Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 4

Respecting the others doctrine
Adding a picture for the prophets generally is something forbidden for the muslims, and solid in their doctrine, as we do not have the philosophy of the holy person, and being sacred is left only to God Almighty. And as we are not concerned, as muslims, for imposing our ideas on the other religions so we are not against publishing photos for Jesus Christ, by the chrisitans, however we found ourselves responsible for prohibiting such photos for our prophet because it constitutes threats for the islamic doctrine, especially for the coming generations, exposing the muslims doctrine for alterations specially for those who are born and raised in western countries where they are subject for the majority of the time to westen media, and not taking the religion from its specialized scholars.

Moreover neither of such photos were done for phrophet Muhammed (PBUH) during his life or by his order, nor they were aknowledged by him. And as we respect your site as one of the most important knowledge sources, we are asking you kindly to remove all the photos impersonating prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from you respectful site. And I think respectng the others feelings, and doctrines are important factors constituting the policy of this website, and its so clear now that such photos have caused unpleasent and pasive feeings among the muslims who where informed with this issue, and among the users of the website.

And I think it will be a matter of respect, before any other considerations, to remove such photos, specially that it is not representing any added values or information to the issue discussed.

Regards,

Hazem Mohamed Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel (talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are not asking us to respect your doctrine, you are asking us to follow it.--172.202.230.119 (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you have taken the time to formulate this message, but it has been gone over one too many times before, and the consensus on the issue favors inclusion. See the FAQ. I also agree with the sentiment of the anon- the encyclopedia does not favor any religion in particular, and as such will include many topics which can and do cause upset or ire in adherents (I know of many topics which unsettle me, but I don't oppose their inclusion unless a policy violation is being made). Understand that you are imposing your religious requirements upon us to some extent. Additionally, note the fact that not all Muslims have a religious sanction against images, and that many of these images were created by a Muslim for another Muslim (at least in the case of al-Biruni's illustrations.--C.Logan (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, may be I was not clear in my previous message, I am neither trying to impose my believes on any person, or debating the source of the pictures. Because simply I am not claiming the fidelity of our prophet or even asking for confession that he was a prophet, also I am not debating about a conspiracy theory of who issued such photos. I am simply saying that such photos are not of additive value, and it will cause passive feelings among the "majority" (not all) of the muslims. And the same could be implied for any idea that is not a matter of debate, has no additive value, and offensive for a large group of people.

It seems its some how difficult to have a meeting point, because simply the west can't understand the senstivity of the religious issues for us, and we can't admit the freedom theory of the west as well. However I am gratefull for your fruitful contribution (to Logan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Muhammad is not owned by Islam. As a human being with a definite - indeed, in his case, extremely important - place in history, he belongs to all of us, and the views expressed in this article should not simply be those of Muslims. To exclude the pictures because of Muslim pressure would devalue Wikipedia beyond measure, because our readers would legitimately wonder what else we had censored to avoid causing offense. TharkunColl (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Allow me to start, Hazem Adel, by thanking you for raising this issue in a respectful and polite manner. It is certainly a difficult and for some emotive topic that has as you can see caused some controversy.  Wikipedia has had extensive discussions on this topic, and we have reached consensus on many occasions that such controversial images, like the ones you refer to, are best left in the articles, as they are of great historical interest and relevant to the topic.  This is the only reason for their inclusion, they are most definitely not intended in this context to insult or be disrespectful towards either Muhammad or Muslims in general.  I acknowledge that many Muslims will either not believe this, or will not accept this decision, which truly does sadden me, but Wikipedia's policies for building consensus must be followed on all articles, regardless of content, including this one.  Lankiveil (complaints 05:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC).


 * I think it would help for those who do not like the images to understand why they are there. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not remove material relevant to an article for reasons external to encyclopedic value and NPOV.  I find the number of pictures to be a tad ridiculous as they over represent a minority view in favor of standard representation of human beings.  While this is not ideal by any means it is the consensus version and while it over emphasizes a means of representation it is rather more difficult to invoke NPOV when their purpose is primarily aesthetic (although, I argue it still is relelvant).  The point is Wikipedia is driven by consensus and generally that should be respected even though the Islam-related articles seem to be troll magnets.  If you would like to discuss the images according to Wikipedia policy feel free to.  But, even if the images are someday removed from Muhammad some  will still remain on Depictions of Muhammad where there is no doubt that they are relevant.  Not to open a-whole-nother can of worms but there will be images that insult some Muslims because notable artists create them.  For Christians there is Piss Christ, for Muslims you have the Muhammad cartoons and even Peter Klashorst's work of nude models with niqab on.  Regardless of images here, there is no way that Wikipedia will remove all offensive images. gren グレン 08:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, just a reply to Tharkuncoll, you may debate that Muhammed's (PBUH) output to the humanity should not be patented by the muslims, however you can not argue about the fact that the muslims are the most affected people with what written and published about Muhammed (PBUH), affected by all means (moraly, phsycologicaly, politicaly,....), hence it is something normal that what published about prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is much more concerning the muslims than any other group, for the muslims, it is not a matter of patenting a product for commercial or scientefic purposes, its a matter of feelings, and morals, exactly like the feeling of a mother toward her child, sure she is not patenting him, but she is the most one caring about him.

For the rest of the messages; As I said before we are both playing a game with different rules, however because the field is yours we are urged to comply with your rules, or it will be fair enough to quite the game.

MY FINAL CUT IS A MESSAGE FOR ALL THE MUSLIMS OPPOSING THE PHOTOS "THIS IS THE POLICY OF THE SITE, IT DON'T REMOVE PUBLISHED MATERIAL BECAUSE IT IS OFFENDING TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE, SO U HAVE THE CHOICE NOW, EITHER TO COMPLY OR JUST SIMPLY DRAG THE SITE UNDER UR RESTRICTED SITES LIST" ITS FAIR ENOUGH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel (talk • contribs) 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free encyclopedia
i think all Muslims should know that because wikipedia owners think that they know more than muslims about Islam. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had never been pictured, but you people insist that the fake picture in the article belong to him. you can keep the picture, whatever you people do, islam will stay the fastest growing religion in the world and all the world will be muslim someday.


 * I question your understanding of "free".


 * Additionally, I don't see how anyone has ever claimed to know more about Islam that Muslims, although this is actually fairly plausible and, I believe, has been the case at least once or twice in this discussion.


 * What is obvious is that you have no concept of illustrative representation. I suppose that this is a cultural circumstance, because I truly cannot understand how difficult it is to fathom the concept of attempting to illustrate a person or event for which no contemporary representation is possible. This is common in Western culture, and the FAQ (which you are above urged to read) makes this particular point quite moot.


 * Thanks for the threat/assurance(?), but I highly doubt that that will be the case. Islam is only remarkable demographically for the high birthrate of Muslim countries, and that in and of itself is only dramatic in contrast to the relative evening out/reduction in the population of Christian countries. The conversion rates of both religions are relatively even (and hardly remarkable in comparison to Buddhism or Wicca, for example), and there is obviously no clear data on conversion from Islam to other religions. It may seem surprising, but many estimates show- even 200 years ahead- that the current percentages remain the same (in fact, Islamic countries are becoming increasingly secular, and will in time lose a considerable fraction of population to non-religious causes- on the other hand, Christianity experiences a great boost, due to missionary work in Asia and Africa).


 * It's an interesting thing to study. In any case, you should be more realistic. Please review the FAQ and past discussions before raising issues that have already been covered.--C.Logan (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Its very funny, when a person claims that Islam is growing because of the birth rate. That high birthrate only exists in  the middle east, and the middle east represents a very few amount of muslims all over the world. for example there is 10% muslims in india which equals all the muslims in saudi arabia if not more. Adding to that, a valid study showed that atleast 10000 Americans are converting to Islam in the united states yearly of non muslims roots. adding to that, the growing rate of conversions in Europe, in a real fact mentioned by one of the polictics of Austria, that if Islam is not stopped 50% of people living in Austria will become muslims. so the argument that Islam is spreading as a result of birthrate is very silly and highly questioned. going further, Christianity is growing ?! i can assure you that a big number of those counted as Christians have little if any, understanding of Christianity. Many of those counted as Christians dont practice christianity. Adding to that those who are becoming christians in either Asia and Africa, are as you said done by missionary work, but examining that work shows very few rates of conversions, comapared to the massive work done, plus the converstion is done based on money temptations or other similar techniques, not based on the believes. I also want to actually point the attention to many born christians that have converted to Islam, after they read and understood its concepts clearly. Actually many say that Islam answered the questions they had due to christianity. I have heard, and read many stories and some do come from those people who actually were trying to spread christianity. saying this to correct the mistake written by my friend above and to be fair to the reader.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure what you're talking about- please see the CIA data on the issue, and you'll find that your simplification of the issue is incorrect. Non-Middle-Eastern countries in which Islam is a considerable religious group are experiencing birth rates far beyond those of countries with a Christian majority. Compare Indonesia's +1.213%, India's +1.606%, Pakistan's +1.828% and Bangladesh's +2.056% growth rates to Italy's +0.01%, Germany's -0.033%, Spain's +0.116%, the UK's +0.275%, and the United States' +0.894%. These non-ME (assuming you aren't one of those people who considers Pakistan a Middle-Eastern country) countries have high growth rates which are magnified by their already large populations. Foreign Policy magazine reports that the growth of the Muslim populace is due largely to high birth rates (and immigration when concerning certain national data).


 * Additionally, you misquote the Austrian source, which concerns immigration and laxity in adherence. There is no mention of conversion whatsoever, and the element of immigration is an obvious issue in this respect as the old extent of Ottoman rule was only defined by the firm resistance of the Austrians and their allies.


 * You also neglect to note the numbers of Muslims leaving Islam. Individuals who like to advertise the growth of a religion often neglect to mention the "exchange"- there are conversions between religions going on every day. Christians become Muslims, and Muslims become Christians. Last year, 35,000 Turks became Christians (as reported by United Press International). 200,000 Muslims have converted to Christianity in the UK (as reported by The Times). In the past 15 years in Russia, 2,000,000 Muslims have become Christians (as reported by the Inter-religious Council in Russia). Ahmed Katani has argued on Al-Jazeera TV that 6 million African Muslims convert to Christianity each year. Your argument is pointless, because conversion is an ongoing cycle. Additionally, you neglect to mention that a study by Professor Ilyas ba Yunus finds that 75% of United States converts to Islam actually leave Islam within a few years.


 * The remainder of your comment divulges into a poor rant with an attempt to disparage the "other side" of the picture while ignoring the fact that if one wants to bring such charges, then they are only valid if one is willing to admit them for both religions.


 * Christianity is growing. Almost all religions are, and Christianity is currently far beyond other religions in terms of the number of adherents, and even a small rate of growth makes a considerable difference in terms of absolute numbers.


 * You argue "that a big number of those counted as Christians have little, if any, understanding of Christianity". I wonder a few things: first, how can you be certain of this? And second, how much does one need to understand to practice a religion effectively? It is equally arguable that the majority of Muslims understand very little about their own religion beyond the simple doctrines that every religion makes known to even the most disinterested adherents. I wonder how you can claim that "many of those counted as Christians dont practice christianity", without recognizing the same could be true for Muslims (in personal experience, I know many Muslims who only take it nominally, just as I know many Christians who do the same).


 * You then recognize that "relatively few" conversions occur due to missionary work in Asia and Africa. This is complicated; some areas yield a great number of conversions, while many produce "relatively few". I wouldn't argue with the given numbers, but they could be much higher. Part of the difficulty is due to the social stigma and perceived familiarity with Christianity (through Muslim lenses, which many would argue is, to use your own words, "little, if any, understanding of Christianity").


 * Your claim that "converstion is done based on money temptations or other similar techniques, not based on the believes" is damning. This is a common propaganda technique used by Muslims and Hindus (as far as I have seen) to discredit the idea that some people could genuinely leave their own religion for another. Now, I can't speak for all missionaries, and I'm certain that there have been instances of regrettable techniques being implemented, but your attempt to neutralize the work of missionaries by libeling their efforts is very sad- especially considering the fact that many Muslims and Muslim communities are more justifiably accused of this same sort of coercion (it is no secret that many in the community and the government can make life more difficult for those who are not of their own faith, especially if these individuals are converts from Islam). Your comment amounts to a perpetuation of the cultural delusion that "someone couldn't possibly leave Islam for another religion in sincerity- there must be some insidious factor involved". People convert from one religion to another at every hour of the day. Be realistic.


 * Finally, you argue that many Christians convert to Islam after they read and understand its concepts clearly, and that many people claim that their questions about Christianity have been answered by studying Islam. First of all, this is a silly "point", because the same is often claimed by Muslims who come to Christianity. It's ridiculous when individuals attempt to use conversion demographics to prove the truth of a religion, and your statement reeks of this. Please recognize that questions are "answered" however and by whomever the inquirer wishes. Questions and concerns can be satisfied by answers and explanations from within the respective religious system, but individuals often choose an outside answer based on many factors: the perception of "hidden truths", an exasperation with an old system, the "he-who-answers-first-has-the-upper-hand" mentality, and so on.


 * I apologize for the amount of text I've added on this peripheral issue. I'm opposed to propaganda, bad research and general nonsense. I can't simply let misconceptions persist.--C.Logan (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I agree with your predictions C.Logan. I agree that Christianity will experience a great boost, due to missionary work in Africa, China and particularly South Korea (but not Japan). As a result of rapid structural changes and implementation of capitalism in South Korea, they have become favorable to religion. South Koreans that I know are all very much into something, be it Christianity, Alchol, or something else. Combined with increasing missionary work, I guess South Korea may become a majority Christian nation eventually. I however do not think that all Islamic countries are becoming increasingly secular. Something though will certainly happen but I have no idea what. They would not become more Jewish or Christian mainly because of the political conflict between Israel and the Arab world and the US support of Israel, but they may become secular though this is not so probable because instead of the conflict between science and religion as in west, the conflict between democratic concepts and religion exists in middle east. So, what may happen is the birth of another reformist Islamic movement that can satisfactorily do what it is supposed to do. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose if using the image of your justly revered prophet in this article is going to cause you so much offence you might consider not visiting it. I'm not suggesting all Muslims leave this article. Most definitely not. What better way to understand this great spiritual leader than from the mouths of Moslems? The Western attitude has been coloured, and continues to be coloured, by centuries of misunderstanding, warfare and imperialism. But, as has been stated before, this page cannot be used for promoting any religion.'Peace be upon him', certainly. But peace be upon us, too.--Gazzster (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

to I question your understanding of "free" Muslims claim that the pictures in the article dont belong to the prophet, non-muslims claim that        they belong to him, so how do you people know more than muslims ?! thats my question...... i think there should be 2 Articles talking about Muhammad pbuh, one according to Muslims and one according to your imaginary sources. to gazzster offend me ? lol, if you want i can give you the link of the danish cartoons and you can add them too, i dont really care because, it wont hurt me , the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is DEAD ,it will hurt wikipedia only because people are going to see it as a source of false informations , and by keeping this pictures, 1400000000 persons in this world see it like that.
 * It's nonsense like that that keeps good, honest discussions from happening. Jmlk  1  7  00:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your grammar is confusing, but I know what you're saying. Again, See the FAQ- it responds on this point.
 * Your attitude of close-mindedness is troubling, but what can I say?
 * It's important to note that only a faction of Muslims are strict on images in this manner. That's one example in which our "imaginary" viewpoint seems to triumph. Everyone who comes here to complain is a Muslim of this school of thought, and though they claim to speak for all Muslims, they certainly cannot. There have been Muslims arguing against the iconoclasts. Speak for yourself, and not for the supposed 1,400,000,000 individuals that don't all agree with you.
 * Again, read the prior discussions and the FAQ. And to a point, I agree with Jmlk.--C.Logan (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My grammar is fine, it's my logic you find different. Wikipedia represents a worldview, not what "1.4 billion" think.  That is not the majority.  Wikipedia is for open information, not suppression.   Jmlk  1  7  10:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That was in response to the anon- that's why I formatted it alongside yours, so you wouldn't perceive it as being in reference to you.--C.Logan (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, it's a longstanding decision on Wikipedia that we don't make multiple versions of an article representing different points of view. The policy on article forking explains this in more details, but the short answer is that we're committed to writing an encyclopaedia neutrally, without preferring one point of view to another, only giving different ones due consideration. Cheers, Wily D  12:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Images
These conversations are incredibly futile and all too common. We need to resurrect Talk:Muhammad/images and have a policy of moving all discussion there. I have no problem with responding to these queries to try to explain to the editors but they are not discussing relevant issues with article that will make it better. They also make it rather difficult to discuss legitimate issues dealing with the pictures because editors become so frustrated by discussions of the images which have nothing to do with WP policy. If a few common editors voice their support I'll move some of the discussions over there. gren グレン 01:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support this. I believe one of the main selling points of having the FAQ was that we could summarily transfer new discussions on the topic elsewhere, leaving a brief "look at the FAQ" response.  I agree that it is not that productive to have more than half of this page full of the same old circular discussion.  Lankiveil (complaints 10:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC).
 * No, talking will not resolve anything. You cannot argue with religious sentiment. The policy has been stated: images of Muhammed will not be removed. --Gazzster (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than doing that, why not simply refuse to engage in such conversations or just reply with "Read the FAQ". While the problem isn't trolling, the solution can be similar.  Frotz (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with Frotz although I don't believe either action will stop the trolls. --Veritas (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem being is that whenever the images are removed from the article, the standard response is "take it to the talk page". Now, I'm worried about the policy ramifications of simply refusing to discuss an issue point blank here where it is meant to be discussed.  I think it's counterproductive to dismiss all of these requests to remove the images as "trolling", as it's clear to me that many of them are made in good faith.  Still, I doubt that consensus on the matter is going to change in the near future, so giving those who wish to argue it somewhere to do so, while leaving those of us who wish to improve the article to have somewhere to discuss improvements in peace seems an ideal solution to me.  Lankiveil (complaints 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC).


 * I wasn't calling the picture-deleters trolls. I was saying that the solution can be the same.  What I'd like to see done is that people not engage in discussion with people who post questions here saying that the pictures should be deleted, append "(pbuh)", and so on.  At the most, people who start such threads should be given a polite pointer to the FAQ and that's it.  Nobody else should reply to that thread.  If this is done, then perhaps we can cut down on the enormous volumes of discussion that go nowhere that drown out other discussions.  Frotz (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly respect the religious feelings of contributors here. But this is not a forum for religious discussion. I suspect that some editors, knowing this, are representing their objections but using supposedly academic arguments. No, this discussion will go on forever. If this talk page is not to be pirated by this issue, we need to accept what admin has said: images will not be removed. And we avoid argument by not responding to requests for deletion, and reverting deletions. Unless of course, they are deliberately unacademic or offensive.--Gazzster (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be firm and informative- deletion of comments and ignoring posts may only serve to frustrate and confuse users (and increase misunderstanding and paranoia) who may have simply missed the hard-to-spot FAQ box at the top (choosing a different color may be helpful- it responds simply to major arguments used by these posters, and yet it receives no special coloration as other boxes do). The consensus decision should be clear enough, but when you combine fervor with a misunderstanding of policy, you'll doubtless end up with dozens of half-baked comments.


 * We should be certain that we respond patiently as we would to any other newcomer; giving a good explanation is better than ignoring the issue and having that same poster rally up some friends and start up another absurd petition. If they choose to ignore a personal explanation, then what can we do? For the most part, however, we fan the flames when we delete comments without proper responses, I think.--C.Logan (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with C.Logan's comments above. I'm really uneasy at the prospect of simply ignoring comments or slapping them with a form response, based simply on their topic (I'm all for banishing uncivil comments though).  I'm not for a moment suggesting that we should bend our principles when it comes to the images on this page, but it seems to me that some of what is being proposed will violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.  I fully support making the FAQ stand out more, but I really feel we should not violate some policies in the name of preserving others.  Lankiveil (complaints 12:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC).

I suggest to remove the pictures where Prophet Muhammad SAW is shown. (Bilalsarwar (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)).
 * Your suggestion has already been considered in the past, and has been utterly rejected as a policy violation. Please see the FAQ.--C.Logan (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the images based on the following logical reasons:

1. As an encyclopedia, you must not present a fabricated stuff as an original. This the utmost action misleading and deception. As u can see in images, they were produced in 14th-16th century, whereas the era of The Prophet was during 8th century. Only a senseless & biased person can believe that the pictures are NOT wrong / fabricated.

2. Regardless of the correctness of the pictures, it is an humanitarian issue. Remember the purpose of knowledge is to benefit people, not to make troubles. This is not an issue of "beliefs of a group of few (100's or 10,000's or even 100,000's) people. This is related to fundamental belief of 1.5 Billion people (1/5 th of the total population today) and even Billions of Muslims since last 1400+ years. There is not authentic record in history that the picture of Prophet was made. Instead it has been STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.

3. I don't agree with your definition of "neutrality-of-religions". Neutrality should mean that all religions have equal rights to be included. But when describing facts, you have to agree to the community that own those beliefs, as you are an outsider. As William Shakespeare said: "Your freedom ends where my nose starts." So your have right to be free and neutral in your beliefs UNLESS & UNTIL you run into other's space.

4. For an example, can you associate some theory with Newton or Einstein which cannot be found in their books, articles or any proven material produced by them, just because some Mr ABC claims so years after them?

I hope I'll get a logical response (the best would be the removal of pictures).


 * A point-by-point response:
 * 1. Responded to in the FAQ.
 * 2. Responded to in the FAQ.
 * 3. This line of thinking would cause conflict between different religious requirements. Christian icons of Jesus would meet headfirst with Sunni iconoclasm, for example. This line of thinking is silly as well. Wikipedia adheres to no religion, and censors nothing on the basis that it would offend a particular group. The transmission of knowledge in an objective manner irrespective of any particular POV is Wikipedia's primary focus. I'm sorry that you disagree.
 * 4. You misunderstand the concept of illustrative depiction, and you make a poor analogy at that. If an individual were to give his impression of the above mentioned scientist's theories, the information would likely be included depending on the notability of the individual, amongst other issues. This, however, hardly translates to the field of art and depiction, where the accuracy of depiction is a negligible element when judging the historic, educational and artistic value of a production. Again, this is responded to in the FAQ.
 * Thank you for your post.--C.Logan (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the replies. I don't think most of the comments are trolling and the vast majority are in good faith.  That doesn't mean they aren't impeding our efforts to actually discuss the article.  I think allow this to take over the talk page is what allows users like Gazzster to dismiss "editors, knowing this, are representing their objections but using supposedly academic arguments".  Which I find to be rather annoying and as baseless as me claiming people who want to keep it as we have it just want to piss off Muslims.  I have supported a more limited use of images planned to give a better sense of Muslim representation of Muhammad and maybe without 90% of the talk page being requests having nothing to do with Wikipedia policy we could actually discuss this--or more importantly, other aspects of the page. (my specific opinion on the images is in an archive somewhere and also in my mind) gren グレン 13:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of hidden template
After scanning the previous discussions, I see no-one suggesting use of the hidden template, so you have to click on "Show" to see them, or "Hide" to hide them. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know but that's a good suggestion. A small note regarding the content of the images would make it perfect. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that the idea has come up, because I could swear that I've seen a proposal like this shot down once before. I can't recall the specific reasons, mind you, but I'm certain that the proposal did meet a grim fate.--C.Logan (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found the previous discussion in the archives now: Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But I think the suggestion worths reconsidering. I can not see any strong argument made against it by either side. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Removing or not removing will obviously never meet consensus. Perhaps hiding template will make things less painful for muslims, without being censorship either. Anthere (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of being painful for Muslims. If a Muslim can not control himself/herself after being notified that there are such pictures there, then it will be all his/her own responsibility. The main point is not to let non-consenting readers who might involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images when visiting Muhammad article. That's all that matters. Furthermore, those images can be kept for whoever wants to see. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a really bad idea for the precedent it sets. Some people find nudity offensive, so maybe all pics depicting unclothed bodies should be hidden. Swaztika's are offensive to some, so they should be hidden too. And of course homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to flaunt their existence, so all pics of self-described gays should be hidden. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.) Once it starts, where does it start? Censorship, in any form, is not a good idea. Pairadox (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is consensus: consensus on NOT CENSORED as one of the core principles, and that is sufficient to put an end to this series of requests. We do not hide images. Hiding is censorship. We do & should take care that they are not at the top of an article when they might be really troublesome to some readers, as a matter of courtesy. The top image in the Mohammed article is a calligraphic representation of his name, perfectly appropriate. There are three images of the Prophet, all from Islamic sources, all respectful. One of them does show up in the first screen; even though it is discreet one, with his face veiled, it might be moved down a little. DGG (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Pairadox. Wikipedia is not censored: no exceptions.  нмŵוτн τ  17:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG, Pairadox and hmwith, please let me know the answer to these questions:
 * 1. Philosophers are in disagreement when it comes to the limitation on freedom of speech. What is the justification for favoring one view over others?
 * 2. Why is hiding censorship? Are we really depriving readers from any sort of information or are we simply giving them the choice to decide if they want to see it? I would like to know what we mean by censorship. We usually need to do some kind of work to get access to some information. IMHO, it is censorship if we can not get access to those information with a reasonable amount of work. So, I can not understand why clicking on a hidden template is a huge amount of work.
 * 3. Do you think there is already a consensus in wikipedia against pornography? If yes which I believe you will agree, what is the real justification for that?
 * 4. Lastly what is your response to . Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My response to questions from Aminz:
 * 1. I am for the utmost free speech that does not break Florida law (where servers are hosted). See also: WP:NOT
 * 2. That is definitely censorship per the censorship article. If we hide these images, then what images should be hidden? It sets a terrible precedent. It's censoring the images, because they are being hidden. They're still available, yes, but images of one person should be the same as image of another person.
 * 3. No, I don't think there is a consensus against pornography. I usually prefer any real images over drawings. Check out images of genital piercings at Template:Body Piercing.
 * 4. There is no need for debate. Wikipedia is uncensored. If one does not agree or is easily offended, then he or she can avoid the pages that could possibly upset him or her. Less people would get offended by it than wouldn't. I say target the widest audience adn err on the side of majority.  нмŵוτн τ  21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My replies:
 * 1. Speech is not a neutral manner. If I say that I apologize, I am actually doing something and not only speeking. Freedom of speech is different from Freedom of action. Here we are dealing with a freedom of doing something that is interpreted by some as an insulting matter. Flordia's law are to my mind irrelevant to the matter.
 * 2. To answer to the question "What images should be hidden?", I would say if something can be legitimately banned per Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense" in at least one country, it should be banned in wikipedia. Again, if one wants to get any kind of information, he has to do some work, be it doing a google search or coming to wikipedia. If the amount of work is unreasonable for the information, we say the information is suppressed. Clicking on a tab is hardly a lot of work given the arguments we have for the importance of giving people choice to see them.
 * 3.If I name an editor who got blocked indef for merely asking on its talk page for child porn pictures be added to a relevant article, are you willing to unblock him?
 * 4. You have not addressed my concerns I believe. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 2. Why would Joel Feinberg have the utmost say over an encyclopedia?
 * 3. Child pornography is against Florida law. See my the answer to #1 in my previous post.  нмŵוτн τ  21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1.English language has become the scientific language of our time. If I live in some random place in the world and would like to publish in a good journal I have to write my article in english. If I want to read about something I would do a better job if I also refer to english sources. Wikipedia is one of such sources and english wikipedia is not just for english speaking people but for all people from all nationalities.
 * 2.there are surely different views but this one is a prominent one.
 * 3.please see for my answer.--Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Still gets back to the point that we are not censored, and that is own of our biggest features. There are countless articles and images on this website that someone could find offensive, but we do not conform to the minority who wishes for censorship. Jmlk 1  7  21:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Aminz, hiding is not an effective solution. It is just not something an encyclopedia would do.  Either the images are relevant and should be part of the article or they should be removed.  I don't particularly like how the article is now but I don't think hiding would make it any better.  I would have no problem with a Wikipedia-wide censorship system where you can change your monobook.css and have various categories censored.  But, by default I don't think hiding makes so much sense.  And, I would be for displaying everything that is legal. gren グレン 13:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Another idea: what about having the default be "show" but including a hide button so that some people can choose to hide them (and are only briefly offended)? I'm not sure even I support this but I figured I'd throw it out there... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

More calligraphy please
The article really should have an example of Sini script. For exampleIslamic Calligraphy in China, figure 16 shows an honorific of the Prophet, although the most mind-blowing are probably figures 6 and 15. What a fantastic artistic tradition! Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think C.Logan and I have agreed that more calligraphy could be useful. You do bring up a good idea.. I had already brought up Nastaliq as another style that we could use (since its common for Persian and Urdu). Sini calligraphy seems even more interesting, since it differs so much in its look (Nastaliq is more simplified, with an emphasis on Arabesques). The Chinese already have a strong calligraphic tradition of their own, so I'm sure their styles do carry a sense of uniqueness, even if they are written in modified Arabic script. -Rosywounds (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Figure 8 is my personal favorite, but I fear it's not quite distinct enough (when compared to the more traditionally Chinese-influenced forms displayed).--C.Logan (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally speaking, I find the calligraphy offensive. It has no representative function for anyone who cannot read Arabic. And it is also far more recent than the pictures. Why should it be the first image shown? TharkunColl (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming (hoping) that is sarcasm. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm or not, it is a refreshing change of pace. In any case, I'm beginning to wonder how one would respond if the comment above is indeed serious.--C.Logan (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't sarcasm. Why is there a calligraphy image given pride of place? TharkunColl (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate on this argument.--C.Logan (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All articles on historical figures - especially important historical figures - have an image at the head of the article of that figure. The fact that this article consigns those images to secondary places is itself censorship, and we really should put one of them - say the Biruni one - at the top. Besides, the calligraphy image is repeated just a few inches further down in the info box. TharkunColl (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do disagree with you here. Visual imagery has always taken a secondary role when it comes to depictions of Muhammad; for that reason, giving heavier emphasis to an art form that conforms to Western aesthetic comes across as somewhat of an intellectual imperialism. I am not pro-censorship (in fact, I'm Shiite), but I still think the calligraphic styles and veiled styles, which represent the more typical forms, should taken precedent here. The reason most articles do not use such examples at the top is because most other historical figures have not been depicted in such a way. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree that we might want to choose a less redundant calligraphic representation. As far as the images are concerned, I have no greater preference for either.--C.Logan (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume that the "lead" image is calligraphic, with the other images relegated to below the fold, as a deliberate concession to the people who don't want the images here at all. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable and appropriate compromise. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This also seems a sensible compromise and basis for a policy to me. I do not support wholesale removal of all the images in question, but there's no point in rubbing them in the noses of Muslims who find the pictures offensive by cramming as many as we possibly can into the top 10% of the article.  Especially when there is calligraphy and other images available that can illustrate this article just as well.  Lankiveil (complaints 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
 * In no other instance do we put pictures of the subject "below the fold". Treating this article differently because of the objections of a vocal minority would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. We should treat the article about this man no differently than an article about any other man.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only, I argued for calligraphy first (and I wanted fewer images, not none) because it is by far the most common representation of Muhammad in Islamic history and an important part of Islamic tradition. gren グレン 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A vivid explanation, and pure request
I am really glad that Wikipedia has this section to post our discussions and different views. I will explain to everyone why all Muslims want these pictures of the prophet Muhammad peace upon him removed. We all know that these pictures are not of the prophet Muhammad and that there is no way that these pictures can resemble him accurately in anyway, simply because there is no real picture of him nor that there is any drawing of him while he was alive. These pictures were drawn many years after his death, or the death of those who lived around him. You told me that no one said that these pictures are really of the prophet peace upon him, but in the article it clearly says the opposite. Some pictures do say that these pictures are only depictions while the others don’t. This will certainly confuse any reader. It should be very clear to all readers that these pictures are nothing but depictions of actions and have no resemblance to the prophet in his looks, as you have told me. I was one of those who were confused by the pictures and what they really resemble, especially the one with the black stone. Also in the other picture, where the drawer claims that this is the prophet reading preaching Quran, it clearly opposes what we know of Muhammad peace upon. The prophet had a long beard, unlike the one in the picture, the prophet used to sit on the floor and his companions around him while he taught them about Islam and read Quranic verses to them. So the question I raise is how did Wikipedia validate the accuracy of these depictions? Its not enough to bring any picture from any Muslim scholar, many Muslim scholar might have drawn wrong images, and all humans are not flawless, so I want those pictures to be validated accurately with the descriptions of the prophet peace upon him, and his ways of teaching Islam and preaching Quran. The big question is why Muslims don’t have image depictions of the prophet? The simple answer is that, we highly respect and love our prophet peace upon him, we value him higher than we value our kids or our parents. Since we simply don’t know how he really looked like (we have a description of his looks, and these pictures drawn on this website don’t even match the descriptions in any way) we don’t draw him or depict him out of respect and love. We don’t want to draw any picture that might have some flaws that weren’t present in his looks. We don’t want to have a specific figure of him that might not match how he actually looks. We don’t want to have an Idol of him that might not match his character and looks. We simply leave it for every person to read his description and have their own mental image. It does hurt our feelings when someone draws him based on nothing and out of nowhere and then claims that this is how he looks like. If you compare the pictures with the valid description of his looks, you will understand the differences. This website is indeed educational, and I don’t see what is the educational purpose of the pictures present in this article. It will be simple to depict how he prayed or how he read the Quran based on valid descriptions, but with removing the face on the picture, similar to the one present in this article. This will actually represent an educational part of his real actions, to those interested. If you want to keep the pictures for the educational purposes then you need to do two things. Remove the face of the prophet from the pictures, then make sure that this is actually how he was doing the action. You can do that by matching it with the valid and detailed descriptions of his actions. This will be for the sincerity of the educational part, since I am sure no one wants to end up learning the wrong thing. Removing the face from the picture will not give the learner a certain figure and claim that this is of the prophet, this will definetly wont change the quality of the educational material. You replied to me, that these pictures are actually validated, or to be precise “can be easily validated”. Well I want to see how these pictures were validated, and on which bases. I also want a valid truth from Wikipedia that, those who wrote the article and attached the pictures have actually validated these pictures to his looks. Having this said, I request action. Wikipedia has always been a good source for educational research and studies. I don’t want this to affect its reputation all over the world. I am sure Wikipedia added this material with good heart, hence it wont be hard to comply with the requests to ensure sincerity. I wish you added some of his descriptions that would have definetly given the reader a better educational sense of the Prophet Muhammad peace upon him, than those pictures added.

Here is a description of how Prophet Muhammad looks like. His appearance is historically well recorded. Here is some of his description, I am sure you can find more with which to validate those pictures.

Muhammad (peace be upon him) was of a height a little above the average. He was of sturdy build with long muscular limbs and tapering fingers. The hair of his head was long and thick with some waves in them. His forehead was large and prominent, his eyelashes were long and thick, his nose was sloping, his mouth was somewhat large and his teeth were well set. His cheeks were spare and he had a pleasant smile. His eyes were large and black with a touch of brown. His beard was thick and at the time of his death, he had seventeen gray hairs in it. He had a thin line of fine hair over his neck and chest. He was fair of complexion and altogether was so handsome that Abu Bakr composed this couplet on him: "as there is no darkness in the moonlit night so is Mustafa, the well-wisher, bright." His gait was firm and he walked so fast that others found it difficult to keep pace with him. His face was genial but at times, when he was deep in thought, there there were long periods of silence, yet he always kept himself busy with something. He did not speak unnecessarily and what he said was always to the point and without any padding. At times he would make his meaning clear by slowly repeating what he had said. His laugh was mostly a smile. He kept his feelings under firm control - when annoyed, he would turn aside or keep silent, when pleased he would lower his eyes (Shamail Tirmizi).

He was always the first to greet another and would not withdraw his hand from a handshake till the other man withdrew his. If one wanted to say something in his ears, he would not turn away till one had finished (Abu Dawud, Tirmizi). Those who have seen him, in describing him they always described him as someone in appearance whom they never saw before, and never saw even after his death.

He was especially fond of children and used to get into the spirit of childish games in their company. He would have fun with the children who had come back from Abyssinia and tried to speak in Abyssinian with them. It was his practice to give lifts on his camel to children when he returned from journeys (Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2 pg.886). He would pick up children in his arms, play with them, and kiss them. ( Copied for educational purposes from Ispiration and Creative thoughts website) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of your comment above will find its response in the already-established Muhammad FAQ. I think you'll find that the decision made apparent there opposes most of your argument on the issue. Detailed information on the illustrations can be found by clicking on them; I see no need to note that the image is a depiction because it should be very obvious to anyone that it is not, in fact, an attempt to produce a realistic likeness in any sense of the term.


 * "If you want to keep the pictures for the educational purposes then you need to do two things. Remove the face of the prophet from the pictures, then make sure that this is actually how he was doing the action. You can do that by matching it with the valid and detailed descriptions of his actions. This will be for the sincerity of the educational part, since I am sure no one wants to end up learning the wrong thing. Removing the face from the picture will not give the learner a certain figure and claim that this is of the prophet, this will definetly wont change the quality of the educational material."


 * Quite simply, no. The educational value of the images is derived from their historical relevance and from their own mere existence. You are essentially asking us to amend a work of art, and this is an absurd request. I don't see how anyone is "learning the wrong thing"- first of all, I can assure you that no one is going to take sitting positions and beard length so dramatically when the human figure itself is distorted to cartoonish proportions. The educational value of the image, as I've noted, is determined by its existence alone. You argue that it should be removed because it is "not accurate". Once again, this issue is raised in the Muhammad FAQ.


 * "You replied to me, that these pictures are actually validated, or to be precise “can be easily validated”. Well I want to see how these pictures were validated, and on which bases. I also want a valid truth from Wikipedia that, those who wrote the article and attached the pictures have actually validated these pictures to his looks."


 * Validate the images by clicking on them and reading their description. Look into it independently if you'd like. I've verified the images myself by discovering an exhibit of Al-Biruni's work in which these images were on display. I'm concerned that you have little idea as to what verifiability is; Wikipedia makes no claims to truth- therefore, the verifiability issue makes it clear that the image is indeed an illustration by Al-Biruni (or whoever else is featured) composed in the given year and concerning the given subject.


 * Thank you for the elucidation on Muhammad's appearance, but I doubt such detail will come in handy to this article in particular (perhaps it would fare better in a side-article, but I can't be sure as it depends on how it is incorporated). With such a detailed description, the prohibition on images for the cause of idolatry becomes semi-ridiculous. Thinking in the vein of Maimonides, this intense mental picture is just as much an idol as any simple graven representation which follows this form. Additionally, I must remind you again that only particular schools of Islam forbid images in this manner; Shi'ites, for example, have no real problem with such representations taking a prominent place in the home or elsewhere.--C.Logan (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying. ofcourse people have different point of views and different reasoning. As you have said, it might not be important for you to have precise and exact depiction of the person depicted. But as far as I am concerned, when it comes to highly rated history charecters, i will go to the farthest extrem to make sure that all the material I am presenting is 100% accurate and to the point. Because, working in the educational sector is a huge responsiblity, and any small mistake or any small delinquency I will be questioned about and responsible for in this life and the hereafter. If i was in the place the editors and writers of this article are, i would definetly have done things differently. I am not undermining the work that these people have put in this article, its a good one. But I would have had more understanding of the value of the character am writting about, and have more emotions and compreshinsion of the different views of different people, who are directly related to the character and take that into my consideration, no matter if these people were the minority or the majority, simply because we were brought up to respect everyone and everybody. There is no winner or looser here, no hatred or such things. the thing that we all care about is presenting this character as it really was, without any biased or illsuited facts. As in conclusion, the character of the prophet Muhammad peace upon him, is much higher and way more important to be described in words, or by one or more articles. Thousands of books were written, in almost every century talking about him. This influence is pure miraculous because there is not other human, before or after him, that has had such number of followers and such number of books written about, or such amount of incluence on people. He literally has changed the life of many billions of humans, during the passage of time. the most miraculous thing is that people are still influenced by him, and his character 1400 years after his death. Such a great man can only be a real miracle, and a real messenger of God.
 * Infact all the posts, and all the reaction and all the arguements here and everywhere else, proves this.


 * Whatever Wikipedia does next, removes the pictures, get better more accurate ones, or leave them will only alter its own value and recognition among the public, and will not harm the figure and the value of the prophet peace upon him.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Care for an athiest view? It doesn't matter if this article has images or not. Just like Jesus, nobody alive today know what he looks like - here's hoping things get resolved. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope the same. It's not so much whether the article has images or not; we shouldn't remove them for reasons which contradict Wikipedia policy. Images are preferred in articles, as they illustrate concepts, act as useful visual references, and generally make the article more aesthetically pleasing.


 * As the FAQ (which is a short page that we recommend people read before they make a complaint concerning the images) explains, the inaccuracy of depictions is nothing unique here, and it is no valid reason for the removal of the images here just as much as they would be invalid reasons for removing certain images of Christopher Columbus because they are inaccurate.


 * Wikipedia doesn't care about this issue, and I doubt most people would or should- this argument is a peripheral element to the comments left here, and the futility of the argument would be apparent if one simply read the aforementioned FAQ.--C.Logan (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already said I'm not particularly interested in removal of all pictures, but I feel like there are some errors/half-truths here. Shia Islam wasn't anything more than a fringe sect until the Safavids. Moreover, Shiites generally don't use images of Mohammad as frequently as many of these editors have suggested (most of whom aren't Muslims, although that doesn't mean they are automatically ignorant). I am personally a Shiite, and we are more well known for using images of Hussein on the day of Ashura. Certainly we don't forbid imagery like many Sunnis do, but to say that Shiites prominently display images of Muhammad in their homes is an exaggeration. Geometric art and calligraphy is still the dominant form in Iran. Take a look at Isfahan, the former capital of the Shiite Safavid Empire. In fact, imagery is nonexistent in actual mosques (places of worship). Mosques in Najaf, Karbala, Kufa, Qom, etc. are all perfect examples of holy Shia cities that don't have an "overdose" of depictions. As I've clarified in previous threads, I don't think the images should all be shot down, but this article certainly is skewed towards nontraditional and minority views. The article on Jesus doesn't have a single Middle Eastern depiction of Jesus, even though the majority of the historical and scientific community believes that Jesus had a Middle Eastern appearance. Yet, all non-White (non-Western) depictions of Jesus have been given their own separate article (which can be considered POV fork, perhaps even a racially motivated one). That comparison from within the FAQ is pretty weak, and I think there is somewhat of a Western bias there (and perhaps here), even if its unintentional. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that perceived errors are just those taken out of their context here. No one ever attempted to put Shi'ite imagery on the level of, say, Eastern Orthodoxy (in which the interior of the church is occasionally completely covered by elements of Jesus' life and by saints), and it should be obvious that mosques themselves would not really possess such imagery. I think that the misunderstanding derives from forgetting who the statements are being directed to: forgiving for overcorrection if that is the case, but the statement is in response to an individual who holds to the belief that an image of Muhammad is an equivalent to the plague and that all Muslims agree and are harmed by these depictions. I know that this is untrue from my experiences with Shi'ite friends and my observance of icon-esque images in the homes of Iraqis and in other places (to my initial surprise).


 * As far as comparison would go, the Shi'ite practice concerning imagery would seem more in line with fundamentalist Protestant Christian groups, in which the churches are devoid of imagery (at least in terms of those used in worship) and are often little more than a room with chairs and a pulpit; of course, these Christians will more than likely have a painting or sculpture of Jesus at home even though it is generally not seen in worship use (in contrast to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc.).


 * In short, I reaffirm my statements above: the taboo against imagery so claimed as universal by this and other posters is an exaggeration which largely ignores the position of Shi'ites, and their viewpoint and practice of general acceptance to the presentation of such sacred imagery in the home or elsewhere should be explained to place the above users' claims into perspective.


 * Far too many individuals post with this argument, ignorant the fact that the image was created by a Muslim for a Muslim- many overlook the fact that not every Muslim feels the same as they do, and the purpose of explaining the Shi'ite understanding of things (even only superficially) does much, I hope, to dispel the misconception of unanimity against the images.


 * Concerning the points on the Jesus article, I will look into it. Non-white depictions of Jesus are generally good to include, though it should be noted that the majority of Arab (Antiochian) Christians use images that would generally be categorized as Byzantine form. There are therefore few examples of Jesus in specifically semitic form (although an argument can be made that Byzantine-style iconography is ambiguous enough to make this representation; I would agree to some extent). I question the existence of many images of Jesus which attempt a more semitic appearance than these (generally, icons represent the cultures in question- Russian icons, Ethiopian icons, Japanese icons, etc.; the fact that no specific presentation exists for the Antiochian division seems to imply that the forms depicted are semitic enough). Of course, this is just my analysis.


 * That comparison from within the FAQ is pretty weak, and I think there is somewhat of a Western bias there (and perhaps here), even if its unintentional. I don't quite understand what's being said here.--C.Logan (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

i have many shite friends and i have never saw a picture of Muhammad peace upon him in any of their homes, but i will still accept the argument posted by my friend above. but what is really confusing me is the truthfulness of the depiction. ofcourse it matters, and it matters alot. preaching Quran is one of the biggest and amongst the most major things the prophet Muhammad peace upon him did, and all muslims want to recite Quran and teach it as he actually did, thats why you will find a detailed description of how that was done by him. As i said since people look at how the prophet did something and then they do it, it becomes very important to describe his actions with the utmost care and precission. So, now as this website is created for educational purposes, many will seek knowldge on how the prophet preached Quran, and they will use the "unaccurate image" to learn that. what i am saying is that, since this charachter is highly valued and all his actions are infact done by his followers, having a picture saying that he did this very important part of Islam, in a wrong way will mislead many people, and might actually believe that this is the way he did, while infact it is not. that is why i have raised the issue of validity of the image. i find it funny, that the author doesnt want to edit the image to remove the face, because this will change how it was actually drawn, yet he adds an image that changes how a major thing was done by the character described. the latter change is by all means worse, and has lots of consuquences especially its claimed to be an educational website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The validity of the images isn't a good argument as the FAQ does state; my concern was more so with the amount of images compared to the amount of calligraphy. Personally, I don't have a problem with keeping the images, while also perhaps adding more calligraphy (in different calligraphic styles, like nastaliq, etc.) since calligraphy is probably an even more important aspect of traditional Mohammad depictions. Moreover, different ethnic groups have different calligraphic styles and whatnot (e.g. Nastaliq is a style that is used primarily by Urdu and Persian native speakers, rather than Arabic). IMO, that would add something to the article and it wouldn't give an overemphasis to imagery (Shiites only constitute 15% of the Muslim world), assuming that space allows for more expansion to this article. We have one Ottoman miniature, and that form could also be expounded on, since it was so popular amongst South Asian, Persian and Turkish converts to Islam that were unable to speak Arabic fluently (and thus, depended on imagery as a way to understand the Qur'an). Translations of the Qur'an haven't always been as widely available as they are today. -Rosywounds (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Including such calligraphic presentations would be very useful. I do suppose Western bias comes into play when considering them- one might wonder how many images of the same thing (yet in different style) could be included. In my mind, I can't help but compare it to 3-4 illustrations of the same event, but in different art styles. Perhaps the images (calligraphy) themselves would need to be seen to understand how one might arrange them within the article. In any case, the current images have unique historic value- they are, after all, some of the earliest depictions of Muhammad in existence.


 * I'm concerned that there is a kind of "mistranslation" going on between the editors here and the concerned Muslim readers who continue to persist in similar arguments (which the FAQ, in my opinion, dispels satisfactorily). How can one explain illustrative depiction to individuals who seem primarily obsessed with the accuracy of the images themselves? Wikipedia didn't create the images, and I think that many people misunderstand the idea of imagery in Western thinking and they misunderstand the concept of "educational value" when it pertains to images.


 * Although it seems that you dismiss the reasoning given in the FAQ, I support it: images are not made invalid by their lack of contemporary contact to the subject. Art that endeavors to depict a famous subject or event is almost exclusively non-contemporary, and I see no problem with that whatsoever; nor do I see a problem with an inaccuracy of depiction (sometimes deliberately made for the sake of aesthetic or symbolic representation)... art is art, and some of the requirements requested by Muslim readers is very difficult for me to understand because of the fact that an understanding of these concepts is very elementary to me and to most readers outside of the Muslim world.--C.Logan (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I wasn't criticizing the FAQs response to the validity of the images (I agree with you here). I was more critical of the FAQs reasoning for Western bias, as my original post had stated. The anon is the only one in this specific thread that is critical of the validity of the visual depictions (unless you were directing that portion of your post to him). -Rosywounds (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section concerning Western bias is poor reasoning when considering the topic (I don't think the title is so appropriate, and the section could use a rewrite). However, it is important to note that there seems to be a persistent misunderstanding of neutrality on the part of these outside users. To us, neutrality means "operating outside of biases/POVs; showing no greater respect to any POV or ideology in particular". To these users, it appears to mean that we should present nothing which might offend the sensibilities of the reader. This is a misunderstanding which violates Wikipedia's prohibition against censorship.
 * And yes, that was directed towards the above user and all others who had used the same article (although I had framed it into an example for you to consider and comment upon).--C.Logan (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All we are asking is to present the real fact and the real action as it was done. It makes no sense to present an important action in an art depiction that has nothing to do with the truth?? if you are telling me that an image of art can be anything, then what is the reasoning of having this image in particular? if you are telling me that this image doesnt have any educational value and it doesnt have to be accurate, then why it is there in the first place? isnt this an educational website, and all the material on it should be ready to learn from?? then what is the use of having a picture that says that this is how Muhammad preached Quran, while infact he did it in a different way!. isnt it simple to understand that for the honesty of the website, and the material on it, everything on it must be valid and real. so that who ever wants to be educated from this website, simply learn the real thing as it was. the opposition here, is why have a picture that presents something that didnt even happen.. to me it is hard to understand, and even believe someone who is as literate as the writer of this article would agree to attach something that has no real historical bases. shouldnt the writer of this article have enough knowldge on the prophet and his descriptions to easily point out how this picture doesnt represent the illustration written. If anyone is allowed to add an image without having any real connection to what it truly represents, then the website will certainly turn to useless knowldge base, that you cant know which is right and which is only a depiction, and which is not even a real depiction. the reader will loose the trust given to this website, because if now, you are agreeing that yes this picture can be wrong, and it is still there... then how many images are on this website that are wrong, and in how many artciles?!. I am quite amused for that i have to even mention this point to professionals. Again i repeat that, as a learner who wants to learn about the prophet Muhammad, will definetly want to know how the porphet Preached Quran, and will want to how it was done for real. So adding a wrong picture that says that this is how he did it, will mislead any reader. Now, as i am a person who actually knows how that was done, i was able to point and see the fault in this picture, but for those many who dont know, they will end up learning the wrong thing. What I am saying, if you think it is important to add images, then add right images, with right actions, with solid illustrations, that wont change history. Add images that will give sencirty and accuracy. Am asking is, since we know the real fact, and the real way the prophet peace upon him preached Quran, then what is the need to use fatasized image that shows that act in a different way than it was described? I would agree to this image, if we infact had no idea on how Quran was preached by Muhammad peace be upon him, and we just asume something. But since we already know, and it is very easy to find, then adding a wrong image is not acceptable. It is just like having an article that talks about Earth, and add an image that shows the earth as flat instead of oval shaped, and then write in the illustration " a depiction on how earth looks like ", i think a 7 years old will refute that silly depiction. I hope its clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Plenty of people have been portrayed by images of less-than=perfect accuracy before, and long before wikipedia, and the world has not caved in. Also, please read the FAQ linked to from the top of the page. Zazaban (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Mind that I said that an image does not have to be accurate to possess educational value. Additionally, this article was created by a myriad of the contributors (possibly numbering in the hundreds), and therefore any presentation is the combined effort of a group, rather than the result of an individual's beliefs or preferences.


 * I'll remind you that the problem which you appear to have with the images is not an issue of concern for the majority of editors here. As Zazaban and countless others have noted, the accuracy of depictions is hardly ever an issue in Western art, and often times it is the straying from reality which benefits the artwork aesthetically.


 * Remember also that the image was not created by any user here. Your request for a "proper illustration" ignores the fact that these images are included for what they are intended to represent rather than their accuracy. These images were created by Muslims centuries ago in an attempt to depict particular actions of Muhammad. As such, they are presented here for the affiliation with the subject and for the historical value of the images. As far as "realism" is concerned, I would be more mindful of the lack of accurate human form and the lack of consideration of depth.


 * Finally, I would see no problem with the inclusion of a flat Earth image; there have been periods of history where many individuals perceived this to be the Earth's shape. "An Xth-century depiction of the Earth" would be a perfectly acceptable caption for such an image. I'm actually surprised that the Earth article has no summarization of belief in a flat Earth, though I'm sure there's a reason for this.--C.Logan (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Plenty of people, but you should keep in mind that these people's actions are not imitiated by their followrs. This is a dangerious change in an important and a fundemental part of Islam and its practices. Preaching Quran is a practice that is done by millions all over the world, and its done as Muhammad peace upon him has done it. So, now coming and putting an image that changes how he actually did it, and claim that this is how he did, is a very dangerious and truth changing event. You should have the a sense, of differientiating those actions that must be depicted with certain level of accuracy and those that doesnt require that accuracy. a simple example, in a text book article that talks about the methods of hunting of the hunters and gatherers of the new world, a depiction of those hunters using a hunting tool that didnt exist during their time, will be considered a huge mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * People not imitated by their followers? Almost all the biblical figures are depicted without fair idea of what they look like. Nobody has asked for Michelangelo's David to be removed because it's not totally accurate. Nobody is going to ask for every single statue and painting of Jesus to be recalled because we can't be sure it's totally right. Zazaban (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your example depends on the nature of the image and its context. If, for instance, the image is from an early 20th/mid-20th century representation of a "primitive man", then there would be no discernible problem with including the image. Of course, context may determine placement, but this is a more detailed issue.--C.Logan (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * you havent commented on the the example i gave..? well, this now returns to the follower's detication to exactly follow the footsteps of those they are following, and to the importance of that event. In this case, the event is one of the basics and fundementals. and the detication of following the exact footsteps of Muhammad peace upon is very high, to the extent that people love to walk over the area that it is known that he has walked over. or to rest in a place, that it this known that he rested on. Even people shower the same way he did, and showering is by no means as important as preaching Quran. So i guess that must be respected. giving the proceeding argument the comparison you gave to this event is totaly refuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If an individual would like to learn Muhammad's practices and habits to a "t", then this is certainly not the correct place to turn. This article is a general overview of the subject, and as such will likely never delve into the detail which has been provided concerning Muhammad's habits and mannerisms. Islamic scripture will certainly be a much more elucidating resource in this respect. Images are not required to be "accurate"; these images in particular were created to represent Muhammad and his actions. Their historical value and relevance to the subject is the primary cause of their inclusion, along with aesthetic value.--C.Logan (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To all who still insist that the accuracy of the portrayal is important for the practice itself, I have an interesting revelation to make: almost all middle-ages depictions worldwide are in the form of pictoral (or other similar) illustrations that severely lack realism; still, I've never heard any of the people of any time till quite recently complain about them. Do you want to know why?

These people forget that the depiction in itself means nothing; for all we know, without the proper data to back it up, these very images could be thought of as a bearded man talking to bearded men - yet we have the data and know that this is just a depiction (i.e. an illustration that does not mean to be used as an accurate drawing or painting) of his. What is even more important is that his followers know what he tought without even having to know such an image exists anyway.

How do these relate? Simple: even alchemical and martial arts treatises had such illustrations which, speaking in a like manner, not only make no sense unless you understand the basic principles, but can even seem quite absurd. And we are talking about manuals that were seeing everyday use back in their days, not dusty tomes on a bookcase.

The rules are simple, concise, and all-inclusive: the images won't go; period. - RaspK FOG (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a good example in the image of historical fencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaspK FOG (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have really enjoyed reading these replies, but what really gave me the best smile of amusment was the reply to the example i wrote of the flat earth depiction. Well, ofcourse dear friends with adding a good illustration under the flat earth picture and saying that this is how people used to think earth looked like, then of course it will be very well accepted. But notice, we Added a good illustration explaining its contents precisely and accurately. my argument still holds true, i said simply that if we add that image (flat earth) and only said that (this is how earth looks like), meaning we give it unaccurate explanation and illustration, then i dont think anyone will object that there is a problem. I have also given a better example with the hunteres and gatherers depiction of them using tools that didnt exist during their time, ofcourse the depiction then will be having a problem. I am emphasizing on the accuracy of the depiction once more, because as i have read through this discussion that many are agreeing that a good depiction, or in other words correct and accurate depiction is a important in conveying the educational sense of that depiction. A level of accuracy must be maintained no matter what. I am not asking for a violation of the rules, and incase those rules had errors in them, i will definelty ask for a change in them, but What I am asking here, is who is the one in charge (reponsible) for this article is to make the necessary changes to increase the educational value of this article. I dont understand why it is so hard to edit the illustration to make it very clear that this is nothing but an imaginary depiction that has no real connection to the real act, or get a better depiction that has a better historical connection and truthfulness. Many have been saying that in Islam only a few part of muslims forbide using images of the prohpet Muhammad, so i guess it wont be very hard to get a better one. Plus you can find plenty of images depicting the action you want, accurately and with not having the face shown, similar to one posted in this article. This will definetly reflect that sencirty of this website of putting a good reliable educational material for those interested. I have not once referred to censorship of any material, I am asking to improve the quality of the material. It wont affect those who wrote this article to spend some few more minutes looking for a better depiction, with better illustration, with better value, that will serve the purpose needed from these depictions here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the pictures
Pictures are what he would have wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin of wikipedia-

Kindly remove all the images related to Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) and his companions especially from the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad specially this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg
 * Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia. Jmlk  1  7  05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, but also please see . Using hidden template would resolve all the issues I believe as suggested above. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I doubt these issue would rest unless they were removed completely and not even offered for viewing. Jmlk  1  7  05:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've got your point... I got what values you follow and what you don't... sorry that i expected this from you at first place. Anyways, I think your "PERHAPS" in this matter is a personal opinion, so do think over it, if it's a good idea (hinting at following) "My goal is to argue that the images can be (and should be) added to the Depictions of Muhammad article, but they shouldn't be added to Muhammad article unless they are in hidden template form" --MissSultan (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me... it's Wikipedia policy to not censor the website, be it for Muslims or anyone. Jmlk  1  7  05:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If we provide a clear note regarding the content of the images, then how can Muslims disagree? If they choose to see the picture, it will be their own fault. Aren't they 18+? :) The important point here is to give people choice to decide for their own. If somebody wants to find something on the internet to watch he can easily find and certainly images of Muhammad are not the most sinful ones to Muslims. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true. Jmlk  1  7  05:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia should act as a responsible organization and should immediately remove all such offensive materials. Not to

Wikipedia is not subject to Sharia law. Surely the question is that simple. We respect Muslims rights not to draw pictures of their Prophet Muhammed, but this is not an Islamic encyclopedia. The images do not defame or harm his reputation. The suggestion that we should hide them out of sensitivity, is like suggesting everyone should follow the laws of the country next door as well as their own, in order to be "sensitive". Censorship would establish a dangerous and unacceptable precedent. I'm surprised this subject has received as much debate as it has, it is a non-issue. Lostsocks (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC) mention, it shouldn't have been published at first place ==
 * No. Jmlk  1  7  05:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But why not using hidden templates as suggested here ? --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These hidden templates sound like the perfect solution, if you want to see it, then you can, if you don't, it dosen't show. Perhaps we should try this out and see? 71.113.7.232 (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms with the proposal as it is- the pictures will stay, but nobody has to look at them if they don't want to. Perhaps an official proposal should be put forward?--C.Logan (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Jmlk  1  7  06:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiding the images means that Wikipedia is censoring - unless the default option is "show", in which case, there is no point in doing it. Wikipedia is not censored...  Hiding images that a small proportion of people find offensive is a very dangerous prescedent - To proptect the sensibilities of others, should certain sexual content be hidden? Certain political content perhaps? Other religious conent that can be claimed to cause offence to one group or another? The arguments that have been long made about why these images are encyclopedic, relevant to the article, and appropriate and therefore should not be deleted, also apply in rejecting arguments for them to be hidden instead. '' •C H ILL DO UBT•      09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter what, people are still going to delete the images, ask for them to be deleted, and then complain when the aren't. Jmlk  1  7  09:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Chill doubt raises a good point. Compromise is typically good, but compromising policy to satisfy a body of individuals who don't even seem to grasp what the policies are and why we're standing by them may be hazardous and would set a poor precedent for future breaches of Wikipedia's "no censorship" policy. It would be nice if there were some way for users so inclined to disable/hide the images beforehand (although the FAQ offers a manner to do this, people don't even seem to read the FAQ in the first place, so the usefulness of this method is very limited) on this article in particular, without affecting the code for everyone.


 * I'm somewhat torn here, because I don't like to give the impression that I'm shoving things in other people's faces- but again, no one is forcing anyone to come here. If you are a Muslim, and you cannot handle the policies of Wikipedia, then there are certainly Islamic encyclopedias which support your viewpoint and religious requirements with which you may feel more comfortable. There will likely be much more detail on such religion-specific encyclopedias as well. This is simply how things are done on Wikipedia; if you find it unacceptable that Wikipedia presents a neutral tone irrespective of religious beliefs and requirements, then it would seem obvious that Wikipedia is not for you.


 * If any bright solutions can be presented which might satisfy the interests of both parties, please feel free to enlighten me. Being reminded of the obvious consequences of this proposed policy side-stepping, I'm very apprehensive about moving in support of this idea.--C.Logan (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of compromise, it's important to remember that the current position is in fact a result of years of carefully crafted and negotiated compromise. – Luna Santin  (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If only the anons and newcomers were aware of how many times each of these arguments has been repeatedly heard, considered and subsequently dismissed. Seeing as to how the discussion is progressing now, it's difficult to imagine how it must have been before there was an established ruling on the issue.--C.Logan (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Chill doubt, do you really think there is a consensus in wikipedia to should show pornography pictures? what do you mean by censor when we are not removing the pictures? Anybody who would like to see them can easily do. --Be happy!! (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If censorship is a concern, why not people's opinion is a concern for WikiPedia, or it is just that Wikipedia wanted to show the world as they see/feel. Lift the protected mode of the page, have wikipedia user edit what they want, dont censor the content modification right, if wikipedia is for people.
 * That's the whole point. It's not censored, and hence is the perceived issue.  When the page does get unprotected, the images are set to stay, not be deleted because a handful of editors wish them so.  Jmlk  1  7  07:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)



If the default position is to hide, then this is obvious censorship - regardless whether the images are subsequently obtainable or not. If the default position is to show, then this would be defeating any purpose in making the change. At the risk of repeating myself censoring articles by hiding either text or pictures that could upset the sensibilities or beliefs of certain groups is not something that Wikipedia should be doing. The arguments against hiding or deleting pictures are not limited to this however, as the FAQ shows. C Logan makes a very good point in the fact that the FAQ provides people with an easy way to enable them to self censor, to prevent these images being displayed.... below....

''Please note that if you are offended by the images (and you have an account), you can change your personal settings so that you don't have to see them, without affecting other users. To do this, create a page at User:YourUsername/monobook.css and add the following line:''

body.page-Muhammad img {display: none;}

'' •C H ILL DO UBT•     20:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody said we are going to hide texts. And you have not responded to my question. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see little difference between hiding text and hiding images as far as the censorship issue is concerned.--C.Logan (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove these pictures
According to the faith and beliefs of Muslims, painting / sketching of the LAST MESSENGER OF GOD, MUHAMMAD (MAY PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE ON HIM AND HIS AHL-E-BAIT AND HIS COMPANIIONS AND HIS UMMAH) and of any other PROPHETS of GOD is strictly prohibited. So, the management / editors of Wikipedia are respectfully asked to remove those from the article on PROPHET MUHAMMAD (MAY PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE ON HIM AND HIS AHL-E-BAIT AND HIS COMPANIIONS AND HIS UMMAH). It is a part of our belief so I request you to remove those sketches. ADAM, NOAH, ABRAHAM, JEOSPH, MOSES, DAVID, JESUS (the SON of BLESSED MARRY)and ALL other PROPHETS of GOD [BLESSED BE ALL] are similarly respectful to US. So if there is a similar case with the articles on any of them, I again request you people to remove them. We (Muslims) believe in ALL PROPHETS of GOD and respect all in a same way. And these acts hurt our feelings quite badly... remove these pictures as it hurts religious beliefs of Muslims around the world. this is no censorship, its about human feelings, Urgent action required, please remove the pics.
 * No... read above. Jmlk  1  7  11:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Censorship is based largely on human feelings and opinions. You are offended by the presentation of images of Muhammad, whereas others are offended by nudity or sexual imagery. Neither is censored here.--C.Logan (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i am offended by the falsehood that these pictures present, it can not be compared with the other subject that you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.196.166 (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was exactly the point C.Logan was making -- people are similarly "offended" by other images, as well. The basic argument you're presenting is nothing new, it's been repeated, debated and compromised over countless times over the past several years. Do you have something new to add to the discussion? – Luna Santin  (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Commmon, I know people who got blocked indefinitely from wikipedia for being persistent in asking for porn pictures to be added to the articles. Yes, there are underlying rules and there have always been. These rules simply come from what people generally agree is bad for them at a certain time.
 * Aside from these,Luna Santin, I'd like to hear what you think about in which I argue for hidden templates. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there are numerous sexual and pornographic pictures and images on this site. We are not censored, we are not here to offend, and simply because one (and small) group disagrees, does not mean we should conform to a new and certainly drastic means of censoring ourselves.  The simple fact that these images even EXIST on this site is enough to anger these people.  Jmlk  1  7  20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So if I name an editor who got blocked indef for merely asking on its talk page for child porn pictures be added to a relevant article, are you willing to unblock him?
 * Please define what you mean by censorship, i.e. in what sense it is depriving people of the information? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No way. Child porn is illegal, and quite a bit different than 18+ and legal porno.  Jmlk  1  7  20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Muslim countries may say that pictures of Muhammad are illegal too. And many of free-speech movements were working against what was considered illegal at that time. I don't think being illegal can be an real principle because it changes with time and with government.
 * Not that I agree with having child porns pics. I think one should ask is a more basic question: What was the basis for those who said that child porn is illegal? They would try to justifying it because they think exposure to them is bad for the society as a whole. But so do those Muslims who say that pictures of Muhammad are illegal.
 * --Be happy!! (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Illegal" isn't some ambiguous state of mind, it's an actual, written state of affairs. Child porn is unambiguously illegal by the laws of the state of Florida, which Wikipedia has to follow. That's not the case for pictures of Muhammad.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The government here takes child pornography very seriously. This law is one of the few which Wikipedia must abide by to continue operating. It is possible that, if such imagery was not illegal where the servers are located, then it would be permissible for inclusion on relevant articles. However, I'm no expert in this field, so I can't make this assumption with any sort of authority.--C.Logan (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to know what we mean by censorship. We usually need to do some kind of work to get access to some information. IMHO, it is censorship if we can not get access to those information with a reasonable amount of work. So, I can not understand why clicking on a hidden template is a huge amount of work... --Be happy!! (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aminz, I see that you haven't gone to the trouble to hide the images for yourself as suggested above (User:Aminz/monobook.css), but you do want everyone else to go to the trouble of having to click "show" every time they go the article. It seems to me that the people who want to hide material should have to go to the trouble, not vice versa.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not single out Aminz, here. He may have no personal problem with the inclusion of images, and therefore wouldn't need to censor them in this manner. Let me point out the fact that the concerns over how this motion would interfere with Wikipedia's "no censorship" policy have been elaborated upon in the sections above, Aminz.--C.Logan (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with "Remove pictures of the Prophet PBUH" - and cleanup of the talk page

 * I've moved some items from the header into a collapse box to make the warnings related to controversial issues more prominent (and make it easier to get to the actual point of the page). I've also added an archivebot tag so that the page will be automatically archived.


 * Regarding the issue of responding to complaints about the images - consensus has demonstrated over time (among registered editors, anyway) that the images will remain and that they will not be hidden. These options have been debated many, many times as you can see by the archives. I would suggest, then, that the focus at this point should not be on convincing every new IP and SPA why this consensus exists - rather, come to a conclusion about how to deal with future complaints. The complaints will never stop, as you are obviously aware. The prohibition on displaying images of Muhammad is more than a thousand years old, and it is unlikely it will be weakened while you are editing Wikipedia. My suggestion would be one of the following:


 * Combine the notices about the FAQ, PBUH and the images in one box.


 * Add a new box that is addressed to regular editors (i.e. not those whose first edit is asking to remove the images) explaining to them the agreed upon process for handling new complaints.


 * Pick a process for handling complaints - some suggestions have been removing all new requests, or ignoring new requests and allowing them to be archived. I might suggest that you do a combination of those two things and a third.


 * 1) Concisely respond to coherent requests by directing the requestor to the FAQ. Ask these people to consider editing elsewhere in Wikipedia for a time before they return to the Muhammad page, and suggest IPs register an account.
 * 2) Revert poorly written demands and obvious trolling.
 * 3) Ignore anything in between.

Avruch talk 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is definitely a good step in the right direction! :) Jmlk  1  7  00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact is that no agreements was achieved. Even though I think the images should be hidden but not removed, but I am not very hopeful that this will happen. How many of you guys have uploaded an image of Muhammad with uncovered face? I have; but yet I changed my position over time and I can only try my best to have the community hears my arguments. The community will decide at the end. My theory is that refusal of hiding the images is more psychological than rational: why should we care for this particular minority who find these images objectionable/ if we do that what does this imply about us/ let them create their own encyclopedia... This view misses the fact that English is not only a language for native speakers but also one for scientific discourse universally, and many people throughout the world visit the English encyclopedia; it doesn't really matter if the servers are based in Florida, it should think of itself universally... and for another fact the world is becoming increasingly one...
 * Hiding images is not censorship because with small amount of effort people can see the images. The aim of censorship is however to avoid access of people to certain information, that is making it hard for them to get access. This is a different thing. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What about when homophobic people get upset at seeing an article on homosexuality with images? Or when an anti-drug editor sees a picture of weed on cannabis?  Or even when a pacifist visits WWII and sees images of corpses?  Do we hide those as well if they offend people?  Jmlk  1  7  09:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Two points: the number of pious homophobics who want to visit homosexuality article, the number of pious pacifists who want to visit WWII article are much much less than the number of pious Muslims who want to see Muhammad. This is like Christians visiting Jesus article. It is a central article to them and they care about it.
 * Secondly, yes, if many homophobic editors raise their concerns over a long period of time (showing that they are really feeling uncomfortable), I would sympathize with them. The amount of reaction is itself a measure. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. I came up with those examples spur of the moment, and certainly are not the best, but I think we both get our point(s) across. :)  Jmlk  1  7  09:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get your argument; at the end of the day, this is a decision that each of us take personally take, and clearly this is controversial and people end up accepting one solution or the other. Good night :) --Be happy!! (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll reiterate my suggestion. Move all such "remove images" requests to Talk:Muhammad/images.  Leave the header on this page but replace any body with "The subject of the removal of the images of Muhammad can be discussed on Talk:Muhammad/images, your discussion has been moved there. Any more posting in this section will be removed."  Then have a 0 tolerance policy on ANY posting under that section.  And those who wish to continue discussing this can talk about it on a subpage. Also, this should not be construed as a reason to move more nuanced discussion by established editors like Aminz if he wants to discuss hiding.  Many (myself included) may not agree but it is still very different from the drop-by editors who only posting "remove pictures now". BTW, good job cleaning up the top some. gren グレン 13:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The image of no scholarly/historic significance
The image that is there with reference of Albeironi is of no scholarly/historic significance. Albeironi was born after almost 04 centuries after the prophet (PBUH) hence he did not know how the prophet looked like. The image if it is there just for the sake of illustration then it should be like the Ottoman image i.e. not showing the face of the prophet (PBUH). Thus it would not be hurting anyone's feelings and illustration is also possible. The reason that you are giving that it would make people think that wikipedia is hiding things because of the protest from muslims is in itself showing the importance of people. So do illustrate but only after keeping in view the thinking and feelings of the people (muslims in this case). If you want the "Albeironi refered image" in the article then like the ottoman image the face should not be clear. That would be more neutral so let commom sense prevail.Rehanz 138 (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See above, as well as Talk:Muhammad/images. Jmlk  1  7  22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a separate discussion. What I am telling you is that (1) The image is of no scholarly/ historic significance. (2) If it is there only for the illustration purpose then the face of the prophet (PBUH) should be blurred so that incorrect information about how he looked like should not be there in the article. So use common sense. Your article has incorrect information shown in the image that the prophet (PBUH) looked like that image. Do you have any proof that he looked like this? The information is incorrect and has to be corrected. Do all articles have information like this without any proof at all??Rehanz 138 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. It's a depiction of him, as true, photographic images haven't even been around for more than about 160 years or so.  They're depictions of Muhammad for educational purposes.  Jmlk  1  7  23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the "appearance section" below regarding the educational purposes. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So information that he looked like that image is not verified and hence should not be there in the article. " À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù " This is a depiction of how air looks like... Would you be publishing it in article "air". The depiction is not verified by any reliable sources. and completely based on assumption. Muslims (people) who use this website are being offended by a depiction (1) Not based on reality (2) Not verified (3) Useless. Blur the face of the depiction. Describe with a pen how he looked like, what he wore. The information should be creditable. Not all based on assumptions...

So information that he looked like that image is not verified and hence should not be there in the article. " À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù " This is a depiction of how air looks like... Would you be publishing it in article "air". The depiction is not verified by any reliable sources. and completely based on assumption. Muslims (people) who use this website are being offended by a depiction (1) Not based on reality (2) Not verified (3) Useless. Blur the face of the depiction. Describe with a pen how he looked like, what he wore. The information should be creditable. Not all based on assumptions...Rehanz 138 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The images are centuries-old drawings/paintings that have only been said to depict Muhammad, and have been accepted as so, including by Muslims since their inception. Sorry if the images offend you and other Muslims, but blurring Muhammad's face would censor them, and Wikipedia does not do that for any reason, at all, ever. Jmlk  1  7  00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rehanz, by that same logic, we'd have to remove the images of Jesus, Buddha, Charlemagne, Alexander the Great, Homer, Socrates, Moses, Adam, Plato... basically everybody who lived before the fifteenth century (when accurate portraiture first became commonplace). That's a pretty tall order. You really want all of those images to be removed?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably, if you presented those characters on canvas and they acquired some sort of notability/relevance/historical value, then yes, we could include such an image on the Air article, I suppose. The funny thing about many of these arguments presented to somehow "defeat the logic behind the images" is that they are actually valid possibilities which are reasonably allowed within Wikipedia guidelines.--C.Logan (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslims started at arround 613, and the image is of arround 10th century. Who were the earliest muslims who accepted the image? I am not talking about images of other personalities. May be those are verifiable or not... Those images are based on reference to bible etc. Do you have any such image based on Quran or a painting by someone who was there at that time? We had cave drawings and egypt drawings arround 5000 years ago. There are pages of Quran that were written 1400 years ago...Do you have any verified image of the prophet (PBUH) more then 1400 years old??? The bottomline:- An image that is not verified, based on assumption, has incorrect information, offends a large number of people stays on Wikipedia...You don't want a censorship. but you are passing incorrect information. Never say never again...Rehanz 138 (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No we are not passing any incorrect information. Our image of Muhammad from 1315 is the earliest verifiable depiction of him, hence it is included.  His face is not covered or marked out, conforming to the accepted laws of the time when it was produced, as well as the others.  Your argument has little to no basis based upon fact.  Jmlk  1  7  01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Since it doesn't claim to be an accurate depiction of Muhammad, but merely a painting, that doesn't matter. 2. If people get offended by it, too bad. In case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is not censored. JuJube (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) The image is taken not directly from Albeironi, it is taken from a french translation of Albeironi. Is that translation verified. Have the arabic of that manuscript has been checked? Translation errors are common in the whole world...where is the original. (2) Jmlk17, on 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC) you said that the image is accepted by muslims since their inception. Muslims started at 613 and the iamge is 0f 14th century. How could muslims accept the image before it was created. (3) My argument is based on facts. From 7th century to 13th century there are 8 centuries, There was no image. Suddenly in 13th century an image appears in a french translation which "is accepted" by the muslims as you tell. Why those between 6th century to 13th century, did not produce an image of the prophet?? Because it was prohibited. Now an image produced after 08 centuries of the prophet (PBUH) is bound to be inaccurate, not verified and incorrect info. (4) If its just a depiction. This is a depiction of sky "З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і". Put it in you "Sky" article. This is a wrong depiction. Description is inaccurate and not based on facts. Your information is being created out of thin air.Rehanz 138 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the inception of the images. There are no actual images of Jesus, Buddha, nor anyone until the mid 19th century.  The images are used to show a story, or tell a tale, and are coming from a Muslim source.  I still fail to see exactly what your argument is other than "they are incorrect".  Jmlk  1  7  02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) The images you are talking about are wrong but they are widely accepted "images". The image of the prophet (PBUH) is or was never accepted by muslims. Its not about a small group of muslims. you don't find imasges in any mosque of muslims. You can't find an image of the 6th century, although you do find the verses of Quran that were written on rocks,leather, pages etc. Images were/are not accepted by muslims. (2) The images are not from a muslim source. These are from translations. If these are from a muslim source. Give reference of the muslim source. (The arabic/persian book). (3) Above description of "Sky" also tells a story why don't you put it in your article "Sky". You don't put it in "Sky" because it is incorrect, not based on facts and is not widely accepted. That is exactly why you shouldn't put the incorrect image. Why insist on incorrect information?Rehanz 138 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are widely accepted images/depictions of Muhammad, and hence belong in an encyclopedia. You're argument that they are invalid, is, in itself, invalid.  Wikipedia is not censored, not for myself who might be offended by certain things, nor for yourself who finds Muhammad's depicted face offensive.  We serve as an educational site, and are using these images in their correct context.  Jmlk  1  7  02:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The images are taken from translations...There are chances of errors in the translation. The images may not be in the originals in the first place, may be added by the translaters. Where are the Oraiginals? Refering from the translations that are not verified is not scholarly. An encyclopedia has to check the credibility of the information, so far I have not found any thing because of which these images are considered important or relevant enough. How do you define "Widely Accepted". This is widely accepted depiction of sky "З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і".
 * Everything, every image and painting throughout human history could easily have the exact same label attached to it though. Muhammad is no different than any other man's depictions throughout history.  Jmlk  1  7  03:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect again. I repeat my question. You have taken the images from translations. Where are the originals? How do the images suddenly appear in 13th century although there are works available before that...Information is not useful if it is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehanz 138 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Many paintings are only available as reproductions. Your question is irrelevant. JuJube (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Have you ever read two translations of the same book. You would notice the difference (2) Sometimes translaters add there own material while translating You can't tell me about the originals and you tell me that these are from eminent muslim scholars. These are not, these are from translations. Information is incorrect... Rehanz 138 (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect that these images are of the prophet (PBUH). It is incorrect to put the wrong images(wrong info) in the article without verifying those images. It is incorrect to believe that "Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж" is what is beneath this earth.
 * How is it incorrect? For all we know there's some obscure culture that calls what is beneath the earth just that. Zazaban (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly Zazaban. And Rehanz, your argument that they are incorrect simply because the images are from the 13th century and not from before has no basis.  They are commonly accepted as depictions of Muhammad, have been for hundreds of years, and hence will stay.  End of story my friend.  We will not removed them, especially under some unfounded basis as being "incorrect".  Jmlk  1  7  03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to say Wikipedia is that obscure culture which says things without verfying any thing at all...This is nonsense on the part of wikipeida. They are not able to prove what they say yet insist on putting it there. There arguments are fake, they are not listening to people, they are laking in common sense and they are "Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж"Rehanz 138 (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You think I'm Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж?! Wow, thanks! I thought you were upset at me and all, and then you go and say such nice things. Have a cookie. Also, I really think this whole argument is absurd. This is not a conspiracy to offend muslims, it's simply a picture. It's no different from pictures of quite a few other historical figures, and I don't see what makes this so special. If you want this image gone, go and protest all the other articles mentioned above. Zazaban (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument makes no sense. The images of muhammad are valid, and shall stay, due to our being an encyclopedia, one that is not censored. End of story.  Jmlk  1  7  04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What's "laking" in common sense is people expecting the images to be removed simply because they're "offensive to millions". Your arguments, which are a sideways justification to the same old "zomg muslims are offended" ruckus repeatedly brought in here, have already been shot down and you're just repeating the same thing over and over.  Give up. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pls. remove the fotos of the Holy Prophet
It is not permitted in Islam to draw a sketch / painting of either the last Prophet Muhammed or the previous Prophets such as Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam, Joseph etc. (peace of Allah be upon them all). Muslims are bound to surrender to this Islamic teaching and non-muslims are required to respect this. It is not "neutral" to connect to Islam what is prohibited in Islam. DELETE ANY KIND OF SKETCH OR PAINTING CLAIMED TO BE THAT OF PROPHET MUHAMMED (posted by Abu Bakr Al Falahi)
 * No. This is not an islamic encyclopedia, we do not follow islamic law. Zazaban (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion has already been considered in the past, and has been rejected as a policy violation. Please see the FAQ Janus8463 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to understand what policy you guys are talking about..? and how could this be a violation..?? its pretty confusing, on how removing a picture is a policy violation? on which bases are those policies created? and who wrote them? and since when every article must have a facial depiction of the character? and since when you can violate part of the policy and not violate the other part? so i understand that you can block the editing of the article, which I considered as a policy violation, but you cant remove a picture?... where is the equality that you are talking about... actually why each time, i talk about the depiction people reply to me and tell me, "according to the WESTERN LAW a depiction must not be accurate" so now this encyclopedia is western biased?! or since it is allowed by the western law then we all must submit to it, but when it is not allowed by the Islamic law no body listens or cares..? of course some, smart person will say that it is allowed by some Muslims,, but you should consider the majority and not the minority, and sha'i only make 200 million of the 1.2 billion Muslims... sorry guys, but what is a policy violation and not only to this encyclopedia, but to every educational source, and to every knowledge seeker, are those images. These images are a true and living example of how the west is biased to their own ideas and ideologies. And how they lack understanding of others ideas and believes!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say - the bottom line is that this topic has been done to death - Wikipedia is a secular site, we are not bound by Islam law and we are not removing the pictures. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * if you read what i said again, you will definetly understand what I am saying.And a secular site, is a site that understands and comprehends all the world's laws and bind to them. not bind to the west and then claim its secular. A secular site, respects all those readers and users of the site. one sixth of the world are muslims, and u are violating the laws of that one sixth. so you are by no means a secular site.


 * You misunderstand what secularity means - it most certainly does NOT mean we are bound by "all the world's laws". I suggest you read our article on the matter. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not bound by any religious laws, including Islamic. Hence, since 5/6ths of the world is NOT Muslim, and since we are secular, the images of Muhammad stay. Jmlk 1  7  00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

REMOVE PICTURES
please remove the pictures of muhammad (PBUH) as you don't even know how he looks like at all. No one knows how he looks like except ALLAH (SWT). SO if you don't have respect for your own relegion, then don't assume others don't either. And stop with your empiricism ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamictruth1985 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with empiricism? Oh, and no, we won't remove the pictures because Wikipedia does not subscribe to Muslim dogma. TharkunColl (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQs... and no, we are not censored. Jmlk  1  7  21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

you don't want to remove pictures
Dear sir/madam, if you don't want to remove pictures of prophet Muhammad and i understand that you have your own reasons but at least can you place a little remark under the pictures, saying this is not an actual picture of prophet Muhammad, it would be great move on your side. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.106.127 (talk • contribs) 18:27, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)


 * I totaly support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk • contribs) 18:41, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)


 * They already do - notice the use of the word depiction. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Portraits showing Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
As a Muslim, I feel very offended that Wikipedia has chosen to include portraits which display an image of Prophet Muhammad. Not only is this a red line for Muslims who never attempt to draw the picture of any Prophet (not only Muhammad) because it is considered unlawful in Islam to do so - Muslims believe that by drawing Prophets people may end up worshipping them instead of worshipping Allah(God), but such portraits are unathentic since it has been known for centuries that Muslims don't draw Prophets. Thus, whoever drew this portrait is basing it on an assumption that this is how Muhammad looked like (fictional), not based on fact since there is no authentic prof that dates back to his era. In conclusion, such portraits, not only offend Muslims and I request that they be removed, but they are also unathentic with no basis of proof. And even if they did have a basis of proof, which is not the case, one needs to respect the beliefs of 1.5 Billion Muslims worldwide who consider this a huge offence. I kindly request that Wikipedia include a different portrait of something different - there is a lot of islamic designs and architecture that can be great substitutes.

K.Ginena 86.36.66.129 (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are offended, as this is not our intention. But there is no proof on how anyone looked definitively until the mid 19th century with the advent of photography.  Our intention is not to offend Muslims, but rather, as an encyclopedia that is not censored, we intent to (and do) educate.  Jmlk  1  7  04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

can any one tell me wikipedia belogs to which country? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.118.62 (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not belong to any country, although it may be managed by somebody who lives in a certain country. In this case, it is the United States. Zazaban (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Boring and Pointless
This is getting incredibly boring and amazingly pointless. The only way to stop these interminable discussion is to ignore any post that challenges the current policy. This talk page is for discussion to improve the content of the article. --Gazzster (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true, very true. Jmlk  1  7  05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth it?
Posting this picture is an obvious insult on behalf of Wikipedia. Your response to the previous comment ("I'm sorry you're offended" and not "we are sorry for publishing this") is an exact replica of the supposed "apology" given by the editors at the Danish daily which portrayed Prophet Muhammad in a caricature last year. The picture supposedly representing prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is fictional. As a source of information, Wikipedia should not include this picture because first and foremost it is misleading people regarding Prophet Muhammad's image (as you said no one knew how anyone looked like until photography recently). Secondly, it is misleading people, who are trying to find out about Prophet Muhammad through this website, by making them think that portraits of prophets are allowed in Islam. So, by including this picture you are actually misinforming people, rather than informing people, which is the supposed "purpose" of Wikipedia. Please find an alternative design and remove this picture.

Sameh Abdel Megied

"75.156.115.92 (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"
 * No it's not. This conversation trying to get us to censor ourselves to "respect" Islam is ridiculous, gets us nowhere, and will no longer continue.  It is a waste of time.   Jmlk  1  7  06:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then quit engaging them. Pairadox (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting them to the FAQ is a sufficient response to them. At this point, one has to assume someone is just coming here everyday with a different IP (notice none of these people that come here are even registered users; many don't even have a single contribution before they post in this talk page). -Rosywounds (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Depicting Prophet Violates Neutrality
I commend wikiepdia as a source of public knowledge for people around the world. However, the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is problematic to the stance of neutrality of Wikipedia.

The depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in an article that is meant to educate about the religion is Islam in inappropraite and violates neutrality. While it is true that there are visual representations of the Prophet (pbuh) in Muslim cultures--these are strictly prohibited in Islam. Thus, it is inaccurate to have such images in an article about the religion. This clearly violates the neutrality policy of wikipedia for it is asserting Western and non-Islamic standards over an Islamic topic. It would be prudent to replace the picture with something that is representative of Islam--for example, calligraphy, architecture, etc instead of a culturally based and inaccurate visual representation that confuses the content of the page (about Islam) with cultural manifestations of the religion (which are non-Islamic). To conflate Muslim culture with Islam would be a major inaccuracy, and thus to maintain a higher standard of knowlegde dissemation--i strongly urge wikipedia to replace this picture.

Thank you.

Sana

209.148.248.101 (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Jmlk  1  7  06:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about Islam, it's an article about a person who is associated with Islam. Incidentally, Islam is not the only religion where he is revered. Zazaban (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the Face?
Ok! just listen to this difference...

1) The pics are as it is now and as ur description says, Prophet(PBUH) is preaching the Quran.

2) You are blurring or making it white at the face part where you have said that Prophet (PBUH) is preaching the Quran.

Alrite! In both the cases we get it.

It's just about that face part that doesnt make sense!!!

We understand WITH and WITHOUT the description of the face that He was proclaiming the Quran. Then just why would you want to put it when it affects millions of people around the world???

Ok! I understand that Wikipedia does not censor any of its images, but see it this way:

A Hindu comes to wikipedia to learn about Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and he sees that pic but doesnt understand the caption well and it comes to his mind as "Ah! So, this is kind of how he looked". Isn't this wrong??? Doesn't it look like Wikipedia is giving the wrong Information??

I myself refer to Wikipedia for tons of things, i just see what i believe and read, i dont verify them or something. In that case, if something like the above happens, what would Wikipedia do? Or can u guys guarantee that something like this will never happen???

Luvmyth aish (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Ayisha
 * Might happen, just as it might happen if they looked up Jesus, Confucious, Buddha, Socrates, Nero, etc. Jmlk  1  7  07:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are different articles. Dont include them in this. People of those religion should talk about it, not me. What about my answers?

Luvmyth aish (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. A Hindu's learning perception would not change simply because Muhammad's face isn't veiled.  I fail to see what difference the showing of his face does to educate/uneducate.  Jmlk  1  7  07:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, he wouldn't even know that to believe in Prophet's(PBUH) pictures is forbidden in Islam. If he sees it censored everywhere, wouldn't that itself educate him that maybe such pictures are not allowed in Islam???? Though it is a small matter, if Wikipedia is so concerned about its readers and strictly following its rules, i guess it should take this thing too into consideration, ya?

Luvmyth aish (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing... speaking of following rules as you mention, check out Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Jmlk  1  7  07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen that. I just dont understand the difference between Showing and Not showing His pic. It conveys to us the same message ya???? And if you dont put the pic, everyone's fine with it. And when you put it, Millions of Muslims around the world feel its wrong. See, which reaction is stronger, is Wikipedia really ok with such a thing? Ofcourse, i understand what you feel too. You think its a very small matter. But it isnt the same for us. Coz we follow a complete different religion. Iam aware that Wikipedia is free from religious bias. But when censoring the pic conveys the exact same message as it does when not censored, then what's stopping Wikipedia from removing it??

Luvmyth aish (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because we are not censored, as one of our very basic and beginning rules. Luvmyth, I am more than willing to continue this conversation, but for the sake of keeping it from just creating more of a mess on this article, let's move it to my talk page.  Jmlk  1  7  08:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

no probs!

Luvmyth aish (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture issue and Freedom of speech - freedom stops where others' begins
Jmlk says: "as an encyclopedia that is not censored, we intent to (and do) educate." And others have said that this is Wikipedia's policy; however, '''by infringing on other people's freedom of religion, while intending to be an objective source of knowledge, as an expression of our your own freedom you are crossing your boundries. Furthermore, what have you accomplished?'''

With freedom of anything comes the responsibility to make sound decisions and common-sense choices. Deciding to not include these offensive and unreal pictures has nothing to do with freedom; it has everything to do with respecting another person's beliefs and the common sense. Moreover it diverts you from your goal which is to educate based on sound and authentic knowledge.

Once again, a person's freedom stops where others' begins and we should respect other people's belief as much as we want that they respect ours.Wikipedia should be very aware of this given that this is not an encyclopedia owned by anyone. It is the people's encyclopedia! These pictures having nothing to do with Islam or Muhammad and they should be removed. What should be spoken about is the content of his message (that is what is authentic and should serve as something that is educational for people).

K.Ginena 86.36.66.129 (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Why would you post something that is offensive to others? Don't you know that "Your freedom ends where the freedom of others start."

I ask the editors of Wikipedia to remove these pictures as soon as possible. Also, i would like to appeal to the writer of the topic by asking: "would you be happy if I offended your faith?" how about: "would you be happy if i offended your belief especially if that faith is followed by 1.7 Billion people worldwide?"

Thanks
 * It is an encyclopedia governed by those who edit it, under a basic set of rules. It is irresponsible to conform to a certain groups' ideals and beliefs, in sacrifice of open and free education. In hopes of keeping this talk page free of the clutter that is growing, I invite you to read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, then post on my talk page if you'd like to continue a dialogue with just me, or continue to post here, but I should let you know that we are not a forum, and this conversation will probably not get you anywhere here. Jmlk  1  7  08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)