Talk:Muhammad/images

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))

Hi Amatulić, I'm still waiting for your response about the reference I mentioned in my latest entry above. This is a highly praised reference and I strongly believe it should be included in the passage. (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Google Books is showing me only reviews of this book, not pages of the book itself. Would you care to suggest an expansion of the single sentence in the article that mentions Dante's treatment of Muhammad, and cite this book? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. In fact I did access the book itself and read through it. I prefer that you try again as you need to go through many pages to understand the point of view the author trying to make. Beside, this will add to my honesty that I'm not trying to impose a certain understanding of the book itself. Please try the following link and on the "search bar" on the left enter the word "Dante":

http://books.google.com/books?id=izpNLWUxp5IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=orientalism&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Orientalism

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

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

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

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

Pictures

If Wikipedia was really neutral then it should respect all religions including Islam, and remove these horrendous pictures that are insulting our faith. --Stuvaco922 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, neutral is not defined as "universal respect" - one dictionary definition is "not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy." Being neutral could just as easily mean one disrespects all religions, including Islam, so long as one is not more or less disrespected than any other. An encyclopedia that censors itself in favor of one religion over another would not be neutral. Now, if you're arguing that wikipedia should censor not only the images of Muhammad but also the images of "Piss Christ" or the like, then you'd at least be consistent. However, that is not wikipedia's policy and I'd argue against that just as much. Dart~Ben (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Also no neutral person would just disrespect someone's faith without a second thought.--Stuvaco922 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? What if they disrespect everyone's faith without second thought? Plenty of comedians have made a very successful living being so-called "equal opportunity offenders." Dart~Ben (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you have additional concerns that the FAQ doesn't address, feel free to post them here. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the online pictures of Muhammad are FROM Muslim manuscripts... like this one.http://hypernation.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/muhammad.gif So how can you claim its against your faith to show it when the faith has done it itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.81.113 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 93.189.193.16, 20 April 2010

 Not done:

Please kindly add more photographs shown as Prophet Mohammed. Preferably naked and having sex with pigs. Bear suits would also be acceptable. Also be sure to threaten anyone who tries to remove images with photos of people killed because they removed photos of... oh wait, nobody has been killed for removing photos. No one has seen him and this is a Sin. Everyone should see him, preferably fully frontal nude covered in feces. Hopefully we can honor Muhammad's birthday on May 20'th with a "Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue" style pictorial with images of the Prophet wearing thongs and skimpy boy shorts.

93.189.193.16 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, please read the faq. Jarkeld (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be a sin to you, but it is not necessarily a sin to anyone else. Wikipedia is not beholden to any one religion, or indeed, any religion at all. Please read the FAW FAQ and look at Wikipedia's rules regarding NPOV (neutral point of view) Dart~Ben (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also not a sin according to the Qur'an, either. Rklawton (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to protest but I would like to invite your attention to some neutral thoughts. Almost all of the picture dates to hundreds of years after Muhammed (peace be upon him) died. The picture does not contain the actual picture of Muhammed (peace be upon him). If you think neutrally, the source is not reliable from its date itself. I don't mind if you keep the picture or not, it's up to you, if you really think it's his actual figures. As The God Almighty explains in the quran, there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), he knows everything and I leave the rest to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.32 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They are historical depictions of him, though. No one is claiming they're photographs or even live portraits. If they're so obviously not him, though, why do you care? --King Öomie 17:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)