Talk:Muhammad/images

Orientalism

The subject matter of that book is better suited for a separate article. In fact, it's already on Wikipedia: Orientalism.

There are only a few mentions of Dante; in fact, the ones available on Google Books consist of no more than a sentence similar to the sentence in this article. The content of that book appears to consist of essays by several individuals other than Said himself. The reference you suggested starting on page 68 appears to be a rather emotional piece written from a decidedly non-neutral and non-Western viewpoint; indeed, the beginning of that chapter says as much. I am at a loss to determine what passage you may want to reference to expand the single sentence about Dante. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I pasted the wrong link. Here is the correct link of Said's book (again, please check starting from page 68):

http://books.google.com/books?id=zvJ3YwOkZAYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=orientalism&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

Hi again Amatulić. Did you have a chance to review the last link I posted? (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I did look at it, and again, I was unable to view any pages. Google Books says "no preview available.". ~Amatulić (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair that just because it can't be viewed online doesn't mean it can't be used as a source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is not in question, and is not the topic of this discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I see now why you can't view it. I've been viewing the book through my university account which has a free access to google books. I'll work on copying you the statements of interest to show you the script I'm talking about. (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mounibkhanafer (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say that such pictures should be deleted as they not only hurt the feelings of the Muslims but also create hatred in them. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that one injures the feelings of other people. Things that ridicule others just for the sake of 'freedom of speech' must be blocked. I would like wikipedia to immediately block such pictures as they damage the feelings of the Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner20007 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We need to realize, as human beings with emotions of love and hatred, that to hurt someones feelings by putting up some gross, hateful and abusive picture depicting a Prophet of God leads to killing and more hatred. If you love someone, you obviously want to see him loved and respected. Would it be allowed to show dead American soldiers being tortured in hell fire on Wikipedia? If that is what Muslims think is going to happen to them, then why not show it? Do you think you will stopped from doing this? What happens to "free speech" and "freedom of expression" now? Such double standards needs to be addressed. We need to get rid of this pictures from the page. Muslims don't even take their own pictures because of the love of God and his noble messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binabdaz (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no double standard - nor is there a prohibition against publishing depictions of Muhammad. The Koran does not forbid it - and the Koran specifically states that what it hasn't prohibited is permitted. Indeed, many of the images shown in the article were created by Muslims. As far as double standards go, there are many images in this encyclopedia they may find offensive, but we haven't deleted them, either. Rklawton (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir, with all due respect. When you say " The Koran does not forbid it - and the Koran specifically states that what it hasn't prohibited is permitted", I couldn't find in your profile (available on Wikipedia) anything that indicates that you have deep studies in Islamic Sciences (and honest to God, I respect your view and I'm not trying to offend you). I'm talking as a practicing muslim who has been involved with Islamic readings and research since more than 20 years. Things in Islam are not only prohibited or permitted through the verses of Koran exclusively. You should also consider the teachings of the Muslims' Prophet (called 'Sunna' in Arabic) too as they play the role of "explaining" the verses of Koran. The "Sunna" refers to the sayings and deeds of the Prophet that we know (through authentic paths) that the prophet agreed on (and how to prove an "authentic" Sunna is a huge science by itself that we can't summarize here). We have tons of things that are prohibited clearly in the Sunna, while they are not mentioned in the Koran (or mentioned implicitly). All Muslims (with no absolute exception) believe in Koran and Sunna, this is a fundamental part of their belief. Another thing is that we have tons of things that are prohibited in Koran, but they need an expert in the Koran to direct your attention to them, as they may not be explicit. These are deep sciences and not anyone (even average Muslims) can just say that this is permitted and that's allowed based only on a plain and regular reading through the Koran. Some people need to go through through at least 10 years of studies before being able to explain one verse. I believe the same standard applies to the Bible as no one can just sit and read and understand it without referring to the experts who invested long periods of time studying the Bible's scriptures. (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

No offense, but, no one really cares...this is going far too off-topic. What may be prohibited for you is not prohibited to this online encyclopedia project. This project is not going to do things according to your religion. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

People clearly do care as its been bought up several times in the last couple of weeks alone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No one really cares about irrelevant arguments. Voicing such arguments frequently doesn't make them any more meaningful. What is prohibited in Islam is completely irrelevant to this biography article. Therefore, no one really cares. I think what was meant was "no one who is knowledgable about encyclopedic standards and Wikipedia policies and guidelines really cares." ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Its quite evident that people do care, as even with the big red warning boxes to discourage people they keep bringing it up over and over again. I mean about 4-5 people have bought it up this month alone. Now you may not care for their arguments or position, but it is clearly important to them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

People might care but until someone comes up with a new, meaningful arguemnt, those people are tantamount to trolls. I don't like paying taxes, but moaning to my government about it constantly would just make me look stupid whereas providing a well thought, economically viable, reasonable argument for why I shouldn't pay taxes would make me a genius. No one that's been bitching about the images so far falls into the genius category. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Allow me to rephrase; that was "no one cares" as in "no one of those who have heard this argument a 1,000 times cares". Yes, people in the outside world care, just as there are people who care enough to come insert "terrorist" into Hassan Nasrallah's article or care enough to insert "he was born in Kenya" into Barack Obama's article. These are people with an opinion, an agenda to see their point-of-view fulfilled. They are not here to contribute to a collaborative encyclopedia. WP:TIGER is a rather nice essay on the matter of strong opinions and the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice essay, its an interesting read. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are all missing my point here. Allow me all to mention that my earlier response to Mr. Rklawton was an answer to his own interpretation of the Koran and I was not imposing the Islamic view on Wikipedia. I was correcting Mr. Rklawton's way of dealing with the Koran. If he only mentioned that he is following certain Wikipedia's guidelines in keeping those photos, then it is a different story. On the contrary, he was justifying the showing of these photos based on his own intrepretation of the Koran!!!. All the editors on this page keep on repeating that what is offensive to X is not necessarily offensive to Y, so how in the world it is allowed and OK to Mr. Rklawton to impose his own intrepration of the Koran (which is clearly wrong, to any one who is involved in the Islamic studies and research) while others are not? This tells me that we may have tons of passages on Wikipedia that were passed and posted just because they conform to the understanding and taste of the editors. All of you know that since my first response till now I didn't request the removal of the photos (although I'm against these photos from an Islamic perspective as well as from an ethical perspective as I don't agree that I'm allowed to show the leaders and symbols of any religion or sect in an offensive way. Yet, please note that there is a difference between just depicting the Muslim's Prophet and showing him in an offensive and insulting way as the photo San Petronio Basilica clearly depicts!!!). But Mr. Rklawton entries show me that we do have an issue of bias here as he has certain understanding of the Koran according to which he is accepting and refusing the addition/removal of statements into/out of the passages. He was clearly imposing his view of what is permitted and what is prohibited in the Koran, without any viable experience in interpreting the Koran (with all due respect to Mr. Rklawton). Why is it allowed for Mr. Rklawton to have his own interpretation of the Koran according to which he is an "official editor" of this page?(Mounibkhanafer (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

The Koran is subjective, how one individual deciphers it differs from how another individual deciphers it, that's how the world works. You're essentially telling us that you're more of an authority on the Koran and therefore you're right. That's like someone telling me they're a bigger fan of Don McLean and therefore their understanding of American Pie is correct and mine isn't. Relying on one's Wikipedia userpage to assess their knowledge of a subjective as you have been doing is the wrong way to go about it. Mine said I have a leaky vagina once, and that wasn't true. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your assertion "...and that wasn't true" appears to be based on original research. This is why we give such strong preference to secondary sources in articles. : ) Doc Tropics 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just another (and so far the best) reason why I think WP is too bureaucratic! raseaC^{talk to me} 19:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read my entry again, you are completely missing me. I didn't mention a word to imply that my understanding of the Koran is the absolute correct one. I clearly stated that Mr. Rklawton is imposing his own interpretation of the Koran to justify the showing of the photos. If this is how it works on Wikipedia (that's is, being an editor allows you to add/remove what ever conforms with your beliefs and understanding), then please never mention that Wikipedia is neutral and uncensored. Also, when you say "The Koran is subjective, how one individual deciphers it differs from how another individual deciphers it" you are just proving my point: who said the Koran is subjective? that's your point of view and you can't impose it on us. This is another indication of that the editors here (with all due respect) have no experiences in Koranic studies. We do have principles and fundamentals in Islam according to which we interpret the Koran, did any one here take any courses with that respect?. Besides, if Mr. Rklawton's understanding of the Koran allows him to show the photos, my understanding does not, so why Wikipedia takes his opinion and shows the photos and diregards mine? Finally, from my review of the profiles of some editors of this page, I couldn't see any apparent qualifications in terms of deeply studying Islam and its sciences, so they are (with all due respect) editing a page without having enough background on its topic!!! Again, I'm talking as a practicing Muslim with experience in Islamic studies and research that spans more than 20 years, yet I'm not imposing anything on you. But, would you go to your mechanic for physiotherapy? (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

One last thing, your arguement that what is correct for X may be wrong for Y is based on the philosophy that says "there's is no absolute truth and everything is relative". In fact this philosophy is being used here a lot and I should mention that it is false. Why, because it contradicts itself since it says that "there is no absolute truth..." which means that this statement itself is not an absolute truth!!! (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

You have implied, time and again, that you having studied the Koran for however long you have means that you are more of an authority on it than others, it may mean that you know more about it than others but it doesn't make your personal view anymore correct than others. No one is imposing their own interpretation of the Koran here, they are simply working from it. Like I already said, everyone will have their own interpretation (again, like I said, it's all subjective) and that's all anyone can work from. PLEASE stop reviewing other's 'profiles' on Wikipedia and drawing any serious conclusions from them, the userpages of those contributing here aren't too bad but you'd be blown away by the content on others! Can I just ask; what exactly are you looking for here if it's not image removal? raseaC^{talk to me} 19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but the whole "subjective" assertion is completely bogus. Sure, everyone may have a different view on a particular topic, but not all of those views have equal merit. "American Pie" may be interpreted in vastly different ways, but only one of them, the original intent of the author, is correct. The same is true of the Koran. There has been a great deal of scholarship on the Koran, and I think a result of that scholarship has been the rejection of many subjective views of what is contained within the book and its meaning. Frankly, I couldn't care less if every inch of the article has a picture of Mohammed, but the implication that the subjective nature of various things should lead to a relativism in which all explanations are given equal merit is absolutely ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.78.34 (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mounibkhanafer, see WP:TRUTH. On Wikipedia, there is no absolute truth, only what can be verified by reliable sources. Rklawton's point is valid. If understanding of the Koran is so inaccessible to common people that one needs 20 years of study and immersion in Islam to have a "correct" understanding, then it's hardly surprising that arguments arise. Wikipedia articles need not, and I daresay should not be edited by such "experts" especially when conflicts of interest arise. The opinions of experts are not needed because Wikipedia does not publish original thought, only what appears in verifiable, reliable sources that WP:CONSENSUS has agreed meet the qualifications of being a reliable source. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the article must be neutral and informative. Neutrality doesn't allow offense to any group.Removing the pictures doesn't mean affecting the article's informativeness.For example, the picture conveying western views can be removed leaving its footnote. In this manner, I believe the article will be really neutral and not offensive.The information in the article will not be greatly affected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12211233214554a (talk • contribs) 15:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality has nothing to do with offensiveness. For example, a neutral view on Nazis will invariably be offensive to Nazis - and that's OK. I'm sorry if you got the impression that neutrality was the same thing as inoffensive. Rklawton (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, not to undermine your main point, but a neutral article on nazis wouldn't necessarily offend living nazis, especially since such an article shouldn't include any POV condemnations or anything of that sort (except as clearly presented as notable viewpoints). If said nazi disagreed with the historical record as it stands, then obviously they would have problems with the articles, but it takes a special sort to be offended by facts.

But, that specific example isn't relevant in the case of images of Muhammad. Wikipedia is not bound to abide by the rules of a particular culture, even when discussing that culture. A culture that forbids written history, for example, has absolutely NO claim that wikipedia should forbid its editors to write about them, no matter how their women weep and their men gnash their teeth (or overtly threaten to track down and murder the editors). --King Öomie 19:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the subject

OK, we were having an intelligent discussion that has degenerated into "I'm right, you're wrong, this is truth, that isn't." It's off topic. We were discussing what content to add to the article to expand upon or explain Western views toward Muhammad, particularly in the context of writings of Dante. Let's get back to that, shall we? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I would like to go back to the original topic of discussion, but I have a concern now. Also, it is apparent that the views and knowledge of each editor has an influence towards the material being posted on WP (so we can no more talk about a high degree of neutrality). So how would I make sure that there is no bias towards what I (or others) may suggest as improvements? (BTW, It is apparent too that neither you nor raseaC answered any of my main points in my latest entry) (Ibn_Sina 22:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mounibkhanafer (talk • contribs)

I answered each of your points in as much detail as I thought necessary. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll get back to the original topic and I'll stop the other discussion as I think we are not converging. (Ibn_Sina 22:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mounibkhanafer (talk • contribs)

You asked, how do you make sure there is no bias toward what you suggest as improvements? You don't make sure. You simply suggest and discuss, and you assume good faith as required by Wikipedia guidelines. I hope our prior "on topic" discussion has demonstrated that editors here are open to discussing improvements. And in fact, I have changed image captions based on your suggestions, in both the Muhammad and Depictions of Muhammad articles, and nobody else objected. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As I promised before, I hereby copy and paste for you Edward Said's opinion about Dante's vision of Islam. For those who don't know, Edward Said received his PhD in English Literature from Harvard University and is a highly praised professor in the West. His landmark book "Orientalism", from which I'll be copying, earned him a strong academic fame. Again, what I'm trying to say here is that it will be good if we include his opinion about Dante in the passage for the readers of WP to understand that the photo of the Muslims' Prophet being tortured in Hell is (according to Said's view) influenced by a corrupted and negative view of the Muslims's Prophet. To preserve the copy rights of the author, the following statements are taken from pages 69-72 of the book "Orientalism", 1977 (London, Penguin) by Edward Said (who was a Christian himself):

"The discriminations and refinements of Dante's poetic grasp of Islam are an instance of the schematic, almost cosmological inevitability with which Islam and its designated representatives are creatures of Western geographical, historical, and above all, moral apprehension. Empirical data about the Orient or about any of its parts count for very little; what matters and is decisive is what I have been calling the Orientalist vision, a vision by no means confined to the professional scholar, but rather the common possession of all who have thought about the Orient in the West. Dante's powers as a poet intensify, make more rather than less representative, these perspectives on the Orient. Mohammed, Saladin, Averroes, and Avicenna are fixed in a visionary cosmology—fixed, laid out, boxed in, imprisoned, without much regard for anything except their "function" and the patterns they realize on the stage on which they appear. Isaiah Berlin has described the effect of such attitudes in the following way:"In [such a]... cosmology the world of men (and, in some versions, the entire universe) is a single, all-inclusive hierarchy; so that to explain why each object in it is as, and where, and when it is, and does what it does, is eo ipso to say what its goal is, how far it successfully fulfills it, and what are the relations of co-ordination and subordination between the goals of the various goal-pursuing entities in the harmonious pyramid which they collectively form. If this is a true picture of reality, then historical explanation, like every other form of explanation, must consist, above all, in the attribution of individuals, groups, nations, species, each to its own proper place in the universal pattern. To know the "cosmic" place of a thing or a person is to say what it is and what it does, and at the same time why it should be and do as it is and does. Hence to be and to have value, to exist and to have a function (and to fulfill it more or less successfully) are one and the same. The pattern, and it alone, brings into being and causes to pass away and confers purpose, that is to say, value and meaning, on all there is. To understand is to perceive patterns. . . . The more inevitable an event or an action or a character can be exhibited as being, the better it has been understood, the profounder the researcher's insight, the nearer we are to the one ultimate truth. This attitude is profoundly anti-empirical. (Isaiah Berlin, Historical Inevitability (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), pp. 13—14.)". And so, indeed, is the Orientalist attitude in general. It shares with magic and with mythology the self-containing, self-reinforcing character of a closed system, in which objects are what they are because they are what they are, for once, for all time, for ontological reasons that no empirical material can either dislodge or alter. The European encounter with the Orient, and specifically with Islam, strengthened this system of representing the Orient and, as has been suggested by Henri Pirenne, turned Islam into the very epitome of an outsider against which the whole of European civilization from the Middle Ages on was founded. The decline of the Roman Empire as a result of the barbarian invasions had the paradoxical effect of incorporating barbarian ways into Roman and Mediterranean culture, Romania; whereas, Pirenne argues, the consequence of the Islamic invasions beginning in the seventh century was to move the center of European culture away from the Mediterranean, which was then an Arab province, and towards the North. "Germanism began to play its part in history. Hitherto the Roman tradition had been uninterrupted. Now an original Romano—Germanic civilization was about to develop." Europe was shut in on itself: the Orient, when it was not merely a place in which one traded, was culturally, intellectually, spiritually outside Europe and European civilization, which, in Pirenne's words, became "one great Christian community, coterminous with the ecclesia... . The Occident was now living its own life.' In Dante's poem, in the work of Peter the Venerable and other Cluniac Orientalists, in the writings of the Christian polemicists against Islam from Guibert of Nogent and Bede to Roger Bacon, William of Tripoli, Burchard of Mount Syon, and Luther, in the Poema del Cid, in the Chanson de Roland, and in Shakespeare's Othello (that "abuser of the world"), the Orient and Islam are always represented as outsiders having a special role to play inside Europe. Imaginative geography, from the vivid portraits to be found in the Inferno to the prosaic niches of d'Herbelot's Bibliotheque orientale, legitimates a vocabulary, a universe of representative discourse peculiar to the discussion and understanding of Islam and of the Orient. What this discourse considers to be a fact—that Mohammed is an imposter, for example—is a component of the discourse, a statement the discourse compels one to make whenever the name Mohammed occurs. Underlying all the different units of Orientalist discourse—by which I mean simply the vocabulary employed whenever the Orient is spoken or written about—is a set of representative figures, or tropes. These figures are to the actual Orient--or Islam, which is my main concern here—as stylized costumes are to characters in a play; they are like, for example, the cross that Everyman will carry, or the particolored costume worn by Harlequi i in a commedia dell'arte play. In other words, we need not look for correspondence between the language used to depict the Orient and the Orient itself, not so much because the language is inaccurate but because it is not even trying to be accurate. What it is trying to do, as Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is at one and the same time to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are for Europe, and only for Europe. Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways "like" Jesus, he is after all not like him). Rather than listing all the figures of speech associated with the Orient—its strangeness, its difference, its exotic sensuousness, and so forth—we can geheralize about them as they were handed down through the Renaissance." (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

Hi all. I'm still waiting for your comments about including the opinion of Prof. Edward Said (mentioned above, in my latest entry)into the passage. Please note that I'm not asking to include all what he said above, I copied all the above paragraphs just to make his opinion as clear as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mounibkhanafer (talk • contribs) 03:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty long and densely-written passage. I am still trying to digest it, and puzzling over exactly what we would use from it without violating the Wikipedia:Undue weight principle. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It was important for me to paste this long passage in order to make Edward Said's opinion clear, although the language is strictly academic. This being said, I believe at least the following portions of the passage (or at least, their ideas) are important to include in the "Muhammad" article:

"The discriminations and refinements of Dante's poetic grasp of Islam are an instance of the schematic, almost cosmological inevitability with which Islam and its designated representatives are creatures of Western geographical, historical, and above all, moral apprehension. Empirical data about the Orient or about any of its parts count for very little; what matters and is decisive is what I have been calling the Orientalist vision, a vision by no means confined to the professional scholar, but rather the common possession of all who have thought about the Orient in the West. Dante's powers as a poet intensify, make more rather than less representative, these perspectives on the Orient. Mohammed, Saladin, Averroes, and Avicenna are fixed in a visionary cosmology—fixed, laid out, boxed in, imprisoned, without much regard for anything except their "function" and the patterns they realize on the stage on which they appear"

"What it is trying to do, as Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is at one and the same time to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are for Europe, and only for Europe. Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways "like" Jesus, he is after all not like him). Rather than listing all the figures of speech associated with the Orient—its strangeness, its difference, its exotic sensuousness, and so forth—we can generalize about them as they were handed down through the Renaissance" (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC))