Talk:Muhammad/Archive 16

Catering to a Minority?
I've read through most of this page and I really don't understand why so many people advocate catering to a minority who feel displaying a picture of Muhammad is somehow blasphemous. Whether or not it is according to Islam should be completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. Why do certain Muslims demand that everyone else abide by their practices? Should the article on Jesus be revised to fit Islamic teachings, with all references to the belief of his Divinity removed? It seems the teachings of the world's largest religion (Christianity) is in conflict with Islam. Should we therefore revise all pages concerning Christianity to the Muslim POV? Wikipedia is not an Islamic project, nor a religious project. The general template of displaying a picture or other representation (when not available) for historical or modern figures is ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia, and I see no reason to make exceptions for Muhammad. As for demanding PBUH appended after every mention of his name, that is simply ridiculous. Apart from being an honorific title, it completely alters the article's point of view and neutrality. Furthermore, many people believe Muhammed was not a good person, much less a prophet. There is a place for catering to religious sensitivities, but that place is certainly not Wikipedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to disseminate unbiased information about subjects of importance, not to guarantee no one will ever be offended by the display of certain information. According to the standards stated in Apostasy in Islam many religious, political, and scientific pages could be considered blasphemous to Muslims. Fortunately Wikipedia is not governed by Sharia Law. As such I believe an historical representation should be displayed prominently on the page, as is the case with nearly every other person on Wikipedia. Talmage 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hail Comrade! Seriously, what a lot of people miss is that an encyclopedia cannot treat all views with equal deference, because the very project of creating an encyclopedia must be founded on the notion that such a project is a worthwhile endeavor.Cjh57 02:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would take that comment a step farther and say that the purpose of an encyclopedia should not be to spread "truth" but rather to publish "fact." Truth is generally relative. Fact is not.  Truth requires analysis, and there is only a limited place for analysis in an encyclopedia.  FWIW, I'm a fairly orthodox Christian and a mathematician by profession.  Just as I don't use Scripture in any of my math research, I would hope anyone who contributes to this (or any other page on Wikipedia) would be able to separate his or her religious beliefs from the dissemination of provable (or nearly so) fact. Talmage 06:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Talmage: aren't facts true? Dast 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Facts are true, but not all truth is demonstrably factual.Cjh57 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Facts (in theory) are true, but not all "truth" can be factually proven. As a Christian, I personally believe it is a "truth" that Muhammad wasn't a prophet, but I can't publish it as general "fact". Talmage 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason why Wikipedia has become a laughing stock and a by word for incorrect and misleading information. Surely common sense should prevail. 99% of muslims would find the pictures offensive and not inline with mohammands teachings. Why offend the people we are trying to understand and represent? Ask yourself, does the picture add anything to the understanding of this man?, the reality is it does very little. So a responsible editor would not include it, but then again most people on wikipedia are too interested in including everything rather then producing concise and accurate information that truly represents the subject. If a child wrote this article on Mohammad for his homework he would get a F, as it fails understand or balance the repsentation of the man. I am realising with argument such as this that Wikipedia is not a encycopedia, just a message board.

Picture caption
There is a picture showing Muhammad and the black stone with an enormous caption attached to it, relating the entire event. IMHO, such an event if important should be related in the text, if unimportant not at all. Are there any objections to moving the account to the normal text, reducing the caption to the essential information about the picture? Str1977 (smile back) 09:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That caption is longer than many articles. I've no objection, and would even say this is too much detail for the text.Proabivouac 09:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it, moving most of the caption into the text, with only a minor change for the sake of comprehensibility. Str1977 (smile back) 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed
I expected depictions of the prophet to have been removed by now. 'Very disappointed.
 * Oh, the disappointment of an anonymous user with no other contribs and an inability to use NPOV language, how it wounds us!Cjh57 00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Now now, put your claws away, no need to attack people. He/she's expressing a valid opinion (that I share, but I've thumbed through the extensive conversations on the subject and see that the efforts to fight it are futile, too). – cacahuate   talk 06:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The opinion in question is not valid, but is a demand for censorship on the grounds of religious taboo, and that is something which we must fight with all our power. Cjh57 20:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How can an opinion be invalid? And why are you so hostile? I hold that opinion because I believe it's an issue of respect, not of censorship. – cacahuate   talk 05:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course an opinion can be invalid in a certain context.
 * There have been loads of discussions on this issue and apparently the outcome was to retain a minimum of pictures. And then some lone IP comes along and tells us all that he/she is "very disappointed". But what does it concern us? May he/she go elsewhere with his/her "disappointment". Str1977 (smile back) 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And of course, it has nothing to do with the topic raised above by me, so I distance it from the above by starting a new section. Str1977 (smile back) 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I guess since I spend most of my time on Wikitravel and not Wikipedia I'm used to a decidedly friendlier and less hostile crowd of people... I wouldn't dream of being so rude to people just because my opinion differs from theirs and because they don't have a user id. As you know this is a super contentious issue, and as long as there are images of him on the page, you're going to see people stop by and comment on it... my advice is to treat them with respect and try to understand the severity of the issue to them... and politely explain why things are they way they are for now.... don't be rude and offensive just because you're not sitting face to face with them. – cacahuate   talk 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Muhammd and the founder of islam
Hi, the author of this article first said that:

"he was a prophet and messenger of God, in the same vein as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and other prophets..."

but then,

"Muhammad (Arabic: محمد Muḥammad; also Mohammed, Muhammed, Mahomet, and other variants)[2][3][4] was the founder of Islam"

it is a contradiction as Muhammad cannot be the founder of a religion when he comes to continue the same work as the other prophets. Instead it can be mentioned that Muslim believes that Muhammad was a prophet of Islam as Muslims too will not accept that Muhammad is the founder of Islam.

Shafiqpeer 04:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire paragraph makes everything clear. - Merzbow 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Mohammad PBUH
on my humble a very humble request please remove the picture of Mohammad PBUH as the text is reality & the picture shown here is not true and wikipedia is the source of real encyclopedia i've been earning lot of things through wikipedia from 2 years.we'll all be very happy if the picture shown here will be removed as it is a bit disturbing.

thanks for each and every alphabet which i've gained from here.

kashif sagheer Ahmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs)


 * No. Wikipedia has pictures for every major historical figure, even if the pictures are not contemporary likenesses, and to single out Muhammad for special treatment would be religious censorship. TharkunColl 11:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your concerns, you need to understand what the goals of Wikipedia are and aren't. Wikipedia is not a source of truth whatever truth is, but an encyclopaedia which draws information from verifiable sources without drawing our own conclusions about it.   While you may not appreciate this, Muhammad was a real guy.  Whether any of the likenesses here are "accurate", none of us have any idea - but they represent the most reliable, popular versions, which is the best we can do.  In the end, we're only here to provide information - as much as we can - and then let people do with it as they will.  This will necessitate using images and words that are offensive or disturbing to some people, there's simply no way around that. WilyD 13:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no way around it as long as stubborn people refuse to look at the issue for what it is... a matter of respect. No offense to you, but let's say for example that you were famous enough to have a page here on WP. And to illustrate where you came from, someone posted a picture of your mother's vagina on the page. Imagine the feeling that would come across you as you saw it for the first time. I say this not to cause offense, but to try and give you some sense of what you're doing to millions of Muslims that come across this page - that's the kind of feeling/anger/rage that you're invoking in a lot of people. I know this isn't a simple issue, but you can't keep trying to boil it down to saying that a handful of people are fighting for "religious censorship". Muhammad himself asked that images/idols not be made of him, it isn't an issue of how accurate they are but that they are here in the first place. My point is we're not arguing about drawing a line, but where to draw it. You wouldn't want naked pictures of your mother on this website, because it's offensive. And so are pictures of Muhammad to many millions of people, not a select few zealots. So why have we drawn the line where it currently is? – cacahuate   talk 18:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because Muhammad asked that no pictures be made of him, it doesn't mean that we should do as he says. Wikipedia is not for Muslims only, and Muhammad is a historical figure shared by the entire human race - for good or ill. And, one further point, did you seriously mean to compare Muhammad with a c*nt? I think a number of Muslims might find that a tad offensive. TharkunColl 10:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several pictures of vaginas around, which may very well belong to someone's mother. The images at vagina and the like may well be my mother - I haven't asked her.  The point isn't the number of people we offend being the issue, but the quality of the encyclopaedia - if we removed everything that was offensive to millions of people, Wikipedia would lose an enormous amount of value.  I have never implied the issue is merely a few people wanting to censor the article - I'm sure if everyone on earth was a wikipedia editor, the number of voices calling for censorship would number into the many millions (I have no idea the exact number).  This isn't the point either.  Where Wikipedia has an overwhelming consensus to draw the line is nowhere, no line.  In practice there may be questions of "encyclopaedic value", but this is never addressed.  Apart from ALM's "undue weight" argument (the merit of which is, I believe, already incorporated), there exists no real argument for censorship apart from "It's offensive" - which is a non-starter.  There are plenty of wiki-based online encyclopaedias that are censored to be family-safe.  Citizendium and possibly Conservapedia (though they might say images of Muhammad aren't offensive - I don't know).  If someone wants a censored encyclopaedia there are places for them to go - but that's not what we're here to do.  In the end, edit Wikipedia long enough and you'll realise everything is offensive to someone - and I do mean everything.  In the end, most editors have come here to provide free access to as much information as possible - you shouldn't find it surprising that there isn't a ton of sympathy for attempts to control information.
 * Let me ask you: How many people would need to be offended by something before you would say it should be removed? One million?  Ten million?  One hundred million?  Any of these would almost certainly mean there'd be no article on racism, no images at penis or women, no mention of the Armenian Genocide.  If you want to censor information from Wikipedia you have to abandon the foundation issue of a neutral point of view, and impose some chosen morality on the readers.  This is why we've drawn the line where it is. WilyD 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fully prepared to accept the decision that has already been made, even though I disagree with it, which is why I didn't want to reopen this debate in the first place... and you argue that point well, I might add. I'm not one for censorship normally, and I can't think of a single other instance off the top of my head where I would be arguing this point, this one just feels especially weird to me. But that aside, my concern, as previously stated in the "disappointed" section further up on this page, is that people understand and respect that this issue isn't going away, and that there will be many more people who drop by and express their disappointment. And it pains me to see them treated the way they just were in that section. It's rude, unnecessary, and doesn't do anyone any good... especially WP. – cacahuate   talk 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No decisions are permanent on Wikipedia - and I believe User:ALM scientist is planning on requesting an arbitration case on the issue. It is true that both sides of this debate have been highly uncivil at times, and people can be unnecessarily rude and fail to assume good faith.  The short answer probably is: If you think pictures are inappropriate because of Islamic tradition, you've probably failed to realise that strictly as a political ruler, Muhammad is probably one of the ten most important empire builder/rulers in Western History.  So while "Muhammad the Prophet" might be a strange choice for a lot of images, "Muhammad the guy who founded the Caliphate and conquered Arabia, who's empire was the western centre of enlightment for hundreds of years" is an article that should have a lot of images - and we're trying to split the difference. WilyD 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * it was only a humble request because there are so many things in the world are myth and whatever we do it remains in our minds, like a bunch of pictures which is not yours actually, published in any medium to elaborate your charisma but you remains unaffected because you are what you are, & the fact of the matter is that you might not be that concern about your images but your devotee your blooded relational relatives will take a stand against all this as it will be unacceptable to them. same case is here, we got an infinite love & respect for our prophets Like Mohammad PBUH & to Moses & to Jessus as well. so on, becuase of their high morals high code of behaviours i personally can't endure their images either to define their selves or to demonstrate history but at the same time i have no argument in relation to manuscript which elucidated by wikipedia. hope you didn't mind it at all but still my request is on your table, to remove the images as it's irrelevant.thanks for every alphabet which i've earned from wikipedia. Kashif Sagheer Ahmed.31/05/2007 17:26

No, I fully realize his position in history, and I'm not saying that I don't see why you would want to display pictures of him. But I doubt that most of the people arguing to show pics here are actually aware of the level of offense and disturbance that they're causing Muslims who happen upon this page. I realize that it might not change anyone's opinions even if they did... people place all kinds of levels of importance on WP... for me, while I like it, it just isn't important enough that I would want to cause that. But, I'm gonna shut up about that now... However, has anyone proposed at any point putting a little warning at the top of the page to let people know that there are depicitions of the Prophet and those that may be offended by it may not want to proceed? I know a lot of people are against warnings and all, and I believe there's a vfd for the movie plot spoiler warnings at the moment, but again, I think this is a different issue affecting people on a much different level, and that might be helpful. – cacahuate   talk 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'll go through the many, many, many archived discussion pages, it should be clear people should know what's going on, at the very least. Censoring images, warning templates for images, autohidden images have been discussed a bit here, but at length at Penis and Clitoris, I believe, among others, and the community is consistantly and strongly against that kind of thing.  Roughly speaking we recognise that any of this sort of thing runs very contrary to our purpose here. WilyD 18:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok and please stop giving an examples of the penis & vagina etc. can you tell me that how many of you have not seen penis & vagina.?????therefore, the images are necessary here & that sounds right to you isn't it.? NOW, each and every one has seen these human organs & the images that are posted here at WP are right & we have no doubt as the images are real but let me know who has seen the Mohammad Peace Be Upon Him..??? & why you are using the images which do not belongs to him..????I will appreciate the concerns of WP about the history of Prophet Mohammad PBUH if you post the real life images of all prophets as to elaborate history & their lives in true manners which is a trade mark of the WP by describing an article with real images likewise you've concluded it in the article of Penis & Vagina etc. Kashif Sagheer Ahmed.04/June/2007 12:22


 * This article is very vague, it doesn't mention what it says in the Quran, the fact that Muhammed killed, raped and tortured many victims in Arabia in an attempt to make them convert and his whole philosphy of using violence to spread his God. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.68.236 (talk • contribs)


 * It also glosses over the fact that Muhammad was a paedophile. He married Aisha when she was 6, and had sex with her when she was 9. Let us be very clear on this. Muhammad was a real historical figure, who has affected the history of the world. We should not allow his supporters, that is the Muslims, to dictate what should go in this article. TharkunColl 23:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see nobody dictating anything. I do see you attempting to turn this into a battleground. Not advised. - Merzbow 05:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These comments really should have been deleted, but as they've already generated responses… read the article. A'isha's age is stated twice without apology, and a number of violent episodes are described (albeit with some unencylopedic hand-wringing trailing the Jews of Medina.) One event that is truly missing is the conquest of Khaybar - it's important enough to be on the timeline, but isn't in the article. Keep in mind that this isn't the place to put his life on trial; instead events should be described dispassionately and accorded their due weight, without irrelevant value judgments. If there is some fact you think is missing, by all means add it, with a cite. As Merzbow observes, no one is dictating anything here.Proabivouac 06:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether the article offends millions of people is as much an aspect of the quality of the article as whether it has illogical groupings of facts, difficult-to-parse sentences, boring passages etc.  Requiring people to click on "depictions of Muhammed" in order to see the images can hardly be considered censorship.  Besides, the word "censorship" is usually applied to outside impositions, not to internal editorial decisions intended to show respect.
 * The policy says "some articles may include objectionable text, images ..."  etc. but it does not say that any article must contain these things. --Coppertwig 23:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

he was a good guy and he never had a sex without marrige like a guy who said he raped and killed so may. you know dude what you are doing right now..??? you have killed so many hearts & raped the souls of so many people by saying this but we are use to of it as so many people says in this way now you can see (muslims) we have never abused any one and even after those comments i am not saying anything because mirror reflects your own reflection we believe in all prophets and we (muslims are not dictator as you can read up there i am requesting only but all of you now can see the mental approach of the people who said we are supporter yes we are because we loves our prophets each and every one of them because we never abuse our teachers and in our religion we are not allowed to say even word bad for the bad one but i dont know if any other religion ask thier followers to say like this. right now its a bit hilarious that we were discussing only and all the comments were so decent in every manner but these guys i dont know either it is a lack of education or a ruthless family back ground but let them say because they cant change any thing and for the killing people you knows the best who is killing people in the world right now......my freind try to learn manners or start your life again from kindergarten to learn some good manners as the children even knows better than you what to say right in right time.May God give you a good heart and manner thats all i can pray for. & thanks for Wikipedia from where i've learnt so manythings. Kashif Sagheer Ahmed...8:31 AM 11/06/007


 * Just as a point of factual accuracy, it is not strictly true to say that Muslims have never abused anyone. TharkunColl 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
FYI... Placement of the Muhammad images on this and other pages has now been made an arbitration case here: --Dchall1 11:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration case was rightfully declined. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)