User:Grenavitar/Muhammad

This page is to help clarify and state my own views regarding adding images of Muhammad to his main page. I will try present the arguments that are floating around and my opinions about them.

Common arguments

 * "It doesn't look like Muhammad": No. However, images represent traditional representations and how people see a person rather than their actual physical existence.  Jesus never had a halo over his head but it is important that he is drawn that way.  The same goes for Muhammad and that's why a representation is not a deception but a view from tradition.  The fact that Muslims often won't show his face says a lot about the tradition.


 * "Wikipedia is not censored": No, it's not. However to use this argument you must first prove that the images are warranted in the article.  I argue that the "some image is better than none" argument does not apply in this case because we have alternatives such is pure calligraphy, Hilye-i Serif, Maksura (in front of tomb), even a collage of people named after Muhammad because in Islam being named after Muhammad is more prevalent than any other historical figure I can think of.  This is besides all of the different 'picture' images you can do (face, no face, Persian, Ottoman, etc.)


 * "It is anti-Islam"/"You will offend all Muslims": Muslims drew most of the images in question and while there is an important tradition of not showing him or covering his face it is clear that not all Muslims feel or felt this way. It may offend some yes, however, if this is how to best represent him then we should not be revisionist in order to suit modern sensibilities if other criteria lead us to believe a picture is necessary.


 * "We cannot bow down to their religious views": This seems to be one of the most prevalent views floating about. There seems to be the view that because Muslims are often aniconists that for us to not show an image is censorship.  This is not the case and we must find a positive reason for inclusion or find a reason for non-inclusion which can be on non-Muslim non-religious grounds.


 * "It's what Muhammad probably looked like": The only possible basis for that is some rather vague Muslim sources (qtd. in Watt). This argument also doesn't discern which type of image should be used--which is an important decision.


 * "It adds information to the article": Yes, but anything even tangentially related does. The goal is to find the most valid, most important information for the article.  That is why choosing this is important.  Those who say it doesn't add information or 'truth' should be saying "it is not relevant".

My View
We need serious discussion about how we pick images. Which images we pick. How many images we have. What type of images. The decision must be beyond aesthetic value. It must properly represent images of Muhammad in general. This means taking into account locale, sect, and era when we choose images. We must also be aware of the view our article gives to the reader. While we do not remove images to comply with the sensitivities of many Muslims we must be careful that our article does not give the impression that most Muslims accept images of Muhammad. This is a serious issue that must be thought out since images are not only for looks but a means of passing information onto the reader. gren グレン 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)