Talk:Depictions of Muhammad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Depiction of Muhammad → Depictions of Muhammad – Much like with Images of Jesus, this article is more about the collective idea of depictions. In addition, "Depiction of Muhammad" sounds very awkward.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator. joturner 07:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care as creator. Zora 07:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The name sounds incredibly awkward. In my opinion, this page should be moved to Depictions of Muhammad or Depicting Muhammad (despite the fact that those names are unconventional). joturner 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No strong opinion. "Depiction of Muhammad" sounds more like it is about the topic generally, while "Depictions of Muhammad" sounds more limiting in that it seems to suggest the article is limited to being about specific depictions, but maybe that distinction is just in my head. Esquizombi 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Point of View

I protest the hijacking of this article to claim that a Salafist prohibition of visual art is the Muslim norm. I also protest the pious tone. I will restore to a less biased version. Zora 02:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Point of view? Possibly. Pious tone? I don't really see it. But either way, you should have fixed the problems instead of deleting what I believe contained a considerable amount of valuable information. joturner 02:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I was restoring the information. I have also added something re the animated cartoon -- I finally found a ref. Zora 05:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Description vs. Depiction

Since a description is not a depiction, I have my doubts whether Rushdie or the "Verbal" sections have a place here. Verbal description and calligraphy would be more appropriate at Veneration for Muhammad. dab (ᛏ) 15:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

From Houghton Mifflin Company's thesaurus:

Depiction: The act or process of describing in lifelike imagery: delineation, description, expression, portrayal, representation.

The oral and written descriptions therefore fall under depictions. joturner 18:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

this is the wide, metaphoric sense of the word, but fine with me. dab (ᛏ) 12:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Depictions of other prophets of Islam

It's mentioned in the intro, I think it would be interesting to have at least a paragraph in the article making mention of it and whether it is equally as contentious and relatively uncommon as depictions of Muhammad, or less so. I have no idea. Could also link to subsections of articles like Images of Jesus, were there subsections about muslim depictions - though at present there is not. As an aside, this article is nicely laid out and illustrated, but there are a lot of facts lacking citations. Esquizombi 01:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Type of visual representations

I think we should be careful about the type of visual representations we put on the article. There can be horrible pictures out there, however I think we should at least limit them to ones that are somewhat serious. The strange cartoonish picture is just plain unecessary here. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 07:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The one from South Park or the Far Side cartoon? I think it's important to note the not-so-uncommon depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in cartoons. And those two cartoons are pretty tame cartoons meant to cause little offense. Trust me; there are far worse depictions of him which I refrained from adding to the gallery. Far worse. joturner 15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No I mean the one from Alexander Ross's encyclopedia. I think its plain unserious. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an example of 17th century clip art! It's not hostile -- the man depicted is a handsome bloke of great gravitas. The turban is a little exagerrated, but that's just saying "this guy is an Arab". Plus, some turbans are that big. Look at the publicity pix for the recent Bollywood film Paheli -- Shahrukh Khan in an enormous Gujarati turban. Zora 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think that was unserious. It's a picture based on stereotypes about Arabs. joturner 00:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay I guess I'll have to agree with those explanations although I don't understand some parts of Zora's. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

17th c. art is certainly ok, as is Blake. Larson is borderline, it may serve as a generic "cartoon" illustration, more surrealist than hostile in this case. I would object to the addition of random internet cartoons making fun of the recent controversy as Wikipedia:Recentism. dab (ᛏ) 12:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

US Supreme Court figure

Why do you say it's a representation of Muhammad, when the US Supreme Court says, that "the figure is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad, and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad."? Raphael1 16:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you ignore that sentence, it is very clear in the article that the figure depicted at the US Supreme Court is supposed to be Muhammad. It would be like saying that the picture of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) with the bomb in his turban "bears no resemblance to Muhammad". That would be true, but clearly the intention was to depict the Prophet Muhammad. Likewise, the fact that the brochure even mentions Muhammad by name proves that the figure is supposed to represent the Prophet; it's just that the figure does not actually look similar to the real Muhammad. joturner 18:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that the creator of that figure probably once tried to depict Muhammad. But that the US Supreme Court says, that the figure bears no resemblance to Muhammad, is IMHO a well-meant statement out of respect, that is worth mentioning. Don't you think so? Raphael1 00:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the comment from the Supreme Court to the body. joturner 00:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Raphael1 01:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article is almost there. One of the stumbling blocks I had when considering passing it is factual inaccuracy - the Satanic Verses certainly do not caricature Muhammad (compare caricature to satire). In fact, the entire section on Rushdie seems slightly ill-thought out, as if it was basically included to complement the Danish cartoons controversy; if you include "literary" depiction of Muhammad then the article would not only fit better under a different title, but also it should include a large amount of material on how Muhammad has been treated in literature, while at the moment it effectively focuses on (visual) depictions of Muhammad, which is actually the natural meaning of the title (descriptions of his appearance are still relevant here, though, in the same way that the lack of physical descriptions of Jesus would be relevant in an article on depictions of Jesus). Regardless of that, the Satanic Verses need careful consideration, while the sentence here reads as a little throwaway. The matter is quite complicated, but the generally-accepted rule against depictions of the Prophet doesn't seem to have been especially relevant in that dispute (blasphemy was more the issue). My advice would be to either work out precisely what the cause of the outrage was and deal with it in a relevant way here (the talk page for Rushdie's novel doesn't show great consensus for this unfortunately) or skip over it altogether and keep to the "natural" theme of the article; there's a lot of good material here without a need to bloat it with a half-hearted attempt at covering the literary appearances of Muhammad.

A couple of things could do with referencing (e.g. the anti-film demonstrations in Washington DC). There's also some stuff that would be good to see for completeness e.g. Muhammad's image can be found in plenty of Christian artwork. For example, Bologna Cathedral contains an image of Muhammad in Hell that allegedly made it a target for al-Qaeda ([1]). There is also the problem of the galleries - while rather pretty, they don't link into the text very well. Some of the Islamic pictures would make more sense if the descriptions given didn't just state what the scene being depicted is, but also the purpose and school of the work. For example, if a picture is a devotional picture from the Hazarajat tradition, please tell me! On the other hand, some of the details like the current location of the work are probably unnecessary on article space. If anybody is interested they can click on the picture to find more information about the source; in the article, the main point of including a picture should be to better explain how Muhammad has been depicted and why, not which museums hold the pictures at the moment. On the whole the layout and structure is good, though I wonder whether the "disputes" section should just be merged into the section above. There isn't that much in the article about any bloody disputes between Muslims on the matter, is that a sign there weren't any and they were generally pretty tolerant of each other's differing views on the matter? The stuff in this paragraph is basically quibblesome; I think the article would be improved significantly if it was enacted but it's probably not fatal to good article status.

Finally, there is another thing that is certainly fatal to GA status, and that's fair use image-tagging. Conditions on fair use are pretty stringent; there are two things that need to get done before this becomes acceptable. Firstly, if you use an image as fair use, you need to include a written justification as to why this particular use (i.e. in this particular article, in the way it is used) is fair use of the image. (For instance, Image:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg does this for its appearance in the main Jyllands-Posten controversy article, but not for this one.) Secondly, for this to work, your use here has to be fair use. Just putting an image into a gallery doesn't cut it; for the image to add significantly to the article you need to be critically commenting on it. Bland descriptions of where an image comes from without explaining its context and importance count as quibblesome on those (public domain) Islamic pictures, but fatally undermine a fair use claim for copyright images. There's a particular problem with the Far Side cartoon here, as that isn't even mentioned elsewhere in the text.

All things considered, this article is a very good example of how to deal with a sensitive topic. Kudos to all those who have worked on it; at the moment, it is just a little short of good article status. If you can find a way to action my objections, I think it's virtually a dead cert to pass GA. In fact, I think this is a potential FA, but that's going to take time and a lot of careful editing! I haven't gone ahead and actually tried to fix my objections myself, which in a sense is rather unwiki of me, but I think editors of this article need to reach consensus amongst themselves as to the scope of the article (when considering literary depictions of Muhammad) and also I lack the knowledge needed to write some of the descriptions I have requested. I wish the editors the best of luck in getting this all the way to FA :-) TheGrappler 22:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed rationale for decline good article status. Your input will hopefully improve this article significantly. joturner 22:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested depiction by someone

In the Mohammed Cartoons talk page someone suggested to insert this: http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/log/OI02042005.gif . I am just forwarding this to you to decide whether you want it here or not. I imagine the point is that it is an old depiction from a danish cartoonist that predates the JP cartoons by a 1 1/2 years.DanielDemaret 18:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

God = Allah

Question #1) Is Allah Yahew?

Allah is God is Yahew because:

1. Qur'an that uses this term claims it is.

2. Maimonides has no problem with God of Islam. (Please have a look at: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9902/novak.html to learn more about Maimonides, if you are not a jew.)

3. You can see this in Jewish encyclopedia's.

4. As an example, See this: http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=255&o=2400 . It says that Jews can enter mosques but not churchs.

--Aminz 07:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Islamic concept of God (Allah) is not the same across all religions. If the term Allah is not used, this needs clarification. Netscott 07:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

But the christian articles use "God", don't they? The term "God" is not reserved for Christians either. --Aminz 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly due to the fact that English speaking peoples are historically Christian, when one says God it is generally understood to mean the christian concept of god. Netscott 07:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if one qualifies that as meaning "God the Father", in which case it is the same concept as Allah, and as the contemporary (if not ancient) Jewish concept of God. There is trinitarian doctrine, but in actual usage, "God" is the father, not Jesus. The Jewish concept has arguably changed over time - what was once the God of Israel among many Elohim (unambiguously plural despite traditional methods of explaining it away) has been thought of as God for millenia. There is simply no dispute here.Timothy Usher 07:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• While your insight is appreciated Timothy Usher, we're sooner talking about an English speaking lay person's concept of what the term God refers to. Besides, there are other religions that have their own concepts of God outside of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Netscott 07:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. This is just another attempt to imply muslims don't worship the abrahamic deity, which they clearly do. (I'm not sure about christians, though; trinitarian christology is a truly mind-bending ex post facto justification for the deification of Jesus. Arius was robbed! ;) — JEREMY 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you Jeremy! --Aminz 08:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite right.Timothy Usher 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that according to User:Timothy Usher, User:Anonymous editor does not support this change either? Netscott 08:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, your argument is patently false. Have you forgotten that there are other religions outside of those that believe in an Abrahamic deity? Netscott 08:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Jeremy said exactly what was in my heart! His argument is perfect. They can use the term God or god if they want(as christians and jews do). No discrimination! --Aminz 08:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please let User:Anonymous editor himself apply changes if he wants. --Aminz 08:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, there are religions outside of those that are Abrahamic based. Netscott 08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See Hinduism. They are also using the term "God". NO DISCRIMINATION PLEASE!! --Aminz 08:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think since there is only one God in Islam, there will be no confusion in Islam related articles. Were there two gods, we had to specify the god in paranthesis. --Aminz 08:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument that Aminz is doing this solely to tranlate Allah to conform to the English Wikipedia is also false as the term Allah is very much a part of the English language. [2], [3], [4]. Allah is an English Arabic_transliteration for God.

Netscott 08:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I kindly request that all edits to change the word Allah to God cease in good faith until such time as this is properly settled. Netscott 08:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In the natural language, there are no two words with the same meaning (otherwise the word hadn't been created in the first place). Now we have word "Allah" and "God". The word Allah is artificially entered in everyday conversations of people. The first impression people un-intentionally get is that Allah is different from God. When we can use the word "God", there is no reason to use the arabic word "Allah" to avoid the common misunderstandings.

Okay, I will temporary stop changing more "Allah"'s to "God"; but will resist if one wants to change my previous edits. --Aminz 08:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I see true bad faith colors shining through there Aminz. Much disrespect due. Netscott 08:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I have broken my compromise. I apologize, but this issue is exteremely important to me. Because I have encountered people who say "Allah" is "Satan". I will bear the sin of breaking my compromise on my shoulder. I apologize.

Not that I want to cover my breaking of my compromise, but Netscott was the first who broke the compromise in action at 7:51 and I broke it at 8:14. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeremygbyrne&diff=50711520&oldid=50403179 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_warrior&diff=next&oldid=50709869

--Aminz 09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I'm losing more and more faith in you. Look at the edit you did at 7:21, notice anything funny? Our Allah/God issue was supposedly settled at 7:06. I totally doubt your apology again. Please show good faith and self-revert all edits you've made to versions prior to you editing from Allah to God. Netscott 09:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am losing my trust in you too. I compromised with you on that particular article. Later you objected to my edits on another article. I changed it according to the compromise we already had(there was no need to enter into a revert war again). But you broke the compromise. My later breaking of the compromise was, I admit bad. But I really thought I have compromised with you on that particular article at that time. --Aminz 09:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

God/Allah/YVHV

It seems to me, that the whole difficulty is related to three different levels of understanding. It might be more productive to stay away from the hot buttons of religious terms and discuss this in more ordinary ways.

Two people meet up and are introduced. The first one says:

“I drive a lot so I am off to buy a PRACTICAL car”.

The second says:

“What a coincidence!! I am in exactly the same position! I drive a lot too and I am also in need of a practical car. Why don’t we go together?”

Now, at this point, two things are possible. They continue to talk about cars, types of cars and buying cars but never actually get the time to set out on the proposed buying trip. OR, they do set out and we continue the story.

The two travelers spend some time researching the local car sales lots and make a list of them to help plan their day. At the first car lot a sales person comes out to greet them. The first person says:

“Hello, I drive in town a lot and, what with fuel prices being what they are, I am looking to by a hybrid or a “mini” car to drive”.

At this point the second person is standing with his mouth agape and says:

“That is not at all what I was looking for! I drive long distances and I am looking to by a Lincoln town car for more comfort!”

Here they fall to bickering between themselves about the various needs, wants and merits of their respective ideas. Here, also two things are possible. They continue to bicker and forget about the sales person waiting to help them (he eventually gets called away to anther customer) because at this point it is clear that the two people need TWO salespeople to assist them. OR they decide, quite rightly, that they must now part and travel divergent paths. This is what happens and we continue with the story.

The two people spend the day very happily searching out their car. Both are successful and meet as they are leaving the car lot. Two things can happen. Either they are both flushed with peace from their success and invite each other out to dinner where they become fast friends and talk about all manner of topics OR they are both flushed with pride at their new possession. In the former case, there is more to say while in the latter case, they fall again to arguing merits and our story ends here.

For those who set out on the path to God/Allah/YVHV, they are optimistic, faith filled and not too concerned with the particulars. It really doesn’t matter what Name you use.

When people actually get an opportunity to “have” God/Allah/YVHV, then the Name that is assigned is very important since it must meet a specific need for each individual.

When people actually experience God/Allah/YVHV, then either the Name is completely irrelevant or the Name is the only thing that is relevant.

__________

YVHV – is primarily understood in a transcendent (tanzih) sense with only the slightest hint of an immanent (tashbih) aspect. (80% and 20%)

GOD – is primarily understood in an immanent (tashbih) way (since Jesus is said to be a deity) with the transcendence only preserved in the “old testament”. (20% and 80%)

ALLAH – is understood as immanent since all names are His Names and transcendent since His essence (zat, dhat) is completely unknowable to any created thing/creature. (50% and 50%)

In one sense, YVHV, GOD and ALLAH are all different since the emphasis on immanence and transcendence is allocated differently in each.

In one sense, YVHV, GOD and ALLAH are all the same…unless anyone wants to argue about percentages of immanence (tashbih) and transcendence (tanzih).

Please feel free to delete this (or move it) if it is not appropriate for the discussion.

oriontriquetra@ yahoo . com

---

Allah is the god of the muslims. Given the huge conflicts between shariah law and Jewish law/christian cannon law Allah != Judeochristian god. For example, Judiasm does not prohibit alcohol, but Islam does. The same god can't be right in one case and wrong in the second. 24.60.163.16 04:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Christianity does not prohibit anything so by the same reasoning, Christians have a different god. --Aminz 05:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Like one driver needs feul efficiency while another driver needs comfort, the type of car is determined by the type of need. At lower levels, need is unique to the person. That said, of course all humans need to breath. Breathing is not a type of need that varies from human to human.

Sharia, Law/Torah, Canon Law, Articles of Faith are for function and needs that may vary acording to one's individual perception.

Breathing is a need humans all share, which is why there is no sharia/law/belief system that tells you how and where you should breath.

Understand: Need, Function and Perception.--24.80.31.230 17:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

STRONGLY disagree.--204.78.8.254 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Allah is not the god of the Bible. In the Bible God seeks a personal relationshim with mankind, but in the Qu'ran it states that Allah is unknowable. Millions of Christians will agree that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god.

Greetings - of course disagreement is the flavor of life :) so thank you for this comment. And I hope you feel the same as I comment: Certianly Allah is the god of the Bible. Certainly, God is transcendent ("unknowable"), but He also "hears and is aware of everything". Hearing is certainly NOT a description of something "unknowable". The Qur'an is most clear...Allah/God is BOTH personal AND unknowable. For those who cannot comprehend the Creator being BOTH, that is a limitation of the created not a limitation of the Creator. Need and Function are at play here....who do YOU need God to be, and He will function as such.

Finally, millions of Christians agreed that the world was flat for centuries. That did not make it true. Perception is at play here, perception is not Truth.

Peace oriontriquetra Oriontriquetra 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

POV Issue

The article claims that "Western culture has often been critical of Islam and hostile or demeaning depictions of Muhammad have been frequent." It says that a citation is needed, but I think that scrapping or rewording that statement is needed. This is in no way a neutral POV. This is just an attempt to convey that western culture is hostile towards Muslims. In reality, hostile or demeaning depictions aren't frequent (most western media outlets arefearful of insulting Islam), otherwise the Danish cartoons wouldn't have been anything special. I think that "Western critics have occasionally created hostile depictions of Muhammad" is more accurate, and less slanted. Any thoughts? --Insertrandomname 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello...what you say is perhaps accurate considering the last 20 or 30 years, but for the entire history of Islamic/Christianity relation, the overall Western attitude has "often been critical of Islam and hostile or demeaning depictions of Muhammad (AS) have been frequent". If you want citations, we can list them by centuries. I would suggest starting with the 9th or 10th since that is when Western Chrisendom came into more frequent contact with the Islamic areas. Given a couple of weeks, I could possibly get to the project.

As a final note, consider the semi neutral position of the west over the last, say, 50 years. Then consider the historically hostile/negative position of the West over the last 1300 years. Can you honestly say that the 1300 preceeding years are not and have not been an influence in modern times ;)

oriontriquetra @ yahoo.com

PS I didn't sign my previous post on the follow up to the car anaolgy.

Hullo, I'm a non-Muslim editor, with a good background in European history, and I would agree that up until the Enlightenment, the European view of Muhammad was distinctly negative. It's only with Montesquieu and Voltaire that you start getting sympathetic betrayals of Muhammad, or of the "Turks". It's the secularists who were willing to be tolerant, but the Christians, who dominated until recently, continued to view Islam and Muhammad very negatively. Do you want to put that into the article? Zora 07:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points, I think that it would be important to distinguish between modern and historical times. The current structure of that section is quite awkward, as it goes from something like "depictions of Muhammed are usually positive or neutral" (with a reference to the Supreme Court figure) to the sudden "western culture frequently portrays Muhammed negatively". --Insertrandomname 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

you mean "sympathetic portrayals" I assume :p dab (ᛏ) 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

POV statement

 This of course is wrong , the [[ shia's ]] have a very hyprocritical view claiming they are muslims when clearly disrespecting the peaceful religion of [[ islam ]]. 

I've removed the above statement, which describes the Shi'a view of Muhammad as "wrong" and disrespectful, thus violating WP:NPOV. Any objections?--TBCTaLk?!? 02:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing religious opinion stated as truth

Someone again rewrote the start of the article to claim that the Qur'an and hadith forbid any representational art and that the Shi'a are wrong. I removed the opinions. Zora 07:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not upload any image of Muhammad

Please do not upload any image of Muhamamd, that may be any drawing or any imaginary image. Because Muslims dislike this and in relagion Islam to Portrait any image of Muhamamd (PBUH) is prohibited. So please avoid it.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmsarfraz (talk • contribs) .

I politely suggest that you read Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer. Many of the pictures featured on Wikipedia, while potentially offensive to certain groups, are also relevent to the topic or are otherwise informative to the reader. And please, sign your comments for the benefit of others. →DancingPenguin 19:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It is ok, only Muslims are not allowed to portait him, the people uploading the images are mostly not Muslim. HighInBC 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

At the bottom of the article is the statement:

The creators of South Park highlighted Comedy Central's censorship of their program by including a cartoon segment in which American president George W. Bush defecates on Jesus Christ. In Comedy Central's judgment this was acceptable for broadcast whereas showing Muhammad giving someone a fish was not.

I don't think this paragraph conforms to WP:NPOV, especially the wording of the second sentence, because it suggests that Comedy Central is biased against Christianity and towards Islam. I think it could be argued that Comedy Central was simply trying to avoid a similar backlash to that of the Danish cartoons controversy. Admittedly it's a very grey area, but I think it could be re-written in a way that doesn't push forward a certain point of view. I've left it as it is for now though - thoughts? Markbrough 07:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem here. The statements indicate that censorship works differently for Christian and Islamic issues. They do not indicate why. One might add the two possible explanations you suggest, but someone might object it's speculative.--Niels Ø 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

the factual statement is unproblematic, the rhetorical tone is not. dab (𒁳) 13:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Muhammad?

I've started an approach at Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc that might make a good model for Wikipedia's other core biography articles. I see that Muhammad already has two pages about depictions: this and the films page. With respect for the inherent delicacy of such pages for Muhammad in particular, I'd like to invite the editors here to visit the other page, which is a featured list, and see whether its approach would benefit your efforts. Cordially, Durova 18:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Caption for Maome image

The visible caption states:

Ilustration portraying Muhammad preaching to his early followers.

However, the caption on the image page reads

illustration depicting Muhammad prohibiting the intercalation of the calendar.

According to Islamic calendar#Forbidding intercalary months:

In the ninth year after the Hijra, Allah revealed the prohibition of the intercalary month.

and

This prohibition was repeated by Muhammad during his last sermon on Mount Arafat which was delivered during his farewell pilgrimage to Mecca on 9 Dhu al-Hijja AH 10

These two captions have the appearance of contradicting each other. I am adding a fact tag, with the hopes that either a given intepretation is definitively established, or the text changed to to illustration "possibly" depicting... --BostonMA ^talk 10:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The two captions with the word "Majmac" may be using the letter "c" to represent the guttural Arabic consonant 'ayin. (Others who know more than I should confirm.) Transliterations into the Latin alphabet usually leave it out, and it looks as if other words in this caption set in which it occurs have omitted it. It is sometimes represented by a symbol resembling a superscript "c" or a single quotation mark that opens rightwards, as a "c" does. (Romanized Somali uses the "c" as its 'ayin, I think.) Until someone standardizes the transliterations throughout, perhaps we should drop the final "c" from these two captions; they will doubtless mislead many readers.

66.135.106.50 01:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Cy

Removed out-of-place addtion to here

While reviewing the controversies, I found an addition placed awkwardly in the section "Verbal descriptions", and then moved into an even more awkward place in-between an introduction and quote. I moved it here rather than just removing it. Since the article introduction references the problem, I'm not sure the text is needed.

It is very important to know that the common consensus among the largest branch of Islam, that being the Sunni Branch prohibits all forms of depictions of the prophet Muhammed (Pbuh). Muslim scholars in the past and the present agree that it is forbidden to depict the Prophets in films or paintings or portraits. This is the view held by Fiqhi Councils all over the world. Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his Companions, explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions. [5]

Shenme 18:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Relating to #Description vs. Depiction, I think we need to define the scope of this article. Yes, it could include all kinds of things, but what this article is really focussed on is giving outlet to the many physical images. I think we should limit the scope of this article to just those physical images, maybe rename it Images of Muhammad or something. We are very unclear. Islamic views of Muhammad for instance links to this under "visual depictions". I think even calligraphy should not be on this page (in part because it can be difficult to find comparable calligraphy about just Muhammad not in a larger context of Qur'an. This would free up this article (for the most part) from very self-conscious contextualizing and allow us to focus on the use of such images. gren グレン 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll: Do you think this article should be limited to just physical images?

Yes

• gren グレン 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No

• ALM 10:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Calligraphy should also be in the article.

BBC as academic source on Islam?

Were BBC a reliable source on these matters, we could state as fact that "Islam 'was revealed to humanity by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).'"[6] These pages are controversial for exactly this reason; they are unattributed analyses, they are not actually news (for which the BBC is considered reliable) but a sorry excuse for scholarship (for which it's not), and should be ignored. It can't be overemphasized that there is no credited author. For all the patina of British wordliness and sophistication, BBC falls short of American journalistic and academic standards alike in this regard. BBC is a notable publisher, but we cannot credit unattributed work.Proabivouac 10:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence that means it is justifiable to remove the reference and revert to a text that is all un-citied and wrongly written [7]? -- ALM 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your objection, like mine, is completely valid. Perhaps the solution is to leave this blank. I don't know. Perhaps Grenavitar might be able and willing to assist us with something fairly-put and well-cited.Proabivouac 10:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your revert to non-citied and badly written text was wrong. There are other multiple sources available. Use them to rewrite that section. For example Esposito - "Islam: The Straight Path" - p.5: "In addition, Prophetic traditions... give us a picture of his meaning and significance in early Islam as do Islamic calligraphy and art, where the names of Allah and Muhammad often occur side by side..." From p.9 - "Many Arab Muslims extended this ban to any representation in art of the human form... This attitude resulted in the use of calligraphy... and arabesque... as dominant forms in Islamic art." [8], and "Muslims respect free speech rights, Syeed said. But "in a democratic environment, living in a pluralistic society, people should know they have to respect the sensitivity of Muslims on this issue. It does not muzzle their freedom of speech in rejecting Muhammad as the prophet." NewsMax.com Wires. Many more... --- ALM 11:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Related: Proabivouac... calligraphy is a depiction of Muhammad (as are words, etc.) However, we do need to clarify what we mean. Both the unsourced intro or ALM's WP:INTRO violating quote seem to talk about physical images. (Not to mention that the quote implies that Muslims shouldn't use images because hadith says so... it may be a prevalent view, but it's not the only one as can be seen my the fact that people have drawn images) In any case, it's pointless to debate this without clarifying what a depiction is. ALM, your introduction is only talking about figurative depictions (which I think I should adopt as the proper name for them) not calligraphy or anything. If you really think this is about more than figurative images then you need a much different intro which isn't just emphasizing figurative images. Your 'no' opinion above is fine... but you need to clarify the scope of this article before it's even worth trying to write about. If this is about all depictions--including calligraphy--then we are going to get into many of the same problems that we do on Muhammad. That is why I think we need a page--this or another--only dealing with figurative images. --fake gren @ 128.175.87.88 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Thanks, fake Gren, for your input. However I should emphasize that the core definition of "depict" (as opposed to "describe," inscribe," "discuss," etc., is in fact to create a visual image (Latin pingere "to paint";) usage as "describe" is common but merely metaphorical (note that "paint a picture of" may likewise appear with a metaphorical construal in the same contexts.) It is useful here to hew to the core definition to avoid confusion.Proabivouac 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And calligraphy is visual :O But, we need to make sure everyone agrees to only use figurative images... or have an article just for that. ALM, agree with us, now...................................................... Please? gren グレン 21:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you insist then I have to agree :) --- ALM 10:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to address that, but removed it before posting because it sounded unduly pedantic: all writing, including calligraphy, is (trivially) a depiction of written words, which themselves abstractly symbolize spoken words. Unless they are also pictographs (for example, the letter A at one time depicted the head of an ox,) they do not depict the objects these words denote.Proabivouac 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

According to BBC, "Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban." I wonder if Shia scholars would concur with that statement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They would, I am pretty sure. gren グレン 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is just my reading of it, but 'less strict' seems to imply the shia are slackers, and if they were really serious about Islam they would not allow images either. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're correct that the language used is not neutral. It is not folk practice contradicting Shia orthodoxy it is either a lack of ruling against it or a certain support for it. I'm really not sure of the exact reasons. But, the language is no good. gren グレン 09:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The current text is not integrated in any way into the article. Starting with a quote, without indicating who said this (yes, we have a reference but the quote is not introduced) is endorsing totally one view.

Though the BBC is not academic, I think it semi-reliable. This observation seems to be all right regarding its content. However, we need to dePOV it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of BBC generally, it's this section in particular which has earned notoriety for its silliness.Proabivouac 10:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the intro should state that M. has been depicted/described in word and image, that no contemporary images exist, that Muslims have a problem with depicting him. It has been rare but has been done but other ways (calligraphy, veiled) are more common. This is a proper way to introduce the subject. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe this at this point. That's not to say you can't find someone saying it, but editors have been conspicuously unable to produce historical examples of these calligraphic "depictions." So far as I've been able to discern, it's a backdated myth.Proabivouac 11:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I was writing from what my impression is. I might be wrong. Still, this format is the way to go. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because you are expecting depictions of Muhammad to be to/for him alone. Muhammad in most concrete traditions is put in the context of the Qur'an and Islamic traditions greatly because of orthodox fears of shirk. Folk tradition (which is more oral, ceremonial) does have more veneration just for Muhammad because it wasn't something as physical that orthodoxy could disapprove of. This is my understanding. So, you believe you aren't finding calligraphy of Muhammad because most places don't just have the word Muhammad displayed; however, it is Qur'anic verses displayed prominently, and you do still have things like hayli. I think your problem and why I so vehemently disagree with you is because you think proper tradition represents the individual in a certain way. Islamic tradition as a way of de-emphasizing their prophet (kind of) act differently. gren グレン 11:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems we'd agree in this: these aniconists didn't "depict" Muhammad at all, only discussed him. Re Qur'anic verses, Muhammad is hardly mentioned by name at all in the Qur'an. The only prominent appearances in the aniconic tradition are in the Shahada and the Seal verse.Proabivouac 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fatwas = Muslims?

These are telling edits, ALM:[9],[10] It seems you are conflating the content of fatwas (and even so, I'm not inclined to accept your characterization at face value, given that you are trying to build a case rather than engage in neutral research) with the beliefs of Muslims.
For example, approx. 88% of Italians are Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholic church forbids masturbation, pre-marital sex and contraception. There are approx. 59 million Italians. Therefore,approx. 52 million Italians oppose masturbation, pre-marital sex and contraception. Does that sound correct to you?
Quoting from User:ALM scientist/Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies:

FACT # 1: Rulings/fatwa representing 85% to more than 98% of Muslims are usually against depicting Muhammad. That simply means from 1.19 to 1.37 billion people.

As you've observed, even though alcohol consumption is strictly forbidden by orthodox interpretations of Islam, many Muslims drink, especially where they are allowed the choice to do so.
In this article, we need to to make clear that popular representations of Muhammad are common in Iran. Additionally, you've presented no rulings from Iranian Shi'a religious authorities which forbid depictions, or any source which states that they do so, so your qualification "outside Iran" is still unjustified.Proabivouac 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am NOT saying Muslims outside iran. I wish to say Scholars outside iran. It is possible that many Muslim inside iran like depicting pictures, we cannot find their number. --- A. L. M. 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which number you are talking about. I have only given upper and lower bounds. --- A. L. M. 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

85% means that ALL Shia are in favor of the pictures. Because we have no fatwa from Sunni hence offically they are against pictures. It is a lower limit. Do we agree on this or not? A. L. M. 20:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all.

Some of the sources used here to show that Muslims (as opposed to Muslim scholars or Islam) are opposed to depictions are inadequate. For example, this sentence:

Most Sunni and Shia Muslims believe that visual depictions of prophets of Islam and living beings generally should be prohibited, and are strongly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.

is cited to an unattributed BBC Q&A and to the United States Supreme Court, hardly a valid source for sociological claims about the Muslim world. Another source of which you've made much use is "The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs."Proabivouac 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have multiple sources available now. I could replace them. If the problem is sources. Going to replace BBC reference, if that will satisfy you? --- A. L. M. 20:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! "JSTOR: The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs" is reliable source and not going to go anywhere. --- A. L. M. 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to create article about "Professor Sir T. W. Arnold". Please do not post comments on its AFD saying it is to validate reference. I only wish to create it because it is not already created by someone else already. --- A. L. M. 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

I recommend that the Lead be re-written per WP:LEAD to give a better summary of the entire article. If we're going to include quotes there though, I'd include quotes from both sides. For example, I'd recommend also posting the al-Sistani quote. --Elonka 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(followup) I still feel that the lead should be rewritten, per my above suggestion. No one else seems to be commenting pro or con, here at talk, so if the silence continues, I'll probably give it a try. --Elonka 16:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Be bold, at least initially. People will better understand what you intend when they see your edit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead of User:Elonka totally violated WP:NPOV. It remove all the references saying that depiction is minority tradition. It mention that Quran does not had anything against depictions but it does not mention about hadith. Making it appear that it is only tradition and nothing in religion itself. Obviously such a lead that is written to present one side view (or mislead reader with "tradition thing") is not at all acceptable. --- A. L. M. 07:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Her version was better than yours, so I restored it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you restored introduction then I can imagine you are neutral. Then we could have discussion about it. However, deleting my references for the material that has citation need tag is beyond my understanding. --- A. L. M. 15:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)