Jump to content

Talk:Depictions of Muhammad/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Edit request on 18 September 2012

Hi, Kindly remove the pictures and images depicting Holy Prophet PBUH. Wikipedia is very good source of information and you all help others in many aspects. But kindly dont do such things which offend Muslims. You all and i are created by one God. And we have to answer for our deeds at the day of judgement. Fear from Allah..! Its better for us all..

Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahadzafar89 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To quote from one of the notices at the top of this page, "Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article ... If you find the display of these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ." VernoWhitney (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this is a joke, or if the requester missed the ludicrous irony of requesting removal of depictions of Muhammad from an article that's all about depictions of Muhammad. ~:::Amatulić (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
"But kindly dont[sic] do such things which offend Muslims"? Well, if offending Muslims is to be one of the criteria used for determining what appears on wikipedia, the editors better get to work removing about half the entries on this site. Come to think of it, you better take down the entire site, because it seems nowadays just about everything under the sun offends Muslims.

The video HAD NOTHING to do with the attack on the ambassador.

You do realise that you are probably arguing with a young troll in his lonely bedroom somewhere in the NE USA rustbelt, don't you? Real Muslims have more important things to worry about than a few pictures, which were in most cases created by Muslims in the first place

86.149.173.255 (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

New source

Prophet Muhammad Favorably depicted with Abraham, Moses & Jesus184.179.75.89 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC) [[1]]

Note the recent publication of

  • Gruber, Christiane J., Shalem, Avinoam (eds), The Image of the Prophet Between Ideal and Ideology: A Scholarly Investigation, De Gruyter, 2014, ISBN 9783110312386, google books, Introduction

I have for the moment added this work under Further reading, but it would make an excellent source for further work on the article. Andreas JN466 18:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There is also an Encyclopedia article from Gruber on Depictions of Muhammad here: Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God (ISBN 9781610691772), chapter "Images". Andreas JN466 18:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Why Arabic Language version has no images of Mo

Why there is historical images of Mohammed and his face in English version and not Arabic, this is double-standards and kow-towing to fanatics... Wikipedia doesn't bend the rules for any group I thought, even Arabic speakers (btw not all people who speak Arabic are Muslims)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.6.68.5 (talk • contribs)

The different language versions of Wikipedia are independent. We can't decide what goes into the Arabic version here and this page is only for discussion of the English version. Hut 8.5 07:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Error

This part is incorrect: In Shia Islam, however, images of Muhammad are quite common nowadays, even though Shia scholars historically were against such depictions.

In every sect of Islam the depiction of any Prophet is prohibited. The two sources are not only poor sources as they contain misinformation but they are from the same site. In the source the image that they claim is the depiction of the prophet is actually the depiction of the son in law of the prophet.

So not only is that sentence incorrect and a fuel for extreme and radical anti-shia rhetoric, it uses a source that is erroneously incorrect. You are not allowed to depict the prophet in Shia Islam, period. The depiction on that site is the son in law of the prophet.

Please remove it immediately as I do not have the powers to edit it myself.

Now, who do you think drew or painted all these images of Muhammed depicted in the article? These people were respected Shia and Sunni Islamic artists. How else on earth they could have published these paintings/drawings and they would have survived centuries to be finally displayed in Wikipedia? Portraits of Muhammed were clearly tolerated during the medieval period in Islam. Anyways, even if you could prove that Shia and Sunni prohibited such images, they couldn't be removed from the Wikipedia, as the U.S. law doesn't forbid such depictions and anything not contrary to the U.S. law can be displayed here, if it is relevant to the subject matter. JJohannes (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Update on 7 January 2015 attacks

Someone with the permissions to do so should update and link to the article on today's [Charlie Hebbo shooting]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.1.178 (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015

In the background it says, "When still alive Muhammad called for the murder of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, because he insultet him.[22]"

This is not true, or at the very least misleading. The cause of Ka'b al-Ashraf's death was due to al-Ashraf inciting the Quraysh (persecutors of Muslims) to take up arms against Muslims. al-Ashraf used his poetry denigrating Muslims to do this. al-Ashraf's tribe was part of the Constitution of Medina which disallowed advocating for war against Muslims, and al-Ashraf's actions would have broken this pact.

If not removed for inaccuracy, it should be changed to reflect other causes.

"When still alive Muhammad called for the murder of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, because he insultet him.[22]"

changed to

"When still alive Muhammad called for the murder of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, because he used his poetry to insult and call for violence against Muhammad and the Muslims."

72.200.45.92 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As this statement, and the lengthy Hadith quotation that followed it, didn't appear to be related to the topic of the article (depictions of Muhammad), I have removed both. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have inserted this quote again because Ka'b was really assinated because of his mocking of Muhammad. Read the Hadith and his article. All people who claim that other reasons were important for his assination are not honest.--Broter (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

But it isn't a depiction of Muhammad. The WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that this particular quotation fits within the scope of the article. I do not see how it does, therefore I am removing it again. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I added the quote now with a source that explains the freedom of speech in Islam and restored the cartoon.--Broter (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No explanation has been given as to why the Hadith quotation is necessary. I have left in the bit about Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, modifying it to include that the medium of speech was poetry in this instance, but the Hadith does nothing to enlighten the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It is actually the reliable sources which state that the killing of Ka'b wasn't just about the insults. The Uri Rubin paper, which deals extensively with the subject, gives two main reasons for killing Ka'b, namely his provoking Quraysh to attack the Muslims and his plotting to assassinate Muhammad. Both reasons are well supported in the primary sources. We can't ignore these reasons and just assume it was about "insults". Wiqi(55) 20:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright then, this article is about depictions of Muhammad, and the section is about aniconism. I'm sorry, but I am failing to see the relevance of all this to the article topic. I guess my initial response, to remove it all, was best, and I see that has been done, again. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo cover

@FormerIP: Could ypu explain why it isn't conclusive? That cover is at the heart of the whole news story for the last 3 days. DeCausa (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Numerous WP:RS confirming this include [2] and [3] DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the image added is actually of Mohammed. It might be, but there's nothing to indicate that on the cover itself. It's not any specific image that has led to Charlie Hebdo being a target for terrorists - they have published cartoons of Mohammed and other cartoons which some might take exception to on a number of occasions. This image, for example, is unambiguously Mohammed, and might be a better choice for the article, compared to one where it seems unclear. Formerip (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
With respect, you being unsure is WP:OR. The RS are sure, and that should be all that matters here. (Btw, the reason they are sure, I think, is that thet point of the issue is that M. was "guest editor" - hence the threat in the bubble only really makes sense if it was M saying it). I don't have a strong view on using an alternative, except that the cartoon originally put in the article is the one that has attracted most attention and is probably the most notable one. There's another one I've seen that's headed "Muhammad dit:" with him holding a bomb. I haven't checked whether the COPYVIO/fair use position has a bearing on which of thee should/could be used. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my being unsure is OR, but I'm not arguing to include anything in the article, only questioning something's inclusion, in which case OR is not a problem. Your rationale for why it must be Mohammed, on the other hand, is just plain OR (not that I'm saying it's wrong).
BTW, I think the "Muhammad dit" cartoon you probably saw on Google images is not from Charlie Hebdo, but from a far-right blog.
To turn the question around, though, wouldn't it be better to use an image that the reader can clearly identify as being of Mohammed without needing additional knowledge? Formerip (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The matter is put beyond doubt by the red banner near the top with "Charia Hebdo" ("Sharia Hebdo"), and at the right the same figure labelled above as "Mahomet" and below "Redacteur en chef" ("Editor in chief"). Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The resolution of our image is too low to make that out. Formerip (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Your point being ...? Go on google & look at other versions then. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Point being that the resolution of our image is not high enough to make it identifiable as an image of Mohammed, whereas there are other usable images where this is not a problem. Or we could add a caption that says "Go on google & look at other versions", I suppose, but I'd say that's not the simplest approach Formerip (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Readers don't need to see it; we, the editors, just need to determine the position conclusively; which we have. DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I added the quote now with a source that explains the freedom of speech in Islam and restored the cartoon.--Broter (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Founder of Islam

At Talk:Muhammad, there has been discussion about calling Muhammad the "founder of Islam". This is because only non-Muslims believe him to be the founder of Islam, whereas Muslims do not. Per WP:NPOV all significant viewpoints must be presented. Since this article's lead may not be the place to do that, it's best don't say "founder of Islam". Most people know who he is anyway, and anyone who doesn't can simply click on the link and go to Muhammad.VR talk 18:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your shift to the theologic view of one specific religion as that is POV. --NeilN talk to me 18:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Vice regent's wording is NPOV, and consistent with the main Muhammad's article. Khestwol (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it is definitely not. It is a religious belief, not historical fact, and is such non-neutral. It's like putting, "Jesus, the Son of God..." in Depictions of Jesus. --NeilN talk to me 19:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No that would be still not per consensus. On the main page about Muhammad, the current consensus is that "non-Muslims generally regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam". That is different from stating that Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Khestwol (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The current version of this article gets rather too close to asserting that Muhammad is a prophet, which is definitely not NPOV. The lead of Muhammad says instead that he is considered to be a prophet by Muslims, and something like that would be better here. Whether Muhammad was the founder of Islam or not isn't relevant to the subject of the article. Hut 8.5 19:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I've amended it to adopt the same approach as in the Muhammad article. DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Compromise, but that is one awkward sentence. I don't know if my tweak made it better or worse. --NeilN talk to me 23:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I've made it shorter. I think all can agree that he is an important figure in Islam. Pathore (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Too general and information-free for my tastes. --NeilN talk to me 01:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't say much, but it isn't very long either. You've raised a good point and I've shortened it further. We have another article about Muhammad, so there is no reason to describe him in the lede of this article at all. This article is about depictions of Muhammad, not Muhammad himself. We have the full details of how different people see his association with Islam at that article. While the mention in the bold text isn't linked (does the MOS allow that use to be a link?), the very next mention of Muhammad's name (in the third sentence in the article) is a link to the Muhammad article. Pathore (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead does not reflect the article contrary to WP:Lead

The lead is entirely about the issue of differences within Islam as to whether the depictions are permissible. But actually a substantial part of the article (and probably the major global issue) is about Western publications of depictions (Charlie Hebdo etc) versus Muslim opinion. This is not mentioned in the lead. I suggest that to conform to WP:LEAD the last two paragraphs of the lead are removed and replaced by a summary of the issue of the conflict between Western publications of depictions and Islamic opinion. Unless anyone objects, I'll do that in the next day or so. DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No objection from me. Be bold! Go for it. In the years I've been on Wikipedia I've observed a phenomenon where the lead and body sort of diverge as editors pay more attention to one or the other as the article evolves. I'd say the majority of articles that aren't GA or FA suffer from this misalignment to some degree, although for a B class article like this one the differences are surprising. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec)There is certainly an issue but this is a very strange proposal. The lead in fact does not cover Islamic depictions either, whether in art or literature. "Remove" to where? I would certainly strongly object if any of the current lead disappears. It should all go either to start "background", or in another preliminary section, and then a lead that summarizes the whole article should be added from scratch. But whatever the momentary political "major global issue", greater emphasis should continue to be given to the broad historical perspective, and Islamic depictions (about which current debates badly need better information). Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I frankly don't understand what you've written. The last two paragraphs of the lead are not representative of anything in the body of the article. Perhaps they could go into a background section and perhaps half a sentence summary could appear in the lead, but that's all the esoteric mini-essay warrants. How do they comply with WP:LEAD? Currently the lead has no "broad historical emphasis" but merely a description of Intra-muslim sectarian issues. I do think your reference to "momentary political 'major global issue'" is worthy of Mr Justice Cocklecarrot wanting to know who the Beatles were. DeCausa (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
No you don't seem to have read it. Try again. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
My reading it again won't make your point cogent. Try writing it again. DeCausa (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Children's guide: 1) None of the current lead summarizes the rest of the article (but the material in it is useful). 2) Put all the current lead in a lower section 3) Write a completely new lead. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You haven't understood my responses to you. I wasn't inviting you to make the same point again. I'll be more blunt: what you think is of importance in the current lead, isn't; and you don't understand the significance of what needs to change. DeCausa (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
What is it in the lead that you think should be in the lead? why pick on the last two paras? Everything needs to change. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I've already said. No matter, I'm no longer interested. I'll leave it to you and your superior understanding. DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually looking at it again, it is the last para of the current lead that actually does in part summarize some of the rest of the article. I'll start a draft new lead when I have time, and for now add something on the very recent controversies. The article is receiving more hits than usual at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I've now done as much as I'm going to do. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The articles contain PD images. Aa77zz (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Both very useful. I've added Gruber as an EL, and the images should be taken for Commons. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

New article: Artworks of Muhammad

I'm almost positive the newly created Artworks of Muhammad can be merged to Depictions of Muhammad, and can either remain a redirect or speedily-deleted as a duplicate per WP:A10. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added the merge tags to both articles. Ordinarily I would have just done the merge, but I suspect anything associated with Muhammad is likely to be controversial. Pathore (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've boldly redirected it. --NeilN talk to me 04:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Bias against non-salafis

This article implies that depictions of Muhammad are banned altogether based on the ahadith. Shia Muslims don't have such ahadith at all, historically many Sunnis also accepted visualization of Muhammad until Saudi sponsored wahhabism started being spread. This article is bias and has to be rewritten, it alludes to the reader that depictions are forbidden but Shias and Iran allow them, which alludes that the latter are not "true" Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.201.226 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have sources for your claims? If so, please post them here. Please note that theological arguments are not accepted on their own, although sources stating that arguments contrary to that presented as typical in this article are widespread are accepted.

I see no need for a re-write of an otherwise mostly unbiased article.

However, I suggest changing the wording in order to indicate that this is a matter of theological dispute. "The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures.[3] It is agreed on all sides that there is no authentic visual tradition as to the appearance of Muhammad, although there are early legends of portraits of him, and written physical descriptions whose authenticity is often accepted." should be changed to "The Quran does not appear to explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith which, according to common theological interpretations, have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures.[3] It is agreed on most sides that there is no authentic visual tradition as to the appearance of Muhammad, although there are early legends of portraits of him, and written physical descriptions whose authenticity is often accepted.". I would also suggest that you make an account. Although IP edits are allowed, it is better to sign your edits with a username. --Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources required are already in the article. The IP objects to presenting information in a way that might unintentionally demean smaller branches of Islam while favoring the majority Sunni view. Your suggested change of wording is OK except for the weasel words "appear to", which can be removed, and "It is agreed on most sides..." could be active voice "Most sides agree..." The paragraph is still missing an explanation that not all hadith are accepted by all flavors of Islam. The Sunnis and Shia follow hadith that have a large intersection, but don't match in some areas such as depictions of Muhammad. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. What does "does not appear to explicitly forbid images of Muhammad" mean? Either it explicitly forbids it or it doesn't. If there is any ambiguity then the word "explicitly" (which literally means "leaving no room for confusion or doubt") can't be used anymore. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Much too weaselly. What are the Muslim "sides" that think there is any "authentic visual tradition as to the appearance of Muhammad"? None! The Sunni/Shia distinction mainly applies to the modern day; the Persian tradition was well established before the royal courts turned Shia, and the Sunni Ottomans also produced some images. It is the Arabic-speaking areas that very rarely did so. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Bad-faith nominations like that won't last long. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Another bad-faith nomination that won't go anywhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Which images are necessary/ Undue weight to figurative depictions

Hi just wondering why images such as Muhammad and his followers massacring the Banū Qurayẓa or the beheading of Nadr ibn al-Harith are necessary, seems to be unnecessarily painting a bit of a bad light on a venerated guy? Especially since the massacre image is taken from the cover of an anti- Islam book. Also is it necessary to include so many from the Siyer-i Nebi and the Jami Al-Tawarikh. Just a couple of images showing different styles of figural depictions would suffice. Consider that in this article there are 37 figural depictions of Muhammad but only twenty- three non- figurative depictions and representations of him, which the articles states make up the majority of depictions of him. Seems to be giving undue weight to figurative depictions of Muhammad. Cheers Paul the Carrot (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul the Carrot (talk • contribs) 06:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

"figures"

This word in the opening paragraph is unclear to me. 216.8.188.31 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Not sure what is "correct" here. Sentient beings? Human figures? Got those from Aniconism in Islam. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps human figures, at least for now? 216.8.188.31 (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm going with it. We'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Idolism and Depiction

Worship in Islam is clearly definition of spiritual awareness and acceptance of Allah in our lives. The concept of image comes from drawing a sketch, and then you add up colors to provide depiction of figures. This is purely related to developing an idol; as these idols are represented in forms of figures. These are depictions of humans [ancestors], jins, animals. One concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, but also creating an image might lead the artist to claim the ability to create, an ability only ascribed to God. These images/idols are clearly forbidden in Islam as these are sources of Shirk.

It is impermissible in Islam to depict prophets in movies, pictures or images. There is no justification whatsoever for the depiction of the prophets and messengers of Allah (peace be upon them) due to their prodigious and venerated status. Allah’s prophets and messengers are the best of all humans, and HE raised them high above depiction by any other human being.

Allah has ranked prophets far above Satan’s impersonation in dreams. Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Name yourselves with my name (use my name) but do not name yourselves with my kunya name (i.e. Abu al-Qasim). And whoever sees me in a dream then surely he has seen me for Satan cannot impersonate me. And whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally), then let him occupy his place in hell-fire"(Bukhari and Muslim).

This hadith clearly proves that Allah Almighty preserves the status of the prophets (peace be upon them) and protects their message. Satan cannot impersonate the prophets either in reality or in a dream.

The holy Prophet of Islam Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) also said: “The intensive punishment of the people on the Day of Hereafter belongs to the drawers of pictures (idolism).”

Muhammad is an honored character among Muslims who often perceive cartoons and other material critical of him — as an attack on their Muslim identity and "it is a human impulse to want to protect what's sacred to you." This is so because, by the way of Faith, a believer has a link with Allah and His Prophet, and for this reason he has been mentioned in the same line and in the row of Allah (s.w.t.) and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Prior to /’iθman mubina/ because of its importance, since calumny is counted one of the greatest hurts, and the pain of the annoyance created by it is even more intensive than the pain of sword and dagger, because the pain of the wound of a dagger is reconcilable, but the wound of the tongue is not reconcilable.

In Quran (Surah Al-’Ahzab – Verse 57) Allah says:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالأَخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَاباً مُّهِيناً 

“Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and He has prepared for them a humiliating punishment.”

Annoying Allah means doing something against His desire and His consent that, instead of attracting His Mercy, one causes to bring His wrath and curse as a consequence. Purpose of annoying Allah may be purpose of annoying His Messenger (S) is to reject him, to denigrate him, to treat impolitely with him (peace and blessings upon him), hurting His Ahlul Bayt (as) and also undue attributions, accusations, or creating trouble.

Based on this, it is mandatory upon Muslims to respect our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and all the other prophets and messengers of Allah by refraining from presenting, producing, and releasing artworks that depict them. Lack of knowledge and ignorance may drive some authors to distort or manipulate the biography of any prophet for personal gain.

It is established in Islamic law that preventing harm takes precedence over gaining benefit. So, despite all the benefits that depict the prophets, these works involve real evil such as tampering with the prophets’ biographies and adding irrelevant and incorrect information. Al-Azhar’s Islamic Research Academy declared in resolution no. 100 of its 14th session of the 35th round held in Cairo on June 30, 1999 CE that it is impermissible to depict the prophets, messengers, the ten Companions who were promised paradise and the household of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in any form of art.

Based on the above, it is impermissible to violate the sanctity of the prophets and messengers by personifying them in any artwork. Producers should work on finding and presenting innovative ideas to introduce the biographies of the prophets in a manner befitting their status and avoid causing strife in the Muslim community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear if you are suggesting a change to the article, but see Help:Options to hide an image, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and WP:NOTFORUM. And you are of course welcome to Boycot WP as much as you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Statues of Muhammad

There doesn't appear to be any mention of statues. "For the first half of the 20th century, an eight-foot-tall marble statue of the Prophet Muhammad overlooked Madison Square Park from the rooftop of the Appellate Division Courthouse at Madison Avenue and 25th Street." Source NY Times: A Statue of Muhammad on a New York Courthouse More recently an artist in Australia with support from the Secular Party of Australia is building a statue mocking the prophet as an exercise in freedom of speech. Source: Wayne Smith building Muhammad Statue mocking the prophet. Strange that no mention of this far more grandiose imagery appears in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.219.227 (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It deserves a mention, although Facebook cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Paty's beheading

I'd like to add a short comment in the _Charlie Hebdo_ section :

On January 7, 2015, the office was attacked again with 12 shot dead, including Stéphane Charbonnier, and 11 injured. Following this, on 16 October of 2020, middle-school teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded because he had shown cartoons portraying Mohammed Murder_of_Samuel_Paty.

--FrancescoSagredo (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Since you are unable to edit the article since it is semi-protected, I added it for you. Some1 (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022

Use Template:Hidden image for the images which seems to be unwanted to watch by some readers. 103.230.107.2 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not censored. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad/Archive_2&oldid=1241709763"