Talk:Muhammad/images

If you wish to request that Wikipedia remove images of Muhammad, please do so on this page.

If you would like to prevent your web browser from displaying any images in the Muhammad article, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.

Please remove

please remove the pics of Muhammad as it greatly hearts the feelings of Muslims. There is a petition signed by thousands of peoples for removal of these pics http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia

We've seen it... petitions like that have no bearing around here. Jmlk 1 7 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Remove Counterpetition

If you think the pics should stay up, feel free to sign the counterpetition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/support-wikipedia-muhammad-pics --anonymous203.84.185.186 (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Remove

dont remove em but atleast BLUR out the face in the Pictures, hardly takes 5 minutes. u can do that, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.184.206 (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, this is one of the basic rules.Eik Corell (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there :)

I would just like to say that the act of portraying the prophet in any way is not permitted in Islam. I know it would be ok for non muslims... But Muslims cannot do this nor can we view this. Hollywood once made a movie, a story about the prophet. Hollywood is extremely secular, but still they managed to understand and respect the Islamic way of not portraying the prophet. I think all we ask for is understanding.

Salaam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.56.250 (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request

This is a request from all the Muslims that please remove the picture of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) from this website because it is not allowed in Islam. Emad Akhtar (Pakistan)

Wikipedia is a secular web site, and not subject to Islamic rules/governances. --Mhking (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must remove PIC

the signs in the petition bears the testimony the fact that Muslims all Over the world are harassed and depressed by this WIKI move to not allow removal of pic in the name of freedom of expression.I request wikipedian administrators to allow the removal of pics in Order to maintain the dignity of Muslims feelings as No expression can allow to abuse someone's Prophet.Shabiha ^(t 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Administrators don't have that sort of power - they generally rule on the behaviour of editors and other administrative matters, they cannot take sides in content disputes where the material is sourced and accepted to be of a certain standard. This is a matter for the wikipedia community as a whole. The community has decided that wikipedia is a secular website and will not censor articles on religious matters because various faiths would be offended. No abuse is intended. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must remove

Actually, there is no need of these pics here. I don't think that the removal is purely censorship, but these pics are also useless as they are all manuscripts created hundreds of years after Muhammad(PBUH).--Builder w (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is addressed in the FAQ.—Chowbok ☠ 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depressing Comments

It is more depressing in wikipedia to read that Picture will not be Removed .Though there may be some Consensus but that does mean that on those articles where Consensus has been Reached there cant be any Change.It seems frankly an Organized propganda of Editors to

To harass Muslims when they Constitute a good concentration of WIKIPEDIAN editors and Readers .

To hurt their feelings in the name of Consensus by inserting someone else Picture with the name of Prophet S.A.W

To show arbitrariness on wiki by writing that PIC will not be removed What does that mean?

It shows finally wikipedia a tool to harass Muslims in the name of freedom of Expression.

I fear that this arbitrary Step of wikipedians to not allow the removal of Pic may Lead to Confusion and Unrest in the Muslim world.Shabiha ^(t 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not another conspiracy theory... Zazaban (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depressing comments indeed. The quality of the arguments to remove pictures surely has to improve soon? •CHILLDOUBT• 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "harrassment"? Nobody has to come here. If you go to a restaurant and you don't like the food, are they "harrassing" you by serving you food you don't like?—Chowbok ☠ 17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think my earlier suggestion has merit - leave this page to the "please remove" crowd and do all of the discussion about the article on a sub-page". --Fredrick day (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I fear that this arbitrary Step of wikipedians to not allow the removal of Pic may Lead to Confusion and Unrest in the Muslim world." Is this a threat of violence? Because it sounds suspiciously like one. TharkunColl (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When isn't there unrest in the Muslim world?—Chowbok ☠ 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your propaganda aside and let us discuss. Get some treatment from this person.--Builder w (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Zakir Naik would be the best choice. On a side note, Shabiha's comments are possibly the utter low point in all of the discussion I have seen on the matter. Simply reading it causes much exasperation.--C.Logan (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reaction is troubling. You have to understand, that we dont care about your theism. This is a fact-based endevour, not a worthless collection of opinion.

70.178.97.83 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Anonymous IP is wrong here; we do care about this theism, and this opinion, and that's we have an article on it. --Wikinterpreter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is so sadly true. Do a Google search on words like Wikipedia, Muhammad, and pictures, etc, and it turns out that there are already countless hate sites out there spewing filth against this article (and this is no doubt where all the trolls have been coming from lately). What they perhaps don't realise is that freedom of speech far more sacred to those of us who grew up in a free society than adherence to any religious dogma can ever be. TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, reminds me of the Cartoon Wars episode of South Park...

Image solution

(This section has been imported from this edit) gren グレン 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any Muslims offended by the images should use Firefox with the Adblock add-on. Then they can block the images that offend them from appearing on their computers. Everyone's happy. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. The point of the controversy is to harrass and threaten and force non-Muslims to obey Muslim rules out of fear of giving offense (and the chance of receiving a violent response). They don't want ANYONE to see these pictures. Frankly, I don't like disresectful pictures of Norman Numchuks, but I will defend to the death the right of anyone to print them.Scott Adler (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is so sadly true. Do a Google search on words like Wikipedia, Muhammad, and pictures, etc, and it turns out that there are already countless hate sites out there spewing filth against this article (and this is no doubt where all the trolls have been coming from lately). What they perhaps don't realise is that freedom of speech far more sacred to those of us who grew up in a free society than adherence to any religious dogma can ever be. TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly to read such a post and a reply on a respectful site!

Dear Sir,

I have never thought of being a secular as to be disrespectful to others beliefs or disrespectful to 1.5 billion believers seeing in such posted picture an insult to their prophet.

I always thought of secularism as a balanced thoughtful human respecting rule of thumb ideology and never the opposite. You are not promoting secularism at its best, but you are promoting sectarianism which I am really sorry to see such in here. Wikipedia is one of the common and famous references on the web, in the meantime, they are not entitled to put their own articles about any religion as per being a secular website as some wikipedia administrators replied, you are not entitled of any religious debate, article, study, or even any related to religious nature material.

By doing so and by rejecting the request to remove the picture posted please allow me to tell you that you are far from being secular but more likely closer to be a sectarian who is promoting sectarianism and nothing more. There is nothing called I own this then I do whatever I like, specially when it does provoke others and attacking or disrespecting their core of beliefs.

I really laughed when someone of the administrator was comparing religion to a restaurant "what an ignorance indeed!", if you to assign administrators please make sure that they are well educated seculars on the level of culture at least. I am only passing the following "you have to be respectful to be respectable".

"Your freedom ends when others freedom begins"

Isn't it the ultimate core of understanding and mutual respect. Freedom of speech, a hanger where we hang our personal and social failure on and claim that it is sacred (where the word sacred is a religious term that is not related to secularism in any way). The better yet is "Respect" where everyone is entitled for such, as if freedom of speech means or equal to no respect then goodbye humanity.

Regards. Aulic

No, we are refusing to cave into secular demands. Jmlk 1 7 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, I was always taught that respect has to be earned. TharkunColl (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend this dispute go to Mediation, and if that fails? Arbitration. Then, whatever ruling is handed down? all editors will have to abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that done already? Jmlk 1 7 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the Arbitration Ruling. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is one. Jmlk 1 7 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Mediation, where's the Arbitration Case GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Not sure if there is one man. Jmlk 1 7 01:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm neither concerned if the images are kept 'or' removed. I am concerned that an article has been caught up in a 'holy war'. I strongly recommend to the combatants, to take this dispute to Arbitration. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not a bad idea at all. Jmlk 1 7 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if it goes to arbitration and the status quo is upheld, then what -- will you find yet some other way to continue to protest and try to impose your will on everyone else? --Mhking (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is an Arbcom issue. It's about content, not specific user behavior, which is Arbcom's sole purpose, unless I understand Arbcom wrong. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. Jmlk 1 7 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad himself didn't approve of painting living objects

When we upload the picture of a living person we worry about copyright, we worry about that person's permission to upload the image (if not taken at a public meeting). We don't publish people's imgae taken by hidden camera in the washroom on Wikipedia. Almost everyday we have cartoons and caricatures US President George Bush published in various newspapers / magazines across the world. Should we publish those images on Wikipedia (if found under a free license)? Right now, there is a big upset in Hong Kong, because some nude images of a few celebrities have leaked on internet without their permission. Should Wikipedia use those images as soon as their copyright expires? Not sure what the exact policy on Wikipedia is, but I believe very logically, we shouldn't; especially if the subject of the article would not want to be identified by any of those images. When naming people on Wikipedia we always use the name the subject person wants to be called by. If there is a derogatory nickname of a person that the person doesn't approve, should we use that name in Wikipedia to identify him or her? Certainly not.

What has all this to do with Muhammad's (Sm.) images? There is no Images of Muhammad drawn during his lifetime - because Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve of painting his image. It is a historical fact Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve drawing images of living things. All his life he fought against creation of idols and images of people, especially those of famous people, heroes, and historical figures - because such practices eventually lead the image to become more important than the teaching (arguably what has happened to the Crush symbol).

Now, given some people (though Muslims) have drawn images of the Prophet (perhaps unknowingly) with little respect to Prophet's prejudice against such painting, should Wikipedia repeat (or escalate) the mistake by posting the images? When there is clearly no way to get to a compromise between showing and not showing the image, whose preference should Wikipedia respect, the preference of the person about whom the article is, or the preference / interest of the people who may be curious to know how the Prophet was "drawn" in isolated cases by people unaware / not respectful about Prophet's prejudice against painting? I strongly feel, Wikipedia should follow the preference of the subject of the article (The Prophet in this case), at least in the article about him.

This is not Censorship - this is respecting a very important person's own preference about how he wanted to be depicted. If the images are retained in the separate article on "Depiction of Islamic Prophet Muhammad" for historical interest, that's understandable.

If wikipedia admins still decide against removing the picture, please on the FAQ page under Q.1, In addition to It offends Muslims and The images are false add a third section heading "Muhammad himself didn't approve of painting living objects" and clarify that Wikipedia policy is to totally disregard people's personal view in deciding how they should or should not be portrayed. Arman ^(Talk) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumptions are incorrect, therefore your conclusions are flawed. Absolutely we would publish a derogatory cartoon of George Bush, assuming it was relevant and not under copyright. The opinion of the subject of the cartoon is irrelevant. Same with the derogatory nickname hypothetical; the only considerations when deciding whether to include it are its relevance and its importance. The "approval" of the subject is not a consideration.—Chowbok ☠ 06:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Arman, the request, as placed in the form of the heavy-handed begging that Islam-adherants have come her with, is not only censorship, it is blackmail. Wikipedia is not governed by Islamic doctrinal guidelines; it is secular, and stands above and beyond the governing of any one party or parties. If you don't want to read the article, don't read the article. Don't look at the images. But you don't have the right to prohibit me or anyone else from doing so. And the constant begging that this has turned into is bordering almost childish blackmail. --Mhking (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chowbok's reasoning seems reasonable. Only what I didn't understand, how some poorly drawn "cartoon" type images after hundreds of years of a person's death become so important that they have to be on the artcile. The only historical importance of these images that I can see is the one artifically created by a handful of Wikipedia admins by forcing these images in the article on Prophet Muhammad (Sm.). Anyway, let's clarify this line of argument on the FAQ page, shall we?

For Mhking, I am not begging you or anyone to do anything, so please stop directing me what I read on wikipedia and what I don't. I was just pointing out that, I believe everyone reserves the right to decide how he/she should be figuratively depicted. If there is a criticism of a person on factual basis, that can and should be included irrespective of person's opinion. If we are talking about a photograph or a painting done to show a person's actual resemblance, that can be considered factual with respect to that person. But cartoons, drawings (based on imagination), nicknames - are not facts, they are pure and simple "POV" about a person in a figurative form, and the inclusion of such material on a person's biography should consider that person's acceptance / rejection of such materials. If Wikipedia's policy does not cover it yet, then the policy is deficient and needs to be changed, and I am hoping the clear inclusion of this stance on the FAQ page will open the door to the discussion which will lead to that change in policy. Arman ^(Talk) 07:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censor for all Musulman regions

There is no liberty of expresion in that countries. A simple pic make thousend of people to mobilizate. It could be better to censor wikipedia to all Musulman regions, and then, whait.

Wikipedia is not an Islamic website

This website is not an Islamic one, and therefore does not, and should not adhere to Islamic laws/values. Any Muslim who for some reason feels offended by these pictures can use free tools to block them. Trying to force Wikipedia to censor these pictures is no less than Religious Coercion, which has no place here. AxelRafaeli (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shock sites

Why does Wikipedia not uphold their policy of not censoring on entries of shocksites like 2girls1cup and other perversions? Why are there no images of those things on their respective wiki pages? In fact, all I can see are people with an anti-Islamic agenda defending the completely useless inclusion of the images. What do they have to do with the topic? If I were to make a random image of Bush and upload it, no matter how crude it is, and add it to Bush's wikipedia page, would it be removed? My image, of course, would not have much to do with the topic because I can just label the random stick figure drawing "Bush" and post it to Wiki.

Not to mention the fact that nearly all respectable major Encyclopedias, print or otherwise, have never included those pictures in their entries about the Prophet (pbuh). And I'm pretty sure that it wasn't due to self-censorship since a lot of these encyclopedias are quite old but have not included such images.

The pictures seem to be presented in the entry simply for baiting Muslims. I'm sure Christians would take offense to a South Park Jesus added to the 'Jesus' entry. It would be foolish to add such an image to such an entry in the first place. Hey, while we're at it, why not post pictures of dead babies to their relevant entries? After all, you guys are such proponents of freedom of speech and anti-censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.153.232 (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood what "censored" means in a wikipedia context, we will not censor content that we as a community deem suitable for an article. We as a community have decided that their historical context means they should be included. No offense is intended but this is a secular site and we cannot adhere to religion traditions of a particular faith - be it Islam, Christianity or scientiology. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]