dudespeak) I think Raptor Jesus, Raptor Pope etc are all more offensive than showing historical paintings of your prophet. Wikifreedom!

---

Just to add, I this isn't about "making fun" - those pictures are useful and educational and as far as I am concerned they improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.246.209 (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove, its against wikipedia

Please remove the images. There are so many things censored by wikipedia already for instance, wikipedia agrees to US FED and calls conspiracy "conspiracy" not the "truth". So, why you should create unrest in 1.7 billion population of this world ? Wikipedia please remove it.

Wikipedia is very useful website of this new millenium, It has risen with the confidence of almost everybody. I hope they will keep the confidence of muslims on wikipedia now.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.66.197 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You insist Wikipedia already censors things -- please point to one. --Mhking (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove

• Please respect all the religions of the world and share knowledge without such pictures which cause distress.

• If Muslims are offended by the images they can and should choose to not view them. While I understand that they may find the images to be offensive, they have neither the right nor the obligation to determine what the rest of the world views on these pages. Jrkarp (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• I Understand that Muslims are not allowed to depict the prophet, but not everyone is a Muslim. The image should stay. That's what really Freedom of speech is.If you don't want to watch it, don't look at it.
• People who want the image down, should post a valid reason why it should be put down. Anonymous, 17:00, 5 February 2008 (GMD +1)
• Hot damn! The muslims are throwing everything they can think of at that think aren't they? Mediation, Arbitration, Copyrights, Censorship, Shock sites, Violence. Unfortunately Wikipedia, does use commons sense so trying to find a window or loophole in the rules is not going to work. Let me also add my voice to the Do not remove the images from the article. If they are being insulted, it's their own fault --DB0 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Don't remove. You have the right to believe whatever you like but tnot the right to infringe upon other's rights to information. --Strappado (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Muslims have to follow Muslim law. The rest of the world doesn't. If anyone is doing anything wrong it is them, by looking at the image, and it is only wrong by force of their own religious law. If who originally posted the image is a Muslim then he is also wrong, but, again, only according to his religion's laws, which hold no value to anyone who isn't Muslim or who doesn't live in a Muslim state. The rest of us is doing nothing wrong and things should stay the way they are. Do not remove the images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.102.83.153 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove

please remove the pics of Muhammad as it greatly hearts the feelings of Muslims. There is a petition signed by thousands of peoples for removal of these pics http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia

aww boo hoo.. little islamic feelings are hurt. Murdering babies.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.208.232 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We've seen it... petitions like that have no bearing around here. Jmlk17 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt matters while the wikipedia is muslim site or not but the thing is it must not hurt any other feelings because they dont have any right of violating the principles of other religion, no Ifs no buts these pictures must be removed immediately because pictures give us an illusions of the personality in our minds. You cannot prove that these pictures are even near to original , so you dont have any right to put fake things publically, Its a humble request that it should be removed immediately to stop any tensions which can bulid up in near future. No Ifs no Buts you are breaking a law, and you must be guilty.

I'm sorry but is that a threat? Wikipedia is not a Muslim institution. Sharia law has no authority over the type of content Wikipedia should or should not include. Fsjonsey (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

these pictures are not true and should be removed.there is no source in this world who has true picture of Prophet Mohammed(PBUH)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.187 (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dont Remove Counterpetition

If you think the pics should stay up, feel free to sign the counterpetition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/support-wikipedia-muhammad-pics --anonymous203.84.185.186 (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dont Remove

dont remove em but atleast BLUR out the face in the Pictures, hardly takes 5 minutes. u can do that, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.184.206 (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, this is one of the basic rules.Eik Corell (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there :)

I would just like to say that the act of portraying the prophet in any way is not permitted in Islam. I know it would be ok for non muslims... But Muslims cannot do this nor can we view this. Hollywood once made a movie, a story about the prophet. Hollywood is extremely secular, but still they managed to understand and respect the Islamic way of not portraying the prophet. I think all we ask for is understanding.

Salaam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.56.250 (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"I think all we ask is for understanding." If that is true, then "understand" this: Wikipedia does not censor content. Not in the past, not now, and not ever. If you do not wish to be "offended" by the image, take a hint -- DON'T VIEW IT. Close your eyes. Squint if you have to. Put a piece of paper over that spot on the monitor. Use a web filter to mask the image. But do NOT require non-Muslims to comply with Muslim "law." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.132.139 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal

Before I address the actual "Remove the Picture" topic, I'd like to point out that making derogatory comments about Muslims as a whole goes against your own "talk page guidelines". Stuff like the rude reply above or this statement I found further along the page:

oh and the muslim world's moral compass sure points north right?punishing a victim of sexual assault, shooting school childeren in the back, and treating women like porperty are not allowed in america, so why dont you work on that first, then you can come back and advise us.

I don't know who this person is, but you obviously haven't met very many Muslims in your life and have clearly never even picked up a book about us either. Thank you for your ignorance. Keep watching your terrorist flicks. But if you want facts about the religion, or if you'd rather just start slinging mud about atrocities committed by people, I can start naming groups from any religion and country in the world. Just let me know.

Now. Back to the original point: it's not a matter of freedom of speech or Islamic Law. Putting up pictures of Muhammad is something that promotes inaccuracy and can divert one from the whole point of the religion. It's like how a very common topic in the Christian world is whether or not Jesus Christ was white. Being Muslims, we would prefer that questions about the physical appearance of Muhammad don't detract from the true spirit of the religion, and that it doesn't influence over-zealous believers to try and emulate him physically. That's not really what Islam is about, you see. Plus it's insulting to the memory of a man who has had such a major impact on world history, whether you believe in his faith or not.

Second, you're forgetting that Muhammad is our Prophet. Whether or not you have to obey Islamic Law, sheer common decency and consideration for what is a belief held by (at least) a third of the global population would dictate that a matter like this be resolved with our wishes in mind first. This is how the Muslim world respects its religious icons, how difficult is that to understand? I mean, Freedom of Speech doesn't have to mean "inconsiderate and rude".

After all, nobody goes around making fun of the Holocaust or JFK or 9/11 or of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know for a fact that after 9/11 movies and TV shows were asked to edit out any footage of the Twin Towers as a mark of respect. Where was Freedom of Speech and Liberty then? They had to postpone the launch of a Spider-man movie to make the necessary changes in the film. And that was okay, right? It's very simple, if it's a sensitive topic for the parties involved, so you don't go near it. So why is it such a big deal to remove a picture if it's a sensitive topic now? Is it really just because you want to prove that you don't have to abide by Muslim Law?

But last of all, I was just wondering that if the Encyclopedia Britannica did not have a problem removing a picture of Muhammad from their latest edition when asked to do so by a concerned Muslim, then why is Wiki getting all bent out of shape about it? Ankledeep (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Ankledeep

The images aren't meant as an insult to Islam, they are up there for a couple of very important reasons:

    1. Are the pictures of Muhammad? Yes if they weren't then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    2. Do the images help people get a better understanding of the subject? In my case they do. They show him a similar 
       fashion as Jesus in the last supper. Purely an artist rendition of Muhammad 
    3. Are they biased against the subject? No, they are images made by followers of Islam (to the best of my knowledge) 

As to your claim of "nobody goes around making fun of the Holocaust or JFK or 9/11 or of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" people do. There are many uncouth jokes directed toward the Holocaust, JFK and Hiroshima. I went to Hiroshima in 2003 and in the museum someone wrote, "Payback is a bitch" On the editing out of the twin towers. As you said they were asked, and they complied. The images have been asked to be removed and the general decision among non-biased persons (people who have shown open hostility toward Islam are just as biased as those who practice Islam) is they shouldn't be.

Do I think that the images are insulting to Muslims? They seem to be, However to quote Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Precedent in other forms of media argue against the case as well. When an artist put a Crucifix in a jar of his own urine Christians went into an uproar, but the art remained. Zakneifien (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what is being missed here is that people who practice Islam MUST do what Islam say. This is their law. Just as we have laws and MUST obey them. But here is where the line is drawn. I don't expect a Muslim to obey "WESTERN" wishes and concerns based on "western" laws where they have no bearing. Why would a Muslim expect that some how their laws have bearing over everyone and anything? Wouldn't it be easier to just ban this web site from your browser? It is really all about choices here. Apparently, offense is to your liking because you keep coming back.

This guys states they don't show images of Mohammad because they don't want people thinking he is white, black, purple, or yellow. Who are you to tell people what to think/see? Just because they have no pictures, do you really believe that people don't visualize things the way they want to see them? Imagination my brother, ban that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xman1001 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A request

please remove the pic of Muhammad (PBUH), as islam donot give the permission of doing this. Abdul Manan (pakistan)

This is a request from all the Muslims that please remove the picture of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) from this website because it is not allowed in Islam. Emad Akhtar (Pakistan)

Wikipedia is a secular web site, and not subject to Islamic rules/governances. --Mhking (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"This is a request from all the Muslims."

And you are the King of all Muslims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.136.112 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont think so that he is the king of all muslims but you are a queen of all muslims and who is anonymous..... first register yourself...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 12:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Must remove PIC

• the signs in the petition bears the testimony the fact that Muslims all Over the world are harassed and depressed by this WIKI move to not allow removal of pic in the name of freedom of expression.I request wikipedian administrators to allow the removal of pics in Order to maintain the dignity of Muslims feelings as No expression can allow to abuse someone's Prophet.Shabiha ^(t 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrators don't have that sort of power - they generally rule on the behaviour of editors and other administrative matters, they cannot take sides in content disputes where the material is sourced and accepted to be of a certain standard. This is a matter for the wikipedia community as a whole. The community has decided that wikipedia is a secular website and will not censor articles on religious matters because various faiths would be offended. No abuse is intended. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You wish for them to delete the pics in the name of freedom of expression, yet are you not attempting to deny that freedom to Wikipedia itself? Denying their freedom of expression?

Must remove

Actually, there is no need of these pics here. I don't think that the removal is purely censorship, but these pics are also useless as they are all manuscripts created hundreds of years after Muhammad(PBUH).--Builder w (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is addressed in the FAQ.—Chowbok ☠ 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those "useless manuscripts" are part of islamic history, thus they are relevant.98.27.187.95 (talk) 05:00, 6 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)

Please take your propaganda aside and let us discuss. Get some treatment from this person.--Builder w (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Zakir Naik would be the best choice. On a side note, Shabiha's comments are possibly the utter low point in all of the discussion I have seen on the matter. Simply reading it causes much exasperation.--C.Logan (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reaction is troubling. You have to understand, that we dont care about your theism. This is a fact-based endevour, not a worthless collection of opinion.

70.178.97.83 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that Anonymous IP is wrong here; we do care about this theism, and this opinion, and that's we have an article on it. --Wikinterpreter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is so sadly true. Do a Google search on words like Wikipedia, Muhammad, and pictures, etc, and it turns out that there are already countless hate sites out there spewing filth against this article (and this is no doubt where all the trolls have been coming from lately). What they perhaps don't realise is that freedom of speech far more sacred to those of us who grew up in a free society than adherence to any religious dogma can ever be. TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, reminds me of the Cartoon Wars episode of South Park...

---

Image solution

(This section has been imported from this edit) gren グレン 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Any Muslims offended by the images should use Firefox with the Adblock add-on. Then they can block the images that offend them from appearing on their computers. Everyone's happy. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it. The point of the controversy is to harrass and threaten and force non-Muslims to obey Muslim rules out of fear of giving offense (and the chance of receiving a violent response). They don't want ANYONE to see these pictures. Frankly, I don't like disresectful pictures of Norman Numchuks, but I will defend to the death the right of anyone to print them.Scott Adler (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is so sadly true. Do a Google search on words like Wikipedia, Muhammad, and pictures, etc, and it turns out that there are already countless hate sites out there spewing filth against this article (and this is no doubt where all the trolls have been coming from lately). What they perhaps don't realise is that freedom of speech far more sacred to those of us who grew up in a free society than adherence to any religious dogma can ever be. TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this is a truth that is in all of islam. Even the paedophile prophet says so himself. People must accept islam, or "repression", or "submission", not because it is the truth, but because of force. The paedophile prophet was a mass-murderer, a racist genocidal maniak. This is what happens when you tolerate intolerance. By definition the paedophile worshippers can never be placated until everyone's defeated or dead (quran 8:23)

No, I get it and I completely disagree with those who are trying to remove the images. I simply offered them a solution to protect their sensitive eyes. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly to read such a post and a reply on a respectful site!

I think the Adblock solution is really fine. The problem applies only to Muslims, and they have proper remedies to avoid seeing images of their prophet. We can't have Wikipedia ruled by arcane religious laws anyway. Henrik R Clausen

Dear Sir,

I have never thought of being a secular as to be disrespectful to others beliefs or disrespectful to 1.5 billion believers seeing in such posted picture an insult to their prophet.

I always thought of secularism as a balanced thoughtful human respecting rule of thumb ideology and never the opposite. You are not promoting secularism at its best, but you are promoting sectarianism which I am really sorry to see such in here. Wikipedia is one of the common and famous references on the web, in the meantime, they are not entitled to put their own articles about any religion as per being a secular website as some wikipedia administrators replied, you are not entitled of any religious debate, article, study, or even any related to religious nature material.

By doing so and by rejecting the request to remove the picture posted please allow me to tell you that you are far from being secular but more likely closer to be a sectarian who is promoting sectarianism and nothing more. There is nothing called I own this then I do whatever I like, specially when it does provoke others and attacking or disrespecting their core of beliefs.

I really laughed when someone of the administrator was comparing religion to a restaurant "what an ignorance indeed!", if you to assign administrators please make sure that they are well educated seculars on the level of culture at least. I am only passing the following "you have to be respectful to be respectable".

"Your freedom ends when others freedom begins

if you truly thought so you would immediately propose a law outlawing islam, since, to put it mildly, it doesn't respect this principle. Forcing others to become muslims* is a central duty of islam ("hisbah")

• (oh I'm sorry this is not true, they must only DO EVERYTHING muslims do and DO NOTHING that muslims don't do)

Isn't it the ultimate core of understanding and mutual respect. Freedom of speech, a hanger where we hang our personal and social failure on and claim that it is sacred (where the word sacred is a religious term that is not related to secularism in any way). The better yet is "Respect" where everyone is entitled for such, as if freedom of speech means or equal to no respect then goodbye humanity.

Regards. Aulic

No, we are refusing to cave into secular demands. Jmlk17 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And indeed, I was always taught that respect has to be earned. TharkunColl (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend this dispute go to Mediation, and if that fails? Arbitration. Then, whatever ruling is handed down? all editors will have to abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that done already? Jmlk17 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me the Arbitration Ruling. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[1] is one. Jmlk17 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's Mediation, where's the Arbitration Case GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure if there is one man. Jmlk17 01:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm neither concerned if the images are kept 'or' removed. I am concerned that an article has been caught up in a 'holy war'. I strongly recommend to the combatants, to take this dispute to Arbitration. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely not a bad idea at all. Jmlk17 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And if it goes to arbitration and the status quo is upheld, then what -- will you find yet some other way to continue to protest and try to impose your will on everyone else? --Mhking (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is an Arbcom issue. It's about content, not specific user behavior, which is Arbcom's sole purpose, unless I understand Arbcom wrong. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Jmlk17 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom will reject it as a content issue most likely, but if someone wants to establish as precedent that ArbCom will reject the issue, go ahead. I think there may be a declination somewhere, but I don't know where. WilyD 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're likely right, but I'd agree with tossing it in the ring just to get it on record. I doubt it would silence any of the critics, but better to establish a solid paper-trail. --Mhking (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad himself didn't approve of painting living objects

When we upload the picture of a living person we worry about copyright, we worry about that person's permission to upload the image (if not taken at a public meeting). We don't publish people's imgae taken by hidden camera in the washroom on Wikipedia. Almost everyday we have cartoons and caricatures US President George Bush published in various newspapers / magazines across the world. Should we publish those images on Wikipedia (if found under a free license)? Right now, there is a big upset in Hong Kong, because some nude images of a few celebrities have leaked on internet without their permission. Should Wikipedia use those images as soon as their copyright expires? Not sure what the exact policy on Wikipedia is, but I believe very logically, we shouldn't; especially if the subject of the article would not want to be identified by any of those images. When naming people on Wikipedia we always use the name the subject person wants to be called by. If there is a derogatory nickname of a person that the person doesn't approve, should we use that name in Wikipedia to identify him or her? Certainly not.

What has all this to do with Muhammad's (Sm.) images? There is no Images of Muhammad drawn during his lifetime - because Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve of painting his image. It is a historical fact Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve drawing images of living things. All his life he fought against creation of idols and images of people, especially those of famous people, heroes, and historical figures - because such practices eventually lead the image to become more important than the teaching (arguably what has happened to the Crush symbol).

Now, given some people (though Muslims) have drawn images of the Prophet (perhaps unknowingly) with little respect to Prophet's prejudice against such painting, should Wikipedia repeat (or escalate) the mistake by posting the images? When there is clearly no way to get to a compromise between showing and not showing the image, whose preference should Wikipedia respect, the preference of the person about whom the article is, or the preference / interest of the people who may be curious to know how the Prophet was "drawn" in isolated cases by people unaware / not respectful about Prophet's prejudice against painting? I strongly feel, Wikipedia should follow the preference of the subject of the article (The Prophet in this case), at least in the article about him.

This is not Censorship - this is respecting a very important person's own preference about how he wanted to be depicted. If the images are retained in the separate article on "Depiction of Islamic Prophet Muhammad" for historical interest, that's understandable.

If wikipedia admins still decide against removing the picture, please on the FAQ page under Q.1, In addition to It offends Muslims and The images are false add a third section heading "Muhammad himself didn't approve of painting living objects" and clarify that Wikipedia policy is to totally disregard people's personal view in deciding how they should or should not be portrayed. Arman ^(Talk) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assumptions are incorrect, therefore your conclusions are flawed. Absolutely we would publish a derogatory cartoon of George Bush, assuming it was relevant and not under copyright. The opinion of the subject of the cartoon is irrelevant. Same with the derogatory nickname hypothetical; the only considerations when deciding whether to include it are its relevance and its importance. The "approval" of the subject is not a consideration.—Chowbok ☠ 06:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Arman, the request, as placed in the form of the heavy-handed begging that Islam-adherants have come her with, is not only censorship, it is blackmail. Wikipedia is not governed by Islamic doctrinal guidelines; it is secular, and stands above and beyond the governing of any one party or parties. If you don't want to read the article, don't read the article. Don't look at the images. But you don't have the right to prohibit me or anyone else from doing so. And the constant begging that this has turned into is bordering almost childish blackmail. --Mhking (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chowbok's reasoning seems reasonable. Only what I didn't understand, how some poorly drawn "cartoon" type images after hundreds of years of a person's death become so important that they have to be on the artcile. The only historical importance of these images that I can see is the one artifically created by a handful of Wikipedia admins by forcing these images in the article on Prophet Muhammad (Sm.). Anyway, let's clarify this line of argument on the FAQ page, shall we?

For Mhking, I am not begging you or anyone to do anything, so please stop directing me what I read on wikipedia and what I don't. I was just pointing out that, I believe everyone reserves the right to decide how he/she should be figuratively depicted. If there is a criticism of a person on factual basis, that can and should be included irrespective of person's opinion. If we are talking about a photograph or a painting done to show a person's actual resemblance, that can be considered factual with respect to that person. But cartoons, drawings (based on imagination), nicknames - are not facts, they are pure and simple "POV" about a person in a figurative form, and the inclusion of such material on a person's biography should consider that person's acceptance / rejection of such materials. If Wikipedia's policy does not cover it yet, then the policy is deficient and needs to be changed, and I am hoping the clear inclusion of this stance on the FAQ page will open the door to the discussion which will lead to that change in policy. Arman ^(Talk) 07:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply amazed that some fantics want the pictures sencored! Why should non-religous people follow religous laws? Are these muslims trying to pick a fight? I say, mind you own business, if it hurts your feelings, then look the other way - don't try to opose your believes onto us! Besides islamic law also prohibits the depiction of other islamic prophets like Jesus, Moses and Abraham; howcome this isn't an issue, when there are pictures of them? It just show, that this demand of removing the Mohammad picture is grounded in hypocrisy - and a way to try to force us to follow their laws. It's wrong! 11:51 CET, 5. February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.245.80 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arman, are you honestly contesting the use of the image based on it's quality? Because it's a 'cartoon', as you put it? One must make allowances for 17th century art, having not been as evolved as contemporary art, but 'cartoon' or not, the depiction is cited as being the earliest surviving representation of Muhammad, and that is something you'll have to take up with the editors of Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Turkish Art, not Wikipedia. Because of these fellows we have a cited source as to why this is believed to be the earliest depiction. -99.241.142.163 (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Censor for all Musulman regions

There is no liberty of expresion in that countries. A simple pic make thousend of people to mobilizate. It could be better to censor wikipedia to all Musulman regions, and then, whait.

Sorry, any policy we enact will be applied equally to all. It is possible that there could be some kind of opt-out through a monobook.js but other than that we will not be making a decision to give different people different articles. gren グレン 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an Islamic website

This website is not an Islamic one, and therefore does not, and should not adhere to Islamic laws/values. Any Muslim who for some reason feels offended by these pictures can use free tools to block them. Trying to force Wikipedia to censor these pictures is no less than Religious Coercion, which has no place here. AxelRafaeli (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The two unsigned comments above are disturbing and childish, respectively. If you object to the presence of these images on a public website dedicated to free (as in freedom) information, do not visit this website and DO NOT threaten those who do. On the other hand, we who support the freedom of information must not descend to the level of intolerance and anger demonstrated by the previous post. --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable comments have been removed. This is not a forum to debate Islam. Thanks for pointing them out. gren グレン 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just beat me to removing them. I've already warned the IP responsible for it. They've had several comments removed that were designed to inflame the situation. Resolute 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

if it is not an islamic site....why they are using our islamic ethics for the promotion of their website islam is for muslims not for the non muslims Muhammad Peace be upon him belongs to us not to non muslims. We Muslims hate to see the article & the pictures as well. remove it now.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 12:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Shock sites

Why does Wikipedia not uphold their policy of not censoring on entries of shocksites like 2girls1cup and other perversions? Why are there no images of those things on their respective wiki pages? In fact, all I can see are people with an anti-Islamic agenda defending the completely useless inclusion of the images. What do they have to do with the topic? If I were to make a random image of Bush and upload it, no matter how crude it is, and add it to Bush's wikipedia page, would it be removed? My image, of course, would not have much to do with the topic because I can just label the random stick figure drawing "Bush" and post it to Wiki.

Not to mention the fact that nearly all respectable major Encyclopedias, print or otherwise, have never included those pictures in their entries about the Prophet (pbuh). And I'm pretty sure that it wasn't due to self-censorship since a lot of these encyclopedias are quite old but have not included such images.

The pictures seem to be presented in the entry simply for baiting Muslims. I'm sure Christians would take offense to a South Park Jesus added to the 'Jesus' entry. It would be foolish to add such an image to such an entry in the first place. Hey, while we're at it, why not post pictures of dead babies to their relevant entries? After all, you guys are such proponents of freedom of speech and anti-censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.153.232 (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy for deciding when images are appropriate and inappropriate. They have picked a policy that to remove images that are generally agreed upon as "offensive" world-wide. I hope you understand that Wikipedia can't bow down to every interest group (whether a religion or not) that gets offended more easily than the average person. 208.124.58.119 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what "censored" means in a wikipedia context, we will not censor content that we as a community deem suitable for an article. We as a community have decided that their historical context means they should be included. No offense is intended but this is a secular site and we cannot adhere to religion traditions of a particular faith - be it Islam, Christianity or scientiology. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There certainly can be such images (for example, autofellatio), but the issue is more complicated than that. There are often disputes over which picture to use, picture quality, relevance, necessity and other factors (most often copyright limitations). In any case, your comparison is tenuous at best. Let me respond point-by-point:

1.In fact, all I can see are people with an anti-Islamic agenda defending the completely useless inclusion of the images. What do they have to do with the topic?

They are depictions of the topic; they possess historical relevance as well. I don't see the inclusion of the images as being "useless". While it may be entirely possible that some users may have a latent agenda, I have seen nothing to this effect. Additionally, several Muslim editors also oppose removing the images.

2.If I were to make a random image of Bush and upload it, no matter how crude it is, and add it to Bush's wikipedia page, would it be removed?

This is an overly simplified scenario. An illustration of Bush's head on a the body of a primate would be perfectly acceptable if the notability and relevance of the image were established. Bush is a living person, so WP:BLP is an issue, and his article is a top-level article, so WP:UNDUE would also be worth minding. In cases of artistic depiction, the notability of the artist or artwork must be established first, especially when it is of a person (in other instances, such as depicting a body part, it is acceptable to upload an image of your own for illustrative purposes without addressing "notability" and all that). This is not an issue on the Muhammad article, as both the artist and artwork are undeniably notable and of complete relevance to the subject.

3.My image, of course, would not have much to do with the topic because I can just label the random stick figure drawing "Bush" and post it to Wiki.

Well, it would have everything to do with the topic according to you. It is a depiction of Bush, is it not? Again, notability and relevance must be addressed.

4.Not to mention the fact that nearly all respectable major Encyclopedias, print or otherwise, have never included those pictures in their entries about the Prophet (pbuh).

To be quite honest, images are very rare in most of the encyclopedias that I've encountered, paper especially (for space concerns). Even online encyclopedias rarely host images, so this isn't much of an argument. Additionally, it doesn't quite matter what they do, because we are not affiliated with them and- to be honest- we endeavor to be more useful and reliable than they are (and interestingly, I've seen a study which determined that Wikipedia was more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica, believe it or not).

5.The pictures seem to be presented in the entry simply for baiting Muslims.

Can you explain what makes it appear so?

6.I'm sure Christians would take offense to a South Park Jesus added to the 'Jesus' entry. It would be foolish to add such an image to such an entry in the first place.

Offended? No, not really. I'm sure some would, but that doesn't really matter too much. There are other policies which prevent this from occurring (unless there happens to be a change in the article at a later point). Currently, the article is in such a state that it would be undue weight to include modern depictions (specifically pop-culture presentations) in the article. This has prevented the display of Piss Christ and other modern examples. Typically, these images would find a home on relevant sub-articles. Again, this example is not comparable to the discussion at Muhammad, as the images there possess historical relevance and are most certainly respectful attempts to depict the prophet- posting them is more comparable to posting an image of Jesus from a manuscript illumination detail or something along those lines.

7.Hey, while we're at it, why not post pictures of dead babies to their relevant entries?

There is currently no dead babies article. Additionally, such images are often used in a propaganda-like manner, so great care is often taken to avoid misuse. There is nothing policy-wise which limits the inclusion of images in such a manner.

8.After all, you guys are such proponents of freedom of speech and anti-censorship.

That we are.--C.Logan (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, who is "We as a community" here - I can see an overwhelming majority of editors feeling that these images are inappropriate for the article. Arman ^(Talk) 10:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The community is the body of editors devoted to improving articles while adhering to policies and guidelines. Learning about this article on an Islamic forum and flying by to post "remove the images" does not count one as an "editor". I have not seen a single established editor support the removal of images- even when those editors are, in fact, Muslims.--C.Logan (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, wow, please don't make such hasty conclusions here, I have made my first edit on Wikipedia before you did and have an edit count in five digits. Not an admin and don't want to be, but if someone says I am not an editor on Wikipedia, I have to consider that as uncivil and nonsense. Arman ^(Talk) 11:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arman, when did I ever refer to you? When you speak of an "overwhelming majority", I can only assume that you are referring to the barrage of anonymous and new-user comments being placed here.

Additionally, do not attempt to pull seniority in the issue- I know many users whose "edit count" and "experience" far exceeds my own, and yet these users have absolutely no comprehension of core policies. Just because an individual has been here longer or has made more edits does not guarantee that they were productive in any of their activities.

I am not suggesting that this is the case with you, but I am noting (as would be apparent from my above comment) that, aside from a few points raised that were certainly worth addressing, your own argument is not far from those used by individuals who have absolutely no idea how Wikipedia works or why it follows the policies that it happens to follow. Users such as Aminz, Rosywounds and Itaqallah, while having religious interests, consider fully the fundamental basis upon which Wikipedia is founded when raising points, and these users oppose removal because of the consideration of these very policies. I urge you to use our policies as the base from which you make your arguments.--C.Logan (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, no one is asking you to adhere to any religion. The request is to remove images from an article that are "inappropriate" to the article, and the discussion/debate is on whether or not these images are appropriate; not whether Wikipedia has to declare Islam as its official religion. So please stom saying we cannot adhere to religious traidion etc. Arman ^(Talk) 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The images are appropriate. They depict the subject in a traditional manner, and they were created by Muslims for the edification of others (in many cases, other Muslims). They also possess great historical value, and one image in particular is noted as being the earliest surviving depiction of Muhammad. I haven't really seen a good argument against the inclusion- most arguments have been, unfortunately, "we don't like it, so remove it". The simple answer to such a request is "no".--C.Logan (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning for the appropriateness of these images are that they are "Notable" and "Relevant", Relevant agree as someone has tried to draw the subject, (just like I can try to draw a celebrity), but exactly how are they notable? They are notable because they are old, or because they are preserved in some museum? Did anyone ever claim that these images are true /reasonable / acceptable representation of Muhammad other than the painter? If so, please provide the evidence, and I will shut up on this topic once and for all. Arman ^(Talk) 11:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

They are notable because they have acquired notability by some measure- this is, sometimes, a factor which is hard to define as anything other than what it is. In this case, it is not always so complex. The image created by al-Biruni, for example, boasts a well-known illustrator, is counted among one of the earliest surviving images of Muhammad. The images are intended to be depictions of Muhammad which have gained international interest and familiarity through the course of history.

The "accuracy" of an artistic depiction is not, nor has ever been, an issue for inclusion- in this article, or within other articles in which the subject has no contemporary depiction which would suggest the accuracy of latter depictions. This is extremely relevant here, given the time period of the subject. This is covered in the FAQ.--C.Logan (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The topic has been beaten to death. The image has historical relevance as the earliest known depiction of Muhammad. The article is about Muhammad, in case you didn't get that from the title at the top of the page. Your objections are not based upon any desire to see non-relevant material removed from the article; your prior posts show your motivations to be religious, not procedural. You are simply using the procedural context to further your desire for religious censorship and forcing Muslim conformance on non-Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.132.139 (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we should have screenshots of sites like 2girls1cup as we do for other sites. The same going for some of the anatomical pages as well. A user created Bush image would not be relevant whereas these images are from classic texts. Print encyclopedias have to make editorial decisions to save money and space that we don't have to. gren グレン 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to say this without sounding offensive but you do realise that you are effectively comparing the prophet to a cup full of poop, right?Archonix (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, they didn't. Grenavitar refers to the "argument" that no images of other possibly offensive material such as 2girls1cup are included in the respective articles. Elscheffe (from de.WP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.94.201 (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times Coverage of Image Controversy

As an FYI and heads up, an article in today's edition of The New York Times (Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized), talks about this ongoing controversy. I'm sure there are lots more folks who will come take a look at this article now. --Mhking (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, we really don't need more publicity. Zazaban (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a dreadful feeling that this will increase the instances of both the "remove the image" complaints and the (until recently uncommon) comments which intend to insult or criticize Muslims. I'm seeing many comments being turned into political discussions, and I think we need to keep in mind that this page still pertains to article improvement first and foremost. The NYT coverage is somewhat flattering, but it may cause us much more trouble in the long run.--C.Logan (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Common Law versus Sharia

What we have here is a conflict of Common Law, that system of law which governs the majority of the English speaking world, and Sharia law, the religious law of Islam.

Under Common Law (in most circumstances), the right of the individual to display images or speak certain things is considered indesputable and paramount over the objections of any group within the community, no matter how offensive someone may find it. Codified Law, which much of the rest of the Western World operates under, has similar if somewhat muted guarantees of same.

Under Sharia law, the individual is subject to the rule of the Koran, and displaying certain images or speaking certain things is unacceptable.

The principle issue here is that Wikipedia operates under Common Law, not Sharia. As such, no matter how offended Muslims, Christians, or other sectarian groups may be by something posted on Wikipedia, it is permitted.

Please note that, being a private organization, Wikipedia does not have to allow all expression, but merely that expression it finds to be relevant and substantive to the topic at hand. In fact, Wikipedia as an organization could censor just about anything it wanted for any reason it may have chosen.

Since Wikipedia operates under Common Law, it can have any viewpoint expressed that the people who regulate it deem is relevant. Were Wikipedia based in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, I would not expect this to be the case.

Like pornography to Christians, the fact that anyone can access these images, and the public awareness of them, causes disturbance to Muslims.

The fact is, no one has forced anyone else to use Wikipedia. It is simply a common source for providing, storing and gathering information. The images themselves already exist in the world. Reproducing them here is little different than making a photocopy. It is the ease of access that causes so many to be upset, not the subject matter itself.

There is plenty of information about Socialism on this website, as well as environmentalism. Both of these subjects, as presented, cause me disgust and violate my guiding principles of individual freedom and acheivement (a discussion for another time and location, thank you), however I have not called for their removal. The information is available so that those people who wish to view it can do so and evaluate it for themselves. If you do not wish to view it, look somewhere else.

In closing, I feel as though many Muslims are coming to this page in the way that anyone might be drawn to a house fire or the aftermath of a serious auto accident. They come for the spectacle and then, ashamed of themselves, denounce the site and those who have provided the images. To this I say simply, if your religious views do not allow something then do not do it, but allow others to act in the manner they so choose, so long as it does not directly prevent you from practicing your faith as you see fit; then do not directly prevent others from practicing their faith as they see fit.

As the saying goes, "Live and let live."

Elwood64151 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A very succinct way of putting the controversy. Thanks, Elwood! --Mhking (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mhking on this nonsense.Alex1996Ne (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion is bogus

NOT ALL MUSLIMS IN HISTORY HAVE BELIEVED THIS. (Look around, there are many articles that back this up). In fact, there are substantial minorities in Islamic history and today that have been ok with portrayals of Muhammed. Therefore, we are being intimidated by various radical groups, that may not even be a majority, into censoring our own encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censored, and we should not be intimidated by Islamists or anyone else that does not believe in free speech. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

please remove the pic 220.226.81.1 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You going to give rationale behind your request, or are you sticking with begging? --Mhking (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be so brusque, please. ITAQALLAH 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is getting very old, very quickly. I'll back off of the snarky remarks, but something more constructive needs to be said -- using this as a giant club to force Wikipedia to the will of the religious domatics is completely out of line and well over the top. --Mhking (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mhking on this nonsense.Alex1996Ne (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have nothing positive to say, say nothing. If you don't want to have to keep responding to tired requests, don't. Someone else will. WilyD 22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not subject to Shariah law.

Wikipedia is a secular institution. Being so, it is not subject to Islamic (shariah) law. A minority religious group does not have the right to impose it's laws on the majority. In conclusion, I believe the images should stay. Fsjonsey (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

An imaginary image should only be added to an article if the image has wide acceptance as a reasonable representation of the subject

The FAQ page on this subject tries to refute the argument that the Muhammad (Sm.) images are false by comparing it with other pages like Homer, and Jesus. First of all, that's not a logic, that's an analogy and secondly, it is a very incorrect analogy indeed. It is a fact that Muhammad did not have any photograph or any painting drawn by any person that actually met him. This is probably the same case as Homer or Jesus. So no currently available image of Homer, Jesus or Muhammad can give a reasonable representation of the subject person. Saying so, the images of Homer or Jesus used on their respective Wikipedia articles have been regarded as the "mainstream" view of their resemblance by many scholarly and/or popular sources. So these images, statues, etc. though probably have little practical value of exactly depicting the subject, have attained a symbolic value of representing the subject in the mind of modern people. This symbolic value may justify their inclusion in the articles on these subjects. However, this symbolic value is exactly what the images on Muhammad’s article lack. The images used in Muhammad page have seldom been used by any scholarly or popular source as the mainstream view of his resemblance. These are isolated imaginary paintings arbitrarily labeled as "Muhammad", which have never ever received any acceptance as his representation (outside Wikipedia). So, these pictures have no more information value as to depicting Muhammad than a stick-man image that I can draw and label as Homer or Jesus. The fact that these images are old definitely increases their antique value and make them precious collection items for museums, but does not increase their value as a media portraying the subject. The "Fact" with respect to Muhammad's physical depiction is: Since Muhammad strongly discouraged portrayal of living things (including himself) his contemporaries never tried to portray him, or such paintings don't exist. However, throghout histoory there has been isolated attempts to paint him by both muslim and non-muslim sources, but such imgaes never got widespread acceptance as reasonable representation of Muhammad. And because of this fact, respected encyclopedias like Britannica or Encarta have never used any arbitary image drawn by some historical person on their articles on Prophet Muhammad. By posting these images on the article and locking it permanently, a handful of Wikipedia admins are trying to distort this fact, and trying to give these images some sort of "recognition" of importance as the available pictoral depiction of Muhammad. Wikipedia's task is to establish and present the facts, not to give some arbitary imaginary paintings new value/recognition that it never received before, no matter how old these images be.

The request here is not to abide by any Islamic law, or censor any image/article. The request here is to stop distorting a long established fact that there is no acceptable pictoral depiction of Muhammad, because distorting fact goes against the fundamental value of any scholarly work. The request is to the Wikipedia admins to follow the tradition of majority of scholarly sources of not including such images while discussing life of Muhammad, than going its own way and setting a precedence not acceptable to a high number of people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its goal is to present facts as they are, not starting new trends. Arman ^(Talk) 01:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If they are false images then why are so many Muslims angry about them? Zakneifien (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

People (Muslims) are getting concerned because Wikipedia is powerful. Wikipedia has the power to make a false look like a truth. Arman ^(Talk) 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So you can't see any difference in notability between a doodle that you yourself could draw right now and the illustrations of the famous Jami al-Tawarikh? Excuse me, but this strikes me as breathtaking arrogance. You are trying hard to belittle them as merely "old" and to ridicule them as collector's items; this is in stark contrast with this scholarly assessment of the University of Edinburgh for example, which calls those miniatures "extremely important in the relationship of western and eastern schools of art". Similar arguments can be made for the other images.

Your criticism of the FAQ is based on straw man arguments and unfounded claims: That section of the FAQ makes it clear from the beginning that those images are not accurate representations of the exterior of the person in question, so why are you still harping on this point? The FAQ talks about "significant" images, it does not claim that the illustrations in Homer and Jesus represent the "mainstream" view of their resemblance; this is your own description instead and it is unfounded - how is Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Homer and his Guide (1874).jpg *the* mainstream view of Homer's appearance? Or take Image:Oakland Temple statue of Jesus in the visitors center.jpg in the Jesus article: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints certainly does not even represent the mainstream within Christianity, much less a general mainstream. And you conveniently omit the example Charlemagne in the FAQ, where your reasoning fails completely - as it would for Confucius, Gautama Buddha or Plato, all of which contain portraits which, while being notable enough as an artistic view (among others) to be included in an encyclopedia article about the subject, cannot be regarded as the "mainstream" view of their resemblance at all.

The request here is not to abide by any Islamic law, or censor any image/article. - I appreciate the difference in style and content between your arguments and the comments of many new editors which seem to be motivated by Islamic law indeed. However, as noted above, it could be asked why you, as a Muslim, apply this reasoning to this article exclusively and not to many others which are similarly illustrated. And demanding "widespread acceptance" in this case amounts to demanding acceptance by today's mainstream Islam, so in the end it is not far from demanding compliance to Islamic law.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for elucidating on the arguments so generally touched upon in the FAQ. I agree, here.--C.Logan (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to the comments coming from high on a tree:
Please let me clarify that I am not comparing my drawing with the drawings on Muhammad’s article in terms of quality, or historical significance; I am only saying they are comparable in terms of their relevance in illustrating the subject. Of course those images are important and have their place on Wikipedia. They can be good examples of historical works of Art. They are even quite relevant for the article on Depiction of Muhammad, because they indeed are early attempts to draw Muhammad. But they should not be placed on the article on Muhammad because historically they have totally failed to establish their value as a representative illustration of Muhammad.

Why is Muhammad’s case so unique that it has to be different from that of Homer, Jesus, or Buddha? It is simply because unlike all the others mentioned, it is a historically recorded fact that Muhammad forbid drawing living objects (especially himself). And because of this explicit prohibition, Muhammad’s followers as well as non-muslim scholars while researching on Muhammad have not recognized these images as an acceptable representation of the person. When I say, the images of Homer or Jesus are the mainstream view of the resemblance of these subjects, what I mean is these are iconic images that have helped serve as the representation of these people. Your example of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does represent a group of people who have used those specific images of Jesus as a faithful representation of the person. I may be wrong, they may not be mainstream, but there is still a group that believed those images are good representation of Jesus. If the number of people believing they are good representation of Muhammad is absolutely minimum, then those images have no place in Jesus’s article either. The point that I am trying to establish is, when we add an imaginary painting to a biography, it should meet a minimum test: does a significant number of people believe this is the available representative depiction of the person? Or in more “Wikipedia-like” words, can it be shown that independent reliable third party sources have reproduced these images or their likeness as a means to depict the subject in question. This is the test that Muhammad’s images fail. The references that you are providing, or has been provided in the article, include, University of Edinburgh and Ali, Wijdan. Both these scholalrly sources analyze these images as a part of analysis of histrory of art, not as part of their commentry on Muhammad. When it came to discussion of Muhammad, all respectable scholarly sources (including mainstream encyclopedias) have refrained from reproducing these images, because no matter how valuable they be in the study of art history, these images have not recieved any notable acceptance as good representation of Muhammad. Furthermore, by refraining from inserting these paintings in their respective articles, all these scholarly sources have tried to respect the fact that there is no widely accepted pictoral depiction of Muhammad. By going against this tradition, Wikipedia (or more specifically a handful of editors from Wikipedia, who have decided to establish censorship – in terms of limiting people’s edit right on article) is distorting the long established fact, trying to establish these handful of images as the “best available pictoral depiction of Muhammad”, which they are not, and perhaps least importantly have offended millions of people.

So, what I am proposing is, if Wikipedia’s task is to faithfully reproduce facts and information as they are available in scholarly sources, then these images should be removed from Muhammad article, placed on other relevant articles, where they are appropriate (Depiction of Muhammad for example), and on the article on Muhammad can mention:

As in absence of any widely accepted images of Muhammad most notable scholarly discussion on Muhammad have refrained from using any image to portray him, Wikipedia continues to follow the tradition. However, there are historical evidence that many sources have tried to prortray the subject, but never got widespread acceptance as reasonable representation of Muhammad. If you are interested in such images, please refer to Depiction of Muhammad.

This is not a request to compromise, or impose cencorship; neither is this Islamic law – this is simply a request to follow the scholalry tradition and stick to the facts, refraining from misrepresentation, which not only goes against Wikipedia values, but also destroys its credibility and acceptibility to millions of people. Arman ^(Talk) 10:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As this is largely directed towards another user (and I am not completely familiar with where he intends to take the argument, I will offer a short comment on the issue. There is quite simply nothing in policy which reflects the concern which you are emphasizing. Again, the images are historically relevant, and they are an attempt to depict the subject. There is no prohibition against the inclusion of "non-mainstream" or "non-iconic" representations of the subject as long as the other qualifications are considered; at that point, it is merely up to community consensus whether or not the images have a place in the article (undue weight is a concern, but this issue is already being discussed by the involved editors in regards to this article). As it should be apparent, consensus is currently that they remain.--C.Logan (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to ask this same question again and again, as I am not getting the clear reponse from anywhere, who reached this consensus? Where is the discussion that lead to this so called consensus? Even if there was a discussion, which might have reached some conclusion in the past (need to be identified first), why cannot the community challange that old decision, especially in light of the significantly increased attention on the subject? Wikipedia, is supposed to be the most flexible, updatable, open encyclopedia, why on this partcular topic it is so stubbornly rigid? And if I may, in your dictionary what is the meaning of the word "Consensus"? Arman ^(Talk) 11:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the rigidity of the subject is due to the topic of censorship, a concept to which the encyclopedia itself is strongly opposed. There is also the factor of a barrage of inexperienced/unfamiliar users coming to the page simply to remove content or make requests in ignorance to policies and guidelines.

Consensus is an agreement reached by the community in general, and is based upon editor judgment in light of policies and guidelines. As it is, the current consensus on the issue was reached somewhere around a year ago and has been preserved since by all the major editors involved. Consensus can certainly change, but given the nature of this discussion and the persistent lack of any serious challenge to the decision (i.e. any response which takes fully into account Wikipedia's process, founding principles and policies), little change has occurred since the original consensus was reached on the issue.

To familiarize yourself with the discussion, just look through the archives (be prepared to do so for quite some time, because there's a bit). I'll see if I can turn up any specific links or find you a response from an individual who was directly involved in the discussion.

Proposals are welcome so long as they take into account policies and guidelines. Otherwise, such posts are likely to be disregarded along with the dozens of other misinformed requests that clog up the page and prevent the actual discussion of meaningful improvements to the article. There are users currently challenging the consensus decision, but they are proposing a compromise rather than capitulation- the removal of the images is unanimously considered to be out of the question as far as I can see, but many alternative proposals (disclaimers, positioning, hide/show image tags) have been proposed.--C.Logan (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia

Dear All at Wikipedia, First of all, it is a pleasant surprise to see a page about our dear Prophet. May Allah bless you for your effort. As far as the image issue is concerned, you have the right to keep the page just the way it is, but by removing or blurring the pictures of our dear Prophet Muhammad(may peace be upon him), you will be showing respect for the sentiments of a majority of Muslims the world over. In this politically and religiously charged global village that we live in, you will be showing your sense of "what is the right thing to do" over choosing "what is your right" ....Samiya

Dear Saiya, A group of Wikipedia admins have made it very clear that they have absolutely no respect about the feeling of millions of Muslims or even Muhammad's own prejudice agiant painting live objects. However, you are mistaken when you say Wikipedia admins have the right to say or do whatever they want to say. The reason why the images should be removed is An imaginary image should only be added to an article if the image has wide acceptance as a reasonable represntation of the subject and none of the images included in the Muhammad article has that qualification. They are distorting a fact, and they don't have a right to do so. Arman ^(Talk) 05:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not?—Chowbok ☠ 06:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Respect" to the sentiments of particular groups of people is not an issue. Muslims are not singled out in this- we do not censor articles in the interests of any particular group of individuals, ever. The sole exceptions for the inclusion of images (rather, the only weighty arguments against the inclusion of images of a subject) are based in legal issues. This, as should be rather obvious, does not apply here.

The reason you cite for the necessity of removal is based upon no policy I am familiar with. Wikipedia makes no guarantee of truth, only verifiability, and this applies greater when it concerns images- Wikipedia often includes depictions of individuals for which there were no contemporary illustrations without issue, as this is not really an issue- an image which intends to depict a subject and acquires notability (and, in this case, historical relevance) is more than acceptable for inclusion.--C.Logan (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove the Images

I stonngly condemn the images present on the page. You seem to be hell bent in hurting the sentiments of a large population of this world. May better sense prevail upon you

No you hurt yourselves, if you don't like the pictures then don't look. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just put a disclaimer...

Just put a disclaimer that these pictures are not original or are not copies of any original and simply imagination of some artists who possibly could not have any knowledge of details about Muhammad's figure and complexion. Thanks to Wiki for presenting ways for hiding the images whoever want to.

See, Muhammad did not let any of his image be drawn or survived is because he never wanted to become an object or worship in the way Jesus became (though with the imaginery pictures).

Er... Jesus is worshipped because he is the Son of God and the Savior of man. Not because of any pictures.--DanteAgusta (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslims should understand that some these pictures were drawn during the Muslim rules and survived many years during muslim rules. If they could understand these as just imaginery things, contemporary Muslims should also accept that. Besides Wikipedia did not produce something derogatory or blasphamous, merely reproduced from historical sources.

BTW I am also a Muslim and the pictures did not bother me at all. Well, it would be nice not to have them there at the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.150.230 (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please Remove: The Picture is only a Fraud

Please remove the picture of Muhammad. Muslims are forbid to paint living things especially the picture of Muhammad. So the picture in Wiki is only a fraud. It is only artists' imagination. Not real. We believe Wiki only provide the real one or real picture. Not the fraud one.

The showing of fraud picture of Muhammad offended me as a Muslim

If in the movies often quoted "No animal was harmed on this movie", I hope Wiki could write "No Muslim was abused on this Wiki"

I am (and many Muslims) disappointed with Wiki's policy about this.

Agus Nizami

Wikipedia does not prohibit the exhibition of artistic representation and/or images which may not accurately reflect the appearance of the subject or event (whether because of the lack of contemporary illustration of the topic or by the mere choice of artistic expression).

I apologize if you are offended, but Wikipedia and its editors do not intend to offend anyone. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not censor images or information merely because of the possibility that they may offend a group or an individual. This is one of our core policies, and I should inform you that this policy will never change. This, as far as the community is concerned, stands firm alongside with the refusal to censor the images based on the concerns of a group of Muslim readers.

It should be noted that the prohibition against depiction/imagery is not a unanimous school of thought within Islam, as is to some effect exemplified in the mere existence of these images (created by Muslims for Muslim edification). It should also be noted that nearly all of the experienced Muslim editors involved in the discussion oppose removal on the basis of Wikipedia policy.--C.Logan (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Peace be upon him belongs to muslims & you non muslims have no right to write anything about him because you don't know anything & what about those fake pictures..??? you think that you can hurt islam so easily like non muslims are doing very very frequently....i say you are wrong absoloutly wrong as islam does not need your so called discriminated help......islam is scaring you all as what you'll gonna do when you have no money to buy a bread as middle east is the richest zone & got plenty of oil there and very soon we all Muslims get together but we will never abuse non muslims as islam never like such Rubbish things .....do whatever you can do to hurt islam & we muslims don't care about thos fake,fraud,unreal,pathetic pictures ..remove them as you (NON MUSLIMS) have no concern with islam it is our religion we have to take care for it

Please stop making inciteful trolling comments. Telling someone what "right" they do not have to write anything is not only patently false and counterproductive, but only serves to ellicit an almost visceral response to your comments. --Mhking (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ohhh i see you are trying to taking out the right response how many years it will take this is your way to impend things too long that people start forgetting it. you are taking about usefull comments no the time is over many many pages have been filled now can you tell me what you have done...??????? any answer ....????if it can't be removed then why YOU ARE TROLLING BY OPENING A SUCH KINDA DISCUSSION PAGE..?????? what we Muslims said you have no rights to write 7 publish about islam is right as it is not your religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 13:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me -- Wikipedia is a secular Web site. It is not governed by Islamic rules, laws or guidelines. Most posters are not Muslim. I would dare say most reading are not Muslim. No one gets to dictate what right someone has to post or not. Period. Any sort of response such as that, that you have expressed, is counterproductive, insulting, and only serves to incite a visceral response from others who have worked diligently to create and craft a non-partisan, neutral, informative article. --Mhking (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:: Anyone has a right to edit articles on Islam not only muslims, what you are suggesting is against so many core policies that it's not worth listing them. this line of discussion can go nowhere so I suggest you drop it. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Islamic scholar: Wikipedia's use of the images is not problematic

In its coverage of this controversy, German news magazine FOCUS has asked a professor of Islam for his opinion. Translation from [2], with wikilinks added:

[In their refusal to delete the images,] Wikipedians are supported by Professor Harun Behr, who is training school teachers for Islamic religious education at the University of Erlangen. "There is no absolute aniconism [prohibiton of images] in Islam", Behr explains to FOCUS Online. The Wikipedia article only shows unproblematic depictions from the Middle Ages [according to Behr]. "In the school books which we are designing for islamic religious education, we are using similar illustrations", Behr explains. While there is a broad consensus within Islam to abstain from images of Muhammad, this abstainment is a sign of respect and not an absolute prohibition of images [according to him]. "Somebody who is demanding the deletion of these images is clearly crossing a boundary", Behr says.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)