Talk:Muhammad

Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Why no pictures?

There are two main reasons not to place any pictures claiming to depict Prophet Muhammad. The first is the fact that Muslims consider it to be blasphemy to portray God, the Angels, the Prophets, and some of the close followers of the prophet. Since it is an offense to Muslims to do so, then out of respect towards them these pictures should be removed from an article concerning their faith. The second reason is that Wikipedia is mainly an encyclopedia that more or less depicts facts and information that is atleast supported by valid sources. Hence, since it has been the case during Prophet Muhammad's life that no one has taken his picture or portrayed him in an image then no such valid depiction is available. In conclusion, how can anyone trust a source of information on Prophet Muhammad that neither respects him and his followers, nor presents valid information about him. (p.s. as a personal note, on reading the comments on this page, I do not understand what the world is coming to, were these Jingoistic and KKK-ish attitudes are tolerated and even exported, whatever happened to mutual respect and the age of enlightenment were everyone had a chance to speak decently, and be heard!!)

I shall attempt to answer your two main points. Firstly, just because Islam bans pictures of Mohamed, that is no reason why the rest of us should. A reader coming to Wikipedia and seeing that a picture of Mohamed has been censored might legitimately wonder what else has been censored. And secondly, Wikipedia is full of illustrations of people who died long before any pictures were made of them. TharkunColl 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

This is ridiculous, a picture should be placed. Quite simply because there are people here who think it should not be. Who are you to cite religion as a reason to prohibit the picture from being viewed. Religion and practise of it are one thing, but to impose a belief system on others is not appropriate. If you do not like what you see or read, then either complain or leave. What we are talking about is a picture. It is a fact, there are pictures available. And it is acknowledged dating back 100s of years. I say, emphatically I might add, place the picture! I would like to add that I am not racist nor a anti-religion. I adore Islam, and it is rich of history and life. But wikipedia is about everything possible available that is FACT. Fact remains, pictures do exist. Even if they are not accurate it is a fact that a picture represents the fact of what we speak. So don’t put absurdities like ‘ don’t put the picture up because it is blasphemy’. That is not enough reason to not put it up. From whose point of view, in other history books in non Islamic influenced nations, pictures remain.

There are loads of Jay Sus. Surely we can add one of Mo.

---

Reason is that Christianity doesn't forbid picture of Jesus but Islam does.

How dicky is that!

Wikipedia is not censored. Jamdonut 16:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The word dicky here means (impaired), just to avoid anyone getting offended by misunderstanding. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 16:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use pitcure .beacuse it is prohabit in islam.

Khalidkhoso 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but IMHO, Wikipedia shouldn't offend believers of this religion. Hoverfish Talk 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no valid reason for not having a picture in this article. It does not matter what those that practice this religion believe, as this is not an article written solely by such individuals, for such individuals. Further, every article I've ever seen on Wikipedia has an image depicting the person in the article. The only _real_ reason people keep removing this picture, is because of a religious belief... which while fine while practicing their own religion, is not suitable to enforce others to follow.

This is a very slippery slope. If this article must be written to specifically not offend people, or to not present views and images for that same tact, then every other article will be in danger of NPOV. One might consider how badly scientolgists want to change their article, removing valuable information solely because it disagrees with their worldview.

In short, Wikipedia standards and NPOV require an image. I simply don't even see what the discussion is about. I will wait a few hours, and then restore the image. At that point in time, I would assume that no one would revert it, without first discussing the matter here... Brad Barnett 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bbarnett, you are absolutely correct. However, better images are available for the lead, such as Image:Maome.jpg. This issue is currently in mediation, which you are encouraged to join at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation.Proabivouac 20:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As wikipedia works with facts.If it is matter to showing source then i think Islam is big source of many of topics Specilly Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him),it is Highly offending to put image.we do not have to interpret every thing with westren soruce.

Khalidkhoso 16:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly this is not your normal situation. While I do agree nothing should be censored; representing him in picture form would falsely represent him. ☭ moizkhan 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please donot use pictures to represent Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), it would depict him wrongly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.24.246 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

This is stupid to use pictures. You don't "need" pictures in wikipedia, and wikipedia, the last time I checked, respected other's religion. There is absolutly NO point in posting a picture of Muhammad (SAW) with his face open (when there are hundreds of pictures of him with his face covered) when they are all innacurate anyway!

---

User:AatifHaider 9:32, 31 January 2007

If you people have an authentic image of prophet Muhammad then you are absolutely free to post it. But I am 100 percent sure of it that no one has. Dont do that again. you are really hurting the sentiments of Muslims. Its not about imposing ones view on other. Its all about the Truth. And its totally against the Islam. How will you feel if someone pastes a photograph of somebody else against your name. This is really absurd. If you guys does not know basic of Islam then who you are not supposed to write article about Prophet, imagining image of prophet is highly restricted. Now this has become really controversial, so according to wikipedia "Criteria for speedy deletion" policy that image must be deleted in anyway.

Is the problem here really the acuracy of the picture? Or the premis of there being a picture at all? If the said picture was an actual photograph of Muhammad, would there still be protest?

Can someone prove that this is the picture of Prophet Muhammad? If you can't then its unverified. And the last time I checked, you can't put stuff that you can't verify. Islam prohibits the use of pictures to depict the Prophet and things would look much better here without the picture, so why don't you just remove it and get on with life? Shijaz 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of pictures representing people who lived before photographs existed. There is no proof that the artist renderings look anything like the persons depicted. Yet I see no discussion on any of those pages where anyone is offended by the pictures. That said, this is clearly a problem with the matter of religion, not matter of accuracy. Wikipedia takes no side in any articles. Removing the picture would equate to Wikipedia endorsing Islam as the one true religion and a matter of fact, which by encyclopedic policy, is not allowed. It can also be argued that since any and all images of Muhammad are against Islamic beliefs, even a real photograph would go agaisnt Islamic beliefs, and therfore be offensive to Islamic followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.192.247 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you are mostly right but, I think you may also want to look at it in this way: Do the portrayals of Jesus depict Jesus as he was? Of course not, you seem to understand that from your comment. So, what do they represent? The answer is "Christian traditions relating to Jesus". Since this is the case how do you represent Muslim traditions of Muhammad? You may decide that pictures are warranted as a way to depict Muhammad--you may not. However, it is not clear that in properly depicting Muslim traditions about Muhammad that we should use pictures in the same way we do for Jesus. In fact, I think it's clear that we should use fewer pictures for Muhammad than for Jesus. Not because many Muslims don't like pictures of Muhammad, but because to accurately represent the Muslim tradition you can't have as many pictures. gren グレン 00:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, you've put a picture over there on the top of the page, with a caption "Muhammad" - which makes people who don't know anything about Islam think "Now THAT's a pic of Muhammad". Instead of you putting false pics of Muhammed there out of your NPOV head, you should place it at the bottom of the article, under a section titled "Pictures of Muhammed" - where you will explain clearly that picturizing Muhammad (pbuh) is not tolerated among Muslims, although "So & So Mr. DaVinci" out there has made up what "he thinks" is a picture of Muhammad. Now that's what I call NPOV - setting the facts out straight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shijaz (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Who says it's false? IT's just as true as the Jesus picture.--Sefringle 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What? How is it making the article NPOV by not putting a picture of the Prophet (SAW)? It's actually neutral when you obey everyone (technically impossible). Muslims don't want the picture here, and I see NOBODY begging for a picture of Muhammad (SAW). Therefore, it'll be "neutral" to remove it. Armyrifle 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to see a picture of Zoroaster naked with a raptor's head, don't you think that'll offend Zoroastrians? Not only that, but it's not accurate. The same is the case here, many see it as offensive, and on top of that, it's obviously innaccurate. At least do the Muslims a favor and put the picture at the END of the article (as was done with the pictures of Baha'ullah (yet nobody claimed it was NPOV to put it at the end of the article, interestingly)) and warn viewers by saying (before the table of contents) "There is a picture of Muhammad (SAW) in this article at the end" or something along those lines. Armyrifle 23:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your sensibilities but we must represent tradition. It is clear that some Muslims--often Persians--had no problem with images of Muhammad in their texts. We must ask ourselves the question "is this important enough to warrant inclusion of such an image in to the Muhammad article?" My conclusion has been that one Persian miniature of Muhammad with his face cloaked set in a text halfway down the page properly represents the place of images of Muhammad in Muslim tradition. You may draw you own conclusions but please base it on tradition and not personal feelings. We are representing the history of Muslims so even if all Muslims today find it unacceptable to have any image of Muhammad during history some have found it acceptable. Please take this into consideration and think about whether you believe this tradition is large enough to be represented and how. Thank you. gren グレン 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Picture on the page is being titled: 'Muhammad' as if it is the real picture of Muhammad (PBUH), it is being pretended. This is simply a hypocrisy and a big lie. Does this make wikipedia a scholastic place? I think not.

Whenever I try to add some refernce to some wikipedia article, it is very immediately removed saying that the reference is not athentic, or the source is not original or biased, yet the mind of these people go totally jerky and they dont see what is the title of the picuture and if that picture is real or fake.

How about I upload a picture of a women and title it as "Bill Clinton",,, would you people take more than a second to delete that? that thing will be very much unscholastic to title a picture of a women as "Bill Clinton", yet it is very sensible to you people to show a fake picture as if it is real one. VirtualEye 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not censored does not mean that it pisses of 25% of the population of the world. If one big side of the users dont want the fake picture to be placed then only a Moron can say that it is NPOV to place that picture.VirtualEye 04:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please go right now and read Wikipedia policy. You must treat other users with respect and not address them in such a confrontational tone. Do not insinuate that they are morons for taking certain positions on this issue.

Now, to your point. No one is claiming that the image of Muhammad is any more "real" than the image of Qin Shi Huang. They are both done in later times to represent an historical figure. Muslims do have a tradition of representing the prophet in images even if it is not the most prevalent. What the image on the page represents is part of the tradition that Muslims have in representing Muhammad. Now, feel free to enter into discussion about whether or not you believe such images are important enough to warrant inclusion on Muhammad but make sure you are arguing about depictions in Muslim tradition and not merely your own personal feelings. Also note that Depictions of Muhammad (AVOID if you will be offended) has various images of Muhammad--Muslim and non-Muslim over time. Because Wikipedia is not censored it will remain no matter how insulting the images are to many people. However, the debate here is whether or not images are warranted on the main page for Muhammad. Thank you. gren グレン 05:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, there is not really anything to debate here. The "Not Censored" policy says that "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements" cited.

If that doesn't convince you, read the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article displays Muhammad's picture, so I really don't see why it shouldn't be shown here. Hojimachong 15:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You are both missing the point. We can show it under the rules whether it offends or not. No one should be debating that. The question is what, if anything, best depicts Muhammad. Now, the Muhammad cartoons do depict him, but shoudl they be here? I think most people would right argue no. And not because it offends Muslims, or "doesn't really represent Muhammad" (because nothing accurately represents the real man), but because it is not representative of the tradition of representing Muhammad. We do not use Chinese artist's paintings of Jesus because they do not best represent the tradition of representing Jesus--we use Renaissance paintings and Eastern iconography because they are the most predominant means of representation. So, what should we have for Muhammad? It is clear that there is a strong tradition of aniconism in Islam which leads me to believe that it would be silly to have as many paintings of Muhammad as we have of Jesus on their respective pages. Why? Because it would give the impression that both are historically represented in images the same amount when clearly paintings and the like are used far more for Jesus. I said there was an important debate because I think every user needs to look at the history and make an assessment of how to represent it. I have laid out my opinion here. Decide what you think but chosing the picture is not just finding a painting that says Muhammad and slapping it into the article to look pretty. It is meant to represent something--and not Muhammad--but the whole tradition that surrounds how he is represented throughout history. gren グレン 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody seemed to address my "solution". Just simply put the picture at the end of the article and warn readers by saying "There is a picture of Muhammad (SAW) in this article" (or something along those lines) before the Table of Contents. Just as it was done with Baha'ullah.

And to the above comment: Please don't be childish. We don't need ignorance and stupidity in this so-far intelligent discussion. Armyrifle 20:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Such childish edits should simply be deleted. I too think the Baha'u'llah solution is best. Zazaban 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't, I think it's trying to appease both sides without questioning whether such images are historically significant enough to be part of this article. We must acknowledge that this is a very different situation. In the case of Baha'u'llah you had one (or two) possible photographs that could be used. In this situation we have to decide which painting image is most representative. Face covered or not? Persian, Ottoman or otherwise? etc. etc. Maybe if we had one image that clearly should be used if we had an image it would work, but I think it's not in the least clear that Image:Maome best represents Muhammad. In fact, I think it does a poor job because it doesn't make it apparent that it came out of a text--which is where far and away the most art of Muhammad comes from. He is not painted on walls like Jesus, when represented it is in miniatures in texts. gren グレン 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fully in agreement with Bbarnett. User:AatifHaider states that "You don't 'need' pictures in wikipedia." While this may be true, a core-importance article such as this, with an abundance of depictions readily available, should undoubtedly include a picture. Wikipedia exists to build a comprehensive guide of all human knowledge, and this can't be done with restrictions made to ensure respect of religious groups.

Many contributors are also saying that any depiction of Muhammad is "false". Wouldn't this arguement then see all paintings of humans ever made as "false"? No painting can be 100% accurate, but it is the mission of Wikipedia to best represent the subject. No photographs of Muhammad exist, so the only way to depict him is a painting.

gren brings up what should be the real issue here, which is choosing the best picture to represent Muhammad. The picture currently shown has what could be described as middle-eastern influences by the general population (I know jacksquat about art, so I'll try to keep my banter to a minimum), but other pictures could work as well. Actually, nearly every depiction of Muhammad would work as long as the caption says "An artist's depiction of Muhammad", and not the current caption beginning with "Muhammad". The Baha'u'llah solution would also work, but I think it should definitely be saved as a last-resort option. And by the way, VirtualEye, where did you pull out that 25% of the world population would be offended by this picture? Islam has an estimated 1.4 billion adherents, which, using your numbers, would amount to a world population of 5.6 billion. The late 2006 estimated world population was 6.5 billion, putting Muslims as about 21% of the world population.

Sorry to anybody who has been offended by my comments, Hojimachong 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• i agree completely with gren when he says we must appropriately proportionalise the number of images with respect to their contribution in traditional Muslim renderings, else we fall into providing undue weight for a minority tradition. ITAQALLAH 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A calligraphic rendering of the Arabic name "Muhammad" is not a depiction of Muhammad anymore than your signature is a depiction of you. It is merely one example of a different artistic tradition. Even in the Christian world, there are incomparably more instantiations of the written word "Jesus" than there are images of him. Even were images of Muhammad acceptable to all Muslims, there is no reason to believe calligraphy wouldn't have also developed, as it has most anywhere there is writing. The presumption that the one is a substitute for the other is specious. I've addressed this matter more thoroughly in mediation.Proabivouac 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's wrong... I am obviously not referring to any time a scholar wrote his name. I am referring to the tradition of creating elaborate honorifics from the name and very stylized versions of salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Calligraphy is not just writing. To the best of my knowledge calligraphy in the Christian world placed much less emphasis on the name of Jesus than Islamic tradition did for Muhammad. There are many ways to represent someone... and one thing is clear. Christians represent Jesus more than Muslims represent Muhammad and I think it's important that the articles show that. Jesus has eleven images showing his physical form. We could easily do that on Muhammad but I think that would seriously misrepresent the subject. I am not giving you a number of images that 'is right'. I am just saying that if you go to Jesus and you go to Muhammad and you see comparable number of human form depictions then you are getting a very skewed representation. You do not have to agree on what number is proportionate but--would you really advocate putting eleven images of Muhammad in this article? I hope not. I also think we need to make it clear that images of Muhammad are found in texts--something else our current top image does not do. gren グレン 02:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Calligraphy isn't "just writing," but it is an artistic treatment of writing. Depictions of the Muhammad and depictions of the word "Muhammad" are the proverbial apples and oranges.

I honestly haven't yet seen eleven images which strike me as appropriate to this article. If I were made aware of them, I'd be inclined to pursue a course of caution and moderation in this regard. However, it is not true that the number of depictions of an articles subject are generally meant to reflect the relative prevalence of depiction in tradition, else most historical biographies articles would have zero depictions, as there are very few subjects about which it can be said there any significant tradition of depiction. Typically, if only three encyclopedic and topical images of a subject exist, all three might be used, even if they are all from the same area and period; it is never suggested that we should use only one to "represent" all the times it was, for whatever reason, not depicted.Proabivouac 02:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK are you here to only BS with your none sense or does what you said above have anything to do with this discussion? 216.99.58.101 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Treat others with respect or you will be blocked. You are free to join the conversation but only if you do so in a constructive manner. gren グレン 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Gren, I appreciate it.Proabivouac 04:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They are different art forms but they are competing for the same space on a page. In Islamic art museums you will see that there is tons of calligraphy all over in many forms competing for space with crafts, and miniatures in texts and on pottery. I understand what you're saying but I just think it's very 'Western'-centric since you don't so often see that in 'Western' subject museums (except the British Library's collection) not Islamic art collections. I'm thinking of all of the Islamic art galleries I've been to--the Freer, Turks at the Royal Acadedmy, the Palace and Mosque at the NGA, Islamic Art at the Met and trying to replicate how they depict Muhammad in this article. And that's one of the main reasons I'm not really opposed to having a representative image of a human form--I just don't think that's primarily how it's shown.

You make a good point. I am assuming that you are comparing articles between major religious figures. I still think it would look very odd to have many human images of Muhammad. It just wouldn't look like history (and my argument for other types of representations still stands). gren グレン 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not much love for Islam, and I truly loled when I saw the picture on the first page, but I think it should be removed. Not because I think there should be no photos of Muhammed altogether, or because I care for any Muslim sentiments but instead because it is incorrect, it is misrepresentative of the topic at hand. Islam considers depiction a taboo and apostasy and is almost never done yet here we have it RIGHT UP THERE at the beginning of the page. The picture should be taken down not because Muslims are right now going nuts and getting Wikipedia to remove but because it would make the article more representative and factual: documenting the fact that Muslims generally go nuts and don't do it and tell others not to. Instead, the picture should be at the end and/or in a section/article dealing with depiction. Is this not reasonable? Tuncrypt 05:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

All biographical articles in Wikipedia containing a visual representation of the subject at hand put it at the beginning of the page. This is because people visiting Wikipedia to gather information usually want something to look at, to match a face (even a fascimile face) with the information. Putting the picture at the end of the page would be endorsing Islam as the one religion we should agree with and respect. This isn't in agreement with the spirit of Wikipedia.Hojimachong 07:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely unacceptable and deeply offensive for the 1.2 billion or so Muslims to show a picture of Muhammad (pbuh), which is most definitely not necessary. There is no need to see what he looked like, and it is an unrealisric painting anyway. This seriosuly needs to be removed.

This is really simple. Are there any pictures of Muhammad that truly depict him? No, therefore anything you put up is artistic representation and hence inaccurate. Yes, there are pictures of other historical figures such as Columbus, but they should be taken down as they cannot be accurate. An encyclopedia should reflect fact as able as we are to discern them. And, frankly, a lot of the comments below belie the anti-Muslim racism of those posters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.231.238 (talk • contribs) moved from top of section by Ttiotsw. Please people just append to the sections, ideally sign-in but always sign posts with ~~~~ thanks. Ttiotsw 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

People should think

Wikipedia is 'uncensored' IF SOMETHING EXISTS. Uncensored does NOT mean that if you dont have anything then somehow produce from your imagination and then put that in wikipedia article and then start chirping "uncensored uncensored.........".

Wikipedia's Uncensored Policy:

1- Something exists, then go talk about censored or uncensored.

2- Something does not exist, then dont fumble around and mind your business in the things which exist.

Does any picture of Muhammad (SAW) exist?

Muhammad is known for his teachings and ideology of Islam. Islam is what Muhammad is known for. That is the reason of his being in the articles of wikipedia.

1- Muhammad prohibits the pictures and teaches Islam.

2- A reader comes to read article about Muhammad, to know what are his teachings and to have idea about what Muhammad's personality stands for.

3- He sees a picture on the page.

4- Ideology of Islam being negated right on top of the page by portraying the picture of the Person who is defined for Islam ---> and Islam denounces Pictures/Paintings.

Now if anybody still has some problem in his mind then I am right here ready to show to the world how reliable Wikipedia is.

VirtualEye 12:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're going to get nowhere with the incivil tone you're taking. Kindly review Wikipedia:Civility to see what Wikipedia's view is on this. (→Netscott) 12:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And you are going to get nowhere with your incivil tone, as it is 'you' who is calling me incivil. I said 'Hypocrites' should shut up. If you are a hypocrite then take this comment for you, if you are not hypocrite then rest assured I did not abuse you. But you did, by calling me incivilized. VirtualEye 13:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia page that would be good to review is Wikipedia:What is a troll. (→Netscott) 13:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

yaar bahi jee. no need to lose patience. App can do better without getting banned and make people listen to yourself too. :) so cool down and relax. Talk to them (I know no hope to change) but losing patience will only make matter worse. --- ALM

User:Netscott can't you see your self? You know, you just admited that the truth is painful. I'll let you know that your anti Islam propaganda (in this case with pictures obvious) is more dirty than the incivil tone (which I couldn't find nowhere in User:VirtualEye's text.

User:ALM I know you can ban without problem but you can't make dirt untill in this comunity has true muslims who whant just the trouth and not lies from "academic" liers. Educated without "incivil tone". (Puntori 13:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

ALM, if I am not mistaken, has been fighting to keep the images off of the page. The fact that they are here is no reflection on him. Please treat him with respect and act courteously on this page. If you would like to attack me on my user talk page I will accept it, but you will be blocked if you do not respect other users and keep this page free of trolling. gren グレン 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Puntori those are some strong accusations you're making... I suppose they are forgiveable though considering you've not been editing here for very long. I'm sure there are a number of Muslim Wikipedia editors who would disagree with you (and probably quite strongly). (→Netscott) 13:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear once again. I am in no means to disgrace a person who is fair. The problem here is that , you slaughter the goat with your civilized manners. And when that goat kicks you while being slaughtered then you call that goat, "Rude" "incivilized" "Violent" bla blaa.

Yes, I am a bit aggressive, but at least I am not a sweet, pretty, civilized, innocent looking and policy following HYPOCRITE. That you should appreciate at least. I speak at face and dont comit civilized crimes under policy.

I use bitter medicine but I dont tear people with civilized sweet KNIVES.VirtualEye 14:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I think the discussion is now quite away from Muhammad article. However, User:Netscott, gren and me are not one who are great favor of pictures. User:Netscott, gren are non-Muslim but still they have defended Muslims and support us many times. We have to appreciate this fact. Hence without knowing anyone we cannot abuse them. Secondly, VirtualEye you cannot change things by straight talks and no one will take you seriously. Hence I suggest that you go and join mediation at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation read all people comments and give your comment in clam and nice manner. In that way you might change a bit. You cannot make things perfect but you can change them a bit only if you play by rules and nice with others. If you want to see perfect things then join Muslim wikipedia. So see you then at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation with lots of good arguments in clam manner. Bahi if you will respect other then people will respect you. Right? Wassalam. --- ALM 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Move the picture to Muhammad#Depictions_of_Muhammad section

I suggest that the picture is moved to the Muhammad#Depictions_of_Muhammad section, because the picture makes more sense there rather than at the top of the article. Shijaz 17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. And, either mention at the beginning why no pic of him OR, we can put one of the many pictures that depict him, however, instead of a face there is a white oval.--Seventy-one 00:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving it down from the lead is fine, but wouldn't the Overview section be more appropriate? To me, this depiction sums up the aspect of his life for which he is best remembered, sharing the words of the Qur'an. If something belongs in Depictions, I'd think it'd be one with his face veiled, because this speaks to the issue being discussed.Proabivouac 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Proabivouac.--Sefringle 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We should not treat this article any differently from that of any other historical figure. Mohamed is a historical figure, and to present just one view of his life (that of the Muslims) is fundamentally wrong. People will be coming to this encyclopedia for objective information, and will not want that information filtered through one particular religious viewpoint. We show a picture, simply because we show pictures of all historical figures whenever we can (and regardless of whether the picture is contemporaneous or not). TharkunColl 00:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Please work towards improving Wikipedia and not stop making the issues even worse. 216.99.61.168 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You can improve Wikipedia by making articles more accurate. There is no guarantee that this picture is actually that of Muhammad (pbuh). So it might mislead the reader into thinking that the bearded figure in the picture is what Muhammad looked like. The article would look richer if it included the picture though, but under a different section. Shijaz 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The pictures for BIO pages add verisimilitude to an article. It's more relevant for living people and certainly more relevant if we have a contemporaneous depiction. Are there any contemporaneous depictions of Muhammed ? AFAIK there are none. Thus we do not really need any image at the top for verisimilitude as it adds no more "truth" to the article. Truthfully same reasoning apply to any BIO-style article with an "image" at the top which wasn't taken/drawn/painted contemporaneous to the person's life.

That there are images (non-contemporaneous and of good providence) is important but not to develop the person, Muhammed, but to develop how people perceived him later. The images are important as they reflect various styles of depicting Muhammed and there is a story behind the style which the article should capture. It is thus logical that the images (if any) are further down the article. The only grounds for exclusion is if the image has no story behind it or it is of a generic person of the time and not Muhammed. Ttiotsw 03:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Middle Years

The middle years section claims,

"...Khadijah bore Muhammad six children: three sons ... and four daughters."

Please update 'six' to 'seven', in accordance with standard arithmetic.

Muslim arithmetic is this way, they also count backwards, from right to left.

Ad blockers

I have moved this here from Talk:Muhammad/Mediation because it was not about mediation but more of a helpful hint. gren グレン 06:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to suggest this as a compromise, but more as a helpful suggestion.

There are many ad blocking plug-ins for most popular browsers. These work on both user input as to what is bothersome, and by subscriptions of objectionable content. Perhaps those offended by this type of image, not just here on Wikipedia, but throughout the internet can create an image blacklist file that can be loaded into your ad blocker. This would prevent the offending images from being seen.

Being offended by pictures

This is not meant to influence the debate, as it is not relevant, just some advice. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. But is is limited to one's self observation. If I dont want anyone see my naked pictures, then it is not the solution that I simply block them on my pc by using a plug-in. It will be a foolish thing if I would be assuming it to be safe. It is same as: When a cat attacks a pigeon then pigeon instead of running away or flying, he just closes his eyes thinking that everything has vanished including cat. My dear, Cat is still there no matter you close your eyes or not. (sorry if I offended by any example). VirtualEye 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your analogy, in this case the cat can't hurt you if you don't look at it. I guess it depends on if you goal is to not look at it, or to prevent others from looking at it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By HighInBC logic those who are offended by pictures can simply leave wikipedia because those picture will now go in Quran/Kaaba/Islam and other articles too. Those articles mention Muhammad many times. Leaving wikipedia will also work. Would not it? However, what about those who will visit the site first time? Will they get any warning that "You are going to see Muhammad pictures which are there even though he was mainly and mostly represented in only calligraphy, in order to make sure Muslim are not happy by mistake. Hence use some blocker now. We are giving his picture wrongly high weightage as compare to calligrpahy here to upheld secularism and deny all religions" . And then a message should come You are going to redirect to Muhammad or Islam page in 10 seconds. Can you add some similar thing too? What you suggest for newcomers? --- ALM 11:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to HighInBC. FYI, cats attack pigeon to kill them and closing eyes does not help the pigeos save his life but to assume that he does not see anything so others also do not see. And the aswer to your second question is that. I neither would like to be decieved by falsehood (fake images) nor I will let people tell lies (by showing fake images). I want truth to be shown and dont want people be decieved by fake images.

And one question I would as to the people who are debating to keep the picture.

• How many people will be offended by not showing a picture of Muhammad which is actually not His picture???
• How many people will be offended by showing picture of Muhammad which is actually not His picture???

Does any of my reason make sense?. Oh come one, Please let me believe that most of wikipedians are fair and they are here for positive motives. Please...

VirtualEye 13:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye most people are good. Like Tom Harrison and HighInBC are good people. However, the problem is that for them secularism is like a religion. Hence they are afraid that they might compromise secularism by bending to our religious demands. Hence even logically one cannot have 90-99% picture of calligraphy in Muhammad article to make space of one picture of his face. They still wish to have his picture. For example Tom says "Whatever we choose to do, we should not do it to avoid offending people, or for religious reasons. Though it is in general good to avoid offending and to respect everyone's religion, changing the article for those reasons would encourage people to change other pages for similar reasons, or to demand other changes.". Hence if we never talk about religion from the start and give other reason like I have given above then he might be agreed more happily with us. Totally strange logic it is for me. --- ALM 14:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you can name those good editors, and I did not criticize any of them either. Here I am not just to bring the religious matter on the basis of something illogical, unknown and unseen. My all talk had been based on the concepts discussing the deception, falsehood (fake pictures) and lies. I just wanted to prove we should not decieve the reader and "be true" in not only our intension but actions too. I think beliving in atheism must not be stoping people from supporting the obvious logical truth, no matter it belongs to Islam, Christianity or other matters. VirtualEye 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you choses to, you can use AdBlock to avoid seeing the pictures. If you cannot use AdBlock, you can hack around in you monobook.css file and accomplish something similar. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Read above or at least reply to this one. --- ALM 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It will not let you prevent anyone else from seeing the pictures. It will let you not see the pictures. That is all it will do. Whether or not that puts a religious obligation on you or anyone else, I am not qualified to say, and it is not my business anyway. I only mention it as something you can use if you want to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC) I see I have inadvertently given offense. I withdraw my remarks. Use AdBlock, or don't, as you please. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is useless. If my children come here with all the good intension to learn about Muhammad and see freaky picture of him then your blocker slocker is useless. May be putting pictures will fulfill your secular (anti-religion) obligation, although I am not qualified to say so that and it is not my business anyway. no need for above reply of mine too then. --- ALM 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that my intent was to give a suggestion to those seeking to avoid these picture. It was not my intent to use this option as an argument to allow these images. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Point here is NOT only religion. Despite my religion, who tells you to let other people be decieved by fake pictures? It is same as I publish naked picuture of user "HighInBC" and if he objects then I say" Hey, if you have problem then dont see it, or use adblock blaa blaa...". This kind of my asking to the other person would be seen very foolish, right? So the matter is that , ALL people should not see the naked picture of "HighInBC" if he does not want that. right? Similar applies here.

Please try to supposedly place yourself in other persons situation and think if your argument really works?

Oh, and also try to please answer my following questions:

• How many people will be offended by not showing a picture of Muhammad which is actually not His picture???
• How many people will be offended by showing picture of Muhammad which is actually not His picture???

Answer please...

VirtualEye 07:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm around 1 600 000 000 people? It's obvious that whoever wants the picture to stay here is against Muslims. The end..130.113.111.214 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, the images are not deceptive. We don't say they look like Muhammad really would have. We don't say he posed for them. They were drawn by later Muslims in tradition of him just like the images on Jesus are drawn by later Christians in tradition of him. In many cases followers of religions will draw images of earlier people that have no basis in how that person really looked--but that doesn't make it "deceptive". Look, we understand the images will offend some Muslims--not all Muslims because not all Muslims care about it and throughout history Muslims have drawn such pictures. However, that is not a reason to remove the images. I ask you to please argue in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Our goal is not to insult Muslims but some things naturally will. Muslims have drawn images of Muhammad throughout history and I understand that you do not approve of such actions--but that doesn't mean that such images have never been a part of Islam. But please, understand Islam in encyclopedic articles is not your religion. It is the views of over a billion people over a span of 1400 years that is very broad and often contradictory (Mu'tazilites were Muslim and so were Asharite but they disagreed). I don't want to insult Muslims, however to properly represent their history it will likely happen in some cases. I don't think an image is necessary but I don't think it is deceptive to add one. Please understand this. gren グレン 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely unacceptable and deeply offensive for the 1.2 billion or so Muslims to show a picture of Muhammad (pbuh), which is most definitely not necessary. There is no need to see what he looked like, and it is an unrealisric painting anyway. This seriosuly needs to be removed.

Hold on, a few posts back someone says it's 1.6 Billion and now you say 1.2 Billion. Do we wait a few more days for it to get to zero ?. These editors seriously need to get facts right. Ttiotsw 13:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Grenavitar, The negation of your argument is right there in your argument. You say:

"Look, we understand the images will offend some Muslims--not all Muslims because not all Muslims care about it and throughout history Muslims have drawn such pictures. "

How about I say this for nonmuslims: "Look, we understand the absence of fake image will bother some nonMuslims--not all nonMuslims because not all nonMuslims care about it and throughout history nonMuslims have seen wikipedia articles without pictures also"

Please note that, even in your argument, some muslims will be offended But my modified article not even a single nonMuslim will be offended. Absence of some fake picture does not offend anyone. If someone really hates Islam and makes it his life mission to throw filth at Muslims, then ofcourse he will be offended till there is even a single Muslim left in this world.

Should I refer hundreds of wikipedia articles which do NOT have pictures and even can NOT have pictures. Can you picutre invisibility? can you picuture emptiness? can you picture 'unseen'? Can you picture 'nonexitence'? Can you picture the feeling of pain? I wonder why dont all these opposers go debate on those articles?... why??? Because they are interested in doing pranks to pranks. Now you would again say I am offending? I would ask why being sleepless for many nights just to include one fake picutre in this article and not giving a damn to those articles which I mentioned above. If your grandpa was a famous person but did not have any picture and no person is alive who could have seen him, would it be necessary to take a picture of an old man and title him "MY grand pa"?? It will be an abuse to you instead, because you are making someone else as your granma's husband and hence abusing her too. Then what in case of that Prophet who is much more beloved and closer to the Muslims than their own parents?

I know , nobody will answer as why so much itching over to put a fake picture and why not caring about other articles which dont have even the real picture. VirtualEye 15:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, I don't care that much about pictures in and of themselves. I do care about how we decide. I oppose basing any decision about page content on religion, on this page or any other. Religious censorship does more harm than good here, and sets a bad precedent for other pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It was not my intent to take a subject that is currently under mediation and start a thread outside that mediation. I simply was attempting to reduce any discomfort our Muslim friends may feel in the meantime by suggesting a way to block the images. All this is being discussed here: Talk:Muhammad/Mediation HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought moving it would be a good idea because it wasn't about mediation or article content it was about immediate alleviation. If you think it belongs back there feel free to move it. gren グレン 17:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the topic is not correct for the mediation page, I should have realized that. The topic that I started is not what is being discussed. I think we should just leave bad enough alone. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Personal attack of the worst kind posted by 216.99.54.48 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

216, you will understand that I have to remove this because it is offensive. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two parts to this answer: addressing the cultural concerns and the image necessity. VirtualEye presents the images as being fake; I could be disingenuous and present that if they are fake then they are not Muhammed and thus as far as God is concerned no offence of Idolatry (or rather Shirk I would suppose) has taken place. Given the great efforts to which Islam presents the Qur'an as truthful and the Bible as false and corrupt, how can an image that is obviously not an accurate likeness of Muhammad be considered a valid case of idolatry of Muhammad (the person). It cannot be; at best it is idolatry of an image and the image could be an arbitrary image including any of the calligraphy style images so favoured or, using a Biblical reference, a Golden Calf. What exactly was Muhammad concerned with; I would say that photos and images of "religious leaders and scholars" (applying Sura 9:31) abound in Islamic countries (and Wikipedia) so where exactly would this stop ?.

The picture (any picture) is simply an array of pixels. Copyright aside, the semantic content is what matters. Muslims may have a case for a claim if the images were truly Muhammed but we have established that they are representative and not exact likenesses. The images thus have an importance as a meta study of how people viewed Muhammed. Are they sufficiently accurate for some form of sympathetic magic to take effect ? Some editors here seems to argue for all other Muslims that these images are sufficiently powerful an influence and so I thus feel that is sufficient an argument for these images to stay in Wikipedia as these images are so presented by editors as being sufficiently like Muhammad.

Images are content and so must be notable. The image though is being presented as a catalyst for a thoughtcrime and the views are that censorship of all images irrespective of providence is the only solution to solve this offence. I consider this desire for censorship hostile to the aims of Wikipedia if the content was notable. If the image is a reliable facsimile of what someone notable has considered Muhammed to look like then it is no different from any notable persons rendering of historical figures such as Jesus or Moses, or the many mythical figures of say God or Gods (and there are many gods to choose from). The strawman argument that any image could be posted (butts, fathers, sisters or whatever) fails as does any other original research in that it is not notable or not from a reliable source. Any pictures we have, if notable, should thus be part of a section that shows historical representations of Muhammed as opposed to saying that this was him. Ttiotsw 00:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a picture? Whose picture is that ? You can't just put someone's picture and claim it to be Muhammmad(saw)'s one. No picture of Prophet Muhammad(saw) existed ever. So, please remove that picture as it offends muslims (~1.5 billion people). Just put any icon, calliography writing of Prophet. Thanks

That's not true. Countless pictures of Muhammad have been made, just as with every other major historical figure, such as Jesus. Should Wikipedia remove all of those as well? Please remember that this is supposed to be a completely unbiased account of the historical figure named Muhammad. It is not an Islamic theological tract. TharkunColl 01:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the number of Muslims is now back up to 1.5 Billion. That's 300 Million more than the last person and 100 Million less than the one before that. Fallacy aside, appealing to numbers loses it's impact if you can't even be consistent with the numbers. Read the comments; I contend that even an icon or calligraphy also risks a thoughtcrime of idolatry and that we accept that no image is a contemporaneous image of Muhammad. Any notable image though is of interest as it helps present how historically Muhammad has been represented be it in icon, calligraphy or an artists interpretation; all are equally valid for inclusion as long as they are notable. Please find flaws in the notability of the image artist or document. Ttiotsw 01:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I am amazed at how much the Muslim population has fluctuated in the past two days! From 1.6 billion to 1.2 billion to 1.5 billion. It's simply amazing. On a serious note, however, Wikipedia is supposed to present an objective, nonbiased representation of the subject. Saying that putting this picture on is inaccurate is extremely Chewbacca defense-ish, mainly because every historical figure with an entry on Wikipedia who lived prior to the 1820's, will use a painting as the visual representation on their page. The logic saying that "the image is false" would mean that all the images in the Napoleon, William Shakespeare, and Genghis Khan articles would need to be deleted. Did you know that the Chandos portrait is one of the most recognized pictures of Shakespeare (along with the First Folio picture)? Nobody is arguing the fact that in modern society those pictures represent Shakespeare, though they are universally accepted.

There really is no question as to whether the article should stay or not. The caption should read "an artist's representation of Muhammad", and it should be on the article. Nobody will ever know what Muhammad looked like anyways, so why does it matter in the slightest? The weak arguments put up by those who say that the picture should be deleted are motivated by purely personal religious reasons. We should respect all religions as best we can, but if respect and sensitivity begin to hinder Wikipedia's goal, then the goal will be put as first priority.

In closing, Wikipedia is objective and should treat Muhammad as a historical figure, not a sacred religious prophet. The same is true for Jesus and Buddha, and every other controversial inclusion of a picture. --Hojimachong^talk_con 01:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the pictures should be taken out. If you are trying to take a neutral point of view you are failing to do so. By posting pictures of Muhammad you are taking a more secular point of view that many people may find offensive. Face it, theres a likely chance a majority of people looking on the muhammad page are bound to be muslim. By telling them to go somewhere else because you want to have pictures is a very ignorant statement and does not show tolerance at all. It would be better to leave out pictures because they are not really necessary, they are offending, and they will give Wikipedia a bad reputation as an unreliable site. There is absolutely no need for pictures at all, it will not add to the story of his life but merely act as an annoyance to those who visit the page. You have to remember that this is a public page viewed by millions of people, and by posting pictures it shall turn many people against Wikipedia and therefore view it as an unreliable source. (Ssd175 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

I would like to know how you concluded that the majority of visitors to the Muhammad page will be Muslim. I would argue the opposite, since most Muslims have other sources they may use to gather information about Muhammad from. It also is not unreliable to add a picture as an artists representation. Catering to a certain religions beliefs would make Wikipedia much more POV'ed. --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Most readers are likely to be non-Muslims seeking to learn about the life of Muhammad, or Muslims wishing to obtain a more neutral perspective then they're accustomed to. In both cases, images further our mission.Proabivouac 07:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Idea

What I think we should do about this is provide a link to the picture, but not a direct image of the prophet Muhammed on the article itself. Preferably, this image would have a warning before it since it is a touchy subject. That way we can finally settle this dispute as it is upsetting Muslims and is fueling controversy. Jerse 03:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it won't be on directly on the page--because sentiment seems to to be generally for an image--but there is precedent for warnings on Bahá'u'lláh. I would be content with have an image in the depictions of Muhammad section and doing that link... but, then again, I'd be happy for a reasonable solution of any sort. gren グレン 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's upsetting me too and I'm not Muslim. I think your link idea is a good one. futurebird 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The minor problem with Bahá'u'lláh is that it is the real photo not a depiction but the way that it is managed is very good (the image is in the article and even has a navigation link at the top to attracts hits so it is definitely not hidden away). I do not think that this would be an accepted compromise by the no-picture editors but we shall see. To quote the Bahá'ís article though, "There is no objection that the believers look at the picture of Bahá'u'lláh, but they should do so with the utmost reverence, and should also not allow that it be exposed openly to the public, even in their private homes.". Technically with PHP session IDs I would argue that images on Wikipedia are not exposed to the public compared with say an advertising billboard, or TV. Someone has to specifically seek the article and image and it is private to your PHP session. The only way for it to not be private was if you then streamed that display in some way to many other viewers (an unlikely scenario). IMHO Wikipedia is as private as a copy of a book in a library. The ruling also only seems to apply to Bahá'ís if you read between the lines. As an atheist I have an empathy with the Bahá'ís especially given how they are persecuted by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Arab Republic of Egypt; I equally would be afforded little consideration in those countries so personally I like to follow how they are managed as I use them as proxies for my own belief system. Ttiotsw 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be an improvement on the present situation. I'm not Muslim, but out of respect for my friends I like to avoid the image. I only worry that it would inadvertently prevent people from reading the article (and helping contribute to it) because they would not want to scroll down. I still can understand why we can just use links to the images, but not display the images themselves. (?) At least that way the links could be located near the relevant text that talks about them, instead of putting everything at the end.

At minimum we should have a "scroll down" warning, but I prefer using links rather than the images interspersed through the article. What do others think? futurebird 19:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Muslim

But, I feel strongly that there should be no image in this article, it's just offensive and mocking to include a picture, there can be images in other places of the wikipedia. Let's try to be fair about this and have some respect for cultures.

Also, what will the image add except more debate on this talk page?

I just noticed this was up for debate at "pages for unprotection" and I thought I would weigh in. futurebird 04:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think being or not being muslim matters in relation to your opinion on this issue. --Sefringle 08:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Think about what would happened if we censored Wikipedia for one group. Pretty soon, any group of people could clamor and whine until they got their way. Removing this picture opens a floodgate to censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. It is not mocking anybody to include the picture, as Muhammad is being treated purely as a historical figure, not a religious prophet. Yes, it is offensive, but I think its a reasonable offense. A reasonable person visiting the pornography article would expect to find objectionable yet informative pictures. Likewise, a reasonable person visiting the Muhammad article would probably expect to find a picture. --Hojimachong^talk_con 08:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason we are at this point is because many users who object to inclusion of depictions have shown the willingess to be consistently disruptive, regardless of consensus. That is why this page is locked. Some interpret this as, therefore, they must especially upset in a way the rest of us can't understand, and therefore the material must be especially upsetting. Actually, the users involved in this (including a number of single-issue anons and sockpuppets) are especially disruptive, and especially willing to impose their views on others who don't subscribe to their ideology. Of course POV pushers are more aggressive, what's new? If anything, such behavior merits less consideration, not more.Proabivouac 08:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: "because many users who object...regardless of consensus" --Aminz 08:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear that consensus has not yet been reached. I am not really sure if it will be.--Sefringle 08:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't know how it is possible that only one group of editors edit-war. If I am not mistaken the number of times a picture is removed is equal to the number of times it is added.--Aminz 08:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the history - I'd changed "in spite of consensus," which sugggests that consensus exists, to "regardless of consensus" to account for this. There is no clear consensus, but the majority has been against censorship, and it shows contempt for consensus to edit war against the majority rather than try to build consensus. These editors don't care, for (judging from the balance of their comments) what they see as religious obligation trumps what any of the rest of us think.

This continues to be one big WP:POINT violation on your part, as you are only again trying to gain leverage re other articles by implicitly threatening to join iconoclasts with whom you don't actually agree: you yourself uploaded an image of Muhammad, which most of us (including me) have never done. We are all political to some degree, but at least I can say I've done nothing with which I actually disagreed.Proabivouac 09:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

At that time that I uploaded the image, I hadn't seen any opposition to addition of other sourced material. As I said, as long as we don't censor anything, I have no objection to having that image. --Aminz 09:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Hojimachong says: "A reasonable person visiting the pornography article would expect to find objectionable yet informative pictures. Likewise, a reasonable person visiting the Muhammad article would probably expect to find a picture"

Pornography is very specific to visuals, it has nothing to do exept visuals of naked people. Now where does it come in comparison with the picture issue on this topic?

Is pornography a religion? Is it related to faith?

I wonder what kind of rediculous comparison it is? Should I laugh or should I cry on this miserable comparison.

VirtualEye 12:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Pornography is a religion or a faith. That was completely irrelevant. The point I was trying to make was, a reader of Wikipedia should be expecting a Neutral Point of View, and the inclusion of the picture is neutral. --Hojimachong^talk_con 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So what is wrong with having the image as a link? I don't think that putting this image up in people's faces is NPOV, it's more like a method of trying to offend people. How is that NPOV? futurebird 21:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The image has historical, education, and artistic interest. Removing it pushes WP out of NPOV.

That there exist historical illustrations of Muhammad, such as the 15 c. illustration exhibited at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, is of itself notable and worthy of inclusion in the entry. Such illustrations and paintings have historical, educational, and artistic value in their own right. Though Wikipedia tries to operate by reaching consensus, it is not a democracy. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has a responsibility to the truth. Historical depictions of the Prophet Muhammad by period Muslim artists exist. Proof that they exist come from reliable sources, such as the French National Library. Also, the fact that illustrations exist demonstrates all Muslims do not believe that depicting their Prophet is against their religion. Nor am I giving this illustration from the French National Library undue weight. There are many illustrations from different time periods from various Muslim nations, all through the centuries up to the modern day. Therefore, I say that removing the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad from this Wikipedia entry advocates a single point of view that is not actually representative of Islam as a whole. The image should stay. Furthermore, the entry should remain under protection as long as necessary to prevent those few people from pushing their point of view that the depiction the Prophet Muhammad is categorically forbidden within Islam. Liberal Classic 09:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is more to the world than a bunch of picassos and da vincis. Please comeout of the bubble of paintings. Even talking about art, there is more to art than just paintings. Go find what is the meaning of art. A painting depicting Muhammad is a very very very minor thing and has nothing to do with the matter for which Muhammad is known. Instead he has forbidden making image of the living things and humans, how could he allow his own images depicted and shown at his introductory page? Its a total deception to reader to make him think if Islam is just like other religions having paintings and pictures of Muhammad, whereas the case is totally opposite.

VirtualEye 11:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello VirtualEye, I believe you may have missed my point. Cultural taboos against depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, while certainly common within Muslim society, are not universal. The existence of historical illustrations made by Muslims in the past and television shows produced by contemporary Muslims demonstrates this fact. Wikipedia entries are to be free of bias, whether unfavorable or favorable bias. My point is that removing the image of the Prophet Muhammad from his encyclopedia entry moves Wikipedia away from a neutral point of view, because to do so is to enforce a cultural bias. Liberal Classic 17:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the picture is important: that that is why it should be included AS A LINK. Using an inline image isn't necessarily and will prevent many people who know a lot about this topic from being able to enjoy the article.

Not including the image is informative in and of itself because it shows how important the prohibition on images is to many people. It's symbolic and it will cause no loss of information. People who want to look at the image must click their mouse one extra time. Big deal. It's worth it and it will make the wiki a better place for everyone. futurebird 17:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not held to the laws and taboos of other cultures. It attempts to represent a global view, without giving undue weight to any one culture. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a response to my comments about how this could be more informative than the image displayed inline. futurebird 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Classic makes a good point above when he says it '...advocates a single point of view that is not actually representative of Islam as a whole.' I had kind of come to assume from my experience here that Islam is monolithic on the subject, and that is not so. Leaving aside my continuing concern about religious censorship, we should not promote the aniconistic position over other views, or exaggerate the contemporary position by attributing it to all Muslims anytime everywhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

True enough. However I don't think this justifies putting the image at the top, or not having warnings, or not considering usinging links to the image instead of inline images. It's a matter of being civil. futurebird 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison makes a good point. Removing the article, where most people would expect a picture to be widely available on Wikipedia, would be a blatant support of a specific viewpoint. Including the picture is the lesser of two evils; it may offend some, and could be construed as to breaking a small number of Wikipolicies, but the alternative would break many Wikipolicies and seriously affect the credibility of the project, which is hard enough to preserve as it is. --Hojimachong^talk_con 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "most people" would expect to see an image of a figure who is not generally depicted at all. Honestly I was quite shocked to see it right at the top like that. It's like having a big sign that says "we have NO RESPECT for you" futurebird 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute that he was "not generally depicted at all". While that may be true inside of the Muslim culture, many artistic representations of him exist in other cultures. While this is not as easy to accomplish on Wikipedia, where the stated goal is to be objective and neutral to everybody. There is a fine line between "having respect" and "catering to". The fact that most of the world is not Muslim (22% is) should reflect consensus. --Hojimachong^talk_con 22:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least agree not to put it right at the top and to add bold text that explains that there are images of him in the article if you scroll down? futurebird 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures only?

A picture on article is essential , right? Do we only have one sense to use out of 5 senses? How about an article on taste? I think reader will be suffering of deprivation of information if wikipedia does not send every reader some things to taste. So that reader does not die of lack of information? If picture is neccessary on every article but it can not provide us information on taste, and there is no alternative to send an reader article related things so that he tastes and comes to know what does a sweet, sour or poison taste feels like, right?

How about throwing an atom bomb to give the reader maximum information about radioactivity?

Those people who are dying because of absence of images on wikipedia, they should deliver some anthrax to every reader who want to read an article about the taste of anthrax?

How about giving the reader, a maximum amount of information about the feeling of pain by lashing him?

How about killing a reader to give him maximum information about how death feels like?

Why so much moaning to show image to every reader and thinking that if image in some article is not available then reader will not get enough knowledge, while not so much moaning to let the reader taste or feel the pain so that he can better get informatin about those topics related to taste and feelings?

VirtualEye 12:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out ad nauseam, this is not a religious encyclopedia, and we are under no obligation to adhere to the taboos and fetishes of any particular religion. Indeed, to do so would compromise the objectivity for which we strive. The fact of that matter is that Wikipedia is full of illustrations of people who died before any such illustrations were made. To single out Muhammad for special treatment would be to imply that Wikipedia accepted his teachings, and at that point Wikipedia loses all credibility. TharkunColl 12:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In cases where it is possible we attempt to best represent the subject. This is an encyclopedia not a hand-on-museum / anthrax factory. VirtualEye, this line of argument does not work within Wikipedia's framework. Please study the subject and if you come to the conclusion--not for religious reasons--that no picture is warranted the argue as such. Find other encyclopedias that show images of pepole but not Muhammad (if they exist). Find academic works that follow this practice or talk about the history of depiction. If your argument is that human form depiction is not relatively important then make that argument. 128.175.87.86 16:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, I sometimes wonder if you are joking. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures use the same sense (vision) as text. So... your logic says we should delete all text... well, that makes perfect sense. A computer was designed to transmit visual information, and evolved to have auditory capability. If there ever develops a system to transmit tastes over the internet, Wikipedia will be the first to have it. --Hojimachong^talk_con 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How nice, people dont get a single bit of the point.

I mentioned, as there are many limitation to provide full information to the user (such as taste), similarly it is not a hard and fast rule that if we dont show image on each and every article then user will die of lack of information.

It just works with limitations. And when it is not very essential to add a picture to each and every wikipedia article, then there is no need to add illusive picture to an articel which will not only offend millions of people but it will also not add a single bit of information.

It is not necessary to somehow give birth to a picture and paste in the article if we dont have original. It is just the psychology of some wikipedians here who think that people will be left 100 years back if they dont see a picture in this article. Why so much hegemony just to put a picture on this article when there are other thousands of articles without picture? Why so much itching only for this article? Is it matter of ego for wikipedians to fight right at this issue?

People were studying about Muhammad for centuries and nobody wanted to see his picture, not even a single voice was heard for the demand of picture of Muhammad. Then came wikipedia, where people are so much robotic and nerdy that they prefer to somehow win some argument instead of making the life of people better.

Wikipedia was not made for outer space creatures, if inclusino of a picture is offensive to a huge number of people given the fact that even it is not original picture, then there is no need to fight at any cost and keep on uttering the same vocals about keepin the image. VirtualEye 17:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"People were studying about Muhammad for centuries and nobody wanted to see his picture, not even a single voice was heard for the demand of picture of Muhammad." That is nonsense, why do these historical images even exist if nobody wanted to see them? Why would there even be a religious prohibition on these images if there was not even a single voice asking for them? Do you really think Wikipedia invented the idea of depicting Muhammad? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What about simply proving a warning as a courtesy to those who do care, we do this in other contexts. futurebird 19:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a warning at the bottom every page, Disclaimers which says "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.". HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird, I like your idea, but only as a compromise if consensus can't be reached. We're trying hard to come up with consensus, and a compromise shouldn't be used until it has been proven a stalemate.

As for the comments of VirtualEye, I am beginning to get seriously annoyed and offended by your incivil tone. "Then came wikipedia, where people are so much robotic and nerdy that they prefer to somehow win some argument instead of making the life of people better." Remember TINC. Not everybody is out to make your life miserable, we are just defending our own opinions. Your general belligerence is getting in the way of respectful debate. --Hojimachong^talk_con 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

offended?, I did not point to you though. I am talking in general terms same as I explained to you about the term "Americans" I use. Otherwise I am also included in the wikipedians. VirtualEye 10:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons not to have an inline image of Muhammad

• counter systemic bias - Not including an image would help counter some of the systemic bias in the wikipedia. Articles on people should depict the accurately and with respect. To Muhammad this is disrespectful-- the only reason there is not an overwhelming consensus on this is due to the fact that so many editors here have no experience with this culture and think they are winning a battle for "free speech" by disrespecting an important religious figure. We would not use "Piss Christ" that sculpture by Andres Serrano as an image of Jesus-- but we would have an article on Piss Christ and put the image there. Pictures are how westerners see Muhammad. Most of the people who think about him don't think of a picture! Let's let the article reflect this FACT.
• factual accuracy - Nobody who is in a position to verify what this man looked like would do so. All depictions are suspect.
• easy compromise - We can use a link to preserve the idea of free speech and including all information. So, there is no reason to put an image up in people's faces. When articles contain spoilers for movies we warn people, we can certainly do something similar here.
• not including the image is informative -- It shows how important the prohibition on images is to many people. It's symbolic and it will cause no loss of information. People who want to look at the image must click their mouse one extra time. In doing so they will learn how important this tradition is. futurebird 17:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

One culture's opinion. What about the rest of the world? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, what about the rest of the world.

I just can't see how the images help in this article. I'm glad that they area part of the wiki, but they represent a minority view point AND they are in line with the western systemic bias of the wikipedia. This article should depict him in the ways that are most recognized by those who study him and other kinds of depiction, such as images should be in another clearly titled article.

I can't help but think that the only purpose these images serve in this article is a means of thumbing our collective noses at those who find them offensive. Why isn't an inline link good enough? I think it will be very informative and it could even have a caption explaining why it is an inline link. futurebird 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If readers believe, or even suspect, that we have left out an image of Muhammad just to assuage Muslim sensibilities, then they'll wonder what else we've left out of the article for precisely the same reason. In other words, they will cease to trust its objectivity. TharkunColl 18:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we leave it out, just that we make it a link. It's that easy. futurebird 18:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The same objections apply. Self-censorship, no matter how seemingly trivial, has a detrimental effect on Wikipedia's credibility. TharkunColl 18:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

All wikipedia articles include some aspect of "self censorship" as you call it. Some information is included while other information is not. I do not think that the pictures are important enough to be in the main article, I do not think that they represent the world view for this topic. The majority view is NO IMAGE. Moreover, there is a precedent for moving information to meet the needs of readers in the use of spoiler warnings in articles on movies. If we can warn people about accidentally reading the end of the plot of a movie we can MOST CERTAINLY do in in this case. futurebird 18:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And then people will turn to sources other than Wikipedia for objective information. It's as simple as that. TharkunColl 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my comment. futurebird 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That argument doesn't hold. Because the problem of having the images is that people believe they are being used to be provocative and to directly insult Muslim sensibilities--which is not objective either. Fear that we will not look objective is not a valid argument because no matter our decision some segment of the readership will be unhappy and view us as a biased source. You need to argue on the grounds of Wikipedia policy. gren グレン 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, your points are very well taken (except for accuracy). I have trying to argue that it should represent tradition to be accurate but putting it as "not including the image is informative" is a great way to put it. I don't necessarily hold no images--but severely limiting the number of images (0 or 1 maybe 2) truly is informative. Why doesn't Muhammad have images when other historical figures do? It says a lot about the tradition. gren グレン 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would say more in that sense if we included an image with the face veiled. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to find what would constitute a representative miniature. I was reading "The Aghānī Miniatures and Religious Painting in Islam" but it only talks about The Temptation of the Prophet Muhammad... but explicitly states there is "no parallel for such a theme in Islamic iconography." When I have a bit more time I'll look into some books about Islamic iconography (although most don't really deal with Muhammad...) and maybe that will help to remove us from ciruclar discussions. gren グレン 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

By the Islamic law - and a strict part of it, images of God, angels, prophets or the devil are not allowed to be made for illustrations, due to sensitive matters or potentials. This is regardless to examples illustrated by Shia Muslims, for example. After all, I would have to agree with futurebird when it comes to appearance accuracy. - Qasamaan 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So what? TharkunColl 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• POV-There is an implicit POV statement in including images, especially at the beginning of the article. It is the POV that the prohibition on images in unimportant or silly. To represent all POVs on this issue we should include the images, but use a link or warning so that both understanding of these images are present in the articles content.

• This is not about a 'religious rule' -The argument that we're caving in to a religious rule by doing this is bogus. If we anted to follow the religious rule we would not have the images ANYWHERE in the database. We are not talking about censorship, where talking about presenting all views of this content. futurebird 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No. We are singling Muhammad out for special treatment, to appease a religious opinion. This is a slippery slope into worthless propaganda and must be resisted. TharkunColl 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

All religious leaders are portrayed in ways that are supported by the majority of sources on those leaders. The majority of sources support: no image. It's not special treatment. It's called not giving undue weight to a fringe view on this topic. futurebird 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a dangerous precedent, and it will a sad day indeed should your policy be adopted. We are supposed to be objective here. We do not, for example, describe Adolf Hitler in a way dictated by the Nazis, so why should we do so with the founder of any other movement? TharkunColl 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We are going to be showing Muhammad in terms of Muslim sources--images or no images. Unless you are arguing that we should have a Western picture of him in the article, in which case you would be the only user to have stated such an idea. What is clear is that current aniconism among Muslims (as expressed by many discussion participants) should not be seen as a given. The images proposed for inclusion should represent the discourse in academia about how Muhammad was represented--source of which none'of us have brought to this discussion. This is not a clash of ideologies. It's as simple as getting academic sources and seeing what they say about the subject. gren グレン 20:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the majority of "pro-Muhammad sources" I simply said the "The majority of sources" critical commentary and alternate views should also be a part of this article.

On what basis would we be restricting depictions to only Muslim sources? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom, we can do this based on the precedent set by other articles, and by the precedent set by use of spoiler warnings. I'm not talking about not having images, I'm talking about if those images should be displayed at the top of the article, at the bottom with a warning, or as links. The content will still be available to all who want to view it regardless.

We need to look to the sources for guidence on what is the best chioce here.futurebird 03:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please answer this question: how is this different from a spoiler warning in an article on a movie?

futurebird 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings on movies are common across Wikipedia, as are images of historical figures. The difference is that you'd be making an exception, rather than following general practice. Also... spoiler warnings are intended to warn people about something that might spoil their enjoyment of a film. Would a spoiler warning on an image increase Muslim enjoyment of Muhammad? TharkunColl 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is quite telling that you find spoiler warning non-controversial, while a warning here raise bogus concerns about censorship. I too once felt as you do, but as I considered this topic more, I realized that I was operating out a bias that favored sensitive presentation of material that I care about (like the plots of movie) but, did not give enough of this similar sensitivity to the presentation of Muhammad. Why is there a double standard?

So, yes, a spoiler warning on an image would increase Muslim enjoyment of this article, since one would be able to read the rest of the content without seeing the image. And those who want to see the image still could. It gives our readers the CHOICE and the FREEDOM to decide how they want to view the content.futurebird 19:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What does "Spoiler warning" got to do with this topic? I thought we were having a friendly debate. - Qasamaan 19:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Qasamaan, Spoiler warnings are frequently used in articles about movies here to prevent users from reading the ending of a movie before they have seen it. Some people feel that knowing how a movie ends spoils ones enjoyment of the film, so as a courtesy we warn people about parts of the article that may do this. I'm bringing it up to show that the wikipedia often "censors" (if you can call it that) information by using warnings. If they can be used in movie article something similar could be done here. futurebird 19:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

However, such warning would look kind of silly. Anyways, this is my reason for not including the picture. Muhammad is important because of all the impact Muslims have had on the world. Islamic/Muslim culture, however, does not allow for pictures, despite the fact some have been painted. Infact, these pictures give an inaccurate view of Muhammad in the sense they put him into a physical form. In the Muslim world Muhammad is better known for his actions, qualities. This has led people, and artists to print his names in artistic calligraphy that describe something about Muhammad. Thus, by not putting pictures of Muhammad we would be giving a view of Muhammad that is closer to the way he has been viewed my millions, even billions.Bless sins 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be silly at all... it could simply say "Click to see what some call a 'depiction of Muhammad' from XXXX year by So-and-So." People who do want to see the image would click that. But, all these people who want to see it could. I think you make good points, and that is why some calligraphy should be the opening graphic. futurebird 00:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, calligraphic treatments of the word "Muhammad" describe nothing about Muhammad.Proabivouac 10:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad(the section)

I am not talking about the actual depictions, but the section named Depictions of Muhammad. This has been here for a long time, without citation. The section tag shows from January, but I know this has been unsourced for much longer and that previous tags have been placed on this section.

So, I propose this section is removed per our verifiability policy, or that it get a citation, and fast. I would have done this already, but the page is protected, so I decided to get community input. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think what it says is controversial enough to remove the text but you do have a point that there are many editors posting to the talk pages here who seem adamant that there should be no depictions and yet these editors have failed to provide reliable sources to back their claims in the article itself. Usually we call that Original Research but I feel that the section should still stay and stay tagged as it is as unsourced and we should leave it as an exercise for others to find cites. Ttiotsw 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Muslims differ as to whether or not visual depictions of Muhammad are permissible. The position of the four main Sunni Muslim Maddhabs is that, to prevent idolatry and shirk, visual depictions of Muhammad are forbidden; some non-maddhab groups, such as the Salafi movement, take a similar line.[1] The Shia and others have historically taken a much less restrictive view of such depictions, allowing them if they are meant to praise Muhammad, while a school of Sufi'ism uses calligraphy of the name of Muhammad, Ali, Hussein and other important people in Muslim History to create images of the people.[2]

There, is that better? When they unlock it we can fix this. futurebird 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the Muslim rules are in the slightest. I think it has been established that a picture will probably be included in the article, because to Wikipedia, Muhammad is purely a historical figure. The main argument brought up now is whether or not the image used to depict him is "accurate". Using the logic of critics of image inclusion, all non-photographic images of human beings are invalid. Does this make sense at all? --Hojimachong^talk_con 21:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

All non-photographic images of human beings represent a POV and attempt to portray a person in a particular way. This is called art, which is meant to draw upon cultural understanding. Ususally, there is good resons to put this in an encyclopedia, becuae it gives us a cultural POV of the person in question. However, the understanding of Muslim culture is that Muhammad is best (visually) depicted through calligraphy of his 99 (or more) names, and not through physical depicitions.Bless sins 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your response? I was meerly adding soures to the unsoured text from the page, not trying to explain why or why not we should have an image. My arguements on that topic are in the section of this talk page called "reasons not to have an inline image" please respond there. futurebird 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be citing SF Gate or the BBC about this. We/I need to find at least a source from within the field. gren グレン 21:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was just trying to help... futurebird 21:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no... something is better than nothing... I think... but, in the long term we definitely need something from academi press. gren グレン 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comments, Bless sins, I totally agree with your statement that art is POV. However, photographs are still inherently POV. Pictures are usually taken in a certain way to portray the subject in a certain way. For example, a picture of a celebrity on the cover of a tabloid is going to try to portray the subject in a negative light, while the same celebrity will have a professional headshot made solely to exhibit the celebrity in the most positive way possible. Most images used in Wikipedia articles to depict a person, whether paintings, lithographs, or photography, are "famous" pictures (Napoleon, George Washington, and Shakespeare), and are usually associated with the person by most people with any familiarity with the subject. I am open to this calligraphy idea, however; could you direct me to any verses of the Qu'ran which would shed light upon this subject for me? I am curious as to where this is coming from. --Hojimachong^talk_con 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not the Qur'an... it's just tradition. Over time in Islamic lands a general (not definite or all encompassing) turn towards aniconism occurred. With that was a generally more severe aniconism towards drawing Muhammad because it could constitute shirk. They didn't want Muslims to turn Muhammad into something like the Christians had Jesus--was the argument. The fear of shirk and not representing God started very early... Ummayyad caliphs often got rid of public Christian symbols since most fervently the crucifix and to only a mildly lesser extent the cross in general. Yazid II, apparently started rampant aniconism not just of symbols of obvious shirk (like a cross or drawing God) but of any depicted figure. Islam, Iconoclasm, and the Declaration of Doctrine was an interesting article about it but no specific mention of images of Muhammad. In any case, because of these trends alternate forms of representation became dominant. It was a trend through everything. You rarely see stand alone images they're either parts of texts or glazed onto pottery, or done in metal working, tiles, etc. Calligraphy was important in many ways... but especially with important figures where you get stylized ways of writing their names often inside geometric designs. The Turks have something (I've forgotten the name) where they have a highly stylized and organized representation of Muhammad and his attributes in words. Of course, there were still groups that did have representations of him... Persians being the most notable. But, I'm not an expert on this and am still searching to find out more. gren グレン 01:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:futurebird, thank you for the citations. I have placed them in the article and removed the unreferenced tags. That takes care of that. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking for materials discussing the use of calligraphy instead of an human depiction. I didn't word it too well. --Hojimachong^talk_con 02:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This section was to talk about the sourcing of a section of text, I am not sure why discussion of images is going on here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Hojimachong that even photos are POV. But there's no way we are getting a photot of the Prophet Muhammad, so that's not a potential problem. About the Quran see below.Bless sins 17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources calligraphy as a depiction

• Zakariya Calligraphy
• Visual Culture in the Early Islamic Empire
• Prefacing the Image: The Writing of Art History in Sixteenth-Century Iran By David J. Roxburgh see page 141 It talks about how calligraphy may not be distinct from "depiction."

Personal note, in my expereince it's ALWAYS calligraphy that's used, I mean I know a lot of Muslim people and calligraphy seems to be the accepted image here. futurebird 03:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those are exactly scholarly sources... good starts, but I think in this argument it'd be better to follow their references.

Annemarie Schimmel, Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, 1994

Oleg Grabar, The Formation of Islamic Art, 1987

Sir Thomas W. Arnold, Painting in Islam, 1965

Y.H. Safadi, Islamic Calligraphy, 1978

Safwat, Nabil F. The Art of the Pen: Calligraphy of the 14th to 20th Centuries, volume 5 of the Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art. (London: Oxford University Press, 1996)

Especially Schimmel and Grabar who are both very well noted (note sure about the others). That could be useful and I'll try to look some of it up at my library and see what they mention in terms of Muhammad. Sorry to criticize the sources again :( they're useful in exploring but we need academic press in the final version. Thanks :) --gren グレン 03:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Journalists and Wahhabis alike are distorting the Islamic tradition. "Today, much Islamic opinion holds that representation of humans and animals is forbidden to Muslims. But no firm and universal rule on these issues has been enunciated. Shia Muslims often keep pictures in their homes of the prophet as well as Ali, the fourth caliph, or successor to Muhammad as leader of the faithful, and Hussein, the prophet's grandson. The deaths of Ali and Hussein mark the beginning of the Shia tradition." But this source just seems to be trying to play matters down...

futurebird 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Muslims have, for the better part of their history, written the verses of Quran in calligraphy, over mosques, domes, in paintings etc. Indeed the Quran begins with word "Read",

Read! In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, who created. Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Read! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful, He Who taught (the use of) the Pen, Taught man that which he knew not.

These are the very first verses of the Quran. Clearly, the "use of Pen" is important in Islam.Bless sins 17:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What about other views of Muhammad?

This article, as it stands, almost entirely consists of Muslim views of Muhammad. Yet Muhammad was a historical figure, and as such is not owned by Islam. In medieval Europe, for example, Muhammad was a figure of hate and vilification. In order to achieve balance, we should include this and give it due prominence. At present, there is just a single link right at the bottom of the article leading to Non-Islamic views of Muhammad, and one has to then trawl through that article to find a link to Christian view of Muhammad. Yet the fact is that Muhammad was a very influentual figure, and his influence was perceived by medieval Europeans to be wholly negative and destructive. In some quarters, indeed, he was regarded as a manifestation of Satan. To be fair and unbiased, we should include these facts in the main article. We can only gain the trust of our readers if we are manifestly objective, uninfluenced by any religious sensibilities. TharkunColl 12:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a history book in mind that covers this? Itsmejudith 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of Muhammad's children

Listed as six, but then 3 boys' names and 4 girls' names are given.

Rimorob 02:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The number of Muhammad's children are debated. Zazaban 02:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, he's right in that we shouldn't have an contradiction. 4+3=7, not 6... gren グレン 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Transfer the photo to the Christian view of Muhammad

old hide line Please we are Seeking your humanity please no need for the photo 

Hi every one " al-salamo alikom" i came here after i find that there is a photo of our prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). I am Not considering the fact that the image is very misleading and does not have a real meaning at all. But It's prohibited in our religion to drew pictures/paintings of our prophet or any prophet at all and in that we beliefs. And these beliefs are the basis of the human values, as these beliefs are not to be discussed in terms of their spirituality, holiness and its great effect in the human souls. To each of us beliefs are important, and whether these beliefs are silly or not, Regardless confrontation of it, is not a moral act. I know that you are not discussing these beliefs right here, as I believe that you do not mean to offend anyone. just think about it, his photo never make a deferent for any one to see, and his full history is presented in a very good way to those who want to know more about him, and this photo is not going to impress any one and it well never expand there knowledge nether it well misleading them, in the other hand it well offend a lot of people. So why going on with something offends a lot and never benefits the others. I applicant a very special wish, Seeking your humanity and beliefs. please remove the picture, and we will be really thankfully for it. Hgold2000 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many religions, we cannot obey them all. We instead seek to represent a neutral point of view. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the Hadith also prohibit depictions of Allah and all of the other prophets as well (including Jesus and Moses)? I think you're going to be hard pressed to convince non-Muslims to remove images of people that certain individuals considers to be "holy". Also, Islamic law should apply only to Muslims. If a Muslim thinks it’s wrong to draw a picture of their prophet, that's their business. But people who try to force their own religious dogmas on the rest of the world are going to be in for a disappointment when the rest of the world ignores them. If a Jew walked into Denny's and demanded that everybody stop eating Bacon, or if a Christian walked into a McDonald's during Lent and demanded that people throw away their Big Macs, I doubt if anybody is going to obey them. Non-believers are not bound by the rules of the believers, nor should anyone expect them to be. -- Big Brother 1984 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Arrow740 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicely worded, Big Brother. Hgold2000, I would like to point out that most of the points you make have already been addressed on this talk page. We do, however, welcome your participation. --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC and 'Big Brother' and others, How would you realize the fact that most people in the world are religious (according to your "Main Stream" philosophy) and not even atheism or any other ideology allow to disgrace otheres feelings. NPOV does not define that you bring some picture to an article which is not real but fake, nor does the atheism or secular approach allow to decieve the reader who is looking for what the person "Muhammad" stands for. How much %age of Muhammad's character and his all revolution depicted by that picture? That must be barely 0.00000001%, yet the first thing which a reader happens to see is not his rest of 99.9999999999999% revolutionary work and the foundation to a new religion BUT a picture which is not even his real picture but an imaginative painting by a lost painter who is not even know to 99% people of the world. Are you people marketing that painter to make him popular? Does you secularism and atheism or policy allow to decieve the reader by giving the title to the picutre as: "Picture of Muhammad"????

In case of Jeses, All the mainstream Christains have accepted that "Blond person with a UFO at his head" as Jesus, yet a bigger percentage of the world (nonchristians) and the authentic historians dont even accept that picture to be representig Jesus. It is just taken "ok" because almost all the christians have very close association to the "physical appearance" of Jesus and they paint in the chruches etc.

In case of Muhammad (SAW), All the Muslims as well as nonmuslims as well as all the historians know that the Association to Muhammad is represented by his caligraphic Name "مُحَمَّدٌ ". And this is not only limited to the Muslims but all nonmuslims know it (as being Mainstream as well as being 99.9% of the world). Not even 0.1% of the world population has ever seen any pictures which a person can associate to Muhammad in general, yet these very unpopular pictures are being dumped to the minds of the wikipeida readers in the name of secularism, NPOV and atheism.

I respectfully hope you keep your enthusiam for negation aside and think for a while what is considered in General and what kind of very minor things are being imposed on the huge majority who never thought or never wanted to see imaginative picture of Muhammad. VirtualEye 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Point of order here: can you please elaborate on your view that Muhammad was the ..."foundation to a new religion" ?. Reading Wikipedia Muhammad article (for internal consistency) "Muslims do not regard him as the founder of a new religion but as the restorer of the original....". You can see the inconsistency here in what you say and what we know of Islam. Also please elaborate on what you are saying about "...not even atheism or any other ideology allow to disgrace otheres feelings...." and then later mention "..secularism, NPOV and atheism" and "Does you secularism and atheism or policy allow...". Why are secularism, NPOV or atheism conflated ?. Is it because the obverse is "spiritual, POV and theism" ?. We know this is not true as many articles which are of spiritual or theistic subjects are very reasonably NPOV. Your arguments are becoming rather incoherent. Yours sincerely, one of the bacteria, Ttiotsw 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What? Arrow740 06:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. VirtualEye 06:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the entire debate, I find it almost laughable that it inevitably came up on the "Muhammad" page. The "fake picture" debate could have been brought about on thousands of other articles, but it starts here. VirtualEye, where do you pull your statistics from? "99.9%" and "0.1%" seem to pop up very often, and usually are gross hyperbole. --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

my friend HighInBC seek to represent a neutral point of view that have been cuted down to this Picture nothing less nothing more ,posting a misleading "fack" Picture .

my friend Big Brother 1984 as you say we minds our own busyness and we never interfere in what other's beliefs or don't but at the end we care if thay dont stand for ther prophet.

to Hojimachong thanks' for mentioning that most of the points we make have already been addressed , so that say we still on our point , but I was not trying to discus any of my points and I was seeking the humanity in every one of you .

to Arrow740 If I read it in Arabic it well be a personal offending .

my bro VirtualEye I totally agree whit you 100% every point you say is a truly fact and no one can challenge it all they can say is criticism whit no kind of proof.

I have surfed the wikipedia and I find , Adam , Idris, Nuh , Hud ,Saleh ,Ibrahim ,Lut ,Ismail ,Is'haq ,Yaqub , Yusuf , Ayub , Shoaib , Musa , Harun ,Dhul-Kifl ,Daud ,Sulayman ,Ilyas Al-Yasa , Yunus , Zakariya , Yahya , Isa , Muhammad (peace be upon him) all of them as "Prophets of Islam in the Qur'an" and I find that since they are in the Qur'an and most of them are in the view of Islam and in every one I find that there is no any kind of pictures/paintings except the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) where I find pictures/paintings of him .

Wail in the other hand I find Adam, Enoch, Noah, Eber, Shelah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Jethro, Moses, Aaron, Ezekiel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Zacharias, John, Jesus all of them as "name in Bible" by looking in them I find that photo or pictures/paintings are intrados for every one of them , and I find Christian view of Muhammad (peace be upon him) but there is no pictures/paintings at all .

As of that we all know that Islam prohibited paintings of prophet and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is in the view of Islam - "Prophets of Islam in the Qur'an" - so I have to ask you that all of the photo has to be moved to the Christian view of Muhammad (peace be upon him)Hgold2000 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Look, those paintings were drawn by Muslims. We should understand that there is a very important current in Islam that doesn't accept drawings and represent that. But, these images are not Christian depictions. They are Muslim depictions no matter how marginal you believe they are. You need to realize that. There are Muslim artists who have depicted Jesus... they are not on Jesus because they are relatively unimportant to the history of his depiction. I respectfully ask that you stop saying that "Islam prohibited paintings of prophet and Muhammad" because here your beliefs are not Islam. Islam is a religious tradition that has been in existence for 1400 years and has many differing views. We do not make judgments on what God believes is the proper Islam but here we represent what people over time have believed. Since we are representing the whole history of Islam where Muslims have at times clearly found it acceptable to draw images of Muhammad you have an important decision to make: do you think that the traditions that drew Muhammad are important enough to be represented on his main page? gren グレン 11:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

'No due to obvious reason. They represent very less minority in few hundred year of span from 1300 to 1600. If some wish to give right weight to caligraphy then we cannot make space for even one picture in the article without giving it extra-ordinary wrong weightage. Sorry for mistakes I have not slept since long time ... --- ALM 11:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to ban pictures of Muhammad, or impose censorship of any other sort in order to present only the Muslim view, then I suggest that you go and edit http://islamwiki.subcoded.com instead of this one. Please remember that Wikipedia is not here to present any religious viewpoint and cannot be seen to be biased in any way. TharkunColl 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

When throwing fire from their mouth to the other side, people dont think what if they would be in the opposite position.

TharkunColl says: "If you want to ban pictures of Muhammad, or impose censorship of any other sort in order to present only the Muslim view, then I suggest that you go and edit http://islamwiki.subcoded.com instead of this one."

I would modify a bit to show him the mirror: " If you want to put pictures of Muhammad, or impose fake picture of any other sort in order to present only the nonmuslim view, then I suggest that you go put a declaration on the wiki homepage that wikipedia is only for nonmuslims."

Please keep on throwing such one sided dictatorship venom in bulk, so that admins can be overleanrt to consider it a concensus and keep the unpopular, fake and cheap picture on the article. VirtualEye 13:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think HGold made a very valid point, that there is not even a single picture for the articles of names of all Prophets of Islam. On the other hand all the articles about Prophet names in Christianity have pictures. The only exception in case of Prophets of Islam is being given to Muhammad. So the moaning is just about to put a picture on the article about Muhammad (SAW) just because Christian articles have the pictures. TOTAL BIAS. This is called secular policy? Showing a picuture which Christians themselves associtaed to the prophets, is simply secular and in accordance to policy, While Muslims themselves and even many nonmuslims did not associate any picture the Prophets in Islam, then dumping picture on the article about Muhammad is again secular and according to policy? Is it what you call Justice? Hypocrisy of Hypocrisies? As they say: "Ye will know them from their posts".

and Mr. Grenavitar, The pictures drawing about Muhammad almost all belong to some miserable artists in a specific era where artists used to claim to be Muslims but infact there was no acceptability of their work throughout world.

I bet if any wikipedians here would even know the names of those artists, yet they are being publicized and marketed for the sake of dictatorship on wikipedia. Even the muslims who are very much aware of the character of Muhamamd (SAW) they dont even know those cheap and lost artists which are being marketed here on the article. Why would some lost artistis be given so much value? Where is this moaning support for those cheap pictures coming from? Accept it or not, it is what it is. VirtualEye 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing respected Mr. Grenavtar, May I ask how much value is being given to those majority of calligraphy artists who spent their lives to learn and draw the calligraphy raled to Muhammad? In that case all those people supporing secularism and policy just get something stucked in their throat? How much weight is being given to the calligraphy and how much to those short spanned artists? Can a lie be hidden? and can a truth be oppressed? Be your judge yourself. VirtualEye 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Those alleged prophets of Islam that you mention actually have their own proper articles, complete with pictures, because they all lived hundreds of years before Islam was founded - indeed, I'm surprised that more people haven't complained about their religious leaders being described in this way. The proper article for Muhammad, however, is this one. TharkunColl 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say, the same lame argument I am getting since ages , i.e. Since Christians dont object so why Muslims object. If chirstians like chewing gums then why dont like Muslims. Sick. Tomorrow you will ask, if Christians dont mind going to church then why dont Muslims go. VirtualEye 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing Mr. TharkunColl, those are the same prophets which Islam also believes with addition that Jesus and Muhammad are also prophet. Please make that correction. Secondly, my point was same as 'Hgold', that having the articles of Christain view/names of prophets with picture does not imply that you try to dump pictures into the articles related to Islamic view point of Prophets, if you do then it will simply be deception as imposing the pictures to the prophet's articles from Islamic point of view.

Kindly read what point Mr. Hgold raised and you will understand. VirtualEye 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All I understood was some kind of threat involving the Arabic alphabet. Arrow740 16:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we have an article entitled "Islamic view of Muhammad"? We could dump all the religious propaganda into that one, and put the historical truth into this one, with as many pictures as we like. TharkunColl 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical truth = pictures????? Hum I am enlightened. He is historically not often depicted in pictures that is the fact. Please at least have your facts right. --- ALM 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet pictures from multiple time periods and cultures exist, so it does have a historical presence. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is historical presence of everything. Hence we have to see if that is significant enough. Those pictures are mostly exist from 1300 to 1600 and that even in some part of world and not as wide spread thing. We have to think if that was significant enough to give them such a great value on main article or not. Three hundred years after 700 years of Muhammad in 14-1500 years and that not even in wide spread manner. Why we have to give those 3000 years such an extra weightage as compare to other history. If he was majorly depicted in calligraphy and every other mosque and house has calligraphy of him then will it be possible for us to have so many calligraphy pictures to make place of his portrait? (So that we give each thing its right weight) I do not think so. However, obviously these above points are useless when objective it to protect secularism. Hence all arguments are useless here. --- ALM 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is our objective to protect freedom of expression for everyone. Arrow740 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the inclusion of an image as lending that much weight, it is not as though we are surrounding it with flashing lights and making it fill the screen. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a calligraphy image of Muhammad's name would be in any way suitable, and certainly not for the lead image in the article. For those readers, no doubt a huge majority, who cannot read Arabic it will just look like meaningless squiggles. TharkunColl 17:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All three of the comment from Arrow740, HighInBC and TharkunColl was ..... (I leave on someone neutral to read them carefully and decide). --- ALM 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

to my friend grenThere is no proof that this painting is made by Muslims at all , if you are going whit the Arabic name then you are misleading people by saying Arabs are all Muslims .

Do not mislead people by saying this painting is a Muslims fact cause it not , and if you think so, we want a sold proof that it say it's painted by a Muslim .

I agree whit my friend ALM and I just say why completely , and as my friend VirtualEye say we have proved our point's completely , and in the other side you never have any thing that can prove your point of view .

According to Wikipedia official policy

" Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."

" Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, anonymous websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. See below for exceptions."

- According to this policy this painting have to be transferred or dropped down immediately cause it's just simply not a Muslim fact at all ,it is only a fake painting , and the sources is not reliable .

According to Wikipedia official policy

" Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

- All painting of the prophet in this article are vary offensive to readers & it never make this article less informative at all, that if it's truly a painting that we can consider, and if you like there is HADIT that give you the real information , so again this painting have to be transferred or dropped down immediately cause it's just simply offensive to readers, not as discrimination of any kind. Hgold2000 21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure that a picture is "vary offensive to readers"? I would think most readers of an encyclopedia don't really care about the inclusion. I would also be nearly certain that there are more non-offended readers than offended readers. I'll go on the record here as saying I would be offended if an image was not included. --Hojimachong^talk_con 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hojimachong you have to read it right .It say "typical Wikipedia readers" It didn't say " Majority typical Wikipedia readers" so it didn't need a Majority to enforce The law . And this policy is about using an images, not removing one . - you are offended by removing it, i never here about that before , may be tomorrow we well find people offended by not adding more photo and paints in ever article -. I never say that most of the reader well be offended , you are the one who say so . all I did say the it well be vary offensive to readers . And believe me there well be a lot of offended people at les over 500 million and that well be more then enough .

" Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not "--Hgold2000 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If "typical" means anything different to "majority" then the typical Wikipedia reader is even less likely to be offended by a picture of Muhammad than the average one. I shall second the point that was made above and say that I, personally, would be grossly offended by any censorship based on religious sensibilities. TharkunColl 00:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i never know that typical can in any way means majority . and yes it say offended by using , it never say offended by not using . i well be more offended if it been used --Hgold2000 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that your level of offence, being so much greater (as you believe) than ours, is therefore worth more? Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. And I find it extremely offensive that you are prepared to describe my own level of offense as somehow inferior to yours. As a matter of fact I hold freedom of expression to be sacred, and that trumps religious superstition and dogma any day. TharkunColl 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset>I would also be offended if censorship were to succeed. Arrow740 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hgold, I find your belligerence flabbergasting. How dare you assert yourself as superior to me and those who share similar viewpoints with me. I find your comments extremely offensive, and frankly, egomaniacal. While I have the utmost respect for you and your POV, I will not stand idly by and be belittled. I would appreciate it if you somehow reworded your post to make a point, rather than inflame other users. --Hojimachong^talk_con 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet pictures from multiple time periods and cultures exist, so it does have a historical presence. user: HighInBC

VirtualEye's answer: Citation needed please, Mention the historical significance please, Show me these pictures in "Mainstream contents and history" please, Can you cite even a single credible book which researched about the pictures of Muhammad? I know where you peope are coming from. Does your ideology/relgion teach you to be unfair and keep on flattering?

It is our objective to protect freedom of expression for everyone. user: Arrow740

VirtualEye's answer: Huh? Freedom of expression? except Muslims? Go find what is the sweeper of Manhattan street 234 is saying and put on top articles of wikipedia and start the vocals here "Freedom of Speech...". You have to give the value to the content according to it 'Significance', do you know what significance means or do I have to teach you English being a non-native speaker? Can you bring a single credible book about the pictures of Muhamamd? I can bring a couple of dozen books by 'NONMUSLIM' authors which have hundreds of pages describing his life but do NOT have picture of Muhammad. Even if you could consider yourself to be superior to me here on wikipedia, but are you superior to all those nonmuslim athors? In other words you are trying to say that those cridible muslims and nonmuslims who authored books on Muhammad, were fools enough that they forgot to include pictures? and this mumbo jumbo unknown artist is more significant than them?

How do you figure that a picture is "vary offensive to readers"? I would think most readers of an encyclopedia don't really care about the inclusion.user:Hojimachong.

VirtualEye's answer: And I would think most of readers of an encyclopediea dont really care about NOT including picture. All Muslim as well as nonmuslim authors did NOT picture Muhammad in their books. The moaning for pictures is just coming from that hatered for Islam. Thats it. I know there are some neutral readers who try to give some arguments on the basis of their thinking, but it is very easy to know a person who has nothing to argue but keeps on putting lame arguments just to offend Muslims. Most of people will not even care about the absence of a picture yet the question that they will be offended is far far away. VirtualEye 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of hating all Muslims? Arrow740 05:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I will put this here as a placeholder; I find your accusations quite inappropriate, VirtualEye. --Hojimachong^talk_con 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

to all of you , 1st of all i well say that i am very sorry if any of you fell that he is offended in any way and I apologias from ever one . 2nd i have a point and i am trying to clear my point of view . and I think its clear for all of you that I have rest my case . I never take it personally and I never do . and I don’t think I this is the word that rise it up . but I rephrase it .--Hgold2000 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that whoever wants the picture to stay on this page has anti Islamic motives and is guided by bad faith. May all of those people burn in Hell. Disclaimer: this is not a personal attack on anyone, anywhere, at any given time. 216.99.62.25 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm dying of laughter! Arrow740 04:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As was I, until the funny man vandalized my talk page in a very.... interesting manner [3]. --Hojimachong^talk_con 04:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're sufficiently chastened now. I certainly am. Arrow740 05:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 ! Could you please answer even a single point instead of sending lame oneliners without any point? VirtualEye 05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow was responding to my comments about this vandalism of my talk page. It provided some much-needed levity here. --Hojimachong^talk_con 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, I viewed the Wikipedia entries for some other major religious figures, including Buddha, Confucious, David, Jesus, Moses, Nanak Dev, Rama, Rishabha, and Zoraster. Each one of them has a picture. If the Wikipedia entry for Muhammad does not have a picture, it will be conspicuous by its absence. I believe this is another point to consider when deciding whether the removal of the image pushes Wikipedia out of a neutral point of view. Liberal Classic 07:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Those figures/pictures of Bhudda, Jesus Moses are well known and associated to them in the 'Mainstream' people. But nobody knows any pictures associated to Muhammad till this article on wikipedia started the marketing of these highly insignificant pictures. No Muslim or NoMuslims knew about those pictures and painters except few hundreds in all this population of more than 6 billion. Did you get it or not?

There is the picture of smoke in the article smoke, does it imply that you go out to take a picture of Air to put on article even it does exist? Similar if Mainstream picture of Jesus or Budha is there then use it, if Picture of Muhammad is not there the who told you to somehow bring some drawings of some individuals who are not even cited in a single credible scholastic work? Who knows the names of these artists? And who can say that the pictures are real? In the article of Air, you will not put a picture of smoke and title it as 'Air'. Then all those wikipedians will come out to remove in a fraction of a second. VirtualEye 08:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Challenge

I challenge if anybody can give a fair answer to my following comment:

"Can you bring a single credible book about the pictures of Muhamamd? I can bring a couple of dozen books by 'NONMUSLIM' authors which have hundreds of pages describing his life but do NOT have picture of Muhammad. Even if you could consider your argument to be superior to me here on wikipedia, but are you superior to all those nonmuslim athors? In other words you are trying to say that those cridible muslims and nonmuslims who authored books on Muhammad, were fools enough that they forgot to include pictures? and this mumbo jumbo unknown artist is more significant than them?

Wikipedia works on reliable sources, right? When all those scholastic authors did not give picture of Muhammad in the books while they gave the picture of Jesus in many books, Did'nt those nonmuslim and atheist authors know that there were some paintings about Muhammad available? how can you be more superior to those scholars on which wikipedia relies actually? And how can you say that only Muslims dont want the picture on article, those all scholastic nonmuslim authors also did not give any picture in their books."

Now please give answer to my points instead of looking here and there and shifting to some other post where you can have some margin to blame other person. VirtualEye 08:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)