Talk:Muhammad/images

Please Remove Photos depicting Prophet

Please remove the photo depicting Prophet Muhammad , its forbidden in Islam

Allah Hafiz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.65.201 (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not bound by any religion's laws, neither Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or other.Jeppiz (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is providing non-real images ensures a quality article?

Wikipedia is a great resource of knowledge but because it is a public property, it is difficult to see whether quality is maintained or not. I was reading the discussion about images of Muhammad and the controversy. I understand the neutral point of view Wikipedia supports but i must say that providing non-real pictures of people doesn't ensure a quality article. What is the usage of self-made picture of Muhammad in Kaaba or preaching? Is there any equal logical explanation for that? There is a lot more quality literature about Muhammad in the whole world but that doesn't mean we infest every bit of information. Providing non-real images is not information (concrete information) at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrixology (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the FAQ, especially Q3? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

KINDLY REMOVE THE PICTURE OF OUR BELOVED PROPHET (S.A.W.W)

No. raseaC^{talk to me} 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But Wikipedia shall show respect to all religions. Content depicting the prophet would not be a reliable source since this would be a form of fabrication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omansour (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

See Q3 of the FAQ. Jarkeld (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove the Pictures

Being Neutral does not mean that you should heart feelings of more than billion people. See these pictures are just useless you can post other pictures that will be more suitable. It is very sensitive issue Muslims hate these pictures and if you dont remove certainly they will hate your site also. And i dont think that removing these pictures will in anyway violate your policies. And it is not that hiding these pictures in our browser will do any good.

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Your arguments have already been addressed there. But I will add:

• The pictures are already suitable for the article, as they are historically significant works of art by Muslims who evidently had no problem with images of the prophet.
• Read the Qu'ran. It doesn't prohibit such images.
• Many people hate many things on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't censored for anyone's benefit.
• Removing the images will violate the core policy of having encyclopedic articles in an encyclopedia.
• If you don't want to see the pictures, don't look at them. You have instructions on how to hide them, so use those instructions. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you yourself had studied the Quran which orders you to learn from and obey the prophet, and then studied the prophet's Hadith, you would have known that indeed such things are indeed forbidden. Do not go about speaking ignorantly about things you do not know, but then again that is the legacy of users of Wikipedia... And then they (Westerners) wonder "why they hate us?"!! It is a shame what the world is coming to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.129.241 (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your decision to follow your faith is yours alone. You have no right to try and force your beliefs upon anyone else. We provide you with the ability to hide the images as a courtesy to your beliefs. We will not, however, force everyone else to follow them. Resolute 14:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually hate to get myself into arguments, but I wish to make an exception this time, and this shall be my final response. You are to get one thing straight, respecting others does not amount to following their belief. One is not to insult Christians, not because one is to believe in the trinity, but because of the mandates of good morals. One does not insult Buddha, not because one believes in him, but because one follows the roads of harmony. An objective mind will ask, what extra information do these pictures add? Nothing. Hence, an irrational insistence to keep them can only be rationalized as acts of hostility. Whether this is so is a different matter, but the end result is the same. If this was an article about arts of that era, then you would have a case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.129.241 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ mentioned in the big red box above explains the reasoning for keeping the pictures despite the mistaken argument that they add "nothing". In fact, they add historical context to how the subject of the biography has been viewed, by Muslim artists no less. For those of us not bound by religious dogma, there is a great value to the retention of the images. As such, we will retain the images. Resolute 15:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning for inclusion can be found in the FAQ and archives. Calling editors with a different view hostile isn't cool. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove the pictures of Muhammed now

you had better remove pictures of muhammed because they offensive to every muslim worldwide and if muslim is to come across this page it causes outrage and disgust. Allah can and will punish anyone who support pictures of our holy prophet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.219.221 (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ; you may hide the pictures by creating an account and following these instructions: Wikipedia:How_to_set_your_browser_to_not_see_images#Specific_pages --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. We like the pictures where they are. Resolute 01:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we supposed to suddenly be afraid because you say a being most of us do not believe exists is going to hurt us? Zazaban (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

it's probably a thinly veiled death threat. As soon as some guy does manage to blow up a plane with explosives stuffed in his drawers they will come back here and say, see what happened because you didn't remove the pictures! --dab (𒁳) 20:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, the original comment was made about a month ago and the editor hasn't come back. Not worth responding to further. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Going through this page and the most recent archive, I find the majority of editors requesting to have these photos removed to generally to be courteous. A large minority of responses to these requests are often rude. This poor reaction reflects poorly on wikipedia as a whole, and there is no excuse for such poor responses. Ikip 05:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Two points:

1. It is ironic that you left this comment in a section that started out extremely rude, to which replies were comparitively courteous.
2. Demands to remove images, no matter how they are phrased, are quite rude when the FAQ and prior discussion are completely ignored. That's why the FAQ is there. To repeat a demand ad nauseam that is already addressed in the FAq, is rude. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think it hurts to remember to be polite when the person asking for the removal does the same. It's already a touchy subject, no need to make it even more acrimonious by being rude when saying "No" (Not singling you out personally, just saying in general). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Many editors are quite offended (in my opinion rightly) when demands are made to remove the images and so a degree of curtness is understandable. Generally I think that when a request to remove is phrased politely, the responses are polite and vice versa. I would agree that by now those ignoring the warnings and FAQs are not really acting in good faith and so WP isn't really running the risk of losing face however the response is phrased. raseaC^{talk to me} 11:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors are not "offended", they are just bored by the repetitive postings from people who clearly did not read the FAQ. Also, editors' reactions are positively saintly compared to the flaming you will get in most internet fora for asking a question already answered in giant letters in a FAQ. The real question is, what purpose does this subpage serve at this point? Nobody expects to hear any new points on the matter. The topic has been completely exhausted. All we'll ever get are the same old requests (either phrased politely, or rudely, but in essence just "we don't like it so we want you to remove it"). The correct answer is then "please read the FAQ." We could just use a bot to post these replies, and the Muslim activists could just use a bot to repeat the request. Who profits from that? I say we should just close down this page as it has served its purpose and at this point is nothing but a troll magnet. --dab (𒁳) 16:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's better to have the inevitable "remove image" requests here rather than on the main talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

we can always remove those on sight with an edit summary of "see FAQ", no problem. We get these anyway. Now we politely move them to this page instead of blanking them. The question is what purpose this is serving. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Politeness and not biting the newbies? Many of them will not know what an edit summary is and will never see one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian painting of Muhammad

I removed it, because is does not illustrate anything it the article text. It does not provide any factual information. Its place is in Depictions of Muhammad, where it is immediate subject. - Altenmann >t 22:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The section is "European and Western views" and this notable image illustrates one such view. Rklawton (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain which exactly statements from the section this painting illustrates. Also, please prove that it illustrates rather than distorts, or t least it is a fair representative of these views, using citations from reliable sources. - Altenmann >t 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement to make such citations for images. I agree that the image, having been painted by a Russian, illustrates a Western view of Muhammad. In that sense it serves to provide an illustration that is related to the text. Such a depiction is appropriate for that section. The fact that the surrounding text doesn't mention the painting is not a reason to remove the image. I have restored it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

May be for images there is not requirements, but the caption must be verifiable, just as any wikipedia text. I disagree that Russian painting is representative of a Western view. What is more, it rather contradicts the section. - Altenmann >t 23:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere is implied that the painting is representative of a western view. The painting simply illustrates a western view by a Russian painter. I see no instance of the caption contradicting the text; nevertheless I have changed the caption to remove the ambiguity about whose view it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We should also consider that the "images of Mohammad" have been a hotly contested issue - one reviewed by numerous editors both for and against. During this period, each image has received significant scrutiny. As a result, it's highly inappropriate for a single editor to stop by and remove an image for clearly questionable reasons. Rklawton (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me what is highly inappropriate. This is wiki, not communism where a single man is a piece of shit. Notice that I am not engaged in an edit war, but trying to discuss the issue. I even read the talk page and found the proper page for this discussion. (And my point is not the same as various orthodox muslim. But you all failed to address my concerns and now you are teaching me how to live instead. Whatever. It is not a matter of life and death to me. I am not engaging with stubborn folks anywhere any more. - Altenmann >t 23:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought I addressed your concerns in my previous comment, and I appreciate the discussion as opposed to edit-warring. You seemed to misunderstand what the image represents in the context of the "western views" section. However, you made a good point about the caption, however, so I changed it accordingly. What else needs to be said? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It is a common psychological self-deceit (or intentional demagogy trick) to address only issues you have a strong answer and ignore or disparage the rest. Since you seem to me to be a decent person, I'd rather like to point you to what you failed to address, however I took it for a rule to immediately disengage from any discussions where a self-appointed policeman pops up with the sole purpose to tell others how to edit wikipedia correctly while diplaying disrespect to opinions of others. - Altenmann >t 06:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I have addressed your points, which were:

• You claimed that the image does not illustrate the article text. It does, but the image was not originally in the proper section. I have moved it to the section on western views. It illustrates one example of a western depiction.
• You invented a requirement that the image illustrate specific statements in the text. There is no requirement for images to illustrate statements, but rather simply to provide illustrations.
• You required citations proving that it illustrates rather than distorts. Such citations are not required for images, especially if past consensus resulting from painful and detailed scrutiny agrees that the image is appropriate.
• You correctly pointed out that the image caption must be verifiable. I agreed, and changed the caption accordingly to something verifiable.
• You claimed that the image isn't representative of a Western view with a capital W. As it was created by a Russian, it indeed represents one westerner's view, so I don't see the validity of your claim. Nowhere does the article imply that the image is representative of western views. As I stated above, the caption has already been changed to address this concern.
• You claimed the image (or the caption?) contradicts the text, but you didn't provide an example of where this might be the case.

Those are all the points that I can see you made, and I don't see that I "failed to address" any of them. Rklawton's point about deleting an image that exists in the article as a result of much discussion is valid, although his curt tone was probably uncalled for. Keep in mind that images in this article are a touchy subject, and unilateral removal of an image is often viewed as a provocation rather than a good-faith edit. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

High ethical principles demand that the pictures of the Prophet be removed from this article

I speak on behalf of millions of Muslims who are of the belief that pictures of Muhammad PBUH are not allowed in Islam. As no picture of the Prophet existed in his time and pictures shown here are mere sketches drawn later! they are not only serving to generate false images and perceptions about him but also are generating resentment in the Muslim community all over the world by showing insensitiveness to their religious views. I hope that high ethical principles of tolerance and respect for the views of others will prevail by removing these pictures instead of intolerance to the views of others who own the prophet as theirs. Be assured that freedom of speech will not suffer as the content and facts of the article will remain the same even after removing the pictures. There is one saying which goes like this "your freedom ends where my nose starts". Dr Noman Nazir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.120.56.105 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Doctor, please read the FAQs provided above. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 23:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, the hypocritical argument that "tolerance and respect" should apply only to Muslim beliefs. Where is your tolerance and respect for the viewpoint of the rest of the world? We give you the ability to hide the images on your own browser. It is up to you to respect your beliefs. It is not up to us to respect them for you. Resolute 14:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The tone of this response really only serves to further incense this person.

The point is, Dr. Nazir, do you consider yourself bound by the rules and prohibitions of other religions? I should think not. Wikipedia is bound by no religion, and for this reason, we treat depictions of the islamic prophet Mohammad the same as those of any other historical figure for which photographs are not available. We have very specific policies that are clear on this issue- we should not, and shall not, avoid specific topics just because they offend one group of people. Also, just a semantic argument, there is no "Ethical" issue with having these pictures, and certainly not a "higher ethics" issue (which I frankly find offensive). This is a "religious morals" issue.

In much the same way that we would refuse to remove articles on beef that offend practitioners of the Hindu faith (or vegetarians), the pictures will remain.

It is interesting that you would choose to mention that specific Oliver Wendell Holmes quote, the full text of which reads "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." You are, in this instance, swinging your fist at Wikipedia's nose. You have no need to view these images, and they are useful to many people- your motive to have them removed is purely dogmatic. You can simply leave! Now, if someone were placing the images in your home, you might have a complaint. But as they are, located on a remote server, you have no valid argument for their removal. --King Öomie 15:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind all editors of Wikipedia's guidelines for respecting other editors and point the Doctor to the FAQ at the top of this page, as the topic of the images of Muhammad on this page has been discussed extensively and he/she has failed to bring any new arguments to the table. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

From a personal point of view, I'm offended when other editors try and enforce their censorship on myself and personally feel that they are not respecting my own views; so it's swings and roundabouts really. Editors that ignore the big red box at the top should be happy if they receive the relatively calm response this thread has, I've seen much worse. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

It is interesting how the "others" in phrases like "high ethical principles of tolerance and respect for the views of others" always translates to "myself". Tolerance and respect for the Ilkhanate era Muslim artists who drew these images apparently does not fall under "others". "Respect others" simply translates to, as the doctor himself makes clear, "your freedom ends where my nose starts", with the implication "no matter where I decide to shove my precious nose". It is safe to say that the internet is full of unsavoury content no matter what are your tastes. It is your own decision to stick your nose deliberately in places where it will be offended. If you do not want to see a hairy black tongue, you should not visit black hairy tongue (really, I advise against it). If you do so regardless, you have only yourself to blame. As long as people do not shove content you do not want up your nose against your will, your freedom is not impeded. Nobody has kicked down Dr Noman Nazir's door and plastered his livingroom with images of Muhammad. He has started up his web browser and chosen to visit Wikipedia in exercise of his own freedom to surf the net. Assuming from the "Dr" that we are dealing with an adult, Dr Noman Nazir has only himself to blame if he ends up visiting websites he finds objectionable. If he cannot control his urge to visit objectionable sites for kicks, perhaps he should consider installing net nanny and throw away the password. This is his private business and he has no call to let the world partake, let alone to blame the world, for his personal online behaviour. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

NEW USER COMMENT, 17/JAN/10

All i am curious is why after objections from many people wikipedia is still insisting to keep it....by removing it and listening to the billions of user....they will not only gain respect but will also retain their user....From my side, i will check wihtin a weeks time and if they are not removed.... i will restrict my PC for opening this website....if the people maintaining this site are nt that generous...there is no use of even opening it....internet is full of info even if wikipedia is not there...this will be a sort of a protest from myside !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.118.188 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.—Chowbok ☠ 05:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth going ahead and restricting your PC now because that's not going to happen. raseaC^{talk to me} 12:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

we even have instructions intended to help you "restrict your PC", see WP:NOSEE. The easiest way to not see any Wikipedia ever again is installing Adblock and telling it to block the entire domain wikipedia.org. This will not protect you from the numerous wikipedia mirrors, however. I have repeatedly suggested that interested parties could maintain an adblock blocklist for Muslim users that would aim at filtering all content considered not suitable for the pious. Perhaps you can get your "billions of user" to collaborate in launching such a small project. --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that most Muslims find these images offensive. For that matter, most Muslims don't read or speak Arabic and have therefore never read the Koran except as a translation into their own language. No doubt a fair number of image removal requesters, like the one below, are simply vandals seeking to disrupt editing. Rklawton (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Most Muslims complaining here are probably second generation expat tech students in their early twenties living in the west, alienated and in search of their roots. Like the guy who started the online petition. Of the billion Muslims worldwide, most have never been online, or heard about Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and lets not forget that not all Muslims have a problem with the images, the interpretation of Islam being used to justify the extreme prohibition on idolotry is mostly a product of Wahhabi influences from Saudi Arabia. The spread of Saudi influence has had the effect of radicalizing many of the "second generation expat tech students". Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's also worth noting that the Persian Muhammad article, presumably edited mostly by Muslims, has all of the objectionable images as well.—Chowbok ☠ 17:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(saw) Prophet Muhammad's pictures.

Don't you have a small form of respect for other religions? This is extremely offensive to more then a billion people world-wide. "We don't like censorship" is not a valid argument.

Is respect to much to ask for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starpluck (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Small? Yes. We don't present any religions as false. But religious demands fall on deaf ears (and that's what this is). If people of a small african tribe came forward and demanded that we delete their Wikipedia article, because it is against the will of their god that anyone learn about them, do you expect we would comply? --King Öomie 21:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing you should be careful about is making claims like more than a billion people finding it offensive, because that's simply not true. Eik Corell (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't confuse obedience with respect. We respect your beliefs, we don't obey them. It is reasonable to ask for respect, it is not so reasonable to ask for obedience. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Koranic prohibition is against any image of any prophet. The fact that a few self-proclaimed Muslims (we have no way to verify someone's true faith) come here and ask that images of only one man be removed clearly demonstrates that the request has no basis in Islam, but rather, on some other more dubious motive. The fact is this particular request comes from someone who has made no useful contributions to Wikipedia (vandalism doesn't count), and it bears more resemblance to someone intent on cause disruption than it is a sincere expression of faith. Rklawton (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, there is no "Koranic prohibition" against images of any prophet. That's the point that those who complain about it keep missing. That, and the fact that being offended by something is a personal choice. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying that my request has anything to do if I contributed to Wikipedia or not?

No, I haven't created any articles, but I have been on Wikipedia for 3-4 years helping out in editing articles. I do however, have a habit of leaving my account signed in public places (Schools etc.) where vandalism occurs.

@Eik, I don't necessarily have to mean that 1 billion find this article offending, but pictures depicting (SAW) Prophet Mohammad is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starpluck (talk • contribs) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "help" on articles has consisted entirely of vandalism. Your edit history makes this clear to all. Rklawton (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Before replying Rklawton, read my post. I emphasized what part specifically. Also, the contributions I speak of are posted as anonymous. Recognition doesn't appeal to me. I only created an account since my ISP recycles all ISPs, meaning I could get blocked from editing since the IP I used was banned. Starpluck (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Starpluck

Rklawton raises some fair points. I would add to them that by now (i.e. despite the warnings at the top, FAQ and extensive talk archives) those that continue to advocate image removal are simply trolling. Your account being used for vandalism is wholly down to you be it through your own carelessness or malicious intent. You're responsible for the contributions from your account. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think as a human should you harm any other human?

Moved from main talk page. Jarkeld (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir / Madam, On a humanitarian grounds do you think that if half of the worl population dont like picture on your page, then why you want to hurt their feelings. Please remove this it hurts feelings of Muslims, even we cant say anything against you that we equally love Jesus PBUP as well as a Muslim. So please remove this image from wikipedia. Thank you so much, i hope you understand my humble request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.187.189 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. You'll be happy to hear that no where near half the world population is offended by the images and so should not be concerned. If you are one of the few people who are offended by the images (be that through not understanding Islam, not reading the Qur'an or for personal reasons) you are able to configure your browser to hide the images, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

Please understand, we very much do not want to hurt anyone's feelings. It does make us very sad that this article saddens some. It's very important to us that people be able to read or write anything they want, even if some people might get upset if they read it.

Please remember-- we aren't trying to single out our Muslim siblings. There is a lot of things online that Christians wish wasn't online. There are a lot of things that Jews wish weren't online. There are a lot of things that the leaders of nations wish weren't online. Everyone sees things that offend us, upset us, and make us sad.

Being offended by some things is the price we pay for the freedom to read the things we want to learn about. Most people who live in Western nations feel it is a good bargain, but there are also a lot of people in western nations who think it should be different and that some things should be banned. But the point is-- this isn't something that only our Muslim readers experience-- it's something we _all_ experience. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Being offended by stuff found on the internet is not the same as coming to actual harm. Seeing things that one doesn't like is part of growing up, it happens to toddlers, and by the time you manage to file a complaint you should have had enough time to come to cope with the fact that you and your sensitivities aren't the navel of the world. For details on your question, read Talk:Muhammad/images/FAQ. It is correct that Wikipedia doesn't want to hurt your feelings. But this doesn't mean that Wikipedia cares about your feelings. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and collects notable bits of information. If you do not like some of these pieces, you should be careful not to shoot the messenger. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I value my(and your) freedom of speech as strongly as any Muslim values their belief in God. And I believe that removing these images would harm you, me and everyone else, not just feelings but in a very real sense. This belief is shared by many of the editors here and the Wikimedia Foundation, it is the very core of this project. Please understand that the content presented on this site is not meant to offend but to inform and for this project to succeed it cannot be any other way. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert on sight

This has come up a few times in the past (usually proposed by me) and as I recall the general agreement was 'no' but I am back here proposing the deletion of removal demands following a revert by User:HalfShadow and a susequent message on my talk by User:Rklawton. As I see it there a few options:

• Revert on sight i.e. if anyone sees a message that's already been covered they delete it (I'm still all for this but understand the arguments arguments against.) This is certainly not a great way to welcome new 'users' and given the subject matter may very well be counter-productive.
• Reply (either with a standard reply or whatever anyone deems fit) but remove the comments after a set amoutn of time, i.e. a week.
• Change the banner at the top so those posting demands are not contradicting it and therefore there's no rule-based reason to revert.
• Do nothing.

Any comments? raseaC^{talk to me} 10:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just that the banner in it's curret state was created 08:16, 10 February 2008. That's almost two years ago and nobody's bothered following it, so the entire page history consists of seven archives of random people screeching about how offended they are plus random threats and insults, with the odd actually helpful topic and then, after the banner was created, another seven archives of exactly the same thing with no change. I mean, I only edited the page in passing, but if you're not going to abide by your own baneer, it seems pointles even having it. In effect, you're saying: 'If you have come here to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, please don't post here. But if you do, we'll have a nice huge circular argument that goes nowhere until we rinse and repeat.' HalfShadow 16:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to tell how many people the banner stopped from raising the usual objections. It seems to me the complaints have become less frequent and many editors stop after getting a standard reply if their noses aren't subsequently rubbed in dirt. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I support a standard reply that we can also add to the banner. A standard reply will have several benefits:

1. It is consistent with our "bight", "AGF", and free flow of ideas values.
2. It should save our time responding to redundant requests.
3. It should help reduce the number of requests.
4. It should educate the requester by concisely summarizing all the arguments in favor of maintaining the images.
5. It should help the requester by providing a link to information about how to hide these images on an individual basis.
6. It should reduce the random insults directed at the requesters.
7. It should introduce the principles we apply when editing the English language Wikipedia.

Rklawton (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What would you propose needs to be added to the banner? I think a standard reply is a good idea, we could create a template and have the code at the top of this page so established editors that just stumble across this page can easily reply to new editors (assuming they read the banner, which they may well do). raseaC^{talk to me} 18:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'd need to modify the template at top and create a new one. The top of page template should be modified to explain that all civil requests and discussions are welcome. Requests for image removal automatically become part of the page's history and will receive a standard reply. It should also contain instructions for implementing the standard reply.

• The standard reply should basically summarize the arguments in favor:

• Wikipedia intends no offence by publishing these images
• The images have historical significance
• Wikipedia isn't censored
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia help explain Wikipedia's guiding philosophy
• Offended readers can elect to not view these images (instructions)
• This matter has been thoroughly reviewed and a decision made
• The images will remain
• (more?)

Rklawton (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

pictures or depiction of prophet of Islam Hazrat Muhammad should be removed from all the forum and websites of internet

there are many reasons why the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (SSallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam)should neither be made nor shown on any forums,books, posters or websites? few of them are like firstly, the time He was alive there were no cameras available nor there were any painters to paint His portraits, then how can anyone depict or can even imagine how He looked. secondly in the religion of Islam the painting of picture of anyone is prohibited then how anyone could have made His portraits. thirdly Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (SSallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam)is the most loved and respected personality in the religion of Islam where people can even go to any extent if anyone make any kind of depictions or any kind of Cartoons for the dignity and honour of Hazrat Muhammad (SSallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam)as he is loved more than any blood relations for the muslims even their real fathers and mothers, as Christians love Jesus and Jews Love Moses etc. The world has already seen so much of protest and bloodshed over this issue. So to keep peace in this wolrd we shouyld restrain any such attempts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedhashimmehmood (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. All of your points have been discussed and rejected. The reasoning can be found in the FAQ linked at the top of this page. We will be keeping the images, however you are welcome to configure your browser to hide the images as suits your own personal beliefs. Resolute 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also do agree... these pictures must be removed from the page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.28.23 (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been given the tools to avoid them yourself. If you feel that is insufficient, then your desire to prevent every person from seeing them, regardless of their actual religion, is unacceptable and will not be entertained. --King Öomie 20:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remove these pictures of Our Holy Prophet. It hearts the muslims otherwise we all muslims will bycott against the site wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleem Sadam (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

this (original post) has not in fact discussed. We never discussed purging the entire internet of these pictures because we do not have jurisdiction over the internet. Ask the poster to take his concern to ICANN. These are the guys who actually control the internet, and judging by the number of blasphemous Muhammad images found online, they must be bunch of obscene infidels. Perhaps petition them and if they do not comply immediately, just give them the standard treatment, declare jihad and threaten to do all sorts of unpleasant things to them, including, of course, "protest and bloodshed over this issue", this seems to work out most of the time (not). --dab (𒁳) 18:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the picture

Respected Sir/Madam,

Please please remove the picture depicting Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). This is prohibited in ISLAM and we Muslims get deeply hurt by this. I hope you understand our concern. Thanks.

Regards, 115.184.89.36 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Iqbal

No. Please refer to the box at the top of this page. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for ignorantly asking which picture is causing trouble. I thought Prophet's face was already hidden behind a white veil in the pictures.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look through the article, it contains pictures that show Muhammad's face. These are the pictures to which some (not all) Muslims object. The pictures are shown the way they were originally painted by Muslim artists who had no problem with depictions of Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

none of the pictures is causing trouble with any sane and competent Muslim. Your average sane and competent Muslim is aware that this is the internet and that Wikipedia does not aim at being a halal publication. What we get here are mostly teenagers who try their game of identity politics. The complaint is the aim, there is no ulterior sense in there. --dab (𒁳) 19:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If the requester would trouble himself to read the Qur'an he or she might be surprised to notice that it does not specifically forbid depictions of Muhammad. It does forbid idol worship, but I doubt many people are worshiping these images. The Qur'an does state quite unambiguously that what is not forbidden by the Qur'an is permitted. And so, it is obvious to all that images of Muhammad are indeed permitted - though worship of these images is not. And so we ask you to leave these images in place so that we might better understand how mankind has viewed Muhammad over the centuries, and kindly suggest that you refrain from worshiping them, if that is your concern. Rklawton (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing the prophet's pictures

Moved from main talk

Hi, I have deleted pictures depicting the prophet Mohammad as these will offend millions of his followers. Wikipedia should make sure that any offensive forms are to be dealt with. There is no good faith in adding such pictures especially that in Islam its forbidden to draw the prophet. I hope this could be changed as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omansour (talk • contribs) 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

please read the FAQ. Jarkeld (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To support the article's neutrality

Hi, the pictures from La vie de Mahomet, by M. Prideaux, and "Renaissance fresco in San Petronio Basilica" show anti-Islamic point of view. To be neutral, you should, kindly, include a statement that clearly shows that Muslims oppose the messages implicitly implied by these two photos and that these photos reflect the opinion of their painters only. In other words, the painting by M. Prideaux indicates clearly the painter's grudge against the Muslims' Prophet (I believe a grudge against any culture should be banned from Wikipedia) while the painting in San Petronio Basilica implies that the Muslims' Prophet has spread his message by sword and that he cursed the 10 commandments (any one with weak knowledge of Islam knows that most -if not all- of the commandments are common between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism). I believe that these two photos should be underlined with clear statements that state that they reflect the point of view of their painters (and I believe that many non-Muslim researchers already oppose the messages of these paintings)(Mounibkhanafer (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

I believe that any statements along the lines of what you have suggested would constitute WP:OR and therefore we cannot make such edits. There is already information in the article and on other WP articles relating to various culture's views on Muhammad. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That said, this is EASILY the most levelheaded and reasonable post that has ever been made to this page. This represents possibly the first time the page has ever been used correctly. --King Öomie 19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness I will second that. Obviosuly my post is my own view, other editors may hold a different view. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the images mentioned have a WP:DUE place in the article. They belong in depictions of Muhammad. In fact, the long-standing consensus version of the article did not include them, and it should be checked if they were added based on any change in consensus. "You need consensus" cuts both ways, for removing and for adding images. The original complaints concerned historical, Persian and Ottoman, images of Muhammad. The addition of 19th century images of "Muhammad in hell" appears to be a conscious escalation. Somebody should look into this. --dab (𒁳) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I could see one image in that section, but not two - especially since they are squeezing the text, which is against the MOS. One does have to question why the two most provocative Western images on Commons were used. I'd probably choose to replace both with just the SCOTUS frieze instead. Resolute 17:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for taking the time to read my comment. The problem with the two photos I'm talking about is that the first one clearly spreads "hatred" as no one on earth would accept that his holy, or even respected figures, and icons be insulted publicly. We may agree and disagree on millions of topics and it is not the right of any of us to insult and curse others ideas just because they are different (and insulting has nothing to do with freedom of speech). The idea of any encyclopedia is to provide facts as they are without taking a position (with or against). I believe none of the respected admins/editors on this page would allow any hatred topic be published on Wikipedia. The other photo, on the other hand, distributes a clearly false idea which is that the Muslims' Prophet was against the 10 commandments and as I mentioned before this is false as it is among the basics of Islam to believe in the One God, to forbid cursing parents, forbid stealing, forbid adultery...etc, which are the commandments themselves. These photos reflect the opinions of their painters. Thanks (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

No worries - but your assumptions are quite mistaken. This is an encyclopedia. It is our duty to create and improve articles about notable, verifiable facts about our world. To that end, we must acknowledge that negative views of Muhammad exist, they are notable, and they are portrayed in both art and literature. We can not simply ignore them because a few people might be offended, and it has nothing to do with a general bias against Islam, Arabs, or Semites. Sure, some people might be offended by the paintings you mentioned - just as Christians might be offended by art perceived as anti-Christian, yet we publish images and articles on the subject none-the-less. And yes, it is all about free speech and scholarship. Islam used to be like this. Someone famous once wrote: "the ink of scholars is worth seventy times the blood of martyrs." There was a time when Islam experienced its own "golden age." It was during this all too brief period when Muslims were free to discuss the Qur'an and its meanings without fear or embarrassment. Islamic culture, art, science, and poetry reached its peak during this time, and it all came to a crashing end when a tyrant put a stop to questions he perceived as insulting. Islam has suffered terribly ever since. With luck and increased tolerance for diverse viewpoints, Islam may once again experience a golden age. Until then, I suspect that demands such as yours will continue to appear with regular frequency. Rklawton (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for considering my comments. Please note that I did not request the removal of these images. My intent was that if you could add some clarifications either in the passage or under the image (and I prefer the latter) then it would be, from my point of view, much more appropriate. Please allow me to disagree with some of the points you raised. You mentioned that "some" people may be offended with these photos. With all due respect, the painting by M. Prideaux is really offending as it portrays the Muslims' Prophet almost naked and being tortured in Hell (which is very insulting and offensive), and I don't know sir (again with all due respect) how only "some" people will be offended by that? I assume you agree with me that such paintings remind us of the fundamentalists who only dream to kill and torture the people of the other religions and civilizations. And although I strongly believe that this photo does feed the "hatred" against the West (beside being offensive to all Muslims), still I didn't ask to remove the image. All what I asked was to clarify that it doesn't reflect the West's view of the Muslims' Prophet. The second image, on the other hand, is not cited in the passage and is just viewed with absolutely no clarifications related to it. It will really add to the richness of the passage if you, kindly, add some explanation about that the image has a clear misconception about Islam (at least from the Muslims' point of view) as Islam does invite its followers to abide by the 10 commandments. One last thing, yes I agree with you that we are not living in the golden age of Islam, but believe me sir the picture is not that dark. If Islam itself wasn't open for free discussions, you wouldn't find me here discussing openly and quietly. I'm a practicing Muslim who has been interested in Islamic studies and researches since almost 15 years, during which I had thorough discussions with scholars about many things that may surprise you (starting from the existence of God (the central and most sensitive pillar in our belief) and not ending with what may appear as contradictions in the Holy Quran) and believe me these discussions where public and quiet without even a shred of fear. For the record, the Holy City of Qom in Iran hosts at least 18 Islamic Universities beside at least 500 scientific institute specialized in Islamic research and publish books in a wide range of sciences related to Islam. This is over and above the annual conferences that attract people from around the world, including important figures from USA. Not to forget important visits by professors from US, like the one made by some Harvard profs. in Oct. 2007 to Ayatollah Abdul-Karim Al-Mosawi Al-Ardabili. Yes, Islam is being introduced to the West by the wrong people. Thanks (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Mounibkhanafer: I would agree with your point if the images you reference had appeared in a section of the article about Muhammad himself. However, in this article, they are appropriately placed, in the proper context, in a section about negative historical Western views. It is an historical fact that Muhammad was once portrayed in the West in a negative light, and it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to describe that historical fact. I see no no way a rational person would interpret this context as Wikipedia taking a position about Muhammad. The pictures simply serve to illustrate that particular section.

Even so, I see no problem revising or clarifying the captions to underscore that context. Please suggest some alternate text on this talk page. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As I mentioned above, I didn't ask for the removal of the photos. And I also didn't say that Wikipedia is taking a position. I meant that these photos, without appropriate citation and description, will lead some people to that conclusion. Now, since you kindly asked me to suggest some sentences, I would suggest for the first photo anything that states that this photo reflects the negative view of Islam that the painter had (and I assume you agree with me that such paintings remind us of the fundamentalists who only dream to kill and torture the people of the other religions and civilizations). For the second photo I strongly suggest any sentence that educates the readers with the fact that Islam does believe in the 10 commandments and instructs its followers to abide by them. The latter fact is enough to show that the painter had misconceptions about Islam. Thanks (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Would you mind suggesting some actual text that doesn't overwhelm the space required for an image caption? Either here, or be bold and edit the captions in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your invitation. In the first place I refrained from suggesting some statements in order to avoid "imposing" my ideas on you. But as you are, kindly, requesting again I'll throw my two cents and please keep in mind that I'm open for any constructive criticism. For the photo by M. Prideau, I would suggest the addition of this statement: "This photo reflects an extremist's depiction of Mohammad that reflects the negative view of Islam in the middle ages". For the second photo I would suggest to add:"This photo shows a clear misconception about Islam as most of the 10 commandments agree with the Islamic teachings". Again, I'm open for any other suggestions. Thanks (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC))

Regardless of the bias you see in those images, you must be careful not to insert your own bias into the captions, using loaded or inflammatory terms. Your first caption suggestion would be better if shortened to "This depiction illustrates the negative view of Islam in the middle ages." The second one could be stated "In contrast to what this image shows, the 10 Commandments are largely compatible with Islamic teachings." I'm sure others could come up with further improvements. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I totally agree with your suggestions. Just one last comment about the first photo. This photo is really clearly offensive and I just wanted the caption to be descriptive with that fact (thus my suggestion above). Now, who is supposed to add these statements? Thanks for considering my concerns (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

I made an attempt to clarify the captions. It isn't appropriate to state that the images are offensive. They may be offensive to you, but they are not offensive to everyone. Wikipedia (and also this article) is full of things that offend people. Wikipedia does not censor, and also does not provide disclaimers or warnings. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the captions. Two things please. Firstly, the caption under the second photo is great but I think it will be stronger if you make it as: "This illustration is taken from La vie de Mahomet, by M. Prideaux, published in 1699. It shows Muhammad holding a sword and a crescent while trampling on a globe, a cross, and the Ten Commandments. In contrast to what this image shows, most of the Ten Commandments are ironically compatible with Islam".

Secondly, for the first photo, I like the updated version. But I have a comment, if you allow, about your latest entry above. You mentioned that this photo is offensive just for myself. With all due respect, do you really think that there is a muslim who will be pleased to see his Holy Prophet naked and being tortured in Hell? Do you really believe in that? Any average person won't agree to see his beloved people in this situation, not to mention his holy figures. This photo is clearly insulting, especially if you notice that in Islam we have the known code of modesty that controls what part of the body can be shown. After all, I was clear from the beginning that I'm not trying to impose my "own" ideas and I didn't request the removal of any photo and I didn't ask to censor anything. I always discuss with an open mind and in a quiet atmosphere as these are the requirements, I believe, for a healthy relationship and dialogue among different cultures and societies. Wish you all the best (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

This conversation is veering off the intent of this page, which is to discuss improvements. However, I will answer, because you asked directly for my opinion.

Yes, I personally know Muslims who are capable of viewing a work of art about Islam with detachment, given a prior understanding that the work was from a period and place in history that was hostile to Islam. While I am sure no Muslim would be pleased to see this image, I truly believe that not every Muslim would be offended by it, knowing the context of the painting's creation. Art is an individual expression. This painting simply reflects one man's (long dead) opinion. Many Muslims realize that non-Muslims are entitled to express and publish disagreeable opinions about Islam.

I appreciate the discussion and the fact that you are not advocating removal of the image (whether we need both images is another topic to discuss). But as to the caption, Wikipedia should not take a position on whether the painting is offensive or insulting. We don't know if the artist even intended to be offensive or insulting; likely he intended it for a sympathetic European audience. Perhaps he was simply trying to portray the truth as he fervently believed it to be. Without a reliable source giving insight into the artists mind, it would violate the Wikipedia:No original research policy to imply that the image is deliberately insulting or offensive. The fact that many Muslims are insulted or offended by it, as you are, would be superfluous to state, in my opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir, the photo painted by Giovanni da Modena represents, in fact, a scene from Dante Alighieri's Inferno. According to Tony Donovan's article titled "On Dante and Islam" and published in the journal "Taj Mahal Review", volume 4, number 2, Dec. 2005 (check: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WOi-v6NU1mUJ:thinkers.net/writer/tfdonovan.html+dante+Islam&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca), Dante had strong misconceptions about Islam, and I cite: "(Dante) never once used the term "Islam" or "Muslim" in his work. How could he have? Dante, like most of his contemporaries, was completely unaware that Islam existed as an autonomous religious system." and thus the outcome of such "lack" of knowledge about Islam is the painting by Giovanni da Modena. This exactly resembles a situation when an average muslim learns about the Western civilization from the fundamentalists' books!!! As for your comment on that some muslims would understand the rational behind the painting, allow me to disagree as this has nothing to do with "freedom of expression". What may appear as "freedom of expression" for you, with all due respect, is not necessarily true for others. If we use the "freedom of expression" loosely, we won't be able to differentiate between respected opinions and "insults". (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

Well, you more or less just proved my point. An artistic expression about Muhammad created in ignorance of the existence of Islam cannot possibly be accused of insulting Muslims, if the painter had no knowledge of who or what he was supposedly insulting. He evidently had knowledge of Muhammad, and painted Muhammad suffering in hell, in accordance with his Christian bias. I was not using the term "freedom of expression" loosely. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the open discussion. So don't you think that the fact about Dante's controversial opinion about Islam is better be mentioned in the passage? it will enhance its richness. About the "freedom of expression", I was citing your statement:"Art is an individual expression. This painting simply reflects one man's (long dead) opinion" and "...non-Muslims are entitled to express and publish disagreeable opinions about Islam", in these statements you insist on considering the image as an "opinion", while it obviously reflects an insult. When an extremist islamist uses a "coarse language" to describe the Westerns, I can't consider him to be saying his own "opinion". Yes, Islam has absolutely no problem of accepting respected and scientific critique from non-Muslims, but not insults. Thanks (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

I forgot to mention in my last reply that I made a further minor edit to the caption.

Looking over the essay on the thinkers.net site you pointed out, it seems like a place for writers to self-publish essays, and therefore it wouldn't be considered an authoritative reliable source by Wikipedia standards. If you can find reliable sources that discuss Dante's opinions on Islam, you are welcome to include them or bring them up here. This article already mentions Dante's treatment of Muhammad, and I agree that sentence could be expanded somewhat. Any suggestion is welcome, keeping in mind that any expansion should be brief in accordance with the Wikipedia:Undue weight policy.

You conclude that the outcome of Dante's ignorance was that painting. More likely the painting was simply inspired by Dante's Divine Comedy and the artist was similarly ignorant. Please remember Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia articles aren't a forum for speculation about what went on in someone's mind. We can only report what sources report. Neither you nor I know whether the painting was consciously intended as an insult. If the artist was painting for a non-Muslim audience, then it's likely no insult was intended, rather he was simply painting the truth as he saw it.

I know of some extremists who consider the mere existence of any religious faith to be insulting to the human intellect. Are you deliberately and consciously insulting them by following Islam? I think not. And as long as you are asking about my personal views, I will sum them up in this context by saying: You have a choice about what offends you. Therefore, Wikipedia has no business defining what is offensive for readers. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you check the well-known, authentic book titled "Orientalism" by the highly admired prof. Edward Said (the book is available on Google Books) you will find a reliable source on Dante's views about Islam and Muslims. Please check pages 68 and beyond. I'll provide you with more references soon. Thanks.(Mounibkhanafer (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

Pictures

If Wikipedia was really neutral then it should respect all religions including Islam, and remove these horrendous pictures that are insulting our faith.