Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Permissibility of Images of Muhammad in Islam

''The following discussion is closed and should not be edited.

↑ Intro

<- Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox | Permissibility of Images of Muhammad in Islam

Permissibility of Images of Muhammad in Islam
I know there are many conflicting views here but I think the following (source) is worth noting:

Hope this brings new thoughts into the discussion. Brendon is  here  19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Update - Click this to go to the (highly recommended) section containing a set of reliable sources on this Issue (web-links) by User:FormerIP. Brendon is  here  17:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And that “the Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad” "what you're quoting is one interpretation of Islamic law.....Islamic law is differs historically and across groups because there are different sources recognized as authoritative by various jurists." —— If anything, these consolidate and corroborate my contentions even more than I previously thought. It proves that the matter is not even decided yet (law is not totally against depictions of Muhammad). And that there are indeed conflicting views within the Islamic jurisprudence. So, one cannot, with certainty, label it as a religious issue rather than a “personal-faith issue” (which is even less significant here).
 * Most of what is mention in there is not relevant to the discussion. Interpretations of Islamic law are not the point and they never have been. There are two primary objections to the use or more fairly overuse of figurative images in the entry.
 * The use/overuse of figurative images is WP:UNDUE in the sense that it doesn't accurately represent the Muhammad we know from history because it uses very uncommon ways of representing him. It is also anti-educational because of this, since it presents a distorted picture of Muhammad.
 * The use/overuse of figurative images is offensive to many Muslims who believe that it is against their religion to view such images.
 * Neither of these have anything to do with the accuracy of someone's interpretation of hadith. The first argument is based in historical fact and the prominence of one image tradition over the other. The second argument is based on what contemporary Muslims believe. Ankimai can say that their beliefs aren't based in Islamic law as much as he wants but that doesn't change the fact that they are offended.Griswaldo (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Interpretations of Islamic law are not the point and they never have been." - You're trying to misguide people again by muddying the issue. It is at the very core of the demand. People wrongly believe it's a valid religious matter. The fact that Islamic law is not even opposed to depictions of Muhammad, in effect, eviscerates the demands of censorship of images of Muhammad.
 * Your first point about accuracy of Muhammad-images is incoherent gibberish which have been addressed multiple times in this very RfC (in the above section too). I won't repeat that.
 * "many Muslims who believe that it is against their religion" - It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to cater to the unsubstantiated, irrational demands based on false beliefs. That's the point isn't it? Brendon is   here  20:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to misguide anyone and that's a serious bad faith accusation by the way. First of all what you're quoting is one interpretation of Islamic law. If you read our entry Depictions of Muhammad you'll see that there is a legal basis for the belief that many Muslims have that figurative depictions are off limits. But Islamic law is differs historically and across groups because there are different sources recognized as authoritative by various jurists. But once again, that's not the point anyway. It doesn't matter how strong or weak the legal claims are. We do not base our decisions on how strong or weak a certain religious legal interpretation is. You claim this is an argument that people are making but who is making that argument? The people who are arguing about offense are arguing that average Muslims (not specifically Muslim jurists, schools of Islamic law or various other Islamic institutions) are offended by the images. If we accept such offense as a consideration then its the offense, and not the supposed Islamic legal interpretation, that matters. Do you really not get that? The logic of your argument would have us considering the validity of offense based on our understandings of Islamic jurisprudence when quite clearly we should not be doing so and no one is arguing that we should.Griswaldo (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just the second line of Depictions of Muhammad clearly states the following, "“Oral and written descriptions are readily accepted by all traditions of Islam, but there is disagreement about visual depictions.”"


 * "who are arguing about offense are arguing that average Muslims .. are offended by the images." —— If you are concerned about average Muslims' (I don't know what percentage of Muslim world do they constitute) claims of offense predicated upon the baseless beliefs (which are false anyway) without any semblance of a justifiable basis, then I couldn't care less about what you feel. If you think man-made hadiths are to be followed when Qur'an didn't explicitly forbid drawing images of Muhammad, then I must tell you that there is a whole "Anti-hadith movement" going on around the world.


 * "I'm not trying to misguide anyone" - Good, you shouldn't. But from your excessively captious attitude, false-reasoning and chicaneries, I found it hard to come to any other conclusion. However, I didn't mean that you're knowingly trying to misguide people. I meant you are muddying the water and thus people can be misguided because of you (stop picking on phraseology). It did not seem as serious an accusation to me (also, it had nothing to do with good or bad faith)! Anyways, I'm sorry if it truly hurt you. BTW, You should know that a harsh accusation of bad-faith is in itself a grave accusation. Brendon is   here  02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Griswaldo based on my own experiences.
 * I lived in Egypt for several years and was fortunate enough to make many friends. Through them, I often came to know their families. Just living life on a daily basis amongst the people allowed me to learn a great deal about their society and culture. One such thing is how it isn’t respectful, or indeed normal to depict images of prophets in their faith. In fact, no prophets are shown on TV, in films, in books, or anywhere else for that matter.


 * When the animated film the Prince of Egypt (including the animated character of Moses - another prophet) was released, it wasn’t shown in Egypt. No one there had ever seen the Ten Commandments. It was strange for me as I hadn’t been aware of this aspect of their religion before. I asked questions and came to respect their beliefs whether I personally agreed with them or not.


 * Wikipedia would cause great distress to not only my personal friends but also millions of other devout Muslims by artificially coupling images with this article. I speak from my life experience; what I have garnered first hand. There is no need for conjecture, assuming or predisposed guesses on my part as to what will offend. It is not only an absurdity to Muslims that such pictures would be included in this article, but also represents a preposterous audacity, lack of respect and illustration of ignorance.


 * Moreover and on to the crux, the overwhelming arguments for the desire to include these images do not seem to address how such images support the topic of the article and help the reader learn. Rather, they cry afoul of perceived censorship to material that would never naturally exist in such a context. My perception is that the issue has basically devolved into what the rights of people are vs. what constitutes relevant material. We must get it right and have the article reflect what is truly most important to its essence. By not including images, we show respect and more importantly keep the article accurate and true. Wikipedia must not take on the role of creating connections and correlations where there were none before. Veritycheck (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia would cause great distress to not only my personal friends but also millions of other devout Muslims by artificially coupling images with this article." —— again this argumentum ad populum fallacy? Experience, huh? What if I told you, I also had many Muslim friends who migrated from Iran and didn't mind seeing images of Muhammad? Millions of people are offended but how is that claim justified? It's not even in that qur'an! Even if it were truly a religious issue. How are they valid in an encyclopaedia? That's why I said, in an encyclopaedia reader's sensitivity matters next to nothing. But as it seems, you are hell-bound not get this into your head. You cannot just demand your way around everything, you know. All other "arguments" presented in the post above by User:Veritycheck, has been thoroughly discussed and refuted several times in this very discussion.
 * I think the policy-makers weren't kidding when they explicitly wrote,
 * "By not including images, we show respect" — Would it be okay if we deleted the article holocaust denial to show our respect and to keep it true. Because the subject "holocaust denial" is essentially about denying the truth as well as truly offensive and with good reason. (you put emphasis on truth and offensiveness both of which are hard to quantify and of secondary importance in an Encyclopaedia.)
 * Policies define Wikipedia and are responsible for the work-flow for the most parts in wikipedia.
 * But in this case, Wikipedia policies (essentially, the identity of Wikipedia) must be ignored/disfigured because some (nobody knows exactly how many) hyper-sensitive (as this sort sensitivity is induced and not natural) people are offended by the pictures, all this due to some religious injunctions whose validity and credibility are still unclear. WOW! Come on! What's up with all these sophistries? What do you want to accomplish here? Is it just for the satisfaction of making others bow down to irrational sensitivity or what? I am sorry but I honestly feel this RfC is being pushed in the wrong direction in all sorts of ways. Asking same boring questions with no merit again and again, and again compelling people like me to repeat the same answers, cite the same policies. This is really idiotic and counter-productive (I mean no offense though). Brendon is   here  07:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is dishonest to imply that the legal perspective is irrelevant. The moral view of depictions is not uniform across all Muslims, nor all the readers of the Muhammad article. Even the abstract concept of a depiction is not uniformly agreed upon. This is why scholar works providing historical and present views is important to discussions like this RFC. Belorn (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No one said that historical views are not important. What's unimportant are the specifics of legal arguments. We're not here to tell Muslims how they should be interpreting hadith or the Qur'an. So yes if you have historical literature on the reception of figurative images then of course its relevant. But a historical view of reception is not the same as claiming that if you interpret the law correctly there's no legal argument. That's what you'll find in the above and that's what's being objected too. I'm flabbergasted by how instinctively you all seem to raise straw men to argue against.Griswaldo (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm flabbergasted by how instinctively you all seem to raise straw men to argue against." - that line suits you more, Griswaldo. Belorn clearly wrote, "It is dishonest to imply that the legal perspective is irrelevant." but you replied saying "No one said that historical views are not important". He was specifically talking about historicity of legal perspective on this issue which you didn't bother to touch. Brendon is   here  14:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)