Talk:Muhammad

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Muhammad. If you are interested in discussing or debating Muhammad himself itself, you may want to visit alt.religion.islam.

Please note that discussion on this talk page has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article and any removal of the pictures without discussion here first will be reverted on sight. If you wish to discuss the inclusion of pictures in the article, please read over previous discussions here, here, and here, and discuss your objections here instead of creating another section. Please ensure that your proposal adheres to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality.

For all questions relating to the addition of (pbuh), (peace be upon him), or other honorifics: Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Muhammad for current Wikipedia guidelines on this issue.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Image archives 1, 2, 3 Mediation Archives Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Prophet Mohammed in Hinduism

Prophet Mohammed is the God Of The Worlds in Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mention the Hinduism View of Phrophet Muhammed

Thats not fair, you put Christianity view of Muhammed and not Hinduism. Muhammed is a Hindu God.

If you can find reliable sources that attest to this fact, you are welcome to include such a section in the article. Lankiveil (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Removal of offensive material

Is there anything we can do to stop Muslims coming here every couple of weeks to demand that we should adhere to their religious taboos? Can we perhaps create a special page and automatically transfer all such demands to it, where they can stomp their feet as much as they like? Or instead maybe we should make some counter claims. Before they come here trying to tell us what to do, perhaps we should ask them to remove all those offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran. I am not a Christian I hasten to add - religion isn't compulsary in the West - but I merely suggest this in order to highlight a certain level of hypocrisy and double standards. TharkunColl (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• As you can imagine Talk:evolution has a somewhat similar situation, you can see what they do - but in general, not exactly. I dunno, one might look at the Danzig vote ... Talk:Gdansk/Vote although personally I think the Danzig vote is about the stupidest thing ever done around here, it seems to have stuck. WilyD 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• We could create something similar to Talk:Evolution/FAQ, which would contain all the arguments that have been made against the removal of the images. Anyone who complains could then be referred to the FAQ page unless they have some new point to make. Hut 8.5 17:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the FAQ is a good idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I've started it based on the Evolution FAQ. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps we should ask them to remove all those offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran." That made me smirk, I have to admit.--C.Logan (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a zero-tolerance policy for this. If somebody brings this up again, we simply revert them and leave a warning on their talk page. It's quite clear that people wanting the images are not willing to debate the issue. Zazaban (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As annoying as it is, leaving a warning might be a bit bite-y. How about a friendly pointer to the FAQ page on their talk page, and a revert here? Most of the requests, while misguided, have been made in good faith. Lankiveil (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

The intent is to not have a picture or statue of Mohammed to worship as Christians may do with Jesus, unfortunately it's taken to extreme by many Muslims who don't understand this. There should be no real problem for Muslims there if they don't pray to it, and if it's not offensive otherwise. So while I understand the reasoning in asking for removal, I'm not real supportive of using Wikipedia to further reinforce misunderstanding of this religious principle. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do they actually, honestly believe that we might be tempted to worship Muhammad? The mind boggles... TharkunColl (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Muslim but I guess like, more of a freethinker you could say. The idea is for Muslims not to turn Mohammed into an idol like Christians did with Jesus. That rule isn't there because he is just so holy he can't be imaged, that one is reserved for God. But too bad, a lot of Muslims don't really know why they believe stuff, that's just what they are taught and they run with it. So I don't recommend humoring them since there's no real rule like that to start with. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

19000 users want an image removed ...

so, if consensus and democracy mean anything, it should be ... http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia

or are only opinions of westerners allowed to matter here? Aliibn (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC) — Aliibn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy, and consensus does not work that way. To understand why such petitions make is essentially impossible to ever consider removing the images now, see WP:CANVASS. Cheers, WilyD 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of bullying in its most blatant form. Wikipedia editors are not at all likely to be impressed by such tactics. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As others have already said, the petition is meaningless. For starters, it's easy for a handful of people to forge hundreds, if not thousands, of signatures. A simple can fill in the petition form for you with only a few random variables to make them appear different. This is especially relevant when you see that many of the so call "signatures" are exactly the same with only minor changes. This is why all online petitions are never taken seriously no mater who does the petition or why the petition was created.

Second, consensus must be formed on Wikipedia. It can't be created off-Wiki in a clearly bias venue and then brought here as if what goes on elsewhere applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has policies against sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Accounts with no edit history other then in a specific issue are often ignored for this particular reason.

Third, the petition is irrelevant as a poll as there are no other options to choose from. Either you agree and sign the petition or you don't and move one without the ability to voice your disagreement. Also, polls are only used to enhance a discussion about an issue; it is not a substitute for discussion. (see WP:POLLS

Fourth, the people who want the images removed do not understand Wikipedia's policies against censorship along with the content disclaimers. These actually forbid the removal of content because someone may/is offended by it. Just because there is a cultural taboo from one group doesn't mean that Wikipedia must oblige their taboo. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Farix. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written from an outside perspective; it is not written for any specific audience, nor is it written from the perspective of a Muslim. As mentioned above, we do not vote or petition at Wikipedia; there are no referendums at Wikipedia. Things placed on Wikipedia are (ideally) factual, unbiased, uncensored, and informative, even if they are potentially offensive or hypersensitive. It is unfortunate that pictures of Muhammad have offended many Muslims, but this topic has already been discussed thoroughly and these threads are becoming redundant. It should be noted, however, that Shiites often times do, in fact, depict Muhammad and (more commonly) Imam Hussein. The view that Muhammad should be free of any depiction, thus, is a sectarian issue; it is not even a universal position throughout Islam. Even if it were, the fact of the matter still remains: Wikipedia does not censor and Wikipedia is not a democracy. I do not know whether or not it is a violation of censorship policy, but perhaps we could include a warning of these images at the top of the page on Muhammad? This is becoming nauseating. Regardless, the notion that we are going to adhere to Islamic taboos, as already mentioned, is out of the question. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't include a disclaimer at the top of the article - Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The article is already covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which says Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to and Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. --Hut 8.5 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means consensus of editors on wiki. Anyway, millions of people might want the image kept, to some extent for all we know, they just haven't made a petition because it is being kept, and because they have great numbers but don't care enough. We went to war against some countries precisely to encourage democracy rather than a smaller but extremely irate group imposing their will and beliefs on others. Merkinsmum 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

could someone who is good at archiving a heated page, please archive?

It's taking ages for letters to appear as you type in the edit window, because the page is overburdened. The top of the edit window suggests archiving. But I didn't like to go ahead and archive because I'm not an expert and wouldn't label what's in it well, etc. All archiving appreciated.:) Merkinsmum 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done I also straitened out the image archives a bit. --Farix (Talk) 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, this is much easier to parse through now. Thankyou! Lankiveil (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Oh brill, thanks TheFarix, now I can write more easiily (poor you lot lol). Merkinsmum 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

I've attempted to answer two parts of the FAQ with arguments that are as much based in Wikipedia's policies as I could managed. The criticism section should be removed should itself be removed as there is no criticism section on the article. Recent trends have been to incorporate criticism throughout the entire article instead of segregating it into one section. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I put that stub there because of Talk:Muhammad#remove_the_critism_section and Talk:Muhammad#Criticism_section. The question seems to have popped up often in the archives as well. Frotz (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is no longer relevant, so why have it in the FAQ? --Farix (Talk) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no criticism section. See Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section. Any criticism that is relevant and reliably sourced should be incorporated throughout the article. ITAQALLAH 00:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't quite realize that it was gone. Frotz (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many leading thingies

Maybe I'm just being pendantic, but having all those disclaimers and other stuff at the top of this talk page makes an awful clutter. Frotz (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it might cut down on a tiny bit of the repetitive argument about the pics etc being brought up by newcomers. Merkinsmum 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is this 'we' so many refer to here?

I think it interesting to see comments (like the one by User:TharkunColl above) that ask things like "Is there anything we can do to stop Muslims coming here ...". I take it that most people here assume that "we" (meaning those contributing to wikipedia) and "believing Muslim" are mutually exclusive categories (or, at least those who insist on keeping pictures of Muhammad from long after his death, do so believe). This, to me, is rather instructive as to the self-imagined community of many wikipedians: by self-definition, exclusive of Muslims (and perhaps all non-western POVs?). Sad, very sad indeed. 68.215.218.14 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think it is interesting that you misrepresent TharkunColl's comments by cutting off the end of his statement, making it sound as though he simply wants to keep out all Muslims, when if one were to read his original comments, he was referring not to Muslims in general, but to those whose only activities on Wikipedia involve coming here and demanding that the pictures be removed. TharkunColl goes on in the post to offer a very sensible solution to a problem that arises every couple of days. As you can see from the above comments, there are several Muslims involved here who also believe in the principles of Wikipedia and the principles of a open and free press. If there is a we/them dynamic at work here, it is not Non-Muslim vs. Muslim, but rather editors who want to keep Wikipedia secular, informative and independent, vs. the fundamentalists who come here and demand that we adhere to a specific religion's wishes. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(I have re-added this section as it appears it was accidentally removed in a revert) Lankiveil (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a Muslim and do not oppose the pictures of Muhammad. The pictures do not impede your ability to practice Islam as you wish to if one posts a picture of Muhammad here no more than it is an obstruction to your ability to practice if someone else has premarital sex or if someone else consumes alcohol. Do what is best for yourself, but this page should not be censored for all. This page is not written by Muslims for Muslims. Moreover, this page does mention the sensitivity associated with depictions of Muhammad, even if the page itself includes the pictures. Several views are represented in this article, including the Sunni view and Shi'a view. -Rosywounds (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

It looks like there is a conflict between those who want the picture in here and those who want it removed. Cant there be a compromise, like we keep the picture in there but it is hidden so that if you want to see it you click here but if you don't want to don't click here. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Example:

16th century Ottoman depiction of Muhammad
File:Muhammad at Kaba c.png

Kind of like Mohammed playing peek-a-boo? Haha no I don't think it will help. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not a laughing matter... Its a lot better than having hordes of people editing the page everyday trying to remove the pictures. If you want to see it, click on the box, if you don't want to see it then don't click on it. We aren't censoring anything as the picture is still up but hidden from view. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really addresses the issue. They'll just then move to "It's already hidden, why not just remove it completely" because there issue is the use at all of such images. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Those who support the inclusion of the pictures would still argue that this is censorship, and those against the pictures would still argue that it is profane. Interesting idea, though. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was funny. Anyway I don't think it will pacify those who don't want it available at all, just have to deal with it like every other article that is vandalized often. The only way they are going to accept it is if they go study some more Islam to see that the picture isn't evil, but only worshiping it like Jesus is, as I said elsewhere.

Since Jesus is also an important prophet in Islam, I might be a lot more sympathetic if they protested the same way in the Jesus articles over his pictures since they are definitely used to worship him. In failing to do that they are being hypocritical and/or way off base in their priorities, in my opinion. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To expand: the intent of the prohibition is so you don't have things to worship Mohammed by. But it's obvious some do worship him above other prophets since they don't raise the same fuss over Jesus, when in fact the Quran says all the prophets are the same, just servants of God and not to be worshiped. So they are actually destroying the meaning of the very ideal they claim to uphold. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This compromise would be satisfactory to me (as a "keep the pictures" person), but I doubt it will be acceptable to a lot of the Muslims making complaints. It seems the attitude is that the images must not be shown or used at all (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). Lankiveil (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

That is exactly what has been done after a lengthy debate at Rorschach inkblot test, so there is precedent for it. I actually think it would make people be more aware that showing images of Muhammad is prohibited, when they might not already know that, so I'd have no problem with it. MilesAgain (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would object to doing it for that reason since it would be an editor created device used to teach Islam. A similar exercise would be to use lowercase for judaism and christianity throughout an article to teach that Islam is superior to those religions. The images should stay as regular thumbnails, as they are on every other Wikipedia article. Mob mentality can't be allowed to dictate policy and practice here. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comparison to capitalizing letters is like comparing apples to oranges. Hiding a couple of pictures doesn't "teach" a religion. It is simply respecting it. We capitalize names of religions because it is a proper noun, not because one is superior. Also, as shown by the Rorschach inkblot test, not every image is a thumbnail and exceptions to policy and practice can be made (see WP:IAR). --Hdt83 ^Chat 09:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that if your sole intent was to help teach people that Muslims don't like images, it would be the same as using lowercase to teach that other religions were inferior to Islam. You need a citation to say that Muslims don't like images, not a popup.

Rather than a sign of respect, I would probably take it to mean that you thought I was too stupid to know they were still there, if I was the type of Muslim who believed in that. A lot of things on Wikipedia offend, depending who you are. But try it if you want, when it doesn't work you'll just have some hidden pictures, then someone else will probably change them back later anyway. -Bikinibomb (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion has been discussed before. It is still a form of censorship either way, makes the article more complicated to view, and makes the images less useful to the reader by restricting their immediate access. The Wikipedia:Content disclaimer clearly states, "Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to."--Strothra (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A question for those dying to have a picture of the Prophet Mohammad here: Can you be certain that a certain picture is His? Obviously No - because no one has His picture, or can verify it. Thus it will be incorrect to post a picture here that you only 'think' is His. It would definately be equivalent to spreading false and unverifiable information. Personally I find it surprising why some people are bent upon having a picture here. Majority Muslims' point of view is to not have the picture and that I understand; but that of those demanding the picture, obviously mostly non-Mulsims, I don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.177.100 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The images are depictions of Mohammed, not a real picture. The artwork is generally understood to represent an artist interpretation. Like Jesus is probably not blond and blue-eyed. It's not like someone Photoshopped a real picture showing Mohammed in a compromising position, which is more what your argument would apply to. If you are worried about Mohammed's image, have you ever voiced the same concern for pictures of Jesus since he is a prophet equal to Mohammed? And worse, pictures of Jesus are actually used to worship him. If not, why not? I think the answer is, too many Muslims put Mohammed up on a pedestal above all other prophets in a form of man worship, which is exactly what the image prohibition is trying to prevent. So this motivation to enforce Muslim rule is actually violating the intention of the rule. Any Muslims here understanding that, or not? -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not actually Muhammad

The images a question aren't even very faithful depictions of Muhammad as he is described in hadith. They are, thus, quite useless in depicting Muhammad as a real person. Aliibn (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And the same would apply to pictures of almost any medieval figure. Would you wish to remove all of those from Wikipedia too? In which case I suggest you propose it as a general policy change. I strongly suspect you will not succeed, however. TharkunColl (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, yes. If a painting, sculpture, etc. of a pre-modern figure is known to be drawn from life (i.e., they actually posed for it or it was copied from something that was), I'd say keep it. Ancient and medieval coins, deathmasks, etc. have a fairly good likelihood of showing something like a 'real' person, but modern reconstructions (like the one on this page Zenobia ) are, frankly, useless if not misleading and of no particular use (unless in an article or section on 'modern depictions of x').

With these images of Muhammad, one can tell quickly that the artists didn't even bother to _attempt_ an honest depiction. Various hadith give fairly detailed descriptions of Muhammad's physical appearance; these hadith were not consulted.

Considering these _facts_ and the _fact_ that a great many people are irate about the inclusion of such material (and considering that wikipedia's administrators _do_ make strenuous efforts not to offend Jews, African-Americans, and other groups, a fact that demonstrates that the 'free speech' issue is a red herring), there seems no reason other than an actual desire to offend as many Muslims as possible for keeping them. Aliibn (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, a great many medieval figures are not drawn from life. Take the statues of Alfred the Great for example, who was known to not wear a beard. This is a complete red herring I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not bound by religious taboos of any sort. TharkunColl (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus not all Muslim even accept Hadith, some go by Quran only, so that description of him may be wrong too. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if I understand you two correctly, whatever Muslims say or think or whatever the facts in the matter, it doesn't matter. Offense must be given and facts be damned; the benighted Muslims are the enemy ...

Pathetic. Aliibn (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The enemy is religious dogma trying to impose its views on others. TharkunColl (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that whatever Muslims say or think does not have more importance than what non-Muslims say or think. Pulling out the religious persecution card for this is laughable -86.141.103.218 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you more concerned with resisting a Muslim "dogma" - or with your own wish to impose a Western i.e. Christian European convention on an encyclopedia that is meant for everyone?

Illustrations are meant to illustrate some point in an article (we do not add images solely because we happen to have them around). The question is, what would a portrait of Muhammed illustrate? I completely understand those people who think "It would illustrate what Muhammad looked like" or "It would illustrate what people thought Muhammad loked like." But does an article really need these kinds of illustrations? Some may take it for granted - it is obvious! I however do not. What people consider appropriate illstrations is not universal. Therefore what people consider appropriate illustrations is a matter of convention. I suspect that many people contributing to Wikipedia think that an article about someone should have a picture of that person, because they grew up in countries where there is a strong tradition of figurative art. Certainly, representations of Jesus and the saints have been central in the history of European art and culture, so long dominated by Christian practices. So it is a perfectly reasonable convention to people who grew up in a culture that was long dominated by Christianity to have the convention, that bigraphies should be illustrated by a portrait of the person.

But this is just a convention. There is not absolute or universal logic behind it.

Here is another way to think about the issue: followers of Muhammed have a strong tradition opposed to figurative art. Wouldn't the best - meaning the most appropriate illustration to accompany an article on Muhammed be something that illustrates this Muslim convention? Maybe the best illustration for this article would be an empty box with a caption stating that Muslims often oppose representations of Muhammed.

To do so would not be to "bow down to religious pressure." It would be to illustrate an article with an illustration that is appropriate to the article; something that actually illustrates an important point in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, is the short answer to that. An encyclopedia should describe dogma, but to be bound by it would compromise its independence. What else would people think we had missed out so as not to cause offense? Censorship compromises our credibility. TharkunColl (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. You are not responding to what I wrote. i never said Wikipedia should be bound by religious dogma. Never. I defy you to show me where I wrote that. I didn't write it because I do not believe it. What I did say is that what we think of as an illustration should not be dictated by a single (supposedly universal?) convention. Illustrations that accompany an article should actually "illustrate" the article, i.e. convey something meaningful that is in the article. In other words, the appropriateness of an illustration is relative to the article it is meant to illustrate. And I believe, firmly, that on these grounds alone (and not religious dogma) that a picture of Muhammed would be an illustration that "misses the point" and fails effectively to illustrate the article. An effective illustration might be an image of some text, or an empty box that illustrates a very important legacy of Muhammed, which was his influence on conventions of representation. That would be a meaningful illustration that would help educate people about Muhammed. I am opposed to your "one size fits all" approach to encyclopedia articles. It is very bad pedagogy. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein makes good points. As it is now, the first two illustrations that appear from the top of the page are not problematic for Muslims (a page of calligraphy and a veiled picture of Muhammad). No one, AFAIK, has asked that those be removed. Aliibn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, in my humble opinion, the Dogma being demonstrated on this page is in the uncompromising attitude of militant Secular Humanism; and that is the one unwilling to compromise or 'play well with others'. Aliibn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic value of Image:Maome.jpg?

It is only a representation of Muhammad; i.e. it’s not a photo, or a sketch or a painting that is true to life. It does nothing to illustrate any particular point brought up within the text. Why is it there? Censorship only comes into play if there is a genuine reason to include the material. If such a reason does not exist, then there is no censorship issue. If there is not censorship issue, then consensus should hold sway. See Wikipedia:Consensus Brimba (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, censorship applies when someone tries to remove content on the grounds that they find it offensive. The image complies fully with Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. Hut 8.5 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship also exists when, as in this case, a small coterie of devotees of one particular dogmatic sect -- in this case Atheism -- refuse on a priori grounds any divergence from their pre-conceptions and become bullheaded and belligerent in defending their personal belief, regardless of costs to intellectual honesty or credibility of the overall wikipedia project. Aliibn (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For starters you are asserting that refusal to remove information from the public eye is censorship. Secondly, unless displaying pictures of religious figures became a core doctrine of Atheism recently I suspect these people just don't want to bow to pressure from a minority of vocal religious people who insist we abide by their traditions. Thirdly there are plenty of theists who have argued and continue to argue to keep the pictures. -86.141.103.218 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone provide a cogent explanation for why the article must include a portrait of Muhammad? What is the point of adding such an illustration, and why is it an important point? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, what is the encyclopedic value of the picture? Or if you’re going to point me to policy instead of giving an answer, then how does it meet the “Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic).”? Why should it not simply be copyedited off the page? Thanks for the above non-answer. Brimba (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been asking these questions for a long time and have never received a satisfactory answer. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently a page has been created to address these frequently asked questions. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You want someone to explain why we want a picture of the subject matter in the article? If there are no actual true to life portraits of him painted then the illustrations by Islamic scholars will have to do. Whether they improve the article or not is a matter of opinion but so far the majority opinion is the affirmative.-86.141.103.218 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Muslims never bother arguing that the statue of Alfred the Great is inaccurate and should be removed, and similarly on countless thousands of other articles, proves that they don't really care about such things and are using those arguments tendentiously. The truth is that they are trying to force Wikipedia to adhere to their religious taboo. TharkunColl (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. 84: Um, are you incabable of answering my question, or do you simply not want to? You write, "If there are no actual true to life portraits of him painted then the illustrations by Islamic scholars will have to do." Why? "Why do they have to do?" I do not see why they "have to do." You have not answered my question, why is it necessary toinclude an image of Muhammad? You write, "Whether they improve the article or not is a matter of opinion." Well, okay, you are of the opinion that it improves the article. Okay, but I asked you to explain to me why you think this. How does it improve the article_ Why? Please justify what you advocate. If you have no reason, your edit is irrational and can be discounted. TharkunColl continues to use a red'herring by playing some religion card. I am not Muslim and seek neither to adhere to nor enforce an Islamic taboo for religious reasons. What I want to know is, I repeat, why di you want to include a portrait of Muhammad to the article? What is your reason? Again, if you cannot provide a reason, you are being irrational. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The images illustrate the subject matter of the article. TharkunColl (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find they don't. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, they do. Same as the statue of Alfred the Great. Not taken from life, but a representation of him nonetheless. TharkunColl (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The benefits illustrations provide to literature and learning are actively researched and well documented by educational psychologists.-86.141.103.218 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"The images express the subject matter of the article." How? It is not obvious to me so you need to explain it. The subject matter of the articl is a man who was a "statesman in Medina, a rebel in Mecca," a prophet an reformer ... how does a portrait of Muhammad illustrate this subject matter? I could see a map of battles, a chart of kinship alliances, a summary of his propohesies, as all illustrating the subject matter. but simply a picture of Muhammed? What pray tell content is being illustrated? The article says that people write his name with reverence - okay, I can see images of his name in writing illustrating the subject matter of the article. But an image of his face? Why? How? Can you explain it? And really, educational psychologists have demonstrated the benefits of providing an illustration of Muhammed´s face? PLEASE provide me with the citation to that study. The article already had plenty of illustrations, no one is arguing against illustrations in general. The question is, what is an appropriate illustration i.e. one that further conveys an important point in the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is called "Muhammad" and there are pictures of Muhammad. If it was an article about a battle then the battle chart would be approriate. It's not rocket science. Your point, I believe, is tendentious in the extreme. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not being tendentious - is this how you respond to anyone who asks you to justify your position? I iimagine you spend much of your time with people who think as you do so you never have to justify your views. Guess what: you have now encountered someone new, who does not accept unquestioningly your own beliefs. Pictures are not always appropriate. It depends on the subject matter. Itsmejudith provided a rational explanation for how o illustrate this article, So far you have not. Please, lket's be rational. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I think the pictures and statues of Alfred "the Great" should be labelled to indicate when they were made. I wouldn't mind if all the silly romantic Victorian images of English kings were stripped from the encyclopedia. However, painting and statuary are within the English tradition of aesthetic representation. Muhammad is nearly always represented aesthetically by calligraphy. Therefore Muhammad's name in calligraphy is a more appropriate illustration than any portrayal on both aesthetic and informational grounds. Agree that illustration is good in principle. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that's an explanation that makes sense to me, it is well-reasoned. Sounds good to me! Why is it that the people who disagree with you, Itsmejudith, cannot offer any rational explanations for their views? What is important here is to act rationally; thank you for presnting a rational proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And an example of calligraphy is already in the article. To exclude the pictures is not logical, since we can have both. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The reasons we use the illustrations is because it aids the reader in identifying with the subject. Without an illustration, it is merely a name and not a person. A word description or calligraphy can't replace that. --Farix (Talk) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Says you. For many people in the world pictures are irrelevant to portraying a person. A person is portrayed through stories about him or her. You have your won POV approach to what makes a name a person, and it is not shared by all. This is Wikipedia and you need to work within a framework where your own beliefs are not necesarily shared by others, and you need to be able to work with others who are different from you. You do not own this space. This means you must be held accountable. I have asked for a satisfying reason why a portrait of Muhammed is necessary and have yet to receive one. So far only Itsmejudith has provided a reational answer. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that no explanation would satisfy you as you have already made up your mind. To censor an image here would make people wonder what else we have censored to avoid offending Muslims. TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked for an answer, several reasonable answers were given. The fact that you completely dismiss them out of hand indicates that you really have no interest in an answer. --Farix (Talk) 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

“The article is called "Muhammad" and there are pictures of Muhammad.” The point is, its not a picture of Muhammad, its only a representation, and a minority one at that. We do not know what Muhammad looked like, other than that he did not look as portrayed in the illustration. So why is it included within this encyclopedia? Brimba (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you actually read? This has been covered exhaustively. See Alfred the Great. TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

“Can you actually read? This has been covered exhaustively.” So no answer will be forthcoming. I see. I second Slrubenstein. Well stated. Brimba (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Muhammad is among countless medieval individuals for whom no contemporary likeness exists. Articles on these people contain later representations. TharkunColl (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You and Slrubenstein have continued to ignore any answer that doesnt support your position. The fact that illustrations improve readability is a basic and staple cornerstone of communication theory-86.141.103.218 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So several good reasons have been given and I just ignore them? Really? And what are these so-called reasons? So far I just see irrational dogmatism. So farf all he so-called reasons boil down to "qarticles about people must have pictures about people" but this is kind of circular reasoning that goes nowhere. And I am NLT closed minded. I will give you a good reason for including a picture of Muhammed: IF how he looked were of some importance historically or culturally that would justify including a potrait. But no one has argued this and I do not think it is the case. Anyway, get hysterical, obviously you are used to bulying yoru way and not used to having to justify yourselves. Sorry, hee you Do have to provide a rational explanation. It isn't even clear to me why you think this matters! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments apply equally to Alfred the Great and countless others. Why single Muhammad out for special treatment? TharkunColl (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a non'sequitor. But I will assume good faith that maybe you have a valid reaoson for asking. Is this your only objection to my postion? I won´t bother answering it unless I first know what difference if any my answer will make. I don´t feel like playing games. I want to know if this is a serious question and what the consequences of my answer could be. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't feel like playing games? In that case just answer the question. TharkunColl (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. I do not see how talking about Alfred the Great is necessary to improve this article, which is why I think your asking the question is playing a game. I admit I may be wrong! But I need you to explain it to me. How would discussing the Alfred the Great article help us improve this article? To be clear, what I mean is this: How would my answer to your question about Alfred the Great make any difference here? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said of figures as important to history as Jesus and Buddha. Jesus was Middle Eastern and Buddha was Indian, even though they are rarely ever portrayed as such. At least this argument is a bit more rationalized than the previous ones. -Rosywounds (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Some ideologically based POVs more equal than others?

I must say that the above is very instructive. User:Slrubenstein and User:Itsmejudith make valid points and ask for reasons. None are given but are replied with vague sophistries, evasions, and ideological triumphalism. Allow me to make a couple of points: 1) There are two illustrations on the page that are completely unproblematic for many Muslims. One is calligraphy, the other is an illustration of Muhammad with his face veiled. So, the issue isn't for Muslims all illustrations but of specific ones. 2) The illustrations in question do not follow the descriptions of Muhammad in hadith nor do they date from any time remotely near his life. They thus add nothing to anyone's knowledge base. 3) The false issue that no one has any problem with using modern fantasy illustrations of medieval figures (such as Alfred the Great raised by User:TharkunColl is completely bogus. He raised it before; I answered him that, yes, those are problematic as they also do nothing for adding knowledge. I even attempted to add a tag to that article ... so his claim is utterly baseless and deceitful and he is fully aware of that. If one wishes to fix up the Alfred the Great article, why not add illustrations of the Alfred Jewel or of his coinage (like this http://www.pewterreplicas.co.uk/second%20site%20pictures/alfred%20the%20great%20coins.jpg )? 4) TharkunColl and other users on this page claim that removing the pictures of Muhammad that are problematic means giving in to a religious POV. Perhaps.

But ... LEAVING THEM UP DOES JUST THE SAME! There IS an ideology (as promoted by people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens amongst others) that demands deliberately offending the religious (of all religions) as part of its own goals - a sort of militant Atheism, hostile to all theistic religions. And leaving up the pictures is very much Appeasement of that ideology. So, it's not a decision between 'freedom of speech' and 'censorship' but between actual knowledge and working towards a global consensus on one side and a militant ideology trying to foment anger on the other. Aliibn (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you add a tag to all the countless thousands of other medieval person's articles? The issue here is one of censorship in the name of religion and freedom of information. Pure and simple. TharkunColl (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's one of pushing an ideology, militant Atheism and Islamophobia, over Facts or good-taste. The opposition to removing these couple of pictures will brook no compromise, reardless of how reasonable, but demands that its viewpoint be the only one allowed and all dissent be squashed. (And, by the way, I won't hold my breath to see if he Alfred Jewel or Alfred's coinage gets added to you to your precious King Alfred page; while it may seem a reach, I would venture you are more motivated by Anti-Islamic ideology than by any concern for truth). Aliibn (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

whatever Muslims say or think or whatever the facts in the matter, it doesn't matter.

I am Muslim, and I've already explained that the real prohibition is against worshiping pictures, not against pictures themselves. I might be more sympathetic to fellow Muslims if they had a valid point but they don't. So I for one wouldn't remove the pictures simply because it's only reinforcing bad theology. Aside from secular issues of censorship. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, bikinibomb, the point is that many users want something and there interests are banned by people pushing a very harsh and militant Anti-Muslim agenda. Compromises are suggested, simple questions are asked, and no reasoning comes from them. Aliibn (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I said I would ban the request on religious principle alone, that the image prohibition is a corruption of the original command not to worship pictures. If I am going to respect a religious principle, it is going to at least be a valid one, not one based on fable and twisting by Muslims over the years. And also, based on man worship of Mohammed as being too "holy" when, who lifts a finger to protest pictures of other prophets equal to Mohammed? So I'm also not going to encourage things that go directly against Islam, lifting up one prophet over all the others. Go hang with the Jesus or Moses articles for a while protesting their images, then I'll see some consistency. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, when all else fails just play the "anti-Muslim" card. TharkunColl (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

When all else fails, the Right wing Pipesian bigot starts using standard talk radio speak. Funny how that comes out, no? Cheers, Munafiq! Aliibn (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea what you're talking about. What's "Pipesian" for example? And what does "Munafiq" mean? TharkunColl (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny how this one [[User:TharkunColl}} refuses to answer any points raised by anyone but resorts to juvenile arguments. Should I wait for rationality from the Cult of Reason? Or stoop to their level of baiting? Aliibn (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have answered all the points, tendentious though most of them were. Now, what do "Pipesian" and "Munafiq" mean, please? TharkunColl (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the ever wiser and most reasonable one in this discussion, as you've clearly demonstrated. Reason and logic are strong in you; they let you penetrate through the veils of simple minded illusions cast upon we lesser folk. And you are far better educated and capable of research than any of us simple-minded believers (especially those from lesser breeds) so, I'm sure you can decipher such on your own. Cheers!Aliibn (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well according to Wikipedia itself, Munafiq is a person who outwardly practices Islam but doesn't actually believe it. Muhammad says "hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them". What a nice man he was, that Muhammad! Not at all violent or vindictive or insane! By the way, I'm not a Muslim so I'm not a Munafiq, which means you're not allowed to stone me to death or whatever the punishment is. TharkunColl (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was quite possibly the most uncalled for thing I've ever seen on this site. Islam isn't the only religion with a hell. Zazaban (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The matters of the images aside, that description of Muhammed was uncalled for, TharkunColl. Please try to respond in a civil fashion, even if you feel yourself that you are being attacked. I think a dose of assuming good faith on all sides of this argument would really help right now. Lankiveil (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Firstly, he called me a hypocrite. And secondly, I said that Muhammad was not at all violent or vindictive or insane. TharkunColl (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not excusing his behaviour at all. And it might be possible to interpret your words as sarcasm, especially in light of your other contributions to the debate, so it might be best to think about how your words might be potentially misinterpreted before you hit the "Save Page" button. Lankiveil (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Is this conversation actually going anywhere? Look if you find the pictures offensive don't look at them but Wikipedia is for everyone so let us have access to the pictures. No one is being forced to look at this article after all. 00:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs)

Probably not - the "these images are false" argument is a complete red herring - it has nothing to do with the issue at all, and wouldn't exist if not for the other complaint. WilyD 04:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The conversation appears to be going in circles with those against the images refusing to be willing to compromise or offer any alternative that maintains the free exchange of the image or the integrity of Wikipedia. They appear to only be interested in imposing their will, everyone else be damned. --Mhking (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Above, Bikinibomb writes "I am Muslim, and I've already explained that the real prohibition is against worshiping pictures, not against pictures themselves." But I am not a Muslim, and have made it clear that I object to including a picture of Muhammad on non-religious grounds. Since we now have one Muslim who does not object, and a non-Muslim who does object, I think we can now safely abandon the claim that excluding an image of Muhammad is a form of dogmatic religious censorship!!! Abandoning that red-herring, maybe we can have a more reasonable discussion. That said, I have one other important and constructive suggestion: let us have an end with TharkunColl's arguments involving "all the countless thousands of other medieval person's articles." His/her comments - at least along this specific line - are examples of WP:DIS and [[WP:POINT] because the purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvemenst to this article. Widening the discussion to "countless thousands of other ... articles" is an obvious disruption of this talk page. Not only is it simply inappropriate, it is obviously impractical - if we widen this discussion to include thousands of other articles we will never reach a resolution. We make improvements by focusing on the article we are trying to improve, not other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Although TharkunColl is inarticulate, the point remains - what makes this different from how we'd treat any other historical subject of equivalent importance? (although on a List of people by historical significance, Muhammad might well be #1, and by some margin). Other such articles serve as an excellent "sanity check" in this case, I would suggest. The only real difference seems to be that some large number of Muslims have a religious and/or cultural objection to such depictions. WilyD 21:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article. It is not for discussing improvements to other articles. If you want to discuss an improvement to another article, we should do it on the talk page of the other article. And I repeat: My objection to the depiction is not based on my being muslim and it is neither religious nor cultural. But I have already explained my reasoning, at length, at leaast twice, above. We could discuss my objections to including an image, and reasons for including an image, in this article. But you and others repeatedly prefer to discuss other articles. this should a serious absense of good faith and disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)