Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 17

Orientalism
(This is a continuation of Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 16)

The subject matter of that book is better suited for a separate article. In fact, it's already on Wikipedia: Orientalism.

There are only a few mentions of Dante; in fact, the ones available on Google Books consist of no more than a sentence similar to the sentence in this article. The content of that book appears to consist of essays by several individuals other than Said himself. The reference you suggested starting on page 68 appears to be a rather emotional piece written from a decidedly non-neutral and non-Western viewpoint; indeed, the beginning of that chapter says as much. I am at a loss to determine what passage you may want to reference to expand the single sentence about Dante. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I pasted the wrong link. Here is the correct link of Said's book (again, please check starting from page 68):

http://books.google.com/books?id=zvJ3YwOkZAYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=orientalism&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Hi again Amatulić. Did you have a chance to review the last link I posted? (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes, I did look at it, and again, I was unable to view any pages. Google Books says "no preview available.". ~Amatulić (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair that just because it can't be viewed online doesn't mean it can't be used as a source. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reliability of the source is not in question, and is not the topic of this discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I see now why you can't view it. I've been viewing the book through my university account which has a free access to google books. I'll work on copying you the statements of interest to show you the script I'm talking about. (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mounibkhanafer (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say that such pictures should be deleted as they not only hurt the feelings of the Muslims but also create hatred in them. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that one injures the feelings of other people. Things that ridicule others just for the sake of 'freedom of speech' must be blocked. I would like wikipedia to immediately block such pictures as they damage the feelings of the Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner20007 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We need to realize, as human beings with emotions of love and hatred, that to hurt someones feelings by putting up some gross, hateful and abusive picture depicting a Prophet of God leads to killing and more hatred. If you love someone, you obviously want to see him loved and respected. Would it be allowed to show dead American soldiers being tortured in hell fire on Wikipedia? If that is what Muslims think is going to happen to them, then why not show it? Do you think you will stopped from doing this? What happens to "free speech" and "freedom of expression" now? Such double standards needs to be addressed. We need to get rid of this pictures from the page. Muslims don't even take their own pictures because of the love of God and his noble messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binabdaz (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no double standard - nor is there a prohibition against publishing depictions of Muhammad. The Koran does not forbid it - and the Koran specifically states that what it hasn't prohibited is permitted.  Indeed, many of the images shown in the article were created by Muslims.  As far as double standards go, there are many images in this encyclopedia they may find offensive, but we haven't deleted them, either.  Rklawton (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sir, with all due respect. When you say " The Koran does not forbid it - and the Koran specifically states that what it hasn't prohibited is permitted", I couldn't find in your profile (available on Wikipedia) anything that indicates that you have deep studies in Islamic Sciences (and honest to God, I respect your view and I'm not trying to offend you). I'm talking as a practicing muslim who has been involved with Islamic readings and research since more than 20 years. Things in Islam are not only prohibited or permitted through the verses of Koran exclusively. You should also consider the teachings of the Muslims' Prophet (called 'Sunna' in Arabic) too as they play the role of "explaining" the verses of Koran. The "Sunna" refers to the sayings and deeds of the Prophet that we know (through authentic paths) that the prophet agreed on (and how to prove an "authentic" Sunna is a huge science by itself that we can't summarize here). We have tons of things that are prohibited clearly in the Sunna, while they are not mentioned in the Koran (or mentioned implicitly). All Muslims (with no absolute exception) believe in Koran and Sunna, this is a fundamental part of their belief. Another thing is that we have tons of things that are prohibited in Koran, but they need an expert in the Koran to direct your attention to them, as they may not be explicit. These are deep sciences and not anyone (even average Muslims) can just say that this is permitted and that's allowed based only on a plain and regular reading through the Koran. Some people need to go through through at least 10 years of studies before being able to explain one verse. I believe the same standard applies to the Bible as no one can just sit and read and understand it without referring to the experts who invested long periods of time studying the Bible's scriptures. (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC))


 * No offense, but, no one really cares...this is going far too off-topic. What may be prohibited for you is not prohibited to this online encyclopedia project.  This project is not going to do things according to your religion. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

People clearly do care as its been bought up several times in the last couple of weeks alone. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No one really cares about irrelevant arguments. Voicing such arguments frequently doesn't make them any more meaningful. What is prohibited in Islam is completely irrelevant to this biography article. Therefore, no one really cares. I think what was meant was "no one who is knowledgable about encyclopedic standards and Wikipedia policies and guidelines really cares." ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its quite evident that people do care, as even with the big red warning boxes to discourage people they keep bringing it up over and over again. I mean about 4-5 people have bought it up this month alone. Now you may not care for their arguments or position, but it is clearly important to them. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * People might care but until someone comes up with a new, meaningful arguemnt, those people are tantamount to trolls. I don't like paying taxes, but moaning to my government about it constantly would just make me look stupid whereas providing a well thought, economically viable, reasonable argument for why I shouldn't pay taxes would make me a genius. No one that's been bitching about the images so far falls into the genius category.  raseaC talk to me 17:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Allow me to rephrase; that was "no one cares" as in "no one of those who have heard this argument a 1,000 times cares". Yes, people in the outside world care, just as there are people who care enough to come insert "terrorist" into Hassan Nasrallah's article or care enough to insert "he was born in Kenya" into Barack Obama's article.  These are people with an opinion, an agenda to see their point-of-view fulfilled.  They are not here to contribute to a collaborative encyclopedia.  WP:TIGER is a rather nice essay on the matter of strong opinions and the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice essay, its an interesting read. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are all missing my point here. Allow me all to mention that my earlier response to Mr. Rklawton was an answer to his own interpretation of the Koran and I was not imposing the Islamic view on Wikipedia. I was correcting Mr. Rklawton's way of dealing with the Koran. If he only mentioned that he is following certain Wikipedia's guidelines in keeping those photos, then it is a different story. On the contrary, he was justifying the showing of these photos based on his own intrepretation of the Koran!!!. All the editors on this page keep on repeating that what is offensive to X is not necessarily offensive to Y, so how in the world it is allowed and OK to Mr. Rklawton to impose his own intrepration of the Koran (which is clearly wrong, to any one who is involved in the Islamic studies and research) while others are not? This tells me that we may have tons of passages on Wikipedia that were passed and posted just because they conform to the understanding and taste of the editors. All of you know that since my first response till now I didn't request the removal of the photos (although I'm against these photos from an Islamic perspective as well as from an ethical perspective as I don't agree that I'm allowed to show the leaders and symbols of any religion or sect in an offensive way. Yet, please note that there is a difference between just depicting the Muslim's Prophet and showing him in an offensive and insulting way as the photo San Petronio Basilica clearly depicts!!!). But Mr. Rklawton entries show me that we do have an issue of bias here as he has certain understanding of the Koran according to which he is accepting and refusing the addition/removal of statements into/out of the passages. He was clearly imposing his view of what is permitted and what is prohibited in the Koran, without any viable experience in interpreting the Koran (with all due respect to Mr. Rklawton). Why is it allowed for Mr. Rklawton to have his own interpretation of the Koran according to which he is an "official editor" of this page?(Mounibkhanafer (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

The Koran is subjective, how one individual deciphers it differs from how another individual deciphers it, that's how the world works. You're essentially telling us that you're more of an authority on the Koran and therefore you're right. That's like someone telling me they're a bigger fan of Don McLean and therefore their understanding of American Pie is correct and mine isn't. Relying on one's Wikipedia userpage to assess their knowledge of a subjective as you have been doing is the wrong way to go about it. Mine said I have a leaky vagina once, and that wasn't true.  raseaC talk to me 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your assertion "...and that wasn't true" appears to be based on original research. This is why we give such strong preference to secondary sources in articles. : ) Doc   Tropics  19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just another (and so far the best) reason why I think WP is too bureaucratic!  raseaC talk to me 19:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my entry again, you are completely missing me. I didn't mention a word to imply that my understanding of the Koran is the absolute correct one. I clearly stated that Mr. Rklawton is imposing his own interpretation of the Koran to justify the showing of the photos. If this is how it works on Wikipedia (that's is, being an editor allows you to add/remove what ever conforms with your beliefs and understanding), then please never mention that Wikipedia is neutral and uncensored. Also, when you say "The Koran is subjective, how one individual deciphers it differs from how another individual deciphers it" you are just proving my point: who said the Koran is subjective? that's your point of view and you can't impose it on us. This is another indication of that the editors here (with all due respect) have no experiences in Koranic studies. We do have principles and fundamentals in Islam according to which we interpret the Koran, did any one here take any courses with that respect?. Besides, if Mr. Rklawton's understanding of the Koran allows him to show the photos, my understanding does not, so why Wikipedia takes his opinion and shows the photos and diregards mine? Finally, from my review of the profiles of some editors of this page, I couldn't see any apparent qualifications in terms of deeply studying Islam and its sciences, so they are (with all due respect) editing a page without having enough background on its topic!!! Again, I'm talking as a practicing Muslim with experience in Islamic studies and research that spans more than 20 years, yet I'm not imposing anything on you. But, would you go to your mechanic for physiotherapy? (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC))
 * One last thing, your arguement that what is correct for X may be wrong for Y is based on the philosophy that says "there's is no absolute truth and everything is relative". In fact this philosophy is being used here a lot and I should mention that it is false. Why, because it contradicts itself since it says that "there is no absolute truth..." which means that this statement itself is not an absolute truth!!! (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

You have implied, time and again, that you having studied the Koran for however long you have means that you are more of an authority on it than others, it may mean that you know more about it than others but it doesn't make your personal view anymore correct than others. No one is imposing their own interpretation of the Koran here, they are simply working from it. Like I already said, everyone will have their own interpretation (again, like I said, it's all subjective) and that's all anyone can work from. PLEASE stop reviewing other's 'profiles' on Wikipedia and drawing any serious conclusions from them, the userpages of those contributing here aren't too bad but you'd be blown away by the content on others! Can I just ask; what exactly are you looking for here if it's not image removal?  raseaC talk to me 19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense, but the whole "subjective" assertion is completely bogus. Sure, everyone may have a different view on a particular topic, but not all of those views have equal merit.  "American Pie" may be interpreted in vastly different ways, but only one of them, the original intent of the author, is correct.  The same is true of the Koran.  There has been a great deal of scholarship on the Koran, and I think a result of that scholarship has been the rejection of many subjective views of what is contained within the book and its meaning.  Frankly, I couldn't care less if every inch of the article has a picture of Mohammed, but the implication that the subjective nature of various things should lead to a relativism in which all explanations are given equal merit is absolutely ridiculous.      —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.78.34 (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mounibkhanafer, see WP:TRUTH. On Wikipedia, there is no absolute truth, only what can be verified by reliable sources. Rklawton's point is valid. If understanding of the Koran is so inaccessible to common people that one needs 20 years of study and immersion in Islam to have a "correct" understanding, then it's hardly surprising that arguments arise. Wikipedia articles need not, and I daresay should not be edited by such "experts" especially when conflicts of interest arise. The opinions of experts are not needed because Wikipedia does not publish original thought, only what appears in verifiable, reliable sources that WP:CONSENSUS has agreed meet the qualifications of being a reliable source. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the article must be neutral and informative. Neutrality doesn't allow offense to any group.Removing the pictures doesn't mean affecting the article's informativeness.For example, the picture conveying western views can be removed leaving its footnote. In this manner, I believe the article will be really neutral and not offensive.The information in the article will not be greatly affected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12211233214554a (talk • contribs) 15:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutrality has nothing to do with offensiveness. For example, a neutral view on Nazis will invariably be offensive to Nazis - and that's OK. I'm sorry if you got the impression that neutrality was the same thing as inoffensive. Rklawton (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not to undermine your main point, but a neutral article on nazis wouldn't necessarily offend living nazis, especially since such an article shouldn't include any POV condemnations or anything of that sort (except as clearly presented as notable viewpoints). If said nazi disagreed with the historical record as it stands, then obviously they would have problems with the articles, but it takes a special sort to be offended by facts.
 * But, that specific example isn't relevant in the case of images of Muhammad. Wikipedia is not bound to abide by the rules of a particular culture, even when discussing that culture. A culture that forbids written history, for example, has absolutely NO claim that wikipedia should forbid its editors to write about them, no matter how their women weep and their men gnash their teeth (or overtly threaten to track down and murder the editors). -- King Öomie  19:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the subject
OK, we were having an intelligent discussion that has degenerated into "I'm right, you're wrong, this is truth, that isn't." It's off topic. We were discussing what content to add to the article to expand upon or explain Western views toward Muhammad, particularly in the context of writings of Dante. Let's get back to that, shall we? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, I would like to go back to the original topic of discussion, but I have a concern now. Also, it is apparent that the views and knowledge of each editor has an influence towards the material being posted on WP (so we can no more talk about a high degree of neutrality). So how would I make sure that there is no bias towards what I (or others) may suggest as improvements? (BTW, It is apparent too that neither you nor raseaC answered any of my main points in my latest entry) (Ibn_Sina 22:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mounibkhanafer (talk • contribs)
 * I answered each of your points in as much detail as I thought necessary.  raseaC talk to me 22:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to the original topic and I'll stop the other discussion as I think we are not converging. (Ibn_Sina 22:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mounibkhanafer (talk • contribs)


 * You asked, how do you make sure there is no bias toward what you suggest as improvements? You don't make sure. You simply suggest and discuss, and you assume good faith as required by Wikipedia guidelines. I hope our prior "on topic" discussion has demonstrated that editors here are open to discussing improvements. And in fact, I have changed image captions based on your suggestions, in both the Muhammad and Depictions of Muhammad articles, and nobody else objected. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. As I promised before, I hereby copy and paste for you Edward Said's opinion about Dante's vision of Islam. For those who don't know, Edward Said received his PhD in English Literature from Harvard University and is a highly praised professor in the West. His landmark book "Orientalism", from which I'll be copying, earned him a strong academic fame. Again, what I'm trying to say here is that it will be good if we include his opinion about Dante in the passage for the readers of WP to understand that the photo of the Muslims' Prophet being tortured in Hell is (according to Said's view) influenced by a corrupted and negative view of the Muslims's Prophet. To preserve the copy rights of the author, the following statements are taken from pages 69-72 of the book "Orientalism", 1977 (London, Penguin) by Edward Said (who was a Christian himself):


 * "The discriminations and refinements of Dante's poetic grasp of Islam are an instance of the schematic, almost cosmological inevitability with which Islam and its designated representatives are creatures of Western geographical, historical, and above all, moral apprehension. Empirical data about the Orient or about any of its parts count for very little; what matters and is decisive is what I have been calling the Orientalist vision, a vision by no means confined to the professional scholar, but rather the common possession of all who have thought about the Orient in the West. Dante's powers as a poet intensify, make more rather than less representative, these perspectives on the Orient. Mohammed, Saladin, Averroes, and Avicenna are fixed in a visionary cosmology—fixed, laid out, boxed in, imprisoned, without much regard for anything except their "function" and the patterns they realize on the stage on which they appear. Isaiah Berlin has described the effect of such attitudes in the following way:"In [such a]... cosmology the world of men (and, in some versions, the entire universe) is a single, all-inclusive hierarchy; so that to explain why each object in it is as, and where, and when it is, and does what it does, is eo ipso to say what its goal is, how far it successfully fulfills it, and what are the relations of co-ordination and subordination between the goals of the various goal-pursuing entities in the harmonious pyramid which they collectively form. If this is a true picture of reality, then historical explanation, like every other form of explanation, must consist, above all, in the attribution of individuals, groups, nations, species, each to its own proper place in the universal pattern. To know the "cosmic" place of a thing or a person is to say what it is and what it does, and at the same time why it should be and do as it is and does. Hence to be and to have value, to exist and to have a function (and to fulfill it more or less successfully) are one and the same. The pattern, and it alone, brings into being and causes to pass away and confers purpose, that is to say, value and meaning, on all there is. To understand is to perceive patterns. . . . The more inevitable an event or an action or a character can be exhibited as being, the better it has been understood, the profounder the researcher's insight, the nearer we are to the one ultimate truth. This attitude is profoundly anti-empirical. (Isaiah Berlin, Historical Inevitability (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), pp. 13—14.)". And so, indeed, is the Orientalist attitude in general. It shares with magic and with mythology the self-containing, self-reinforcing character of a closed system, in which objects are what they are because they are what they are, for once, for all time, for ontological reasons that no empirical material can either dislodge or alter. The European encounter with the Orient, and specifically with Islam, strengthened this system of representing the Orient and, as has been suggested by Henri Pirenne, turned Islam into the very epitome of an outsider against which the whole of European civilization from the Middle Ages on was founded. The decline of the Roman Empire as a result of the barbarian invasions had the paradoxical effect of incorporating barbarian ways into Roman and Mediterranean culture, Romania; whereas, Pirenne argues, the consequence of the Islamic invasions beginning in the seventh century was to move the center of European culture away from the Mediterranean, which was then an Arab province, and towards the North. "Germanism began to play its part in history. Hitherto the Roman tradition had been uninterrupted. Now an original Romano—Germanic civilization was about to develop." Europe was shut in on itself: the Orient, when it was not merely a place in which one traded, was culturally, intellectually, spiritually outside Europe and European civilization, which, in Pirenne's words, became "one great Christian community, coterminous with the ecclesia... . The Occident was now living its own life.' In Dante's poem, in the work of Peter the Venerable and other Cluniac Orientalists, in the writings of the Christian polemicists against Islam from Guibert of Nogent and Bede to Roger Bacon, William of Tripoli, Burchard of Mount Syon, and Luther, in the Poema del Cid, in the Chanson de Roland, and in Shakespeare's Othello (that "abuser of the world"), the Orient and Islam are always represented as outsiders having a special role to play inside Europe. Imaginative geography, from the vivid portraits to be found in the Inferno to the prosaic niches of d'Herbelot's Bibliotheque orientale, legitimates a vocabulary, a universe of representative discourse peculiar to the discussion and understanding of Islam and of the Orient. What this discourse considers to be a fact—that Mohammed is an imposter, for example—is a component of the discourse, a statement the discourse compels one to make whenever the name Mohammed occurs. Underlying all the different units of Orientalist discourse—by which I mean simply the vocabulary employed whenever the Orient is spoken or written about—is a set of representative figures, or tropes. These figures are to the actual Orient--or Islam, which is my main concern here—as stylized costumes are to characters in a play; they are like, for example, the cross that Everyman will carry, or the particolored costume worn by Harlequi i in a commedia dell'arte play. In other words, we need not look for correspondence between the language used to depict the Orient and the Orient itself, not so much because the language is inaccurate but because it is not even trying to be accurate. What it is trying to do, as Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is at one and the same time to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are for Europe, and only for Europe. Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways "like" Jesus, he is after all not like him). Rather than listing all the figures of speech associated with the Orient—its strangeness, its difference, its exotic sensuousness, and so forth—we can geheralize about them as they were handed down through the Renaissance." (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC))


 * Hi all. I'm still waiting for your comments about including the opinion of Prof. Edward Said (mentioned above, in my latest entry)into the passage. Please note that I'm not asking to include all what he said above, I copied all the above paragraphs just to make his opinion as clear as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mounibkhanafer (talk • contribs) 03:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty long and densely-written passage. I am still trying to digest it, and puzzling over exactly what we would use from it without violating the Undue weight principle. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was important for me to paste this long passage in order to make Edward Said's opinion clear, although the language is strictly academic. This being said, I believe at least the following portions of the passage (or at least, their ideas) are important to include in the "Muhammad" article:
 * "The discriminations and refinements of Dante's poetic grasp of Islam are an instance of the schematic, almost cosmological inevitability with which Islam and its designated representatives are creatures of Western geographical, historical, and above all, moral apprehension. Empirical data about the Orient or about any of its parts count for very little; what matters and is decisive is what I have been calling the Orientalist vision, a vision by no means confined to the professional scholar, but rather the common possession of all who have thought about the Orient in the West. Dante's powers as a poet intensify, make more rather than less representative, these perspectives on the Orient. Mohammed, Saladin, Averroes, and Avicenna are fixed in a visionary cosmology—fixed, laid out, boxed in, imprisoned, without much regard for anything except their "function" and the patterns they realize on the stage on which they appear"
 * "What it is trying to do, as Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is at one and the same time to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are for Europe, and only for Europe. Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways "like" Jesus, he is after all not like him). Rather than listing all the figures of speech associated with the Orient—its strangeness, its difference, its exotic sensuousness, and so forth—we can generalize about them as they were handed down through the Renaissance" (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Hi all. It has been almost 3 weeks since I last commented about including Prof. Said's opinion in the passage. I'm still waiting for the editors to comment whether we can include his opinion or not in the passage.(Mounibkhanafer (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

Shortening the quotation
I apologize, I missed your reply. I think the passage relevant and should be included, possibly as a quote, but needs to be shortened greatly, and quoted to focus on Muhammad (the subject of this article) rather than the Orient. The point seems to be that western authors, writing for a European audience, would portray Muhammad as alien, as a literary technique to provide a contrast with the familiar. Perhaps Said could be quoted like this: "'[In Dante's Inferno] Islam and its designated representatives are creatures of Western geographical, historical, and above all, moral apprehension. ... Mohammed [and others] are fixed in a visionary cosmology &mdash; fixed, laid out, boxed in, imprisoned, without much regard for anything except their 'function' and the patterns they realize on the stage on which they appear. What ... Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is ... to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are for Europe, and only for Europe. Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways 'like' Jesus, he is after all not like him).'" I hope that captures the correct emphasis. It should be distilled further for this article due to the article's length and due to undue weight concerns, although the article Medieval Christian views on Muhammad might benefit from a longer version. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think the way you presented Said's idea is very good and relevant. Wish that you include this in the passage. Also, I have a suggestion please. I think it will be helpful if we can associate the photo in "San Petronio Basilica" with Said's opinion. What I mean is that the photo citation doesn't clearly mention that the photo is inspired by Dante's inferno. Usually, a reader, once examines a photo that interests him/her, would like to read the part of the passage that talks about it. (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC))


 * OK, I incorporated a shortened version of the quotation above, and moved the image, and modified the image caption. I agree, after learning how influential Said's book Orientalism has become, that it deserves a mention and a brief quotation in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the modification. I also recommend the following part of Said's opinion to be included at the beginning as it gives better insight of his opinion (please note that what I included between the [...] is my own words to make the context clearer: "Empirical data about the Orient...count for very little [i.e., in Dante's work]; what matters and is decisive is...by no means confined to the professional scholar, but rather the common possession of all who have thought about the Orient in the West". Also, I noticed that you removed what we have agreed upon before to be included in the citation of the photo. If you recall, we agreed that it is better to mention that the photo manifests clearly the negative view of Islam during the medieval ages. I think keeping that statement along with the ciation to Said's opinion will enrich the passage more.(Mounibkhanafer (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC))


 * I suspect adding that much more would get reverted, not due to the content, but because of the undue emphasis that would result. That section attempts to cover more than just Dante. I tried to keep Said's quotation as short as possible to avoid adding too much length about just Dante to the article.


 * You have the right to edit this article too, so if you feel strongly about it, add that part and see what happens. As I wrote earlier, the fuller quotation would be more appropriate in the article on Medieval Christian view of Muhammad.


 * If you look in the edit history, the single word "negative" was removed from the caption after a minor disagreement with another editor who felt that the caption was not neutral. I don't mind either way; in fact, looking at the picture in the context of the section, the word "negative" would be redundant, as the view is clearly negative without saying so. Would you agree? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow up. In fact, I wanted to take into account that some readers would only scroll down the passage looking at the photos without even referring to the passage to see what has been said about them. So, once a reader sees the citation and finds the word "negative" he will be more interested in reading the passage and discover why. This is my own opinion. About Said's statement, I thought that the sentence I'm asking to add is kind of clearer to show his objection against Dante's work. As you suggested, I'll try to add it and see what happens. Thanks. (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC))
 * FYI, I'm not allowed to modify the passage as it is protected and I'm (relatively) a new editor.Can you please try yourself to add the statement? I believe this statement is clearer in showing Said's opinion, so (in my opinion) even if you needed to remove part of what you already included, it is worthy doing. Please also check what i mentioned above about including the "negative" word in the citation of the photo. (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC))


 * I believe you need 10 edits to be considered "established". Your edit history shows 9, which surprises me considering the lengthy discussions we have had. Reply here, or try a small edit on another article like Medieval Christian views on Muhammad to get your ten edits and try again. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you said, I tried editing the statement of Said, but it was reverted. Do you think if we re-write the statement like the following it will also be reverted: "Empirical data about the Orient...count for very little [i.e., in Dante's work]; what matters and is decisive is...by no means confined to the professional scholar, but rather the common possession of all who have thought about the Orient in the West(....).What ... Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is ... to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are ... only for Europe" (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Well, I'm partial to my version, and I had no objection to your addition. I had also wondered why it was reverted with a rationale of "original research". I also liked the last sentence that you removed. I think it could use a bit of copyediting to take the parenthetical notes outside of the quotation. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had no objection to your sentences, I just see that the sentence in which Said mentiones that Dante is not conforming to an "academic" standard is a good introduction to his whole opinion. Can you please (if you agree on my point) include this in the opinion without getting things reverted? (Mounibkhanafer (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC))
 * I took Said's point to say, essentially, that Dante portrayed Muhammad as a popular stereotype held during his time. I think it should be obvious that Dante was not conforming to an academic standard, but rather writing for a general audience. The point you suggest seems redundant in context, which is why I felt removing it was a good way to shorten the quotation without damaging the message. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

picture of Muhammed?
The pictures of Muhammad is like a war on sunni Muslims, and they have to be removed now. A Denmark newspaper published materials similar to those before, and waves of province and the opposition starts in all the Islamic world against Denmark. Please do not start something like that again. We have to remove them now. --Mazidan (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@172.191.0.110 there are no pictures of Prophet PBUH in any Quran...No print of Quran is illustrated n will never be its completely textual.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar1988 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

picture of Muhammed? why is on here? and this article is locked. please remove it. I cant believe wiki would allow that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.0.110 (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You do know, of course, that there are pictures of Mohammed in numerous medieval Korans (Korans produced by devout Muslims). Deal with it.99.152.114.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Read the FAQ at the top of the page, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been decided that Wikipedia will not be censored. Wikipedia does not have to follow your, or any organization's, censorship rules. If you want there is a way to block all Muhammad images by editing your Wikipedia preferences.

Alek2407 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Being offended by something does not grant you power over it. - Richfife (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This query keeps repeating over and over, again and again despite the FAQ and stuff. Isn't there any policy on this page to remove such sections without being even discussed. Or this should be moved to Talk:Muhammad/images as said in the header. I am not sure whether it will br considered civil if i move it. That is the only i am not doing it. Arjun  codename024 19:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Several other editors move such comments to the /images talk page immediately. My view is, if the original poster isn't a troll, he or she will return to this page looking for a response, and likely won't think to look on the /images subpage, so it's polite to leave the comments here for a while before moving them. However, I think this particular conversation ended with the original post, as the editor doesn't seem to have returned. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Non Muslims are continuously devaluing ISLAM through different means. This is one of them. Every single Muslim is against these pictures in every single corner of the world as its totally against the Values of ISLAM and Islamic Tradition and History. There is no reason for keeping these picture in this article and any where else on the web or media. Remove all of them immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naseem Awan (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but no. I do not follow your beliefs and you have no right to try and force your beliefs onto me. We've documented in the FAQ how you can hide the images on your browser so that you may follow your beliefs without interfering with anyone else's. Resolute 18:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The assertions are wrong anyway. It is patently false that all Muslims share the same belief on this issue. Most of the images were created by Muslims. They are included for the purpose of providing historical context and accuracy, not an attempt to devalue Islam. Those who ask that we remove them are the ones who wish to distort the facts. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone, Let me make it very very crystal clear again, Images of Muhammad(PBUH) are completely forbidden in every sect of ISLAM. There is no Room for them in ISLAM. Second, if some one says that it is not in Quran than they should know Muhammad Himself prohibited to make any image of him or other humans, even if the artist is Muslim or Non Muslim. So please do not argue on that basis that these are created by Muslims. Thirdly, if you give so much value to word of GOD, then you should not support to keep images on this page. I again request the author of this page to remove the images as well as all the false or misleading information about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from this page immediately. ALL THE ARGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT TO KEEP IMAGES HERE ARE BASELESS AND FALSE. (Naseem 15:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Your own arguments are baseless and false, as explained repeatedly on this talk page as well as your own talk page. Not all Muslims have a problem with such images, and they are not completely forbidden. They are not prohibited by the Qu'ran; perhaps you should read it some time. This is an article in an encyclopedia; as such, it is not censored for the benefit of any group. Rather, the purpose is to be encyclopedic, and the pictures add value in that regard. It is really irrelevant whether images are forbidden in Islam or not; this is not an article about Islam, and this is not an Islamic encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Naseem, you may be interested in this quote: Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_12. It was moved to the infobox at the top for a short while but the OP requested it be removed but it's still very relevant to this discussion.  raseaC talk to me 09:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@Naseem, pictures of the prophet Mohammad are considered acceptable by Shia muslims, its only Sunni muslims who have a problem with them (though they make up the vast majority of all muslims). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You(who support and keep false pictures of Prophet(PBUH)) may escape from result of this evil act here, but remember not here after. Keep doing what you do, so you do not have any excuse left. I am also happy, that your this idiot act also increased and renewed the real love and respect of Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in trillions of hearts. May Allah keep increasing his true love in all Humanity as He did before. Amin Ya Rab ul Aalameen. I believe Allah is much much more powerful than you all can imagine together. (Naseem 14:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naseem Awan (talk • contribs)
 * If keeping the images on the site has increased trillions of Muslims' love of Muhammed, then what are you complaining about? Shouldn't you be thanking us instead of making veiled threats? Eik Corell (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do we tolerate these trolls. These people come to this site and then bitch at us because there old holy book may (or may not) have a problem with a picture. These are threats, and should be dealt with in the strongest way possible. If the trolls don't like the pictures they can go somewhere else, and if their god either doesn't have the ability or the desire to change the situation, why should we suffer their repeated threats? To the trolls: If you don't like it then the only guarantee to get ride of it is to press the red X button at the top of the browser window, and don't ever come back. If you really want it changed then pray and see how well that works.--Adam in MO Talk 23:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I dunno, I'd like to see Allah prove that he is more powerful than all of us put together by removing the images himself. Unless, of course, Allah allows them to remain because he is not offended...  Seriously though, the complainers are harmless for the most part.  I'd rather say "no" once a week to someone complaining that we are not a Muslim website than revert vandalism on the article itself.  Resolute 23:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's better on the talk pages than vandalism in the article. I also find it curious that the underlying rationale for being offended, and the rationale presented by the Islamic rules, focuses on avoiding the risk of idolatry. Are those who complain here so concerned about the fragility of their faith that they fear becoming idolatrous at the sight of a few images? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an ambiguous feeling that this entire exercise may in fact be subtly anti-Islamic. What is this page if not a showcase of how Muslim internet users are completely retarded and naive. We sort of bait the Muslims into showing off how backward and bigoted they are. Of course what we get here are the reactions of teenagers, not of mature Muslims, but this page ends up as confirming every prejudice on the poor state of current-day Islam. As Henzell-Thomas put it, "these mechanical knee-jerk reactions are gifts to those who seek every opportunity to decry Islam and ridicule Muslims". Perhaps our standard reply shouldn't be "please read Wikipedia policy" but "please don't make your religion look stupid". --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony fox
is there an extention for firefox to block muhammed? is there iphone app too?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.50.79 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. You can, however, set your browser to not display images - check out Talk:Muhammad/images for that information. (Top of the page there.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Specifically, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
Some pictures of the article are protraying Hz. Muhammad's face or/and body which is not right thing for Muslims. I urge you to change or remove these pictures in term of reputation. It may hurt Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.57.236 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the large red box at the top of this page and all the previous discussions on this subject in this page's archives. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The pictures of Muhammad is like a war on sunni Muslims, and they have to be removed now. A Denmark newspaper published materials similar to those before, and waves of province and the opposition starts in all the Islamic world against Denmark. Please do not start something like that again. We have to remove them now. --Mazidan (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the faq & read the previous discussions we had on this subject. Jarkeld (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

About Hazrat Muhammad(pbuh)'s pictures:objectionable OR blasphamous
Biggest Blasphamy in the court of Prophet Hazrat Muhammad(pbuh) ''' There is a big differnece between objectionable and being blasphamous.Making Hazrat Muhammad(pbuh)'s picture is a big blasphamy itself.His excellency prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is such high in status that we can not make his picture because no one knows how does he look like.Its Kufr to make his excellency's picture.He is the last and biggest prophet ever.And he is most beloved person of God.And he is the most beautiful person. AND IF IT CONTAINS any thing bad like last picture (220px-Mohameddemons2.jpg) of this article show that he is being totured in hell(may God forgive us), then its the biggest blasphamy against his excellency. According to Islam this idea is totally wrong.Last Porphet Muhammad (peace be upon him) will never enter in to hell.So remove all images specially the last one (20px-Mohameddemons2.jpg).The last one on the page is the most blasphamous......''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.152.145 (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read: Wikipedia is not censored and the FAQ on Muhammad about why the pictures will not be removed. Jarkeld (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Medieval Christians viewed Hazrat Muhammad as being tortured in hell, the article clearly explains it. Kavas (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 61.5.152.145, 22 July 2010
Please remove 220px-Mohameddemons2.jpg because its a big blasphamy against Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings of God be upon him) which appears in the last of article. 61.5.152.145 (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not bound by religious dogma. The images will not be removed. Resolute 14:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange, I can't seem to find that picture anywhere. Are you sure it's not removed?Dalponis (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He just merged the size description into the name. File:Mohameddemons2.jpg is alive and well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

blasphemous contents
Dear Sir,

Any pictorial depiction of Prophet Muhammad (PBUP) is considered blasphemous and high disregards as per Muslims Faith. We as part of our religion respect all Prophets including Christian and Jewish. However, it is found highly disturbing to have pictures of Prophet (PBUH) on the Wekipedia. Please remove these images as a peaceful protest. However, peaceful means are being disregarded by culprits who do this heinous act knowingly or unknowingly. Please let us know this is not the case with this mostly respected website.

Muhammad Khurram Shahzad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.244.91 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the information in the red box at the top of this page.  raseaC talk to me 14:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A critical question, did Sunnis depict Muhammed?
Below a picture in "Muhammad" article, it is written that "Muhammad prohibits intercalary months during the Farewell Pilgrimage. 17th century Ottoman copy of a 14th century (Ilkhanate) manuscript (Edinburgh codex). Illustration of Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries." but in the FAQ section (I am not sure FAQ is part of the article) it is said that Sunnis do not depict Muhammad. Which one is true? We know Ilkhanate was converted to Sunni Islam. Keeping the Sunni rule against depicting Muhammad in mind, how could this picture be drawn? Kavas (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC) . Perhaps that meant that they were a bit more tolerant about depictions. That said, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī was a Shi'ite muslim, so he wouldn't have had the prohibition of depicting Muhammad. Jarkeld (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Ilkhanate article states that: "For the most part, Ghazan's policies continued under his brother Öljeitü despite suggestions that he might begin to favor the Shi'a brand of Islam after he came under the influence of Shi'a theologians Al-Hilli and Maitham Al Bahrani.[18]"

The topic of aniconism in Islam is complicated, and our article on it can certainly be improved, but I really fail to see why Islamic aniconism keeps being brought up as a reason why Wikipedia should remove this or that image, seeing as Wikipedia has never had any pretense to comply with Islamic law or traditions. It's a private project based in Florida, for crying out loud, you may as well complain to 4chan that their site is unislamic.

It really stupefies me how some people seem to assume that just because Wikipedia has been successful as a private community website, they can somehow ask it to do things for them. --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't cry out! The article says there is a manuscript depicting Muhammad in the reign of a Sunni dynasty, on the other hand FAQ part says there is a strict Sunni rule against depicting Muhammad. Then, which one is true? This is a discussion for a improvement to the Muhammad article and FAQ part. I don't know whether the FAQ part belongs to the article, nevertheless there is a logical contradiction here. Jarkeld's answer seems reasonable to me. On the other hand, Dbachmann critized me by saying: " It's a private project based in Florida, for crying out loud, you may as well complain to 4chan that their site is unislamic. It really stupefies me how some people seem to assume that just because Wikipedia has been successful as a private community website, they can somehow ask it to do things for them. " Although he is an admin, he seems to be concentrated on the contributor not on the content. Kavas (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Procedure to hide the images at Muhammad page
I used the method and all images have gone. This procedure should be changed, there is no problem at viewing pictures that does not depict Muhammad in Sunni belief. Is it possible to hide images of Muhammad and not these 8 pictures?

1) The name "Muhammad" in traditional Thuluth calligraphy by the hand of Hattat Aziz Efendi.

2) Approximate locations of some of the important tribes and Empire of the Arabian Peninsula at the dawn of Islam (approximately 600 CE / 50 BH).

3) Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Mosque of the Prophet) in Medina, Saudi Arabia, is the site of Muhammad's tomb.

4) The cave Hira in the mountain Jabal al-Nour where, according to Muslim beliefs, Muhammad received his first revelation.

5) The Al-Aqsa Mosque, adjacent to the Dome of the Rock (along the southern wall of Temple Mount), is the site from which Muhammad is believed to have travelled to heaven and returned.

6) Imprint of Muhammad's seal, used in letters sent to other heads of state. (Graphically enhanced.)

7) Conquests of Muhammad and the Rashidun.

8) Topkapı Palace gate with Shahadah and his seal. The Muslim Profession of faith, the Shahadah, illustrates the Muslim conception of the role of Muhammad – "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger." Kavas (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It'd be pretty straightforward to wrap the objectionable images in a specific class, so that users could then hide just those images. Would anyone object to my doing this? It wouldn't change the layout for anybody who didn't customize their stylesheet.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable to me. I say go for it. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To Kavas, you can hide any images you like, just use a content filter. See Help:Options to not see an image. Install Adblock Plus, then add rules for each image you don't want to see. Then distribute your ruleset to others interested in hiding the same images.

Regarding server-side "objectionable images" class, this is a terrible idea. The people interested in hiding certain images can compile their own custom blacklists and use content filters. It cannot be the job of 'outsiders' to compile classes of objectionable images for the benefit of individual interest groups. There are a billion Muslims, I am sure one or two can be found who are capable of maintaining a halal content filter database for Wikipedia. This would be a private project and does not concern Wikipedia. Anyone can filter any content, after all it is your browser that requests image downloads, it isn't webservers pushing the images on you. --dab (𒁳) 09:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is not Wikipedia's problem, why does Talk:Muhammad FAQ part, Q4 A4 contain this guide? Kavas (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the FAQ is offered as a "courtesy"? That's when you try to help people even if you don't have to. --dab (𒁳) 14:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you suggesting we enter the picture(s) into coding to simply auto-hide them, and then click to view? Or am I misreading your post Chowbok?  Jmlk  1  7  15:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, users should edit their monobook.css to see all images in the page except Muhammad's depiction, now all images are hidden when we follow the guide on Talk page. Kavas (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand dab's objection so I went ahead and implemented the "terrible idea". Who cares if there's a couple extra span tags in the code? What's the harm? Kavas, assuming nobody reverts me (probably an unsafe assumption), you can now add this to your stylesheet: and that should hide only the Muhammad images. If I don't get overruled on this I'll change the FAQ in a few days to reflect this.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please at least use &lt;div&gt; tags? If you look at the source code of the generated page, you will see the &lt;span&gt; have to be moved around and duplicated in the HTML (because otherwise they would contain &lt;div&gt; tags used to display a "thumb" image). -- da pete 17:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we cannot make people's choice on what is "objectionable" for them. Start introducing "hide" categories in articles, and we will get a huge number of disjunct content preferences swamping our articles. And for what? For people who cannot be bothered to install Adblock, but who can  be bothered to edit their stylesheet. That must be a tiny demographic indeed. Suppose you are a really strict Muslim and you object to all depictions of human beings? No problem. Let's tag all our images of people. Then we have the fundamentalist Christians. Obviously, all our images showing nudity must be tagged as well. Then we have Germany, where Nazi symbols are illegal. Not a problem, let's tag all images pertinent to Strafgesetzbuch section 86a. Of course there is no comprehensive list of that, but we can probably get an expert opinion if we hire a lawyer just for this purpose. And of course some people will want to be shielded from images of drugs, sicknesses, and human misery in general.

I second the above paragraph, but there are no gods. I want "all" references to religion, dogma, prophets, etc removed or at least tagged as fairy tales. Mature intelligent adults don't have imaginary friends. Any solo person lost in a desert for a prolonged period will invent imaginary friends to stay sane, and obviously some went over the edge and convinced others that their imaginary friend are real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Matcalfe (talk • contribs) 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please look at WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia does necessarily make judgements on notability and encyclopedicity. It does not and should not make judgements on "objectionability". --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. As slippery slopes go, this is one of the slickest. AdBlock does this quite nicely, and anyone that wanted to could publish an AdBlock list according to any rule list they wanted, independent of Wikipedia.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty weak. This is an exceptional article, there's no reason to think that anybody would want those other things. But if they did, so what? Nobody has to do this stuff, but if somebody did, why would you care? It's not actually affecting anything for anybody who doesn't edit their stylesheets. We're not making any decisions for anybody, despite your argument. You're basically saying that you don't like making it possible for people to hide particular images. That's just silly. You're not opposing censorship, you're just being ornery.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S., What if I'd named the class "Muhammad" instead of "hide"? Then I'm not making a judgement on "objectionability", simply classifying images based on a neutral, factual aspect of them. Should people want to hide the images on that basis, that's their business. Who knows, maybe some people want to make them blink.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that this is an exceptional article. This here is an exceptional talk subpage, created because some people have decided to act exceptionally irrational about the article, but if you think that this makes the article in any way exceptional, you are giving these people way too much credit. Your claim that I object to enabling people to control the content they see is ludicrous. It is extremely simple for anyone to configure a content filter, and I do not object to guidelines in Help: space telling people how to go around doing this. In fact I have contributed to such guidelines myself. What I do object to is your idea of inserting content warning tags within the article source. There are others, far superior ways of achieving the same end. --dab (𒁳) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess you don't have to name a class "Muhammad" to make it possible for people to hide particular images. Kavas (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer the class be as specific and descriptive as possible. Name the class "muhammad-image". A generic name like "hide" isn't useful. If that class is used on two different articles, one of which has images that offend me, I'd not see the image on both. A class that says "this is an image of Muhammad" is simple, descriptive, makes no judgments about what's objectionable, and provides flexibility for those who want it without imposing any server burden.
 * Someone suggested using div rather than span tags. Wouldn't the div tag need an "inline" attribute to prevent it from being displayed as a block around which text doesn't wrap? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * once again, I categorically object to the introduction of "content warning" css classes. If you want to do this, I feel you need to establish project-wide consensus, and will need to raise the topic at WP:VP/P and/or Wikipedia_talk:No_disclaimers_in_articles. --dab (𒁳) 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What you are now discussing is something along the lines of "semantic web", i.e. providing as much meta-information as possible. This could go somewhere, but it should not be implemented as a hack because some Muslims complained, but it should be planned on a project-wide scale. I could envisage something along these lines: The MediaWiki software is updated to automatically include css tags for each thumbnail transcluded from commons,  listing the categories the image is given there. Then it would be very easy to configure your stylesheet to hide any images from any given category, including, for example, commons:Category:Depictions of Muhammad and commons:Category:Human genitalia. This will also have the advantage that the Muhammad or genitalia images will be caught on any page, not just on those where conscientious editors bothered to add content warning tags. --dab (𒁳) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That option seems to be the most sensible. Elegant project wide solution. Jarkeld (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be an elegant solution, but it would need developers willing to implement it, and it would also increase site traffic (because every image now comes with tags). But if somebody cares enough to pursue this it should be posted as a feature request. --dab (𒁳) 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

dab's idea would be suitable for Human genitalia, but for this particular article the problem is to view the images we like since the guide when followed forces us not to see them. The problem is solved by changing our own monobook.css file to a suitable one without naming "a class "Muhammad"" or using "an external filter program". I never said "I prefer objectionable images class", it is not needed. Kavas (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * you didn't understand anything that was said above, did you.
 * there is no way for us to show you only the "images you like" because nobody can second guess what you do or do not like. You will have no option but to configure your own preferences. --dab (𒁳) 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you wrote a guide and in the guide you guessed that I would not like File:Muhammad callig.gif, File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg, File:Allah eser green.png, File:Map of Arabia 600 AD.svg, File:Madina Haram at evening .jpg, File:Cave_Hira.jpg, File:Muhammad_destroying_icons_L_Histoire_Merveilleuse_en_Vers_de_Mahomet_BNF.jpg, File:Al-Aqsa Mosque by David Shankbone.jpg, File:MuhammadSeal.jpg, File:Muslim Conquest.PNG, File:Muhammadwives.png, File:Sahadah-Topkapi-Palace.JPG, File:Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg, File:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg which are not problematic for an ordinary Sunni because they don't depict face of Muhammad. For a more strict Muslim, File:Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg, File:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg are also problematic. What you did was to write a guide to prevent me from seeing these images. I am free to see images I like, and it is not necassary to use the program you're advertising. You cannot put a ban on users who want to see some images and not others by writing a guide which forces them not to see any picture. Are your words God's words? How can you give orders to us not to see all images in the page by following the guide you wrote. I am a user and I want people to freely choose which pictures they don't want to see. You are always impolite against me (you didn't understand anything that was said above, did you, don't cry out, ask your mother, what's wrong with you man) and you're assuming I am an outsider and not a Wikipedia user. The Wikipedia is a free Encyclopedia, no one can force users to ban all images in the page if they don't want to see Muhammad images only. I did not write this guide, if you were against this guide you could say "nobody can second guess what you do or do not like", because today you guess it for me that I don't want to see these images: File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg, File:Muhammad callig.gif, File:Allah-eser-green.png, File:Map of Arabia 600AD.svg, File:Madina Haram at evening_.jpg, File:Cave Hira.jpg, File:Muhammad destroying icons L Histoire Merveilleuse en Vers de Mahomet BNF.jpg, File:Al-Aqsa Mosque by David Shankbone.jpg, File:MuhammadSeal.jpg, File:Muslim Conquest.PNG, File:Muhammadwives.png, File:Sahadah-Topkapi-Palace.JPG, File:Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg, File:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg. This is the guide that chooses them. People are free to view all images, or not any images. Why did you write this guide if it is not your business to help people hide these images? Whatever the content of the guide, some pictures are disabled and now you choose all images for me to hide, but I don't want to hide them and I don't want your filter program.

Secondly, you say I have the option to configure my own preferences. I did it, by the way as an experiment. That's what I want, I want to configure my own preferences to hide some images and view some others. I want to see other images and you cannot force me not to see if I am against seeing some others. My idea is only to remind people that they can do this by configuring their own preferences, but you are against this, you force people not to know this option by censoring this simple procedure. No one is forcing the WP to censor images, but what's needed is to teach people to configure their css settings to see images they want. This can easily be done today but people don't know this, and you don't want people to learn this, as you are the boss here. It is a free Encyclopedia and people can change their css file. You say you don't have to write a guide to enable seeing some images. Although you don't have to write a guide, it is you started that guide, I was not here years ago. But this guide is antidemocratic since you punish people by forcing them not to see any images. In fact, they have the right to choose images to see. You did choose that all images are "objectionable" for them, you're hiding this fact in your comments.

Thirdly, I am against naming "a class "Muhammad"" but my idea is to let people change their css file and tell them how to change it in the guide because some new comers do not know the codes used here. You cannot object to telling people how to do something because you have such a guide today. They can do this today by changing their css file but you force them not to learn this.

Finally, you say "the problem is that we cannot make people's choice on what is "objectionable" for them", but you wrote a guide in which "The images might offend Muslims" sentence is read, on this page. You decided that the images on this page is "objectionable" for them" and you wrote a guide which helps people hide images on this page because these images might be "objectionable" for them" according to your guide. You help people hide the images which you have chosen to problematic. Why are you against letting people to see images they want by following guidelines in Help: unless they install a content filter first? It is very simple to see images you want while you're hiding others. (-It is because we cannot choose "objectionable" images -But, you do choose this page and all images in the page by writing the guide.) Kavas (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Kavas, is there a point to any of this? Our how-to guides are purely on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. If you don't like it, don't follow it. Muhammad images being offensive to Muslims is just one of a possible billion examples of content preferences by interest group. It's a good example to illustrate the problem, but it isn't in any way different from, say, the prohibition to view photographs of Bahaullah in Bahai. --dab (𒁳) 10:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You say "Muhammad images being offensive to Muslims" is one of billion problems like photographs of Bahaullah. I agree, there are other billion problems, you can also write a guide for them or not, but this is not the problem. (I would also object to the guide that can be written on Bahaullah page which hides all images there, but there is not such a guide in that page.) The problem is that on FAQ Q4/A4 we have a guide that disables all images in the page, and you don't tell me why all images are disabled. You say how-to guides are purely on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, do we have to force users to install your filter because they don't want to see Muhammad images? If people are told that changing the code in their css file, they can see the images they want. I suggest we should improve this "how to guide". Why are you against this?

The debate is not on we cannot make people's choice on what is "objectionable" for them or not, it is already decided that the images are "objectionable" by writing this guide, all images in this page are put into a blacklist. The problem is that you don't let people see the images which they would not object to. For example, no one would object to these three images below:

,.

Just tell me if there is anyone in the world, a Sunni, an Evangelical Christian, a Raelian or a Quaker who can oppose these images, they are just writings. It was decided that the images above maybe "objectionable", but we can surely decide that these images cannot be objected by anyone. Kavas (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just tell me why writing a guide that disables these images does not violate WP:CENSOR, but changing the guide so that people can choose the images to see violates WP:CENSOR. It is not because we cannot decide on the images are "objectionable", because you already decided that these page may contain "objectionable" images and all images here are "objectionable" by writing this guide. I would not object to deleting this guide, what I object to is that you don't let people learn that they can choose images they want unless they install a filter. Kavas (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The guideline clearly says that if you are so offended by the images that you would rather see no images at all hosted on wikipedia, you have that option. I don't see why you keep complaining about this option, as nobody forces you to take it. If you are offended by some images on Wikipedia you have the following choices: you keep complaining about option 3 as if it had somehow been forced upon you. You are free to take any of these four options, and option 3 is simply mentioned in case somebody is interested. Since you do not seem to be interested in this option, why don't you just disregard it. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) do nothing
 * 2) stop visiting Wikipedia
 * 3) disable all images hosted on wikipedia.org
 * 4) configure your browser in some more flexible manner after you install a content filter
 * I don't object to those 4 options but I don't prefer them. There is a fifth option I use now that you don't accept.

5. configure your css file in some more flexible manner without installing a content filter. Do you object to this? Kavas (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is such an option, we are so far not aware of it. If you are using such a method in your stylesheet, please post the relevant parts of your stylesheet and we will be happy to add your method to the range of possibilities. Please use Help_talk:Options_to_not_see_an_image to present any ingenious stylesheet hacks you may have developed for content preferences. --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

disabling images by filename

 * This is the fifth option: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kavas/monobook.css People can add images to this code that they want to see. I selected the images that does not show the face of Muhammad to be seen on the page. But, strict Sunnis can change it to exclude the images that does show the face of Muhammad. There is another option for changing css file, but this fifth option works. Kavas (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

this method, if it worked, but I suppose the possibility can be mentioned.
 * would be more complicated than just using AdBlock
 * would have to be maintained, as there is no guarantee that the filenames stay the same over time

But your current css doesn't work as advertised. you still have the body.page-Muhammad img {display: none;} at the top, which blocks all images from the Muhammad page. The remainder of your css does nothing, because the parameter "display: block;" displays paragraphs as "blocks", it doesn't hide anything.

I do not think you can use the content of the href tag to specify css instruction. The href tag isn't part of css. The html tag looks like this: here, the "image" is a css class, but the content of the "href" is just basic html.

If you do get your css to do what you want, let us know. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The method I use enable images by filename. However, there is another method which disable images by filename. Kavas (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, let's see. Would that be something like this doesn't seem to work for me. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

my bad, it works. Ok, this is a fifth option. I don't see how it is preferable to option 4, but we can certainly mention it. I have described it here: Help:Options_to_not_see_an_image. I hope this addresses your concern. --dab (𒁳) 14:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am happy to agree on this issue. I prefer enabling images by filename. However, it is nice to see "another method which disable images by filename" posted in the guide. Kavas (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ok. Please see Talk:Muhammad/images/example css. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's brilliant. It's adaptable to any images on any article, too. I just learned something new about CSS that I didn't know before. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Images should be Banned!
61.5.152.99 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Images of prophet muhammad should be banned from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad61.5.152.99 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, please read: WP:NOTCENSORED and the FAQ Jarkeld (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Image-related entry from main talk page
Please Remove the imagnary pictures of prophet Muhammad from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.175.25 (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for more information. Jmlk  1  7  05:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed removal of deliberately provocative images
It should be obvious to anyone familiar with my history can tell that I'm a strong advocate of maintaining images of Muhammad in this article. I continually warn users who remove such images, I have contributed to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, and I engage in lengthy discussions on this talk subpage.

However, I advocate removal of the two images that appeared in the "European and Western views" section after 19 March 2010, and restoring the original Russian painting that was there by long-established consensus. (view the original version of that section before it changed)

Here are my reasons:


 * On 22 March, now-indef-banned User:Cmmmm added an arguably provocative image to this section without explanation. (diff)
 * A few minutes later, Cmmmm added another, without explanation or discussion. (diff)
 * Later that evening, User:Clearcrash1 removed the original image, presumably due to clutter in the section.
 * These images were discussed earlier, but nothing was done. See the first section of Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 16.
 * Originally a new Muslim editor, User:Mounibkhanafer, objected.
 * User:Dbachmann responded: I do not think that the images mentioned have a WP:DUE place in the article. They belong in depictions of Muhammad. In fact, the long-standing consensus version of the article did not include them, and it should be checked if they were added based on any change in consensus.
 * User:Resolute agreed: I could see one image in that section, but not two ... One does have to question why the two most provocative Western images on Commons were used.

Upon investigation, it appears that the images have no established history of consensus in this article. The editor who added them, User:Cmmmm, has a history of disruptive edits and has been blocked indefinitely since the beginning of June. Cmmmm added the images without providing any rationale, justification, or talk page discussion. Based on Cmmmm's editing history, I can only assume the intent here was to provoke a reaction. This is known as trolling.

Therefore, I advocate replacing these images with the original consensus of a Russian painting. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As per my original comment above, I'm agreeable to reverting to the original image on that section. Resolute 23:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just boldly restored it, and removed the other two images. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We should definitely get a consensus at the very least. The images came out of nowhere, seemingly added for no reason, and add no further positive to the article in general.  There is some discussion from a couple (at least) years ago about the images and not adding any further if they do not enhance the article, and these images almost certainly do not enhance the article.  I haven't the time to find them this evening, and as I have been gone from the project for some time, I can't really remember the exact timeframe, but I shall attempt to track them down ASAP.  Also, in the end, the images and edits were made by a confirmed and acknowledge sockpuppet, in which case one would imagine WP:RBI would come into effect.  Jmlk  1  7  06:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need to keep in mind that this is not the depictions of Muhammad articles. I handful of images within our usual conventions of illustrating articles are fair enough, but gratuitious images, especially images added clearly just for provocation, should be removed. --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Who decided that pictures should remain?
It has being said that it has being decided that the pictures of prophet Mohammed will remain. Who decided that and how was that consensus reached? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmie (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The community decided, based on existing policies and guidelines, without regard to Islamic preferences. Talk:Muhammad/FAQ summarizes the consensus and reasoning. The talk page archives are available for you to read. See also Depictions of Muhammad for a description of the controversy on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some sentences in the FAQ which prove it is partially decided that images should be kept here with regard to some Islamic preferences like Shia belief. I think these sentences should be moved to Depictions_of_Muhammad page, it is not related to community's decision.

The FAQ is as follows:

The images might offend Muslims. Wikipedia recognizes that among many groups of Muslims, the depiction of Muhammad and other prophets is forbidden, and that some Muslims are offended when this prohibition is violated. (The prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities; for example, the Shi'a do not strictly prohibit these images. For a detailed discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad, Aniconism in Islam and Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad.) However, Wikipedia is not bound by rules of Islam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where most of Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.) Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that is equally offensive to other religionists, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of Young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible. The traditional reason given for the Islamic prohibitions on images of prophets is to prevent the images from becoming objects of worship as a form of idolatry, where the image becomes more important than the subject it represents. However, Wikipedia uses the images of Muhammad as examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context. Therefore, there should be less concern that the presence of the images on the articles will result in the practice of idolatry among Muslims. Muslims who have such concerns should read Question 4 below, which explains how to disable the images in specific articles.

by omitting a discussion of Islam, this can be changed to this:

The images might offend Muslims. However, Wikipedia is not bound by rules of Islam. .... Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible. Muslims who have such concerns should read Question 4 below, which explains how to disable the images in specific articles.

Discussing Islamic belief here means that you partially decide with regard to Islamic preferences. Is the reference to Islam necassary here? Kavas (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't mean that. The sentences you advocate removing address a common argument that appears often on this talk page: that the images are prohibited. Those sentences make it clear that such images are not prohibited universally. Removing those sentences would remove the usefulness of the FAQ in addressing the most common argument brought up on this talk page.


 * But, this is an answer to this question "Are Muhammad images prohibited in Islam?", not to this "Shouldn't the images be removed because they might offend Muslims?". Then one can argue that "the images should be removed, I am a strict Sunni, you should respect my belief". Kavas (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you examine this talk page archives, you'll see that the demand to remove images almost always contains two elements simultaneously: "Muslims are offended" and "the images are prohibited". Therefore, it's appropriate to address both points simultaneously in the same answer.
 * That said, I would have no objection to splitting that question into two, although I don't think it's necessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What about changing the question? Kavas (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you suggest? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Splitting that question into two, "Are Muhammad images prohibited in Islam?", and "Shouldn't the images be removed because they might offend Muslims?" I will also write that the community decided that the images are allowed without taking Muslim belief on prohibition of Muhammad images into consideration. Sunnis can find it offensive or Shia can find it not offensive, but this is not why the images are allowed. Kavas (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * this is correct. the question "Are Muhammad images prohibited in Islam?" is purely encyclopedic, and the only answer can be a reference to encyclopedia content, "see aniconism in Islam". The FAQ page does need to be maintained and pruned so it doesn't grow into a full-scale discussion of the topic which can be addressed simply by linking to the article. --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it cannot go there. Template_talk:Muhammad-FAQ-Images is used for discussion of Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images, not Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. In addition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ does not have a talk page. Kavas (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * you are right. Ok, so let us dicuss the FAQ page here. I have already cleaned it up a little. There are three relevant questions:
 * Q1: Shouldn't the images be removed because they might offend Muslims? (Answer: Content disclaimer)
 * Q2: Aren't the images false? (Answer: Truth, WP:DUE)
 * Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings? (Answer: Help:Options to not see an image)
 * I think these three questions, and the three links I posted next to them, cover everything that can conceivably be brought up on the question. --dab (𒁳) 12:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm providing details for Q3. The same link was used twice, I changed the wording to delete one link. Kavas (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * dab: I like the tidying up you did, but I object to your removal of the list of not-censored examples, which you removed with the rationale that it isn't a frequently asked question. Perhpaps not in the form of a question, but censorship is a frequently-discussed topic. Those examples have appeared here and there in the talk page disucssions of this and related talk pages such as Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and Talk:Muhammad. I think it is useful to provide a FAQ question related to censorship, regardless of whether the topic was ever asked as a question. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, I have myself originated this list. As tends to happen with lists on Wikipedia, it has grown out of hand, and together with the general accretion of bloat on the FAQ, I felt that it now served no purpose other than cluttering up the FAQ. We need to keep in mind who the FAQ is intended for. Most people who should read the FAQ already can't be bothered, or so it seems from the repetitive complaints on this page. It should be streamlined, not encyclopedically complete. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced sentences
In our FAQ, there are sentences which need citations. I was not sure whether it was a must to provide sources to sentences in FAQs, but I now see the HIV-FAQ properly cites sources:

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.


 * AIDS


 * HIV and AIDS misconceptions
 * AIDS denialism
 * Origin of AIDS

Kavas (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't relevant, really. While sourcing is desirable, it's usually sufficient to reference articles that are sourced, and the Muhammad FAQ does that. Also, a FAQ having a purpose of summarizing consensus would not require sourcing, as the discussion archives are accessible to anyone. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FAQs are part of Wikipedia project interna, not Wikipedia encyclopedic content. They are a "primary source", expressing the consensus of Wikipedia editors. They need consensus, but no references. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Ę


 * I asked it to SlimVirgin. She says ":FAQs would need citations for anything that other editors found contentious. I don't know whether there's a guideline stating this anywhere, but FAQs are often highly contentious and more trouble than they're worth. Anything unsourced or that doesn't have consensus really shouldn't be in an FAQ". Is it not contentious that whole Arab society in 600's find marrying children as normal: "This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period, therefore there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia"? I think this sentence must be attributed to a reliable, published source using a citation. I don't know there is a source somewhere in other Wikipedia pages. Kavas (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, this has been addressed by reputable scholars many times. I just added a cite from Turner which should be adequate as he is a professor of Islamic history as well as Persian (language). Remember, we're not claiming that child marriage has been practiced by every Arab through all of history; we're merely pointing out that in that time and place it was fairly common and not considered unusual. I hope that this helps resolve your concerns, Doc  Tropics  16:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote that FAQ entry. I deliberately didn't source that sentence for the simple reason that it isn't contentious. In any case, adding a source does no harm, and I appreciate Doc Tropics for doing so. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

All the images Related to Muhammad (PBUH)
All the images Related to Muhammad (PBUH) should be deleted. Respect the religions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.129.74.66 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQs above for more information on why this will not happen. Jmlk  1  7  07:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The images have to be removed at once. Wikipedia is not an Isalamic website, So as ISLAM is not Wikipedia property to trespass its santity. No one is least bothered if Wiki does or does not post articles on ISLAM and its history, all muslims are well aware of it. If Wiki cannot respect ISLAM and its virtues stop posting articles on ISLAM and the history of ISLAM in any manner. Wiki is trying to enter a very priviate corner of the Islam. Please remove those images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.160.47 (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See the header which will tell you how to avoid them being shown to you. The header also explains why your request won't happen. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Family Tree of Nabi


Although ancestor of Muhammad are covered else in the topic,but this presentation not only give Genesis details but corelate all prominent nabi at a glance which is most important from the point of view of cohesiveness of religion.Due to this reson only ,the item was redone with due justification.We may delete section with table but the Image depicted as Tree can be fixed on side by, will serve the purpose,and will not occupy much space.--Md iet (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ... what?  Ogress  smash!  04:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should be include this text and image? Why is it important for this article to include it? Jarkeld (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This table/Image depict 6 islamic prominent Nabi,and thier corelation amonst them at a glance as explained above,and very effective means of presentation.Hope most will agree.Tree is shown again here;
 * There is no way that the branches of the family trees had no overlap for thousands of years. Surely Mohammad and Jesus are both descendants of both Isaac and Ishmael.  75.159.230.233 (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no further disagreement, 'Legacy' section of the article also describe all the Nabi, and there is no ambiquity on Issac and Ismael. The tree would be helpful in depicting all Nabi's coherence at at a glance, and would be easy to understand and informative to all,hence it is being included .--Md iet (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus either. Therefore I have reverted it. I cannot see how this image adds value to the article, especially as it seems to promote a view based on belief rather than historical evidence. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Amatulic, Please don't be a instant judge and allow the matter some time to breath,and let the reader give time to make further opinion on the matter . The tree has been included in many important article of Nabi. There is specific article on each of personality  and their genesis is quite proven .Each article have further reliable sources cited to prove the link. The tree has most significance in today's world for cohesiveness.Link are added in the image for easy reach and verification.--Md iet (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are the only proponent for this image. There is no consensus for adding it. Therefore, please do not re-add it. This article is a biography about Muhammad. The article already explains that Muhammad is the last of a series of prophets. There is no need to go into any detail about the other prophets; indeed, the word "nabi" isn't mentioned at all in the article. Be aware also that we can't engage in WP:SYNTHESIS on Wikipedia. It is not clear what this image is based on. What reliable source states the lineage you portray in this image? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Amatulic,As Politely requested, you are not only reader there are other readers also let them react on this ,give them time,pl. don't bite . If you don't have idea on subject,pl. don't be expert on it .'Nabi' is islamic translation of Prophet and has specific place in the Wiki pages. This not a WP:SYNTHESIS ,there is lot discussion held on the topic and it's reliable sources. This tree has similar importance in Jesus, Moses pages and included there long back. Please don't undo it again. The page Muhammad is for all the material related with Muhammad,Biography is a part of it. --Md iet (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again: You need to get consensus for adding an image like this. I am not biting, and you are hardly a newcomer, either. If you can support this picture with reliable sources that show general agreement with the lineage you portray, I invite you to do so, but as far as I can tell, the image is basically WP:SYNTHESIS. Even if it wasn't synthesis, you haven't established that it conveys any useful information beyond what the article already says. The fact that you added the picture to other articles without objection is irrelevant; from what I can tell, those articles would be fine without it. We are discussing this article. Please remember that edit-warring won't get the image restored to this article. Note that I am not the only editor who has reverted you. The WP:BURDEN is on you to support your assertions about this image and gain positive consensus that it belongs here. That burden has not been met in this talk page discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear,pl.understand my logic, I am not against consensus,my request is only for giving time for assessment. We may undo the thing after one week,if consensus is against it. It is not a serious subject of objection or vandalism for which you are so bothered.Thanks, you agree that I am not new comer now, but bite is always a bite,and I mentioned upto that, let it be a sweet bite.

Now as it is not a matter of Synthesis,It is just matter of repetition as you feel.Here message and information 'the tree' convey is much more than written text. It shows clear link between all personality,which is not available and at all clear from the text ,which is very very important and can not be ignored. Please feel that everybody is not 'Genius' as you.There are various method of presentation evolved to take home the idea easily and effectively.Picutres, illustration,table are amongst the method used and they are very important,much above the text and need no justification.Hope ,you agree on this point of view.There were discussion in other articles also before inclusion,and finally it was agreed. I am not in hurry ,let us wait for any other response on the point of view before edition.--Md iet (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Md iet, please understand three key points:
 * The WP:BURDEN is on you to come up with reliable sources that support the relationships in this image you created.
 * You have not provided such sources.
 * Although you agree that consensus for inclusion does not exist for this article, you don't seem to understand that consensus was never achieved in other articles either. Talk:Jesus/Archive_113 doesn't show consensus at all. It shows disagreement, with you making a final decision to insert your image, and the next edit to the talk page was a bot archiving the discussion, where nobody would see or respond to it. You added the picture to Moses without any discussion whatsoever on Talk:Moses.
 * I am inclined to remove the image from those articles also, for the reasons stated earlier in this discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Amatulic,

In article "jesus", where this tree was much sensitive then being edited here.It was accepted after considering "synthesis', relavance and utility issues. Inclusion need not be discussed for every addition as was in Moses. Reader are quick to understand the importance, when once discussed anywhere . As such survival of matter in Wiki for weeks together itself is proof of it's acceptance and genuinity.

For your quick reference I am reproducing discussion held in Jesus;

"The table contains many of patriach and their family tree already exist in article Patriarchs (Bible),most of member has articles on their name( already linked)which further clarify their Genesis link. These articles further have their own source details,and hence table is linked to all proper sources please.--Md iet (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC) As discussed above the table is informative to all & having reliable sources.Hope, there is consensus to add it to article.--Md iet (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)"

"I don't think this is really a problem of reliable sources. All this chart shows is undisputed biblical genealogy combined with traditional Islamic genealogy. So we have Adam - Noah - Abraham, splitting to Ismael and Jacob, then Moses and Jesus as descendents of Jacob on the right, with Mohammad's ancestor Adnan, then his grandfather & father on the left, as descendents of Ismael. Mohammad himself, his daughter and grandsons then follow on the left......"Paul B (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Thanks, Dear Paul for kind understanding of table and its undisputed genealogy.This table has nothing new but it has condensed information placed at one place ,which corelate three religion and help make understand that they are generated from same source. As time elapsed, god created one prophet after another to enlighten human,whenever there is additional need he felt,and all is for betterment of human kind. Islam believe in this policy ,and take things in broader perspective,and treat Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad in a sequence and feel part of their belief.They proudly accept Moses,Jesus as part of them.Many people take it otherwise due to ignorance and give them different shape,they claim proprioty over them and creat dispute. This I want to avoid through this table and make understand all that all religion are generated from common, creatred for betterment of human kind, we should accept all better things told by one after another and respect all.......The table can also be more better presented in form of tree,which I would further try. The table is to be included in all the Prophets article ,let it be under section of Islamic view, as Islam follow 6 Nabi'Prophet" principle, and we do not want to do any original research as per Wiki policy ,correctly pointed by dear Slrubenstein.

Dear Slrubenstein,thanks for your kind suggestion and guidelines given. I tried to point out the reliable sources only,which I suppose you want to list it again from the article pointed out by me. But as pointed out by Paul, they are obvious.

Hope, we may agree of inclusion with my above point of view ,any further suggestion is welcome.--Md iet (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Modified tree is as follows; --Md iet (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hope now everybody agree for inclusion of this new Tree of Nabi(Prophets) in the article with heading 'Isa( Jesus) amongst 6 Islamic prophets' as sub section of Islamic view. If there is no further suggestion, it may treated for consensus now?--Md iet (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would treat this now as acceptable,and in next step it will be included in the article please. --Md iet (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)]]]]"

Hope above discussion clarify all the point I want to convey.Dear Amatulic,,hope, your queries are also answered and hope the modified tree as acceptable by readers for inclusion on topic of all Nabi gets favour from you and other readers also.--Md iet (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I already referenced that discussion in my previous comment; there is no need to reproduce it, especially if you conveniently omit the objections. The section shows disagreement, with no acknowledgment that the image is acceptable. Rather, I see a consensus that the information isn't useful to the article, which echoes my objection in this article.


 * Also, I fail to see any basis for your assertion that survival of the image for weeks is proof acceptance. Surviving for weeks doesn't confer legitimacy. See, for example, Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 17. A disruptive editor inserted two highly offensive images of Muhammad into this article, and they persisted for four months until I tracked down the history behind the images and removed them. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear ,There is no point in reproducing every thing ,I reproduced only points who has answered your query on "Synthesis ' and 'usefulness' etc.

You are right that there can be matter that can escape eyes of readers and get space in wiki,but these are exceptions, truth always prevail and false don't have legs of it's own and will disappear.

The figure which I wanted to portrait has truth in it and conveys a very important message of unity one ness amongst religion ,people has honoured it,let us be accomodating and wait for mass response.--Md iet (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The figure in question appears to be a combination of synthesis and original research. Furthermore, only a limited group would believe this information to be true, so our policy about undue weight would also apply. It does not merit inclusion in the article. Doc  Tropics  03:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dear Doc for enlighting the topic.

I also went through the synthesis, original researchand undue weight .In nutshell it says: ' "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article'.

This logic perfectly applicable here, and I assure that "C" here carry same meaning as depicted for "A" and "B" in relation to the topic of article ,hence it should be acceptable here. All the link shown here are pretty simple and all the article connected give only one connectivity.I would further provide details on this,hope this justify inclusion also on wiki policy terms.--Md iet (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Article Patriarchs (Bible) ,section "Family Tree of Certain Patriarchs Mentioned in the Book of Genesis' clearly give lineage from Adam to Jacob,Ishmael and Issac.

Muhammad, Abdul Muttalib and Ishmael link are very much clarified in individual person's page, no ambiquity in link.

Jacob, Issac, Jesus,Mary and Moses article further link each other. Each article clearly speaks of their link.

All above article are linking each other supported by reliable sources.No variation in meaning in relation to the topic of any article.everywhere it carry same meaning as depicted in the combined tree hence 'A and B therfore C" is acceptable, as stated by me above,thanks --Md iet (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Hope ,there is no further suggestions,we may include the figure now.--Md iet (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Doc, it does not merit inclusion in the article. Also nobody said you changed their minds. Don't include the figure yet. Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Doctor, I am not claming,just hoping.Please answer to my justifiction given to Doc's view if you don't agree. I have pointed out the benefits,would you please elaborate on any fear you have,else please unite for harmonising all.Silence is a response which convey that there is no harm in agreeing,if so please encourage my hopes.--Md iet (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Read what Doc Tropics said. He's right. You haven't convinced me. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only is silence not a response, but silence has not been evident in this thread. On Wikipedia, non-response doesn't necessarily mean concurrence. We work on consensus here. Far from being silent, five different people besides the proponent have commented here, none of whom indicated support for including the image, and three of whom have made positive statements against its inclusion. That suggests a consensus. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Doctor ,in reply to Doc ,I have reffered all the concerned articles ,which clearly define the link between all personalities depicted. 'A and B therfore C" is self evident without change in meaning in context with subject of article.Which link is not clear to you, pl.elaborate such that I can convince you further.I think Doc Tropics got convinced ,hope you also will,if you just spare some more time to see all the linked pages.


 * Why does it belong in this article? Why do readers need to see this? How does it benefit them? Also, why do you think Doc Tropics got convinced? Because that is what you want? He did not say he was convinced. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Amatulic, I have answered each argument,if there is no further response to my answer,I presumed it as acceptance of my view. If any body has further question on my reply ,please point out as done by Doctor.thanks,--Md iet (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * NO! Silence is not a response!  Did you not see that in the above response, or did you conveniently ignore it?  And what you describe in the post with this timestamp:  03:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC) is synthesis which is prohibited.JanetteDoe (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The impression I get, is that Md iet may not understand some of those words. Just an observation. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be right. JanetteDoe (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Very correct, I also agree.Thanks Wiki, making editors very frank and open to point out others problem. There is further request. Pointing out is not enough, pl. try to make him understand also as a best friend.

Sorry, I referred half the policy and didn’t read the examples given further. There was no feedback given by Doc to my above response, so I took it for granted that I was able to convince him and didn’t refer the policy further.

I took the policy : ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article" meaning as "A and B therefore C" should be self evident without change in meaning in context with subject of article" and taken it for granted that “c’ would not then require reliable source. Now the policy further meant that if ‘C’ is self evident then also it require source as I now understand, pl. correct, if I am still wrong.

For this also I have answer. The publication 'Summary of the Tragedy of Sayyeda Ruqayya',2008 ,published by Ruqayya Mosque,Damascus,print the complete tree in which all the prophets correlation is made clear. I will try to get the photo copy of that tree, to make my point home.

Mean time I answer other queries of Doctor,who has bombarded the questions. I request him to go through following, which I pointed in my earlier discussion:

'This table/tree has nothing new but it has condensed information placed at one place ,which correlate three religion and help make understand that they are generated from same source. As time elapsed, god created one prophet after another to enlighten human, whenever there is additional need he felt, and all is for betterment of human kind. Islam believes in this policy, and takes things in broader perspective, and treats Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad in a sequence and feels part of their belief. They proudly accept Moses, Jesus as part of them. Many people take it otherwise due to ignorance and give them different shape, they claim propriety over them and create dispute. This I want to avoid through this table and make understand all that all religion are generated from common, created for betterment of human kind, we should accept all better things told by one after another and respect all......., Hope Doctor and others are now satisfied.--Md iet (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I do not believe you have satisfied anyone. Please do not assume you have achieved consensus without getting positive confirmation from anyone else. You have been told repeatedly that silence does not equal concurrence.
 * One problem is that it promotes a religious viewpoint.
 * A second problem is that, in your comment above, you use your religious convictions to justify inclusion, and those convictions don't matter here.
 * A third problem is that you have not demonstrated that the image agrees with reliable sources. For one thing, it implies an incorrect timeline, making it appear that certain individuals coexisted in the same time frame.
 * A fourth problem is that the picture may be more appropriate in an article about Islam, but you have yet to convince anyone of its appropriateness in a biography.
 * A fifth problem is that you have inserted this image in other articles without gaining consensus for it in those articles. The burden is on you to justify their inclusion, and the justification must be more than "nobody has objected". You are receiving objections now, so it is false to claim no objections.
 * Due to those problems, I don't see a compelling reason to include this picture in any biography article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * YES, these are the kinds of things I was trying to get at. I have to give Md iet credit for trying to answer my questions. However I agree with Amatulić. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Amatulic,your three point are related with one issue that you are taking out Muhammad from Islam.'Muhammad ' is propogator ,main initiator ,nabi of Islam a religion ,you can't differentiate Muhammad from Islam. It is impossible that you discuss Muhammad and don't consider Islam.

On source part ,when the tree is depicted in one of published material on islam, it has reliable source.It's further authencities are getting confirmed from the all article existing in Wiki, whose references are given.This is well known genesis, there is no need to give any conviction on it.In tree each branch is separate there is no time corelation.

In nutshell if we talk in term of wiki policy ,the tree depicts a view point on genesis  taken from reliable source,it is well relevant to the subject of article hence it is candidate for inclusion.

The reliabilty of matter as per other articles of Wiki and advantage to humanity are secondary points which further enhance it's utility.

As far as inclusion in other articles, matter was included after discussion.I would further say that when no further response is given on my counter arguments, it is not wrong to presume that there is no reply available and opponent agree to counter given.--Md iet (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But what reliable source is this based on? Also, if I'm interpreting your last line correctly, you seem to be saying that reliability should be an after-thought, given that what's being added is somehow useful. That is not the case. I have to say, I'm having trouble understanding your message. Eik Corell (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's break down your arguments:
 * You are taking out Muhammad from Islam. No. Muhammad and Islam coexist perfectly well without the image. You have not established that it is necessary in this article to depict a religious point of view about Muhammad's relationship with other prophets.
 * On source part, when the tree is depicted in one of published material on islam, it has reliable source. Whose viewpoint is being presented here? What reliable sources? You have not answered this, you have only made assertions.
 * It's further authencities are getting confirmed from the all article existing in Wiki, whose references are given. Then what are they? Other Wikipedia articles can't be used as references. You have not provided any reliable sources for this tree, as depicted, in this thread or any other. The WP:BURDEN is on you to do that.
 * In tree each branch is separate there is no time corelation. But a time correlation is implied by the levels in the tree. That is a problem with the design of the tree. Readers of this article may not be knowledgeable about Genesis. As it stands, the tree implies false information. The branches may be correct according to sources, but the tree itself is poorly designed.
 * In nutshell if we talk in term of wiki policy, the tree depicts a view point on genesis taken from reliable source, it is well relevant to the subject of article hence it is candidate for inclusion. Whose viewpoint? What reliable source? And just because something is reliably sourced does not make it a candidate for inclusion.
 * The reliabilty of matter as per other articles of Wiki and advantage to humanity are secondary points which further enhance its utility. You have yet to convince others of that, beyond simply asserting it.
 * As far as inclusion in other articles, matter was included after discussion. While the image was included in Jesus and Muhammad after discussion, it was not included by consensus, and there was no discussion in Moses. Nobody in any article talk page has yet agreed that this image is required in any article. Non-response does not equal agreement. And you cannot claim that past silence constitutes valid agreement when editors aren't being silent about it now.
 * I would further say that when no further response is given on my counter arguments, it is not wrong to presume that there is no reply available and opponent agree to counter given. If people don't reply to counter-arguments, it's because the counter arguments have been irrelevant to the point that this image isn't needed in this article. You have yet to convince anyone of that. You have received numerous replies here, from numerous editors, and so far you are the only proponent. All others have been unanimous in declining to support inclusion of this image. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Amatulic,

I think you want to discuss the things ,just for the sake of discussion and looks like a making a prestige issue.Wiki accept all view points published in all concerned reliable sources,how come anybody can deny on this single front.Policy is policy and truth is truth,here numbers doesn't count.

Be liberal,be positive,think that what is gain out of it.Is there any value addition?

The tree is family tree of Muhammad,and a perfect truth.Islam, religion etc. comes next. This tree depict all prophets are one family, having blood relations. Is this point itself is not sufficient to unite all? How can one separate itself from his family.How can it not be part of biography.

Please think in broader prospective. It is immaterial for me that it is included in any topics or not,but message I want to convey is of immense importance,which Wiki can be a media, as it predict itself,that's all and thanks.--Md iet (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)