Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad/images

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Muhammad

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.11.194.227 (talk) at 19:17, 10 November 2008 (a suggestion re: images). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Just A question

I have just one question which has been asked but not answered reaptedly throughout this page, what value do pictures drawn of Muhammed after his death add to the article? These pictures were drawn against the tenets of Islam and therefore, by logical extension, themselves represent fringe aspects of medieval Islam that should not be on a page about Muhammed. I understand WP is not censored, but when weighing the fact that these pictures seem to have little to no value against the fact that many people (perhaps to the extent there is no general consensus over whether to keep the pictures) against the trouble they have caused and the alienation of a quater of the World's population (and yes I am aware there is discussion over pictures of Muhammed within Islam, but supporters of pictures are definetly in the fringe), there really can be only one sound suggestion. Personally I am a british Christian, but would I question the good faith (yes I am aware of WP:AGF, the policy most flouted by those who edit in bad faith) of many of the editors proposing the keeping of the pictures, as I see it there are three main reasons why they do.

1. They genuinely feel these pictures add something to the article and do not believe wikipedia should not be affected by religion. (clear minority)

2. They assume (sub-conciously or conciously) wikipedia is a western vehicle, with western ideals, and believe fastidiously in flouting their superiors western POVs over the tiny minority of 1.5 billion muslims. Wikipedia is based on western principles, it should remain as such yadda yadda...

3. Some people just want to piss off Muslims, the attention drawn to the subject in the media causes people to get invloved and try and irritate Muslims as much as possible by adding these pictures, trying to make wikipeda a 'muslim-free' zone, and trolling on these pages. My hypothesis many of the people who originally added these pcitures were a side to trying to cause this kind of aggitation.

I would say that the majority of people trying to keep the pictures are pretty much squarely divided between 2 and 3. Can someone jut answer my question that I posed at the beginning of what I have written, what, actually, do these pictures add?86.139.131.215 (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Aren.27t_the_images_false.3F? Also, before assuming the majority of people are "flouting their superiors western POVs" or "just want to piss off Muslims" a good read of WP:AGF is in order. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 13:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"These pictures were drawn against the tenets of Islam", "are fringe aspects"? - from what authority do we have these ambitious declarations? In the words of Arte Johnson's German character on Laugh-In, "Verrrry interr-rresting."
It's true that there are some people who just want to piss off Muslims. Thankfully for the most part, they do not sign up to be Wikipedia editors. Juvenile behavior is not tolerated for long here. Can't say Category #2 means much, and I would say in practice most are in #1, not a "clear minority" - perhaps not so clear to you because the talk pages necessarily attract trolls from all corners. Twalls (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not supposed to be a Western vechicle, nor is it supposed to be an Islamic vechicle. It is supposed to represent viewpoints in relation to their promenence. With Muhammad being one of the ~10 most important historical figures in Western history, the Western viewpoint needs to be represented prominantly, just as the Islamic viewpoint needs to be represented prominantly. Neither POV should reign over the other, they must all co-exist. That all the images actually represent an Islamic viewpoint is problematic, but we don't have any decent western representations, or far eastern ones, so we're stuck for the moment. The reality is that almost everyone who sticks with the debate is closest to one; anyone familiar with the study of learning knows people learn more from articles when they contain images like this - it may not be rational, but it is true. But the underlying fact is that they are an important part of the way Muhammad's been represented historically, we should prefer 21st century Sunni Muslim ideals over 9th century Persian ones, for instance. WilyD 16:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I may have rushed into criticizing and generalising without taking enough thought, yet I still feel the fact that these pictures (to me at least) don't add anything to the article, weighted against the fact they are irritating so many people means they should be removed. The main argument for keeping the pictures seems to be along the lines of 'theyre there and so well keep them WIKIPEDIA WILL NOT BE CENSORED!!!!' which seems slightly ridiculous to me, I think perhaps the reason so many are rallying to defend the pictures being they do not want any aspect of the pedia 'ceonsored' instead of a good reason. The other reason for keeping the pictures seems to be 'Other wiki-articles have pictures of Jesus', but if I am not mistaken including something unescessary on the pedia because there are these things on other articles is both a breach of WP policy and a non-sequitur. I understand some editors may feel every attack on the pictures is an attack on wikipedia and its anal retentive but I really think removing these pictures would be reasonable and something worthless shouldn't just be defend because people feel attached to it.86.138.248.126 (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what you're saying is that you don't feel they add enough to overcome the problems they create given the views of some aniconastic muslims. How to balance these is a value judgement, but as Wikipedians, our collective value set is fairly clear: governed mostly by the neutral point of view, we try to present readers with all the information we can, and let them draw their own judgements. We strive to present all viewpoints, modern and historical, in a complementary way. Many viewpoints on Muhammad say he should not be depicted, but many say he should. Obviously we cannot hope for a quantum-superposition of both depicting and not depicting, but we try to represent both views with both depictions and aniconic depictions such as caligraphy.
Beyond this, many people fail to appreciate how important Muhammad is outside of Islam. While someone who exists entirely within the context of religion (who is not an historical figure, say Noah) needs to be presented in that context, Muhammad is also an historical political leader of great importance, and a secular as well as religious figure, and all these need to be presented. To say "Jesus' article has images" or anyone else who's true appearence may not be known is to answer "Is it our general policy to use historical, noteworthy portrayels which may not be accurate?"; the answer here is yes, seen in countless cases. Why? Because they represent how this person has been seen through history. The images in this article represent how Muhammad has been seen in history; indeed most (all?) have detailed source information. To do anything else tells our reader only part of the story, and while it's an important part, it's not the only part.
Other projects exist to create similar wiki-based encyclopaedias with other points of view. www.wikinfo.org is a similar project to Wikipedia, but attempts to write articles from a sympathic point of view; they've chosen not to include representations of Muhammad. Other projects may exist, or one can start their own: Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking. This is just a manifestation of a long held principle, I don't think people will be swayed to so radically change the purpose of Wikipedia. Your mileage may vary, though. WilyD 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Should be REMOVED

Picture of Muhammad (SM) should be removed because it is totally haram that drawing of Muhammad (S) picture in Islam. So I want declare that Wikipedia should aware of Islam rules and the picture should be removed. If that kind of work going on then the Main Islam will drive in another way and by this process Islam will be altered and changed. So the request to obey the rule of Islam that Wikipedia Should remove the picture otherwise whole muslim world will point finger to the Wikipedia and that will be serious. By wikipedia whole world know about the main thing if the wikipedia show wrong thing people will learn wrong thing and then the main thing will be drived in a wrong way. So again the request is Picture should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaish (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is aware of Islamic doctrine regarding images of Muhammad. However, as Wikipedia is not bound by Islamic thinking, it chooses not to follow it. I would ask that you make yourself aware of Wikipedia's rules, and respect them as much as you ask others to expect Islamic thinking. Resolute 18:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, in short all these arguments have been made and rejected in the past. We are not going to remove the images, but this is not a sign of disrespect, instead it is simple a necessary step in reaching our goal of creating an encyclopedia based on a neutral point of view. 1 != 2 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Muslim and I totally agree with you in Wikipedia being outrageously disrespectful in insisting to publish Mohammad's images.

They claim it is neutrality, but to me, a non Muslim, it is pathetic ideology of theirs since I, as a secular person, would never have a problem in respecting Muslims of not presenting Mohammad's image, but it always seems these biased people have their agendas already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.111.49 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I submit the existing images are portrayed respectfully and without any intent of provocation. And what about the strains of Islam where depictions of Muhammad are allowed (such as the ones depicted in this article)? Seems like you're just trying to be a contrarian here. If certain Sunnis, Salafists or Wahhabists look down upon Shia or Sufist depictions of the Prophet Muhammed, that is between them. If Catholicism allowed depictions of Jesus and Protestants did not, it would hardly be neutral if Wikipedia bowed to the Protestant dogma and suppressed the Catholic one. Twalls (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, wikipedia Administrator... As I am sure you know by now that displaying a picture of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is forbidden in Islam. I read your argument above, that wikipedia doesn't follow the rules of Islam and hence you wouldn't remove the picture. But dear sir, you don't have to be a follower of Islam (or at least Islamic thinking) to remove this picture, you should remove out of respect for the 1,000,000,000 muslems around the world. I ask you kindly to reconsider and to remove this picture. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2bauer4 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia means no disrepect to anyone. The encyclopedia does not kowtow to any group mainly for censorship reasons. There is always going to be someone who takes offense at something. While there maybe one billion muslims who agree with you there maybe 4 or 5 billion other humans who do not. Regardless we are not a democracy. This argument and many more have been discussed in the archives. Feel free to browse them at top of page. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You fools, don't ask us Muslims to respect your pathetic guidleines when you cant even respect our religion. How offending it is that some arm chair non scholar thinks wikipedia's irrelevant rules can in any way be equated to our religions laws. Our lives our bound to upholding our religious laws. If you are bound to follow the creed of wikipedia as we follow our religion, then you are beyond pathetic. It is pleasing, however, to see that many non-Muslims understand that this offends us, and wish to remove the picture. Nonetheless, I hope wikipedia tanks soon.Pukhtunman (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic everyone should obey every tenant of every religion. Doesn't seem very plausible does it? Garycompugeek (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if we can remove images why don't we remove these images instead of billions of lives of human being are destroyed. Is this a place of knowledge or a place of making enemity between people. we can't afford to make people enemy of each other. so i suggest that we should remove these pictures. tomorrow if someone brings the pictures of Jesus(Peace be upon him) on the page about jesus and you people want to protest against these pictures can we say we are not christian let them be angry and we are not following christianity so we should not respect the christian view and make images of him how we like, this is not good. so let not spread enemity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.40.224 (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billions of lives are not being destroyed because of Muhammad's image is in Wikipedia. I highly doubt our policies cause any loss of life. We mean no disrespect but do not follow any religious tenants of any religion for censorship reasons. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replace all muhammud with wikipe-tan problem solved 98.226.27.232 (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tool to remove images on own computer

Just a suggestion, hopefully it's helpful. There are images/ads all over the net that either annoy or offend and I have found a tool to block them. Adblock plus for Firefox works for me.— Ѕandahl 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Images

What do you believe? Design, paint images that you believe, no that you dont believe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.169.233 (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on fact, not belief. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure to whom 189.27.169.233 is directing this broad imperative. Wikipedia editors? Religious artists? Artists in general? Artists who "sell out" by painting what they don't believe in? A spirited if scattered attempt at relevance here -- I'm still trying to figure it out. Twalls (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK for picture

Ok I admit that is neutral point as you people are saying but 1st I didn't say that this is non-islamic view that is said by you people then I requested to you people that can be categorized by non-islamic view.

You know because of this article in the whole world many muslim community like orkut, facebook, hi5 there is discussion going on and all muslim people give the negative opinion about this article. Just I said to categorize this article in non-islamic view, just do it. Muslim community's peoples are also men they have also opinion and they have a think though it is written in a neutral point but it hurts the muslim people. I said that this picture is used in muhammad article but it is not used in albiruni article why? no answer I have got. I have said that albiruni picture should be studied very well but there is no answer but one answer I have got that this is neutral view. WoW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a written an article about a university there was written about surrounding environment of this university after that one wikipedian has deleted the description about the surrounding environment and tagged that the article needs to cleanup to meet the wikipedia's quality. If my surrounding environment can be deleted then I suggest the wikipedian that they can delete the picture because that is also a surrounding environment as lik the university article. I think I could make understand the point. I hope so.

I know that is maybe an article of a moderator of wikipedia who walks on his/her way and he keeps the power to protect his own article safe If so then every wikipedian should have this. Then it will be equal --59.55.216.212 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not censor information. Removing the picture would be censorship. Categorizing the article as non-Islamic would be inaccurate because not all of Islam rejects pictures of Muhammad and it certainly would not be a neutral article. See WP:NPOV. No one owns anything here but the Wikipedia foundation. The articles are created and maintained by anyone who wishes to be involved and follows Wikipedia's policies and procedures. If you wish to know more about the Muhammad pictures and the debates about them read the FAQ and the archives. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Muslim (Shiah) Supports the Picture

It is ok that the picture of muhammad (s) has been added to the article because I was unknown abot that one part of muslim they support the picture, they are shiah. I think Shi'ah and Sunni should make a meeting to resolve it that the picture of muhammad (s) would be allowed or not.--MD. Kais Haider Chowdhury 04:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the 5 billion or so non-Muslims who also have no problem with images of Muhammed :) --81.158.147.41 (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the people who don't mind far outnumber those who do. Zazaban (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Friendly Suggestion

Ok, there's obviously been a lot of trolling/venting/genuine frustration regarding the use of images here. I've read through most of it quite thoroughly, but once it started repeating itself I just scanned, so forgive me if I'm repeating a suggestion that's already been discounted. I can see the arguments for keeping the pictures, and I think it's admirable that a lot of people are standing up for information over censorship, but at the same time, I can appreciate that viewing this page might make some Muslims uncomfortable and leave them feeling a need to atone for this by removing the images.

Disregarding why they'd be on this page in the first place, curiosity is only human, and I'd guess a lot of Muslims scroll down to the images half-not-believing that Wikipedia would dare show them. Like I said, I think the images are valid for the purposes of the article - they clarify the fact that depictions do exist, and have done across the ages. But nonetheless, they WILL continue to offend people.

So firstly, I'd just like to speak up in support of the banner warning against removing the images - it's a sensible way of politely informing people that Wikipedia is 'making a stand', and won't be bullied into censoring itself on religious grounds (minority, majority or otherwise). But here's my suggestion: Why not simply link to the pictures, without showing a thumbnail, and include both a descriptive caption and a warning along the lines of "The following links will take you to visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad; if looking at such images is offensive to your faith, please do not click on them."? As it stands, Muslims who are offended have every right to be if they just happen to be reading up on why depictions of Muhammad are prohibited, or want references to one of the many controversies - they haven't asked to see pictures of Muhammad, and yet they're there, without any prior warning. I'm just saying, it's odd for a Wiki article to present controversial and potentially offensive/disturbing information without first giving the reader a 'heads up'.

I've also copied this entry to Talk:Depictions of Muhammad. 82.11.194.227 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/images&oldid=250931087"