User:AAA765/images

Topic
Muhammad's images controversy in wikipedia. Should we include images of Muhammad with uncovered face in "Muhammad"?

Introduction
Muslims oppose any drawing of the face of Muhammad because the public may start from reverence of Muhammad into reverence of his images. From there, some can forget that the image itself is not important but rather the person it referes to is important. With some exaggeration, some among the public may offer to the images what is ought to be offered to God alone. As such, the elite made sure that drawing pictures of Muhammad would be a taboo in the Arab countries.

Some essays have been previously written on whether we should have Muhammad's pictures or not. To best of my knowledge, however, nobody has studied the issue from a philosophical perspective. Due to the spirit of neutrality in wikipedia, and the fact that the imaginary images are not central to the Muhammad article, I hold that it is enough to show that a good case for not using the pictures in wikipedia can be made. The issue of freedom of speech is in general a very controversial issue. For example, there are serious disagreements on whether pornography should be banned. But due to the spirit of neutrality and when certain images are not directly relevant to the article, we should not violate any specific significant view.

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.

Outline
1. Restrictions on freedom of speech: Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense"; its application to our case;


 * notes: the principle is designed to address strict real legal laws while in wikipedia we are not going to decide whether someone deserves formal legal trial for adding images. It is much less serious. But I'll go for arguing that the legal prohibition of public show of images in Muslim communities can be quite justified according to Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense".
 * There are non-consenting readers who might involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images when visiting Muhammad article. This would not however be the case when they visit Depictions of Muhammad article.
 * They are not real pictures of Muhammad and are not directly relevant to the biography of Muhammad (as discussed in Muhammad article). But of course they are relevant to the "Depictions of Muhammad" article. In any case, one needs consider the informative value of showing the pictures instead of saying such images exist.
 * The number of people who are likely to experience "shock, disgust, or revulsion" is huge.
 * The reactions show that the intensity of offense for the offended editors is high.
 * The general interest of the community at large - no need to go on each other's nerves; less edit-war; more time to work on other things. A link to "Depictions of Muhammad" article can assist the interested readers.

2. Wikipedia should not presuppose or impose any particular, favoured understanding of the social or cultural customs, rights or wrongs.

3. Concluding remarks