Talk:Muhammad/images

Important notice: This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page, within Wikipedia talkpage guidelines. If you have come here from outside Wikipedia to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, please don't post here. We've heard it all before. If you have come here from outside Wikipedia to protest against how Muslims are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Wikipedia, please don't post here either. We've heard that too. A summary of the current consensus regarding pictures of Muhammad can be found at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you want to avoid seeing the images on that page, you might want to read this: How to set your browser to not see images Because of disruption and trolling, this page can currenltly be edited only by established Wikipedia users. Please be polite and calm. Trolling or aggressive rhetorics either for or against the use of images will not be tolerated.

Why Images are required??

I might sound stupid but I have read some of the comments posted by the Users and the feeling has made me pretty curious why so many people are discussing a dispute which is of no use. Being precise I would like if some one please tells me why these images should be kept on the Muhammad Page. Given that

1. Some of the sources are un authentic 2. No Image is of historical importance 3. No Image is of some great artist 4. The only apparent importance (as it appears to me) is too many people are fighting with each other on keeping or not to keep. No offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naeem1986 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the images used, such as the one by Nakkas Osman, are undoubtably by artists of historical important. Others, such as the one from the Jami al-Tawarikh are clearly from works of historical importance. WilyD 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wily,, But my question remains there and that is why these Images are of importance to this article only. I mean I have seen other articles like the article on Jami al-Tawarikh for a case. That article again contains the same image but that article is not protected nor that is overly whelmed by such discussions. Moreover If someone thinks that my above comment on historical importance etc is not right I take it back and my question is Why are these Images Important for this articleNaeem1986 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, they may well be important for other articles - the excessive talk & protection is because their usage is contraversial here, mostly (although maybe not entirely) for reasons unrelated to their educational value. WilyD 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Those images does'nt hurt my feelings as a Muslim,they just inform about islamic culture. Someone calling here for censorship is playing very nasty and dangerous game. For sake of what? His extremist popularity? User:Abdullah_mkD 9:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

• I came here with the same thought. Allow me to preface that I am not Muslim (nor religious at all, for that matter), so I do not have that bias. I am concerned that if the larger world-wide concensus is not to have the illustrations, and they are not actually pictures of Muhammed anyway (rather pictoral fictions, as discussed elsewhere), then why can they not be removed and a discussion in the article include verbage to that effect? I am as anti-censorship as it comes, and a card-carrying member of the ACLU. In this instance, much of the argument I see FOR keeping the pictures is as flawed as that against, but in many cases it is solely on principle, and that is an equally dangerous precedent for Wikipedia. --BizMgr (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" as used here only pertains to Wikipedia editors (which is an option not limited to anyone in particular), and it doesn't merely reflect mounting opinions: policies are rather concrete, and no amount of editor consensus can overturn, say, WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia also has a content disclaimer which gives a general idea of what one may have to accept when browsing the encyclopedia.

Essentially, the images cannot be removed for the reasons given because such a removal would be a clear example of censorship. There are, of course, other reasons for the removal (or addition) of images, but these pictures are satisfactory on many degrees- they are depictions of the subject, they are widely-known, and they are historically relevant (which has been affirmed, additionally, by experts in the field), amongst lesser reasons.

I'm unsure of what the clear flaws in the argument for keeping the pictures happens to be. Can you elaborate?--C.Logan (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wily u said unrelated to educational value! then what else purpose is left for keeping these pics. I have already said in a topic below that nor keeping neither removing these pictures will be of any benefit to Muslims nor censorship or un censorship!! I hope this answers the question of Logan about the flaw in keeping pictures!! So my fellow editors please broader your views about Islam (to muslims) as well as the uncensorship policy of wikipedia (to Non-Muslim Editors)

I expect all fellow editors of wikipedia will agree to me and continue a topic at the end that is on peace in this talk. Naeem1986 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He was saying that the controversy is unrelated to their educational value--not their usage. That is, this talk page has been full of topics related to issues of respect and not insulting rather than issues of educational value, neutrality, and weight. gren グレン 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what value these images of Muhammed (saaw) has for this article? They serve noe factual value. They only entice and insult people all over the world. I vote for a removal of these. And if they are so important, can't they just be linked to or something? Preferebly keep the article factual and no links to any pages what so ever that might be interprented as insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is simply "against the rules" to do what you are asking- Wikipedia does not censor material simply because it may offend the sensibilities of others. This is covered in the Muhammad FAQ and in Wikipedia's own content disclaimer. Also, I'm afraid I have to disagree- the images hold enormous historical value and relevance to the subject, and are of great encyclopedic value as well.--C.Logan (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the prophet's pictures

If Wiki doesn't want to remove the pics of prophet Muhammed, a notification should be added to inform viewers that, in Islam, it's NOT legitimate to draw/see pictures of the prophets (all of them). Also, a similar disclaimer must exist under the title of every picture including a character indicating prophet Muhammed's activities or the like. Otherwise, I guess it'll be a very, very big problem to Wiki in the future, since Wiki might be classified as disrespecting Islam and the rights of Muslims (forming about 1/6 of the whole Earth's populations). I'm all sure that the people who made such pictures were either non-Muslims or didn't understand Islam well. Providing a trusted and correct references of the makers will allow Islamic scholars to verify this claim, and then give us their feedback. {Ahmed.ashry (talk)} —Preceding comment was added at 10:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope... sorry. We don't have to censor ourselves to show any "respect". Jmlk17 10:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I'm stressing that I need some kind of "disclaimer" and trusted references. I'm not in any need for your "respect".{Ahmed.ashry (talk)} —Preceding comment was added at 11:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to stop your browser from viewing images a link maybe at the top of article might be a solution. BigDunc (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for any sort of disclaimer whatsoever... Jmlk17 11:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a disclaimer and it is not censorship it is then down to individuals to self censor if they want. BigDunc (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is not allowed. But Wikipedia editors are showing illustrations with face illustrated and face is veiled or white washed. But still they are offensive to Muslims. I request you to respect the religion and remove the illustrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad specially this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg AtifDar (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure this one have already been said but I trying a new phrasing :):

If I have this believe in my religion that all Muslims should not be allowed in wikipedia do you think wikipedia should allow this because it would offend my religion or ignore my religion in order to make a general encyclopedia? Raffethefirst (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A logical error

In this picture(link given under): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

At the time of restoration of the Holy Kaaba, the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) was only a young boy, so how can he had a grown-up beard. Therefore this picture in itself has an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jf17 2000 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

it's not a "logical error", it's an instance of historical (late medieval) artwork. The ideal of "historical authenticity" had not yet been developed at the time. dab (𒁳) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article Black Stone indicates this happened in 602, which'd make Muhammad a little over thirty - certainly old enough to grow a beard. Is this an error? WilyD 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A neutral suggestion

If you want to use any picture that is related to the topic you can find many pictures of the personal belongings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). You can take those pictures and use them as they will not break any taboo. And this will remain Wikipedia as a neutral source of knowledge, not hurting any one Jf17 2000 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

feel free to submit such images, under an appropriate licence, and their inclusion in the article will certainly be an option. dab (𒁳) 14:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, though it should be noted that such images will not be accepted as a replacement for images of Muhammad himself. Resolute 15:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

we do not have "images of Muhammad himself". We have images of notable artwork of the Ottoman period. Of course coverage of relics attributed to Muhammad does not replace coverage of biographical literature (and associated ms illuminations), and vice versa. dab (𒁳) 16:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Semantics. I should have said: "...images depicting Muhammad himself." Resolute 16:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

the distinction is important. People keep bringing up the point that the images should be removed because they are "unauthentic". We do not keep these images because they depict Muhammad himself, but because they are important artwork related to the biographical tradition surrounding Muhammad.

At preseent, this article sports 13 images. That's just about right for an article of this length. We have calligraphy (2), ms illustrations (4) outdoor images of relevant sites (4) and details of building decorations (3). It may be arguable to reduce the ms illustrations to 3 for balance, especially if we can get an images of a notable artefact. But a 100k article can also do with more than 13 images, so I am not saying that if we add a new image, we'll automatically have to remove one. An image that should be removed upon unprotection is the 11th century Quran ms, which has no apparent relevance here (which will bring us to a total of 12 imgs). dab (𒁳) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping in mind of course that whether any additional images are added or removed, pictures of/depicting Muhammad will not be removed from this article unless consensus changes. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

um, yes: in my understanding, the current consensus is that the ms images presently included are here because they provide relevant illustration of the topic by virtue of being pertinent notable historical artwork (not because they "depict Muhammad") -- this is precisely the reason why consensus is against transcluding the "Muhammad cartoons": their notability is a recentism compared to the scope of this article. It might be arguable to include images like this (17th century) under "Christian and Western views of Muhammad" -- I would not be opposed to its inclusion, but neither do I wish to actively push for its inclusion. Recent cartoons, however, are inappropriate and belong in articles on recent events. dab (𒁳) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

At present, we have two free content images of Muhammad relics: Image:Turkey.Konya043.jpg (purportedly his beard) and Image:DSC04740 Istanbul - Impronta del piede di Maometto ad Eyüp - Foto G. Dall'Orto 30-5-2006.jpg (purportedly his footprint).--Pharos (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

these images aren't so great. They're shot through museum glass cases with flash, and the "beard" is really just an image of the beard's container. I doubt that these particular images have a place in the article. dab (𒁳) 16:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relatedly, Muqarnas ran an article about footprints of the prophet. Although, I can't say I have enough knowledge to gauge their importance. It included some images. gren グレン 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Censoring wikipedia = idolizing Muhammad ?

I'm confused. Muslims accuse Christians of treating Jesus as a deity, yet Christians don't care if Jesus is depicted in cartoons or even made fun of. By insisting that everyone in the world revere Muhammad as a sacred and holy figure who cannot even be depicted, aren't you elevating Muhammad to the status of a deity even more than Christians do Jesus? And isn't the whole point of the prohibition against depicting Muhammad to make sure that no one idolizes Muhammad? If Muslims are so concerned about not idolizing Muhammad, I wouldn't expect them to insist so strongly that he be treated differently than every other religious figure on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're Muslim and believe Muhammad is the *only* diety, then I imagine it makes sense, just as Christians don't worship Muhammad because he isn't Jesus/God. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing Muhammad with Allah. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslims do not believe Muhammad is a deity, let alone the only deity. Muslims believe he is a prophet, and they don't think he's the only prophet either. -- tariqabjotu 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So to Christians, who would be a prophet? Jesus? Paul? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 07:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What? Prophet#Christianity -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just a doctrinal difference. On the one hand you've got "no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet," while on the other you've got the Nicean Creed (though there are some Christian sects that reject Trinitarianism). For Muslims, the focus is entirely on God, and any depictions of Muhammad would distract from this focus. Muhammad was a channel though which God spoke and entirely human. Early christians took the other tack by attributing divine charachteristics to a man, incorporating him into God, and attributing his message to God. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about the pictures?

I would like to know how the imaginative pictures of Muhammad contribute to your understanding of Prophet Muhammad? Are you more likely to convert to Islam because of these pictures? Are you more likely to view Islam and Prophet Muhammad more favourably because of this pictures? Or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.245.250 (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What does viewing Islam or Mohammad more favourably have to do with anything? Are you under the erroneous impression that this is the purpose of Wikipedia? Just asking... --207.47.146.50 (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's self-declared purpose is to inform, I think. I could be wrong. It appears to contain things that are quite obnoxious and better forgotten from pages history. My question still stands. How do the pictures contribute to the article in which the pictures appear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.245.250 (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The pictures inform us of various traditions that have grown up surrounding Muhammad and therefore make him an important figure. They should represent to some extent works that have informed the perceptions of the world about Muhammad like the images of Jesus do. gren グレン 03:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hence the old saying "A picture is worth a thousand words". Jmlk17 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Jesus, the perception of Muhammad of the world has remained least influenced by images and statues, rather they have evolved through discussion and commentry. The role of physical depiction of Muhammad in shaping people's perception about him is rather trivial (or almost non existant) as compared to Jesus or Budhdha. If you find yourself in a position to deny it, you are distorting the truth. (period) Arman ^(Talk) 05:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And the article should reflect that. One useful task would be finding exceptional non-figurative works. gren グレン 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny part is: Jesus and Muhammmad probably looked alot alike and nothing like any modern potrayal of either. That still doesn't reduce the historical importance of know depictions of them. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's try and avoid the forum crap we all keep getting pulled into... myself included. :) Jmlk17 05:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

also, this page is running close to 400k. We should get a bot to archive it. And make sure the FAQ remains linked from the top. 90% of this page is just re-iterating the FAQ content for people who cannot be bothered to read before they post. dab (𒁳) 08:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys

First of all I am a muslim. These pictures were drawn by Muslims, and are not depicting our prophet in a bad way. Save your protesting to something that is really offensive. And keep this in mind, we cannot control the world, in other words "The whole world doesnt follow the Islamic Shariia". Plus, you are making the whole Islamic world look as freedom suppressors. These pictures are little things that are here to stay, and the more you fight it, the more the whole world fights for keeping it. We should not make a problem for everything, I mean pick your fights, not just go fighting everything. This doesn’t make all of us look good.
Remember the whole Denmark issue, at first there were about 12 cartoons of Muhammad that were a little offensive...but then after the people rioted, burned flags, attacked embassies, threatened to kill the cartoonists.. another bunch of really offensive cartoons were made in response to the over reaction...so probably the over reaction made everything worse, not to mention our image... So take a second to relax, and think what you are doing will probably lead to...look at the bigger picture. I hope nobody gets offended by what I said. Regards, Abdallah (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE I agree with Abdullah!! The pictures are not offensive!! So Muslims please keep Calm.

Moreover, to Non Muslims, these pictures are not important for this article , so avoid wasting time on a stupid discussion and dont make such minor things a big issue!!!

Relax every one Naeem1986 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopaedic biographical articles contain relevant depictions of the subject of the article in the lead. That's all these images are: relevant historical artistic depictions. Leaving them out would reduce the educational value of the article because of the removal of relevant information. It's that simple.-MasonicDevice (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what I am feeling is that no one wants to quit this discussion!! Biographical articles contain depiction of the subject but here we are facing a different issue !! Now this issue is not about teaching of Muhammad nor the about the dignity of encyclopaedia but unfortunately all of us have become Stubborn both the groups have made it an issue of their personal ego!! Sorry to say so but to all my fellow editors (both Muslims and Non-Muslims) you are nor helping Islam nor Wikipedia but disgracing both by prolonging this discussion!!!Naeem1986 (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if the "removed the images" crew stopped coming to WP, then wikipedians would be able to stop explaining their refusal to remove them. This does help wikipedia as it explains WP:NOT to the newcomers. If they choose to stick around, and abide by it, they may yet become useful members of the community. - MasonicDevice (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image in Biography

It appears (under firefox at least) that the image on the left hand side of the Biography / Beginnings of th Qu'ran is partly covering the text right above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.206.143 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a question

I have heard from telveision sources that there has been recent controversy over this article. Just out of cursiosity: what exactly is the contoversy over? 72.161.6.148 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

see the artcles by clicking on the "show" button where it says "additional information." The controversy is over the existance of images of Muhammad (with his face uncovered) in this article. Yahel Guhan 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for requesting removal of these pictures is that Islam does not allow making, showing, or depicting any images of any kind of any prophets regardless of whether or not it is Mohammad. There were no images of him created during his lifetime, and so this image is not a primary source, or even a real image, to begin with. This is highly offensive to the entire Muslim Community, not just to one or two specific individuals. Kindly remove the images of the Prophet Mohammad (SAW). I understand that Wikipedia tries to put as accurate information as they can possibly get, but if you are supposed to put accurate information then why do you put images up that are not accurate, not to mention, not allowed? If you are speaking about a religion that does not support images and such, then why do you put them up in an article about that religion? They are not made by any Islamic source since it is forbidden to have any images, so therefore it can not be accurate. All I, as well as the Muslim community, am asking is for Wikipedia to take down the inappropriate pictures, this article is fine without them. Since your goal is to "provide full and accurate information" then I suggest the images be removed so your goal can be attained. Thank you again. --Youknowme786 (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

this has been discussed repeatedly, however: the images are allowed. Wikipedia does not follow Islamic rules, and has no obligation to remove historical images from any article. Also, the images are accurate. They were created as depictions of Muhammad, and Wikipedia merely repeats what reliable, third party sources say about them. Your complaint about whether they actually resemble Muhammad is with the creators of the images, not with Wikipedia. Also, given that creating depictions of Muhammad obviously was not always such a strict taboo (as the existence of these images, created by Muslim artists attests), then to comply with your request would actually serve to deny full and accurate information. Ergo, we simply cannot support your request. Regards, Resolute 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that these images were created by Muslim artists, as it says the author is "Unknown" in the image description. Moreover, the picture is inaccurate because in numerous authentic citations of Mohammad, it states that he never elevated himself above others and that if a stranger were to walk into one of their discussions, they would not be able to identify which member of the group is Mohammad. Ok, it's getting late, so I will go to sleep, but I will check up again tomorrow. --Youknowme786 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The caption text for each image states who created the images. Three are identified as being of Persian origin, and the fourth Ottoman. As I said, the inaccuracies you claim lie with the creator of the images themselves. Wikipedia's concern is verifiability. We can, and have, verified that the claims made on Wikipedia regarding the images matches what secondary sources claim about the images. That is Wikipedia's policy, and it is being met. It is actually immaterial that the images themselves may or may not accurately reflect Muhammad's physical looks. All that we are concerned with is that we claim the same as the sources we have. All four images are claimed to be depictions of Muhammad doing something, and that is all we state. The decision on whether to accept that such images (and this is true for virtually every image from midieval times) is a perfect reflection of the subject lies with the reader. And frankly, I doubt very many people would be naive enough to believe that such depictions are perfectly accurate. Resolute 06:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Images of Muhammed (saaw)

I don't see what value these images of Muhammed (saaw) has for this article? They serve noe factual value. They only entice and insult people all over the world. I vote for a removal of these. And if they are so important, can't they just be linked to or something? Preferebly keep the article factual and no links to any pages what so ever that might be interprented as insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. dab (𒁳) 20:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:Content disclaimer. Resolute 20:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)