Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Muhammad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Honorifics

I think it makes sense to not insist that Wikipedia use honorifics like pbuh or saaws after the name of the Prophet Muhammad.

I'm pro-freedom of speech and definitely appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is democratic consensus-based type of knowledge repository. But I would note that just as "pornographic" images or other offensive images don't litter every article where they are conceivably topical, perhaps we could find a less contentious way to deal with the images of Muhammad. For example, there is a seperate article on the portrayal of Muhammad. The images can be placed freely there and the Muhammad article could refer to that one.

Also, in terms of neutrality, it appears to me that many of the people in favor of places images of Muhammad on the Wikipedia page are not just calmly, neutrally in a scholarly fashion promoting truth and accuracy but that they are emotionally insisting that the pictures be put up, precisely because they are offensive to Muslims. And in giving in to such an animus, I would suggest that Wikipedia has lost a certain amount of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.201.171 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Although there is great reward from God for honoring His Final Prophet, writing of honorifics after the Phophet's name is not a requirement in Islam, only what is mentioned in Hadith is 'whereby may name is mentioned & anyone who does not send to me the prayer {either "Salalllaho Aelehai wa Sallam" the shorter one or the longer one called 'Salat Ibrahimi'} he is the stingiest person'{on Earth}, since as per another Hadith 'wherever you are, send prayer to me & it will reach me {as there are angels appointed by God, as mentioned in another Hadith, just for the job of taking the Salat to the Prophet}{in the Barzakh from this world} & so it is for the reader to send Salat to which he will be rewarded a minimum of ten times as per God's encourgement of goodness & multiplied many times more innumerable as per the intention & piety of the person, his all worries will be taken care of by God {as requested by a companion to repeat it all of the time} as mentioned in another Hadith & God expressly commands Muslims to pray on the Prophet as verily God & His angels pray on the Prophet{Q.33.56}(Ilaila (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Uploading Our Beloved Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) is offensive

Not Only this but also on Wikipedia wherever the word Mohammad is meant for Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) it should be with (Peace Be Upon Him). That is a part of our religioun.

Remove the pictures which point to Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) Add (Peace Be Upon Him) in Wikipedia where it mentions Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

Majority is not a question but quality and approval from the concerned scholars is more appropriate otherwise England is not a Christian State under Church of England but a Secular state if you wanna talk of majority.

You were not the first to ask this, and you will not be the last. No, we will not remove the images. No, we will not use the words peace be upon him (or pbuh or saw, or anything else) to refer to Muhammad. We are not bound by the rules and laws of any religion or of any religious scholar. Wikipedia has no religion. Aecis·(away) ^talk 19:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

England doesn't have its own government, under the Church of England or otherwise. It's a constituent of the United Kingdom whose government, despite the existence of an established church, is indeed secular to all intents and purposes. 82.132.136.190 (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct my if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason you don't like the pictures of Muhammad because your religion is afraid it will promote idolatry(worshipping of the image of Muhammad instead of Allah)? If that's the case then have some self-control and just don't worship the images of Muhammad. If you're really that worried you'll start worshipping the images don't even look at them. You know there's a picture of Muhammad in some government building in DC(forget which one, Supreme Court of Congress). It's been there for a long time aside other paintings of people in history. Haven't heard any Muslims complain about it.TheRealdeal (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(comments deleted by poster)

Every one of your points above are addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Please read it.

By your definition, all historically significant drawings are "fake". That is not an acceptable point of view to inflict upon an encyclopedia.

You are free to follow your faith, and not put up drawings. Because you did not put the pictures in this article, you have done nothing wrong. You do not commit a sin by happening to view a picture.

The rules you follow are applicable only to you, not to the rest of the world. Even the Qu'ran says that many of the rules apply only to the faithful.

The drawings are respectful. Perhaps not according to your personal beliefs, but according to the Muslim artists who created them, they are respectful. Many other Muslims have no problem with the images. Removing the images doesn't show "respect". In fact, it shows just the opposite, by diluting the encyclopedic value of this article, because information of interest to non-Muslims is eliminated, thereby disrespecting the non-Muslim readers.

Read the quotation from a Muslim at the top of this page.

Remember, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any religion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel a point was made by a very intelligent and reasonable person, so I deleted my last writing. Thanks for giving an understanding, and hopefully, people will take your words with a smile. 69.118.145.80 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

This article needs more images if anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.172.101 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you back that up you'll probably find that you're ignored. RaseaC (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith with new or anonymous editors. They may not realize that the image of Muhammad is a sensitive issue in the Muslim faith. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More images of what? gren グレン 20:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kittens, of course. — Hiddekel (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are factually incorrect. No portraits of Muhammad were made in his life time and none were known to exist for up to 300 years after his death. It will, therefore, be factually incorrect, to show pictures of him and therefore, suggest to the reader that he looked like the particular person depicted in the pictures or for that matter that he lived in the settings depicted in the pictures. This would be even more erroneous because part of the believe system he, himself, proclaimed required that no pictures/paintings (especially of human beings) be made. The paintings that are included in the article are made hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad and depict an artists impression of him rather than any factual correct impression. You would therefore, note that these depictions are contemporaneous to the time/place they were made (Persia/Istanbul) rather that to cira. 600AD/Arabia where Muhammad lived. I have always read wikipedia articeles assuming a rigrous attention of factual integrity of the information. This article falls short of that. - Shiraz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.230.193 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are totally missing the point. Depictions of Muhammad, or Jesus, or Moses, or George Washington for that matter, are all artists' conceptions. No one is claiming Muhammad looked like those illustrations. The illustrations show how people of particular times "saw" Muhammad, just as illustrations of Jesus do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Standard Reply

Being as this page has had the same argument repeated many times, surely Wikipedia could release a statement which could be just pasted after every objection, thus saving time.

My Suggestion

After much concesus it has been decided that the material in question shall remain. Wikipedia does not endorse any product, organisation or belief and therefore its internal policy does not take the requirements of such into consideration. Wikipedia is not censored and as such has no obligation to respect the wishes of any religious, political or other view.

Or perhaps something less diplomatic

Please stop forcing your views on the rest of us. We will view/read whatever we want and if you don't like it then sod you!

Either one if fine with me. I suppose what I am trying to say is that this seems to be continuing indefinately when a firm decision has allready been made. There is no point in continuing it any further, perhaps a statement from someone in authority could draw a line under it and then such discussions could be terminated. Talk pages are not supposed to be spouting/whinging pages but a facility for discussing content and such. Such contencious issues only clog them up with whiners and do-gooders each wanting to have the same moan as the last one.Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this would go against various policies which have already been discussed when your suggestion has been made in the past so go ahead and look through these archives for why this can't be done. Also, WP has made enough statements in various newspapers, on various websites and on various articles to no avail so it probably wouldn't work anyway. RaseaC (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to quote, at the top of this page, the Muslim editor who wrote the gracious and wise words in the section called #A Muslim reaction above. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

...which just got archived, so I included it in the lead infobox above. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for including it at the top. Just thought I'd make my thoughts known incase someone argues against.RaseaC (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a surprisingly lifelike stick figure drawing my son did of Muhammad I think should be included. That the picture is not of Muhammad (saw) the religious figure, but of our neighbor's son, shouldn't matter. Nor should the fact that this picture comes over a 1000 years after the actual Muhammad lived. Nor should the fact that there is no drawing anywhere that shows what he looked like and any drawing of him hundreds of years after his death has no baring upon a biography of him because you aren't talking about that time period at all. If you put a drawing of Muhammad (saw) that comes hundreds of years after his death, I don't see why my son's drawing can't be included as well. Get back to me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.204.94 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your son's drawing will be included in the article when it is deemed notable by professional artist and historians. See needed for inclusion and more specifically no original research. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"when a firm decision has allready been made. There is no point in continuing it any further, perhaps a statement from someone in authority could draw a line under it and then such discussions could be terminated." - intransigent positions like this are not beneficial to Wikipedia. Someone may have an argument that could change the current consensus on this matter. I would rather this be kept open for discussion. Your position is no different to those who insist on having the images removed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The only argument anyone has been able to muster against the images so far is that they are "against Islam", an argument which cuts no mustard at all here. If they were to argue that the images are somehow not notable, or in violation of wikipedia rules, then they might have something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What people have argued previously is irrelevant - the point is that regardless of how often someone uses the same argument, that in itself should not render all discussion on the topic obsolete. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

However, the argument that it's "against Islam" remains an irrelevant argument, until such time, if any, that wikipedia changes its policies to allow pressure groups to censor content. And that's pretty much the only argument that's been posed here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's in fact true. The actual use has changed substantially (if slowly) since I first became aware of the issue. It's possible (though it seems unlikely) there's some argument that just hasn't been considered. Wily D 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I dislike this revert on site business. It smacks of 'brush off' and can easily be construed as insensitivity to an easily inflammible subject. It's impossible (without a checkuser) to know if all IPs are trolls and not sincere new users who are unaware of our rules and policies. While I agree we are not likely to change our consensus on this issue we must adhere to core polices. As I've said before a kind word and policy explanation is usually all that is necessary to separate the trolls from the newbies. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the standard reply should simply be to refer the complainer to the appropriate answer in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. The rash of recent complaints that "the paintings are false!" could be answered by referencing Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q3, instead of wasting time with lengthy replies or debating reverting. That's what the FAQ is for. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still all for reverting. RaseaC (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote

Is there any chance we could give Nableezy's quote (at the top) some context? I've been following this page for a while (since well before it was there) and it seems as if it's just been plonked at the top. If it's there to serve a purpose to editors coming here to comment on this whole issue, then it should be introduced to them. I just don't know what I'd put to give it more context – only people who saw the original discussion really know the context; who wrote it etc. Cycle~ (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I havent been here in a while, and as flattered as I am that you think my words may help stop this constant demanding that the images go, it seems my comment was a violation of the rules posted at the top: If you have come here to protest against how Muslims are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Wikipedia, please don't post here. That is not new either. Seems odd to put a post like that directly beneath rules that say you shouldnt write something like that. If yall want to keep it up there that is fine with me (I dont really have a choice though as whatever I write here is in the public domain). Whatever yall want to do though feel free. Nableezy (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For context: If you click on Nableezy's name at the end of the quotation, it opens the page where the quotation was originally written, and the discussion that followed. Subsequent discussion agreed that it was appropriate to place at the top of this talk page, to illustrate how other Muslims can adhere to a rational viewpoint regarding images of the Prophet in the article about him. The quote also directly addresses the most common argument (religion-based) put forth by Muslims who come to this talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I know Nableezy's last comment is a couple of weeks old but, if it is ever questioned, I think the quote should stay. RaseaC (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

@Amatulić: I know the context of the quote, but to someone who's not read this page (or related discussions) it may seem out of place. I think it's good having it there, but it seems as if it's just been dumped in the top banner without regard for who's reading it. Cycle~ (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I "dumped" the quote in the benner with regard for everyone who reads it. The intended context is to present the viewpoint of one Muslim Wikipedian, and I think that's obvious. Anyone may click on Nableezy's name to view the page that contains the original context. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

how much donation you need to remove the pictures..

i am ready to donate the amount to wikipedia just to remove the pictures from the article forever ....give me your demand & i'll send you.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for sale in principle, but considering the current state of the economy, we must be realistic: if you can cough up, say, USD 787 billion you have yourself a deal. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good down-payment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Information is priceless. Reso lute 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to the deletionist wing of the community. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll bid against Dbachmann. For the low-low price of just US$5 billion wired to my Swiss bank account, I will delete the pictures. I can't guarantee that they won't be re-added within seconds, but that's why you get the discounted rate. Dzimmer6 (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yall should watch out, in a few months that 787 billion USD could be worth 12 pesos (or 40 CD). Nableezy (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Please send gold :) Garycompugeek (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

or make that oil. We can't operate the servers by burning gold. --dab (𒁳) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i did'nt get you guyss....at one end you are saying not for sale....and on the other imposing your demands. you guys are dying for oil, gold, etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything has a price. "Not for sale" is usually just a slogan meaning "It might be for sale, but you couldn't afford it." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All Muslims see now wikipedia has its demand for removing the picture thier encyclopida is for sale...in fact, they were waiting for this moment to sell the pictures.now you realize what they are about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all Muslims, just the ones who lack a sense of humor. On the other hand, if y'all come up with a check for 787 billion dollars, we'll have to consider it. Once the check clears, that is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is lost on the masses. Reso lute 14:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just impressed that they're apparently considering the 787 billion dollar asking fee. Maybe we set the bar too low. We should add another 700 or 800 billion to cover Bush's bailout also. Either that, or they're funnin' us. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If this has a chance of working let's ask for jet packs, money trees, unicorns and anything else we can think of. RaseaC (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That, and peace for our time. Aecis·(away) ^talk 15:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How true. But here's the deal-breaker: A World Series victory by the Chicago Cubs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And us finally winning the World Cup. No, that's really impossible ;) Aecis·(away) ^talk 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You will probably win the World Cup before the Cubs win the Series. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

you are just being greedy now, dears, what will the Muslims think? I think it will be a fair deal to ask for a pony for each Wikipedian. I for one pledge that I will remove the images once (only) for every pony delivered to me. --dab (𒁳) 21:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You're eventually going to end up with more ponies than you can feed in an economical manner. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Dab, I agree with Briangotts. You're just being silly now! RaseaC (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you know I intend to feed them? I never said I was a vegetarian. --dab (𒁳) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Either way, the complainants here would have to pony up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

thats why we love you guys your demands never sleeps.... :)you guys need only a little push...

what do you think??? i wont give you even a single penny for these FAKE IMAGES.... :)

Whatever. The guy who started the thread made the open-ended offer. We just tried to answer it. With sincere, not-at-all-sarcastic responses. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is what you need. Donate your money to a web hosting company and a set of developers. Tell them to download a Wikipedia dump and to host it on your own servers. Then you can remove whatever you like! Chillum 14:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they can try their luck at conservapedia?? Gotta love this obsession with pictures. Wire me ten million bucks and I'll remove it once a day til I get banned. Hell, I'll ring up friends and get them to remove it too.

To the original guy: This is an online encyclopaedia, it has information on more than just the Qur'an. For some people there's more to life than just the sum total of an ancient book, that's what this project is about documenting. It has to treat everything with a certain fairness, that means we can't aim to adhere to every superstition, avoid every offence etc. Even if say in the case of Islam people have been murdered over depictions of mohammed. It simply isn't possible, especially considering the ever growing list of what offends certain religious groups. So just like Jesus, who is documented in stories somewhere between factual historical figure and fantasy supernatural there needs to be a range of coverage of such a figure. You could always block that particular image via an adblocker or something, or perhaps simply don't look at it. Get a postit note and stick it over that part of the page. NathanLee (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the White-Out idea better (see farther down the page). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1 trillion? Why stop there? How about enough trillions to pay off the national debt (and the Iraq war, while we're at it) plus maybe a 10 percent bonus? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this stuff is old, but seriously I had the laugh of my life when reading it. you guys rock! And to those who even for a slight nanosecond considered you guys to be serious, grow up! PureRumble (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary?

The art depicting his face is not really necessary, seeing as its usually just a generic arabic face. Anyone can draw that. So saying that it should be kept because it is informative and relevant is note exactly true. Don't you think it should be removed of the main Muhammad page? You can leave it else where, such as on the article about depictions of Muhammad, but the pictures are something that people would find offensive. I know the wikipedia is not censored, but there should be some decency. I might want to be able to find out about pornography without seeing a picture of a slutty girl with her mouth around a massive penis, just the same way I might want to read an article about Muhammed without seeing something I find offensive blasted in my face. I'm not even suggesting deleting the images, I just think that it should be left out of the main page. If people really want to see it, you can keep it on a separate page, but remove it from the main page at least. It's like having a picture of Christ nailed to an upside down cross in the Christianity article. Yeah sure, maybe it might be relevant if there was a a section on the page related to Satanism, Anti-christianity, etc., but would you really put that there? It would probably be taken down being, deemed offensive. So why are pictures of Muhammad left up, when it is clearly something that offends the people of the world's second largest religion. --68.199.39.111 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparing a depiction of Muhammed to a porn picture is pretty offensive by itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

When you look up a subject in Wikipedia you are likely to see a picture of the subject. If that offends you then I suggest you don't look up that subject, or if you like use some sort of image blocking add-on for your browser. You don't have to load it. Chillum 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's vaguely similar to the argument about whether to reveal the endings of movies. If you go to a page, you can expect to see ANYTHING that's factual. And if it's factual and you don't like what you see, don't look at it. That seems simple enough. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the time-honoured WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED is needed here. However you put it, however you argue it, however you phrase is, your argument is calling for the censorship of Wikipedia and guess what? Yep, you guessed it; WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. We do not censor our encyclopedia. We will not allow censorship on Wikipedia. We will not undertake censorship programmes. We do not bow to demands for censorship. Hell, I'm bored of rephrasing it now, just remember WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. RaseaC (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The exception to that general policy would be where information is in violation of the law. For example, child pornography is subject to censorship, i.e. wikipedia is bound by the law. Same goes for, for example, publishing the whereabouts of members of the witness protection program. Although I could also argue that that kind of information is also forbidden by law from being published by reliable sources. Presumably if wikipedia were being hosted in Saudi Arabia, maybe the law would forbid these images (and thousands more, but that's another story). But it isn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, staying on the right side on the law is a little different from taking off some pictures. RaseaC (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the arguments you are making are incorrect here. Wikipedia does not censor images that add encyclopedic value to an article, it may 'censor' images that do not. The proper answer to such a query in my mind is explaining what encyclopedic content is added by these images. There are answers to that question. If somebody comes here with the standard demand that because it is against Islam it should not be allowed then WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED may be accepted as a standard response. I think the OP is incorrect in saying that the images are not informative or relevant, as they do provide an insight into how people viewed Muhammad, and that is certainly relevant to an encyclopedic discussion on him. I have two problems with this discussion. The people demanding it be removed because of their religious beliefs, which I have already spoken on, and the people who seem to want them included because it insults a group of people. I make no claims that anybody here has done that, but it has been seen. There is intolerance on all sides of this issue. I recognize the contradiction in my beliefs as a Muslim and my responsibilities here on Wikipedia. My religious beliefs should not impact what content is available on Wikipedia, which is why I can say I think the images are valid and encyclopedic and rightfully belong in the article. But neither should my personal feelings on other groups influence content in articles. I was equally pissed off going through the archives on this page from those who called for them to be removed because of their own personal feelings as I was by those saying to keep them basically as a fuck you to all the Muslims out there. Again, neither of you have said such things and this isnt meant as a reply to the above. But I do think the answer if somebody asks what value the images bring to the article is to show what value it brings, not just say Wikipedia is not censored. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good explanation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

we dont mind if you bring Muhammad PBUH's real life images in order to bring the so called value to your article as i have always seen real pictures of the real article. if it is NOT CENSORED then please post the real pictures. i believe it will add mocking value to your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning what? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the anon wants us to find a photograph taken some 1400 years ago and use that. Nableezy (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I read it as too. RaseaC (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I for one am not doing his research for him. He can go look for the photo of Muhammad, and get back to us when he finds one. That should keep him busy for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont think he is going to want to look for another picture of Muhammad to put in the article, but thats just my guess. And there is that pesky problem of when the methods of photography were first used, would seem to make that a pretty difficult picture to find. Nableezy (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I could lend him my digital camera and my Wayback machine, and he could go back to the appropriate time and take a photo himself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

its obvious, if you dont have any images why you are tilting peoples mind on the wrong directions by showing them wrong pictures. the images are FAKE and projecting a wrong image of Muhammad PBUH. and for taking picture back in times MR.Basball bugs or Balls Bug....i am not intrested in these FAKE images you are so positive in posting those fake pictures i'll leave that job for you and for the job you have time machine too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. We do not have actual photos of Muhammad, nor of Jesus, nor of anyone who lived before photography. We only have note worthy artistic representations. They're not "fake", they're "art". -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

brother how can you associate the artistic presentations if it does not reveal the actual image becuase the images i see over here are far too different than the real Muhammad PBUH character.

Oh? And when did you last see Muhammad in person? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes..!! Every time i read Quran i meet him, every time i read his daily life routines i meet him in person. my friend this is the only religion where we can see Muhammad PBUH life & character so easily so closely that you can impose his life routines into your's & this has done purposely by GOD if we can’t see the prophet’s life closely like meeting him personally than I think there is no need of prophets they were here to tell us the truth & to show us the right path you will not see a single man on earth revealing his whole personal life for a man kind. Answer to your question. What if I post a picture of Jesus without beard without mustaches? With shaved head & with nice colored shades will you agree about the depiction in the artistic representation I am sure you haven’t met him in person too..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If this hypothetical image of Jesus in sunglasses and with a shaved head was historically significant it would certainly be used in the article. --Leivick (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

yes..!!! you got it... thanks for realizing the fact....the images we see over here are not HISTORICALY SIGNIFICANT. Publish the images that are on the basis of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

the images are historically significant. Read the faq. They are well within our standard practice of illustrating articles on historical figures, and probably have seen closer scrutiny than the images on any other article on Wikipedia. We illustrate the King Arthur article with a 14th century image. We illustrate the Charlemagne article with a 13th century image. We illustrate the Alexander the Great article with a 15th century Persian miniature. We illustrate the Gautama Buddha article with a 2nd century statue. We illustrate the Jesus article with a 6th century mosaic. Noted a pattern yet? It means that we bloody well will illustrate the Muhammad article with notable 14th to 17th century Muslim(!) artwork, because Wikipedia isn't censored, and because the only reason to refrain from doing so would be "we must not offend Muslim sensitivities", not points of encyclopedicity. All of this is perfectly obvious from reading the FAQ, and no amount of repetitive "buts" is going to change that. In fact, I believe we have already de facto caved in to the bigot whining and censored ourselves by removing these images to the lower half of the article. This was probably a mistake because it means we'll never have peace now.

But in fact I believe the anon has a point in that we do need an image of a beardless Jesus at Jesus, because that is how Jesus was depicted in the very earliest artwork. The bearded Jesus is probably informed by the Turin shroud. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can find one with Jesus in shades, then you'll have something. Or a snap of the famous moment where Jesus was in line at the Jerusalem Steak n Shake, and Satan wickedly jumped the queue, and Jesus said, "Hey! Get behind me, Satan!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Friends, your ongoing policy like attack is the best defense is very clear it’s not my headache if wiki is censored or not. If you've placed the pictures little lower good for you what can I say more I am not going to say thank you for all these FAKE images these so called artistic representations have no concern with Muhammad PBUH or with Islam or with your non-neutral article. I don’t know what enraged you either my ironic points or simple valid questions which you haven’t answered yet again I request you to Publish the images that are on the basis of facts which speak about the character of Muhammad PBUH. If you do so, what should I worry about? If you think that you have done a mistake I don’t care for your own personal peace..!!!! You have had a chance and you’ve lost it long ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

who is enraged? PBUY, and maybe find some other website PBUI which you like, ok? The internet PBUI is big. There is no reason to prance around websites that you do not enjoy. --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

who is enraged….??? I am not probably. You are no one to dictate me what to do and what not to do ok..??? Secondly i am enjoying what you are doing right now Mr. Dbchmann. I am free and wiki allowing me my freedom and the freedom of speech. You can't control everything over here while roaming around —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you would enjoy such freedom at religious websites. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

if you have a doubt what can i do...i believe what i believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You would have less freedom at a religious website than you would here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is veering off topic. The purpose of this page is to discuss ways to integrate images in to the article. To those who want to complain: please read the infobox at the top, read the archives, read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, and don't repeat old arguments. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is funny to read the phrase "freedom of speech" from anons on a mission to impose religious censorship on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm still not understanding why it is soooo necessary to have those pictures on the main article. Another picture that has his face covered would not take away from the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, and would be the best for everyone. It would end these worthless arguments, and continue to allow wikipedia to be a good enyclopedia. --68.199.39.111 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures are Facutally Incorrect

Dear All, I am replacing my oringal post with the text of my entire correspondence with Wikipedia on these images (the first letter includes my oringal post), I am not told who the editors of this article are but should any like correspond with me please let me know how best to discuss this with you. Having said that, I doubt if an editor will every read this post given that everyone is generally being aggressive on this page. It seems rather odd that we are not told about the academic backgrounds of the persons behind an article.

FROM SHIRAZ KIDWAI

Subject: Factually incorrect: The portraits of Muhammad and the suggestion that these depicted factual information.

Dear Editor,

I read the article mentioned above assuming (as usual) that I would show factually correct information, however, I one factual error was immediately evident.

Factually incorrect: The portraits of Muhammad and the suggestion that these depicted factual information.

No portraits of Muhammad were made in his life time and none were known to exist for up to 300 years after his death. It will, therefore, be factually incorrect, to show pictures of him and therefore, suggesting to the reader that he looked like the particular person depicted in the pictures or for that matter that he lived in the settings depicted in the pictures. This would be even more erroneous because part of the believe system he, himself, proclaimed required that no pictures/paintings (especially of human beings) be made. His followers, a few billion of them, do not, therefore, believe it correct to have a picture of Muhammad.

The paintings that are included in the article are made hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad and depict an artists impression of him rather than any factual correct impression. You would therefore, note that these depictions are contemporaneous to the time/place they were made (Persia/Istanbul) rather that to circa. 600AD/Arabia where Muhammad lived.

These pictures do garnish the article of similar nature but given the nature of facts and the fact that Muhammad himself, did not allow his portraits to be made, I think these pictures do not suite a wikepedia article, which I have grown to know as hosting rigorously factual information.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely, Shiraz Kidwai

FROM WIKIPEDIA

Dear Shiraz Kidwai,

Thank you for your email.

Yes, these images probably are inaccurate. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves.

However, similarly inaccurate images are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Jesus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images exist, it is a longstanding tradition on Wikipedia to use images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand might be inaccurate, as long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be better than using no image at all. It is important to understand that random recent depictions could be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of the history of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout Muslim history.

It is important to understand that these depictions do not mean to present the face of Muhammad; rather, they present the person in the way the artist was more comfortable with and hold no immediate religious value on their own. It is of particular interest that these means of portrayal generally convey one and only one aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to have any accuracy to them, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted.

As an analogy, Jesus has been presented in a multitude of ways, most of which are entirely inaccurate (Jesus being, according to tradition, a Semite, whereas he is generally depicted with distinctively Byzantine or Caucasian features).

None of these pictures are meant to hold a prominent place in the article, as evident by their placement in the article, nor are they meant as an assault to Islam. It is also worth noting that several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (which resulted even in hostilities), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are (i.e. existing depictions of said people) – there is no unspoken insult intended.

Yours sincerely, Bernard Dupre -- Wikipedia - http://enbaike.710302.xyz --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org

FROM SHIRAZ KIDWAI

Dear Mr Dupre,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

My concern with the article is purely academic. I am an architect and am researching to write about how the religious ideology of this man affected Islamic art and architecture. I am, therefore, not concerned with pictures of, the face of Muhammad, as being an assault on Islam, nor with a comparison with Christianity and hagiographic imagery.

I also did not understand analogizing of the biographical requirements of Jesus, Homer, Charlemagne and Muhammad. Surely, articles on each of these individuals would need to critically address the individual’s biographical requirements rather than be written with a box standard strategy. Given the way Wikipedia is able to seek the skills of editors from around the globe I did not expect such broad brushing (as you suggested), in Wikipedia’s articles.

On the same note it also concerned me when you suggested that some parts of an article might be less prominent than others. I have used Wikipedia since 2003 and I expect all parts of a Wikipedia articles to be pertinent and, therefore, equally prominent to the reader.

Notwithstanding my dissatisfaction with this article, I must congratulate you, as one of the editors, for the overall high standards the Wikipedia is able to maintain.

I would, agree, with your suggestion that it is a good idea to “use images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions”. Perhaps, not because it has become a longstanding tradition with Wikipedia but, purely because such an image /depiction would indeed aid in understanding the subject.

Having said that, and having researched Islamic art and architecture for some time I wonder how one could conclude that the imagery used in this article is “historically significant” or is a “typical example of popular depictions”.

TYPICAL ... POPULAR DEPICTIONS The images used are most certainly not “typical examples of popular depictions” because the only thing popular about this man is that there are no, nor have been any, popular (i.e., well known) depictions of him.

As I have understood it, it was part of his religious ideology not to allow depictions of animals or human beings and apparently he strongly advised his followers not make depictions of him during his life or after his death (and indeed, none were known to exist for hundreds of years after his death). Perhaps that is why his followers have popularly not held and continue not to hold any images of him nor are/were any popularly displayed in places of significance to his religion.

HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT The images certainly are historic; however, are they “historically significant”?

I don’t think they are, because even historically it was not common custom to depict Muhammad in paintings, these paintings are, therefore, random/sporadic historic depictions, made hundreds of years after Muhammad’s death, contemporaneously much undue in notability in their times, just as you have ascribed undue notability to random recent depictions, of our times.

While the sporadic paintings were made in Muslim lands, Muhammad was commonly not topicalized (visually) ‘throughout’ Muslim history either due to popular tradition or as a religious icon or generally for theological /academic reasons. These images would, therefore, be historically considered as more of a diminutive variance rather than the norm. Historic but not historically significant, therefore.

What is historically MORE significant than these depictions?

Perhaps it is the deliberate / conscious decision not to create a popular/iconic or significant visual topicalization of this man.

This rather unique and biographically important fact is negated in the Wikipedia article, which seems to suggest that this man’s followers (a vast majority of our civilisation) sought religious imagery similar to popular western ideas of it.

Something that does not do justice to the wider universal worldview that I believe Wikipedia is designed to capture.

IDEOLOGY / BIOGRAPHY An ideologue’s ideology becomes intrinsic to his/her biography.

In writing a biographical article about this man with these images the editors have entirely negated an important aspect of his ideology - of not visually depicting animals and humans and not creating religious mythology around his image. This ideology prevails dominantly in the religious art and architecture of his followers and should not go unstated and certainly not be negated in an article about him.

With these images this article misleads an uninitiated reader from understanding this unique aspect of the man’s biography. The reader begins to think that these depictions are how this man is/was commonly recognized/allowed himself to be depicted. This is not the case.

Perhaps, instead of these images, and to aid the reader in critically understanding this man, the article needs to state this man’s rather unique and significant ideological requisite - of not being visually depicted.

BIOGRAPHICAL IMAGERY One could say that the article is not for critically understanding this individual but is a mere objective biography of him. But then both of us agree that there is no objectivity or biographical accuracy in these images.

How about a biography not having any image to illustrate the subject? Especially, when the subject of the biography positively disallowed such illustrations and when the only illustrations we have are factually inaccurate, sporadic and not commonly recognized.

Perhaps their use in this particular case is abetting / creating mythology where none exists instead for aiding an objective and/or critical understanding of the subject.

As I have grown to understand it, this is completely against the grain of Wikipedia which promotes – articles with academic rigour, factual accuracy and NO garnish.

Perhaps, because we, as western readers are so accustomed to associating portraits with an article about a person, we fail to understand the significance and rational of not associating any image with a person, thereby, compromising our understanding of the subject.

I hope I have been reasonable in furthering this discussion fruitfully. I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely, Shiraz Kidwai

FROM WIKIPEDIA

Dear Shiraz Kidwai,

Thank you for your email.

If you have remarks on the content of the articles, please put them on the discussion page associated with the article.

I'm sorry, but we here at the help desk really do not make editorial decisions - we'll act in cases of libel, copyright infringement and that's all. Whether the article on the prophet of Islam should feature depictions of that person totally falls outside on the issues that we can deal with.

Yours sincerely, Bernard Dupre -- Wikipedia - http://enbaike.710302.xyz --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.222.117 (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"His followers, a few billion of them..." your letter is factually incorrect as well, 1.2 billion != a few. sorry if i put this in the wrong place, i'm a noob here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.173.92 (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You are totally missing the point. Depictions of Muhammad, or Jesus, or Moses, or George Washington for that matter, are all artists' conceptions. No one is claiming Muhammad looked like those illustrations. The illustrations show how people of particular times "saw" Muhammad, just as illustrations of Jesus do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

answer the shiraz point dont just jump onto other things. he has a valid point.'These pictures do garnish the article but given the nature of facts I think the do not suite a wikepedia article, which I have grown to know as hosting rigorously factual information' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is factual that these are depictions of Muhammad as seen by Muslims at certain points in history. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Staying are pictures the. RaseaC (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have a valid point. Anyone smart enough to read an encyclopedia is smart enough to realize that an artists conception of something is just that. It's an argument without any basis, and one that has been rejected repeatedly. Reso lute 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

ok than keep on rejecting we'll keep on convincing.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.60.225 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No you won't. You've haven't convinced anyone of anything, and that will continue to be the case. If you have nothing better to do then go on about it, we can probably find people with nothing better to do then reply to you. It is a waste of time though unless you can pull a new argument out of your ass. RaseaC (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

i am not convincing YOU.....and this place does not belongs to you.....Lay off now....don’t tell me what to do..... If reading my edits are wasting your time don’t reply & don’t read them i am not asking you to do so? I know, my comment & my question is a pain your ass. Post some factual images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q3. If you have a problem with content on Wikipedia, consider WP:NOIMAGE. If you have a problem with the Internet containing objectionable content, consider pulling the network cable. --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The user 212.12.173.177 is expecting everyone else to do the work. He needs to go find some "factual" images himself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No..!!! I am not alone here who has a problem. There are number of persons over here with bundles of problems. Like, I am having a problem with FAKE IMAGES and others will have a problem by removing FAKE IMAGES some how there is a cold war going on. Be realistic face the realism there is a problem..!! That is why you are responding but on the other hand not considering an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem here, this is an encyclopedia, we don't care about the 'laws' of islam. That's what being discussed here so any other issue is of no interest. RaseaC (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, we do care about Islamic law. We aspire to documenting it carefully, at our Sharia article, and related. See also WP:TIGERS. The world is full of "problems". Encyclopedias don't solve them, they document them. Which, incidentially, is the first step to be taken by anyone who does intend to solve them.

and yes, we even document the problem you are talking about at the moment. Why do you feel you need to tell us about it when it is already fully discussed at the proper place? If you have anything to add to our coverage, come to Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad#Wikipedia_controversy_section. It is unclear what you want here, since it must be clear even to you that you aren't telling anyone anything they don't already know. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the context in which I was speaking, i.e. with regards to the exclusion of images based on Islamic 'law' we do not take it into account, and therefore do not care about it. RaseaC (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

obviously. That's as easy as saying WP:NPOV. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I don't get: Is there anything in the Koran prohibiting images of Muhammad, or is that just a custom that has evolved over time? The Ten Commandments prohibit idol worship. But by prohibiting images of Muhammad, it has the effect of turning Muhammad into a god. Muhammad is not considered a god in Islam, is he? Or is he? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

you, too, want to read depictions of Muhammad, and aniconism in Islam. Verbatim from the article,

The Qur'an, the Islamic holy book, does not explicitly prohibit the depiction of human figures; it merely condemns idolatry (ex.: 5:92, 21:52). Interdictions of figurative representation are present in the Hadith, among a dozen of the hadith recorded during the latter part of the period when they were being written down. Because these hadith are tied to particular events in the life of Muhammad, they need to be interpreted in order to be applied in any general manner. Sunni exegetes, from the 9th century onward, increasingly saw in them categorical prohibitions against producing and using any representation of living beings. There are variations between religious schools and marked differences between different branches of Islam. Aniconism is common among fundamentalist Sunni sects such as Salafis and Wahhabis (which are also often iconoclastic), and less prevalent among liberal movements in Islam. Shi'a and mystical orders also have less stringent views on aniconism.

Wikipedia is in its 9th year now, and unsurprisingly, all of this has come up numerous times before. This is why we put it in articles, where people can read about it.

in a nutshell, it's a 9th century idea, not a 7th century one. Which still makes it nearly as old from today's point of view, of course. --dab (𒁳) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not about what Islam requires or does not require of its adherents. This is about intimidation and dominance, and imposing those requirements on everyone. Those who debate about what Islam does or does not require are entirely missing the point. 38.104.110.126 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. And it's clear that even Muslims don't agree on this point. They're also hypocritical, given that pictures of guys like Arafat were all over the place. Veneration is veneration, no matter the medium. No Islam-based argument is valid in trying to censor wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For those Muslims under the false belief that Muslims never depict Muhammad, we are actually doing a favour - by disabusing them of such an erroneous notion. And that's precisely the goal of Wikipedia, to spread knowledge. ðarkun coll 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! Now, here's a radical idea: The same questions have been asked and answered countless times here. How about, in the future, regarding those questions as vandalism, and deleting them on-sight? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here, here!! RaseaC (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary would say something like, "Already asked. Answer is still NO." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And a link to the FAQ. I think it is well worth giving that a serious discussion rather than just writing it off as 'biting the newbies' because there is a difference between a newbie and someone just trying to be a nuisance. RaseaC (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. And what is that link again? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It should say something like Your contribution has been reverted because it has been discussed in depth. Please refer to the FAQ.. Maybe a little shorter, but with that general message. RaseaC (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Yeh, I would shorten it a bit. Also, we seem to have the same discussion happening on 2 different pages. How did that happen? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Either,
a) we're stupid
b)it's too important for one page
c)we're just pretty awesome.
We should see what others have to say about it, but I would assume it's along the lines of newbies are sooooooo great we should NEVER delete ANYTHING they EVER say because they might cry but we'll wait and see. RaseaC (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably "all the above". And I'd be more impressed if they cried in proper English, but that's the way things go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

point A is right point.

Hi All, As a muslim, Muhammad is never shown in muslim publications except when having a white veil over his face, for out of respect. What all the muslims are asking is to have the illustrative image with a veil on and nothing more....Cheers

Thanks for your interest. Wikipedia is not a Muslim publication, nor is anyone compelling Muslims to look at it. And as noted elsewhere, "never" is an untrue statement. Thanks for your interest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And here's another solution I got from a girlfriend, whose name is... well, I'll just call her "Blondie". So, what you do is, buy some White-Out and put it on your computer screen to cover anything offensive that turns up. Before long, there will be absolutely nothing offensive showing on your screen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt we'll find any reliable, naked pictures of Mohammad with just a veil over his face, but you're welcome to keep on looking. Hint: set "safe search" to "off" when using Google. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

all of you i know sooner or later wiki is going to remove the FAKE IMAGES.....whatever you say...the images does not belong to the article. baseball is that what you do when your blondie do something offensive....???

WP will not remove the images. You're wasting your time. RaseaC (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all good for Wikipedia - using any religious content without creating any authentic platform for religious content without a genuine community conscience. Since all religions has the highest level of authenticity when it comes to content, how can its messages and content be revealed by Wikipedia because the level of authenticity for other content is very much well planned, organized and judged (much apprecaited) but when it comes to Islamic/ Arabic content - Not even governments legislations or acts authorize such position and posting of content that relates to Islam which is not approved by an Islamic Scholor and that he himself has been recognized from known islamic universities who also atleast has been endorsed by 2 reknowned Islamic universities. The resolution to the dispute is imidiate removal of cotnent and formation of a body within wikipedia recommended and endorsed by renowned islamic instituitions in place for atleast 20 years. I in strongest terms oppose and condemn the usage of any pictorial content that has picture of Muhammad - The Prophet and last messenger of Allah including any picture of His imidiate followers, decendents and Caliphs. Wikipedia might wanted to go by policies and take this case into dispute, voting etct.. however, wikipedia also knows that religious content do need authenticity to the level of its intensity as this is one factor that can result either in best favor of Wikipedia - if wikipedia acts promptly and seriously considering all the factors in ultimate benefit of wikipedia - or can result against Wikipedia if correct action is not taken at the right time and can result in defamation or defamatory campaings (as experience by the Denmark event), less authenticity of content offered by wikipedia thus resulting in major loss losing trust and anthenticity for audience.

The reason to postion such level of authenticity for religious content is critical for Wikipedia is because the legitimacy of Arabic/ Islamic content is an information that ralates to a human's belief, ideology and path of life, thus the audience of Wikipedia may astray getting information that isn't valid (as Islamic and Arabic content have deep roots and logics for even minor information)and all the Muslim world oppose such information which is incorrect or illegitimate. This information is critical and needs more attention for best interest of Wikipedia.

This resolution is in best favor for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanxs (talk • contribs) 10:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

excellent brother very detailed reasons and i am with you....stay here i cant explain things like you we need you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

exactly..!! it is not the best way to grab the things and impose any where you want.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

you clearly somehow think Islam is "special" compared to other religions. This is your right, of course, but you need to be clear on the fact that Wikipedia doesn't. Wikipedia will continue to treat Islam exactly like any other religion, namely as an encyclopedic topic, discussed on the basis of encyclopedic and academic sources, and not based on primary sources of religious doctrine. This isn't negotiable, and I really don't see why people keep trying to negotiate it still. --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Precicely. Wikipedia is a secular project, and thus has no responsibility to consult with religious leaders of any kind. The simple truth is, the Islamic point of view is completely irrelevant, except as part of a section discussing how Muhammad is viewed, in terms of writing an encyclopedic article about a historical figure. Every argument you guys have made, or will make, has been discussed dozens of times over, and rejected every time. Even the ridiculous threat of a "defamation campaign" by Armanxs has been stated and treated for what it is: empty words of no value. We are not going to bend to a religious point of view. It is as simple as that. Reso lute 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't really understand what that long post says but I'm assuming it's along the lines of 'remove pictures'. It is your choice and your choice only not to look at images of Muhammad, we have not chosen to follow Islam, and as such are more than happy to look at images of Muhammad. Feel free to configure your browser to remove the images, but do not undermine our use of this encyclopedia. RaseaC (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear All,

I started this dicussion and coressponded with Wikipedia on it. The entire corresponcence is now copied on top of this section.

Regards, Shiraz Kidwai

Wikipedia is (not) censored

thumb|Young Muhammad meets the monk Bahira. thumb|Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel. thumb|Mohammed before the battle of Badr. Why this biographical article is so much different then articles of other religious figures? There are a lot of images of Muhammad on commons, some of them should be put into article instead of so much maps and pictures of objects. This is a secular encyclopedia. --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look in the article you will see several depictions of Muhammad, five of them by my count. Chillum 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 images of Muhammad and 15 other images. I suggest at least 3 more images of Muhammad, with the important scenes from his life.--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What encyclopedic value would be added to this article by including these images? Nableezy (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, they show early follower's perceptions of Muhammad, his life, and his companions. Rklawton (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We dont already do that? I think maybe the second one could go in, but dont see the point in the others. Nableezy (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We should probably include one or two of the most famous images and then add in a link to commons. Rklawton (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, it reveals something about fashion sense of that era. Note the Angel Gabriel (or is it Gabrielle?) wearing something that looks like it belongs on Dorothy Lamour. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

now why you are not redirecting these edits to the special created page IMAGES TALK..?? why we are not allowed to spead over here and you guys are posting again those FAKE images???i recommend to remove these pictures from the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

These edits have now been directed to the talk page for images.

If you want to add more historical Muslim images of the Prophet, there are more than the article can possibly contain at Commons:Muhammad#Muslim depictions. Adding one or two more images that are appropriate for specific sections of Muhammad's biography would be an improvement, in my opinion. Several even have the face obscured or veiled, so they should elicit no objections from Muslims. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Redirecting the edits. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would urge anyone acting on Amatulic's advice to disregard his last sentence and select only images that add encyclopedic merit to the article, and for that reason only, not because they may or may not be objectionable to Muslims or anyother reason.RaseaC (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that images with his face would be preferred to ones where it is veiled? And if so, why? Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. RaseaC, don't be hasty. What I meant was that some of those images have Muhammad's face deliberately obscured by the artist, and therefore should be acceptable. Others have the face obscured by the uploader, which is not acceptable. A faithful representation of original artwork is fine, but defacing artwork is unacceptable. All clear now? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not about censorship it is about authenticity. The contents in the article like images are very irrelevant & do not match Muhammad PBUH at any level. i think wiki posts whatever they get regardless of source..!!! As mentioned, there are no authors only contributors which clear everything that no one is responsible for the contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They are authentic works of art by Muslim artists. Nobody has ever claimed, not even the artists, that they know exactly what Muhammad looks like. That is not the point of historically significant works of art. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Clear, yes, but being obscured by the artist isn't necessarily a reason to choose an image above another. You mentioned not elicting objections, and that shouldn't be a factor when selecting an image to include in the article. RaseaC (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure if this art is from muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Some are by Muslim artists, some are by non-Muslim artists. An individual's religous beliefs don't really have much bearing on their artistic ability, or the authenticity of their work. Your point appears to be that only a Muslim could properly represent Muhammad, but this is your personal opinion and not an actual fact. Doc Tropics 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Pics required

Plz remove the pics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali mustafaq (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no. But thanks for asking so politely. Chillum 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See: this discussion Rklawton (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Demand and claim to the Author

It is good to present the Prophet Muhammad to people, but we must respect him and respect the religion law. For this i like Just mention that pictures published are note true, in Islam we have not permission to drew or publish any picture of prophet. You (author) must delete this picture immediately please. If you are Muslim i am sure that you will delete this pictures now. In any way i think that you love Muhammad (because you present him to peoples) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmlamine (talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I request you to please remove prophet Muhammad (PBUH) picture from ur site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.92.16 (talk • contribs)

No. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 11:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As a muslim, we believe that Muhammad (PBUH) is the most respected Human Being, no one can depict the personality of Muhammad(PBUH) using images and also images of Humans are not allowed in islam. So this is my request to Wikipedia that remove these images.thanx

Wikipedia is not censored based on one religion or another. This page has further information regarding the images. (and boy, does that link need to be in 60 point type at the top of the page.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one here, I should think, is "present[ing] him to peoples" (sic) because he loves him, but because he is a historically significant individual. We also present Adolph Hitler, and there aren't many around who love him, and we also present cheese, and there's no-one here who loves it (at least not in the way you mean love).

While most of us would agree that the devotion and sincerity you show for what you truly believe is admirable, we might have a bit more respect for you if you could show the same appreciation for our devotion to what we believe.

RavShimon (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP doesn't have authors, just contributors. RaseaC (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

the difference being? You own the copyright to your contributions because you are their author. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The contributor was addressing the author, I was pointing out that no individual wrote the article, but that a number of contributors created it. RaseaC (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The depictions of Hazrath Mohammed SAW (pbuh)

I have been on an impression for so long that the Wikipedia is an uparalleled site to give out correct information on any topic, but today when I saw this page showing unacceptable pictures of the Prophet(pbuh)I came to know how wrong I was.

According to far authentic sources than this Wikipedia, from the so-called "Hadiths" (not one but many)and even in the Quran which says that Allah has created Prophet Mohammed SAW (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him)from His own "Noor" (which means the holy brightness or the most powerful light). This is one of the reasons that even the shadow of the Prophet Mohammed SAW (pbuh)does not fall on the ground(light cannot have its own shadow); Also He (Allah) does not want to see a second beloved Prophet like Mohammed SAW (pbuh) and He would not tolerate anybody stamping his most beloved's image/shadow. Shadow is far away from discussion not even a single strand of the Prophet Mohammed's SAW (pbuh) hair can create a shadow if exposed to light.

Every muslim knows that drawing pictures and representing the Prophet (pbuh) is a wicked thing. Borrowing pictures from xyz artist or source and uploading it in this site would be the most wicked thing ever.

Now tell me one thing, if this site is referred by so many well educated islamic scholars from every corner of this world what impression would this carry? This would definitely bring down your reputation for gathering and presenting the information. If you really want to help people who search for information, kindly don't help them in this manner. You are responsible for creation of this site and maintaining its integrity. And this is a free site, I respect and abide your policies and stick to not to use any profanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayaz.md83 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are those who find censorship equally repugnant. And fortunately, it is people such as these who run Wikipedia. No one is forcing you or anyone else to look at it. Freedom of expression means precisely what it says. ðarkun coll 20:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a radical idea: The same questions have been asked and answered countless times here. How about, in the future, regarding those questions as vandalism, and deleting them on-sight? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs, have done so in the past, and will do so in the future. This really has to be trolling or stupidness. RaseaC (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not too big of a spelling Nazi, but stupidness isnt a word (at least according to my dictionary of choice), I think you are looking for stupidity. Nableezy (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering you knew what I meant, I can't say I care. RaseaC (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

They're not vandalism, and stupidness is a word. Cluelessness of new users is not maliciousness of new users. Wily D 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll revert them with the edit summary "see FAQ" and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with that stance Wily, it is clear that people still raising the same issues are choosing to do so, and therefore it's malicious. I'm still with Bugs. RaseaC (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other sub-page, it has been suggested that we post the FAQ link as part of the edit summary upon reverting. Do you know what the specific link is? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Template responses for persistant questions are sensible. But it is unreasonable to expect new users to find edit summaries. Just a "This has been discussed here, here, and here. Cheers" would be a perfectly sensible response. Wily D 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other page in which this same topic is being discussed, an edit summary for the reversion, containing a civil but short explanation, along with the FAQ link, has been proposed and seems reasonable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fayaz, if you are saying that Mohammad glowed in the dark, then you are mistaken. If you are saying that Mohammad was invisible so that light would pass through him, then you are mistaken. If you are saying that he cast no shadow for some other reason, then you are equally mistaken. People would have noticed, and his biographers would have commented on it, but they did not. If you are speaking about Mohammad metaphorically or poetically, then you are using language which could not come close to describing Mohammad's true, spiritual beauty. Likewise, the artist and his brushes commit no greater sin than the poet and his words for trying to communicate the believer's love for their prophet. Rklawton (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, I posted the link on the other page along with my suggestion. Wily, I've had a quick look at the FAQ and from it you can navigate to relevant discussions/archives. There's no point in replying to every post individually, if people are bothered enough to ignore all the warnings at the top of the page then they should be bothered enough to do a bit of reading to find their answer. RaseaC (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I saw. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never quoted anywhere that the Prophet Mohammed SAW (pbuh) glowed in the dark or was invisible. My point was that he cast no shadow. If you have no knowledge on this you can refer to original Hadiths like "Sahi Muslim" or "Sahi Bukhari", "Tirmidhi" which are not written by people like you or me but by them who were the companions of the Prophet Muhammad SAW (pbuh) at his time (Sahabas)and great islamic scholars. Your response was completely baseless.

These are some proofs to name a few,

From Hadiths:

• Hadith 1: Sayyidina Hakeem Tirmidhi in his book Nawaadirul-Usool narrates from Sayyidina Zakwaan , a close Companion of the Prophet , the following Hadith: "The shadow of the Prophet could not be seen in the brightness of the sun, nor in moonlight". • Hadith 2: Allamah Ibn al-Jawzi in his Kitabul-Wafa narrates a hadith from Sayyidina Abdullah ibn Abbas the cousin of the Prophet in which he said: "The Messenger of Allah had no shadow, not while standing in the sun, but the brilliance of his light (nur) surpassed the rays of the sun; nor while sitting before a burning light, but his luminous light excelled the lustre of the light". • Hadith 3: Imam Nasafi in his Tafseer Madaarik narrates from Sayyidina Uthman ibn Affan , the son-in-law of the Prophet that he said to the Prophet : "Allah Almighty does not let your shadow fall on the ground, so that no foot of man can fall on it". • Hadith 4: Imam Jalaludeen Suyuti in his Khasaa'is al-Kubra narrates from Ibn Saba : "This is also a unique feature of the Prophet that his shadow did not touch the ground, because he was light (nur), and when he used to walk in the sunshine his shadow could not be seen."

From Scholars:

Qadi Iyad: 1. Imam Qadi Iyad in his Ash-Shifa states:"The Prophet did not possess a shadow in the brightness of the sun or in the moonlight, because he was light (nur)".

Imam Ahmad Qastalani 2. Imam Ahmad Qastalani states in Al-Mawahibul-laduniyya: "That the Prophet did not possess a shadow in the brightness of the sun or moonlight is proven from the ahadith of Tirmidhi of Ibn Zakwaan and Ibn Saba ."

Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi 3. Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi states in Madaarij an-nubuwwah: "The Prophet's shadow did not appear in sunshine nor in moonlight".

Mawlana Jalaluddin Rumi 4. Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi in his Mathnawi states: "Let alone the Prophet , even if an ordinary servant of the Prophet reaches the stage of inner mortality (baqa), then like the Prophet , his shadow too disappears".

From Books:

"Body of Prophet Muhammad(SAW) didnt contain any shadow in sun and moon because he(SAW) was all noor" (Al Shafa by Qazi Ayaz) (Al Wafa by Ibn e Joza) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.29.161 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is NOT Islamic, we don't consider hadiths to be proof of anything, nor do we practice censorship for the benefit of a religous group. 67.173.185.224 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read the Arabic version. It's funny how these guys can't even push their fundamentalist crap on that version, either. The only concession I could find regarded images - and even then - they just direct readers to this article. Rklawton (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just reading this page out of curiosity, and I don't have much of an opinion on the matter one way or another, but what about any of what the unsigned user wrote struck you as "fundamentalist", since you're obviously using the term in a pejorative sense? That was a pretty ignorant, hateful comment. BostonFenian (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A "fundamentalist" of almost any religion is usually taken to mean someone that is so enthralled and believing of the tenets of their religion that they are willing to restrict the freedoms of non-believers. Typically, non-fundamentalists don't intend to enforce their religion's particular belief system onto those that don't believe in it. I don't care if you believe in the divinity of Zeus, the sun god Ra, Jesus, Buddha, God, Allah, Apollo, Confucius, or pink unicorn fairies, or all of them combined. But when you tell me that I can't put an image of art of a pink unicorn fairy on the Wikipedia page that is about the Church of the Pink Unicorn Fairy, just because the tenets of that church are against it, then you are a fundamentalist of that church. And yes, I do use it in a pejorative sense because I think freedom from religion is just as important as the freedom to worship your own religion. Vivaldi (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Online petition to remove images

There's an online petition (petitiononline) to have these images remove. I can't post the link here because Wikipedia's spam filter wont allow it. Does anyone know how effective it will be, there's a claim that if 100,000 signatures are achieved the images will be removed. There's also a claim that "Who ever has placed this picture is a true terrorist as he is trying to incite more then 1 billion Muslims of the world." Stephenjh (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We're had the discussion about the petition before here. Their claims that they can affect Wikipedia policy are wholly without merit. Nuttin to worry about. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, last I knew it was well past 100 000. Not sure how fast it can be filled up, may well be to the millions, billions or trillions by now. Wily D 20:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the info. Stephenjh (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be rude, but was that a serious question?RaseaC (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would you think otherwise? It's asked seriously, he was answered seriously, and responded appropriately? Why chomp at the bit to find bad faith? Wily D 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's of no relevance to wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Was what a serious question? The first post? Yes, this petition is being distributed amidst the internet as a serious way to have the images removed, i.e. Wikipedia will remove the images if 100,000 people petition. Stephenjh (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to chomp at the bit when it's that blatant.RaseaC (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not chomping, nor am I understanding where you're coming from, or what your point/s is/are. Stephenjh (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Petitions are only effective if 1) there is some way of proving that people have not voted more than once and 2) if the person or entity being petitioned has a vested interest in satisfying the petitioners' demands. Those affected by the latter generally are either elected officials or businesses. Since Wikipedia is neither elected nor a business, and since we have no way of knowing if the petition's signatures were forged, it strikes me as extremely unlikely that Wikipedia would take such a petition seriously. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To summarise. I believe that your original post was made in bad faith because it was, frankly, pretty ridiculous. You bypassed every warning and discussion that said we don't cave into positions, then went on to quote that anyone that posts an image is a terrorist. Wily then claimed i was 'chomping at the bit', i.e. wanting to find bad faith for the sake of it. RaseaC (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He might be onto something, though. If there really is such a survey, maybe some enterprising web programmer could figure out a way to keep registering votes until it crashes their server. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well (RaseaC), it does seem that you are chomping at the bit, and the replies are out of sync' so that doesn't help. Firstly there's no Bad Faith. Period. Secondly I haven't bypassed any warning that I am aware of and thirdly the part I quoteed was to inform people as to what is being claimed BY OTHERS not me. If the link was a permissible link I wouldn't have quoted it as everyone could read it for themselves. Calm down and stop making acusations. Stephenjh (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it is known that many of the signatures were added by bots. The comments stay the same, but the name/location change. If you want to go and look, you will see pretty clearly. Wily D 22:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You honestly thought a petition would have an effect on Wikipedia? Come on, you've been here three years! The warnings are at the top of the page by the way. RaseaC (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Now I see the warning, thanks for pointing it out. did you see the one about keeping calm? ;-) Stephenjh (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I did, thanks. I've been pointed towards the rules a lot of times. As far as I'm concerned they need to be read and applied with a degree of interpretation. RaseaC (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is nobody of the people answering this aware that we do already cover the petition, where it belongs, at depictions of Muhammad#Wikipedia_article, including the reaction by The American Muslim to the effect that this kind of thing is so utterly stupid that its only effect is to ridicule Muslims and perpetuate stereotypes of Islam as the religion of bigot dimwits. If there is anything else to be added to this topic, kindly redirect comments to Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad where they belong. --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NAME

WITH THE NAME OF MUHAMMAD(SAW) PLZ ADD A LITTLE DAROOD PLZ (SAW) OK THANX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.35.217 (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The following link addresses your request: [1] Note also that even the Arabic version of this article doesn't use a darood. Rklawton (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

i condemn to remove this images because in islam muslims can't bear to make any image about our beloved beloved holy prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.81.137 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Rklawton (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

pictures of our prophet muhammad (SAW) must be removed from this site

pictures of our prophet muhammad (SAW) should be removed from this site this is not accecptable for believers of true religion islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.120.33 (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please go here for image discussion and explanations as to why we won't be doing that, as is stated at the top of the page.

(Regular editors: is this kind of traffic always this high, or has it been higher the last couple days? Seems busier than usual.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems higher lately. And in spite of me moving one infobox up higher on this page, and increasing the font size in the text exhorting people to use the images subpage, it seems that these people still have a reading comprehension problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reading comprehension problem. It's a campaign in the hopes that systemic harrassment will generate the desired result. Dzimmer6 (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

i know you guys are much delighted when any one requests you to remove IMAGES. its evident from your commensts(It's a campaign in the hopes that systemic harrassment will generate the desired result) in fact, you are harrassing a muslim community but what do you think we will stop demanding???? NO, NO WAY>>>>>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There are illustrations of Muhammad all over the Internet. Go try and force your views on those websites for awhile. Rklawton (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We actually do not care whether you stop demanding or not. We are not going to remove encyclopedic content on a historical individual to suit a religious bias. Whether you choose to accept that or not is your concern, not ours. Reso lute 13:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ok we choose what is best in our interest but now, dont you ever post any edit regarding images of Muhammad PBUH because it is not your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your message (above) is not very clear, and I do not understand what you are trying to say. Rklawton (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

english is not my first language.

i think it is pretty clear that we wont stop till we get our desired results( REMOVAL OF PICS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your English is fine. And yes, it is very clear that you will not stop until you get what you want. However, we (Wikipedia users and administrators) have enough tools at our disposal to make it all but impossible for you to get what you want for more a few seconds. And until either the United States or the State of Florida makes it illegal to display images of Muhammad, I can, for all practical purposes, assure you that you will never permanently get what you want. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has a monopoly on history. Given we are writing an encyclopedia, the biography of one of history's most important people most certainly is our concern. The Islamic religious beliefs surrounding Muhammad are stated, however our goal is to write about his entire history, it would be disingenuous of us to restrict our article to only the Islamic point of view. We do offer options for people to disable their view of images so as to suit their beliefs. However, for the majority of the world which does not live by that belief system, we present an uncensored view. Reso lute 14:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

pictures of prophet muhammad(saw) should be removed as a gesture of respect for religious believes as this will be offensive for any believer belonging to any religion to view ridiculous pictures of his/her mentor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (user talk:Faryal nazir)22:00,11 march 2009(utc)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.51.46 (talk)

Nopidy nope nope. Nope, nope. RaseaC (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We already offer instructions on how to hide images as a gesture of respect for the beliefs of those who find images offensive. This is noted in the FAQ that Amatulic mentions below. I would ask, as a gesture of respect, that you please stop attempting to force your beliefs upon those who do not share them. Reso lute 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

READ Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. That is the bottom line. If you have any questions or comments on specific points regarding images in the FAQ, you can discuss them here. But cease arguing points that the FAQ already covers. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Images of Prophet Muhammad (S)

All I want to say is to please remove the images of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (S). I understand that you are very obstinate about your decision. However, I strongly believe that you should have respect about the belief of other people. Even though you may not be Muslim and you may not even like Islam, you still don't have the right to go against anyone's religion. In Islam, we Muslims, believe that we should have respect for other people no matter who they are. I'm sure you already know and don't care, but you really need to remove those pictures. Also, the images that you have displayed are not even close to how the Prophet Muhammad (S) looks. I just hope you really change your mind about removing those images even though I understand your point on you not being a Muslim. I don't want to go against your religion because that is not what Islam teaches me. Islam teaches me to be respectful to others no matter who they are and to be patient with others. I know your religion may not teach you that because if it did, then you would not have put those images of the Prophet Muhammad(S). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.38.142 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(relocated from talk page. no comment.) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

By your reasoning we shouldn't eat pork either, or collect interest from our banks. Hell, let's go picket soldier's funerals and beat up gays just incase WBC object to us not doing so. The only way anyone will give your argument any merit is if you make a real one, so good luck with that. RaseaC (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that while we respect your religion to the extent that we wouldn't try to convert you to another, we absolutely do not respect it enough to allow our work controlled by it. We give you the respect of allowing you your beliefs, now please give us the respect of allowing us ours. In case you didn't realize, the type of censorship you are trying to impose is indeed offensive to many editors here; we regard it as a personal attack on the integrity of our project. Doc Tropics 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that pretty much sums up everything every pro-image contributor has said on the subject. Well done. RaseaC (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Doc Tropics really has a cool head about summing this sort of thing up politely and succinctly. Very well put, indeed, and keep up the good work, my friend. RavShimon (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

except that I do not think it is an "attack on the integrity of the project" to say "please remove pictures" a gazillion times over. It doesn't do anything but clutter this page. And this page was created for the specific purpose of giving people place to say "please remove pictures" as often as they like. Perhaps we should start blanking posts that really say just that, but then we can also leave them, seeing they do absolutely no harm.

but I really don't think it is really necessary to create archives of this page any longer. --dab (𒁳) 07:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This page was created to give legitimate contributors the chance to argue the case for removing images, not bore everyone with asking the same question over and over again. You may have nothing better to do with your time, but I bet we do. So get a life and come up with a proper argument if you want to contribute here. RaseaC (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Many of us at Wikipedia find protection from censorship to be sacred. We hold the idea that we can openly explore and publish ideas and content that not everyone agrees with to be of profound value. A request for use to abandon this is no more likely to be honored that someone requesting that you abandon your most cherished believes. I believe information should be free, and I believe it deeply. Wikipedia holds the core value of neutrality as one of its core principals, and personal beliefs cannot override this. Chillum 01:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what is the Muslim community doing about the museums and archives that preserver the original works of art that are merely being reproduced in low resolution on this site? Is there an petition, online or otherwise, to have those works of art destroyed? I just find it interesting that so much is being made about Wikipedia hosting the pictures, but I don't really hear any indignation towards the original artists of those works, or the people who seek to keep them presevered. Why target Wikipedia, when there are so many other larger proverbial fish to fry? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a billion Muslim's in the world today. We are hearing primarily from the lunatic fringe. Even in predominately Muslim countries, these people are laughed at. They come here because they can claim minority status and try to "guilt" us into doing what they want. Take Egypt for example. The place is full of "idols" and "gods" from their pre-Muslim past. What do they do? They study them, they put these idols on display, and they encourage tourists to come and visit. If they were as loopy as some of our drive-by editors, they'd have ground these idols into dust long ago. While the Western World burned its academicians at the stake for heresy, Muslims were preserving the words of Ptolemy and the Greek poets. If you believe Muslims are raving lunatics screaming death to America in the streets, it's not your fault. Blame the media. Rklawton (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Meta-discussion on handling this page

you need to understand that the people commenting here aren't "the Muslim community", they're mostly a bunch of immature, invariably male, Muslim teenagers organized via internet fora, facebook etc. The Muslim community proper is rolling its eyes at this. The reason the immature male Muslim teenagers with internet access choose to bother Wikipedia rather than the Louvre website is that it is so easy to do. You just need to click the "edit" button, and people will react. Writing angry emails to the Louvre and other big institutions hosting Muhammad pictures on the internet isn't half as fun, because you tend to be simply ignored.

which seems to be a strong point in favour of our remembering WP:DENY and starting to blank posts that add nothing new from now on. --dab (𒁳) 13:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Except for the last bit, I agree. The more we "look" like the Louvre, the fewer volunteers we'll get to make helpful edits. A kid might interact with this encyclopedia negatively at first, after all the idea of an encyclopedia anyone can edit is absurd to anyone with a brain, but after a few positive interactions, we could very easily turn a doubter into a believer. Rklawton (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you have a point -- only, I do not think that the kids that come to this page for their first interaction with Wikipedia are likely to be in the demographics of potential valuable editors. But as long as we have people willing to give friendly replies, I suppose there is no harm in keeping this page active. Let's just try making this impose on the man-hours available to the community at large as little as possible. --dab (𒁳) 08:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Demographic-wise, it's the main reason we allowed articles on secondary schools. Almost none are notable, but writing these articles gets the kids interested and involved. I agree about the time issue you've raised. Rklawton (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To dab's point about WP:DENY and blanking the comments: I disagree that comments should be blanked, but I do agree with the principle of denying recognition. The best response, in my mind, is to reply with one sentence referring the questioner to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Beyond that, no other response is necessary if the FAQ already addresses the issue raised.

Note that I did that at the top of the previous section. No further comments were needed. But this section grew anyway.

If every complaint were answered by a one-liner referring to the FAQ, the complainers would see that that's the only attention they will get. Then, either they will go away, or they will actually read the FAQ and engage in more fruitful discussion on the points in the FAQ. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Rklawton (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, in that case maybe we should consider blanking not the original posts but rather needlessly chatty replies added after a sufficient "see FAQ" answer has already been given. No that it's a big deal either way. --dab (𒁳) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope that we can rely on self-disciplined restraint. If you see a chatty reply after a "see FAQ" response, don't chime in.

Many of the responses I've seen look like lashing out to me, and understandably so; our patience has worn thin. Having the self-discipline to provide a one-line response to refer to the FAQ is better. It's a more neutral reply, it acknowledges the question or complaint, and encourages discussion after the FAQ has been read.

This way of responding to complaints may well result in questions and arguments that the FAQ doesn't cover. Such discussions are a good thing. We want to encourage that. We can encourage that by exercising restraint, restricting our replies to a FAQ referral whenever someone comes along and posts a question or complaint already covered in the FAQ. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take our prophet Muhammed (pbuh) picture of from the article.

copied from main talk page Nableezy (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Please respect our faith and respect our beloved prophet Muhammed (pbuh)and sign a partition to remove the picture. The link which i have tried to post is black listed from this site, but if you type in www .petitiononline .com in google first link click on that, and then you will see another link saying depiction of muhammed (pbuh. please sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.233.3 (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See Depictions of Muhammad for an interesting article on the subject. Go here if you would like to discuss the matter further. Rklawton (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a Muslim Encyclopedia but an international one. Have you consider that your petition may be disrespectful for freedom lovers? Calin99 (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

yes this is not a muslims's encyclopedia but the fake article and fake picture is of the muslim and for the muslim. you got it..... they have banned me for one month by informing me they have enuff tools....i have lot of other tools as well to post hundreds of edits...but i just wanted to tell you that we can wait and we will not stop as it is our right....wiki banned me just because they were unable to answer our questions... so no choice remain left but to ban me.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the page before asking the same question that has been answered many times. No, we will not remove the picture. Chillum 12:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki banned you because you were disruptive and trying to cause trouble, and making threats will likely get you another ban. If you want to contribute then do it properly, if not please do not ruin WP for others. RaseaC (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you have concerns that aren't already addressed there, then post them. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Raseac you are abusing the authority.....you have no rights to ban people on your own.... anon has a point.....the pictures are violating the copyright act.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 07:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Which copyright laws are applicable and what country has copyrights lasting as far back as when these images were made? Nableezy (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)3

So that means grab and post without any authenticity....? if no copyrights laws are there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 08:30 28 April 2009

"fake picture" -- "read the FAQ. Anything else?" -- "um, ... Copyright violation!" -- "no." -- "um... fake picture!!". There has long ceased to be any point to this page other than as a showcase for Muslims making a fool of themselves and their community. We should just let it die. --dab (𒁳) 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And just to destroy the last bit of your post, I didn't ban anyone (I'm not able to). So, ummm, thanks for your input? RaseaC (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think 212.12.173.177 was saying he is a returning banned user without disclosing which one. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He's an anon IP returning after a block for disruption for the purpose of continuing his disruption. Accordingly, I've blocked him again. Rklawton (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry RaseaC for my panicked outburst.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversial Pictures

see this article saying "Prophet of Islam Muhammad" in the left link pane and this article comes under section Islam and further in the last, there is link pane of "Prophets in Qur'an" and "Islam topics", I deresay, those controversial pictures must be removed, since, in Islam pictures of Prophets and saints are prohibited. If this article comes in the section of Islam, then, please make this article for the Islam. Please resolve this issue A.S.A.P. (Please notify with reason if I got too harsh or unpolite and please dont mind spelling and grammatical mistakes, i pardon for that.) saakh (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC) saakh (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad/images. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter that depiction of prophets is probihted in Islam? In Christianity, it is forbbiden to work on a sunday, should we not allow contributions to wikipedia on sundays? -- Frap (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

we could prohibit edits to Christianity on Sundays, and edits to Judaism on Saturdays. It would be easy to do that using a bot with admin privileges. Also, we should prohibit any admin intervention on Anarchy. Once we have a consensus to do that, we probably should also revisit the Muhammad pics question :-P --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that editors are making no effort to remove images of Jesus here - per the Koran, it's blatantly obvious that the efforts to remove images of Muhammad have nothing to do with Islam. Rklawton (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Your arguments are already addressed there. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

By the same token...

Despite all the quasi-logical wikibabble about noncensorship, nearly all of the people who insist on keeping the potentially offensive images in this article are simply trying to win the pissing contest. They do not really have a dog in the fight, and yet, their egos and their combatitive natures compel them to continue fighting this battle out of spite within the guise of non-censorship.

I'm not a muslim, but I propose an experiment: insert photographs of Serrano's famous Piss Christ on the Wikipedia page about Jesus, and see if you have any success keeping it there, under principles of non-censorship, and "because the image exists, it is appropriate to display it." Or, alternatively, insert graphic photographs of child pornography with children under the age of 12 into the Wikipedia article about children, under principles of non-censorship, and "because the image exists, it is appropriate to display it." Now, before you mount your keyboard to deny these analogies, just pause and think about it for a moment. Piss Christ is a valid artistic representation of Christ, yet why is it not included in that article? Because it is an unusual anomaly, and (if we are to be honest), it's offensive to many. Despite our values of non-censorship, it would be untrue to claim that our editing decisions are not also guided by values of respect for others. Child pornography photographs accurately exhibit the stature, anatomy, and genitalia of children, yet why are such photographs not included in the article on children? Because such photographs are unusual anomalies within the available photographic literature on children, and (if we are to be honest), the photographs would be offensive to many, although sex with children under 12 is legal in some nations. Again: despite our values of non-censorship, it would be untrue to claim that our editing decisions are not also guided by values of respect for others.

A word to the wise: the principle of "non-censorship" is a sacred one, but it is not intended to be abused as a loophole that allows otherwise bored wiki-editors to play childish power games that have already offended many. Anyone who thinks that non-censorship mandates the inclusion of Muhammed images here is challenged to try to get Serrano's Piss Christ established as one of the permanent images in the article about Jesus. I dare you. And when you find you are unable to succeed, perhaps you will realize how bigoted you have been by your cockfights on this site, which have been thinly (and poorly) misrepresented as being guided by the principle of non-censorship. 198.187.251.181 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. "Piss Christ" isn't an image with historical significance to the biography of Jesus. It would be more appropriate in depictions of Jesus, in the same way that other provocative images of Muhammad are appropriate for depictions of Muhammad.

Furthermore, this talk page is for discussion of images in the Muhammad article. If you want to propose something in another article, propose it there. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, child pornography is illegal in the state of FL and the USA; pics of Mohammed are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.219.211.1 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not really a fair comparison because Piss Christ is a deliberately offensive image. The whole point of it was to anger Christians. The images of Muhammad in this article are respectful paintings that were created by devout Muslims. Your analogy would work better if people were trying to add, say, one of the depictions of Muhammad in Dante's Inferno (see here), but nobody is. —Chowbok ☠ 12:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article on Piss Christ you'll find at least one Catholic clergy member doesn't think the artwork is offensive at all, let alone "deliberately offensive". I don't pretend to know the artists intentions but I don't always assume bad faith. Maybe the artist was trying to demonstrate how today's society (or today's Catholics) figuratively urinate on Jesus by their actions everyday? Maybe the artist was even objecting to making a plasticized Jesus figure and showing his contempt for people that make a Plastic Jesus by showing it in a glass of urine. In any case, the article about Piss Christ has an image of Jesus in a glass of urine, just like the article on Jesus has an image of Jesus, and the article on Mohammed has an image of Mohammed. There are numerous Muslims that don't object to these images being displayed by other people and I see no reason to make an exception for fundamentalist extremists of any religion to dictate how a factual article should be written according to the beliefs of that religion. (And the child porno thing is because it's against the law to abuse children and depictions of child pornography are an abuse of children by law in the US and most importantly images of child pornography are an offense to nearly all living human beings whether they have a religion or not) Vivaldi (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the images could not have been drawn by devout Muslims, because any depiction of the Prophet is considered blasphemous, go ask your local Imam if you need further evidence. Moreover, you say regarding piss Christ...the whole point of it was to anger Christians...the images of Muhammad in this article are respectful images. This again is a false statement; no image of Muhammad can be respectful to Muslims whatsoever, so please do not make erroneous statements in the future. Thanks, Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that you have not bothered to read depictions of Muhammad. I suggest you do that now and learn something about the history of what I suppose is your religion. --dab (𒁳) 17:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Traditional views

No Photos, Pictures Illustration Concept

In Islam picture of Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed.To respect this concept as well as Wikipedia respects other believes, Wikipedians are kindly requested to unpublished these illustrations. Wikipedia still able to put information the presence of the illustrations by links, instead of showing the illustrations in wiki page. This is not censorship, it is only frontpage modifications. This will keep Wikipedia stays complete and independent encyclopedia. Anakgunung (talk)

Wikipedia is already, and will remain, a "complete and independent encyclopedia" without the need to submit to censorship fueled by religious extremism. Please, stop wasting time with these endless and pointless requests. Tarc (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you have issues or questions that the FAQ doesn't address, post them here, but please don't revisit old discussions. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

remove the pics (moved from main talk)

remove the pics showing prophet mohammed...it's not allowed in our religion...........our feelings are being hurt....it may become a cause of violence...........please remove them.....we are muslims..we want peace! —Precedingunsigned comment added by59.177.70.242 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. However, the images will not be removed. Please read the top of this page and also refer to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Logic

As is clear, all of the photos of the Prophet were drawn at very early ages - 13th, 14th, 16th and 17th centuries - no contemporary artists have drawn him. This is because since those days of open hatred and hostility towards Islam, we, as the human race, have become more tolerant and respectful of each others practices and views. In light of this, why do certain elements on here persist in wanting the images of Muhammad up? 1.5 billion Muslims in the world detest this, and people still want to see the photos? I propose a separate page where photos can be put up, but I doubt people will agree to this because it would expose and imply just how seedy and disgusting the photos are, yet more importantly, it will expose the bigoted and inflammatory nature of the people who want these photos to be shown with the sole intention to offend Muslims and nothing else. Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- you want to read Islamic Golden Age and Timurid dynasty to learn about Islam during the time these images were created. This was an age of religious tolerance and openness in the Muslim world. By contrast, the Islam of today presents a sombre picture, declining into petty hatred and religious hysteria since the 19th century emergence of Islamism. You have the facts perfectly inverted. Of course Muslim depictions of Muhammad were created during a time of greater, not lesser, tolerance and respect. Wikipedia presents a glimpse of that golden age when Islam was in its prime, and today's Muslim teenage zealots do their best to obscure the testimony of their religion's former greatness. Your implication that this, a work of art dating to the height of Muslim civilization, is "seedy and disgusting" can in fact be construed as an Islamophobic statement. --dab (𒁳) 17:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Forking articles is a violation of policy, and every proposal to do so in this case has been rejected. I am curious why you preach on the topic of "respect" and "tolerance", yet fail to respect our desire to remain a secular encyclopedia. We are not interested in bending to religious dogma. In the interest of respect, however, we do provide instructions on how to disable viewing of images in your own browser. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to remain true to your faith. It is not ours to do it for you. Resolute 17:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- we can easily fork articles within WP:SS, which is indeed what we have done. The full story is at depictions of Muhammad, while Muhammad retains only a summary, and a small selection of thumbnail images. dab (𒁳) 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

- - True enough. I was thinking more along the lines of two copies of this article, but one with the images removed. However, the remainder of my point stands: We leave it to individual choice on whether to display the pictures or not. Resolute 21:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    - indeed. We even leave it to individual choice whether to peruse Wikipedia at all, and whether to switch on your computer and connect to the internet. We have gone very far out of our way in creating Wikipedia:Options to not see an image as a service to people who disagree with the project's fundamental principles who for some reason still want to visit the site. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, let me respond one my one.

Dab, which Islamic golden age are you referring to? the one on Wikipedia which says ended in the twelfth, sixteenth centuries? Clearly, I think you should pick up some books that are not spewed by the likes of Bernard Lewis. The Islamic golden age never existed, because it has never ceased to grow since the 7th century. Nevertheless, according to your logic, the photo you refer to was made in the seventeenth century, supposedly the century when the Islamic golden age had ended?(!) Thus your statement about the photo being made in the prime of Islam is made redundant. Furthermore, if you really understood Islam then you would know that by virtue every Muslim dislikes the portrayal of the Prophet, no matter how good the work of art seems to you. One other thing, your reference to contemporary Islam as a sombre religion declining into petty hatred and religious hysteria since the nineteenth century may be considered Islamophobic, so please take in to consideration what you write.
resolute; besides not understanding what a secular encyclopedia is (?!), after some consideration I have realized that there is no point in talking here, since I will not change any bodies mind. What I can ask for is that a polite message be put somewhere in the beggining of the article warning people that this page has depictions, which are considered wrong in Islam, so Muslims can make up there own mind if they want to block the images or not. Thanks and I await your responses. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- if the Islamic golden age never existed, maybe you should suggest its article for deletion? It is true that the surviving Islamic depictions of Mumammad date to after the fall of the Caliphate to the Turco-Mongol invaders. The 14th to 17th centuries were nevertheless a period of powerful Islamic empires throughout the Middle East, declining only in the 18th century and collapsing in the 19th. Islam has never recovered from the its political implosion in the 19th century, and the general decline into religious fundamentalism is only a reflection of that socio-political plight. I fail to see how it is "Islamophobic" to state that Islam was the world's leading civilization for more than six centuries. Empires rise and fall, and I don't see it is anti-British to say the British Empire is no more, or anti-American to say that the "American Century" is over. In the same way, it isn't "Islamphobic" to state that Islam is past its prime. Much to the contrary, especially if you love Islam, you will look to its heyday with nostalgia and regret. Much like Christians will look at Post-Christian Europe with nostalgia for bygone centuries.
  
  The polite message you are asking for is here: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. The content of this disclaimer applies to every article on Wikipedia. If you are unhappy with that, Wikipedia is probably not for you. --dab (𒁳) 09:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

- Thanks for that dab, but I think I'll stick around. Regarding your knowledge about the Middle East, I can only suggest that you get out of Wikipedia for a day or two and do some research and always remember, Wikipedia is not a source (!). Nevertheless, I still believe a polite message should be placed somewhere at the beginning of the article informing people about the images. Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  - you are welcome to stick around editing Wikipedia, but this entails that you accept WP:5P, including the points at WP:NOT, especially our current consensus at Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. If you keep editing even if you reject part of the project goals, you will only waste your time and that of others, without affecting any of Wikipedia's content in the long term. If you are unhappy about the "no disclaimers" consensus, you need to propose a revision at Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles, and only after the consensus has effectively shifted will you be able to insert disclaimers into articles accordingly.
  - Wikipedia is, of course, a source, just not one that can be used by Wikipedia itself, for obvious reasons of circularity. Furthermore, you may have noticed that Wikipedia articles often cite sources, which can in turn be consulted. Seeing that you are the one making blatantly erroneous claims about Islam, such as the mistaken idea that depictions of Muhammad are "considered wrong in Islam" in general, may I suggest that you invest some time in studying the history of Islam, on-wiki or off. If you find any mistake in our depictions of Muhammad article, please do point them out on Talk:Depictions of Muhammad, citing your sources.
  - As for your strange suggestion that "Muslims can make up th[eir] own mind if they want to block the images or not" only if we take some sort of action server-side, this seems to be a complete non-sequitur. No Muslim in the wide world is forced to visit Wikipedia and look through its article on Muhammad. No Muslim is prevented from blocking images in their browser. We have even compiled a how-to guide, at WP:NOSEE for anyone interested in doing that. It is really completely unclear what you are suggesting is necessary to enable Muslims to "make up their own minds" about what they like to do online. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)