Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

This is a list of Frequently Asked Questions relevant to Wikipedia's Muhammad article. This page was created in response to certain topics being brought up again and again on Talk:Muhammad, wasting many editors' time and energy by forcing them to respond repeatedly to the same issues. The FAQ serves to address these common concerns, criticisms, and arguments by answering the various misconceptions behind them. The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:

• Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED states that Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) guidelines for editing Islam-related articles to conform to a neutral encyclopedic style

There are frequent assertions that certain styles be adopted that violate the rules and spirit of Wikipedia.

Why should the images of Muhammad not be removed?

First and foremost, what seems to be the greatest issue here is the historical accuracy of the depictions of said images, as well as the feelings they invoke in all Muslims worldwide and what the effects of the above would be; the following paragraphs deal with these issues.

But doesn't this offend Muslims?

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer|Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]]

Wikipedia recognizes that there are cultural traditions among some Muslim groups that prohibit depictions of Muhammad and other prophets and that some Muslims are offended when those traditions are violated. However, the prohibitions are not universal among Muslim communities, particularly with the Shi'a who, while prohibiting the images, are less strict about it. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (see also Wikipedia:Content disclaimer)

The traditional reason given for the Islamic prohibitions on images of prophets is to prevent the images from becoming objects of worship as a form of idolatry, where the image becomes more important than the subject it represents. However, Wikipedia uses the images of Muhammad as examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context. Therefore, there are no concerns that the presence of the images on the articles will result in the practice of idolatry among Muslims.

Aren't the images false?

So are the images used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, and Jesus. As there are no accurate images, it is best to use images that are historically significant and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Longstanding tradition on Wikipedia favors any images even representing part of a tradition over none at all.

It is important to understand that these depictions do not mean to present the face of Muhammad; rather, they present the person in the way the artist was more comfortable with and hold no immediate religious value on their own. It is of particular interest that these means of portrayal generally convey one and only one aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, as is the case with Western depictions of combat training. The depictions are, thus, not meant to have any accuracy to them, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted.

None of these pictures are meant to hold a prominent place in the article, as evident by their placement in the article, nor are they meant as an assault to Islam. As an analogy, Jesus has been presented in a multitude of ways, most of which are entirely inaccurate (Jesus being, according to tradition, a Jew, whereas he is generally depicted with distinctively Byzantine or Caucasian features). It is also worth noting that several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (which resulted even in hostilities), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are (i.e. existing depictions of said people) – there is no unspoken insult intended.

How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?

See also: Wikipedia:How to set your browser to not see images

If you are offended by the images (and you have an account), you can change your personal settings so that you don't have to see them, without affecting other users. This is done by modifying your CSS (Cascading Style Sheet) page, which is individual to each user.

To do this:

• Click on this link to modify your monobook.css page
  • If no page is there already, just go ahead and create a page

• Add the following line to your css page:

body.page-Muhammad img {display: none;}

This will permanently hide the images on the article for you as long as you are logged in.

Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw)?

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Muhammad|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) § Muhammad]]

It is recommended to remove all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precedes or follows Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the Islamic prophet Muhammad is the recommended form.

Why does it look like the article on Muhammad is strongly biased towards western references?

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]

Accusations of bias towards western references are often made when an objection is raised against the display of pictures of Muhammad or lack of honorifics when mentioning Muhammad. All articles on Wikipedia are required to present a neutral point of view. This neutrality is sometimes mistaken for hostility. Note that exactly the same guidelines apply to articles about Christianity or any other religion.

Users wishing to participate in an online encyclopedia with a Muslim point of view might want to take a look at other projects such as MuslimWiki, whose article on Muhammad is written according to Islamic rules.

Why can't I edit this article?

Persistent vandalism of the page has forced us to disable editing by anonymous editors and new accounts. Accounts older than four days can still edit normally, unless the article is protected more heavily, see below. Although sad, it's truly necessary, and may remain for a very long time.

However, constant vandalism of this article may result in the restriction of editing to only administrators. Although this is regrettable, the edit wars may result in this restriction. This usually remains in effect until the edit conflict is resolved.

In any case, the GNU Free Documentation License grants everybody the right to republish this article elsewhere, also in edited form.

Why would removing these depictions of Mohammed constitute a non-NPOV?

These images show that not only have there been different stances on the matter of depicting Muhammad, even if that only applied to a minority, but they also have an intrinsic historical and artistic value in themselves. This does not constitute bias: including some additional calligraphic portrayals of Muhammad is welcome to the article, as long as it does not clatter the page, but it is important to represent those few images we do have that show him unveiled - both for their own value, and for the value they add to the main article.

The inclusion of these images in other encyclopedias (particularly the printed variety) is of little relevance - they rarely contain photographs of a number of things that can actually be found in Wikipedia, and one of the main reasons for this difference is price: printing a color plate every other page is expensive. It also clutters up the text found in each article.

Another problem crops up from the matter of the people that are "insulted" too; not only not all Muslims adher to this rule, but it also is arbitrary to suggest that all Muslims that do follow this rule are automatically offended by the images. Even so, the particular feelings of a group that is not even a majority around the world are of little consequence to the project - submitting to the particular demands of a specific group not only sets bad precedent (since every group could then suggest that something insults their particular beliefs, which is entirely true in a number of dogmas), it also violates the principle of neutrality on our stance in articles.

Isn't censorship employed to protect the masses?

Further information: [[:Wikipedia is not censored]]

Simply put, no.

The following photographs are some examples provided on Wikipedia:

Images that show dead bodies or organs

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deadconfederate.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mass_Grave_Bergen_Belsen_May_1945.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Streptococcus_pneumoniae_meningitis%2C_gross_pathology_33_lores.jpg (autopsy of human brain)

Images that may be considered pornographic

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Porn-site.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BannerCarrierLeft.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microkini-stick-on.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg