Talk:Muhammad

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

Important notice: Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ addresses some common points of argument, such as the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ 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.

---

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, 5 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

Archiving and Subpages (or, "Where is my conversation thread?")

If you are looking for the old conversation threads, they have been archived to Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22. If you wish to further discuss any issues from there, then open a new thread. On the other hand, all image related talk has been spun off to Talk:Muhammad/images, it is likely that any further discussions on this topic will also be moved to this subpage in order to reduce clutter. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 08:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

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)

@Arrow740: If some body will forcibly wear you a skirt besides u are a man.so will u wear skirts all over ur life.how come you say many of them where converted forcibly.....You people only know how to critisize Islam..But GOD's Grace ISLAM is going to live for ever. You have jeliusy that how come muslims folllow their religion as it was.there is no change in our religion.unlike other religions which are changed day by day.Some of them release their new versions of their religion books... So please stop critisizing aur religion and do research ur own religion and you will find answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.97.158 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 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)

'Conquered' just means that Muhammad assumed control of Mecca, the Kaaba etc. It doesn't imply a great deal of violence, though some did take place, most notably the list of individuals to be killed on sight. However, there was much less violence than in other battles, thus 'conquest' is more appropriate than 'battle' or 'raid' in this context. This is also the word used by Al-Tabari (volume 8, page 160) in the headline of that very chapter. The term 'Gazwa' (a raid led by Muhammad himself) is of course appropriate, too. There were 27 of those recorded, and many were significantly more violent than the conquest of Mecca. I think 'conquest' is a nice, non-offensive term that describes events appropriately. Sources: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari Henrik R Clausen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.133.219 (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Captured" seems like a better synonym, with less baggage. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "capture" has a temporary connotation, like you're holding on to it for a while but will give it back or it could be captured back. I think conquer is the correct word and could be read as if "conquering the hearts of the audience". Victory is acquired, not just control. An army might capture a prisoner, but the fighting is over when the enemy force is conquered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.72.220 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I read here: "In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own.". Actualy in a lot of islam countries it is forbidden to practice other believes, or it forbidden to move to a different believe or no believe at all. Try to establish a church or a budhistic temple in those countries and speak of other believes, or as a christian consume alcholics it is simply not allowed. When one familiy member would change his belief, breaks tradition we read about it here in the news. The last couple of years several women and girls have been murdered because they supposedly had ‘stained’ the honour of their family. Also a few men were victim of honour killings. so think again its not that free, unless you believe thats all a kind of respectull freedom. As a side note, i'm not offensive and i'm not against muslims. just presenting some known old news fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page

Where are the talk page topics going? I know there has been a lot of activity here, and only a few of the resent talk page edits are in the archives. Have the rest been deleted? Rebelyell2006 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the activity is related to the depiction of images. There's a sub-page for that stuff. It's at the top of the page. -MasonicDevice (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

True, however it seems that some threads which are not related to the image controversy have also been moved there, e.g. this and the following two sections. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh... That looks like a negligent yank and paste. Somebody may have been a bit overzealous in a move. It belongs here.-MasonicDevice (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Illiterate?

No offense to anyone but wasn't Muhammad illiterate? Shouldn't the article atleast mention this somewhere? JTBX (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

mmm, it is written in the Koran article ("The Quran states that Muhammad was ummi, interpreted as illiterate in Muslim tradition. According to Watt, the meaning of the qur'anic term ummi is unscriptured rather than illiterate as Muslim tradition has concluded. Watt argues that a certain amount of writing was necessary for Muhammad to perform his commercial duties though it seems certain that he had not read any scriptures."), but since most people were illiterate at that time I'm not sure it is relevant enough to be added here too. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it relevent in that he preached from memory and rote? --Fredrick day (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It was actually incredibly common, and still is in many parts of the world. ( to know the entire <insert religious text here> by rote ) Quaru (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

he lived in 7th century Arabia: we can safely assume, that in his day, literacy was the exception. the relevance of discussing Muhammad's literacy would need to be established based on quotable sources. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, one is free to look for sources, but for a merchant to be literate doesn't seem particularly surprising. Either way, see WP:RS & WP:V for what we'd want to discuss it in the article. Cheers, WilyD 12:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd think it deserves mention because illiteracy and memorization are two issues taken as important to show that Muhammad didn't just find Christian/Jewish scriptures and imitate them. It's generally considered rather important in contemporary Muslim biographies I've read. gren グレン 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No offence to you too mate, but in my opinion you are way wrong. The Prophet (SAWS) was not an illetrate. See i don't mean He had all the knowledge, but he had the BEST knowledge which is the Quran, and He was the first one to memorise the all 30 parts of Qur'an. He taught Islam to the muslims and other people and did whatever He could. Now certainly, an ill-literate can never do this. And one more thing, you also got to note that there were no schools, colleges and universities that time and world was not technologised and advanced as it is today. So literacy now and literacy then has got a high difference. And yeah mate, also remember that there were no engineers and scientists then. People were more into trade and agriculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveedahmedkhokhar (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Illiterate means he couldn't read. It doesn't mean he was stupid, or didn't have knowledge. Illiteracy then is the same as illiteracy now; either you can, or you can't read. --Haemo (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No engineers? I guess all of those Roman roads, aqueducts, stadia and planned cities must have built themselves. But I digress. Your argument from Muhammed's deeds doesn't really get at whether he was illiterate or not. Accepting the Koran, for which of these parts would literacy be necessary: Receiving the Word of God from his messanger Gabriel? Memorizing it? Telling others? The answer is none. All of these could be done by an illiterate man as they don't involve reading or writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasonicDevice (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is likely that Muhammad was a literate because it would have been difficult for him to keep records as a merchant otherwise. He also came from one of the more noble of the Arab tribes. Illiteracy is a persistent myth. Also, there's no reason to turn this into some politicized issue. -Rosywounds (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends how you define literacy. If I can do some calculation to keep my business account, does that make me literate?

Here is a quote from Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, 'illiteracy' article that explains the concept of literacy at that time and whether Muhammad was illiterate or not:

The inability to read or write any language. This inability puts a person at a disadvantage and is regarded as a defect in societies where culture transmission and human communication occurs through writing. In considering the situation in Arabia at the time of the prophet Muḥammad (d. 632 c.e.), however, quite different categories have to be applied: the common cultural and historical property of the tribes — their knowledge, crystallized in Arabic poetry, genealogies, and stories of tribal battles — was retained almost exclusively in memory and transmitted orally. Writing and literacy played a minor role, even though the “art of writing” was already known among the Arabs and used, for example, by tradesmen and in cities. Yet the early Arabic sources on the history of Islam do provide some evidence that Muhammad, especially as a statesman in Medina, used scribes to correspond with the tribes. Likewise, though infrequently rather than constantly, he probably had them write down parts of the quranic revelation he had received. These would have been on separate pages, not yet in one single book (cf. the widespread hadith, according to which the Prophet dictated, amlā ʿalayhi, qurʾānic verses to Zayd b. Thābit, who is well known in the Islamic tradition for the significant role he later played in the recension of the Qurʾān).
Whether or not the Prophet was able to read or write cannot be established from these historical-biographical references. The qurʾānic evidence in this respect is also equivocal and unclear. There is, on the one hand, the divine declaration in q 29:47-8: “We have sent down to you the book (q.v.; kitāb)… Not before this did you recite any book, or inscribe it with your right hand, for then those who follow falsehood would have doubted.” This would seem to indicate that Muhammad did not read or write any scripture “before” he received the revelation. On the other hand, q 25:5 points to attempts made by “unbelievers” (here polytheist Meccans) to discredit Muhammad by claiming that he was not receiving a divine revelation but simply “writings of the ancients” ( asāṭīr al-awwalīn,) which he had written down or which he had had written down (iktatabahā ) and which were dictated to him (tumlā ʿalayhi) at dawn and in the early evening. It is notable, even if this sentence refers to the opponents of the Prophet, that the medieval commentators understand asāṭīr al-awwalīn (which occurs nine times in the Qurʾān) to mean “writings” or “stories (taken from writings),” explaining them as “narratives that they (i.e., the ancients) used to write down in their books” (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, ix, 366).

--Be happy!! (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

self reference

the silly "disclaimer" or whatever you want to call it sentence at the end of the intro should be removed imo, as per WP:SELF. It makes the article look pretty unprofessional - it should be taken as assumed that every image be used appropriately and in a way that is relevent to the article for *every* entry on the encyclopedia; we shouldn't have to state it for this article in particular. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

At least it gives references and such. Jmlk17 05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many portraits?

I believe that the number of portraits here is bordering on WP:UNDUE, considering the relative unimportance of depictions of Muhammad in Muslim tradition. It seems odd to me that Depictions of Muhammad has only one traditional Muslim portrait of Muhammad, while this article has four of them. I am afraid that we might be overreacting a little to the (quite legitimate) fears of censorship; and unconsciously adopting a bit of a "let's show them" attitude, which wouldn't be helpful.--Pharos (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly more images can be added to the depictions article, but I'm not sure how that is relevant to the status of this article. I suspect that the retention of traditional Muslim portraits in this article is meant as an attempt quite the opposite reaction a the one you state. I could easily argue that the Danish cartoons would fit as an appropriate image beside the Depictions of Muhammad section in this article, regardless of any protests made about it based on Muslim theology. But a traditional image created by a Muslim artist would be less likely to cause issues, wouldn't you agree? As far as WP:UNDUE, this has been discussed a couple times in the image archives, but my argument is pretty simple: there are four depictions in this article. There are eleven in the Jesus article. The usage of images of Muhammad is minimalized in this article already. Resolute 06:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, how many other bio-articles on people/religious figures as important as Muhammad have only four illustrations of the subject? Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 07:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC).

We're talking about proportionality here. Your comparison would suggest that the depiction of Muhammad in Muslim tradition is about one-third that of the depiction of Jesus in Christian tradition; but it less than that—and certainly also less than one-tenth such a number. One-tenth would represent (about) one image in this article, which would still be out of proportion to Muslim tradition I think, but educationally useful in that it would still help to illustrate the Muslim aniconic tradition.--Pharos (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that as a compelling argument. Our aim here is to create the most informative article on Muhammad that is possible, not to create an article based purely on a particular Islamic cultural view of him. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC).

The fact of the matter is that we are over-representing what is verifiably a minority tradition. You can't compare an article like Jesus, who has always had a rich, prominent history of depictions amounting to hundreds or perhaps even thousands of works from a diversity of cultures and ages, with an article like this where such a tradition was certainly not prevalent at all. Yet it is utterly misleading to the reader, and unbalanced in general, that we have four depictions all prominently positioned in the top half of the article - ultimately giving this minority tradition an undue focus. ITAQALLAH 12:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolute, regarding I could easily argue that the Danish cartoons would fit as an appropriate image beside the Depictions of Muhammad section in this article

No. This would constitute recentism- Islam has 1400 years history. Such an incident is not significant at all--Be happy!! (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, what is your criterion of choosing those images over hundreds of thousands of images of Muhammad in Muslim tradition? I mean how do you avoid WP:OR? See, you need to find a tertiary source to prove the significance of those images. Those who uploaded those pictures and added them were not trying to do an scholarly analysis and find the most representative pictures I believe. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would be recentism if most or all of the images/discussion was on recent happenings. The Danish cartoons would be representative of the continuing impact of Muhammad's legacy into modern times, especially as it relates to how non-Muslims may view him, and how some Muslims react to such depictions. An image/short section describing this would not be recentism when taken as a small section of a very large article. That being said, I am not actually advocating this change, merely pointing out that the the images currently selected hardly represent a "lets show them" attitude, but rather attempts to be respectful. If we wish to swap one of the images with a more western one for diversity, that is certainly worth discussion. I might recommend the image of Muhammad at the US Supreme Court. Resolute 15:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the best image for the depictions section would be a western painting that shows him in a semi-respectful manner. The article really lacks any western images, and in the original mediation, we agreed to have a western image in that section. Yahel Guhan 08:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a reasonable point and I don't have any arguments against it. But I have to admit that I was only hoping that no one would point to this since the medieval western painting are not usually semi-respectful. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur, Pharos. I have raised a similar point here. I do believe the presentation needs to be altered so as to preserve balance. ITAQALLAH 12:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont see the importance of adding a western painting to the article. It is true what these people argued that each image must have a real reason for why it is being there. The West had no role in Muhammad's peace upon him life. I think you can add pictures of some of his belongings, or add the picture of his hair that exists in the Turkish Museum. this will definetly add value and give the reader a bigger sense of Muhammad peace upon him and his life. You can also add pictures of his lifestlye, like what kind of house he lived in, what kind of food he ate, this will give the reader the feel of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.44.214 (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it may be WP:UNDUE to keep the Siyer-i Nebi image in the lead; I think it would be arguable to move it to e.g. "Sources for Muhammad's life", "Depictions of Muhammad" or "Muslim veneration of Muhammad" further down. And no, we should not add a cartoon image or similar: it is important not to cave in to external pressure and political hubbub, but it is just as important not to fall into the skulking trap and add more images just to spite people. dab (𒁳) 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

An image of Muhammad from the Western perspective isn't particularly helpful. Actually, if that were the case, then the Jesus article should include more East African and Middle Eastern depictions; it currently has no non-European depictions, despite the fact that Christianity has been practiced in Africa and West Asia longer than it has in Europe. Giving undue weight to the Muhammad tradition of depiction is an issue; I actually haven't seen a single case against this position thus far, other than "well, Jesus's article has more pictures." How many Muslim depictions of Jesus are in that article? Zero, of course. That shouldn't be a surprise, since a tradition of depicting Jesus is equally nonexistent in Muslim tradition, also. IMO, this is apples and oranges. Although articles should be NPOV, that doesn't mean we should reduce ourselves to robots. There are clear, circumstantial differences here, and the undue focus on this tradition does represent a POV. Pictures for the sake of pictures, or worse, pictures for the sake of avoiding censorship, don't seem like very valid reasons to form a consensus for the pictures. I don't think the pictures should be entirely removed, but they should probably be moved to the depictions section, at the minimum. Currently, 2 of the first 4 images of Muhammad one sees are unveiled, which is clearly undue focus on an overwhelmingly minority tradition. -Rosywounds (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We are currently proposing solutions to this issue here. ITAQALLAH 16:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people here overlook the fact that 90%+ of the editors here are westerns/christians. So, does it really surprise you that there is such a bias towards the unveiled pictures (Rosywounds point)?. This is what I call a systematic bias, which cannot be avoided, since wikipedia isn't neutral in its most fundamental sense. Facts are facts, get used to them. 216.99.63.136 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you wouldn't use christian and 'westerner' as synonyms. Zazaban (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, on Jesus, there are 11 images. On Muhammed, there are two (one showing the face). There should actually be more, better images if they were available. нмŵוτнτ 04:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. Jmlk17 05:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There are, in fact, four depictions. More importantly, it is grossly incorrect to compare two different articles with different venerative traditions, for reasons explained here.[1][2][3] ITAQALLAH 10:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to venerate Allah, Mohammad, or anyone else. We are here to build the most informative article possible, and I feel that is best served by providing examples of how he has been portrayed, not by following a particular cultural view of how he should be portrayed. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

I agree... this isn't about veneration. This is about how we are presenting Muhammad's portrayal in Islamic tradition. As reliable sources confirm, depictions of Muhammad were not generally prevalent. There is, therefore, a major neutrality problem in prominently positioning four depictions in the top third of the article - and it constitutes an undue focus and over-emphasis of a minority tradition. ITAQALLAH 12:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Who said we are portraying Mohammed in an Islamic tradition? I could understand doing so on an Islamic website, but Wikipedia is not such a site. The way that a particular group chooses to portray the subject of this article should not automatically be the way we portray the subject in the article. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

I don't think we're on the same page here. Let's start from the beginning: we aren't depicting Muhammad per se, because none of us knew what he looked like, and neither do those who drew him. Instead, we are presenting how Muhammad has been depicted by Muslims. We are representing a specific tradition. If you don't agree with this premise, then we need to discuss this first.

I also don't quite understand your response: we aren't talking about any particular group, we are talking about the historical prominence of depictions of Muhammad as a whole, or in this case the lack thereof, and how that relates to WP:UNDUE. I attempted to explain it in simple terms here. You can't present a minority tradition as otherwise by excessively focusing on it and overstating its prominence. This is misleading and unbalanced. While we agree that the article should provide some examples of depictions, it shouldn't be done in a way that unduly over-emphasises them. ITAQALLAH 13:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore who made them and in what "tradition" they were made - just treat this as any other Wikipedia article and add pictures where they exist. Approximately 11 for Jesus, so Muhammad definitely deserves equal prominence. Use Western images as well. TharkunColl (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I know where you are coming from, User:Itaqallah, I just don't believe it's a good argument for removing the images. It certainly makes sense to say that there is a cultural tradition among Sunni Muslims to use calligraphy rather than illustrations to depict Mohammed, but I do not see how it makes sense to remove the images based upon this. WP:UNDUE as per my reading, deals more with crank and fringe theories, and does not seem applicable to this situation. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 14:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

I believe UNDUE applies to presentation and focus as well as views, and includes how we use images, templates, categories etc. as well as just text. The argument isn't based upon simply what the Sunni tradition did or didn't do - we're talking about depictions and their historical prevalence - the point is that overstating that through excessive attention suggests a greater prevalence than reality affords. The argument isn't to remove images, it's to ensure that our presentation of it is sensible and balanced. ITAQALLAH 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Miracles in the Muslim biographies

I added the claim that Qur'an is the miracle of Muhammad (Imad marie (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Isra and Mi'raj

Currently, the section (at least on my browser) is sandwiched between two images (Persian Miniature and the Mosque picture). Perhaps they should be moved slightly farther apart so they don't sandwich the text? I don't know if this is just my browser or not. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Who moved the pictures further down?

This is the thin end of the wedge of censorship. And furthermore, we now have two identical calligraphy graphics right at the top. How was this change allowed to slip by? TharkunColl (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now corrected it. TharkunColl (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That was done by Dbachmann, and is a sentiment reflected in many of the comments here regarding undue weight. Let's not proclaim censorship in bad faith any time a more balanced presentation is attempted. ITAQALLAH 10:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not a more balanced presentation for the reasons I outlined above. TharkunColl (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see an accusation of censorship, and a comment that the template and lead image are the same. The latter can be easily fixed without changing the lead image. ITAQALLAH 10:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the pictures have now been removed altogether. Where will it end? TharkunColl (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We currently have three depictions in the article. One veiled, one unveiled, and one western sculpture. It has been discussed in more detail on the /images subpage. I think that's a fair and balanced representation. ITAQALLAH 11:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've supported Dbachmann in the past but this is ridiculous. There is no way this change would have been made if it was not for the "this is an outrage!" crowd. As a matter of principle the image should be restored to it's original place. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I too strongly object to this change, I do not believe there is a valid consensus to do this just yet. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

It was a bona fide edit which I argued on talk and implemented tentatively. It can be reverted. But, you should ask yourself, was there an equally laborious consensus before the image was placed in the lead in the first place? This is a question to be debated within the WP:LEAD and WP:IUP guidelines, quite apart from Muslim sensitivities. Why does a 1595 Ottoman illustration of a 10th century biography of Muhammad belong in the lead rather than in a section about biographies of Muhammad? I stoutly defend the appropriateness of a couple of manuscript images showing Muhammad taken from medieval or Ottoman manuscripts. I will not defend attempts to stash as many of these images as prominently as possible just to annoy people. Refusing to let politics interfere with encyclopedicity cuts both ways. dab (𒁳) 13:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it was not made in good faith, I'm just saying that it is clear that there is no consensus to make such a change yet. I do not want the image in the lead because I have some anti-Islamic agenda, or because I delight in causing offense. I would like to see it there as per my comments in the section above, and because I don't feel that biographies of religious figures should be treated any differently to biographies of non-religious figures. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 13:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

sure, and I have no problem with my edit being reverted. I did it so we can all see how the article would look like with a single image in the lead, and an image of a biography in the "biographies" section (btw, it beats me what the Quran manuscript image is doing in that section). Now, if we're going to build any sort of consensus let it be strictly along the lines of arguments on Wikipedia:Choosing appropriate illustrations, as we would for any other article. dab (𒁳) 13:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• please remove all so called pictures of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), wikipedia is a place from which millions of people get information.... we all respect it and tried to spread its boundaries... now this is being used to hurt more then 1,519,747,019 Muslims of the world... it is really very hurtful to see this kind of contend on this reputed portal. In Islam there is strictly prohibited to sketch any of the living thing and to sketch Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is really tragic. no one have right to hurt someone's emotions specially religious emotions of so number of people..i will only spared hatred. i request you all the person who has the authority to remove the pictures.. on the behaf of All the Muslims of the nation.... We ll be very thankful....May Allah bless you.. --Adilch (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm Christian and I want to see the pictures of Muhammad. In Arabish Wikipedia the Arabian Wikusers could remove the pictures but it's English Wikipedia. When somebody don't like the pictures of Muhammad in English Wikedia, than he can use another Websites. Nobody must use Wikipedia. You don't like it, so don't use!