Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 6

Rebuttal
Before I address the actual "Remove the Picture" topic, I'd like to point out that making derogatory comments about Muslims as a whole goes against your own "talk page guidelines". Stuff like the rude reply above or this statement I found further along the page:

oh and the muslim world's moral compass sure points north right?punishing a victim of sexual assault, shooting school childeren in the back, and treating women like porperty are not allowed in america, so why dont you work on that first, then you can come back and advise us.

I don't know who this person is, but you obviously haven't met very many Muslims in your life and have clearly never even picked up a book about us either. Thank you for your ignorance. Keep watching your terrorist flicks. But if you want facts about the religion, or if you'd rather just start slinging mud about atrocities committed by people, I can start naming groups from any religion and country in the world. Just let me know.

Now. Back to the original point: it's not a matter of freedom of speech or Islamic Law. Putting up pictures of Muhammad is something that promotes inaccuracy and can divert one from the whole point of the religion. It's like how a very common topic in the Christian world is whether or not Jesus Christ was white. Being Muslims, we would prefer that questions about the physical appearance of Muhammad don't detract from the true spirit of the religion, and that it doesn't influence over-zealous believers to try and emulate him physically. That's not really what Islam is about, you see. Plus it's insulting to the memory of a man who has had such a major impact on world history, whether you believe in his faith or not.

Second, you're forgetting that Muhammad is our Prophet. Whether or not you have to obey Islamic Law, sheer common decency and consideration for what is a belief held by (at least) a third of the global population would dictate that a matter like this be resolved with our wishes in mind first. This is how the Muslim world respects its religious icons, how difficult is that to understand? I mean, Freedom of Speech doesn't have to mean "inconsiderate and rude".

After all, nobody goes around making fun of the Holocaust or JFK or 9/11 or of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know for a fact that after 9/11 movies and TV shows were asked to edit out any footage of the Twin Towers as a mark of respect. Where was Freedom of Speech and Liberty then? They had to postpone the launch of a Spider-man movie to make the necessary changes in the film. And that was okay, right? It's very simple, if it's a sensitive topic for the parties involved, so you don't go near it. So why is it such a big deal to remove a picture if it's a sensitive topic now? Is it really just because you want to prove that you don't have to abide by Muslim Law?

But last of all, I was just wondering that if the Encyclopedia Britannica did not have a problem removing a picture of Muhammad from their latest edition when asked to do so by a concerned Muslim, then why is Wiki getting all bent out of shape about it? Ankledeep (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Ankledeep

The images aren't meant as an insult to Islam, they are up there for a couple of very important reasons: 1. Are the pictures of Muhammad? Yes if they weren't then we wouldn't be having this discussion. 2. Do the images help people get a better understanding of the subject? In my case they do. They show him a similar fashion as Jesus in the last supper. Purely an artist rendition of Muhammad 3. Are they biased against the subject? No, they are images made by followers of Islam (to the best of my knowledge)

As to your claim of "nobody goes around making fun of the Holocaust or JFK or 9/11 or of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" people do. There are many uncouth jokes directed toward the Holocaust, JFK and Hiroshima. I went to Hiroshima in 2003 and in the museum someone wrote, "Payback is a bitch" On the editing out of the twin towers. As you said they were asked, and they complied. The images have been asked to be removed and the general decision among non-biased persons (people who have shown open hostility toward Islam are just as biased as those who practice Islam) is they shouldn't be.

Do I think that the images are insulting to Muslims? They seem to be, However to quote Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Precedent in other forms of media argue against the case as well. When an artist put a Crucifix in a jar of his own urine Christians went into an uproar, but the art remained. Zakneifien (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what is being missed here is that people who practice Islam MUST do what Islam say. This is their law. Just as we have laws and MUST obey them. But here is where the line is drawn. I don't expect a Muslim to obey "WESTERN" wishes and concerns based on "western" laws where they have no bearing. Why would a Muslim expect that some how their laws have bearing over everyone and anything? Wouldn't it be easier to just ban this web site from your browser? It is really all about choices here. Apparently, offense is to your liking because you keep coming back.

This guys states they don't show images of Mohammad because they don't want people thinking he is white, black, purple, or yellow. Who are you to tell people what to think/see? Just because they have no pictures, do you really believe that people don't visualize things the way they want to see them? Imagination my brother, ban that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xman1001 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to your comments about Spider-Man. Spider-Man was an American movie made to conform to American standards. The towers were removed to avoid offending American movie goers. Since it was made by Americans and modified by Americans your argument is invalid because this site is not affiliated with any particular group, Muslim or otherwise. If it were a Muslim site then I could see your reasoning, but if that were the case, the images would have never made it up here in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.180.115.222 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, no one cares whether Muslims are offended. It's your problem deal with it! If you want to make fun of JFK or the holocaust, be my guest. I most normal countries (read non-muslim), there are no laws that would stop you from doing so. The web is full of images of Mohammed, deal it with it! Freedom of speech (and Wikipedia's right to promote knowledge) is more important that what muslims. We should never make any concessions of this sort towards muslims. First will be harmless stuff like these images, then the Sharia will have to be mandatory for non-muslims because it offends muslims. Tough luck, most of the world does not work like Saudi Arabia, you cannot arbitrarily impose laws based on what you find offensive! This is madness, what next? Are you going to bitch at Uncyclopedia for this page: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Muhammed. Try that, the Uncyclopedia will you give you a nice response, I am sure. 141.213.184.124 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No permission from Islam
please remove the pic of Muhammad (PBUH), as islam donot give the permission of doing this. Abdul Manan (pakistan)

This is a request from all the Muslims that please remove the picture of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) from this website because it is not allowed in Islam. Emad Akhtar (Pakistan)


 * Wikipedia is a secular web site, and not subject to Islamic rules/governances. --Mhking (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "This is a request from all the Muslims."
 * And you are the King of all Muslims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.136.112 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need your permission. And please sign your comments. rmosler (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont think so that he is the king of all muslims but you are a queen of all muslims and who is anonymous..... first register yourself...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 12:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Argument from popularity / Petition

 * the signs in the petition bears the testimony the fact that Muslims all Over the world are harassed and depressed by this WIKI move to not allow removal of pic in the name of freedom of expression.I request wikipedian administrators to allow the removal of pics in Order to maintain the dignity of Muslims feelings as No expression can allow to abuse someone's Prophet.Shabiha (t 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrators don't have that sort of power - they generally rule on the behaviour of editors and other administrative matters, they cannot take sides in content disputes where the material is sourced and accepted to be of a certain standard. This is a matter for the wikipedia community as a whole. The community has decided that wikipedia is a secular website and will not censor articles on religious matters because various faiths would be offended. No abuse is intended. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You wish for them to delete the pics in the name of freedom of expression, yet are you not attempting to deny that freedom to Wikipedia itself? Denying their freedom of expression?

In order to maintain the dignity of Muslim feelings? Come on, man, get over yourself. If it really bothers you that much, you need to take a step back and examine your life.

There is even a petition of over 100,000 people to remove the picture. It's not a big deal, so just remove it. This is how war is started. I am a Muslim and that also offends me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiimonkey9 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're for or against here... Jmlk  1  7  01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not run by petition. Wikipedia is not governed by offended Muslims. And threats of war show how tenuous, petty and silly your position is to begin with. --Mhking (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The offensive picture should be removed. The extent of this conversation makes it clear that the benefit of displaying the picture is far less than the impact not removing it. Argyle (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And then the kids will learn that if they whine long and loud enough, they'll eventually get what they want.Amused67 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No because the community has determined that they are not offensive and that they belong in the article. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Wiimonkey, wars are started when you crash airliners into skyscrapers. Get your facts straight.

There is no need for images
Actually, there is no need of these pics here. I don't think that the removal is purely censorship, but these pics are also useless as they are all manuscripts created hundreds of years after Muhammad(PBUH).--Builder w (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is addressed in the FAQ.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those "useless manuscripts" are part of islamic history, thus they are relevant.98.27.187.95 (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No they are not. They are only part of history of Islamic art, and there should the belong to.

Shock sites
Why does Wikipedia not uphold their policy of not censoring on entries of shocksites like 2girls1cup and other perversions? Why are there no images of those things on their respective wiki pages? In fact, all I can see are people with an anti-Islamic agenda defending the completely useless inclusion of the images. What do they have to do with the topic? If I were to make a random image of Bush and upload it, no matter how crude it is, and add it to Bush's wikipedia page, would it be removed? My image, of course, would not have much to do with the topic because I can just label the random stick figure drawing "Bush" and post it to Wiki.

Not to mention the fact that nearly all respectable major Encyclopedias, print or otherwise, have never included those pictures in their entries about the Prophet (pbuh). And I'm pretty sure that it wasn't due to self-censorship since a lot of these encyclopedias are quite old but have not included such images.

The pictures seem to be presented in the entry simply for baiting Muslims. I'm sure Christians would take offense to a South Park Jesus added to the 'Jesus' entry. It would be foolish to add such an image to such an entry in the first place. Hey, while we're at it, why not post pictures of dead babies to their relevant entries? After all, you guys are such proponents of freedom of speech and anti-censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.153.232 (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a policy for deciding when images are appropriate and inappropriate. They have picked a policy that to remove images that are generally agreed upon as "offensive" world-wide. I hope you understand that Wikipedia can't bow down to every interest group (whether a religion or not) that gets offended more easily than the average person. 208.124.58.119 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have misunderstood what "censored" means in a wikipedia context, we will not censor content that we as a community deem suitable for an article. We as a community have decided that their historical context means they should be included. No offense is intended but this is a secular site and we cannot adhere to religion traditions of a particular faith - be it Islam, Christianity or scientiology. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There certainly can be such images (for example, autofellatio), but the issue is more complicated than that. There are often disputes over which picture to use, picture quality, relevance, necessity and other factors (most often copyright limitations). In any case, your comparison is tenuous at best. Let me respond point-by-point:
 * 1.In fact, all I can see are people with an anti-Islamic agenda defending the completely useless inclusion of the images. What do they have to do with the topic?
 * They are depictions of the topic; they possess historical relevance as well. I don't see the inclusion of the images as being "useless". While it may be entirely possible that some users may have a latent agenda, I have seen nothing to this effect. Additionally, several Muslim editors also oppose removing the images.
 * 2.If I were to make a random image of Bush and upload it, no matter how crude it is, and add it to Bush's wikipedia page, would it be removed?
 * This is an overly simplified scenario. An illustration of Bush's head on a the body of a primate would be perfectly acceptable if the notability and relevance of the image were established. Bush is a living person, so WP:BLP is an issue, and his article is a top-level article, so WP:UNDUE would also be worth minding. In cases of artistic depiction, the notability of the artist or artwork must be established first, especially when it is of a person (in other instances, such as depicting a body part, it is acceptable to upload an image of your own for illustrative purposes without addressing "notability" and all that). This is not an issue on the Muhammad article, as both the artist and artwork are undeniably notable and of complete relevance to the subject.
 * 3.My image, of course, would not have much to do with the topic because I can just label the random stick figure drawing "Bush" and post it to Wiki.
 * Well, it would have everything to do with the topic according to you. It is a depiction of Bush, is it not? Again, notability and relevance must be addressed.
 * 4.Not to mention the fact that nearly all respectable major Encyclopedias, print or otherwise, have never included those pictures in their entries about the Prophet (pbuh).
 * To be quite honest, images are very rare in most of the encyclopedias that I've encountered, paper especially (for space concerns). Even online encyclopedias rarely host images, so this isn't much of an argument. Additionally, it doesn't quite matter what they do, because we are not affiliated with them and- to be honest- we endeavor to be more useful and reliable than they are (and interestingly, I've seen a study which determined that Wikipedia was more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica, believe it or not).
 * 5.The pictures seem to be presented in the entry simply for baiting Muslims.
 * Can you explain what makes it appear so?
 * 6.I'm sure Christians would take offense to a South Park Jesus added to the 'Jesus' entry. It would be foolish to add such an image to such an entry in the first place.
 * Offended? No, not really. I'm sure some would, but that doesn't really matter too much. There are other policies which prevent this from occurring (unless there happens to be a change in the article at a later point). Currently, the article is in such a state that it would be undue weight to include modern depictions (specifically pop-culture presentations) in the article. This has prevented the display of Piss Christ and other modern examples. Typically, these images would find a home on relevant sub-articles. Again, this example is not comparable to the discussion at Muhammad, as the images there possess historical relevance and are most certainly respectful attempts to depict the prophet- posting them is more comparable to posting an image of Jesus from a manuscript illumination detail or something along those lines.
 * 7.Hey, while we're at it, why not post pictures of dead babies to their relevant entries?
 * There is currently no dead babies article. Additionally, such images are often used in a propaganda-like manner, so great care is often taken to avoid misuse. There is nothing policy-wise which limits the inclusion of images in such a manner.
 * 8.After all, you guys are such proponents of freedom of speech and anti-censorship.
 * That we are.--C.Logan (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, who is "We as a community" here - I can see an overwhelming majority of editors feeling that these images are inappropriate for the article.  Arman  ( Talk ) 10:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The community is the body of editors devoted to improving articles while adhering to policies and guidelines. Learning about this article on an Islamic forum and flying by to post "remove the images" does not count one as an "editor". I have not seen a single established editor support the removal of images- even when those editors are, in fact, Muslims.--C.Logan (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, wow, please don't make such hasty conclusions here, I have made my first edit on Wikipedia before you did and have an edit count in five digits. Not an admin and don't want to be, but if someone says I am not an editor on Wikipedia, I have to consider that as uncivil and nonsense.  Arman  ( Talk ) 11:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Arman, when did I ever refer to you? When you speak of an "overwhelming majority", I can only assume that you are referring to the barrage of anonymous and new-user comments being placed here.


 * Additionally, do not attempt to pull seniority in the issue- I know many users whose "edit count" and "experience" far exceeds my own, and yet these users have absolutely no comprehension of core policies. Just because an individual has been here longer or has made more edits does not guarantee that they were productive in any of their activities.


 * I am not suggesting that this is the case with you, but I am noting (as would be apparent from my above comment) that, aside from a few points raised that were certainly worth addressing, your own argument is not far from those used by individuals who have absolutely no idea how Wikipedia works or why it follows the policies that it happens to follow. Users such as Aminz, Rosywounds and Itaqallah, while having religious interests, consider fully the fundamental basis upon which Wikipedia is founded when raising points, and these users oppose removal because of the consideration of these very policies. I urge you to use our policies as the base from which you make your arguments.--C.Logan (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, no one is asking you to adhere to any religion. The request is to remove images from an article that are "inappropriate" to the article, and the discussion/debate is on whether or not these images are appropriate; not whether Wikipedia has to declare Islam as its official religion. So please stom saying we cannot adhere to religious traidion etc.  Arman  ( Talk ) 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The images are appropriate. They depict the subject in a traditional manner, and they were created by Muslims for the edification of others (in many cases, other Muslims). They also possess great historical value, and one image in particular is noted as being the earliest surviving depiction of Muhammad. I haven't really seen a good argument against the inclusion- most arguments have been, unfortunately, "we don't like it, so remove it". The simple answer to such a request is "no".--C.Logan (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning for the appropriateness of these images are that they are "Notable" and "Relevant", Relevant agree as someone has tried to draw the subject, (just like I can try to draw a celebrity), but exactly how are they notable? They are notable because they are old, or because they are preserved in some museum? Did anyone ever claim that these images are true /reasonable / acceptable representation of Muhammad other than the painter? If so, please provide the evidence, and I will shut up on this topic once and for all.  Arman  ( Talk ) 11:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * They are notable because they have acquired notability by some measure- this is, sometimes, a factor which is hard to define as anything other than what it is. In this case, it is not always so complex. The image created by al-Biruni, for example, boasts a well-known illustrator, is counted among one of the earliest surviving images of Muhammad. The images are intended to be depictions of Muhammad which have gained international interest and familiarity through the course of history.


 * The "accuracy" of an artistic depiction is not, nor has ever been, an issue for inclusion- in this article, or within other articles in which the subject has no contemporary depiction which would suggest the accuracy of latter depictions. This is extremely relevant here, given the time period of the subject. This is covered in the FAQ.--C.Logan (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The topic has been beaten to death. The image has historical relevance as the earliest known depiction of Muhammad. The article is about Muhammad, in case you didn't get that from the title at the top of the page. Your objections are not based upon any desire to see non-relevant material removed from the article; your prior posts show your motivations to be religious, not procedural. You are simply using the procedural context to further your desire for religious censorship and forcing Muslim conformance on non-Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.132.139 (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we should have screenshots of sites like 2girls1cup as we do for other sites. The same going for some of the anatomical pages as well.  A user created Bush image would not be relevant whereas these images are from classic texts.  Print encyclopedias have to make editorial decisions to save money and space that we don't have to. gren グレン 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to say this without sounding offensive but you do realise that you are effectively comparing the prophet to a cup full of poop, right?Archonix (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, they didn't. Grenavitar refers to the "argument" that no images of other possibly offensive material such as 2girls1cup are included in the respective articles. Elscheffe (from de.WP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.94.201 (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Blur the images
Dear All at Wikipedia, First of all, it is a pleasant surprise to see a page about our dear Prophet. May Allah bless you for your effort. As far as the image issue is concerned, you have the right to keep the page just the way it is, but by removing or blurring the pictures of our dear Prophet Muhammad(may peace be upon him), you will be showing respect for the sentiments of a majority of Muslims the world over. In this politically and religiously charged global village that we live in, you will be showing your sense of "what is the right thing to do" over choosing "what is your right" ....Samiya


 * Dear Saiya, A group of Wikipedia admins have made it very clear that they have absolutely no respect about the feeling of millions of Muslims or even Muhammad's own prejudice agiant painting live objects. However, you are mistaken when you say Wikipedia admins have the right to say or do whatever they want to say. The reason why the images should be removed is An imaginary image should only be added to an article if the image has wide acceptance as a reasonable represntation of the subject and none of the images included in the Muhammad article has that qualification. They are distorting a fact, and they don't have a right to do so.  Arman  ( Talk ) 05:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  06:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Respect" to the sentiments of particular groups of people is not an issue. Muslims are not singled out in this- we do not censor articles in the interests of  any particular group of individuals, ever. The sole exceptions for the inclusion of images (rather, the only weighty arguments against the inclusion of images of a subject) are based in legal issues. This, as should be rather obvious, does not apply here.
 * The reason you cite for the necessity of removal is based upon no policy I am familiar with. Wikipedia makes no guarantee of truth, only verifiability, and this applies greater when it concerns images- Wikipedia often includes depictions of individuals for which there were no contemporary illustrations without issue, as this is not really an issue- an image which intends to depict a subject and acquires notability (and, in this case, historical relevance) is more than acceptable for inclusion.--C.Logan (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "An imaginary image should only be added to an article if the image has wide acceptance as a reasonable represntation of the subject". Why do keep saying that? As User:High on a tree noted above, that's just not true. If an image has historical or artistic significant then it is appropriate. Udzu (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Samiya, I do not agree that this is a decision between "what is right to do" versus "what is our right." In Wikipedia's view, the "right thing to do" is to maintain the same content guidelines for all articles, rather than make exceptions for certain articles out of respect. I think most Wikipedians have respect for the Muslim religion, but would rather abide by the rules that govern Wikipedia than by the rules that govern a religion they do not practice.
 * In this case, Wikipedia is asserting its right to depict Muhammad — not as a principled political stand, but rather in keeping with Wikipedia's own content guidelines. That makes it the "right thing to do" for many users of this site. We do not mean to offend. Andrewdupont (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

dont remove em but atleast BLUR out the face in the Pictures, hardly takes 5 minutes. u can do that, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.184.206 (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, this is one of the basic rules.Eik Corell (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there :)

I would just like to say that the act of portraying the prophet in any way is not permitted in Islam. I know it would be ok for non muslims... But Muslims cannot do this nor can we view this. Hollywood once made a movie, a story about the prophet. Hollywood is extremely secular, but still they managed to understand and respect the Islamic way of not portraying the prophet. I think all we ask for is understanding.

Salaam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.56.250 (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "I think all we ask is for understanding." If that is true, then "understand" this:  Wikipedia does not censor content.  Not in the past, not now, and not ever.  If you do not wish to be "offended" by the image, take a hint -- DON'T VIEW IT.  Close your eyes. Squint if you have to. Put a piece of paper over that spot on the monitor. Use a web filter to mask the image. But do NOT require non-Muslims to comply with Muslim "law."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.132.139 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood once made a movie, a story about the prophet. Hollywood is extremely secular, but still they managed to understand and respect the Islamic way of not portraying the prophet. Hollywood isn't a NPOV encyclopaedia, therefore this analogy is irrelevant, and irreverant to the goal which wikipedia seeks to achieve. This website is about portraying information to all people. If we remove the pictures we are denying non-Muslims from seeing them. Spudddddd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.97 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The film about Muhammad's live was financed by Muammar al-Gaddafi and had the advise of ane islamic university in Cairo, so it was not a typical Hollywood film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.21.47 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how bluring the faces accomplishes anything. It almost seems as if there isn't an acceptance that Muhammad was a man, or human for that matter. Given the context in each of the pieces of art found on the page, the one identified as Muhammad in each of them looks strikingly similar to the other humans in the picture. I can't say that there is a tremendous amount of detail or anything that says "this is the official exact depiction of the Prophet" so how can it be interpreted this way? They serve as historical representations of how Muhammad was perceived in human form by others who hold him of interest. Bluring, removing, or deforming the images to obstruct the public from setting their eyes on his face is censoring something in the public domain for the purposes of forcing your religious beliefs and rules on the general population. These are not photographs that have been altered, they are art. Besides, hasn't the community been taught not to worship his image? Is there that much concern that the population has such a lack of will that they cannot refrain from worshiping an image? One of the biggest things accomplished by this campaign is likely the tremendous influx of Muslims who have now viewed these pieces of art and shall now have to find the willpower to refrain from worship. Doesn't this undermine the purpose of the so called petition. The easiest, most logical thing that can be done is to ... use self control and not look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.144.214 (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add my two cents&mdash;as a non-Muslim, when I heard about this controversy, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Specifically, I wanted to see the images themselves in all their glory that are involved in this controversy. To see them as-is, in an unadulterated and uncensored form, enriched my understanding of this issue immeasurably and allowed me to gain a valuable perspective on exactly what this debate is about and why some Muslims are requesting the images be removed. After seeing the images, I was able to judge for myself&mdash;without depending upon any outside source of secondary information&mdash;that there is no offense intended by the presence of these images in the article. Thus I was able to draw my own conclusions about the validity of the arguments on both sides of this issue. This is what wikipedia is about, I believe...the opportunity for people like me to get good information from which we can draw our own conclusions without having to depend on someone else to interpret the material for us. At the same time, the article itself, and specifically the images, maintain neutrality&mdash;there is nothing in the article that directs me to any particular conclusions to which the article's author(s) might've been predisposed. So this article, the controversy surrounding it, and the way wikipedia has chosen to handle it are all excellent examples of why wikipedia is so useful! Severoon (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer
Just put a disclaimer that these pictures are not original or are not copies of any original and simply imagination of some artists who possibly could not have any knowledge of details about Muhammad's figure and complexion. Thanks to Wiki for presenting ways for hiding the images whoever want to.

See, Muhammad did not let any of his image be drawn or survived is because he never wanted to become an object or worship in the way Jesus became (though with the imaginery pictures).


 * Er... Jesus is worshipped because he is the Son of God and the Savior of man. Not because of any pictures.--DanteAgusta (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslims should understand that some these pictures were drawn during the Muslim rules and survived many years during muslim rules. If they could understand these as just imaginery things, contemporary Muslims should also accept that. Besides Wikipedia did not produce something derogatory or blasphamous, merely reproduced from historical sources.

BTW I am also a Muslim and the pictures did not bother me at all. Well, it would be nice not to have them there at the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.150.230 (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fraudulence
Please remove the picture of Muhammad. Muslims are forbid to paint living things especially the picture of Muhammad. So the picture in Wiki is only a fraud. It is only artists' imagination. Not real. We believe Wiki only provide the real one or real picture. Not the fraud one.

The showing of fraud picture of Muhammad offended me as a Muslim

The statement above offends me as a free human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspugh (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If in the movies often quoted "No animal was harmed on this movie", I hope Wiki could write "No Muslim was abused on this Wiki"

I am (and many Muslims) disappointed with Wiki's policy about this.

Agus Nizami


 * Wikipedia does not prohibit the exhibition of artistic representation and/or images which may not accurately reflect the appearance of the subject or event (whether because of the lack of contemporary illustration of the topic or by the mere choice of artistic expression).


 * I apologize if you are offended, but Wikipedia and its editors do not intend to offend anyone. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not censor images or information merely because of the possibility that they may offend a group or an individual. This is one of our core policies, and I should inform you that this policy will never change. This, as far as the community is concerned, stands firm alongside with the refusal to censor the images based on the concerns of a group of Muslim readers.


 * It should be noted that the prohibition against depiction/imagery is not a unanimous school of thought within Islam, as is to some effect exemplified in the mere existence of these images (created by Muslims for Muslim edification). It should also be noted that nearly all of the experienced Muslim editors involved in the discussion oppose removal on the basis of Wikipedia policy.--C.Logan (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Peace be upon him belongs to muslims & you non muslims have no right to write anything about him because you don't know anything & what about those fake pictures..??? you think that you can hurt islam so easily like non muslims are doing very very frequently....i say you are wrong absoloutly wrong as islam does not need your so called discriminated help......islam is scaring you all as what you'll gonna do when you have no money to buy a bread as middle east is the richest zone & got plenty of oil there and very soon we all Muslims get together but we will never abuse non muslims as islam never like such Rubbish things .....do whatever you can do to hurt islam & we muslims don't care about thos fake,fraud,unreal,pathetic pictures ..remove them as you (NON MUSLIMS) have no concern with islam it is our religion we have to take care for it


 * Please stop making inciteful trolling comments. Telling someone what "right" they do not have to write anything is not only patently false and counterproductive, but only serves to ellicit an almost visceral response to your comments. --Mhking (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ohhh i see you are trying to taking out the right response how many years it will take this is your way to impend things too long that people start forgetting it. you are taking about usefull comments no the time is over many many pages have been filled now can you tell me what you have done...??????? any answer ....????if it can't be removed then why YOU ARE TROLLING BY OPENING A SUCH KINDA DISCUSSION PAGE..?????? what we Muslims said you have no rights to write 7 publish about islam is right as it is not your religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 13:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me -- Wikipedia is a secular Web site. It is not governed by Islamic rules, laws or guidelines. Most posters are not Muslim. I would dare say most reading are not Muslim. No one gets to dictate what right someone has to post or not. Period. Any sort of response such as that, that you have expressed, is counterproductive, insulting, and only serves to incite a visceral response from others who have worked diligently to create and craft a non-partisan, neutral, informative article. --Mhking (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * :: Anyone has a right to edit articles on Islam not only muslims, what you are suggesting is against so many core policies that it's not worth listing them. this line of discussion can go nowhere so I suggest you drop it. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The history of a religious figure should not be dictated by solely a group of his followers. Information is free. Fsjonsey (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, the point stands unaddressed that Muhammad is of enormous secular importance. Ignoring Islam, he's still the founder of a major empire and the proscriber of a widely used legal system - something that affect non-Mulsims.  This isn't an article on Islam, but on Muhammad, a real guy who's important both within Islam and outside it. Wily D  16:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Implement Warning
Hello I am a Bahai and I think it's only fair that my prophet and Islam's prophet are treated similarly. Right now, the article on Bahaullah, there is a note in italics saying that a copy of the photograph can be found at the end of the article. There should be something similar here.--Goon Noot (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. Hopefully the the note on Bahaullah will be removed, since it seems to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on disclaimers in articles. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it as it is already covered in the content disclaimer. Nakon  04:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to see your removal was reverted. Looks like there's a consensus there that the disclaimer should stay...though I am not sure whether consensus is supposed to override policy. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is though that WP:No disclaimers in articles is not a policy, it is a style guideline. Unlike in terms of policy, exceptions can be made. --Veritas (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And, once the furor dies down, we might consider a similar discussion for this article.  However, it will be a few days yet before this talk page slows down sufficiently to allow for a proper discussion, I would imagine. Resolute 05:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A disclaimer may be a good idea, in the same vein as spoiler warnings :-) Wouter Lievens (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Images of no value to the article
The images add no value to the article. If they were drawn in 1315 and mohammad lived around 632, then the depictions are not based on a live picture but an abstract concept of Muhammad. Their inclusion is no different from someone who decides to draw a picture of Muhammad today. The inclusion of the pictures is more gratuitous than is necessary. Mpondopondo (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * they are there for their historical context not because we claim they are accurate representations. your analogy of someone drawing a picture today is incorrect and has been repeated over and over again. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he makes an interesting point. Why not use the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons to supplement the images already present? Keshik (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment of the day! пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody claims they are accurate images of Muhammad: it's a representation of the way the Muslims imagined he was, just as it is with the representations of Jesus. bogdan (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Images Irrelevant to the article
Images of the Prophet Muhammad, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, are irrelevant to the subject of the article

Earliest images refer to the 14 century. There are no evidence corraborating their authenticity. Allahu aqbar!
 * Hence, it is part of Islamic history, and therefore vaild for inclusion in the article. Fsjonsey (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Become an active editor
If you object to the images, become an active editor and work towards removing them The editors here seem to agree that Wikipedia works by consensus of an article's editors, not the opinions of "outsiders" (whatever that means, and no matter how numerous). If you object to these images, you can help by becoming a registered, active editor of this article, and if enough editors of this article support the images' removal, then it will happen. 129.116.79.240 (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. Jmlk  1  7  23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem not to understand how Wikipedia works. You're welcome to read the guidelines that exist, and please note that Wikipedia is not censored, despite the admonitions of those who wish the images in question removed. --Mhking (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for Keeping the images

 * Simply put, Wikipedia is not a place for hiding or destroying information, and should never become one. If offending a belief system becomes grounds for removal of content, just give up the project now. Iconoclastodon (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is fair to note that Wikipedia is free, and the information it has gathered is considered public. Therefore, Muslims can download Wikipedia's content in its entirety and create a "Muslim safe" wiki.  They can then regulate what information they want to see and not see according to Islamic law.  There are tools that exist that would let someone download Wikipedia (one could run a script to get a nightly build).  This would allow Muslims to visit a Wiki that contained the information they want along with the discretion that they desire.  It seems more logical to create an environment in which Muslims can feel safe and obedient versus the protesting a different site in which they feel offends them.  In summary, tools exist that would enable Muslims to create a Wiki that would be in accordance with their religion.  They would and could then dictate what was deemed as appropriate.
 * If Muslims are offended by the images they can and should choose to not view them. While I understand that they may find the images to be offensive, they have neither the right nor the obligation to determine what the rest of the world views on these pages. Jrkarp (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I Understand that Muslims are not allowed to depict the prophet, but not everyone is a Muslim. The image should stay. That's what really Freedom of speech is.If you don't want to watch it, don't look at it.
 * People who want the image down, should post a valid reason why it should be put down. Anonymous, 17:00, 5 February 2008 (GMD +1)
 * Don't remove. You have the right to believe whatever you like but not the right to infringe upon other's rights to information. --Strappado (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Muslims have to follow Muslim law. The rest of the world doesn't. If anyone is doing anything wrong it is them, by looking at the image, and it is only wrong by force of their own religious law. If who originally posted the image is a Muslim then he is also wrong, but, again, only according to his religion's laws, which hold no value to anyone who isn't Muslim or who doesn't live in a Muslim state. The rest of us is doing nothing wrong and things should stay the way they are. Do not remove the images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.102.83.153 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not making fun of anyone
"After all, nobody goes around making fun of the Holocaust or JFK or 9/11 or of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." You obviously have never watched Family Guy, The Simpsons, Southpark, or been to 4chan. JFK Unleashed? Christians don't get outraged about Raptor Jesus (Paintings and other artwork of Jesus which has Jesus's head replaced with a dinosaur; along with offensive dudespeak) I think Raptor Jesus, Raptor Pope etc are all more offensive than showing historical paintings of your prophet. Wikifreedom!

--

Just to add, I this isn't about "making fun" - those pictures are useful and educational and as far as I am concerned they improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.246.209 (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm afraid that you can't ask a NPOV encyclopaedia to remove informative material, no matter how offensive you find it. It is possible to block images in web browsers. Spudddddd 07-02-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.97 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a first amendment issue
as the first amendment only applies to the government. This is a common sense issue. Wikipedia is no more obligated to follow the religious practices of some muslims any more than wikipedia is obligated to keep kosher or wear a st. christopher's. If you're offended, you are welcome to leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.82.72.77 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's important to distinguish between "muslims", a group of 1.7 or so billion people with vastly different customs and beliefs, and muslims operating under the most extreme interpretation of sharia law possible. This controversy is to mainstream islam as fred phelps is to mainstream christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.82.72.77 (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about bringing knowledge from around the world to your home online. These pictures of muhammad are in museums. Wikipedia did not make the pictures and I'm sure wikipedia isn't the first website ever to put them up. It just so happens that Wikipedia is one the the most visited sites on the planet. Heywood8614 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is everyone bringing up the fact that there are 1.3 billion Muslims? should this ruling be different if there were only 5? or 1? Truth should prevail across all facets independent of how many people are offended.

Yeah here's the thing: Wikipedia is here for the benefit and edification of people all over the world, and we're not going to censor it for the benefit on one group. You're just going to have to deal with it.


 * Wikipedia is a non censored encyclopedia. Not a muslim text book.  Nothing is worse than caving to groups of people and letting them censor this kind of stuff.  we dont censor here, doesnt your religion not allow anal sex?  are you going to try to get that page taken down too?  where does it end once it starts? Mike240se (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Painted by muslims
The pictures were painted by muslims and Wikipedia is not a religious site. If it offends you, dont come here. KEEP THE PICTURES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.111.208 (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sign the petition, we should keep these up

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/support-wikipedia-muhammad-pics

Heywood8614 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Add more pictures of Muslim issues
Perhaps instead of removing the pictures depicting mohammad, pictures should be added for balance. Perhaps some pictures of the mayhem to innocent women and children in his name in recent days will give balance to the article. Also, we can feature pictures of women, violently abused as a result of the misogynistic cultures mohammad has spawned. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Finally, the time to start considering foolish requests such as these should not come before the muslims show the same respect for the Holy Bible, depictions of Christ and his churches as they demand for their kuran.

I fully agree... some people are such hypocrites...

This is Pointless
Wiki has clearly stated the pics will be staying, nuff said. There is nothing any of ya can do about it.--DanteAgusta (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an Islamic website
This website is not an Islamic one, and therefore does not, and should not adhere to Islamic laws/values. Any Muslim who for some reason feels offended by these pictures can use free tools to block them. Trying to force Wikipedia to censor these pictures is no less than Religious Coercion, which has no place here. AxelRafaeli (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The two unsigned comments above are disturbing and childish, respectively. If you object to the presence of these images on a public website dedicated to free (as in freedom) information, do not visit this website and DO NOT threaten those who do. On the other hand, we who support the freedom of information must not descend to the level of intolerance and anger demonstrated by the previous post. --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable comments have been removed. This is not a forum to debate Islam.  Thanks for pointing them out. gren グレン 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just beat me to removing them. I've already warned the IP responsible for it.  They've had several comments removed that were designed to inflame the situation. Resolute 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

if it is not an islamic site....why they are using our islamic ethics for the promotion of their website islam is for muslims not for the non muslims Muhammad Peace be upon him belongs to us not to non muslims. We Muslims hate to see the article & the pictures as well. remove it now.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 12:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont see any article on wikipedia promoting Islam or islamic ethics.Fsjonsey (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Common Law versus Sharia
What we have here is a conflict of Common Law, that system of law which governs the majority of the English speaking world, and Sharia law, the religious law of Islam.

Under Common Law (in most circumstances), the right of the individual to display images or speak certain things is considered indesputable and paramount over the objections of any group within the community, no matter how offensive someone may find it. Codified Law, which much of the rest of the Western World operates under, has similar if somewhat muted guarantees of same.

Under Sharia law, the individual is subject to the rule of the Koran, and displaying certain images or speaking certain things is unacceptable.

The principle issue here is that Wikipedia operates under Common Law, not Sharia. As such, no matter how offended Muslims, Christians, or other sectarian groups may be by something posted on Wikipedia, it is permitted.

Please note that, being a private organization, Wikipedia does not have to allow all expression, but merely that expression it finds to be relevant and substantive to the topic at hand. In fact, Wikipedia as an organization could censor just about anything it wanted for any reason it may have chosen.

Since Wikipedia operates under Common Law, it can have any viewpoint expressed that the people who regulate it deem is relevant. Were Wikipedia based in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, I would not expect this to be the case.

Like pornography to Christians, the fact that anyone can access these images, and the public awareness of them, causes disturbance to Muslims.

The fact is, no one has forced anyone else to use Wikipedia. It is simply a common source for providing, storing and gathering information. The images themselves already exist in the world. Reproducing them here is little different than making a photocopy. It is the ease of access that causes so many to be upset, not the subject matter itself.

There is plenty of information about Socialism on this website, as well as environmentalism. Both of these subjects, as presented, cause me disgust and violate my guiding principles of individual freedom and acheivement (a discussion for another time and location, thank you), however I have not called for their removal. The information is available so that those people who wish to view it can do so and evaluate it for themselves. If you do not wish to view it, look somewhere else.

In closing, I feel as though many Muslims are coming to this page in the way that anyone might be drawn to a house fire or the aftermath of a serious auto accident. They come for the spectacle and then, ashamed of themselves, denounce the site and those who have provided the images. To this I say simply, if your religious views do not allow something then do not do it, but allow others to act in the manner they so choose, so long as it does not directly prevent you from practicing your faith as you see fit; then do not directly prevent others from practicing their faith as they see fit.

As the saying goes, "Live and let live."

This whole discussion is bogus
NOT ALL MUSLIMS IN HISTORY HAVE BELIEVED THIS. (Look around, there are many articles that back this up). In fact, there are substantial minorities in Islamic history and today that have been ok with portrayals of Muhammed. Therefore, we are being intimidated by various radical groups, that may not even be a majority, into censoring our own encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censored, and we should not be intimidated by Islamists or anyone else that does not believe in free speech. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

please remove the pic 220.226.81.1 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You going to give rationale behind your request, or are you sticking with begging? --Mhking (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not be so brusque, please.  ITAQALLAH   20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it is getting very old, very quickly. I'll back off of the snarky remarks, but something more constructive needs to be said -- using this as a giant club to force Wikipedia to the will of the religious domatics is completely out of line and well over the top. --Mhking (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mhking on this nonsense.Alex1996Ne (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have nothing positive to say, say nothing. If you don't want to have to keep responding to tired requests, don't.  Someone else will. Wily D  22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not subject to Shariah law.
Suggest merging with "Common law Versus Shariah" above Filmore (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secular institution. Being so, it is not subject to Islamic (shariah) law. A minority religious group does not have the right to impose it's laws on the majority. In conclusion, I believe the images should stay. Fsjonsey (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not a Muslim. Having said that, Wikipedia might face prosecution in those nations where Shariah law is enforced should it be shown that these dicpictions were availiable in those countries. The laws of such countries are not goverened by the first admenment of the American Constitution. Likewise, an American who operates a nazi website legally in the United States could face prosecution if he ever sets foot in Germany. However, it is unlikely that America would ever extradite an American to a foregin country to face trial for operating a website that is legal under American law. In a similiar vien, many celebrities file libel lawsuits in English courts instead of American courts because of the difference in the libel laws of these two countries (provided that the offedning material was published in England). Jacob Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It would never happen - there is no way on earth, that a US court would comply with such requests. it's a non-issue, the libel stuff uses part elements of the law that do not apply in this situation. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it would be unlikely that an American court would make such an extraidtion. However, should Wikipedia ever loose a case of blasphmey or other crime against Sharia law in a foregin court, whatever assets, if any, that Wikipedia has in that country could be subject to seizure or attachment and the Wikipedian persons involved could face judicial action should they ever step foot in that country. My point is that Wikepedia like other private institutions is subject to the foregin laws in whatever country they operate. However, G-d willing, no American court will ever honor any request made by a Sharia court. Jacob Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:PEREN. Wikipedia employs a lawyer who is paid to worry about these things. If people want a definitive view, ask him. No amount of theorising from armchair lawyers will make a jot of difference. Mayalld (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Islamic scholar: Wikipedia's use of the images is not problematic
In its coverage of this controversy, German news magazine FOCUS has asked a professor of Islam for his opinion. Translation from, with wikilinks added:


 * [In their refusal to delete the images,] Wikipedians are supported by Professor Harun Behr, who is training school teachers for Islamic religious education at the University of Erlangen. "There is no absolute aniconism [prohibiton of images] in Islam", Behr explains to FOCUS Online. The Wikipedia article only shows unproblematic depictions from the Middle Ages [according to Behr]. "In the school books which we are designing for islamic religious education, we are using similar illustrations", Behr explains. While there is a broad consensus within Islam to abstain from images of Muhammad, this abstainment is a sign of respect and not an absolute prohibition of images [according to him]. "Somebody who is demanding the deletion of these images is clearly crossing a boundary", Behr says.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WOW! im surprised by such irrelevant and stupid article. i consider this absolutely stupid and foolish. such type of article where images(of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) are displayed is banning the right of freedom, violating rules and creating prejudice. you must go into the history not far but near when sketches of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) were published. i think this is not the first time the same was repeated before and the outcome of such situation was also seen. so why be like this? why make stupid and foolish act again? and how can such a foolish man(Professor Harun Behr) say something like that, i think he must be like Rushdi who accepted Islam before and then left it again when he cant follow Islam in its true sense. when he cant find any filth then he left. There is no way that u must display such images. i must ask one question? why be an idiot and make a stupid mistake like this when u already know the outcome of this situation (?) The images must be Erased as soon as possible and must be taken care of strictly. why humiliate some one and violate there freedom and religious beliefs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.236.218.21 (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your claims that "such type of article where images(of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) are displayed is banning the right of freedom, violating rules and creating prejudice" are ridiculous on their face. Firstly, free speech cannot "ban" freedom, it can only expand it.  If you do not wish to view these images, you are not required to do so merely because they are available -- your rights are not at all infringed ( you do not have the "freedom" to force others to adhere to your standards); on the other hand, to compel their removal would be severely to restrict the freedom of expression of many people, including myself.  Secondly, Wikipedia has no rules which prohibit the display of these images, nor is it subject to islamic law or the prohibitions of any religious doctrine.  Thirdly, I reject the idea that these images in any way create prejudice; what is far more likely to be damaging to people's judgment of Muslims is unreasoned arguments and knee-jerk reactions such as these. Thelatinist (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The images will not be erased - please bear this in mind, if you decide to view the page. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned, you are incorrect.

Fellow Brothers and sisters of Islam, please think this through!
As'salaamoe alaeykoem wa rahhmatoellahi ta'Allah wabarakatoe. Peace be upon everyone, Muslims and Non muslims, Man and woman, Senoir and child.

to cut to the case: I, as a faithful muslim, cannot accept the feirce reactions to this subject. We as muslims must consider the fact that, we have religion on the right side, and science on the left side... Both are a heritage of our history, of our existence!

It IS true that The Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) explicitaly forbid the depiction of living things, so not to idol them: i quote USER:ArmanAzziz:

What has all this to do with Muhammad's (Sm.) images? There is no Images of Muhammad drawn during his lifetime - because Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve of painting his image. It is a historical fact Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve drawing images of living things. All his life he fought against creation of idols and images of people, especially those of famous people, heroes, and historical figures - because such practices eventually lead the image to become more important than the teaching (arguably what has happened to the Crush symbol)

But then again, Can we, As muslim, DENY our history? the evolution on how the Qur-Aan, our Guide to life, has evolved? Sure We can forbid the depictions! go ahead! we will actually be idolizing him MORE then over Allah (Soebhanna wa'taAllah)to make it an explicit censorship. To my opinion, this "censorship" will contribute in MORE idolism and more misunderstanding between us muslims and christian/Jews and many others. I am no Scholar, but to prevent the depiction, we deny our history as the successor of the 2 prior religions (christianity and Judeïsm) and deny the history of the islam.. Deny would also mean cutting ourselfs from understanding WHY the prophet actually forbid these images... SEE WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS WORLD RIGHT NOW!!! With these kind of actions, we, as muslims, would create more refusal, and incomprehension! doesn't the word "Salaam", the First greet to anyone, the invitation to the Islam, mean "Peace"? If we take the action of oppressed removal, we will create the advers effect, the effect we actually want to prevent.

From the point of science, these images are a treasure of history and culture, one we cant possibly express in any kind of value, as the message (the Qur'Aan) has been passed on with the dedication of our religious ancestors, with the utmost good intent. Destroying these would mean destroying their contribution, and thus indirectly, destroying their path to Djennah (Heaven/Paradise).

I testify, THAT THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH, AND THAT MUHAMMED WAS HIS MESSENGER! "Wa' Ash hadoe an'la Ilaha Ill'ALLAH, Wa'ash hadoe an'la Moehamadoen rassoeloeh Laah!". Please, Brothers and sisters, Reconsider what you are asking. This is a desicion we must not take on lightly, as it is the heritage we want to pass on to our children, to our future. Can we deny our children the Truth? I would not dare to lie to my children, because of fear for Allah. so my children would understand, and be in peace.

In conclusion. Me as being muslim, i would never deny the fact that there are depictions being made of Muhammed. Therefore I clearly WISH the PRESERVATION OF THESE DEPICTIONS! We should not waste our time into agueing yes or no, but LEARN the truth! We should learn what the true meaning is of these depiction..and what the messenger of Allah really wants to remember us in our hearts.

Please reply to this, i really wish to know your thoughts...and i hope mine will soften your hearts.

To everyone, i wish Peace and patience! Salaama & Sad'r! —Preceding unsigned comment added by XeroA SenSei (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You sir are wise and thoughtful, I wish there were more like you in this world. Peace be to you.--DanteAgusta (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is a very well thought-out and rational point of view, and I hope that the ones asking for censorship consider this argument. Girtych (talk)

Posted under "Need Clarification"
REMOVE PICTURES OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMED PEACE BE UPON HIM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.140.121 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we won't remove the pictures of Muhammad. But thanks for demanding. --Mhking (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

yes you may be right about your point of veiw (i.e neutral point of veiw) but you must respect the feelings of muslims. The information about prophet MUHAMMAD(PBUH) is not incomplete without his images(imaginary ofcourse). So do respect the feelings of millions and millions of muslims and try to remove these images from the page. At2301 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As been said at least a hundred times or more now. The pics stay. Nuff said.--DanteAgusta (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)