Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

A Friendly Suggestion

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

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

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

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

Removing the images from the article, and replacing them with a link, is a form of censorship. The images are not only tasteful, but they are far enough down in the article that Muslims who would be offended have only themselves to blame if their curiosity overcomes their religious doctrine. I disagree with any "opt in" approach to viewing images. There are already ways to opt out.
However, I wouldn't object to a small, terse, notification at the top of the article, something like "This article contains images of Muhammad." ~Amatulić (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Opt-in mechanics and article space warnings have been discussed many times, and soundly rejected every time. Both instances are covered under Wikipedia's content and general disclaimers. There is no promise made by Wikipedia that its content will be free of material you find objectionable, and quite simply, there is no requirement to kowtow to people who chose to be offended. Welcome to the internet, use at your own risk. Resolute 18:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thankfully such measures are not necessary, as there is already a general content disclaimer that applies to every article on Wikipedia. --86.155.162.230 (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A sincere advice and a remedy

If these pictures do lacerate Muslims' sentiments(I am talking of majority) why don't we just remove them?If Christians can tolerate that their prophet Jesus can be depicted as having an erection,they are religiously dead.The same cannot be applied to Muslims.Rather they respect all other prophets. And in these pictures the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)is depicted as a Persian having a somewhat conical beard which does not agree with his actual appearance.So why are we showing fake pictures, and if WP is not censored and we keep on showing these pictures,we are still hurting half of the world.If we remove these pictures (that is the question of just 3 pics,they won't cause us to suffocate and die)we can still show all the other billions of pictures,at least these should be removed.

we can still reach on a compromise(because by showing these pics you are favouring one group and neglecting the other)

Pictures of other Sahaba can still be shown but at least of our own prophet should be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aics91 (talkcontribs) 17:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Aics91 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but we do not allow censorship. Feel free to read this talk page and the archives for more information. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree, if these pictures do not add any historical event, neither their credibilty can be confirmed and it add to nothing but to create a gap between the Muslims of the world and United States of America. Further to it where is the "Theory of Social Responsibility" and "Democratic theory" given by Western scholars on the resposible use of media.

Do remove the pictures as it hurts the sentiments of Muslims. For a peaceful world such a small act can act as a source of harmony between different society -- Ahmed Mohsin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.189.60 (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the pictures will not be removed, because Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any group. Not all Muslims object to images, and there is no requirement for Muslims to view them. In fact, I know of no requirement for Muslims to be offended by such images. Browsers can easily be configured to disable images, and a user's Wikipedia settings can be adjusted as well.
I personally would advocate a small 1-sentence warning at the top of the article, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Might as well go back to the days of spoiler warnings. Badger Drink (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, is there anyway we can make the pictures bigger? I don't think their very visiable when you navigate the page, and certainly when you click on them that's not doing any justice to the images either. Ghosthawk68 (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want the pictures to look bigger in the article, you can configure your Wikipedia user settings to show larger sizes for thumbnail images. As to the "original" size when you click on them, the only way to make them bigger is to make your own versions of the pictures at a higher resolution, and upload them. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove ALL the pictures depicting Muhammad (PBUH)

Please take off all the images depicting Muhammad (pbuh) OFF of Wikipedia. And please respect the religion and beliefs of others. Since Wiki is based on fact, the fact is that in Islam such images are not allowed. I am wondering what are the wiki administrators doing to stop this or they want to encourage this behavior from others. Again, please take these images off since they dont add any value to the article. All the necessary information about Muhammad (PBUH) can be given without drawing his pictures. Wikipedia moderations, administrators, I am waiting for a positive response from you all about this issue. Are 453,322 signatures enough to acknowledge the concern that the Muslims have? http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyepx (talkcontribs) 18:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Copied from top of page - "This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page, within Wikipedia talkpage guidelines. If you have come here to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, please don't post here." Garycompugeek (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Please respect the beliefs of others by accepting that the users of this secular website prefer to keep the images. Resolute 00:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Make another page for Muslims

Can you make another page for muslims, so they can redirect to it and not see the pictures? This would get rid of alot of tension, and violence from fundamentalist Muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snkla2 (talkcontribs) 21:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you expect your browser to differentiate between non-muslim and muslim? The FAQ already lists a way to block images from your Wiki account. --Maitias (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Muslims are forbidden to show pictures of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) so it would be appreciated if the atter of pictures was left to Muslim to dicide because it is after all their religion. --Coolsafe (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is, indeed, their religion, and not the religion of Wikipedia. Muslims have made pictures of Muhammad - this is a fact. To suppress this fact would bring the whole project into disrepute. ðarkuncoll 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Not only that, but the people who claim "Muslims are forbidden" to view pictures of Muhammad should try reading the Qu'ran sometime. They will discover that images of Muhammad are not explicitly forbidden. Some Muslim groups choose to forbid creation of such images, some forbid it entirely, and some have a more relaxed view. The article on Depictions of Muhammad is enlightening. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Pics

Kindly remove the so called pics of Prophet Muhammed (S.A.W).

Regards,

For All Muslims

S. H. Khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.181.99.54 (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If you find these images offensive, you can configure your browser not to display them, see here. Ollie Fury Contribs 18:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You have only heard of 2 Muslims right now who have only but kindly asked to remove the pictures. The Muslim Ummah does not care whether wikipedia is censored or not. The Dutch printed a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad, that was within itself controversial because of content. but regardless we not only got the company to apologize but also the government. The Pope said derogatory comments and we made him apologize. If this leaks out to the known public, we muslims don't give a rats ass whether your laws permit you to put up these pictures. Eventually we will get them reversed through peaceful or forceful means. I rather you keep yourself on the safe side and not bring up a huge controversy and just remove that damn pics. Your information does not need the use of pictures that depict the prophet in anyway. So do the world a favor and take them off.

CapTa1n_Half —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapTa1n Half (talkcontribs) 11:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a threat. I highly suggest you retract that statement immediately or your account will very likely be banned on the spot. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, that is a threat. How anyone can change Wikipedia through forceful means is beyond me anyway. Wikipedia is for everyone-those who do not want to view these pictures have been given the option of turning them off. Ollie Fury Contribs 15:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
How is a historic depiction of the prophet of one of the largest religions in the world "not relevant"? Even if there were no depictions per se, people still have an image in mind when they think of the Prophet, and historical accuracy and imagery should always take precedent over other's beliefs. The fact that these images exist shows that it's not simply contributors and readers of Wikipedia who feel this way, but artists of the pasts felt a need to draw a stronger connection to Him through these depictions. Can I simply ask, what would be the consequence of depicting Mohamed? Am I to believe no scholar of the Quran has had an image of the prophet come to mind when researching him? What about those who had laid eyes upon him? If they had produced a depiction, would it have been considered unlawful, despite being based upon his earthly form? Carson (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

CapTa1n Half: The civilized world does not cave to threats. Your language bears all the hallmarks of someone who has been brainwashed to a way of thinking that is bankrupt to its core. There are 3000 religions on this planet; yours is but one of them. Please realize that if you can't learn to get along with the 2,999 other religions, then you deserve little that civilized world has to offer you. Wikipedia is a depository of information for the English-speaking world. Its talk pages are a marketplace where ideas are exchanged. Thank you very much for giving us some insight into your type of mentality. Makes me shudder. Signed, with pleasure, 67.185.247.179 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.247.179 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the previous post on forceful removal of the pictures but as a Muslim and a long time member of Wikipedia, I would kindly request that those pictures be removed. They're posted on an encyclopaedic article about Islam but if Islam finds them offensive, it seems contradictory to keep them on there - it's almost like a false portrayal of the religion and Wikipedia's about accuracy so I don't believe there is a competent reason to keep them up there. Fatla00 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea what the Wikipedia project is or what it is about if you profess to be a "long time member" and still ask for their removal. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Tarc, there is no reason to insult other editors or give terse answers like "no" which don't help explain to the editors. There is room for differences of opinion and users should be treated with respect.
Fatla00, articles about Islam are not made up of only Islamic sources--nor should they be. But first, it's important to note that the images themselves are from Islamic sources. Islam has two important dimensions. The diversity of views which exist across geographical dimensions and the diversity of views which exist across time. Mutazilism is a very marginal force in Islam today but at the end of the first millennium it was very important. Therefore, we cover it in this encyclopedia even if Islam today views it as marginal. These pictures were drawn by Muslim artists. They did not represent the entire population of their times but they did represent important segments of at least the ruling classes in Turkey or Persia (since only the rulers could afford paintings like this). The question is are these important enough traditions about Muhammad to warrant entry into his article. I have argued that a very limited number of importantly chosen images do warrant a place in the article but that they must be contextualized since corporal images are far rarer than other types when representing Muhammad--but does that not make them historically unimportant. The argument for their removal cannot be that they are insulting to Muslims. Firstly, that is a broad overstatement and secondly even if that was true if it accuracy represents an important historic period of representation of Muhammad then it is encyclopedically important. These images say more about people from a certain epoch felt about Muhammad than they do about Muhammad himself as an historical figure. But, Muhammad is made important by how later generations represent him and there are significant enough strains of corporal representation that there should be some inclusion in this article. Feel free to argue about that--their importance within history. I spent hours at my library documenting all I could about Muhammad in Islamic art and Islamic art in general to try to have academic sources discuss Muhammad in Islamic art and its importance. This type of research is important to include and use to judge how we should use images. Feeling that the images are offensive or that they should be included by default simply because they exist are not valid responses--this is not portraiture. I hope this response helps. gren グレン 07:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern, but I will explain it how I see fit. My preference would be to just revert "remove the pics!" requests entirely from this talk page, and no even deal with the same, tired explanations to the same, tired fundamentalist demands. This is a settled matter, consensus will not change it, and WP:BITE has no application here. Tarc (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


Please answer me this: Why should Islam's opinion matter? An encyclopedia exists to present information. We don't censor Nazi history because it is touchy for Germany, nor do we censor Eliot Spitzer's indiscretions because they are rather embarrassing for him. Likewise, we don't censor these images because it offends a few people's religious sensibilities. You can choose to be offended, or you can choose not to be offended. That is your right. It is not your right to tell me what I should and should not be offended about. Resolute 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I ASSUMED WIKIPEDIA WAS AN ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA. However it clearly isn't an Encyclopedia as the information contained therein is inaccurate more over after it has been pointed out to the hosts that the Pictures of Muhammed peace be upon him are not an accurate image of him nor are they endorsed or recognised by any historian authority they are still allowed to stay up. This kind of misinformation should Certainly be corrected as a encyclopedias job is to inform, educate and introduce the reader to the chosen subject based on facts with sound sources. Indeed the credability of Wikipedia shall be severly diminished if it allows blatant inaccuracies to continue to go unmodified. Muhammed peace be upon him actually forbade anyone from making a portrait of him or of his companions as this was against teh fundamentals of Islam. On that basis how can u justify the images in this article?

Because this is the English Wikipedia, not Islamopedia. It is not censored for content as such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Picture at least

In the section of Traditional Views sub headed European and Western Views there is a particular image of Muhammad(PBUH) suppposedly placing the Black stone. This picture has various factual errors as it was fabricated at about 1315 about 7 centuries after the prophet Muhammad(PBUH)'s life so therefore the author's depiction is incorrect. Moreover, the artist himself "Rashid al-Din" is from a Jewish denomination so therefore the image that he has fabricated is biased due to conflicts between Islam and Judaism. As well as the text under the picture tells the reader that this is a picture of Muhammad(PBUH) and does not make it clear that this is an fabrication by a Jewish artist that has much controversy. By allowing this picture to be displayed on Wikipedia, you are in effect twisting people's knowledge and beliefs on Islam. Please remove the unwanted image.

Regards,

A Barden

No. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A Barden, please read important notice at top of page for more information. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
See message above. You can opt to remove these pictures when you view pages like this if you want. Ollie Fury Contribs 21:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

please remove the pics of prophet muhammed. it is true that we can change the settings of our browser but how can we muslims be in peace when we know that some muslims and even non muslims look at those pictures and study them accidentally or even on purpose when we know that pictures of living things are prohibited in islam? i beg you in the name of all muslims to remove those pictures because its an insult to our prophet ant our religion. please understand our feelings. no one would appreciate someone else insulting their religion. i know in this modern world pictures are common but no matter what religion is the same and we have the right to tell you what its like in islam. as you know there are stuff from non muslim biographies of prophet muhammed too and we feel its a must to remind you that in islam this is an insult. please please think about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.130.48 (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but the answer is no. As stated before, Wikipedia is not censored. I can only suggest that you create an account, and configure your browser to remove these pictures. Ollie Fury Contribs 17:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a muslim. Don't remove anything Obviously you're not, otherwise you would not say "I am a muslim"

In Islam, depiction of ANY one of the prophets in the form of pictures and so forth is prohibited. What is your basis for not removing it? I'd like to amicably ask for the removal of the prophet's pictures. I find some of the pictures to be pretty insulting. I do believe that some of the pictures were posted not out of hatred and possibly simply due to the love of knowledge. But the priority would be not to offend people of different faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmihamid (talkcontribs) 09:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your basis for not removing it? Well, for starters, we're not an Islamic project. Most of us who work on this encyclopedia are not Islamic. Even those who are Islamic do not all feel that the pictures should be removed. Please show respect to our various creeds and beliefs. Badger Drink (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Set your preferences to not see pictures. Instructions are at the top of the page. I'm a Muslim myself but this website has no censorship and no religious bias. It is an encyclopaedia. the Ogress smash! 14:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you have to realise this website is for the enlightenment and education for the entire world - why should non-muslims not have the right to see pictures of Muhammad, Jesus, Abraham or Esaiah, because they are prophets according to one religion?

These pictures are not provocative in any way, and do nothing to show bias or prejudice for or against Islam - they are but depictions of the subject of this article, a person who is also relevant to non-muslims. You talk about not offending people of different faiths - but I am in some way insulted by the fact that I, as an atheist, should not be allowed to se depictions of Muhammad. ElChrissos (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


Obviously, we have very, very different priorities. Why should the priority of an encyclopedia be to not offend people? There is no obligation whatsoever for the project to bow to the opinions of any organization. Common sense rules here, and there's nothing common sense about censorship. Celarnor Talk to me 03:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your basis for not removing it. The basis is that Wikipedia is uncensored, and there is no obligation for this project to kowtow to the tenets of Islam or indeed of any other organisation, unless these tenets fall in line with common sense. But the priority would be not to offend people of different faith No. Wikipedia's role and foremost priority is to present factual information. It will not necessarily be presented in a way to make people of all religious, political or cultural backgrounds completely satisfied - it will be presented in an objective way, and without censorship. 80.225.140.64 (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Right; we are not dumbing down or removing any of our possibly "offensive" content, just because you don't like it. Reality doesn't care about your choice to be offended by something, and will not simply change because you wish it to do so. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone knows how to configure their computer to not see the images. I am suggesting you put a notification at the top, saying how to make it only text, or make a whole other article just for muslims - Snkla2 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It already is. The FAQ at the top (click the Show) has a section on Talk:Muhammad/FAQ under Question 4 - Q4 How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?. Safety Note: This CSS fix will NOT cause the person viewing the article to stop their idolatry of Muhammad or any other person (which is why the proscription about the images started). Ttiotsw (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Creating another article with the same content just for muslims is called content forking, definitely a no-no on Wikipedia. Aecis·(away) talk 01:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we just cull any talk on removing images straight away ?.

The start of the article and the FAQ are fairly clear and so anyone posting requests to cull the images really is ignoring that advice and so they are trolling even if it sounds well meaning in tone. We don't have time to reply to every well-meaning person who can't be bothered to read the FAQ. By replying to them we are feeding the trolls which is not recommended - see WP:DNFTT. The best way to handle trolls - even well meaning ones - is to just delete what they say when we feel like doing that. That way no-one needs to reply to them and so no-one needs to waste time on people who can't read the talk page introduction text. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Why? While consensus is unlikely to change (considering the reams of archives dealing with this) all pages in Wikipedia are in flux and there is always the possibility that a new idea or solution (however slim) may form new consensus. This goes for the encyclopedia in general and cannot be taken away from this article. People who do not read the FAQs/info messages etc are not necessarily trolls and we must always assume good faith. It is tedious and the request are not likely to stop, but there are many of us and we have been adequate so far. A polite word and some explanation of censorship is all that is usually necessary for those who are not trollish. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Gary. I would also add that with all due respect Ttiotsw, writing "the best way to handle trolls - even well meaning ones - is to just delete what they say when we feel like doing that" is more censorious and unconsensual than well meaning requests to remove the offending images, even if they have read the advice at the top of the article. Paulzon (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for it, as I have suggested this in the past. WP:RBI and be done with it, stop giving agenda-pushers a soapbox from which to pontificate, IMO. Tarc (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ttiotsw, it's a waste of time. If someone suggests something new then obviously that would not be deleted, if- as what usually happens-people just ask for the images to be removed I say delete their post.RaseaC (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What if Wikipedia considers this

Dearest Wikipedians,

This may or may not be the correct location to talk about the issue I'm going to discuss and ask for the assistance but I followed this link from Jimmy Wales user info of Wikipedia for any complaints but still I do apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause. I truly agree and appreciate the level of promptness and correctness of the articles, Wikipedia maintains. But I've a suggestion regarding a semi locked article. Recently, I visited the article "Muhammad" (pbuh) and saw a controversial conversation in the 'Talk' about removal of the image Maome.jpg. Wikipedia admins are having a strong view point that only 'fundamental islamists or extremists' are against the removal of the image; the image depicts a better understanding of the article; the image has been moved to the bottom of the article as a favor and the admins suggest to configure browser to not to display the image, if the readers don't want. But in fact, that's totally not correct. Let me explain a bit about it. In Islam, there is no picture of Prophet Muhammad. Muslims do love valuer and respect Prophet Muhammad above all things utmost and any of the images of the Prophet exhibit a lack of respect regarding virtuousness and pureness of divine and devout faith. Thus these show disrespect and are discourteous of course!

Now about the image, I'm not sure on how and where it came from and why it was added to the article (there are not solid proofs to believe that it was from the scripture of Abu Rayhan Biruni as there are no images of the Prophet in the all history of Islam). Neither does it show any subtitles nor it has any sort of descriptive information printed by the calligrapher (which as per your article is Abu Rayhan Biruni) and so it is not required to be included in the article. No Muslim will create a picture not any image of the Prophet as this will hurt the Muslims' emotions. In real, I strongly believe that this picture is of one of several 'Sufis' or saints (check for Sufism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi) that has been irrelevantly referred to the Prophet Muhammad. I've seen a lot of such pictures which describe saints preaching religion in a few calligraphic exhibitions. So, this image Maome.jpg should be in 'Sufi' article.

So, here by I request Wikipedia super moderators to please assist me in this regards by removing the image Maome.jpg from article entitled "Muhammad". In case if you strictly abide by your rules and you cannot remove the image (though I hope this is NOT impossible as the article is semi protected) then please remove the citation below the picture.

Hopefully, you'll assist.

Many Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashukhan (talk • contribs)

It's not going to happen. Removal of such images has been discussed ad nauseam. The decision of the community is not to delete them as Wikipedia is not censored. If you want to discuss the caption, please do so on the article's talk page. And by the way, there are no moderators on Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not censored" because users are given freehand and anyone can give suggestion based on good-faith. If that has been discussed extensively in your community being 'ad nauseam' please consider the points I mentioned in my earlier post. The discussion is useless as there are no images of Prophet Muhammad in the history of Islam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashukhan (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

to all Wikipedia admins, i'm free for any discussions you may want!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashukhan (talkcontribs) 21:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
plus I expect Muslims to answer to the question "are there any pictures of the Prophet Muhammad existent or drawn by Muslims since when Islam was revealed to this world". Again to Wikipedia admins, I would suggest to do little research before replying or have a Muslim admin reply my post, who understands Islam better. Thanks.
Wikipedia does not follow the tenants of Islam or any other religion. Wikipedia is not censored. If you would like to learn more please read the archives. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, does that mean, it'll show no morale and respect to other materials? No, absolutely not, because it allows freely to edit the content or doesn't it? Locking the content without knowing the accuracy of the content is truly unfair. Wikipedia says it doesn't guarantee the correctness of article, then my question is, why it has admins wandering around?? I have read the archives and I fully understand that whats your view and what should I do. That's why I asked a Muslim admin to reply back! Aggressively you guys are saying "Wikipedia is not censored" and "it doesn't show any religion". Its not religion anymore when it comes to millions of people? All of the Muslims and the scholars are asking to remove the image because there is "NO" image of the Prophet in the Islamic History. Personally I think Wikipedia is being rude here? hun? I suggest admins to do a little research? If "Wikipedia is not censored" then please do me a favor and undo the lock on article because its unfair for all Muslims everywhere in the World.

And your position is unfair to all people who are not Muslim, and do not wish for religious beliefs to interfere with the free flow of knowledge. So, what happens if the semi-protection is removed from the article? Do you begin to war with those who do not share your beliefs over the inclusion of the images? Your views vs. theirs. What makes you right? Wikipedia is not ruled by Islamic doctrine. There are ways for you to hide the images from view within your own browser settings, thus satisfying your beliefs. But your attempts at removing the images for all people offends my beliefs. Why is your position right, and mine wrong, hmmm? Resolute 05:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • " Why is your position right, and mine wrong" because god told him so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


--

Two plus two always equals four, if in a article the output is shown as five then it needs to be fixed! Incorrect piece of information is always incorrect whether in whatever form or whatever style or whatever arguments it may have or haven't. Of course, non Muslims cannot be Muslims and they don't need to agree what Muslims say but this doesn't imply that wrong, incorrect, obsolete or abusing information to be shown or represented by arguments "Wikipedia is not censored". My position is unfair to those who don't believe and are against Islam. Wikipedia is not ruled by Islamic doctrine but it should show what is correct with common rules. The piece of information shown in the article is betraying and not correct and again no Muslim will want that be in the place where it is currently. Admins' aggressive view point is understandable as they have moved my post to bottom of the discussion queue. Please don't give it a 'religious color' and take it as common sense correction based on good-faith and fair bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.192.45 (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The article Depictions of Muhammad will quickly dispell any notion that Muslims have never made pictures of Muhammad. ðarkuncoll 08:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats a total propaganda based on erroneous and deceptive objects which always exist and try to mitigate true valuer. Please do a little research being outside of Wikipedia.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.192.45 (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that Muhammad has never been depicted in Islamic art? --Leivick (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost. You mean controversy. Depiction in art might have been centries ago but there is no true existance of presentation of Muhammad in form of images as the true concept of Islam doesn't allow that and bears it totally wrong (as per the recent research many of the images were from old Eurpeon testimonials and scriptures which are incorrect). The idea of imagination doesn't draw any graphic of Muhammad because HE has far beyond and more pureness and mightiness and thats the reason there has been 'no real' picture in the whole history of Islam. Muhammad's presention in form of graphic cannot be comapred to that of Prophet Jesus as Muhammad is all the 'central idea' of Islam. Please do let me know if you have any more questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.192.45 (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

-- Please consider the request based on above reviews. I'm not a fundamentalist, neither extremist nor I wanted to protest. I'm just curious to resolve the issue in a positive and a fair manner basing on good-faith. Please do let me know if you have any further questions or objections. Thanks to all admins for replying and understanding.

"Depiction in art might have been centries ago but there is no true existence of presentation of Muhammad in form of images as the true concept of Islam doesn't allow that and bears it totally wrong"
The anon hits the problem right on the head here: We are not presenting a "true concept of Islam". We are presenting a secular view of a historical figure. A historical figure for whom many depictions and images have been created, and are included in this article for historical perpsective. People looking for an exclusively Islamic view of Muhammad should not be looking here, as that is not our mandate. Resolute 15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That secular view is not correct either. Wikipedia has its own standard which might make people think and to look for and 'assume' all of "views" for the content (this is how it has been betraying). And do you know the views of the people, which they are hunting the content for? NO, you cannot! There are a LOT of other things to show 'a historical figure' in the article, the positive one; then why choose the abusing ones - the ones which are incorrect and doesn't depict the things exactly as they were in the history. If you want to give a secular view for the full flow of knowledge to the world thats totally fair and I appreciate your view; then write as much and clarify as much you want but at least please don't show images on this article. The images already exist on the article Depictions of Muhammad where it needs to remove the ones which are humiliating the religion and degrading the morales. From the responses of the archives and seeing the behavior of the people responding, I already know the dispute caused a lot of degradation and altercation both psychologically and morally to the Muslim community in all the world. Its not only the agitation but the obsoleteness of the images you're having in the articles and as per your Deletion policy the obsolete material needs removal! If someone makes unsolicited immoral or rude picture of anyone belonging to Wikipedia and places it in an article, I bet you guys will delete it because of having no good-faith and correctness. Please think again and research.

If you perceive, and can document, an error with respect to the historicity of any image in this article, then present it with your reliable sources on the talk page without arguing for the image's deletion, and your argument will be considered. If you are arguing from the point of view of one who is offended by such images, then think again and research yourself. You are offended by your own choice; the Qu'ran doesn't direct you to be offended. Remember, this isn't an article about Islam, it's an article about an historical figure. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
My religion forbids pizza. Therefore you should not eat pizza to respect my religion. Sounds a bit silly doesn't it. There is always going to be someone/group/religeon etc that will object to something. We do not allow the encyclopedia to be censored, no exceptions. The picture's are real works of art depicting Muhammad whether you choose to believe in them or not they exist. Your questions have been answered in the archives if you wish to read them. Asking the same questions will not generate different answers. Please respect the Wikipedia does not follow the tenants of Islam or any other religion. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You defeat your own arguments as you make them. You can't state that you respect our desire to give a secular view of the subject, and then ask us to remove material based on religious reasoning. Muhammad has been depicted throughout history. This is an irrefutable fact, and you have not offered a single legitimate reason why this fact should be covered up. We would, in fact, be remiss if we excluded these images as they offer a historical perspective of Muhammad. Wikipedia's disclaimers make it clear that you may encounter material you find offensive. Simply put, we will not remove such material to suit your religious beliefs. Resolute 19:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


@ ~Amatulic -Quran doesn't direct me to be offended; its your behavior the content and the rudeness which does that all and its not my choice. -This is not an article about Islam then why I'm seeing the words "Islam" there in the article and the quotes exclusively referring to the ideas of Islam. -My research is clear, in fact you don't know the obsoleteness of the images you're referring in the article.

@ Reso

"People looking for an exclusively Islamic view of Muhammad should not be looking here, as that is not our mandate. Resolute 15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)" Wikia admin, yes, you're right. You need to write that too and mention all the details in the article that people shouldn't seek exclusive Islamic view in this article and this article has a seculiar view.

@ Garycompugeek

Seems you did see the history of this post and the points I brought to concern about the "Wikipedia is not censored" referring to your own terms are conditions. Yes asking the same questions doesn't yield the different answer but you DIDN'T answer my all of the QUESTIONS, I asked in the previous post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashukhan (talkcontribs) 19:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And you have failed to address the points raised earlier. I'm glad to know the images don't offend you, and I apologize if I incorrectly assumed it was your underlying reason for requesting the removal of images, beyond the ostensible argument about obsoleteness. You still haven't made a good case about that. Provide reliable sources, or suggest a change to the caption that would represent the image correctly.
Again, this article is about Muhammad, the founder of Islam. This is not an article about Islam. This is an article about an important historical figure. Please restrict your arguments to that context. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

--

You're actually failing to comply. Here is an example. For instance, if someone makes unsolicited immoral or rude picture of anyone belonging to Wikipedia and places it in an article, can you make sure that you won't remove it as "Wikipedia is not censored" and of course it'll be to some extent 'secular' and unoffensive to not all of the readers? This is what I get your point of view about the content being "Censored" versus "Wikipedia is not censored" versus "Incorrect/Obsolete Content".

Yes, I said that I appreciate secular view for the full flow of knowledge but that its not summed up in the correct style because the images are obsolete. Do have any solid proofs of when the images were taken? Are they from the correct sources? The images are obsolete because they are what haven't been seen, used, reproduced and brought to public unless they've been put to Wikipedia.org. If any of such images would have actually existed then there would be a picture of Muhammad hanging on the wall in the house of the Muslim. These are obselte far from fact these are unfair.

The change in the caption I already noted earlier is, "The Sufis preaching Islam" and there should be a notice on the top of the article that it doesn't represent any of the Islamic values besides its just mixed up in the secular manner and the people seeking Islamic view in the article should not pertain the article to be correct up to pure Islamic concepts. 'Muhammad' being the central idea of Islam, I am fully aware of what arguments I'm making as all in the context of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashukhan (talkcontribs) 19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use disclaimers either aside from the general disclaimer at the bottom of every page. You appear to be a WP:SPA who refuses to embrace logic. You are becoming disruptive and risk being blocked if you continue down this path. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but I would like to address the points made by Bashukhan (and please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).
The example you describe is irrelevant. If an image is posted to an article, it will be removed if it has no relevance to the article, not because it is offensive. See the list of image links at the end of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for several examples of images that some might consider offensive or immoral, but will not be removed because Wikipedia is not censored.
I suggest you describe each image here, one at a time, and explain specifically what you see is wrong with them. I looked at all the images depicting Muhammad, and they are all ancient works of historically significant artwork. The page for each image explains the source. Just because a painting is old doesn't make it "obsolete" from an historical perspective. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


Disruptive? How? I appreciated your logic, heard your viewpoint and I expect the same from Wikia admins. I talked about the good-faith, brought the important points forward and asked a few simple questions. If thats my fault, please do reply back and I'll apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashukhan (talkcontribs) 20:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take it too personally. Editors become irratable as the same questions get asked again and again and again such that by the umpteenth time, they're short of fuse.
Especially when the questions presuppose things that're known not to be true, or rehash discredited arguments. Most of the images included in the article are well known historical images of good pedigree produced by Muslim artists. How much to focus on Islamic art, and in what proportion, and what constitutes undue emphasis, are all significant questions that're hard to grapple with. But whether the Maome image is ment to depict Muhammad isn't in dispute - it is meant to. This is very well established, and having the same discredited complaint brought forward again and again gives everyone a short temper. The temptation to be heavy-handed may well be more than one can resist. WilyD 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint ~Amatulić Yes, sure from now on I'll use the tildes. Sure, I'll proceed. Besides being old handy work the images have not been seen and used until Wikipedia revealed them all to us. And probably the sources where these have been taken are not accurate too. What sort of reliable sources does Wikipedia accepts? I can proceed, do more research and quote the well known scholars quotations, if you'll accept. But, on the other hand, I would like to know the about the correctness and reliability of the images and their current sources too which currently exist in the article. I'll start one by one. But for now, we all can see there is no 'in line' caption in any of such images saying 'Mohammad' name in Arabic/Farsi or same old scripting languages referring to what He might be doing in these pictures. I hope this makes more sense. Bashukhan (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

All the scans we've used are acquired from respectable sources. If you take the first image File:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg, it is from the Siyer-i Nebi, with the illustration produced by Nakkaş Osman for Murad III. The image itself in the work is located in Hazine 1222, folio 151b, as indicated by the source of our scan, the Bilkent University Department of History, see [1] - Today that work is located in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. WilyD 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Image sources

Starting a new section to prevent the page from getting unwieldy.

It seems to me that the focus of the above argument is File:Maome.jpg. On that page, there are several sources in French described, none of which illuminate further information about this image. The source that would describe background information doesn't have a web link, unfortunately, so it must be looked up in a library:

Arnold, Thomas Walker (1929). The Islamic Book: A Contribution to Its Art and History from the VII–XVIII Century. Paris: Pegasus Press.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

For now I would assume good faith that the authors of that book are historians who can write authoritatively on the source and significance of this image, and that the caption shown in the article adequately represents what is described in that book. The real test is to look it up. Unfortunately, Google Books doesn't have it (although several other books reference it). It seems to be a widely cited source. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

--

Thanks for starting the topic. I'll be soon getting busy and will be traveling. Please get a hold of and don't close the topic. I'll be back soon to discuss each depiction with in-depth analysis. Bashukhan (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review the archived discussion before you do so, and be sure not to rehash arguments that have already been discussed, and rejected, multiple times. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Images on the Arabic Wikipedia

I cannot find this discussion in the archives, so I'm copying it from history now. /X

Please remove all the pictures that contain any cartoon or shape of human, because its not accepted by Islam.

Islam does not allow pictures or cartoon of Muhammad or any persons so remove it for make this article acceped to the Muslims. Azraf (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Request declined. This is not Islamopedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, dude you're not in charge of Wikipedia, this is a legitamite statement. Anyway to the original poster, it has been decided that on consensus, regretfully, that the pictures are allowed. Baseball Bugs, next time give evidence to back up you're view instead of saying "request declined". LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No, he should not, and I would not have either. It is the same, tired, stupid 'request' that gets posted here ever month or so. These demands are not being made in good faith, they are not here with any intent, ability, or desire to improve the Wikipedia. They are here to push an agenda, and are dealt with brusquely and appropriately. My preference would be to go even further, and simply revert the 'request' and not have to waste time with this. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right. I actually cut him too much slack. I will do as you suggest, next time. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the gigabyte or so of archived discussion where it has been made abundantly clear that we have no interest in changing our rules to suit religious thinking is more than enough evidence to support Baseball Bugs' view. As he says, this is not Islamopedia, and quite frankly, the opinion of Islam is completely irrelevant. Resolute 07:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs response was fine. I doubt that all those who make these requests come here in bad faith; I'm sure that there are many Muslims who just happen to stumble across this page, and voice their opinion without reading the templates which head this page. Baseball Bugs gave a succinct answer to a question that has driven many of those involved in this dispute to much worse actions. --Hojimachongtalk 01:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
And since when does Islam forbid pictures "of any persons"? That would come as a shock to Al Jazeera, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I was merely stating you lack of behaviour towards other editors. You have to be nice when talking to people otherwise you sound quite pompous. Ridiculous, really. I have nothing against the images, just the behaviour of a few editors. Use the archives to support your view Baseball Bugs - that is what they there for. A bit of politeness goes a long way. Also the original poster I have never really read in the Qu'ran where the images are prohibited. I have been trying to find out but it's just in Arab culture not to display the images of honourbale people. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 17:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it says in the Qu'ran that images are forbidden... However in the authenticated Hadiths, Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslim, from which the current Islamic Law and Jurisprudence were derived from by ancient Islamic Theologians and Jurists prior to the closing of the gate of Ijtihad, do say that pictures are forbidden:

Narrated Abu Talha: The Prophet said, "Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or there are pictures." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 833)

Narrated ‘Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I bought a cushion having pictures on it. When Allah’s Apostle saw it, he stopped at the gate and did not enter. I noticed the signs of hatred (for that) on his face! I said, "O Allah’s Apostle! I turn to Allah and His Apostle in repentance! What sin have I committed?" He said, "What about this cushion?" I said, ‘I bought it for you to sit on and recline on." Allah’s Apostle said, "The makers of these pictures will be punished (severely) on the Day of Resurrection and it will be said to them, ‘Make alive what you have created.’" He added, "Angels do not enter a house in which there are pictures." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 844)

Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet entered upon me while there was a curtain having pictures (of animals) in the house. His face got red with anger, and then he got hold of the curtain and tore it into pieces. The Prophet said, "Such people as paint these pictures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 130)

"Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created. (Sahih Muslim vol.3 no.5268

From what I have found in my very quick and rudimentary google search, it doesn't really seem to specifically say that pictures are outright banned, but seeing how Muhammed reacted to images, it's no surprise that Islamic law evolved like it did and Muslims interpret the Image commands that way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Picture of The Prophet (SWS) should be removed

Dear readers and authors,

I advocate the removal of the picture of Muhammad (sws) from this article. It against the teachings of the Islamic faith to produce paintings of human beings. This ruling is especially the case for Muhammad (sws) or any other Prophet of God. Muslims will find this painting offensive and innappropriate.

No doubt, some may question this proposal in the name of free speech or a right of liberty of some sort. These views are respected and should be upheld within the appropriate context. However, in the context of pictures of religous Islamic figures, they will always take a lesser importance to the law I have mentioned above. This is a standing held by Islamic Scholarship.

Therefore in repect of Muslims, Islam, and Muhammad himself (sws), I request the removal of this photo from the article. I am otherwise impressed by this article as an overview of The Prophet's (sws) life.

Thank you

3.1.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.177.253 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, which does not censor for content. The beliefs of the Islamic faith, or any other faith, are therefore irrelevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if nothing else these repetitive and futile requests do present a learning opportunity. I know pbuh, but what does the honourific "sws" stand for? Resolute 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be in Google a lot, but without explanation, nor is it listed in SWS. If the Muslim wants to be really helpful, he could add it to that article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
SWS, or SAWS, seems to be the initials to the Arabic words for PBUH (Peace Be Upon Him) as per this site. [2] I'm guessing they leave out the "A" if they don't want to include "God" ("Allah") in the abbreviation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want a further explanation please search and read the archives. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 17:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
At this point I take these various "requests" to be trolling, so the best course might be to ignore them unless they actually try to mess with the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete something from the article ?

Dear sir.

We had noticed something strange in some articles of your encyclopedia like :

and exactly here :

the thing that we had noticed is a picture presenting the prophet of Islam "Muhammad"

we know that the picture don`t content anything that can insult to Muslims or the Islam directly , But in Islam is not allowed to

present a picture of Prophets even Prophets of Jews or Christians because this is a kind of religions inviolabilities

Pictures links :

Screenshot : http://www.layeredsoft.com/Screenshot.png

So we hope that you respect these inviolabilities and delete them and any related pictures

Best regards

Dr.Wahb Isak

41.224.239.51 (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)--41.224.239.51 (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.239.51 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While we respect the beliefs and the fait on every individual and every religion, Wikipedia is not ruled or bound by any religious groups and Wikipedia users do not practice censorship based on religious grounds. It is possible for every user who do not wish to see the pictures in this article to set their browser to not viewing them.JdeJ (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I wish those who post such requests here would actually read all the previous conversation. I'm also continually amazed that they don't realize that (a) Wikipedia does not censor itself for any group's benefit, and (b) Islam does not command them to be offended by such images; that's a personal choice that shouldn't concern Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad (peace upon him)

Samlam,

As a muslim I do not support the picture of Prophet Muhammad (peace upon him). For that matter any prophets picture. The reason is that we do not know what they looked like and since they are chosen by Allah (God) we must respect the prophets. All so, because the prophets would not like a picture to be a focal point of the religion- only the message. In Islam we do not pray in front of pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.32.59 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is expecting the pictures here to become a focal point of the religion. If anything, the numerous complaints from Muslims are making it a focal point. Did you think of that?
Nobody is asking you to pray in front of pictures, and nobody expects that these pictures will encourage Muslims to pray in front of them. The pictures are not disrespectful as they were created by devoted Muslims in the past. Please be aware that Muslim views on this matter will not cause the pictures to be removed, because Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of Islam. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


Images should state they are artist impressions

I have read the whole discussion. The admins have a point that material cannot be removed based on religious issues and I am not asking that they be removed because my religion says so. But please consider this.

Muhammad(pbuh) was born in the year 570 and died in year 632 AD.

Observing that all the images of Muhammad(pbuh) shown on Wikipedia are works of art that were created at the earliest of 11th century that is 400 years after his death and considering that an average person cannot live for more than a hundred years, it is certain that none of the artists had themselves seen Muhammad(pbuh). So the page "Depictions of Muhammad" implies that it is simply an artists' impression and has got nothing to do with it being an accurate description of Muhammad(pbuh).

As for the page "Muhammad", the "Muhammad prohibits intercalary months during the Farewell Pilgrimage" image and the "Muhammad preaching" image do not clearly state that they an artists impression (although one can see that its a painting).

Since a half-told truth is as good as a lie, my only request is that, as according to Wikipedia standards, it should be stated very clearly that the works of art were created long after the demise of Muhammad(pbuh) and that the images are mere artists impressions and are not verified as being the actual images of Muhammad(pbuh) and thus are far from his true appearance as the artists had never seen Muhammad(pbuh) in their lifetimes.

I doubt that my Muslim brothers and sisters will be satisfied by this. But let me remind them that Muhammad(pbuh) himself faced insults and ridicule during his early days of spreading the message of Islam. But he never chose to talk back. Instead he tolerated it and had logical debates with the people. Only because of his sound reasoning and tolerant nature, people were attracted to his message and not because of any child like rant("remove the images because my religion says so") and is one of the reasons why Islam is the fastest growing religions in the world.

I hope my view is impartial to both and God forgive me if i said anything wrong...

203.76.170.198 (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)free-thinker 12th January 2009

It should be obvious that the artists did not have firsthand knowledge of Muhammad's appearance, because all of the image captions now indicate the date (I just fixed the remaining one, thanks for the suggestion). Now, anyone reading the caption will know quite clearly that these works of art were created long after the Prophet's death. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A Muslim reaction

As a Muslim, I find it troubling that so many people wish to use their religious beliefs to impose on the actions of others. Muslims have suffered from such impositions. We as Muslims are forbidden from displaying said images, we are not required to make it so the whole world does the same. If you as a Muslim are uncomfortable with displaying the pictures of Muhammad, then don't. But don't expect the world to follow the rules of a religion that they have not accepted. There is nothing in your faith that requires you do so, in fact many of the laws of Islam, plainly and clearly state that they are applicable only to those who have embraced the faith. You shouldn't use your faith to attempt to control the actions of others. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiser words are rarely typed. Well said Nableezy. Perhaps we should freeze/archive and leave at the top of page with FAQ. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree; seldom have I seen such eloquent words of tolerance. Thank you.
Muslims by no means have a monopoly on imposing religious beliefs on others. Those words would apply equally well to other controversial subjects that are driven by religious beliefs, such as views on abortion, sodomy, premarital sex, and so forth. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fake Images

Dear all,
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and is not bound to any religion or organization. That good! .The solitary purpose of Wikipedia is to provide correct information, free of cost to everyone on earth.
But it never means that Wikipedia can provide wrong information! The pictures provided in the article can never be real, since the oldest of all pictures is about 4 century after the death of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)-(as mentioned in article). There can’t be a single person who has witnessed Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) would be alive at that time, so these pictures are all self made and imaginative.
Now if these pictures aren’t true and are fake how can they help in gaining the correct knowledge? Also suppose for a while that these pictures aren’t there, will it going to influence the article’s level of quality. As far as I think it will be improved, as there is no wrong information in this article now. Think as a common person, not as a non-Muslim or Muslim and will agree on this.
Please consider this, as it won’t harm anyone if you remove the images but will harm the felling of many if you keep it. Regards
Atif
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.163.244 (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been considered. Please read the archives. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Not only that, just read the discussion two headings above this one. The images are not "wrong information". That is a ridiculous assertion. The images are historically significant, and the image captions disclose the time the artwork was created. There is no confusion about the fact that the depictions of Muhammad are artists impressions. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
By "wrong Information" I never meant that those artistic impression never existed -(it may have somewhere,but I even being a Muslim have not seen any such picture until now--its because its prohibited in Islam to draw paintings or sculptures of holy persons and especially Prophets- that is why i am saying this can't be a work of a Muslim)----what I meant was that the image that these art are presenting about Muhammad(PBUH) is fake ,that why its wrong information.by the way can someone explain me what are the benefits of having his fake(again not source-its the perspective,the message in the art thats fake)image on this article . believe me it is a "Wrong Information".-----Just for SECOND, think that these images arent there will it going to make it worst NO! Not at all. I am a Muslim, and i know that these pictures are not presenting the true story. Why cant you add other images as geographical images or a history table of his life or something like that that will going to solve this issue for good.
Don't you think, why all Muslim, when they see these images become so upset that because they know that these images are fake and thats is why they are continuously requesting you to remove these image from article.
please consider this is will never harm anyone if you remove those art pieces in fact "wrong art pieces" from the article and replace them with some useful geographical maps or historical event tables nor it is going to decrease its quality.-----please consider

regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.163.244 (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. But, these images were drawn by Muslims centuries ago and represent a part of Islamic history. Many Muslims today don't think this is good or Islamic (including yourself) but it is an important enough part of Islamic history that it deserves to be represented. Even if we removed the images from this page they would still be on Depictions of Muhammad where they are the subject of the article. We don't mean to offend by this--we mean to represent history. It is not trying to tell people that this is how they should represent Muhammad, it only says that this is how people in the past have represented him. gren グレン 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And keep in mind that every image of Jesus, Moses, or any other Biblical figure is also "fake". In fact, any illustration prior to the invention of photography is arguably "fake", i.e. an "artist's conception". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hate to be a pain but this has been brought up a lot, over and over for perhaps years now, and I don't think it's going to change Lemniwinks (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)