Talk:Muhammad

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Muhammad. If you are interested in discussing or debating Muhammad himself itself, you may want to visit alt.religion.islam.

Please note that discussion on this talk page has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article and any removal of the pictures without discussion here first will be reverted on sight. If you wish to discuss the inclusion of pictures in the article, please read over previous discussions here, here, and here, and discuss your objections here instead of creating another section. Please ensure that your proposal adheres to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality.

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

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Image archives 1, 2, 3 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

Prophet Mohammed in Hinduism

Prophet Mohammed is the God Of The Worlds in Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mention the Hinduism View of Phrophet Muhammed

Thats not fair, you put Christianity view of Muhammed and not Hinduism. Muhammed is a Hindu God.

If you can find reliable sources that attest to this fact, you are welcome to include such a section in the article. Lankiveil (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

ok,. the following is some refernces i could get intouch with

• There is a veda on Prophet Mohammed.

this link is an image of Prophet Muhammed in Hindu text from the holy veda.

http://www.geocities.com/indiafas/Hindu/purana1%5B1%5D.gif

• This link shows holy Priest/Pundits who are very well known in the field of research in India, and are amongst the Learned Religious Leaders

http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/prophet-hindu.html

• Dr. Zakir Naik is a doctor/lecturer who talks to more than millions of millions of Hindus in India and explain Islam relations between the two religons. Dr Zakir Naik is also the president of the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJHbEWs-m_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ymeVe7Zdyw

• Abu Israr Ahmed is a Pakistani who talks about the similarities of Hindus and Muslims

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMbJaXBPeGg << is in Hindu/Urdu

• Islam in Hindu scrriptures. also provides information on Prophet Abraham http://www.geocities.com/indiafas/Hindu/islam_in_hindu_scriptures.htm

I will try to provide more. I will put in proper time and do proper research the following is just a bit i researched.

it should be mentioned because Christianity has no holy book on Mohammed nor Allah. Hinduism has holy vedas on the two of them. i will provide more within time. i am pretty busy sorry for the inconvience

Muslims have claimed that the NT Paraclete is Mohammed, and agree that the God of Jesus is Allah. I looked into the last geocities page and found some rebuttals to it, like as for the claim Mohammed and Kalki live on olives and dates, in fact in Kalki Purana Chapter III[17], Verse 43, Kalki and his wife is shown to have been feasting on rice, curd and other milk products. rebuttal. So each claim by Prof. Parkash should be verified in the primary Hindu source, and if there is contradiction then editors can deem it to be unreliable. Also his actual book on the subject, not a homepage about it, would be the source to use. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to study alittle bit harder to know that there is no relation between mohammad (gpbh) and hindosim, they believe what they want and muslims believe what they want. Symbolisim is not correct in this manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of offensive material

Is there anything we can do to stop Muslims coming here every couple of weeks to demand that we should adhere to their religious taboos? Can we perhaps create a special page and automatically transfer all such demands to it, where they can stomp their feet as much as they like? Or instead maybe we should make some counter claims. Before they come here trying to tell us what to do, perhaps we should ask them to remove all those offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran. I am not a Christian I hasten to add - religion isn't compulsary in the West - but I merely suggest this in order to highlight a certain level of hypocrisy and double standards. TharkunColl (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• As you can imagine Talk:evolution has a somewhat similar situation, you can see what they do - but in general, not exactly. I dunno, one might look at the Danzig vote ... Talk:Gdansk/Vote although personally I think the Danzig vote is about the stupidest thing ever done around here, it seems to have stuck. WilyD 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• We could create something similar to Talk:Evolution/FAQ, which would contain all the arguments that have been made against the removal of the images. Anyone who complains could then be referred to the FAQ page unless they have some new point to make. Hut 8.5 17:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the FAQ is a good idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I've started it based on the Evolution FAQ. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps we should ask them to remove all those offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran." That made me smirk, I have to admit.--C.Logan (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a zero-tolerance policy for this. If somebody brings this up again, we simply revert them and leave a warning on their talk page. It's quite clear that people wanting the images are not willing to debate the issue. Zazaban (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As annoying as it is, leaving a warning might be a bit bite-y. How about a friendly pointer to the FAQ page on their talk page, and a revert here? Most of the requests, while misguided, have been made in good faith. Lankiveil (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

The intent is to not have a picture or statue of Mohammed to worship as Christians may do with Jesus, unfortunately it's taken to extreme by many Muslims who don't understand this. There should be no real problem for Muslims there if they don't pray to it, and if it's not offensive otherwise. So while I understand the reasoning in asking for removal, I'm not real supportive of using Wikipedia to further reinforce misunderstanding of this religious principle. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do they actually, honestly believe that we might be tempted to worship Muhammad? The mind boggles... TharkunColl (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Muslim but I guess like, more of a freethinker you could say. The idea is for Muslims not to turn Mohammed into an idol like Christians did with Jesus. That rule isn't there because he is just so holy he can't be imaged, that one is reserved for God. But too bad, a lot of Muslims don't really know why they believe stuff, that's just what they are taught and they run with it. So I don't recommend humoring them since there's no real rule like that to start with. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think in the respect point of view to remove this image from the web page. Mohammad (gpbh) is a holy thing for muslims, and it is forbidden in Islam to draw or symbolize him and so any symbolizm from any pary, even from those who claimed to be muslims at some time is not allowed, so please keep neutral, and try to keep the feelings of hunderades of millions by removing this aggrisive action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talk • contribs) 09:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

19000 users want an image removed ...

so, if consensus and democracy mean anything, it should be ... http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia

or are only opinions of westerners allowed to matter here? Aliibn (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC) — Aliibn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy, and consensus does not work that way. To understand why such petitions make is essentially impossible to ever consider removing the images now, see WP:CANVASS. Cheers, WilyD 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of bullying in its most blatant form. Wikipedia editors are not at all likely to be impressed by such tactics. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As others have already said, the petition is meaningless. For starters, it's easy for a handful of people to forge hundreds, if not thousands, of signatures. A simple can fill in the petition form for you with only a few random variables to make them appear different. This is especially relevant when you see that many of the so call "signatures" are exactly the same with only minor changes. This is why all online petitions are never taken seriously no mater who does the petition or why the petition was created.

Second, consensus must be formed on Wikipedia. It can't be created off-Wiki in a clearly bias venue and then brought here as if what goes on elsewhere applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has policies against sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Accounts with no edit history other then in a specific issue are often ignored for this particular reason.

Third, the petition is irrelevant as a poll as there are no other options to choose from. Either you agree and sign the petition or you don't and move one without the ability to voice your disagreement. Also, polls are only used to enhance a discussion about an issue; it is not a substitute for discussion. (see WP:POLLS

Fourth, the people who want the images removed do not understand Wikipedia's policies against censorship along with the content disclaimers. These actually forbid the removal of content because someone may/is offended by it. Just because there is a cultural taboo from one group doesn't mean that Wikipedia must oblige their taboo. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Farix. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written from an outside perspective; it is not written for any specific audience, nor is it written from the perspective of a Muslim. As mentioned above, we do not vote or petition at Wikipedia; there are no referendums at Wikipedia. Things placed on Wikipedia are (ideally) factual, unbiased, uncensored, and informative, even if they are potentially offensive or hypersensitive. It is unfortunate that pictures of Muhammad have offended many Muslims, but this topic has already been discussed thoroughly and these threads are becoming redundant. It should be noted, however, that Shiites often times do, in fact, depict Muhammad and (more commonly) Imam Hussein. The view that Muhammad should be free of any depiction, thus, is a sectarian issue; it is not even a universal position throughout Islam. Even if it were, the fact of the matter still remains: Wikipedia does not censor and Wikipedia is not a democracy. I do not know whether or not it is a violation of censorship policy, but perhaps we could include a warning of these images at the top of the page on Muhammad? This is becoming nauseating. Regardless, the notion that we are going to adhere to Islamic taboos, as already mentioned, is out of the question. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't include a disclaimer at the top of the article - Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The article is already covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which says Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to and Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. --Hut 8.5 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means consensus of editors on wiki. Anyway, millions of people might want the image kept, to some extent for all we know, they just haven't made a petition because it is being kept, and because they have great numbers but don't care enough. We went to war against some countries precisely to encourage democracy rather than a smaller but extremely irate group imposing their will and beliefs on others. Merkinsmum 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear, it is not a matter of democracy, it is a matter of respect, and love. as muslims we love him more than we love ourselves, and so we cannot accept any behaviour that is against his teachings. would it be democracy to put your naked mother image on wiki ? will you be happy ? this behaviour for muslims means the same of that behaviour to anybody who respects and loves his mother. Neutrality of Wikipedia requires to be neutral, if we feel that it is against our religion we talk, otherwise nobody have the right to talk. Please show some respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talk • contribs) 09:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

could someone who is good at archiving a heated page, please archive?

It's taking ages for letters to appear as you type in the edit window, because the page is overburdened. The top of the edit window suggests archiving. But I didn't like to go ahead and archive because I'm not an expert and wouldn't label what's in it well, etc. All archiving appreciated.:) Merkinsmum 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done I also straitened out the image archives a bit. --Farix (Talk) 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, this is much easier to parse through now. Thankyou! Lankiveil (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Oh brill, thanks TheFarix, now I can write more easiily (poor you lot lol). Merkinsmum 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

I've attempted to answer two parts of the FAQ with arguments that are as much based in Wikipedia's policies as I could managed. The criticism section should be removed should itself be removed as there is no criticism section on the article. Recent trends have been to incorporate criticism throughout the entire article instead of segregating it into one section. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I put that stub there because of Talk:Muhammad#remove_the_critism_section and Talk:Muhammad#Criticism_section. The question seems to have popped up often in the archives as well. Frotz (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is no longer relevant, so why have it in the FAQ? --Farix (Talk) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no criticism section. See Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section. Any criticism that is relevant and reliably sourced should be incorporated throughout the article. ITAQALLAH 00:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't quite realize that it was gone. Frotz (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many leading thingies

Maybe I'm just being pendantic, but having all those disclaimers and other stuff at the top of this talk page makes an awful clutter. Frotz (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it might cut down on a tiny bit of the repetitive argument about the pics etc being brought up by newcomers. Merkinsmum 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is this 'we' so many refer to here?

I think it interesting to see comments (like the one by User:TharkunColl above) that ask things like "Is there anything we can do to stop Muslims coming here ...". I take it that most people here assume that "we" (meaning those contributing to wikipedia) and "believing Muslim" are mutually exclusive categories (or, at least those who insist on keeping pictures of Muhammad from long after his death, do so believe). This, to me, is rather instructive as to the self-imagined community of many wikipedians: by self-definition, exclusive of Muslims (and perhaps all non-western POVs?). Sad, very sad indeed. 68.215.218.14 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think it is interesting that you misrepresent TharkunColl's comments by cutting off the end of his statement, making it sound as though he simply wants to keep out all Muslims, when if one were to read his original comments, he was referring not to Muslims in general, but to those whose only activities on Wikipedia involve coming here and demanding that the pictures be removed. TharkunColl goes on in the post to offer a very sensible solution to a problem that arises every couple of days. As you can see from the above comments, there are several Muslims involved here who also believe in the principles of Wikipedia and the principles of a open and free press. If there is a we/them dynamic at work here, it is not Non-Muslim vs. Muslim, but rather editors who want to keep Wikipedia secular, informative and independent, vs. the fundamentalists who come here and demand that we adhere to a specific religion's wishes. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(I have re-added this section as it appears it was accidentally removed in a revert) Lankiveil (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a Muslim and do not oppose the pictures of Muhammad. The pictures do not impede your ability to practice Islam as you wish to if one posts a picture of Muhammad here no more than it is an obstruction to your ability to practice if someone else has premarital sex or if someone else consumes alcohol. Do what is best for yourself, but this page should not be censored for all. This page is not written by Muslims for Muslims. Moreover, this page does mention the sensitivity associated with depictions of Muhammad, even if the page itself includes the pictures. Several views are represented in this article, including the Sunni view and Shi'a view. -Rosywounds (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

It looks like there is a conflict between those who want the picture in here and those who want it removed. Cant there be a compromise, like we keep the picture in there but it is hidden so that if you want to see it you click here but if you don't want to don't click here. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Example:

16th century Ottoman depiction of Muhammad
File:Muhammad at Kaba c.png

Kind of like Mohammed playing peek-a-boo? Haha no I don't think it will help. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not a laughing matter... Its a lot better than having hordes of people editing the page everyday trying to remove the pictures. If you want to see it, click on the box, if you don't want to see it then don't click on it. We aren't censoring anything as the picture is still up but hidden from view. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really addresses the issue. They'll just then move to "It's already hidden, why not just remove it completely" because there issue is the use at all of such images. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Those who support the inclusion of the pictures would still argue that this is censorship, and those against the pictures would still argue that it is profane. Interesting idea, though. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was funny. Anyway I don't think it will pacify those who don't want it available at all, just have to deal with it like every other article that is vandalized often. The only way they are going to accept it is if they go study some more Islam to see that the picture isn't evil, but only worshiping it like Jesus is, as I said elsewhere.

Since Jesus is also an important prophet in Islam, I might be a lot more sympathetic if they protested the same way in the Jesus articles over his pictures since they are definitely used to worship him. In failing to do that they are being hypocritical and/or way off base in their priorities, in my opinion. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To expand: the intent of the prohibition is so you don't have things to worship Mohammed by. But it's obvious some do worship him above other prophets since they don't raise the same fuss over Jesus, when in fact the Quran says all the prophets are the same, just servants of God and not to be worshiped. So they are actually destroying the meaning of the very ideal they claim to uphold. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This compromise would be satisfactory to me (as a "keep the pictures" person), but I doubt it will be acceptable to a lot of the Muslims making complaints. It seems the attitude is that the images must not be shown or used at all (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). Lankiveil (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

That is exactly what has been done after a lengthy debate at Rorschach inkblot test, so there is precedent for it. I actually think it would make people be more aware that showing images of Muhammad is prohibited, when they might not already know that, so I'd have no problem with it. MilesAgain (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would object to doing it for that reason since it would be an editor created device used to teach Islam. A similar exercise would be to use lowercase for judaism and christianity throughout an article to teach that Islam is superior to those religions. The images should stay as regular thumbnails, as they are on every other Wikipedia article. Mob mentality can't be allowed to dictate policy and practice here. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comparison to capitalizing letters is like comparing apples to oranges. Hiding a couple of pictures doesn't "teach" a religion. It is simply respecting it. We capitalize names of religions because it is a proper noun, not because one is superior. Also, as shown by the Rorschach inkblot test, not every image is a thumbnail and exceptions to policy and practice can be made (see WP:IAR). --Hdt83 ^Chat 09:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that if your sole intent was to help teach people that Muslims don't like images, it would be the same as using lowercase to teach that other religions were inferior to Islam. You need a citation to say that Muslims don't like images, not a popup.

Rather than a sign of respect, I would probably take it to mean that you thought I was too stupid to know they were still there, if I was the type of Muslim who believed in that. A lot of things on Wikipedia offend, depending who you are. But try it if you want, when it doesn't work you'll just have some hidden pictures, then someone else will probably change them back later anyway. -Bikinibomb (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion has been discussed before. It is still a form of censorship either way, makes the article more complicated to view, and makes the images less useful to the reader by restricting their immediate access. The Wikipedia:Content disclaimer clearly states, "Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to."--Strothra (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A question for those dying to have a picture of the Prophet Mohammad here: Can you be certain that a certain picture is His? Obviously No - because no one has His picture, or can verify it. Thus it will be incorrect to post a picture here that you only 'think' is His. It would definately be equivalent to spreading false and unverifiable information. Personally I find it surprising why some people are bent upon having a picture here. Majority Muslims' point of view is to not have the picture and that I understand; but that of those demanding the picture, obviously mostly non-Mulsims, I don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.177.100 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The images are depictions of Mohammed, not a real picture. The artwork is generally understood to represent an artist interpretation. Like Jesus is probably not blond and blue-eyed. It's not like someone Photoshopped a real picture showing Mohammed in a compromising position, which is more what your argument would apply to. If you are worried about Mohammed's image, have you ever voiced the same concern for pictures of Jesus since he is a prophet equal to Mohammed? And worse, pictures of Jesus are actually used to worship him. If not, why not? I think the answer is, too many Muslims put Mohammed up on a pedestal above all other prophets in a form of man worship, which is exactly what the image prohibition is trying to prevent. So this motivation to enforce Muslim rule is actually violating the intention of the rule. Any Muslims here understanding that, or not? -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not actually Muhammad

The images a question aren't even very faithful depictions of Muhammad as he is described in hadith. They are, thus, quite useless in depicting Muhammad as a real person. Aliibn (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And the same would apply to pictures of almost any medieval figure. Would you wish to remove all of those from Wikipedia too? In which case I suggest you propose it as a general policy change. I strongly suspect you will not succeed, however. TharkunColl (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, yes. If a painting, sculpture, etc. of a pre-modern figure is known to be drawn from life (i.e., they actually posed for it or it was copied from something that was), I'd say keep it. Ancient and medieval coins, deathmasks, etc. have a fairly good likelihood of showing something like a 'real' person, but modern reconstructions (like the one on this page Zenobia ) are, frankly, useless if not misleading and of no particular use (unless in an article or section on 'modern depictions of x').

With these images of Muhammad, one can tell quickly that the artists didn't even bother to _attempt_ an honest depiction. Various hadith give fairly detailed descriptions of Muhammad's physical appearance; these hadith were not consulted.

Considering these _facts_ and the _fact_ that a great many people are irate about the inclusion of such material (and considering that wikipedia's administrators _do_ make strenuous efforts not to offend Jews, African-Americans, and other groups, a fact that demonstrates that the 'free speech' issue is a red herring), there seems no reason other than an actual desire to offend as many Muslims as possible for keeping them. Aliibn (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, a great many medieval figures are not drawn from life. Take the statues of Alfred the Great for example, who was known to not wear a beard. This is a complete red herring I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not bound by religious taboos of any sort. TharkunColl (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus not all Muslim even accept Hadith, some go by Quran only, so that description of him may be wrong too. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if I understand you two correctly, whatever Muslims say or think or whatever the facts in the matter, it doesn't matter. Offense must be given and facts be damned; the benighted Muslims are the enemy ...

Pathetic. Aliibn (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The enemy is religious dogma trying to impose its views on others. TharkunColl (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that whatever Muslims say or think does not have more importance than what non-Muslims say or think. Pulling out the religious persecution card for this is laughable -86.141.103.218 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you more concerned with resisting a Muslim "dogma" - or with your own wish to impose a Western i.e. Christian European convention on an encyclopedia that is meant for everyone?

Illustrations are meant to illustrate some point in an article (we do not add images solely because we happen to have them around). The question is, what would a portrait of Muhammed illustrate? I completely understand those people who think "It would illustrate what Muhammad looked like" or "It would illustrate what people thought Muhammad loked like." But does an article really need these kinds of illustrations? Some may take it for granted - it is obvious! I however do not. What people consider appropriate illstrations is not universal. Therefore what people consider appropriate illustrations is a matter of convention. I suspect that many people contributing to Wikipedia think that an article about someone should have a picture of that person, because they grew up in countries where there is a strong tradition of figurative art. Certainly, representations of Jesus and the saints have been central in the history of European art and culture, so long dominated by Christian practices. So it is a perfectly reasonable convention to people who grew up in a culture that was long dominated by Christianity to have the convention, that bigraphies should be illustrated by a portrait of the person.

But this is just a convention. There is not absolute or universal logic behind it.

Here is another way to think about the issue: followers of Muhammed have a strong tradition opposed to figurative art. Wouldn't the best - meaning the most appropriate illustration to accompany an article on Muhammed be something that illustrates this Muslim convention? Maybe the best illustration for this article would be an empty box with a caption stating that Muslims often oppose representations of Muhammed.

To do so would not be to "bow down to religious pressure." It would be to illustrate an article with an illustration that is appropriate to the article; something that actually illustrates an important point in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, is the short answer to that. An encyclopedia should describe dogma, but to be bound by it would compromise its independence. What else would people think we had missed out so as not to cause offense? Censorship compromises our credibility. TharkunColl (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. You are not responding to what I wrote. i never said Wikipedia should be bound by religious dogma. Never. I defy you to show me where I wrote that. I didn't write it because I do not believe it. What I did say is that what we think of as an illustration should not be dictated by a single (supposedly universal?) convention. Illustrations that accompany an article should actually "illustrate" the article, i.e. convey something meaningful that is in the article. In other words, the appropriateness of an illustration is relative to the article it is meant to illustrate. And I believe, firmly, that on these grounds alone (and not religious dogma) that a picture of Muhammed would be an illustration that "misses the point" and fails effectively to illustrate the article. An effective illustration might be an image of some text, or an empty box that illustrates a very important legacy of Muhammed, which was his influence on conventions of representation. That would be a meaningful illustration that would help educate people about Muhammed. I am opposed to your "one size fits all" approach to encyclopedia articles. It is very bad pedagogy. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein makes good points. As it is now, the first two illustrations that appear from the top of the page are not problematic for Muslims (a page of calligraphy and a veiled picture of Muhammad). No one, AFAIK, has asked that those be removed. Aliibn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, in my humble opinion, the Dogma being demonstrated on this page is in the uncompromising attitude of militant Secular Humanism; and that is the one unwilling to compromise or 'play well with others'. Aliibn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic value of Image:Maome.jpg?

It is only a representation of Muhammad; i.e. it’s not a photo, or a sketch or a painting that is true to life. It does nothing to illustrate any particular point brought up within the text. Why is it there? Censorship only comes into play if there is a genuine reason to include the material. If such a reason does not exist, then there is no censorship issue. If there is not censorship issue, then consensus should hold sway. See Wikipedia:Consensus Brimba (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, censorship applies when someone tries to remove content on the grounds that they find it offensive. The image complies fully with Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. Hut 8.5 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship also exists when, as in this case, a small coterie of devotees of one particular dogmatic sect -- in this case Atheism -- refuse on a priori grounds any divergence from their pre-conceptions and become bullheaded and belligerent in defending their personal belief, regardless of costs to intellectual honesty or credibility of the overall wikipedia project. Aliibn (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For starters you are asserting that refusal to remove information from the public eye is censorship. Secondly, unless displaying pictures of religious figures became a core doctrine of Atheism recently I suspect these people just don't want to bow to pressure from a minority of vocal religious people who insist we abide by their traditions. Thirdly there are plenty of theists who have argued and continue to argue to keep the pictures. -86.141.103.218 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone provide a cogent explanation for why the article must include a portrait of Muhammad? What is the point of adding such an illustration, and why is it an important point? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, what is the encyclopedic value of the picture? Or if you’re going to point me to policy instead of giving an answer, then how does it meet the “Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic).”? Why should it not simply be copyedited off the page? Thanks for the above non-answer. Brimba (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been asking these questions for a long time and have never received a satisfactory answer. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently a page has been created to address these frequently asked questions. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You want someone to explain why we want a picture of the subject matter in the article? If there are no actual true to life portraits of him painted then the illustrations by Islamic scholars will have to do. Whether they improve the article or not is a matter of opinion but so far the majority opinion is the affirmative.-86.141.103.218 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Muslims never bother arguing that the statue of Alfred the Great is inaccurate and should be removed, and similarly on countless thousands of other articles, proves that they don't really care about such things and are using those arguments tendentiously. The truth is that they are trying to force Wikipedia to adhere to their religious taboo. TharkunColl (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. 84: Um, are you incabable of answering my question, or do you simply not want to? You write, "If there are no actual true to life portraits of him painted then the illustrations by Islamic scholars will have to do." Why? "Why do they have to do?" I do not see why they "have to do." You have not answered my question, why is it necessary toinclude an image of Muhammad? You write, "Whether they improve the article or not is a matter of opinion." Well, okay, you are of the opinion that it improves the article. Okay, but I asked you to explain to me why you think this. How does it improve the article_ Why? Please justify what you advocate. If you have no reason, your edit is irrational and can be discounted. TharkunColl continues to use a red'herring by playing some religion card. I am not Muslim and seek neither to adhere to nor enforce an Islamic taboo for religious reasons. What I want to know is, I repeat, why di you want to include a portrait of Muhammad to the article? What is your reason? Again, if you cannot provide a reason, you are being irrational. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The images illustrate the subject matter of the article. TharkunColl (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find they don't. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, they do. Same as the statue of Alfred the Great. Not taken from life, but a representation of him nonetheless. TharkunColl (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The benefits illustrations provide to literature and learning are actively researched and well documented by educational psychologists.-86.141.103.218 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"The images express the subject matter of the article." How? It is not obvious to me so you need to explain it. The subject matter of the articl is a man who was a "statesman in Medina, a rebel in Mecca," a prophet an reformer ... how does a portrait of Muhammad illustrate this subject matter? I could see a map of battles, a chart of kinship alliances, a summary of his propohesies, as all illustrating the subject matter. but simply a picture of Muhammed? What pray tell content is being illustrated? The article says that people write his name with reverence - okay, I can see images of his name in writing illustrating the subject matter of the article. But an image of his face? Why? How? Can you explain it? And really, educational psychologists have demonstrated the benefits of providing an illustration of Muhammed´s face? PLEASE provide me with the citation to that study. The article already had plenty of illustrations, no one is arguing against illustrations in general. The question is, what is an appropriate illustration i.e. one that further conveys an important point in the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is called "Muhammad" and there are pictures of Muhammad. If it was an article about a battle then the battle chart would be approriate. It's not rocket science. Your point, I believe, is tendentious in the extreme. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not being tendentious - is this how you respond to anyone who asks you to justify your position? I iimagine you spend much of your time with people who think as you do so you never have to justify your views. Guess what: you have now encountered someone new, who does not accept unquestioningly your own beliefs. Pictures are not always appropriate. It depends on the subject matter. Itsmejudith provided a rational explanation for how o illustrate this article, So far you have not. Please, lket's be rational. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I think the pictures and statues of Alfred "the Great" should be labelled to indicate when they were made. I wouldn't mind if all the silly romantic Victorian images of English kings were stripped from the encyclopedia. However, painting and statuary are within the English tradition of aesthetic representation. Muhammad is nearly always represented aesthetically by calligraphy. Therefore Muhammad's name in calligraphy is a more appropriate illustration than any portrayal on both aesthetic and informational grounds. Agree that illustration is good in principle. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that's an explanation that makes sense to me, it is well-reasoned. Sounds good to me! Why is it that the people who disagree with you, Itsmejudith, cannot offer any rational explanations for their views? What is important here is to act rationally; thank you for presnting a rational proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And an example of calligraphy is already in the article. To exclude the pictures is not logical, since we can have both. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The reasons we use the illustrations is because it aids the reader in identifying with the subject. Without an illustration, it is merely a name and not a person. A word description or calligraphy can't replace that. --Farix (Talk) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Says you. For many people in the world pictures are irrelevant to portraying a person. A person is portrayed through stories about him or her. You have your won POV approach to what makes a name a person, and it is not shared by all. This is Wikipedia and you need to work within a framework where your own beliefs are not necesarily shared by others, and you need to be able to work with others who are different from you. You do not own this space. This means you must be held accountable. I have asked for a satisfying reason why a portrait of Muhammed is necessary and have yet to receive one. So far only Itsmejudith has provided a reational answer. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that no explanation would satisfy you as you have already made up your mind. To censor an image here would make people wonder what else we have censored to avoid offending Muslims. TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked for an answer, several reasonable answers were given. The fact that you completely dismiss them out of hand indicates that you really have no interest in an answer. --Farix (Talk) 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this sort of reasoning places you. By the removal of images, you are again appeasing the viewpoint of only one particular group of people. It's nice that other cultures use verbal and written communication alone (as you claim; this is not, however, a universal Muslim belief by any means), and it is apparent that the article does quite enough in this respect as it is: the written aspect of conveying who the individual was has been satisfied to quite an extent. However, one must be mindful of the fact that the great majority of the world finds images to be an acceptable and useful tool by which one might express a person, an event, a location, and so on.

In Western culture, this is especially acceptable and it can be considered rather important (though it would be hard to find many cultures for which the depiction of human images is actually taboo, even in the most sacred representations). I understand why Slrubenstein might question the relevance of the image, but again, your logic here seems misplaced. One could follow it to find that we should remove all images of individuals because of the atrophic/taboo role of illustrative representation in a particular culture.

Once again, the image was created by a Muslim with the intention of representing Muhammad (specifically, it seems, by the request of a fellow Muslim). The usage here is relevant for several reasons. First and foremost, it is a historical representation of the subject. No illustrative representation can really be "accurate", so drawing lines here is splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned. There is also the issue itself concerning depiction- namely, that many Muslims find it taboo, while others do not see it as such. We include hagiographic images of Christian saints, and similarly, it is not rare within a Shi'ite household to find just such an hagiographic representation.

The image itself is relevant enough, as far as I am concerned, for what it is to begin with: a representation of an individual for whom many Muslims find representations to be taboo (many, again- not all). Again, this is a secular encyclopedia. I am a Christian, not an "atheist Islamophobe", so anyone bringing up that sort of nonsense is simply making themselves look silly. I do not believe in the censorship that some individuals are absurdly requesting, and I also disagree with Slrubenstein on the relevance of this image. I first found this image in a promotional story for an art exhibit which displayed the art and work of al-Biruni; as it was, and as it is, I find this image to be of great interest, and it is most obviously pertinent to the subject.

The reasons being given for the removal of images (in this particular topic), in all honesty, seem less like genuine and insightful reasons for removal, and more like red herrings being given in the interest of the appeasement of a group of individuals whose requests would otherwise seem plainly and clearly misguided and unconstructive (and additionally, prohibiting of information which others find to be of great interest and use). I'm not claiming that this is anyone's actual intention, because I certainly couldn't be certain of that; however, that is the outward appearance being given- the fervor in the matter by the typically more productive editor Slrubenstein is what puzzles me the most.--C.Logan (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

“The article is called "Muhammad" and there are pictures of Muhammad.” The point is, its not a picture of Muhammad, its only a representation, and a minority one at that. We do not know what Muhammad looked like, other than that he did not look as portrayed in the illustration. So why is it included within this encyclopedia? Brimba (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you actually read? This has been covered exhaustively. See Alfred the Great. TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

“Can you actually read? This has been covered exhaustively.” So no answer will be forthcoming. I see. I second Slrubenstein. Well stated. Brimba (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Muhammad is among countless medieval individuals for whom no contemporary likeness exists. Articles on these people contain later representations. TharkunColl (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You and Slrubenstein have continued to ignore any answer that doesnt support your position. The fact that illustrations improve readability is a basic and staple cornerstone of communication theory-86.141.103.218 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So several good reasons have been given and I just ignore them? Really? And what are these so-called reasons? So far I just see irrational dogmatism. So farf all he so-called reasons boil down to "qarticles about people must have pictures about people" but this is kind of circular reasoning that goes nowhere. And I am NLT closed minded. I will give you a good reason for including a picture of Muhammed: IF how he looked were of some importance historically or culturally that would justify including a potrait. But no one has argued this and I do not think it is the case. Anyway, get hysterical, obviously you are used to bulying yoru way and not used to having to justify yourselves. Sorry, hee you Do have to provide a rational explanation. It isn't even clear to me why you think this matters! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments apply equally to Alfred the Great and countless others. Why single Muhammad out for special treatment? TharkunColl (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a non'sequitor. But I will assume good faith that maybe you have a valid reaoson for asking. Is this your only objection to my postion? I won´t bother answering it unless I first know what difference if any my answer will make. I don´t feel like playing games. I want to know if this is a serious question and what the consequences of my answer could be. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't feel like playing games? In that case just answer the question. TharkunColl (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. I do not see how talking about Alfred the Great is necessary to improve this article, which is why I think your asking the question is playing a game. I admit I may be wrong! But I need you to explain it to me. How would discussing the Alfred the Great article help us improve this article? To be clear, what I mean is this: How would my answer to your question about Alfred the Great make any difference here? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said of figures as important to history as Jesus and Buddha. Jesus was Middle Eastern and Buddha was Indian, even though they are rarely ever portrayed as such. At least this argument is a bit more rationalized than the previous ones. -Rosywounds (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: this page is for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. Not the Jesus or the Buddha article Slrubenstein | Talk 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read, the objection to a drawing, painting, sculpture of Muhammad seems to be that there is no life image of him (please correct me if I'm wrong). The counter-argument seems to be that there are no, or few, life images of Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses or any of the other great figures of religion. But I suspect a religious motivation too, if I can read between the lines. Religious sentiment should not be a consideration. Now given Islamic tradition it would be small wonder that there wasn't a true image of the Prophet. So any full facial portraits of the prophet are going to be Western. So a case can be made for a traditional Islamic representation, just as images of Jesus are usually traditional Western images or images of Buddha are traditionally Asian images. Wasn't he traditionally portrayed in a veil or a halo? Perhaps such an image could be inserted?--Gazzster (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one strong argument against including images. However, I have a different argument. My argument is (1) that illustrations should illustrate important points made in an article, (2a) that the reflex to illustrate all biographies with images of the subject of the biography is purely a convention, one that represents a specifically Western tradition of representation, but a convention that ought not be followed blindly, (2b) that a biography be illustrated by a portrait of the subjct of the biography only when there is a compelling reason e.g. where an image of the person reveals important information about the person, or illustrates some important point about the person, and finally, in application to this article specifically, (3) that a portrait of Muhammed not only fails to illustrate any important point about Muhammed, it in fact muddles one very important point about Muhammed's legacy, which is the way he influenced a vibrant tradition of representation in the Muslim world that stands in marked contrast to the tradition of representation dominant in Christian Europe (or Hindu India ... anyway, the Caliphate's principal neighbors). Slrubenstein | Talk 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. I have often thought that, in the West, convention is a sort of idol that stops people thinking outside the box. And convention is the god of Wikipedia. I believe Wikipedia is a tool to stop people thinking, not to encourage it. Why am I still here? I just love the stimulation, I guess. And yes, I agree-why should a western convention dominate an article about a non-Western figure? Thank you, I am learning a lot from our exchanges. I think I'd agree with you now. Tell me though, the veil and halo thing? What do you think of that?--Gazzster (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad my most recent comment more effectively explains my view! thank you! As for your veil and halo comment ... I am not the right person to respond. i am no expert in the history of representations of Muhammed, or Islamic art, and would have to defer to someone who is. My comment was based entirely on (1) a general view I have about illistrations and Wikipedia articles and (2) my reading of this article in particular. Beyond that I have no special knowledge of Muhammad or Islam. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) Among other reasons, illustrations can be used to illustrate an important point. That is not the only reason and others have been stated, such as readability and the beneficial effects images have on learning. (2a) On the same lines, given the discussion the inclusion of images has spawned I dont think that is a danger. Tradition and resistance to censorship are not the only reasons given for keeping the images. (2b) I dont remember that rule. Why should an illustration in a biography be included if and only if it illustrates an important point that text cannot convey? I realise doing otherwise might not be Islamic tradition but this is not an Islamic encylopedia, and that includes articles relating to Islamic topics. (3) There are various sections in the article pointing out that Muslims in general are not wildly keen on illustrations of Muhammad and a link to an article dedicated to the topic. I disagree that the inclusion of the images makes this point less clear. -AlexCatlin (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some ideologically based POVs more equal than others?

I must say that the above is very instructive. User:Slrubenstein and User:Itsmejudith make valid points and ask for reasons. None are given but are replied with vague sophistries, evasions, and ideological triumphalism. Allow me to make a couple of points: 1) There are two illustrations on the page that are completely unproblematic for many Muslims. One is calligraphy, the other is an illustration of Muhammad with his face veiled. So, the issue isn't for Muslims all illustrations but of specific ones. 2) The illustrations in question do not follow the descriptions of Muhammad in hadith nor do they date from any time remotely near his life. They thus add nothing to anyone's knowledge base. 3) The false issue that no one has any problem with using modern fantasy illustrations of medieval figures (such as Alfred the Great raised by User:TharkunColl is completely bogus. He raised it before; I answered him that, yes, those are problematic as they also do nothing for adding knowledge. I even attempted to add a tag to that article ... so his claim is utterly baseless and deceitful and he is fully aware of that. If one wishes to fix up the Alfred the Great article, why not add illustrations of the Alfred Jewel or of his coinage (like this http://www.pewterreplicas.co.uk/second%20site%20pictures/alfred%20the%20great%20coins.jpg )? 4) TharkunColl and other users on this page claim that removing the pictures of Muhammad that are problematic means giving in to a religious POV. Perhaps.

But ... LEAVING THEM UP DOES JUST THE SAME! There IS an ideology (as promoted by people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens amongst others) that demands deliberately offending the religious (of all religions) as part of its own goals - a sort of militant Atheism, hostile to all theistic religions. And leaving up the pictures is very much Appeasement of that ideology. So, it's not a decision between 'freedom of speech' and 'censorship' but between actual knowledge and working towards a global consensus on one side and a militant ideology trying to foment anger on the other. Aliibn (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you add a tag to all the countless thousands of other medieval person's articles? The issue here is one of censorship in the name of religion and freedom of information. Pure and simple. TharkunColl (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's one of pushing an ideology, militant Atheism and Islamophobia, over Facts or good-taste. The opposition to removing these couple of pictures will brook no compromise, reardless of how reasonable, but demands that its viewpoint be the only one allowed and all dissent be squashed. (And, by the way, I won't hold my breath to see if he Alfred Jewel or Alfred's coinage gets added to you to your precious King Alfred page; while it may seem a reach, I would venture you are more motivated by Anti-Islamic ideology than by any concern for truth). Aliibn (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

whatever Muslims say or think or whatever the facts in the matter, it doesn't matter.

I am Muslim, and I've already explained that the real prohibition is against worshiping pictures, not against pictures themselves. I might be more sympathetic to fellow Muslims if they had a valid point but they don't. So I for one wouldn't remove the pictures simply because it's only reinforcing bad theology. Aside from secular issues of censorship. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, bikinibomb, the point is that many users want something and there interests are banned by people pushing a very harsh and militant Anti-Muslim agenda. Compromises are suggested, simple questions are asked, and no reasoning comes from them. Aliibn (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I said I would ban the request on religious principle alone, that the image prohibition is a corruption of the original command not to worship pictures. If I am going to respect a religious principle, it is going to at least be a valid one, not one based on fable and twisting by Muslims over the years. And also, based on man worship of Mohammed as being too "holy" when, who lifts a finger to protest pictures of other prophets equal to Mohammed? So I'm also not going to encourage things that go directly against Islam, lifting up one prophet over all the others. Go hang with the Jesus or Moses articles for a while protesting their images, then I'll see some consistency. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, when all else fails just play the "anti-Muslim" card. TharkunColl (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

When all else fails, the Right wing Pipesian bigot starts using standard talk radio speak. Funny how that comes out, no? Cheers, Munafiq! Aliibn (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea what you're talking about. What's "Pipesian" for example? And what does "Munafiq" mean? TharkunColl (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny how this one [[User:TharkunColl}} refuses to answer any points raised by anyone but resorts to juvenile arguments. Should I wait for rationality from the Cult of Reason? Or stoop to their level of baiting? Aliibn (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have answered all the points, tendentious though most of them were. Now, what do "Pipesian" and "Munafiq" mean, please? TharkunColl (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the ever wiser and most reasonable one in this discussion, as you've clearly demonstrated. Reason and logic are strong in you; they let you penetrate through the veils of simple minded illusions cast upon we lesser folk. And you are far better educated and capable of research than any of us simple-minded believers (especially those from lesser breeds) so, I'm sure you can decipher such on your own. Cheers!Aliibn (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well according to Wikipedia itself, Munafiq is a person who outwardly practices Islam but doesn't actually believe it. Muhammad says "hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them". What a nice man he was, that Muhammad! Not at all violent or vindictive or insane! By the way, I'm not a Muslim so I'm not a Munafiq, which means you're not allowed to stone me to death or whatever the punishment is. TharkunColl (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was quite possibly the most uncalled for thing I've ever seen on this site. Islam isn't the only religion with a hell. Zazaban (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Though he seems to be banned for the above comment, it would be important to point out that the term also means, more generally, "hypocrite".--C.Logan (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The matters of the images aside, that description of Muhammed was uncalled for, TharkunColl. Please try to respond in a civil fashion, even if you feel yourself that you are being attacked. I think a dose of assuming good faith on all sides of this argument would really help right now. Lankiveil (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Firstly, he called me a hypocrite. And secondly, I said that Muhammad was not at all violent or vindictive or insane. TharkunColl (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not excusing his behaviour at all. And it might be possible to interpret your words as sarcasm, especially in light of your other contributions to the debate, so it might be best to think about how your words might be potentially misinterpreted before you hit the "Save Page" button. Lankiveil (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Is this conversation actually going anywhere? Look if you find the pictures offensive don't look at them but Wikipedia is for everyone so let us have access to the pictures. No one is being forced to look at this article after all. 00:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs)

Probably not - the "these images are false" argument is a complete red herring - it has nothing to do with the issue at all, and wouldn't exist if not for the other complaint. WilyD 04:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The conversation appears to be going in circles with those against the images refusing to be willing to compromise or offer any alternative that maintains the free exchange of the image or the integrity of Wikipedia. They appear to only be interested in imposing their will, everyone else be damned. --Mhking (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Above, Bikinibomb writes "I am Muslim, and I've already explained that the real prohibition is against worshiping pictures, not against pictures themselves." But I am not a Muslim, and have made it clear that I object to including a picture of Muhammad on non-religious grounds. Since we now have one Muslim who does not object, and a non-Muslim who does object, I think we can now safely abandon the claim that excluding an image of Muhammad is a form of dogmatic religious censorship!!! Abandoning that red-herring, maybe we can have a more reasonable discussion. That said, I have one other important and constructive suggestion: let us have an end with TharkunColl's arguments involving "all the countless thousands of other medieval person's articles." His/her comments - at least along this specific line - are examples of WP:DIS and [[WP:POINT] because the purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvemenst to this article. Widening the discussion to "countless thousands of other ... articles" is an obvious disruption of this talk page. Not only is it simply inappropriate, it is obviously impractical - if we widen this discussion to include thousands of other articles we will never reach a resolution. We make improvements by focusing on the article we are trying to improve, not other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Although TharkunColl is inarticulate, the point remains - what makes this different from how we'd treat any other historical subject of equivalent importance? (although on a List of people by historical significance, Muhammad might well be #1, and by some margin). Other such articles serve as an excellent "sanity check" in this case, I would suggest. The only real difference seems to be that some large number of Muslims have a religious and/or cultural objection to such depictions. WilyD 21:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article. It is not for discussing improvements to other articles. If you want to discuss an improvement to another article, we should do it on the talk page of the other article. And I repeat: My objection to the depiction is not based on my being muslim and it is neither religious nor cultural. But I have already explained my reasoning, at length, at leaast twice, above. We could discuss my objections to including an image, and reasons for including an image, in this article. But you and others repeatedly prefer to discuss other articles. this should a serious absense of good faith and disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that much is definitely true. We aren't writing an article on Muhammad in isolation - and the context of "how do we generally write articles about historic people" is important. We're all amateurs - at the very least, I'm not an historian, or a theologian or a professional encyclopaedia or biography writer. It's an important question to ask "What should or shouldn't an encyclopaedia article on an historic person contain?" in this context, because it's the central question we should be asking - "How do we write an encyclopaedia article about Muhammad?" requires knowledge of both encyclopaedia articles and Muhammad, and the "anti-image" people seem to have lost sight of the nature of encyclopaedia artices. I'm not sure how to response to the bit of personal attack at the end there, since I'm unsure where good faith is not being assumed, nor where editing is being disruptive ... Cheers anyhow, WilyD 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this talk page very long, but please allow me to comment. Now it is true that Islam has been one of the most misunderstood and maligned religions in the West for the past 1500 years. In a forum like this we ought to show respect for the religious sentiments of others. But as for encyclopedic content we conduct ourselves by academic standards. Religious sensitivities just don't come into it. The sentiments of those who profess one particular creed shouldn't be seen to be deserving of greater respect than those of other creeds. Now TharkunColl's comment was definitely out of line, and he has been blocked for it. But he might not have been given occasion to make it if editors hadn't made religion an issue in the first place.--Gazzster (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this image has historical value and should be left in the article, if it is really the earliest to be had: Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg The earliest surviving image of Muhammad from Rashid al-Din's Jami' al-Tawarikh, approximately 1315, depicting the episode of the Black Stone. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A wise, balanced comment Wily.--Gazzster (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Above, Gazzster responds to my comment, and it is clear that Gazzster did not read my comment. With respect, I ask that Gazzster read all my comments on this page (they are not many) before commenting on my views. It offends me when my views are misrepresented; from the beginning I have made it explicit that I am not primarilly motivated by religious sentiments, and while Gazzster is free to disagree with what I say, it is wrong for him/her to claim to disagree with me while misrepresenting what I have said. In fact, in a way I am trying to do just what Gazzster says, to conduct myself by academic standards. Specifically, I am following the example of anthropologist Michael taussig, in his essay "Maleficium: State Fetishism" in his book The Nervous System (Routledge).

To reply to WilyD, perhaps we have a misunderstanding. My accusation of a lack of good faith is explicitly aimed at those who have argued that we cannot decide this question concerning this article without considering "countless thouseands" of other articles, which is patently absurd and inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. I strongly object to a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to articles. But if I may assume good faith on your part, WilyD, I think you are now raising a slightly different issue which is that how we respolve questions concerning one encyclopedia article ought to be based on principles that could apply to other encyclopedia articles. If this is what you mean to say I agree 100%. But I think there is a world of difference between sahying that we should apply principles that could apply to other encyclopedia articles, and saying that we should follow the exact same practice on all articles. Now, please do me the favor of reading my original comment in the section above. It is my first comment on this page, and my first comment on this topic. I believe that I framed my reasoning in a way that assumed or proposed a principle that could be applied to all encyclopedia articles. if this is not clear to you I would ask that you read my second comment. I sincerely hope my first and second comments make my position clear. I want to emphasize that while I oppose including an image of Muhammad here, it is based on a general principle I would apply to any Wikipedia article. I hope in this regard WilyD you and I can agree.

A final point: someone challenged my good faith and credibility by asserting that I would reject any argument for including an image of Muhammed. this was a scurilous accusation, in fact a pathetically defensive tactic since I was in fact asking people to provide rationales for including Muhammed's image, and no one could provide me with one. I can now say that C. Logan has provided what I consider a reasonable argument for including an image of Muhammed int he article and I thank him for it. I happen still to disagree, but people in good faith can disagree. At least he took the time to provide a reason. This shows more respect for Wikipedia and this article than some of the other people who have been commenting on this page. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, I think I referred to TharkenColl's posts as "inarticulate" - and it's no secret I've called him worse things in the past ... but I don't think my point was different, just better articulated. I've read your first post above, and seen that general argument articulated several times, but it just doesn't hold any water, for a couple of reasions:

• Muhammad is enormously important outside of Islam. If not one Muslim walked the Earth, Muhammad might well be the tenth or so most important historical personality, rather than occupying his current position (which I, as a heathen person without formal religious affliation (although suspected theist), would reckon as first), but this remains true. Muhammad is not soley important is a "Muslim" context, he's also enormously important in an Asian, European and African context, and all their derivitives. We should be striving to represent all of these, not just the one that (and even this is arguable) is apparently considered firstmost. We do do this by including other "representative imagery" like the calligraphy.
• Muslim & Islamic cultures are far from monolithic, and to represent "no imagery" as a uniform Muslim tradition is wrong. All the images that appear in this article are from Muslim cultures (although I've argued this unduely weighs the presentation towards a Muslim POV, it's not the end of the world) - indeed, I would expect that the Farsi Wikipedia would have mostly Muslim contributors, and they elect to display a (veiled) painting of Muhammad there.
• Apart from "representing" Muhammad here, we're also writing to an audience which is first and foremost native English language speakers, and secondarily second (or further) English language speakers. To some extent we do need to "write for these two populations". This is a much smaller consideration, but remains real. How much weight we give to each of the two is debatable (english's Lingua franca status, and the higher level of completeness here than on other projects are major factors.

I'm not sure what else, but there certainly are other considerations, no doubt. The discussion is heading in unhelpful directions however (and the article remains in otherwise poor condition too, which should be of more concern) and I'd like to see it turned around, but I'm not even sure that's possible at this time. WilyD 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration of what I've written. We can obviously disagree, but hopefully in a manner befitting that of encyclopedia editors (as we could be called, anyway). It seemed apparent that the discussion was getting too fast and too simple, and many individuals were beginning to lose their composure, especially when non-AGF accusations started flying about.

Though I agree with the users who are in favor of maintaining the images, I felt as if no one was really stating their thoughts as to why (possibly supposing that the preceding discussions did that job well enough, which is true to an extent- although this discussion is ostensibly concerning a separate topic, it is easy enough to see why some would assume that the main issue is a motivating factor here as well). I hope that my own comment provided at least some of (what I see as) the obvious reasoning behind keeping pictures such as these.--C.Logan (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the earliest known image of Mohammed would have historical value? -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do think you raise an important point. However, I still don't support adding images here. What I would propose (though some Muslims may really object) would be an article specifically on figurative representations of Muhammed, and theological or legal debates over images of Muhammed. In the context of such an article the image to which you refer would be very importand indeed - part of the article would be art-historical, perhaps exploring how different images of Muhammed reflect changes in Islamic culture or views of Muhammed. I think this would be a very interesting article and yes, the earliest known image of Muhammed would indeed have great hiswtorical value. My point is, it would have value for an article on the history of images in Islam, not on the life and teachings of Muhammed, if this makes sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To Slrubenstein - I truly apologise that my comments appear to offend you. But they were not aimed at you, but to the discussion in general.--Gazzster (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I came about another encyclopedia-type website that even made two separate articles out of "Artistic depictions of Muhammad" alone, one which discussed the topic throughout history (sans images), and one with examples and specific details. I'm not saying that this is a way to go, but it's at least a working example of such an idea (not quite, however- the link to the non-image article simply redirects to the image-laden article, to the consternation of many, I'm sure). You are correct that the images would be more relevant there, but that certainly doesn't mean that their relevance here is in doubt; at least, not in my opinion. I would certainly support the inclusion of the images on such an article, for obvious reasons.--C.Logan (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay - thank you! Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, there's Depictions of Muhammad.--Goon Noot (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I did not know about this. It is interesting, but underdeveloped - Bikinbomb, perhaps you would be well-suited to begin an improvement drive? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In the mediation from a while back myself and some others basically argued that although a depiction may have been warranted, 4-5 was overkill, especially when having them positioned prominently in the article. I still think that. I think the aim of showing how tradition (although most, if not all it surrounds the Shi'ite Safawid era) has depicted Muhammad can be achieved through one or two such images, in a section such as Muhammad#Depictions_of_Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I say just keep the one claimed to be the oldest and ditch the rest, that at least shows compromise while still retaining historical value of an image which pertains directly to Mohammed and is appropriate for the article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow

We're making headway on the "Story of the Cranes" material, which is great.

A question moving forward: Can I ask why you think it's important that we imply that works printed in 1996 and 1998 are not "modern"? BYT (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Muhammad was an apostle, orator, and physician"

If the concensus is to keep these POV's in the intro as it appears to be, they should be attributed and balanced as I have recently done. What are some opinions on the matter? I made mine clear when I removed the first attempts to add this material. In particular, what are some opinions of this edit by User:Bless sins? Arrow740 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Put simply, the statements you added do not follow the same metrics as the preceding statements; they are not opposing views of the same subject. This does not constitute an "opposing" point of view. What does Muhammad being an orator or messenger according to Muslims, for example, have to do with Islamic imperialism? The two ideas are not explicitly related and it would be an inappropriate addition, at least, under the guise of NPOV. Certainly I could see an inclusion of Islamic imperialism in this article, but the area in which you placed it in was completely irrelevant to that subject. There wouldn't be a counterargument to Islamic/Arab imperialism (because it is a historical reality), so placing it randomly next to sentences about Muhammad being a merchant and apostle would actually be a POV statement. You are essentially trying to place a negative statement next to any (apparently) sympathetic statement on Muhammad, even though the two statements have no relation to each other. That is why your statements should have been (and were) removed. On the topic of Bless sins's edit, if you can find a "counter view" to those statements, then by all means. Honestly, I don't think there is a counter view to Muhammad being an apostle according to Islam. That is a fundamental, defining characteristic of Muhammad that should be included in any lead that describes him. I suppose he should be able to find a better source than what he did for Muhammad being an orator, philosopher, etc. A "famous quote" from a French poet doesn't seem like a very good source for information on Muhammad. Perhaps his statements should be removed as well. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

These are not "POV"s but facts. Are there any sources that deny Muhammad was an apostle, an orator, a merchant, a general, a diplomat etc? If you can find some, then there would be a need for attribution.Bless sins (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

These sources are unacceptable, as I said in my edit summary when I removed this material. There's nothing in the body about him being an orator or physician. Arrow740 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless Sins, your sources (quotes from a French poet) are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Regardless of whether or not they are "facts," they must still be sourced. With that said, Arrow's inclusion of Islam as a "conquering religion" was both irrelevant and would require a much more thorough debate than simply a one liner in the lead. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest also that this is unnecessary in the intro. An argument could be crafted for their incorporation into the views section.--Tigeroo (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If we deem it appropriate to use Alphonse de Lamartine (not in the lead, I think), his statements should be verified by a reliable source. If a source is to be opposed, it can be done without resorting to pointish attempts to include other unreliable material. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Aspersions aside, Trifkovic is a reliable source. Arrow740 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to disagree. Can you tell us all a little more about the publisher? ITAQALLAH 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not asserting the reliability of this material on the basis of the publisher. Trifkovic is a trained historian being used for analysis of history. That's why his material is reliable. Arrow740 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about this book specifically. Despite your reluctancy, I think it's important to mention the publisher of this work, that is, Regina Orthodox Press. Do you think that this book, cited as an example of anti-Islam sentiment displayed by the conservatives of Eastern Orthodoxy ("No God in Common:" American Evangelical Discourse on Islam after 9/11, Cimino (2005), Review of Religious Research 4(2):162-174), is really a reliable source? ITAQALLAH 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not asserting the reliability of this material on the basis of the publisher. Trifkovic is a trained historian being used for analysis of history. That's why his material is reliable. I don't deny that Trifkovic has critical views of Islam, as other qualified scholars do. He is still qualified. Arrow740 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Trifkovic does seem to be a historian (I would be interested to see precisely what his specialisation is), although he appears to have been criticised by Sells. His views and the book in general does appear to be highly partisan and polemical, which is why I think it is published by a religious press, rather than an academic one. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike other editors in the Islam space, I do not spend my time POV mining, but fact mining. If I use Trifkovic for a POV it will only be done with restraint and regard for WP:NPOV. Arrow740 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to believe your first statement, but considering your string of edits on Islam, I don't think I can. Last I checked, multiple sections here were tagged with POV-sect... the last thing we need here is more POV. ITAQALLAH 00:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but when biased language is added we should balance it as best we can. Arrow740 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Biased language should be tackled on its own, not "balanced" by adding more biased material. I think we are digressing. Trifkovic's polemical book seems to be published by a partisan press. ITAQALLAH 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

i think

We want to address issues in more civilized manner, no offensive opinions , we are all human beings love each others, but someone might be offended by some media materials published we shall look at this and solve, all media materials shall not be there for propose of offense others, and if it does we shall think about it.if lots of pepole does not like it just remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.88.239 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read this.--C.Logan (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am a Christian, but I recognise that Islam is a beautiful, loving religion. And we in the West might even learn some lessons from it.--Gazzster (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys,

By the way, to those who does not know, this image is exactly from the old days of islam, and it is from the 15th century, and it symbolizes the crist when he came to Mecca to do piligrimage in the old days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

use of "to conquer"

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

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

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

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

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

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

neutral point of view

i read FAQ and so Wikimapia use false images.. Images are put to prove/clearify topics/articles not just DECORATIONS

so the images are not proved (cant be prove) to be Mohammed (pbuh) and there are alot of pictures that can be used instead instead(his grave picture,his cloth..ect)

Knowing its offensive is something to consider and that doesnt make you unprofessional if you remove the pics and put others pics proven/used

and if you really wants to mentain the neutral point of view then you should use the right pitures respecting all people .

i really hope you can be more open minded about it and use real pictures of current items(left) instead of some unknown drawings of unknown people..

Glassflowers (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are apparently no true to life pictures of Muhammad then depictions by Islamic scholars are the next best thing and will have to do. The images do improve and clarify the article, and offend a small enough minority of people that leaving the pictures in the article is worth it. -Wherethere (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi... May I edit this article? There are some things left out. and can u contact me on my page so that I know when you do? Thx.--CherryBlossom93 (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)