Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 15

Problem with "Non-Consenting Viewers" Argument

The argument goes that there should be no image of Muhammad because a reader may unwittingly stumble upon it and view it as one would stumble upon pornography. The reason this argument doesn't work is simple. We can break all the page's viewers into two groups: Group One, which consists of those who think images of Muhammad should be postable and Wikipedia should not be bound by Islamic law, and Group Two, which believes that it is sinful to produce images of Muhammad and that Islamic law should be followed in the public domain. Anyone from group one will not have a problem viewing Muhammad's image because they do not consider it to be sinful, regardless of whether or not they knew the image was present prior to viewing it. On the other hand, anyone from group two will undoubtedly have a problem with the image being present, but will not consider their actions of stumbling upon it sinful because they were not aware of its presence before they saw it. This is not different from the sinfulness of a pornographic pop-up to a Christian viewer who had no control over its presence - he may have rather avoided it, but his action certainly does not constitute sin because he did not purposely view the pornography.

The catch here is that, even though the "non-consenting viewers" argument is nonsensical as explained above, such a viewer will automatically feel compelled to put an end to the display of the illustration. This is because the sin in their eyes does not come from accidentally viewing the image, it comes from moving on without doing their best to have the image removed. This is why so many here are attempting to have all such images taken down, because if they do not, then they are sinners in their own eyes. Knowing this, it becomes far easier to understand why they debate this issue so fervently, and it becomes immediately obvious that there really is no logical debate behind it at all. How far Islam requires them to go in their effort to have the image removed, however, is another debate altogether... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue can be sorted by NOPV rule. Because Wikipedia guidelines clearly said that all articles has to follow NOPV, but publishing or not to publish these images argument represent extreme left and extreme right. So I think the middle way is to only keep illustrations in which face is covered with Vail or white washed. -- (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that's censorship. TharkunColl (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
IP you are incorrect, although I respect such a viewpoint. As I explained above, the whole phenomenon can be properly understood when one considers the perceived sinfulness of a Muslim who chooses to leave an image of Muhammad unchallenged. The accidental viewing of such an image carries no burden of sin, but the failure to correct it (have it removed) would. Thus, Muslims who see pictures of Muhammad on the internet are duty-bound to demand you to take them down, and possibly go even further depending on which ones we are talking about. Thus their demands are a natural and logical reaction to the image's existence, but harbor no moral or ethical obligation on your part to comply. As long as the Muslim keeps asking, their moral obligation is fulfilled. To say that the presence of such a picture represents an "extreme" point of view bears no weight or evidence, and is therefore not grounds for censoring the image. Those things which are not lawfully forbidden have an expectation to be provided in a scholarly document, particularly when controversy surrounds them. It goes without saying that this is also a matter of pride when it comes to the West's concept of civil liberties, and I have no doubt that such pride in Western freedom is why many want the pictures up. This kind of pride is far from "extreme," and if you continue to believe it to be so, I think it is time you took a long, hard look at exactly what it is you are then espousing. (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No sir, you are incorrect. Our core policies include our not being censored. This isn't a pride issue at all. It's a censorship issue. Simply because an outside group disagrees with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will not change them. Wikipedia is not an Islamic site, is not bound my Islamic customs or laws, and is not obligated to bow to external pressure, no matter the source. Muslims are more than free to continue to demand the pictures removal, but I see no reason why demands for an unacceptable move would ever be met... ever. Pride is a deep issue (as you and I can certainly agree), but there is a fine line between pride and overbearing upon those who disagree. Jmlk17 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Simply because an outside group disagrees"... "not an Islamic site." This is the unsolved conondrum that the long debate circles around over and over. It is interesting you argure that people "outside" Wikipedia can not influence decisions, yet you accept that people outside Islamic oriented cultures can decide what pictures are included or not on this page. Why don't you treat this subject the same way you treat people "inside" to Wikipedia? You say the site is "not bound" "not obligated to bow" by Islamic customs or laws, yet the site attempts to portray something central to these customs. Why treat the complaint as someone dictating something? Why not take it as an insider advise? Something to think about...thanks...Rtwise (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise
Jmlk17 and future responders please take the time to actually read what has been posted. Jmlk17, we do not disagree on the basic issue. (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No issue here then. Jmlk17 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I do realise the whole non-censorship thing but does that mean that there'll be images of sex in a page marked sex? (I haven't looked at any of the pages I mentioned so don't ask me). Does that mean that I can post an image up of me murdering someone in a page titled 'Death', 'Murder' or 'Kill'? I'm not too sure about your definition about censorship but I know it certainly will not allow me to put an image up of someone being murdered. But why? Because it is illegal and wrong. Now, please, put yourself in a Muslim person's shoes as it is illegal and wrong for them.

It is not extreme. I am seriously annoyed by that term and by the term "Repression" Those two words are what represses Muslims -- anyway not getting of topic... Also I did not quite understand what you mean by the "insider" and "Outsider" people of Wikipedia? I truely hope that isn't discrimination against certain groups of people because as far as I am aware Wikipedia is everyone's encyclopedia and if it everyone's encyclopedia then shouldn't we show respect to everyone? Besides can I ask; does it make a huge difference to you if you don't see the images? No it doesn't, it doesn't change anything, but for Muslims that is an entirely different story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the difference is murder is illegal everywhere. A third-party view of a man's face's legality is not illegal everywhere. Since Wikipedia is everyone's encyclopedia, we don't conform to any set groups' ideology(s). Sexual intercourse does have depictions of that exact topic. Murder does have depictions of that topic. Hence, Muhammad has depictions of that exact same topic. Jmlk17 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to address a point you've raised. Our articles on various sexual activities indeed contain pictures and drawings of those sexual activities. I will provide you with a few links, looking at them is obviously at your own discretion: cunnilingus, fellatio, anal sex, 69 (sex position), etcetera. Our article on hanging contains pictures of people who have been hung. You can find a lot more examples of disgusting/offensive images at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Isn't censorship already employed on Wikipedia? (Don't worry, you won't see the images themselves if you click this link, you will only see links to the images. The image titles make clear what they show). AecisBrievenbus 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "everyone's" encycopledia. It is "anyone's" encyclopedia. There is a difference: "anyone" is anyone who has an internet connection, and who agrees to accept Wikipedia:Disclaimers, including Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. If you don't accept the disclaimers, Wikipedia is not for you, neither for editing nor for reading. It's as simple as that. Anything beyond that will be a legal question of Wikimedia as a foundation under Florida law, and as long as displaying images of Muhammad isn't outlawed in Florida, this is really the end of the discussion. dab (𒁳) 08:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, having read all this, I have some thoughts. 1. You can not put 1.5 billion people into "an outside group". Muslims are a part of Wikipedia as much as Christians or anyone else is for that matter. 2. Media/Journalism is free in today's world, good. But have we forgotten the "Ethics of Journalism" Which clearly advice us to "not to defame" or make fun? And yes, displaying "cartoon representations" of a Prophet is downright insulting. 3. If this is freedom, how many people would like me to have their family pictures for me to display and make fun of it? 4. If a Cannibal Corpse album cover, or any image showing Christ or Moses in a funny manner, NOT acceptable to Wikipedia, why is the image of Mohammad(PBUH)? Why the double-standard? 5. Prophet Muhammad's picture was never drawn, no one is sure if he looked like he is portrayed in these images. It not only hurts the muslims ego, but MISDIRECTS anyone who reads the article into creating an image of him in his mind. Which has no authenticity and no foundation as to being the true image. 6. Finally, I would like to say, "Media should be free, but not unbridled." We should start respecting other people's views and not make fun or paste images that are looked upon as blasphemous or fall out of the decency level. All of us would know the difference between freedom and decency, I assume. Akeeq (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not a publisher of news, so point 2 is irrelevant to us - we have decided on our own content rules. --Fredrick day 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought this also fell in the category of "Cyber Journalism". Even if it doesn't, isn't decency and ethics a part of anything that is supposed to be meritable? As for the "our own rules" does those rules exempt wikipedia from any sort of decency? What rules are you talking about to begin with? Any international set of rules? I'd like to know. :)

Akeeq (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to point #4, do you mean images like the one on Piss Christ? Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
I don't see any cartoon representation of Christ, let alone, a totally irrelevant picture of him. Not that I agree to it. Besides that, I'll like to have an answer for point # 5 too. Thank you.Akeeq (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, if the idea of having an image of how he looked like, so important, it can always be presented in words. And the whole issue be put to an end.Akeeq (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Or better yet, we could have primarily textual descriptions of the prophet, and then just one or perhaps two examples of pictures of him -- which is exactly what we have now. (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Textual representation leaves it on the reader to make an image of him in his own mind. Whereas these images, which were made centuries afterwards have no authenticity to them, and would mould a readers image. For instance, I portrayed him differently after having read the textual represention, to which the cartoon representation drastically differs. Encyclopedias usually do NOT give references to pictures of people made hundres of years after their death. That too, cartoon ones.Akeeq (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of having the images is not an attempt to determine what Mohammed or Mahomet looked like, but instead to show historical representations of him, including Islamic ones. I'm sure the Islamic artists who depicted him didn't intend to offend or insult people. Twalls (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Historical "cartoon" representations? I don't find it very "encyclopedia" like. Which encyclopedia shows cartoon representations of Christ/Mohammad/Moses? I'd like to know. Only 50 countries in the world have "Code of Ethics" does this mean Wikipedia will go with the majority? Akeeq (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What on Earth are you talking about? The images are artworks of Muhammed, similar to artworks of Jesus or Buddha or John Smith. And as an interesting aside, I can honestly say that after reading some of the textual descriptions of Muhammed from the hadith (that some people so vehemently tout as being infinitely better than any mere visual depiction) that these images portray Muhammed pretty accurately for medieval art. At least as accurately as any similar depiction of Jesus or Buddha or John Smith. Lor (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
For goodness sake, my point is those images were not made in his lifetime, if I make a portrayal of ADAM today, does that authenticate it? Would the image be considered valid? Just because someone made it hundreds of years later? As for the depiction, I know it's not intended to make fun, and I agreed to it earlier on.Akeeq (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the Danish cartoons, Akeeq. I'm referring to historical Persian and Ottoman art which does show him, tastefully and respectfully. I would agree that the cartoons don't belong in the main article, but they aren't in there in the first place. Unfortunately, I think many otherwise well-meaning people labor under the same misunderstanding, not even looking at the page out of fear they'll have to look at them. Again, the act of showing these historical representations on Wikipedia is not an attempt to "try and find out what he looked like." I understand your rationale for leaving things to peoples' imagination, but it really doesn't apply here. I think people are smart enough to realize the ones in question are pieces of historical religious art and not some kind of provocation, and that none of the faithful are in danger of venerating the image over the Mohammed. Twalls (talk)
Alright, this does make sense to me. See after going through the depictions, what I have found out is that obviously these images are not there to make fun of the prophet or anything of that sort. There obviously is a religious censor to NOT to make his images, which wikipedia downright refuses to acknowledge. On the other hand, I still don't find it very important to show any artists portrayal of the prophet, there is no need for it. Even then, if the depiction was drawn in his lifetime it would've been more plausible.Akeeq (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I may have missed something, Akeeq, but where do we present these depictions as authentic and valid, or as historically accurate for that matter? Where do we present these depictions as anything other than depictions, artistic interpretations? Rest assured, btw, we do acknowledge that there is a "religious censor" to displaying the images, it's just that we have decided not to abide by it. AecisBrievenbus 11:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, why If I may ask? Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget the time period either folks. It's not like you could grab a camera and snap a picture of him. All pictures of anything or anyone had to be drawn by hand. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Because abiding by such a rule/guideline/law/instruction/censor would go at the expense of encyclopedic content. Aecis·(away) talk 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Gary. Accurate image photography has been around for only about 100 or so years. Thus, anyone since the beginning of time has had their image just depicted, not photographed. This argument that "the images of Muhammad aren't accurate" is invalid, as every image from that time period is the same: a depiction of the common accepted beliefs of the view of the person. Enough said. That "argument" has no basis, and as such, this discussion really had no solid, grounded merit. Jmlk17 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree Jm1k, I agree about the part of being "depicted" BUT my point is, those depictions were made AFTER his death. Not in his lifetime. King George's portrait was "depicted" with him sitting infront of the artist, not in his mind. So calling the arguement in itself as invalid is pretty.. well, childish. Akeeq (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I also find it as against the basic human rights. Now what are basic human rights? Everyone should know. If a large population of the world is hurt by the images, isn't it going against human rights? I think it is. You can not go out butt-naked in the street or have sex on the street, why? For the sake of others. Morals. For the same reason, you do not go and call other people's belief and faith as wrong, why? Their rights. For the same reason, if a billion people are hurt by the images posted here, do you not think it's against there basic human right to "not be offended?" If wikipedia thinks otherwise, then this is a sorry state this encyclopedia is in. More like.. intellectual prostitution. Akeeq (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't be prostitutes, we don't charge! (Hypnosadist) 10:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha. :> Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Akeeq, public nudity is illegal--not a violation of anyone's human rights (as typically defined) and not being offended is not part of any prominent view of human rights. Hell, stupidity offends me but yet I see enough of it (at my university). But please, this is not the place for an argument of morality or Wikipedia policy. A policy as broad as not censored and no disclaimers must be taken to the Village Pump or to the mailing lists and it will take years to change if ever. gren グレン 04:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
So, according to this, anyone is free to publish anything he/she wants without any check on them? Sounds more like jungle-law to me. Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"And I also find it as against the basic human rights." I find your argument ironic Akeeq. You rally against Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Information as if these are instruments of torture. Without these your left with a police state that violates the things that free societies stand for. In reality you do not understand or choose to ignore the Freedom of Religion that is prevalent in western cultures. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I do "not" rally against freedom of speech or anything "freedom" to be precise. My only point is, in displaying "freedom" we should take in view the feelings of a group we are dealing with. I don't find it very appealing to display my freedom of speech or expression by humilating/degrading any particular person/group, or hurting their sentiments. (An example) And I don't think any "encyclopedia" should stoop down to that level either. Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The inclusion of material that people object to on Wikipedia violates no ones' rights. It can be presented with decorum, however. No one has a right not to be offended; there is no such thing unless there is some kind of prior agreement between consenting individuals. If I am not mistaken, readers of Wikipedia implicitly consent to its policies. Now, I am offended by insulting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad as well as the 'Piss Christ', as they are regrettable, tasteless and even ridiculous, but they do not violate anyone's rights to life, liberty or property (except when tax dollars are used to fund them, as in the case of 'Piss Christ' but that's another story). So it is not a question of rights, as those are easy to delineate in this matter.Twalls
So, why is the Holocaust denial so touchy a subject? Not long ago, a 60year old professor was sent to jail for denying it. A simple denial of a history event makes the world go gaga, where does freedom of speech go then? Why are only jews given the right to "not be offended"? (Again, an example)Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And a completely irrelevant and off-topic example at that, not worthy of a response. This is not about the Holocaust, this is about a Wikipedia article. What is it with the Muslim obsession with Jews? Why do people always point to the Jews when they try to make a point? Aecis·(away) talk 13:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And whats making you flare up so much? It was an example, should be taken like that. Obsession with the jews? Personally, I'd be more bothered if my dog didn't take a bath rather than reading about jew kids writing messages on missles that killed Lebanese kids. Anyway, the example was in response to freedom of speech, too bad if you can't get it.Akeeq (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
But what we're talking about here on Wikipedia in this particular article are historical depictions of Muhammads made by Muslims themselves. If some modern aniconic Sunni sects have a problem with some past or modern Shia making images of the Prophet or of God, they should take it up with them directly, or those certain Sunni imams should instruct their followers to mentally process these images in the desired manner when they encounter them. I'm curious - when a child makes an innocent drawing of God (as I remember doing) or Muhammad, is that a punishable sin? How is that dealt with by strict aniconists? Children can view Wikipedia too. Twalls (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a child's "innocent drawing" on wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encylopedia, not a nursery drawing book. Moreover, it's not about whats sin and whats not, it's about hurting the sentiments of a billion people around the world. For whatever faith they practice. That is not for us to question.Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Akeeq you appear to be trolling. Your arguments are poor and your comparisons appalling. I suggest you take a step back and gather yourself if you wish us to assume good faith. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling? Excuse me, I find your arguement more like trolling. More like you are hellbent on arguing rather than accepting anyting.Akeeq (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
A picture is worth a thousand words... ever hear that expression? It holds true. Someone could describe something for pages, and yet still not do as good of a job as a portrait could. Also, a quick Google search brings up numerous other sites (many that actually have highly-offensive depictions of Muhammad) that are not being subjected to a flawed petition and spurious demands. The only reason Wikipedia is being subjected to these? We are a popular website... enough said. Jmlk17 14:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The only reason wikipedia is subjected is because its supposed to be an enyclopedia not another blog. (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand where the heck the Muslims who want to remove the images get the idea that a billion people will be offended by viewing these images, and that they speak for this supposed billion people. It just makes no sense on so many levels.Eik Corell (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think so? Whatever the case, the basic ideas of a religion are relatively same all around the world.Akeeq (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That's very true. Whether to depict the image of Muhammad is an internal debate for Islam and should not determine Wikipedia policy or content. Now, some Deobandi and Wahhabist sects disparage images of any living thing, so I imagine they would be offended by any Wikipedia article with an image of a person or animal. Also, Akeeq, please do not insert a comment in the middle of another person's comment. It eliminates the proper placement of the signature. Twalls (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Not insert a comment inbetween someone's comment? didn't get it, I think I'm using the colon signs properly. :/ Sorry if its not the case. As for your point, for once, I see a reasonable answer.Akeeq (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it is right or wrong to display a picture of Muhammad, but if displaying the picture has merit to the encyclopedia entry itself. The argument should not be about respecting people rights that are formed from their religious ideals, nor respecting freedom of speech because it is a law. If a person steps back from looking at it from a biased point of view (meaning from any religion, personal preference, etc), and instead judges the merit of displaying without predisposition, then based only on the idea that some people remember and understand history better if they have a face to match a name and details; displaying the picture has merit and should be displayed. Considering that the knowledge of a picture of someones interpretation of what Muhammad looked like can not be connected to any direct physical or mental harm under normal circumstances, there seems to be no reason not to have it available. On a side note, I can see why Muslims are required to ask for the change, if they are indeed duty bound to request a pictures removal. To play devil's advocate: The general reasons for not having a picture of Muhammad seem outdated, and no longer necessary. Can this rule not be changed in order to suit this day and age? Nothing is permanent, everything must change at some point. There is no fair way to decide the issue if you involve the personal preferences of people from different cultures. Logic, as always, with as little interference of emotion as possible, is the best resort for something that is so irrevocably tied to strong emotions. (-Kurai) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then there is still no issue... the pictures do the article complete justice with showing what the commonly accepted idea of Muhammad's image was at the time of their creation. Jmlk17 23:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Islam forbits the depiction of the Prophet's image, he difinitely did not sit down and allow anyone to draw him. So, any images of him that others have chosen to draw hundreds of years later are not actually images of him. They are inacurate, they are wrong. This is why they should be removed, the information is false. As to the argument that the images are not intended to depict what he looked like but rather to show historical representations of him, that means someone who has never seen George Bush can one day draw a picture of him based on what our culture has representated him as and that will be considered a picture it is fair to use?? Cause...not all white men of X height and Y weight look the same. The same applies to Middle Easterners. Particularly, a person who is very unpopular among a certain group can be incorrectly described and drawn by that group. Those pictures should be taken down because they are the equivalent of allowing a person you have never met, who might dislike you, to draw you and then to have that picture bandied about as a representation of you. Even if they are not biased, they are still inaccurate. Wikipedia, as a group which removes inaccurate information from its pages when they are found, should remove any images of the Prophet. Also, it certainly should not stubbornly make claims that it will never remove the images. As the very least, fair and respectful arguments against the images should always be given fair and respectful consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know he didn't? Maybe Muhammad did commission portraits of himself. But you're missing the point, and attempting to find another outlet. The are no photographs, nor 100% accurate representations of anyone throughout history, not until the mid 19th century. Artwork is artwork, and always has been, hence why the images are included. Good Lord, your argument is so full of holes I can't take the time to write (for the 100th time) against this exact same argument. Please archive this overdone thread. Jmlk17 03:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no photographs of a lot of people throughout history. There are, however, commissioned portraits in which the subject sat for several hours and allowed a talented artist to take time to look them over and draw them. Those portraits can be argued to be accurate, the ones here cannot. There is a very tangible difference. I'm going to say that I know that Muhammad did not commission portraits of himself because he was the prophet of a religion which bans his image being depicted. He himself said such a thing is not allowed. You say my argument has holes which you have already addressed, but I've looked over this page and haven't seen you actually answer any of the points I've raised. You're not claiming the picture might be accurate, you're just saying there are a lot of inaccurate ones. I'm responding that those other ones can reasonably be expected to be accurate, and this one can't be. This same exact argument has not been made anywhere on the page, please do not try to discard my point by lumping it in and throwing it away with the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See the archives... see the FAQs, etc. Your reasoning isn't the first. Jmlk17 05:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Need to contact the person who created this site

Don't worry, I'd would like to ask you a few questions about rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no one person, but you are more than free to email myself, any other admin/user, or ask here on on my talk page. Jmlk17 05:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You could also ask here. If your questions are about the images, you should first read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. / edg 06:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This page has hundreds if not thousands of authors. This encyclopedia has millions of authors. You can see the details in the "history" button at the top of each page. (1 == 2)Until 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If by rights you're referring to a desire to copy some of this article, see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Location of Warning Notice

At the top of the page Talk:Muhammad there is a large box with a hand signaling STOP. It carries the message that images representing Muhammad - PBUH - are in the article and are not to be removed, based on a previous decision. It goes on to advise that people who may be offended by such images can set their browser so the images are not displayed to them.

This is fine but for one little detail. The images are not on the Talk:Muhammad page.

They are on the Muhammad page where there is no such warning.

By the time someone reaches the Talk:Muhammad page and has the opportunity to read the message, it is likely that they have already seen the Muhammad page and been offended, if their culture and religion makes such images offensive to them.

Wanderer57 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking why they are not on the actual article page? Jmlk17 22:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It is understood that Talk pages generally refer to their article. This is not a disclaimer to help prevent users from accidently seeing images on the article page but more of a "this Talk page is for article improvement discussions". User can read the FAQ about the picture issue OR go to this talk page to discuss the images. This is no mistake and by design. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Gary put the issue more concisely than I can, so I'll borrow some of his words. There SHOULD be a disclaimer to help prevent users from accidently seeing images on the article page.
The first part of the message, (i.e., that there are images representing Muhammad - PBUH - in the article and that there is a way to read the article yet avoid seeing the images) SHOULD appear at the beginning of the article.
The likelihood is that a person who comes to the article as a reader, not as an editor, will see the article before seeing the Talk page (if they ever do see the Talk page.) Without such a note at the beginning of the article, then the note at the beginning of the Talk page is more a charade than an effort to accommodate the beliefs held by some Wikipedia readers. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The message could include something like Click here to go to an alternate version of the article with the same text but without the images which some consider offensive. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
None of these things is likely to happen. You should probably read everything in the top of the Talk:Muhammad page that you have pointed out. Read the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and the discussions. Everything you have said is addressed in there. Garycompugeek (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't find discussion there of the issue I raised. Are you referring to current pages or archives when you say "Everything you have said is addressed in there" ? Wanderer57 (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try not to be obtuse but the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ tries to explain why the images are shown over contemporary objections. If you want details about specifics follow dab's advice and read archives. They are quite in depth and extensive dating all the way back to beginning of the mediation/arbitration about a year ago. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The summary of the discussion is that: "Since we have Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, we don’t give a shit what may happen"--Be happy!! (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You say " There SHOULD be a disclaimer to help prevent users from accidently seeing images on the article page". This has been discussed, rehashed, and flogged to death over and over again. The short answer is: we have Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, and that's the only disclaimer we want, or need. For context, see the faq. For the gory details, read the archives. dab (𒁳) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. Thanks dab, for making it clear I would need to go to the archives. I don't think they were mentioned before.
Garycompugeek, just to be clear, I HAVE NOT questioned the policy of showing images despite objections.
Aminz/Be happy, I have no way of knowing if your admirably brief summary is meant to be tongue-in-cheek or taken at face value. If the latter, it seems appallingly cavalier, given the sensitivity of the issues involved.
I'll try to read the archives. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
more precisely, if you want to discuss the general principle of no disclaimers in articles, you'll need to go to Wikipedia_talk:No disclaimers in articles. dab (𒁳) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If these Pictures were real?

These pictures are not real and therefore no one is allowed to make any one's pictures just by imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqarpak (talkcontribs) 07:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. Jmlk17 15:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we are now having 'imaginary depictions' of people on enyclopedias in the name of freedom of expression. Atleast thats what I can understand. No wonder this site never gets a proper encyclopedia standard anywhere. Oh well, I'm sort of bored of all this discussion because I don't see either of the party agreeing on anything. Akeeq (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Every image in existence of any figure created before the age of photography can be described as being an "imaginary depiction". Many, many encyclopedias use such images throughout. Resolute 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Paintings of old English Kings, for example. Fnagaton 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Or anyone until the mid 18th-century AD. Good Lord, how is that even an argument? Jmlk17 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think we can take something out of this... that we should in some way distinguish between contemporaneous portraiture and these "imaginary images". But, that, of course, doesn't mean they can't be important. The "imaginary" images of Jesus have shaped the way Western Christendom view him and, relatively, the lack of images of Muhammad have helped to shape the Muslim image of him. Of course that may all change with greater access to such images. gren グレン 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the article mention that naturalistic images are a minority viewpoint? Can't any discerning reader determine that visual dedpiction doesn't inform "the Muslim image of him" from the article as it stands? -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I agree with you which is why I didn't want a figurative image in the lead and wanted fewer--consensus was against that for whatever reason. For better or worse we work through consensus. (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an abstract image in the lead. Consensus has generally pushed figurative images down to sections of the article where they directly relate to the text. In a way, it's not unlike the conditions of the initial creation and use of the images. -MasonicDevice (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, portraits from the Renaissance on are generally accurate in a way that earlier depictions are not. The basics of perspective and the very idea of portraiture approximating the real look of a person dates from then, so that's really more of the cutoff point than the invention of photography. That said, I don't see too many people protesting the images of other Middle-Ages or Classical figures (and I made that point in the FAQ).—Chowbok 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Respect of religion, is it really that hard to respect one another and there beliefs, many people come to wikipedia for information, when information is shown that is not accurate and/or not respectful to religion, what is it that people learn, inaccurate information, that is what. This goes for all religions and not just Islam. I think there should be a way that if one is not fully accurate on the information, or one says so one can edit to state that it is innacurate and one should have a choice to view it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkinc (talkcontribs) 05:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal beliefs and opinions have no place in an encyclopedia where the established norm (and rule) is neutrality. Jmlk17 05:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions in Wiki Policy

I went through discussion on September 11 attacks on wiki and discovered that wiki has the policy to put all conspiracy theories out from the article because THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA does not support those theories, in this article about Muhammad (PBUH), wiki has put on Illustrations, and refused to remove them, do'nt they think it is in clear contradiction to the MAIN STREAM islamic views?, secondly it is a historical fact that Muhammad (PBUH) never got his picture drawn, nor his close companions did, does’nt this make those illustrations out of context, concocted and a mere imaginations of sick minds from centuries till this date? I request to remove all non representative illustrations out from the main article, simply because the illustrations are not representative of the personality being the subject of the article and the MAIN Stream (1 Billion Muslims) do not accept those images to have any relavance to the Prophet (PBUH), and next time if wiki adds an article about my Papa, my opinion should be considered main stream as i keep record of his life and not of XYZ's Mkashifafzal (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

Read the FAQs... Jmlk17 23:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Answer it here Mkashifafzal (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that's the point. Your argument has been brought up countless dozens of times, and it has been addressed and discussed to death. I could easily point out that we are not censored, always conform to a neutral point of view, etc. But that doesn't do the issue justice. Read the archives, the FAQs, etc. Jmlk17 05:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC
I have been thru FAQ' it says the policy does not contradict, and that is governed by law of State of Florida, perhaps i shall go thru state of florida law and then from there refered to some where else or back to archive of FAQ. thanks for your help, my point is that policy is biased and yes others may have also raised it, this does not make it a dead issue.Mkashifafzal (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Then what exactly is your point? Your last statement doesn't make sense. Also, you have to read the whole thing. It perfectly explains why the images of Muhammad remain. Jmlk17 05:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I started with a reference to discussion on article 11 sep attacks, a neutral point of view would suggest to add a head on Conspiracy theories within the main article besides just telling the official story, but that is simply not done because that goes direclty aginst the us administration, perhaps forbiden by florida law, perhaps then either Wiki shall not consider it self neutral or put some servers in Qandhar or China, and then declare that the policy is not affected by any states law. Just simply discuss to add conspiracy in the first section of the article 11 sep attacks, you will have an answer to what Main Stream means to Wiki pediaMkashifafzal (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Re Sept 11 see WP:UNDUE --NeilN talkcontribs 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks NeilN, so you think, that the depictions, historical or current are from reliable source and have been quiet prominently accepted by the people who have been knowing Muhammad(PBUH), No, the point of view of depictions of humans is not prominent even in majority of Shias, the depictions simply fall disqualified as they are not supported by more popular views of people who have been knowing Muhammad (PBUH).
I suggest all depictions be removed and simple sentense be added in the article Muhammad(PBUH), telling that a minority of shias and majority of all religions like to draw figures and cartoon of Prophets as practice of freedom of expression, and they do not have any historical significance or relation to the Personality or teachings and practice of The Prophet of Islam Muhammad (PBUH)Mkashifafzal (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggest all you like my friend. You're not the first to do so. You will certainly not be the last. The point is, they are images of what Muhammad's image was thought to be in the Muslim world when they were drawn of him. They're not exact 100% photographic representations, and are not being depicted as such either. They are what Muslims at the time thought him to be, in action of what he supposedly did. Jmlk17 06:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There's already a similar note in the article: "Muhammad's face is not veiled; there is no such image available with unveiled face in Islamic art from the 16th century onwards." --NeilN talkcontribs 06:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Scroll down the article and you find images on the right side of the browser, tells like figures are the most important aspect of the article, those figures were drawn by some muslims (your claim), even if were drawn by you, i would not get them removed from the wiki. I just completed by duty to notify you of your biased attitudes. May Allah guide you to right pathMkashifafzal (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

...and we're biased. Right. They were drawn by Muslims, that is proven. I'm glad your duty is done then. May your god guide you. Jmlk17 06:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A muslim is one who testifies that God is one and Muhammad (PBUH) is his prophet, then abide by the laws, if someone claims to be a muslim and then does opposit to what law says does not change the Islamic Law or Majority muslims belief, so proven or not, those were drawn by an un proven insignificant minority, do not ask Allah to guide you to right path, but do ask your God to guide you to right pathMkashifafzal (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Gee, that is exactly the type of point of view pushing we are trying to avoid by not letting people dictate our content by their beliefs. You really don't get to decide "who is Muslim", and you certainly don't decide for Muslims what we show here. (1 == 2)Until 14:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"tells like figures are the most important aspect of the article" - I don't understand this. --NeilN talkcontribs 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Showing the images is not presenting a factual point of view, it is presenting an illustrations of the subject. If you look at the September 11, 2001 attacks you will see a picture of the attack even though it bothers some people to see. It never ceases to amaze me how much people are willing to twist reality to somehow make it seem like our policy is against these pictures. Sorry, but our policy is for showing these images, and so it the consensus of the community. (1 == 2)Until 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"So it is the consensus of the community", How exactly is it a consensus of the community when we have people saying that they don't agree to the posting of these pictures? You can't have a "community" of five people decide an issue on your own and then declare boldly that the "community" has decided that these pictures stay. It's obviously the decision of a few posters here who believe that they need to give prominance to every issue that Muslims find offensive. As the pictures depiting Muhammad (pbuh) are NOT based on fact, but are merely the imaginary works of the artisits who drew these hundreds of years later, they should not be presented here. (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

to answer the original question: pictures of Muhammad are not a "conspiracy theory". The analogy is broken from the beginning. dab (𒁳) 08:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The images are gone

I can't be bothered at the moment trawling through the history to find out when this vandalism occured, but the images that portray muhammed's actual face have been removed. They must be restored at once for the principle of the thing. -- (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like some markup code was accidentally removed from the image on an unrelated edit. I have fixed this to restore the image. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Black Stone image

This image is not relevant to this article; it is referring to a specific episode at Muhammad's youth whose historicity is disputed in academia (like many other reports from Muhammad's youth); too much of detail. This story is not covered in this article; too excessive detail. Aside from these, it is placed in the end of the article out of the flow of the article. Thus I think it should be removed.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing you have right is that it is in the wrong place. Should be at the very top imo, along with the other image that shows his face. -- (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait, an old and inaccurate imaginary depiction that is debatable whether or not it deserves to be in the article needs to be moved to the top? Please explain that logic to me. Please explain why that makes any more sense than me drawing a random face right now and saying "this is a drawing of Muhammad's face and thus deserves to be at the top of the article." May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought the question of "inaccurate" and "imaginary" in pictures was settled, particularly when the piece was made by someone who had never seen the subject or before the advent of photography. Frotz (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If it has been "settled" then it's news to me. While I certainly agree that removing such images for religious reasons is unencyclopedic, I cannot help but suspect that WP:UNCENSORED is being used as an excuse to shove any images that can be found in there regardless of the inaccuracies it may promote. As Jimbo put it "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information."
I'm talking about a common justification offered here for removing the pictures. It seems to me that people who make such arguments insist that a painting must be indistinguishable from a photograph in order to be rightly called a picture of whatever the subject is. To show how silly this is, one only has to look at the myriads of differing depictions of Jesus. One of the more interesting ones I've found is the one leading the article Roman Catholicism in Japan. It's quite clear to everyone that neither Jesus nor his mother could have looked or dressed like that. Does that make the mosaic "false"? Frotz (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No that is not what people are saying here. No one here is saying that hand drawn portraits need to be picture perfect for them to be used. When we speak of the imges of Muhammad (pbuh), these are not "portraits" as the people who drew these had never even seen the Prophet (pbuh), let alone spent time with him to draw his portrait. These images are completely imaginary and hence totally false. By posting these images wiki promotes this false information. (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
But frankly, I hold little hope that the image will be removed, almost entirely because of the religious arguments for it and vandalism of the article by persons following that mentality. That biased movement, ironically, will in the end have the opposite of its desired effect, and there is little likelihood that even the most reasonable arguments will lead to the image's removal. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
contradiction in terms: there is no "reasonable argument" for removal of the images, by definition they are all being made from a point of *no* rationality. -- (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So anyone who argues against your position is irrational? If so, how convenient for your point of view. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
They are not (necessarily) irrational, but their "argument" is. This is by virtue of the fundamental irrationality of their pov itself, not due to the fact that they happen to disagree with me. -- (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Aminz knows very well that he is just flogging a dead horse here. --dab (𒁳) 21:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the image is not relevant to this article because it is depicting an incident that is not so minor, possibly fictional and in any case not described in this article. This is simply not the place to add the picture. Muhammad in Mecca can host that because more detail of Muhammad's life in Mecca is mentioned there.
That the picture has been subject to controversy does not mean it should be added even when it is out of context. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree so much with how dab put it but I think it would definitely be better not to get into this discussion again for a while... gren グレン 10:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would be very interested in discussing the image's place in the article, as it is very important to make sure that our defense of images of Muhammad in this article in general does not prevent us from removing images that don't belong here for other reasons.
However, I would emphasise the fact that, because there are so few depictions of Muhammad in art, the value of this is in its depiction of Muhammad himself, rather than its depiction of the specific incident of the Black Stone. In that sense, not only is it an important image, but it's also currently in the most appropriate article, namely the article about Muhammad. Lor (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New image

Just figured I'd toss a link to Image:Muhammad (Great Leaders of History).jpg here, I'll let you guys decide if it's worth adding to the article. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. We don't need such images. This image is also misleading. The person who drew the image seem to be unaware that crescent has nothing to do with early Islam. Once used by Christians, it was adopted by Muslims at least 800 years after Muhammad. According to Britannica:

... Later it became the symbol of the Byzantine Empire, supposedly because the sudden appearance of the Moon saved the city of Byzantium (Constantinople) from a surprise attack. It once was thought that the Ottoman Turks adopted the crescent for their own flags after capturing Constantinople in 1453, but in fact they had been using the symbol for at least a century before that, for it appeared on the standards of their infantry under Sultan Orhan (c. 1324–c. 1360). In that case, however, the crescent may have been of different origin, formed by the base-to-base conjunction of two claws or horns. Whatever its origin, the crescent became closely associated with the Ottoman Empire (appearing on military and naval standards and on the tops of minarets), its successor states, and the world of Islam in general...In medieval European heraldry the crescent was originally a mark of great honour adopted by many returned crusaders, particularly in France.

--Be happy!! (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That image is indeed completely worthless, artistically, historically, and aesthetically. We shouldn't be wasting time with even discussing it. Fut.Perf. 07:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Geez, everyone's a critic. What about the lovely Sam The Sham-style turban? You cannot deny, Fut.Perf., that those were in fashion on the Arabian peninsula at the time. Twalls (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
To put it another way, that is to say to put it without being nasty: I see very little information on that images page demonstrating its historical context and value. (1 == 2)Until 14:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Solution

Could someone put a warning at the begining of the article so that Mouslims would know that the pictures were there before they saw them. That might help alot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No someone couldn't. See Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. -- (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
OK I didn't know, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations references

good evening people , about one of the illustrations with the following reference: "Illustration of Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī's al-Âthâr al-bâqiya." I personally reviewed the book , and i couldn't find such an illustration ... does this mean something ???? the book is within The University of Jordan Library you can check it's existence by following this link unified index of Jordan university library the keyword is "البيروني" .. i wonder why would someone claims that this illustration belongs to that book .. he didn't expect us to read that book ??? please comment .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There are different editions of the manuscript. The ones in Scotland and France have the illustration. See The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. --NeilN talkcontribs 21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If this portrait is not provided then there is no harm and if it is provided then it does harm the feeling of billions of people. please decided yourself.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, we need a portrait of muhammed like everyone else on WikiPedia

Otherwise it will be hard to relate to the content of this article. Thanks. (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally the issue is not one of satisfying religious beliefs. To do so would be oppressive on those people who choose not to believe in this faith. Therefore, the image should be shown. If this offends people then so be it. The decision is not theirs to impose, in the same way pictures of other material may be offensive to some, the majority are who matter.

Wikipedia has a right and a role to publish such images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick word on "the majority are who matter": If information or pictures are relevant to an article then they should be included regardless of who may be offended (majority or minority). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Another possible way to approach this problem.

I know Wikipedia is not censored, and I know you cannot have disclaimers in articles. However, a button could be added to the top of the page to load a copy of the page without images at all (in a new window). Comments appreciated. CompuHacker (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah but there is no problem. We came to a consensus as to what the solution was, which was to show the pictures. The idea of a opt-out system, or a separate version of the page without images has been discussed and rejected rather a few times already. I suggest something like adblock plus to anyone that wants the images hidden. 1 != 2 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The strict aniconists who say no one should make, reproduce or view depictions of the prophets would still object - not conceding that there are other traditions in Islam which did and do allow it. There'd still be those who mistakenly think by virtue of including the images that Wikipedia is proclaiming "yep, that's what he looked like", unable to consider the context in which they are presented - as historical, reverent religious art from a particular Islamic tradition. And they would also get worked up over the idea of the faithful being tempted to sneak a peek at the version of the article with images.
It has been said already, but any browser worth its salt can be set to not load images automatically. Twalls (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
How about creating a Wikipedia fork, without any images at all? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone is welcome to create a fork, just as long as they find a different web host than Wikipedia. Our license allows for this. 1 != 2 15:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Person

I've put Template:Infobox Person in this article (like in Jesus). If you find Muhhamad image is not appropriate, please choose another one.--Mladifilozof (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm against censoring or capitulation of any kind to any external faction, but this particular placement does seem a little provocative. I don't think it's necessary. The image is fine later on in the article, but I don't think it should occupy a central position like the infobox. Twalls (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Either the display of the image is forbidden (as it is under shariah) or it isn't (as it is not under WP policy). Either way its placement is irrelevant. It will not be "less offensive" because we hid it below the fold. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Wikipedia does not and should not follow religious dictates, but our actions as editors are conscious decisions. We as Wikipedia editors can choose to exhibit a certain sensitivity when appropriate. Look, I have long argued for including the reverent historical art, but placed as the main image in the infobox makes it seem like a direct provocation. Placing it under the fold does make a difference. Twalls (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia advertises itself as an encyclopedia - therefore clearly it should not be hosting debates —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors regularly collaborate on, discuss, and yes, even debate the content of articles on the Talk pages (I guess you want your money back?).
If you are referring to internal Islamic heterodoxies, you are right -- we don't host that kind of debate, but we can document and note it. Twalls (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No new messages for a while. Perhaps the debate has finally died out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just A question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture Should be REMOVED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another comment

I wish to know the name of the person who is making such absurd responses from the side of wickid-pedian team, because if the person believe that the content published here cannot lead to loss of lives, then he/she is highly wrong as this kind of incident has happened before and there was loss of lives because of excessive violent protest done by muslims (during the time of cartoon controversy)! I'll like to put this thing in the notice of wikipedia that they are NOT just only DISOBEYING their own (so called) Guidelines but are also disrespecting many other things, being not 'Tenants of any religion" doesn't automatically grant rights to become "Tenants of ABSOLUTE FREEDOM". I'll prove that how the wicked-peida is going against its own policies by publicizing Hazrat Muhammad's Pictures and then pointing out , we mean no disrespect (though we call other people to come and disrespect those things which we want to place under disrepute,in this case the target was certainly 'Islam'.

Here I begin :-

1) Wikipedia talks about 5 pillars and one of the pillar is " Principles of Wikipedia etiquette" :-

Comment:- Etiquette (and the meaning of etiquette incase the wicked-pedian team doesn't realize is " Rules governing socially acceptable behaviour " (wordweb dictionary). It is NOT ACCEPTED at any part of the WORLD that any REMARKS / STATEMENTS be passed against any RELIGION that has the tendency to offend its followers or disrespect its teachings.

2) No personal attacks:- ".......Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, RACIST....." Comment:- I along with more than 30 billion muslims find this article plus the (doubtful) pictures of Hazrat Muhammad(PBUH) offensive (do i need to sue the person who made these pictures inorder to convince wickedpedian that I find this article greatly offensive ? ).

3) If I ever say anything offensive against the wicked-pedia OR the administrator of wicked-pedia THEN my post will immediately be DELETED, why so; Because I am being offensive to some person... But when now Wikipedia is being offensive to billions of muslims then WHY IS THE PICTURE STILL ALLOWED TO STAY THERE ????

Just as a piece of reminder:- Not obeying Jewish religion or Christianity or Islam DOESNOT RENDERS the LOSS OF COMMON SENSE or SENSE OF MAKING FAIR DECISIONS.


My pointers may sound offensive to Wicked-Peidian team and their keen supporters . It was highly necessary to bring one obvious thing to their notice, EVERY RESPONSE THEY MAKE DOESN'T STAND WITH THEIR POLICIES / GUIDELINES, plus by justifying themselves for NOT removing offensive pictures EXHIBITS their NEGLECTS on core issues (which anyone will understand without detail explanation) and ALSO EXHIBITS their degree of foolishness because Every Person Knows that Before Making Any Laws Or Publicizing Anything, There is always presence of COMMON SENSE which is found missing in this wicked-pedia's case !!!!

I USE THE WORD WICKED-PEDIA INPLACE OF WIKIPEDIA..... HOW MANY VOTERS DO I NEED TO COLLECT TO CHANGE THE WEBSITE NAME??? This is also my last visit to this website, sad to see its involved in such activities !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Go2arslan (talkcontribs)

If you decide to be offended by something, then so be it. It is not our responsibility to ensure that no one is offended by the material in this encyclopedia. If it was, then we couldn't have half the interesting stuff that exists in here, since there is no doubt someone, somewhere who is offended by it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove Images

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

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

OK for picture

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

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

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

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

Part of Muslim (Shiah) Supports the Picture

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

Don't forget the 5 billion or so non-Muslims who also have no problem with images of Muhammed :) -- (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the people who don't mind far outnumber those who do. Zazaban (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Those who do mind however have good reason to object due to religious teachings. Those who do not mind are simply saying this with disregard to what the followers of Muhammad (SAW) feel should be representative of their teachings. Also, no respect is given to the belief which the Prophet (SAW) taught. Simply blocking the image with added software does not do justice to this ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cape Kalid (talkcontribs) 21:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)