Talk:Depictions of Muhammad/Archive 1


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Depiction of Muhammad → Depictions of Muhammad – Much like with Images of Jesus, this article is more about the collective idea of depictions. In addition, "Depiction of Muhammad" sounds very awkward.


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~ 

Remove
 * Remove as nominator. PHussain 07:10, 14 february 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. joturner 07:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't care as creator. Zora 07:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

The name sounds incredibly awkward. In my opinion, this page should be moved to Depictions of Muhammad or Depicting Muhammad (despite the fact that those names are unconventional). joturner 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No strong opinion. "Depiction of Muhammad" sounds more like it is about the topic generally, while "Depictions of Muhammad" sounds more limiting in that it seems to suggest the article is limited to being about specific depictions, but maybe that distinction is just in my head. Esquizombi 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NYT article about Wikipedia and Islam
This might be worth including:

--Elonka 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you must respect the freedom of others, and the images each one different from the other image is what the prophet, this is a contradiction .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amryazid (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Jmlk  1  7  20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what that person was talking about???WacoJacko (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of the objections posted here seems to be predicated on the desperate logic that "if it didn't look like him, it shouldn't be displayed at all." That would seem to imply it would be acceptable if the depiction did look like him, contravening the stated prohibition in some strains of Islam on depicting the Prophet in the first place. Some believe in this taboo; others do not (obviously the Islamic artists who created them did not nor did the authorities and scholars who commissioned or appreciated them). These hit-and-run objections also do not take into account the fact that the images displayed are historical religious art and do not pretend to be an accurate (by modern standards) representation of anyone. They are stylistic and informed by the artistic tastes and schools of thought at the time. I'm sure no one thinks the highly stylized Byzantine representations of religious figures look like any normal human face. Twalls (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary warnings
Hello people, this is an article entitled "Depictions of Muhammad", why tf is there warnings about removing images here? 83.202.6.91 (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion has taken place on talk:Muhammad. There is no reason the discussion should be replayed here since the same arguments apply.  If you want to discuss their removal, I would suggest taking it to that page.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 21:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, did you even read what I wrote? This is an article about Depictions of Muhammad, the whole "no images" vs. "images" is not even an issue here, ergo no need for a redundant image warning. 83.202.81.189 (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an issue. Check the article edit history, it has been the subject of repeat vandal attacks. --Veritas (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your logic is perfectly false, if Wikipedia based this type of warning on vandalism then every single page of the Encyclopedia would need to have a warning. The image discussion linked on this page isn't even for this article but for Muhammad where there absolutely is an issue (and judging by the talk pages has been for quite some time). Reviewing the talk page archives here there has not been any serious lengthy discussions about not displaying images on an article about images, ridiculous. 83.202.81.189 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense tells you (or at least should) that it is easier to have these conversations in a central location. That is why the discussions are held in the sub-page of the Muhammad Talk space. --Veritas (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense tells us that there's no logic to having a link to a talk page about an issue that does not exist on the original article. No one has seriously considered not having images on and article that is about images... is that not evident? 83.202.81.189 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you seem too lazy or too unwilling to look it up yourself. Here are some instances of vandalism regarding images in this article during just the past few days alone.  And this isn't even all of it:   --Veritas (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously attempting to argue for a warning based upon vandalism? Of course vandalism is dealt with as it is always dealt with, through "rvv". Vandals don't look to talk pages for warnings not to vandalize.... duh. 83.202.81.189 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is this prior discussion for the article Depictions of Muhammad? Where are the talk page archives for this article? 83.202.81.189 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a sub-article of Muhammad. See the archives of Talk:Muhammad. Hut 8.5 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my question was not for the Muhammad article but for the Depictions of Muhammad article and where are these past discussions for the article Depictions of Muhammad? Where are the talk page archives? 83.202.81.189 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Essentially there have been no discussions on this article's talk page suggesting that the images not be displayed (completely understandable given the nature of the article). Ergo, where's the need for an image warning? 83.202.6.91 (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussions at Talk:Muhammad also apply here. People regularly remove the images from the article (five times today so far), so some kind of warning is clearly necessary. Hut 8.5 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Online petition
The online petition appears to reach our notability threshold, at least for a h4 section under "recent controversies". I've created Online petition to remove Muhammad depictions from Wikipedia as a redirect pointing to that section. News coverage includes Herald Tribune, Fox News and NYT. The petition itself is here, and claims to have collected 300,000 signatures. --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

AMIR TAHERI: "Islam prohibits neither images of Muhammad nor jokes about religion."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007934

Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That prohibition might be of relevance wherever freedom of speech is limited by religious law. Wikipedia does not qualify as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.18.26.118 (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

1980s Iran
I don't know enough about this subject to edit the article, but thought this quote might be interesting:


 * The decoration was pleasantly eclectic and non-sectarian: large pictures of the Ayatollahs Khomeini and Taleghani shared the walls with one of the Prophet, who was holding the Holy Koran in the light of a sunbeam, while beside them the Virgin Mary sat demurely with the child Jesus by her feet and various lambs beside her.

The above comes from John Simpson's description in Behind Iranian Lines (London: Robson Books, 1988) of a visit to the town of Hastijan in Markazi Province, sometime in 1980s. What I noticed most, as a non-Muslim reading this in 2008, was that although he finds the picture noteworthy for its mixture of subjects, he nowhere even addresses the possibility that a picture of Muhammad openly on display in an Islamic Republic might be startling to some readers. Loganberry (Talk) 14:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversy section
I found the section titled "Wikipedia article" (in controversy section) to be way too POV. It should be re-worded to neutrally document the objection to images of Muhammad on wikipedia, not belittle it. I get the impression that the author very strongly disagrees with such objection (to say the least). That's fine, I don't want censorship either, but it shouldn't show in the article. It's perfectly reasonable for Muslims to voice their objection.

Also, the quote (it's strictly a negative opinion and doesn't add any info to the article) and the wikipedia account name don't seem appropriate. 24.207.72.196 (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

it isn't "reasonable for Muslims to voice their objection" against Wikipedia in particular. The internet is wide. Google images gives you 3.4 million hits for "Muhammad" (yeah, some of these are calligraphy, or other non-prophets also called Muhammad, but there are still plenty of them giving impressions of M himself). Why waste time on Wikipedia? The only solution to this is (a) either bomb the internet backbone, or (b) install a content filter at your end. A reasonable person would consider (b) the more pragmatic approach, but obviously not all Muslims are also pragmatics. For the few hotheads who prefer (a), godspeed, I guess we'll write an article about you after you either fail spectacularly, or, even more so, if you succeed in putting a dent in global traffic statistics for ten minutes. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there anything in the Koran prohibiting images of Muhammad, or is that just a custom that has evolved over time? The Ten Commandments prohibit idol worship. But by prohibiting images of Muhammad, it has the effect of turning Muhammad into a god. Muhammad is not considered a god in Islam, is he? Or is he? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that there is not a specific injunction against it in the Qur'an, but that it is the single most common Hadith. I could be wrong about that tho, I'm not exactly a scholar myself. Doc  Tropics  03:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an injunction against creating images of anything in this world. The general idea is that anything man creates is but a cheap mockery of God's creation.  There's at least two ways to view this 1) we can create no images of anything (plant, animal, nature).  This would be the most literal interpretation, and you will find no such images inside a conservative mosque.  or 2) we can make no images and claim them (or worship them) as our own creation.  In short, "no idol worship".  This latter interpretation fits in well with Muhammad's earliest attempts to eliminate idol worship from Mecca.  This also fits well with the Jewish and Christian prohibition against creating false idols.  A liberal interpretation of this second view would allow depictions of Muhammad (or anything else) for any purpose except worship or adoration.  Note, that the Koran does not specifically prohibit images of Muhammad, and the Koran does specify "that which is not prohibited in the Koran is permitted."  Now here's the interesting part, since the Koran did not single out Muhammad with regard to images, it should become a matter of "all or nothing".  Either we can create images (not for worship) or we can't.  However, tradition does not support this view.  Rklawton (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (addendum) The Koran does make specific exceptions to rules with regard to Muhammad. For example, the Koran explicitly forbids anyone to marry any of Muhammad's wives following his death.  The fact that such a specific exception exists for one thing and yet not for another should indicate that images of Muhammad are no more (or less) acceptable than images of anyone else (tradition notwithstanding).  Rklawton (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of depictions
Can we have a timeline of depictions of muhammad? Faro0485 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we can get a source that supports the information provided, anyone can add such timeline, including you! :-). Go for it. ESpublic013 (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

the thumbnail gallery under Depictions_of_Muhammad is supposed to be chronological. The earliest known Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad dates to 1299. Depictions of Muhammad in Islamic art remain common throughout the 14th to 17th centuries. It is only in the 18th or 19th century that we appear to see a revival of aniconism. This may be connected to the rise of Wahhabism in Sunni Islam in that period, although we'd need a source for making that connection in the article. Depictions of Ali at least continue to be produced in Shiite Islam until the present day. The article presently is weak on that point, we need more material on 19th to 20th century depictions. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad's photos
In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad is not allowed.Wikipedia editors r showing illustrations with face illustrated&face is veiled/white washed.I request to wikipedia;plz don’t use Muhammad’s photo. -- Hasanuzzaman T Shemul (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated at the top of the talk page, this issue has been thoroughly debated and decided. The images will not be removed. Please see Talk:Muhammad/images for details ~  Fenrisulfr  ( talk  ·  work  ) 10:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

pictures of Muhammad S.A.W
Please stop this non sense. respect for the religious concepts of all the religions; this is nonsense saying to stop displaying the images in the browser settings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.158.211 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue has been discussed plenty of times already. See the links at the top of the page. Hut 8.5 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, stop the nonsense. Please stop petitioning for the removal of images. Please respect my freedom of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.18.26.118 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The IPU (PBUH) demands that the images remain.96.35.209.81 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Names of Muhammed
Strikes me as odd that there isn't a list of his 99 names (such as can be found here http://itgateway.tripod.com/html/nameofprophet.htm) or an article dealing with the historical process of his aquiring of these names and their uses in worship/caligraphy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.44.223 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Syntax of 4.3 Wikipedia article
Links to Wikipedia should be formatted as external links in Section 4.3 "Wikipedia article" section per WP:SRTA, especially considering that page links to this article as an example of good form of that policy. 4.176.21.59 (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. --Shirik (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

L'Inferno
The page should have a citation to the early L'Inferno (film), includes a portrayal of the Dante's version of Muhammad. It is one of the only theatrical portrayals of Muhammad on screen that I even know of. Here is a link to a screenshot of Muhammad scene from the film.137.222.231.108 (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

-

Recent scholarly work should be added to this article
-	(I've been advised to confine my comment here to that which will improve the article.)  Paul Berman has a new book involving this article's subject, THE FLIGHT OF THE INTELLECTUALS. http://www.slate.com/id/2248809/Flight of the Intellectuals Berman is the distinguished editor of Dissent, and a former student of Palestinian intellectual Edward Said (as am I, though I've never met Berman). Contributors would find this a factual, verifiable resource to mine for a discussion of Mohammed's images in the context of Western intellectual freedom. Profhum (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy
This whole article is completely against Islam.--Stuvaco922 (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. It's about depictions of Muhammad. Did you even read the article? ~Amatulić (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it really isn't against Islam. Wikipedia has an neutral point of view standard, and merely having pictures of Muhammad on here doesn't break that. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon controversy
"The controversy occurred about one and a half year after the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in Denmark in early 2006."

I think this should be changed to "one and a half years" but it's locked, so someone should do it for me.


 * Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Times Square car bomb: police investigate South Park link

 * Source, for use in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Source, for use in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested
I feel this should be explicitly stated: Are depictions prohibited because they are incorrect or because they are correct? If it is the former, then how is this determined? I have yet to hear of a contemporary portrait surfacing. --Auric (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Depictions are not prohibited in the Qur'an in either case. Rklawton (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Pls read the article.96.35.209.81 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day events will need a new heading here. Alatari (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Quotations
The quote from Dante's Divine Comedy had been expurgated by an anti-vandalism bot months ago (18:02, 2006 April 28) and no longer even made sense but no one noticed. I've fixed it and notified the bot's page, but it may do it again. Tysto (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like you accidentally re-added droppings from another vandalism. I corrected that and await approval.  By the way, how does an edit from an unregistered user get automatically accepted?  Frotz (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I, too, was puzzled that I had to accept your edit. This new "pending changes protection" isn't well implemented in my opinion. Near as I can tell what happened, an anonymous IP made an edit that was waiting to be reviewed. Your account isn't designated as a reviewer, but you could see the edit anyway. Because you aren't a reviewer, you aren't shown the option to accept or reject a change, you just go on about your business as normal. So you correctly fixed the anon IP's edit, but the pending change from the IP was never actually cleared, so the pending got moved to your edit. Doesn't make sense to me, either. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Twinkle appears to have problems with the pending changes protection scheme, probably because it doesn't know about the scheme. Before I deleted the vandalistic words, I tried to do a vandalism revert.  That failed with an error message I neglected to save.  I had to do it manually in any case because "shit" got into text several edits back.  "Shit" might be more accurate depending on the translation used, but it seems that Wikipedia is using a bowdlerised version of The Inferno.  Frotz (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Social Network is Banned
Due to imagines of Muhammad Facebook is banned in Parkintan. This article would be a useful addition to this article. http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/05/facebook_banned_in_pakistan_be.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 09colga (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn´t this talkpage use to have a lot of archives?
They seem to be gone now.Gråbergs Gråa Sång 13:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you mean the sub-page Talk:Muhammad/images for general discussion of the image issue, & individual cases in other articles. That has loads. Johnbod 13:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Thanks!Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Text Correction "go right to back to "
Hi. As I'm not allowed to edit the article, please someone else correct this: in the second block of the section "Visual depictions" is this sentence: "Depictions of Muhammad go right to back to the known start of the Persian miniature..." I think the first "to" in "go right to back to " should be deleted. 46.115.16.28 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Marco Pagliero, Berlin
 * ✅ thanks for your suggestion. Hut 8.5 22:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I copyedited that. The phrase "go right back to" is somewhat idiomatic and a bit too informal for an encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On them being rare
... and according to Thomas W. Arnold, they are "so rare that some writers have even doubted the existence of any."

I'm not sure why the above is being removed. I wouldn't mind removing it, but since we have a reliable source stating how historically rare and insignificant those images were, one would think that another RS should be introduced first (claiming the opposite). In fact, 4-5 books in 1400+ years is extremely rare, and some poetry books created for private use is by definition "historical trivia". I thought the above quote aptly expresses this fact. Wiqi( 55 ) 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * per my edit summaries (which I had thought very clear): The source may be reliable, and no one questions that images were scarce, but the number of RS scholars that doubted their existence is too small to feature in the introduction so prominently. At the same time, the phrase that I restored (I'm not the original author) "...appearing almost entirely in the private medium of the Persian miniature book illustration, and those of other Islamic cultures." conveys more information, and in a more thorough manner. To me (and at least 1 other editor), it seems preferable in the lede, but the quote might well be included in the body if more context were provided. Doc  Tropics  21:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The sensible thing to do is to keep both pieces of information in the lead. Being rare and historically insignificant (i.e., not gaining any fame or infamy that we know of throughout Islamic history) is probably the most important fact we could say about the history of these images. Also, the ref points to the quote above, so your edit "broke" the ref. Wiqi( 55 ) 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are certainly more books than 4-5 (even Commons has images from more than that), and were almost certainly more than now exist, as the survival rate for this and other forms of medieval Islamic art is low, as manuscripts were concentrated in court libraries, which tended to have fires sooner or later. I have just been addressing this issue at the other page. The only person cited in the source (Arnold, itself of 1928) as believing they did not exist is a single German writing in 1906. He is certainly wrong, and it is deliberately misleading to include this point, with the implication there might be something in it, in a very brief lead. Much longer modern accounts understandably never mention it.  The court miniature traditions are generally accepted as a major aspect of Islamic art, though enjoyment of them was restricted to a tiny minority of the population - but this was true of many other forms of art, calligraphy for one.  The number of surviving manuscripts is not enormous & images of Muhammad appear pretty regularly in manuscripts of history and poetry which cover his life, and some genealogies etc.  The subject is certainly not "by definition "historical trivia"".  Arnold is now a rather outdated source, and is being leaned on too heavily here, as well as being used selectively to support a POV position.  Wiki55 clearly broke the WP:3RR rule today, and by rights should have a block. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note this from the Gruber Iranica article I have now added to the refs: "There exist countless single-page paintings of the meʿrāj included in the beginnings of Persian and Turkish romances and epic stories produced from the beginning of the 15th century to the 20th century (for an overview of such works, see Gruber, 2005, Appendix V, 425-27)...." - and that is just one subject from the life of the Prophet. She is the current leading specialist on the subject, and is working on a general book on it - ready 2011/12 her CV says. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of Gruber's work. Read a couple of chapters she wrote once. Too speculative for my taste. Also, only 4-5 books are devoted to the illustration of the prophet (in 1400+ years); virtually no decorations; and the rest are only one page "copies" found in privately owned poetry books (historical trivia). What Guber is saying doesn't really change what Arnold is saying, of them being rare and historically insignificant. In any case, encyclopedia articles like Muhammad and Islamic view of angels should not be modeled after 19th-century poetry books. Wiqi( 55 ) 14:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are wonderfully shameless in distorting things at every turn! Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was looking at the wrong footnote in Arnold (p. 91 n.3 - not n.2). It is not the German in 1906, but a Frenchman in 1791 who is cited as disbelieving such works existed! We really don't need to bother with this. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Useless references
Note 3 seems to be pretty useless, as it only provides a sentence-long CYA message: (Office of the Curator (2003-05-08). "Courtroom Friezes: North and South Walls" (pdf). Information Sheet, Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 2007-07-08.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GodRousingDogPipes (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE Remove alll Hazrat Muhammad's photos
IT is COMEPLETELY FORBIDDEN to display Muhammad's photo. You can keep the text and the links but PLEASE REMOVE PHOTOS of Muhannamd's. Respect Billions of muslims. By the name of neutrality you cannot put whatenver you want. Millions of people are dead 'cause of this religion issue. Please do not start another issue. Remove all photos PLEASE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parvez gsm (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See that big red hand on the top? It isnt just there cause it looks cool.Sam 18:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but... neutrality means not pandering to either side. Remocing all pictures would mean we are biased towards Islam. P.S. If you are a troll, shame on you! But if you are an actual Muslim, well then, the only thing that I can say is that out of all the depictitions of Muhammad (PBUH) which one is the actual depiction of Muhammad? P.P.S. I am a muslim too.--81.151.154.126 (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is called "Depictions of Muhammad". Therefore, it contains depictions of Muhammad. Obviously. With a clear title like that, any Muslim would know what to expect before coming here. And coming here is a deliberate choice, nobody forced it, so if you're offended, that's your problem alone. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I mean! Let me explain what I believe. I BELIEVE that all of these pictures of Muhammad (PBUH) are not really of him, but are rather an artists impression i.e. an artists impression of the Milk Way Galaxy looks like the Milky Way Galaxy, but it is only how a person BELIEVES that is how it looks. So, in short, I BELIEVE that none of these pictures are of him, ergo, I am not offeneded in any way or form.--81.151.154.126 (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The theories of Christiane Gruber
I noticed that recent edits have added a theory by Christiane Gruber where she links a text-only manuscript to depictions found in an album two centuries later. She further asserts that these depictions were produced by Sunni Muslims. But most of what she wrote is disputed and lacking any concrete evidence. Here are some examples of disputed information that this article is currently passing as fact:


 * First, the article fails to explain that the dating of the depictions under question is disputed. While Gruber maintains that they were produced during the time Abu Sa'id (a Sunni, supporting her hypothesis), other historians have dated these same depictions to the time of the Jalayirids (a Shi'a dynasty) (See Gruber, p.25, The Ilkhanid book). The article currently fails to explain this and accepts one-sided information as undisputed fact. It also gives more space than necessary to this theory even though it is disputed.


 * Second, Gruber assumes that every book illustrated in the reign of a Sultan must have been sponsored by that Sultan. However, that is not true. The fact that certain images were produced during the reign of Abu Sa'id does not mean that he ordered their production. Gruber does not seem to be aware of this. She also made the same mistake concerning Öljeitü, where she wrote in p.30 (ibid.) that "(Chronology of Nations) produced in 707/1307–8 for Sultan Öljeitü" (emphasis mine). This is despite the fact that the patron and circumstances of the production of this manuscript are not known (see Hillenbrand (2001), p.135). This mistake should discredit most of her theory. It is also worth mentioning that Dust Muhammad's Preface has also been considered unreliable.

Regardless of whether Guber's work is peer-reviewed or not, reliable or not, her Sunni claim is just a theory. It should not be treated as fact. Considering that the basis of her theory is disputed, I'm not sure how her further speculation about this fragmentary material should be considered encyclopedic. It does not actually prove anything that is factual or undisputed. Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 06:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are very quick to point out her "mistakes". The fact of the matter is that she is currently the leading specialist scholar in the matter, and you have no expertise, and your thoughts are pure OR, and very partisan OR at that. You need to cite recent scholars specifically opposing her views for these criticisms to have any impact - I don't say this area is without its controversies. Frankly you don't have background to make these sweeping judgements. I don't have Hillenbrand's earlier book, but to call that "fact" and her later comments "theory" merely demonstrates your POV stance.  Your usual vague statements about "other" historians who are never produced, and disputes, carry no weight without precise citations.


 * If we want to talk about "undue" in this article I suggest we start with the reliance on the outdated Thomas Walker Arnold (1864-1930)! Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Gruber noted that other historians have linked the same depictions she claims to be Sunni to the Jalayirids, a Shi'a dynasty. Thus my first point is not directed at Gruber, but at this article which has turned disputed information into fact. I'm also relying on the works of other historians, not original research. You don't need to be an expert to know that according to Hillenbrand the patron of the Chronology is not known, and according to other historians the Dust Muhammad's Preface is considered unreliable. Now given that most of Gruber's conclusions/assumptions are disputed, her theory should not be presented as fact or given undue space. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 20:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "just a theory" always sets off POV alarm bells in my mind, as this is a catchphrase of creationists who misapply a precise term when dismissing the entire foundation of biology. And it set off a POV alarm here.
 * That said, I agree that the views of a notable scholar should be presented as the scholar's views and not as fact. Space should also be devoted to describing any controversy documented in reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy to do that, if evidence is presented. As it is, I'm finding it hard to work out what Wiki55 is actually talking about. By "recent edits" I assume he means these, but his remarks seem to relate to other things. Please clarify, with diffs or quotes of the edits you mean, references, names of the shadowy "others" etc.  Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant a theory in the sense of a fringe theory, suggested by only one historian and most of which is based on disputed information. And the evidence has already been presented. Here is a full citations for where Gruber mentioned that other historians has dated these same depictions to the Jalayirids: . <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 21:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, just make it clear what text in the article you have problems with; ie copy it here. That would be a start. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, your removal of the passage, which I have reverted, finally makes that clear. The passage you don't like contains a "probably" and "perhaps" at key points. A theory is only a fringe theory when most other, and better respected, scholars dismiss it. So far the only thing you have come up with is Gruber herself, merely on a point of dating, which I imagine hardly affects the affiliation of the gestures. If Gruber is fringe, despite her work constantly appearing in the best journals, who is mainstream? Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gruber's theory should be given equal or less weight to a) scholars who dated the same depictions to a Shi'a dynasty (which invalidates most of Gruber's theory). b) scholars who thought that Dust Muhammad's preface is unreliable (which is a common view as far as I know, and would also invalidate the link between these depictions and the reign of Abu Sa'id). The gesture argument is absurd considering that, roughly speaking, Sunni Islam is mainstream Islam. Throughout Islamic history, many smaller sects (including Shia sects, like the Zaydis) have adapted many practices and beliefs from Sunni Islam. Thus finding resemblance between Sunni Islam and some manuscript does not necessarily mean that it was produced by Sunni Muslims. Also note that the gesture argument is a very minor and speculative detail. It should not be given any undue space here given that more important aspects of her theory is disputed. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 22:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, I'm not the one who stopped replying to the talkpage and stopped reading edit summaries. You should also try to add tags instead of reverting to a version that misrepresented some of the cited sources. For instance, the source does not mention "Western Muslims". And the sunni gesture argument is just a factual error, as Gruber did not understand what Qabdh is, and neither did you apparently. Details (or rather factual errors) about her disputed theory should not be given undue space here. Just a summary is enough. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 18:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why I adjusted that bit, removing the word. Your pure OR above is totally unreferenced re gestures etc., and does not impact on Gruber's argument which is qualified. You changes re the Seyer-i Nibi are blatently POV - as always you rush to remove any reference to any depictions originating in a Sunni context, a position supported by no scholars at all - it is beyond fringe. It is not at all true to say that any rich person could or did commission manuscripts, especially in the Ottoman period. How does the reliability of Dust Mohammed affect anything here? Most scholars do not regard all his stements as correct, but for much of them he is the only evidence remaining, and he is regarded as largely accurate. We are getting into RFC country here. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement I have removed was about Timurid and the Safavid. See also Hillenbrand who noted that the patronage of a manuscript is not known (despite knowing about the reign). And Dust Muhammad did not say that Abu Sa'id commissioned all the manuscripts produced during his reign. In fact, only one of these manuscripts is believed (with actual evidence) to have been commissioned by Abu Sa'id (kalila wa dimna). The rest are not known and not linked to Abu Sa'id in any way (except by Gruber, which is disputed). Also, you're giving much more space to Gruber's argument compared to those who thought it was a Shi'a manuscript. One sentence is more than enough. You're also mixing a text-only manuscript in an article on depictions which is confusing. And the Sunni gesture argument is just a factual error on her part. Qabdh means right-over-left. A prayer manual, as she claims, would never get this wrong. Moreover, this argument is not necessary and gives more weight to Gruber. Her source is already cited/added as reference and everyone can read more about her argument. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 19:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are again disputing Gruber with pure OR. You have not cited Hillenbrand on anything, nor indeed anything much about anything - as usual you just remove. I am not mixing manuscripts. The names of many patrons in the Timurid and the Safavid, and most in the Ottoman period, are known from inscriptions where the manuscript survives reasonably completely. This is just bluffing nonsense - please quote what Hillenbrand actually says (then I will quote Titley, Canby etc). I don't care about Murad's son (as I've said above) but the changes to the phrasing there also show POV at work.  I know what your opinions are - but what do the scholars say? Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Arnold
Are you sure you want me to find sources to say Arnold is outdated? Once I do, he goes completely. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about "goes completely", as my view that early sources should be examined on claim-by-claim basis. The only exception is extremist/promotional sources. I always appreciate new and informative sources, so go ahead. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 23:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hilya
We are saying, along with Gruber, that the hilya is laid out to resemble the shape of a body. Gruber cites as evidence the terms navel, skirt and sleeves used to describe parts of the hilya layout. I was a little troubled to find that she evidently mistranslates "koltuk", which means seat, armchair or armpit rather than sleeve (see Johnbod's talk). The other sources cited in hilya (notably Osborne, Derman, both in Google Books) don't make this connection between the layout and a body shape either. All the other elements of the hilya model do not have names that could in any way be construed as names of body parts. Thinking out loud here, we speak of a header, body and foot of a page, without implying representation of a human body, and to me the hilyas really don't look like bodies. Islamic calligraphy is perfectly capable of mimicking a body convincingly when it wants to, so I am a little unconvinced here. Further source research welcome. Are there any other sources asserting that a hilya is graphically designed to look like a man's body? -- J N  466  10:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For comparison, apart from Osborn, Derman and Safi, here is a book from Indiana University Press, describing the hilye as a "geometrical, architectural composition", in contrast to the figurative depictions common in Christianity. A similar argument is made by Mohamed Zakariya, a contemporary hilye artist, as well as by the author of The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad; there is certainly no hint of a suggestion that the layout is designed to mimic a body, and every affirmation that the hilye avoids visual representation. I think Gruber is overreaching here, and at any rate not representative.  -- J  N  466  23:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This should be copied to hilya. Obviously any resemblance to a body is highly schematic and purely symbolic. If you read the rest of this page, you will see that I am very resistant to suggestions, frankly based on POV, that Gruber, who is a leading contemporary academic in the field, is making mistakes every couple of lines. This is OR in its purest form. She references that para to Tim Stanley, the senior Middle East curator at the Victoria & Albert Museum, one of the world's leading collections of Islamic art, & a specialist in calligraphy. His article on the hilye that Gruber gives as "forthcoming" seems to remain so, though he has given it as a paper or lecture to various specialist conferences etc. There is hardly enough literature in English for a particular view to be considered unrepresentative - the whole subject of the hilye goes unmentioned in the Yale history of art and similar works as far as I can see. We have a clear citation to a high-quality RS, who cites a still more specialist one, and should leave it at that in the absence of any one specifically disputing Stanley/Gruber's view, not merely failing to say the same thing in a brief page or so on the subject.  I am very clear who is "over-reaching" here. I can't see the Cambridge companion where I am. No one is saying the hilye is "representational". Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But then we'd have to give six (?) times as much space to the various authors who state that it's a geometric, non-representational composition; and I don't think it's worth spending that amount of words on. -- J N  466  00:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That it is geometric and non-representational does not contradict Gruber in any way - obviously it is both of those things. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But her argument is that the elements correspond to parts of the prophet's body ("the hilye's form was conceived in a corporealizing manner so as to recall semantically the Prophet's presence via a graphic construct"). Would that not make it representational? At any rate, it's not the tack the other sources take. (I'll type out the Cambridge Companion for you, if you like.) I just don't think it's worth losing words over one way or the other; if we present both views, then we give it too much weight. -- J  N  466  01:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No it does not make it representational - which obviously it isn't. If you showed it to a young child & asked what it was a picture of, you would get a puzzled look, whereas they would probably recognise the calligraphy outlining a lion that you linked to - that can be called representational. It remains to be demonstrated that there are two views. I see you already removed it - I'm not especially bothered about the point here, where the section should indeed be short, but it stays at hilya, where there is no lack of space. Any suggestion that Gruber's view is disagreed with would need specific referencing - I'd also read WP:SYNTHESIS first. Your evident unfamiliarity with concepts of visual art makes your readiness to dismiss specialist scholars because they don't all line up in a chorus especially inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can discuss it further over there, if need be. -- J N  466  01:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Should I remove note 3?
Hi everyone, I'm concerned that this article is passing along mere 'conventional wisdom', rather than providing solid historically-based information. Note 3 seems like a case in point: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf. This is nothing more than a pdf information sheet prepared by the US Supreme Court for visitors and tourists interested in the sculpted friezes decorating its north and south walls. It mentions Muhammad and states that "Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet" but adds that the sculpture was a "well-intentioned" attempt to honor Muhammad as a lawgiver and that "it bears no resemblance to Muhammad". It seems overwhelmingly silly for an encyclopedia to cite this as a source of information on how Islam regards depictions of Muhammad. But I'd like to get other opinions before removing it. Otherwise, I'll remove it in a day or so. Thanks! --GodRousingDogPipes (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's far better than nothing - which is what you are replacing it with. So - replace it with a better source, or leave it alone. Rklawton (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just it. I'm not sure that mere poorly-sourced conventional wisdom is better than nothing. It might well be inaccurate, or oversimplified, and we have no reason to trust it. What should we do in a situation like this? Remove just the citation? Remove the sentence along with the citation? Leaving it as-is seems irresponsible. --GodRousingDogPipes (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course we can trust it. It's artwork with international implications, and there's no reason to believe the USSC's official statement was created without the greatest attention to detail. Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But they don't even give a source. Shouldn't we have information from primary sources and experts on Islam, rather than from unknown US government employees who don't provide sources? --GodRousingDogPipes (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We aren't allowed to use primary sources - except as illustrations. Rklawton (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so what about experts on Islam? Historians, religious studies professors, art historians, etc.? I find it hard to imagine that the source in question is good enough for an encyclopedia article on Islam. --GodRousingDogPipes (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it's better than no source. Now, if you've got good sources from professors, historians, and so on, then by all means, add them. That's how we roll. Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to agree that a trustworthy statement is better with a low-quality source than with no source at all. But my concern is that this statement cannot be verified to be anything more than conventional wisdom which may well be inaccurate or oversimplified. What should be done in a case like that? --GodRousingDogPipes (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do as I said and find better sources. Rklawton (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Calligraphic representations
I think the caption on the first illustration in this section is incorrect in describing this as simply an 'm' and an 'h'. I am far (very far) from expert at the Arabic alphabet, but I think what is being inscribed here is a meem-hah ligature, initial form (looks like a backwards, tilted Z with a loop, the meem, at the top) followed by a meem-dal ligature, final form. Specifically, the retrograde stroke in the bottom middle is a representation of the meem part of the second ligature, and then is followed by the dal (upright, with a line off the bottom going left and bending up). Finally, it has the shaddah (the unconnected rounded 'w' at the top) giving a longer sound for the middle meem it is above (as in muhammad) - it is thus mhmd (or mhmmd). Compare to the middle image, where you have the same meem-hah ligature on the right to start, and then separate meem (the little circle in the middle with shaddah above it) and dal (with the little loop floating above, the sukūn, to indicate no vowel follows the dal). This is just an amateur's eye view - I would be interested in whether a native reader of Arabic can confirm this. Agricolae (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, reworded. -- J N  466  14:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures without sufficient sources

 * File:Mirror Muhammad gold.jpg is the "own work" by an anonymous Wikipedia editor,
 * File:Pal Pottery Cal3.jpgis the "own work" by an anonymous Wikipedia editor, who has been blocked as an alleged sock puppet
 * File:Ambigram - Muhammad and Ali2.svg is an Svg version of a non existing Jpg version, which was developed by an anonymous Wikipedia editor on the basis of a calligraphic image presented to them many years ago.
 * File:Kufic Muhammad.jpg is according to its description a "Fourfold Muhammad in geometric Kufic script, tilework pattern often used in Islamic architectural decoration (cf. e.g. Annemarie Schimmel: And Muhammad Is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety)". We are not told in which edition and page of And Muhammad Is His Messenger the image can be found. Also we don't know the source of Schimmel for this image, e.g. in which Islamic building or building plan it can found as a decoration.

I suggest to delete this four images from the article, --Rosenkohl (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree all those. It's a pity we don't have better historic calligraphy in that category. I'm sure these are mostly based closely on such, but it's not enough. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Annemarie Schimmel: And Muhammad Is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety Image is on p119 Darkness Shines (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as far as I can see the caption in the book is: "fourfold Muhammad, tilework pattern often used in architectural decoration". So we still don't know who made this specific design, where a tile with this pattern has been used in architecure, and where these tiles are used often; or whether "pattern" here just refers to the generall concept of combining four rotated copies of the same element, or whether Schimmel invented this particular design on her own, --Rosenkohl (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We should be avoiding user-created images in this article altogether. At least some of the images listed here are replaceable with images that are in the public domain, so why not do that? FormerIP (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Images and Islamic law
Islamic law does, as far as I know, not distinguish between depictions of Muhammad and depictions of other living beings. It seems wrong to say that „some supplemental hadith explicitly ban the drawing of images of any living creature“ and that „[h]ence, most Muslims avoid visual depictions of Muhammad“. It is misleading to say that „[t]he permissibility of depictions of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, has long been a concern in the history of Islam“. There are many ways of reading the hadith, and in cases when strict readings gain popularity, scholars rather look for sociopolitical causes (see, e.g., Mika Natif, The Painter’s Breath and Concepts of Idol Anxiety in Islamic Art, in: Josh Ellenbogen and Aaron Tugendhat, Idol Anxiety, Stanford University Press 2011, pp 41-55).

The permissibility of depictions of Muhammad rarely ever has been a concern in the history of Islam. Strict readings of the hadith rarely ever did gain popularity. Scholarly sources describe Islam as a culture rather indifferent than hostile to images. Silvia Naef, a Swiss scholar who has written a book on the Islamic image ban (Y a-t-il une question de l’image en Islam? (2004) – not yet translated into English, but into German (Bilder und Bilderverbot im Islam, 2007) and Italian (La questione dell'immagine nell'Islam, 2011)), points to the fact that Muslim jurists never have addressed the question of images as a main topic. According to Naef, "there are no tracts on the subject of images." Images are only mentioned in tracts on the subject of ritual purity in general.

The absence of depictions of Muhammad may over the centuries have turned into a taboo in parts of the Muslim world, but that taboo is not founded in Islamic law (see, e.g., Ron E. Hassner, Blasphemy and Violence, in: International Studies Quarterly (2011) 55, 23–45). Thanks to the Supreme Court frieze controversy we now even have a fatwa stating that „the fundamental rule is one of non-prohibition of images“ (Taha Jaber al-Alwani, Fatwa Concerning the United States Supreme Courtroom Frieze, in: Journal of Law and Religion 15 (2000), pp. 1-28). Islamic law does not prohibit depicting Muhammad, although Muslims and non-Muslims alike often believe it does. And the frieze fatwa even expresses gratitude to the creators of the frieze, „who brought, in their own way, the essence of what the Prophet (SAAS) symbolized, namely, law with justice, to the attention of the American people.“ - Cheers, Ankimai (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ankimai for this sourced comment, which I think should also included into the current Requests for comment/Muhammad images‎, --Rosenkohl (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012
Please delete (at least censor) every picture that picturing Muhammad S.A.W.

AldeyWahyuPutra (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This idea has been repeatedly discussed and rejected. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 11:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

External link to Muhammad
There have been a couple editors replacing the link to Muhammad with an external link, for the dubious reason that an internal link would somehow break mirror sites. As far as I know we don't use external links for Wikipedia articles for the benefit of mirror sites. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was able to find the policy I was referring to, WAWI. OSborn arfcontribs. 17:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we get you to read over Piped link and/or Manual of Style/Linking.Moxy (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks OSborn, I didn't know about that one. However, it seems that the examples pointed out in WP:WAWI use external Wikipedia links in citations, not in-line with the prose.
 * Moxy, unless I missed something, those guidelines you reference don't answer the issue raised here, about when or why it might be appropriate to use an external link to an internal article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think those examples listed are examples where the policy would apply, rather than examples of the policy being applied. I think this is a fairly rare issue in links. OSborn arfcontribs. 18:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a guideline. That doesn't mean it isn't important, but we should remember the distinction: Policies are governing rules, guidelines are best practices. WP:COMMONSENSE also applies.


 * Reading that guideline in its entirely, it seems clear that it's all about having an article make sense in some other place than on Wikipedia. For example, if one were to print out the article, one would still want references to be verifiable in that version. In that context, simply spelling out "Wikipedia's article on Muhammad" without any link at all serves the intent of the guideline, because it describes the self-reference clearly in prose, and it would be clear on any other medium what is being referenced. The whole point of that guideline is to avoid ambiguity, and I don't see how an internal link piped with the appropriate prose violates it, especially since inline links aren't desirable in prose.


 * I recall the original argument for including this internal link concerns how mirror sites would render it. I don't see why we should be worried about how mirror sites render this particular link as opposed to all others in the article, especially when the link is piped to text that describes clearly that the sentence is about an article on Wikipedia.


 * I wouldn't object to sticking an external link to the Muhammad article in a footnote for clarity on other sites, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think in this case not linking the phrase may be the best solution since the link wouldn't be to the subject of Muhammad but to our article on Muhammad so having it be plain, unlinked may be the best solution. How about changing it to
 * "In 2008, several Muslims protested against the inclusion of Muhammad's depictions in Wikipedia's Muhammad article."
 * I don't think a footnote is necessary but I don't think an internal link is really correct here. OSborn arfcontribs. 18:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, although if you make that change I'm sure someone will come along and turn Muhammad into a wikilink anyway. Try it and let's see how it goes. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also removed a bizarre internal link to a Talk: subpage, the source cited supports the statement and anyways a regular internal link is non permanent. OSborn arfcontribs. 19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't bizarre, it's a well-established subpage resulting from long-standing consensus. I do object to removing that link, because its removal creates difficulty for anyone trying to verify that footnote. An external link is warranted in this case. Whereas an external link to Muhammad serves no verification purpose, an external link to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ serves to verify the reference, in the exact same way as the examples given on WP:WAWI. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The subpage isn't bizarre but linking from article space into talk space is. The source given covers that fine but if you wish to add a primary source citation to that as well then go ahead. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right, at first glance when I looked at your last diff I thought you removed a link from a footnote, not from the body. I'll leave it as is. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad → Depiction of Muhammad – Per WP:PLURAL. I don't believe this topic fits any of the exceptions laid out there. The article is not just about individual depictions of Muhammad (which could be construed as "groups of classes of specific things," I suppose), but the idea of depicting him. The incongruity between this article and Depiction of Jesus moved me to propose this. Honestly, I think "depictions" sounds better, but again, I don't see this as a good case to stray from WP:PLURAL. Note that my proposed title is the original one, and a very brief discussion with very little in the way of arguments moved it over six years ago. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sensible arguments, though as you say the plural somehow sounds better. No objection, verging weak support. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On the fence, leaning to oppose. I too think "depiction" seems awkward, even for the Jesus article, and WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that we don't slavishly apply a guideline just because the list of exceptions isn't exhaustive. This article is about many things, including a group or class of depictions throughout history, and associated cultural issues and controversies. It isn't all about the singular practice or idea of depicting Muhammad. One reason for using a singular form is to make plural links more convenient, but that doesn't apply here because the plural word comes first. Also, I don't recall ever seeing this term in singular form. All that being said, however, I don't have any real strong objection to renaming, either. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Depicting Muhammad? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not, per WP:NOUN. --BDD (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. That will do for when they make the movie :) Johnbod (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Lean - Oppose - We are talking about a group or class of something, in this context we talk about not one specific depiction but depictions as a whole unit. (The Jesus article imho should follow this naming also.) Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  04:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With no very strong opinions here (which is refreshing, given the topic), I'm withdrawing the request. I do think "Depictions" sounds more natural, so I think it's reasonable to ignore WP:PLURAL. I'll be requesting the opposite move at Depiction of Jesus shortly. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fart? Shit?
Where the words Fart and Shit used In the 1300s? The section says-Dante, in The Divine Comedy: Inferno, placed Muhammad in Hell, with his entrails hanging out (Canto 28): No barrel, not even one where the hoops and staves go every which way, was ever split open like one frayed Sinner I saw, ripped from chin to where we fart below. His guts hung between his legs and displayed His vital organs, including that wretched sack Which converts to shit whatever gets conveyed down the gullet.

I found this-"A cask by losing centre-piece or cant Was never shattered so, as I saw one Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.

Between his legs were hanging down his entrails; His heart was visible, and the dismal sack That maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Doesn't breaketh wind sound more encyclopedic than Fart? And does excrement sound more encyclopedic than Shit?--98.87.94.57 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting bowdlerizing Dante? Ultra Venia (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And yes, the word "fart" was indeed used in the 1300s. Just read "The Miller's Tale" by Chaucer, line 3806 &mdash; the word occurs in both middle and modern English (reference). ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

21st Century depiction in film
thumb|Muhammad is portrayed lightheatedly in the 2012 film [[Innocence of Muslims]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domepor (talk • contribs) 08:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, is there any need for the still from 'The Innocence of Muslims? The actors in the original version have already stated that the film (as acted in by them) was nothing to do with Islam, and all references to the religion were clumsily dubbed-in afterwards. The actor was not playing Mohammed - he was playing a minor warlord and bandit leader in Egypt. It's just like quoting words from Adolf Hitler from the subtitles on one of the 'Hitler is Angry' youtube meme. 86.171.62.154 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversies section
It's unclear what the scope of this section is meant to be. From the rest of the article, it seems as though the article's scope is visual depictions of Mohammed (and the substitutes for such, like calligraphic and figurative depictions), so that the controversy section's scope would be controversy over visual depictions. Instead, it seems to include material that was controversial for other reasons but that happened also to include a visual depiction of Mohammed. The recent addition of Innocence of Muslims is one such example; I'm not seeing in the sources that controversy focused in any way on the fact that an actor portrayed Mohammed, and based on the film's content it seems very likely that it would have been just as controversial as a widely distributed text-only book. (Sources are using the word "depiction," but I think it's in a different sense than we're using it here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Any thoughts? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that the purpose of that section is to provide overviews of modern controversies notable enough to deserve a mention or have their own articles. Whether the focus of each incident is visual depiction or just depiction of Muhammad in a general sense, they're still about depictions. I agree with you though, the controversy over Innocence of Muslims appears to be more about how Muhammad was depicted rather than the fact that an actor portrayed Muhammad. The visual appearance of Muhammad would also have aroused controversy anyway, but that seems to have been overshadowed by the way he was portrayed, in a similar fashion that Christians were outraged (and in some places reacted with violence) at Last Temptation of Christ (film) (although Christians wouldn't care about Jesus' face appearing on screen). ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Basically, I think we need to identify which controversies are actually related to the topic of the article, ie. the visual depiction of Mohammed. (Other controversies, including "Innocence of Muslims," are notable but don't seem to be relevant.) It's a little complicated because "anger over the film's depiction of Mohammed" sounds like it means "anger over the fact that Mohammed was visually depicted" but most likely really means "anger over the way Mohammed was shown to behave." Perhaps we can go over all the examples and identify which ones belong. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)