User:ALM scientist/bk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introduction[edit]

Whenever a dispute arises amongst editors on Wikipedia, particularly on articles related to religion (e.g. Islam), then those who express concerns on the issue have two ways of dealing with it: to either accept the current Wikipedia policies, or to try and engage in discussion in order to get agreement on an alternate view. Problems occur when Wikipedia policies are violated because the majority of the editors wish to present a controversial view with no respect for the religious beliefs (even if it is not a universally held view).

This article focuses on the controversy regarding the artistic images of Muhammad appearing in Wikipedia articles, with an aim to taking the issue up with the arbitration committee and Jimbo Wales. If necessary, opinions from experts on Islam external to Wikipedia will be sought.

The dispute began after multiple images of Muhammad were placed (usually at the top) of different articles relating to him, giving the impression that it is acceptable to mainstream Muslims to portray the holiest prophet of Islam in this manner. Those portraits were made by Muslim artists several hundred years after the death of Muhammad and are very rare in number.[1][2][3][4]

This essay is an attempt to show that the current practice being promulgated by a few editors does not represent mainstream tradition, that per Wikipedia's policy on WP:Undue Weight, the images should be removed from prominent places and not used in large numbers as it gives a false impression to readers that making images of Muhammad is an acceptable and widespread tradition when, in contrast, very few were ever made.

Various mainstream media have in the past (particularly during the Danish cartoons controversy) stated that there are many images of Muhammad in existence which have been created by muslims.[citation needed] However, none of those sources assert that these images represent mainstream Islamic tradition. To the contrary, the sources clearly mention that they represent a minority tradition as most of the images of Muhammad were created during a short period mainly in Persia.[1][2][3][4] Furthermore, as the sources do not clarify whether many refers to five or five hundred and the sources do not identify the images, the claims cannot be accepted per se. However, the definition of majority and minority needs no further clarification.

This article uses dozens of sources to highlight this dispute and to illustrate that depicting Muhammad is indeed a minority tradition among Muslims. Finally, this article also highlights that, on the whole, non-muslims have and do respect Islamic traditions and, even in non-muslim literature, presenting Muhammad in pictures is very rare. It is hoped that upon seeing this evidence, Wikipedia will also respect this tradition and a solution to these disputes can be formulated.

Depiction of Muhammad in Wikipedia[edit]

See also: Depictions of Muhammad

Assuming good faith[edit]

The solution to this dispute begins by assuming good faith towards each other. It is not helpful to say that Muslim editors are attempting censorship and citing WP:NOT#CENSORED. Similarly, if an editor suggests that images should be included, or that they should be right at the top of an article or that large numbers should be included, it should be assumed that they take this position due to a lack of knowledge about Islam. This dispute cannot be solved without assuming good faith towards each other. If Muslims have accepted cartoon images in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article and similarly many pictures in Depiction of Muhammad article, then the censorship assumption is clearly wrong. It is hoped that after proving that images of Muhammad do not represent mainstream tradition, no one will have any reason to support those images in mainstream articles about Islam (per WP:Undue weight) where suitable alternatives are available.

What wikipedia policies/guidlines say[edit]

Here we present rules that are related to this dispute. Firstly we quote WP:Undue weight which is a policy of wikipedia. Reading following quotes from WP:Undue weight policy one can understand that minority tradition should not be presented as majority tradition by giving more space and displaying on prominent places. Secondly we quote WP:Profanity which is a guidline of wikipedia. It basically says that offensive material should be used if no alternative exist. We have shown alternatives at the end of this articles which should be used instead of offensive pictures. Lastly, we discuss Wikipedia is not a democracy policy. We accept that although almost all of the Muslims do not wisht to have pictures but they are in minority in wikipedia. Hence each vote might not have consensus but may lead to have more picture supporters vote. Hence when we consider simple majority then this dispute could not be solved.

  • WP:Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification : Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. "
  • WP:Profanity: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
  • Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding."

Earliest Pictures limited to specific region only[edit]

In this section we prove using following quotes that earlier pictures were found in Persia after seven hundred years of Muhammad death. Persian Muslims represent a very small minority of Muslims world. Later we show with using sources that Persian Muslim were although Shia but they do not represents Shia religion in general. In fact most of the pictures available of Muhammad are from 1300 to 1600 years (see Depiction of Muhammad). Given that Islam history is around 1500 years old these pictures consistute a small minority in term of time period they were created and small minority in terms of area they are created in (Persia).

Map showing distribution of Shia and Sunni Muslims in Africa, Asia and Europe. By some estimates, approximately 15-20% of the world's Muslims are Shia. There are an estimated 130 to 190 million Shia Muslims[5] (including Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaidis)
  • "The Jami al-Tawarikh manuscript (Blair 1995), probably produced in north-west Iran around 1310, and now divided between Edinburgh University Library and Khalil Collection, London, contains some of the earliest, perhaps the earliest, known representations of quranic prophets, including Muhammad" [6]
  • "The Birth of the Prophet Muhammad from Rashid al-Din's Universal History, copied at Tabriz, 1315..., "An image such as the Birth of Muhammad shows the range of historical and visual sources available in Iran under the Ilkhans..." "Pictures of Muhammad are extremely rare in Islamic art; those in this manuscript are some of the first known and show the Ilkhan patrons did not share the inhibitions of other Muslims about representing the Prophet. The idea of the scene came from Christian art, in which scenes from the life of Christ are common."[1]

Persian Pictures do not imply Shia Islam support Pictures of Muhammad[edit]

"It was not merely sunni schools of law but Shia jurists also who fulminated against this figured art. Because the persians are Shias, many Europieans writers have assumed that the Shia sect had not the same objection to representing living being as the rival set of the Sunni; but such an opinion ignores the fact that Shiisum did not become the state church in Persia until the rise of Safivid dynasty at the beginning of the 16th century..." [3]

Historical Pictures found in Specific time Period and Area[edit]

Now we deal with pictures in general and prove that they were found during specific time period and limited place. We also use following sources to show that they indeed represent a minority tradition in Islamic world. In fact they are saved because of their rarity in existence (see source below).

  • Depictions of Muhammad, the last prophet of the Islamic faith, are often contentious. "Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet." Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of prophets of Islam and living beings generally should be prohibited, and are strongly averse to visual representations of Muhammad. Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban. "Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found". [2][7][8]
  • "The figure of Muhammad seldom occurs in a picture painted by a Muslim artist, and when it is found the face is generally veiled or the prophetis symbolically represented by a flame of golden light. This vary rarity of the subject matter lends interest to the picture here reproduced...."[3]

Muslims Fatwa/Rulings about Pictures[edit]

Fatwa is term as a ruling in Islamic world. Fatwa importance is related to the credibility person or organization giving it. Al Azhar University is considered one of the most important institute in Islamic world. We have quoted two Fatwa issued by them. First Fatwa has not that strong wording but second Fatwa is more implicit. Even a Shia organization is also quoted giving Fatwa, negating the fact that Shia support Muhammad pictures in general. In order to keep the article neutral we have also quoted a Fatwa in favor of pictures. However, given that it is given by Shia scholar of a specific region having few Shias it represents a extreme minority.

Against[edit]

"It is certainly probable that this is not the result of the creativity of the filmmakers but of the rules announced by the Islamic scholars of the Azhar and the Shiite Council of Lebanon, who prohibited any representation of Muhammad’s wives as well as of the Prophet himself." [9]

"A more severe case occured in 1926, around the anticipated production of a film about grandeur of the early days of Islam... Upon learning of plan, the Islamic Al-Azhar University in Cairo alerted Egyptian public opinion, and published a juridical decision (fatwa), stipulating that Islam categorically forbids the representation of the prophet and his companions on the screen. King Fauad sent a severe warning to (actor Youssef Wahbi) Wahbi, threating to exile him and strip him of his Egyptian nationlity"[4]

Favor[edit]

NOTE: Showing the face of Muhammad is problematic in Shia Islam, not the body- The Media in Iran has never ever showed the face of Muhammad or other companians of Muhammad they respect. None of the drawings in the school books in Iran show the face- Source: User:Aminz who has lived in Iran for a long time.

The most prominent authority within Shi'a Islam outside of Iran, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, was asked, "Is it permissible to draw or produce a scene which shows the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), one of the past prophets or the infallible Imams (a.s.), or other luminaries and show it in cinema, on television or theatre?" and responded. "If due deference and respect is observed, and the scene does not contain anything that would detract from their holy pictures in the minds [of the viewers], there is no problem."[1] "A top cleric in Iraq, Sheikh Maithan al-Sehlani, is quoted on a Shia site as responding to a question about pictures of the prophet, by saying: You are allowed to have these pictures, however to take them as true images of these holy people is not allowed."[10]

Generally Non-Muslim have respacted Muslims Tradition[edit]

In this section we show that non-Muslim have generally respacted Muslim tradition. Hence even in non-Muslim literature Muhammad picture are in minority tradition [citation needed]. Hence wikipedia even deny Non-Muslims sources when it present Muhammad pictures in large numbers. TODO this section to be written with references:

Muslim response: In 1997, a patition is filed by Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, against image of Muhammad in the USA Supreme Court's. CAIR say "CAIR noted that Islam discouraged its followers from portraying any prophet in paintings, sculptures or other artistic representations." [7] [11]
Supreme court act: Chief Justice William Rehnquist told "it is unlawful (under the U. S. Code) to remove or in any way injure an architectural feature in the Supreme Court." But the federal government revised tourist literature at the court to show more respect for Islamic beliefs. Text that called Muhammad the "founder" of Islam was changed to say Muslims believe the divine word of God ... was revealed to Muhammad.The literature further changed to, "The figure is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad, and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet." [7][11]

Possible Solutions[edit]

File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg
"Muhammad" in a new genre of Islamic calligraphy started in the 17th century by Hafiz Osman.[8]
File:Mohammad Rasul Allah.jpg
Arabic calligraphy by Salma Arastu reading "Muhammad, Messenger of Allah".
File:Wazir-mosque-ALLAH-Muhammad.jpg

Use alternative where they exist and use picture when they are irreplaceable.

  • For example: In Black Stone article use a real picture instead of picture that represent a minority tradition.
  • In Muhammad’s article use calligraphy instead of offensive pictures representing a minority tradition. Muslims have long tradition of calligraphy. Following sources quote this long tradition.
    "Calligraphy, acknowledged to be the highest form of visual expression in the Muslim world, has never been adequately studied. " [12]
    "But, most importantly for our purposes, there was a consciousness of being different from and better than earlier and surrounding cultures. The maintenance of this difference was particularly complicated in the realm of forms, where Islam had no official doctrine and the Arabian homeland of the faith no tradition to continue. The process of creating a visual expression meant, therefore, inventing new forms, for instance calligraphy, and discarding older forms which had too many concretely alien associations, for instance the representation of man." [13]
    "In the world of Islam the art of writing has always played a central role. "Among all arts calligraphy can be considered the most typical expression of the Islamic spirit. The Quran itself has stressed several times the importance of writing." The growth of Islamic calligraphy followed that of Islamic art and architecture..." [14]
  • Place a disclaimer, as is done in Bahá'u'lláh. This places a note at the top of the article, that an image is available at the Depiction of Muhammad. Those who wish to see the image, can do so, and those who do not, can confine their reading the article. Remember in case of Bahá'u'lláh real pictures exist unlike Muhammad where first know picture was created seven hundred years after his death.

Comments In Favor of Adding Pictures[edit]

TODO this section to be written with references. You could help

  • We admit it is not main stream Muslim tradition to draw Muhammad but article is not about Islamic view of Muhammad
    todo Ask then why you have added all Muslim artist pictures in the artilce? Add only western artist then. Furthermore ask what you think about above section where Non-Muslim had usually respected Muslim tradition.
  • Wikipedia is not censored
    todo: We all agree on it. Hence lets WP:AGF and restart the debate.
  • Muslim leaders have ordered to draw picturs
    todo: Write about two such known cases. 1) Where all pictures drawn was without Muhammad face 2) When there decission was not followed because of protests. (with references) Ask them to list other incidents if they can?
  • Consensus is achieved on pictures issue
    Todo: ...... obviously false claim ..... (with references)
  • We agree that it violates WP:Profanity when applied to Muslims but majority wikipedians are non-Muslim. Hence this rule does not apply.
    Muslims constitute 1.4 billion of world population[15] which should not be neglected. We believe that profanity guideline is about wikipedia readers instead of wikipedia contributers. Many Muslim editors left wikipedia soon after joining or have wrong impression. I quote one reader. "In my profile you can ever see: Don't use en.Wikipedia to learn about Islam - It's full of anti Islam propaganda". [16]. Our aim should not be to give this impression to end reader when we have alternatives.
  • We need to see Muhammad picture to imagine the man.

How can You help us?[edit]

  • By improving this article.
  • By signing in.
  • By helping in filing arbitration case and support it.

Negative impact of this Dispute[edit]

Many news editors leave wikipedia because of this pictures dispute or get banned without getting chance to prove their abilities and contribute. Their removal of Muhammad pictures is termed as vandalism even if no wikipedia policy makes deletion of a disputed picture as vandalism and even if they were very new in wikipedia. Our one aim is to discourage admins calling new user first edits as vandalism and welcome those editors towards discussion/contributions (per policy Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Keeping those editors would be useful in long run for wikipedia because they might become valuable editors. Those editors might make a big difference in wikipedia. Hence some of editors welcomed in this way is following.

We hope that with our efforts we could change them from removing picture and leaving wikipedia to a regular contributers.

Things to avoid[edit]

  • Do not warn one side and leave other when content is disputed. For example:
    Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Muhammad/images. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. (by an admin on many user page when no one is warn for adding pictures)
  • Do not block or made a block review when you have expressed opinion about a dispute.
    For example: (see User_talk:Funnypop12)
  • Finally do not term each edit of new user (for example removing a disputed picture) as vandalism. Invite them to talk and reasoning.
    See above user pages. Even before welcome message they get their first vandalism notice on removing a picture which is disputed. It is is wrong.

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Jonathan Bloom & Sheila Blair (1997). Islamic Arts. London: Phaidon. p. 202.
  2. ^ a b c "Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad". BBC News. 2006-02-02. Retrieved 2007-05-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ a b c d T. W. Arnold (June 1919). ""An Indian Picture of Muhammad and His Companions"". The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 34, No. 195. pp. 249–252. ISSN 0951-0788. Retrieved 2007-05-01.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  4. ^ a b c Alessandra. Raengo & Robert Stam (2004). A Companion To Literature And Film. Blackwell Publishing. p. 31. ISBN 063123053X.
  5. ^ "The Revival of Shia Islam". The Pew Forum. 2006-07-24. Retrieved 2007-05-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Patricia L. Baker (2004). Islam and the Religious Arts. The Continuum International Publishing Group, London. pp. 44–45. ISBN 0-8264-5605-7.
  7. ^ a b c "USA Supreme court: Information Sheet" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. 2003-08-05. Retrieved 2007-05-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ a b Ali, Wijdan. "From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development of Prophet Muhammad's Portrayal from 13th Century Ilkhanid Miniatures to 17th Century Ottoman Art". In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Turkish Art, eds. M. Kiel, N. Landman, and H. Theunissen. No. 7, 1–24. Utrecht, The Netherlands, August 23-28, 1999, p. 7
  9. ^ Freek L. Bakker (2006). ""The image of Muhammad in The Message, the first and only feature film about the Prophet of Islam"". Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations. 17. Routledge: 87. doi:10.1080/09596410500399805. Retrieved 2007-05-01.
  10. ^ "Islamic Scholars' Views on Portraying Mohammed Not Identical". Cybercast News Service. 2006-02-07. Retrieved 2007-05-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ a b "Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court". Daily Republican. 2003-08-05. Retrieved 2007-05-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ Oleg Grabar. Islamic Art and Beyond. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2006. LoCC: N6260 .G69153 2006, pages=277
  13. ^ Oleg Grabar. Islamic Art and Beyond. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2006. LoCC: N6260 .G69153 2006, pages=28
  14. ^ M. Ahuja; A. L. Loeb. Tesselations in Islamic Calligraphy. Leonardo, Vol. 28, No. 1 (1995) pp 42-43
  15. ^ Teece (2003), p.10
  16. ^ View of a Muslim reader
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ALM_scientist/bk&oldid=1168387410"