Talk:Muhammad/Archive 17

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Name

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the first mention of his name should be in full? As in "Muhammad ibn Abdullah". 124.82.0.228 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Images of Prophet Mohammad

Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

the images should be removed from the article as those fake images taking the article no where and even all the muslims cant bear the endurance as you know what happened when in french newspaper we have seen the images of Mohammad Peace be upon him.we are demanding to remove the images only & for the article we have no comments try to face realism the pictures posted here not true. Kashif Sagheer Ahmed 7:40 13/06/007

Please feel free to issue demands, and threats of violence, as much as you like; you merely condemn yourself. The images will not be removed, because they improve the article. All important historical figures in Wikipedia have pictures, even though in most cases the pictures are not contemporary. But even more importantly, Wikipedia is not censored, and does not submit to the dictates of any religion. TharkunColl 07:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

how can a fake image improve the article? the images be removed as they are not the true images of Mohammad.

Actually, he has a point. Kashif may not have expressed himself well, but he has a point. Even if we disregard religious sensitivity, the two picture with Muhammad's face revealed come from 1315 and the 15th century. I do not think any artist who saw Muhammad lived that long. I politely request that these two images in particular be removed, or at least the face be blurred.Unflavoured 03:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

my freind we are not threatening its your way to see things i am tilting your mind towards the things that are not good & you are the one who is leading the fire for muslims by saying bad things towards us & every body can see i am requesting only & you better check your attitude that so many times you've crossed the limit of decency. & kindly avoid the factors of Racism and we are not dictating it is our right you know very well how anyone can dictate you this is only an agression towards muslims from your side like you've abused our prophet by using very bad words. what it reflects, is that you got some problem with us any how i will keep on working by demanding to remove the (FAKE) images as he is our prophet & we dont want his images to be published in this way & dont create a big issue of such a small thing as if you'll remove the images from the page nothing will hurt the importance of an article if it is in this way the bible should have the images then to prove its importance & truthfulness. & yes if you got the real images feel free to post it here. Kashif Ahmed.7:22 14/06/007

The Muslims do not own Muhammad; he is an important figure in history for the entire human race, for good or ill - like Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, or indeed any other military and religious leader. Muslims therefore have no right whatsoever to dictate what goes into this article. And is it abusing Muhammad to speak the truth? Did he, or did he not, marry a 6 year old girl? Does that, or does it not, make him a paedophile? TharkunColl 08:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He married those people because they were in poverty. the only way mohammed was to legally care for them was to marry them as arab laws at the time said that a man could not care for a woman unless he was married to her. so no, it does NOT make him a paedophile. (Gooly 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Kashif Ahmed, why dont u register your name ?! Wikipedians in general are highly biased AGAINST those who register. Then we can have a fair discussion with whoever wants to discuss these images.Unflavoured 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article does not claim that these images are an exact likeness, rather they are perceptions of his likeness made after his life was long over. This is obvious to anyone viewing the article. The images are not attacks on Mohammad either in the way they were rendered or in the way they are displayed in the article. Note that the article on Jesus also includes images of him that were created several centuries after his death. The "controversial" images displayed in the ~~Dutch~~ Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, are not included in this article. Further, please note that Wikipedia intends to be an encyclopedia, not a holy text that as to "prove its importance and truthfulness." These images are important to this article because the article discusses the important topic of the representation of Mohammad over time. The images are not distasteful, rather they included as part of an encyclopedic discussion of history and art history. --Strothra 04:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i am already registered here but it seems that you are right. but my my freind we got to do something as it is hurting & disturbing.Kashif Ahmed.--Noshikashi. 06:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, Kashif Ahmed, what's wrong with you? What racism? In what way was TharkunColl being racist? Do you even know what racism is? All he said is that the pictures stay. How is that racism? Look, I understand that Muhammad is a holy guy to you and that you seem to worship him, but, as it is right now, this is a Wikipedia entry about Muhammad. This is not meant to be some kind of religious article about Muhammad; the purpose with this article is to be a well informed, encyclopaedic article about a historic figure, with whatever information available—pictures included. You might find the pictures depicting Muhammad objectionable, but Wikipedia isn't about censorship. Whatever the case, the pictures stay, and that's not racism. Knock it off with this ridiculous victim-mentality. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:12, 14 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

I am from a highly muslim family and to be honest i can see nothing wrong with the pictures, they're merely an artists rendition of Muhammad. as previously mentioned, Muhammad was an extremely important figure in world history and although the Shariah states his face should not be shown, this does not mean non-muslims cannot look at representations of Him.

I meant to say AGAINST those who dont* register. Also: "Oh for crying out loud, Kashif Ahmed, what's wrong with you? What racism?", Alucard, I already pointed out that Kashif has a difficulty in expressing himself, so don't use that against him. Its pretty clear that English is not his first language, but I hope that you won't let that affect your judgement of what he is saying. Can we please have an informative discussion about this !? I have several points to make, and I think that this is not so enormous an issue to YOU that it will ruin the article, but it is a very important thing to a Muslim.
1- the pictures (the two of them that show Muhammad's face) do not add any value to the article.

That is simply untrue; they add a great deal to the article. They show the ways in which Muslims have depicted Muhammad over the centuries. TharkunColl 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

2- There is a picture with his face veiled. Muhammad did not wear a veil, but this is both informative (it tell the reader that Islamic tradition forbids pictures of Muhammad) and it shows sensitivity. Why can't you add two more pictures like those, and delete the ones with Muhammad face ?! Please note that some Muslims object to any illustration that has any Prophet in it, but at least the pic I mentioned (with veil) is respectful

To do as you suggest would distort the historical record, and make it seem as if Muslims have never depicted Muhammad without a veil. But this, of course, is untrue. TharkunColl 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

3- Like it or not, there is such a thing as religious sensitivity, courtesy, and respect. I think that wikipedia is not the place to intentionally hurt others, and you by now know that Muslims are hurt by pictures with our Prophet in them. If there are two alternatives, it would make sense to choose the less offensive of the two. Saying: "NO CENSORSHIP" and going with a less appealing format.....shows a bit of hard-headedness.

Our overriding purpose is to present the facts of the matter, and the fact is that Muslims have made pictures of Muhammad. As for causing offense, such a thing cannot be avoided in the pursuit of truth. Should we, for example, censor the article on Adolf Hitler to appease the Nazis? TharkunColl 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

4- The Dutch cartoons do not appear in this article, they appear in another article. Why ? Because I believe the wiki community came to the consensus that it would contribute nothing to your knowledge of this man, to see a few cartoons drawn in the 21st century that show him in an... let's say objectionable way. Couldn't we make a parallel argument ?!

No, because the current images were made by Muslims in centuries past, and are perfectly respectful. Personally, I think the Danish cartoons do have a place in this article, because of the reaction they engendered - and so you see, I have compromised too. TharkunColl 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that these picture are very important and contribute valuable information to this article, then please tell me how. Thank you.
Note to Kashif: When you are the genuine victim, you will told: "Oh for crying out loud, don't pretend to be a victim!!". Other people rarely feel your pain, since not everyone was brought up to be religiously sensitive.
Note to "I am from a highly muslim family": This page will be visited by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. We should have a format that is acceptable to both. Unflavoured 01:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason the Danish cartoons do not appear in this article is because the are off-topic. The cartoon incident isn't important enough relative to Muhammad to be covered. Were there a section discussing them and their impact, then an picture of them would be completely appropriate.Proabivouac 01:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic. Exactly. Thank you. If I wanted to see them, I can go to that page. I repeat: "Couldn't we make a parallel argument ?!". And my first 3 points, please do not skip those. Again, thank you.Unflavoured 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Muhammad, and as such depictions of Muhammad couldn't be more topical. It has nothing to do with whether you want to see them. You might not wish to see them on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy either, but there they are. The best way to avoid seeing depictions of something is to avoid visiting articles which are related to that thing, so…Proabivouac 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to the point of exhaustion, and we still came to the conclusion that the images are valid. Here is a summary: Talk:Muhammad/images#The_mediation--_in_comical_screenplay_form. ^(H) 02:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussed to the point of exhaustion? You are well aware that consensus may change, and Wikipedia is open for editing and discussion ?!

Proabivouac, you said:"So..." So what exactly !? I cannot complete your sentence myself, but I will assume good faith. I think you've missed my point completely. Please reread what I wrote, since you seem to be skimming over my words. If not, I can re-state.Unflavoured 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"So…" if you don't like seeing depictions of Muhammad, avoid articles such as this one where they might be topical.Proabivouac 02:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding an article does not improve it, and your recommendation does not solve the controversy.

I would like to put a large red arrow pointing to my second post, and will wait for 2-3 days for a response.Unflavoured 03:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unflavoured, you wrote, regarding the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, "If I wanted to see them, I can go to that page." That's what I responded to.Proabivouac 03:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal guys: you may find these pictures 'offensive' for several reasons, specifically, religious reasons. That's fine. But here on Wikipedia, we do not take concern to such qualms. For instance, Jews find it problematic that Christians regard Jesus Christ as the son of God. We're not deleting such information on Wikipedia just to appease Jews. Christians find it problematic that Jews claim Jesus Christ was not the awaited Messiah. We do not delete Jews' point of views on Jesus just to make Christians feel better about it. Case in point: you'll have to survive these depictions of Muhammad being shown in this article. There are pictures of Jesus in his Wikipedia entry, and you don't see or hear Christians complain about it. Why can't you Muslims be the same about this? Is it not so, that you consider Jesus a prophet of Islam as well (Isa)? If the answer is yes, why don't you complain on his article about depictions of Jesus? Correct me if I'm wrong, but could it possibly be because you worship Muhammad more than Jesus? Either way, this isn't a theological discussion. The pictures, unless they're not fair use or not in public domain, are allowed to be used in Wikipedia articles. You may not like it, but you'll have to live through with it. Wikipedia is all about being factual with every important historical content available. That includes pictures. We're not going to change that just because some people lose sleep at night over it. EliasAlucard|Talk 11:12, 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

ok that's all now, unflavoured you are a right person but at the wrong place because no body will listen to you as they got a mind setup from the begening they dont know how disturbing these images are to us they are not wrong its a matter of opinion which fluctuates in between us. if i have offended any one by any means for that, i realy express regrets towards them.i have tried a lot to elaborate my opinion but all in vain.if you are saying pictures stays ok it stays its your job & you knows the best but as a muslim its not allowed in our religion to make pictures of our prophets any of them & on that basis i was requesting you to remove it.Kashif Ahmed--Kashi. 05:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

im not against the pictures, but may i just say: muslims do not "worship" prophets. we believe mohammed was the one who completed the word of allah, completely undistorted, therefor he is valued higher. the reason we are against pictures of mohammed is because there are no descriptions, and they may encourage idolacy. so really, i dont have a problem, because no ones going to suddenly convert and start worshipping the pictures. (Gooly 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

but the fake pictures will remain fake i am against all those pictures that are here & that are against the emotions or muslims as every body knows very well that Islam bans to make statue and pictures.--Kashi. 13:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sargis Bkheera

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm of the opinion that this article should mention his Assyrian monk teacher, and it would be great if any of you Islam experts could help out improving that article. Thanks. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:19, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

academic sources refer to him as Bahira, and states that they met in passing. the notion of him being a teacher is dismissed in academic circles as medieval polemic (cf. Encyclopedia of Islam). ITAQALLAH 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion on Talk:Sargis Bkheera's talk page. Thanks. EliasAlucard|Talk 20:45, 14 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Proposed talk subpage

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I believe its time to create a subpage of this talk page, where complaints about or any other general comments regarding the display of depictions can be moved, along with a notice on this one similar to that found on Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy to the effect that any such comments placed on this main talk page may be moved or deleted.Proabivouac 01:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I reject the suggestion. -- A. L. M. 08:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why?Proabivouac 08:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It has no comparision with Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy to begin with. I find no good reason to treat a group that you disagree and remove there comments or move to some subpage. -- A. L. M. 08:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not proposing to redirect comments by POV, but by subject, including what comments I have made and any I might make about the same issue. The good reason is to restore the functionality of the talk page. Are you for that or against that?Proabivouac 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot trust you on this issue. I think you are not neutral (just like me) on this issue. So keep the status quo, please. otherwise let someone neutral decide (not you). --- A. L. M. 08:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for it. It seems to work well, and would free up the main talk page for people to focus on ways to improve the current article that aren't related to the image issue. But, there has to be understanding that being on a subpage doesn't make the comments posted there less-valuable or otherwise "second-class". We've had a separate talk page for this issue in the past, seems like it would make sense to have one here for the same reasons that they have one at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. --Alecmconroy 12:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable to me. BYT 14:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

BYT, you write bellow, "whose terminating point is inevitably a decision to spark (intentional, in my view) recrimination and religiously-driven bickering," yet here and ALM you seem to insist that the pointless bickering continue. As ALM may as well have answered this question, I'll ask you: the goal is to restore the functionality of this talk page. Are you for that or against that?Proabivouac 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the proposal. That, or image comments should just be removed as soapboxing or disruptive edits.--Sefringle^Talk 23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Heh heh, ok, but you deleted the "Could we not make a parallel argument" part, Proabivouac. It is the part that matters most. Listen, I really want this article to be informative and encyclopedic (not sure how you spell 'encyclopedic'). Take a look at the page:Depictions of Muhammad. It has a cartoon image from south park. THAT is not encyclopedic, it just... silly. Jesus appeared on south park too, and his image is not on his depictions page. But that is another argument.
All historically important people have pictures, depictions, true. WP is not censored, true. But WP is open to editing, and WP entries should be civil to everyone, and should not intentionally insult or offend. The comment "Whatever the case, the pictures stay" made by Alucard only show... what exactly !?
It will be a long long long long discussion, and doubtless, whether the pics stay or are removed, there will be long long long long discussion between others later. I am sure the collective minds that made WP what it is today can come with something that is acceptable by all, no !?
So I ask: if this current article is not acceptable to all, should we not work to improve it ?! Or is it: "Whatever the case, the pictures stay" ?!
I thank you for your patience and civility.Unflavoured 04:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"It will be a long long long long discussion."

It already has been a long long long long discussion. Do you have something to say which hasn't been said before? Read the archives before you answer that.Proabivouac 04:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am reading it now. In the meantime, the article has 13 images (estimate), so IF I remove two of them, will the article be affected !? What if I replace them ?!Unflavoured 08:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the images are not depictions.Proabivouac 08:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why I won't touch them. Just two out of 13 ?! I know there is a 'be bold' policy and there is also a counter 'revert' policy and another 50 policies. Just the ones with the face showing. The one where he has a yard long beard and hair (near middle years), and the one that shows him being almost Chinese (next to Etymology). What if I promise you that 1.2 BILLION people will be satisfied, and will NOT remove any other image, and all debate will end !? Unflavoured 08:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Any attempt at religious censorship will be reverted. TharkunColl 10:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Religious censorship will not be tolerated on Wikipedia, and that goes for all religions. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:16, 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Continuing to recycle old arguments is unlikely to change the consensus - and for an excellent reason: The consensus that exists now reflects the purpose of Wikipedia, proposed alternatives by and large do not. Ultimately, editors who are not here to inform and educate, but to control the flow of information find themselves disappointed. Most Wikipedia editors didn't come here to make people happy but to educate them and make them strong. Any proposal that aims to do the first at the expense of the second isn't likely to go well, and this is no exception. And truth be told, I don't think removing the images would really make many people happy - certainly not as many as it would make unhappy. So there's little benefit there. Wily D 13:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unflavoured, it is my sad duty to inform you that the era of civility has long passed here. For the record, removing the images would certainly make ME happy, if only because it would put aside this absurd, polarizing, and endlessly recycled conversation, whose terminating point is inevitably a decision to spark (intentional, in my view) recrimination and religiously-driven bickering. We had a system that worked; now we have this. BYT 13:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the images would make me happy, too. I don't think there's any guideline that says being educational has to be the only criterion for decisions about Wikipedia content. Other criteria include beauty, grammatical correctness, entertainment value etc. Avoiding offending a billion people while requiring some others to do one extra click of the mouse seems an obviously positive tradeoff to me. In fact, it's more educational that way: in the process of doing that extra click, some people will learn something about the Muslim religion and its attitude towards images. I think that's significantly more educational than seeing one of the pictures. --Coppertwig 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One might just as easily say that by appending "(p.b.u.h.)" to every mention of Muhammad's name, we'll help people learn something about the Muslim religion and its attitude towards Muhammad, or that by hiding potentially controversial statements in Communist Party of China behind a click, we'll help people learn what political dialogue is like in China. We do not usually inform readers of taboos or other points of religious protocol by following them.Proabivouac 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad is enormously significant outside of Islam. Completely ignoring his contributions to Islam, Muhammad is still one of the 25 or so most influential humans in history. A point everybody who argues for deletion seems to completely miss. Wily D 23:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Who wants censorship ?! Why is every attempt at discussion countered with 'censorship is not allowed' ?! There are plenty of pictures in the article, more than the Jesus article ! Why is no one saying: "The Jesus article is being censored!" ?! Because it isn't. Neither is this article. I am going to make a few changes, with the aim of improving (the article, not censoring it. You can revert at will, for reverting and censorship is none of my concern. The purpose of WP is to inform, not conform, to either the strict Muslim practice of never showing anything related to Muhammad, or the notion that every single possible picture MUST be included in an article, regardless of whether it reduces the quality of the article or not. Unflavoured 01:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is every attempt at discussion countered with 'censorship is not allowed'?"

Because it isn't.

"the notion that every single possible picture MUST be included in an article, regardless of whether it reduces the quality of the article or not."

I'm not aware that anyone has taken this position.Proabivouac 01:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are not aware, then read some of the responses above. Unflavoured 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me an example.Proabivouac 01:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Who wants censorship ?! Why is every attempt at discussion countered with 'censorship is not allowed' ?! - Apparently, Muslims want censorship. They want to remove the pictures of Muhammad because they feel offended by just looking at them. What's that, if not censorship? EliasAlucard|Talk 09:49 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Dont mean to bug you guys, but can you read my post on the other picture section? its the last one

Is discussion at all possible?

Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments10 people in discussion

"Whatever the case, the pictures stay" This is an example. Just in case you missed it the fourth time too, "Whatever the case, the pictures stay". I have already asked, what does this show ?! You declined to answer. You also decline to discuss practically everything I wrote. But you did recommend that I read the discussion, and I said I am reading it now. I also said that I will wait for 2-3 days, so please give me a chance to fully read through the previous archives, for they are quite long. I hope that you will not object to any changes that improve the article, and I hope that you notice that I did not ask to remove all the pictures, and not all depictions either. As I am taking the time to read the archives, I would like you to reread my posts above. Unflavoured 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed the pictures for several months now, and I think most of the users are sick and tired of it, and just want to worry about other things. At the same time, we had a general consensus to include images. Don't take it as rudeness, we are just frustrated about having to repeat ourselves by continuing this really long discussion.--sefringle^Talk 03:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken from anyone, but so far, the responses have been quite... blunt. Anyway, There is too much info and archives and article histories for me to even attempt anything at the moment. For clarification, I won't change article just yet, and I won't do so without discussing it first. But I am reading and reading and...reading. Give me time to make a coherent case. Thanks. Unflavoured 03:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is possible - but unproductive unless there's something new to discuss. Editors (on all sides) are blunt because we want to hurry along a discussion we already know the ending to. Bluntness is an excellent quality in a discussion (not necessarily an article). Cheers, Wily D 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unflavored-- basically, anyone wanting to remove image is going to face a huge uphill battle in doing so. I'm sure that does sound, to you, like saying "Whatever the case, the pictures stay". A better way to put it would be: As long as Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia remain two of the fundamental policies of the project, the pictures will probably stay. While those two are in place, whenever we face a choice between "being informative" and "being non-offensive", informative is going to win. As is, considerations about potentially offending people really don't enter into the equation-- if something is encyclopedic, it doesn't matter how many people would get offended.

Fortunately, it's a big internet. Muslims wanting to have an encyclopedia that respects Muslim traditions can make their own Wikipedia, just as many conservative Christians have done with Conservapedia. And of course, people could lobby for repealing Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while I don't think that's likely to happen, there is nothing that stops you from trying.

But do take the time to actually address changing the fundamental policies, changing the consensus of how those policies apply, or appealing to ARBCOM, as ALM has suggested he may do. But just Being bold and deleting images won't accomplish anything-- people will just revert your changes on sight, and people will just get more riled up again.

--Alecmconroy 13:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bring up a point that has not already been discussed to death and we will talk about it. But all that has been presented here by so many people is a rehashing of the same arguments that were rejected in mediation. It is pretty much granted that people are going to ask us to take down the images forever, every week, till the world ends. But unless they have a new reason, it is not new. ^(H) 13:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

ok that's all now, unflavoured you are a right person but at the wrong place because no body will listen to you as they got a mind setup from the begening they dont know how disturbing these images are to us they are not wrong its a matter of opinion which fluctuates in between us. if i have offended any one by any means for that, i realy express regrets towards them.i have tried a lot to elaborate my opinion but all in vain.if you are saying pictures stays ok it stays its your job & you knows the best but as a muslim its not allowed in our religion to make pictures of our prophets any of them & on that basis i was requesting you to remove it. it's been nice to hear that we (muslims)create our own site which reflects our own tradition hehe my answer is we dont need this you guys are enough to promote us & as far as the matter of pictures i say MIGHT IS RIGHT you got the power you can hurt any one.Kashif Ahmed--212.24.224.17 07:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you truly feel hurt by only looking at pictures, then no offense, but you are a moron. Listen, this has got to stop. You can't run around and try to control everyting and delete everything you consider unislamic. The world doesn't operate like that. EliasAlucard|Talk 10:06 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

I think that was uncalled for. Calling someone a moron isn't helping anyone, it is just a personal attack that serves no purpose on WP. You can't run around saying anything you like, and dismissing everything you consider contrary to your POV. The world doesn't operate like that. Unflavoured 01:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Kashif, nobody is forcing you to make pictures of anything or anyone. Frotz 10:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

so it means you know how to operate world are you a god..??? who is telling us what to do or what not to do control your words learn some manners from your religion. whatever you say we are against all those pictures that are here. do i made my self clear..?????Elias.??????Falcon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.224.17 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't take superhuman understanding to realize that it's not a good idea to run around trying to control everything. Frotz 10:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not a god. You can dislike these pictures all you like for all I care. But on Wikipedia, I do not have any actual control over which pictures are included and excluded in various articles, and neither do you. On Wikipedia, we go after certain policies and consensus. Religious censorship is not accepted on Wikipedia. You will simply have to accept that. As for me learning some manners from my religion, that's a very ironic remark coming from you. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:00 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

I think the basic problem here is that there are certain people who wish to impose their own religious beliefs on others. TharkunColl 11:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course that's the problem, but then again, this muslim thinks I as a Christian should learn some manners from my religion. I'm not the one arrogantly ordering other Wikipedians to remove pictures of Jesus from his Wikipedia article. Knock it off and get it over with. We could spend time discussing on how we could improve this article instead of focusing on rehashed arguments on why these pictures are included in the first place. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:24 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

I think it's genuinely possible that they don't understand concepts such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of belief, which are probably completely alien to their culture and life experiences. Hopefully exposure to Wikipedia, for example, may lead them to a greater understanding of these things. TharkunColl 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

i am sorry for my sudden out burst and i hope you guys did'nt mind it at all. thanks.Kashif Ahmed.--212.24.224.17 12:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind all that there are also non-Muslim editors who are opposed to having pictures in this article. I have stated my views before; they are quite simple. I do not think that any pictures of Muhammad can provide any educational value to the encyclopedia because there have never been any accurate representations of that particular historical individual. I take the same line in relation to any other historical character, for example Attila the Hun, where there are no portraits. Itsmejudith 18:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And the same would apply to almost any individual from medieval or ancient history. It is wrong to single out Muhammad for special treatment - if you want such a policy adopted by Wikipedia, it must be across the board. It will never be adopted, of course. TharkunColl 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Atilla the Hun has six portraits ... Wily D 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, every one of which was made hundreds of years after he died. There is nothing wrong, or exceptional about this - it is standard practice in reference works. TharkunColl 21:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It might well be standard practice, but it's still pointless. Actually, it's characteristic of a 19th century type of popular history. Itsmejudith 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not the accuracy of the depiction of Muhammad that gives images of the man importance. Rather, the importance of such images is derived from the way in which he is depicted over time and the meaning of those images to those who created them. Images, in anthropological terms, are works by which their creator can assign meaning to the subject. Depictions of Muhammad are thus given even more importance due to their tenuous position within the Islamic faith. Judith's extremely utilitarian view of this matter seems to ignore this entirely. The study of images is not simply standard practice of reference works, it's also part of a pattern of scholarship included in contemporary anthropological, sociological, and historical research comprising the avant garde of cultural studies. --Strothra 01:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I perhaps am taking a utilitarian line at this point. However, I am aware that there is such a thing as the scholarly study of images. I don't know if it is the avant garde of cultural studies - perhaps it is the bread and butter of cultural studies. But this is not an article about the iconography of the subject. There are two grounds for including images in this encyclopedia: informational and aesthetic. In this case there is no informational case whatsoever. As far as the aesthetic case goes, I would say that traditional Islamic art stands comparison with any artistic tradition anywhere in the world ever. If we cannot find sufficient beauty in the architectural and calligraphic images available to us, then that is a reflection on us as editors and not on the Islamic religion. Itsmejudith 10:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures are incredibly informative. As the old saw goes, "a picture is worth a thousand word". See [1] for a list of just a few of the many things which pictures instantly tell us about Muhammad. --Alecmconroy 11:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Type error

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the section "Muslim veneration of Muhammad" there is a "phuh&hd", dont know what to fix it to,

"(pbuh)", "(saw)" and "pbuh&hd" for Shias, or even just simply as "p". "

ChristianoGh 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My Strange Doubletake on this Issue

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I've thought about this contentious issue for a while and might have somewhat reconsidered my previous position. I am personally very concerned about catering to Islamic sensitivities and remain opposed to doing so. Furthermore I believe Muhammad was a warrior and political leader, not a holy person in the least.

However, I think the purpose of displaying a picture of an historical figure ought to be to either display a true likeness of the subject or (in the case of ancient figures) to display prevalent representations of the subject. As such it would be entirely appropriate to show pictures that represent Jesus or Buddha, even though the actual figures likely looked nothing like these representations. However in the case of Muhammad I must wonder whether some of these images are significant enough to be included. It's almost as if we must search long and hard to find any pictures of him at all. In fact I might even consider the Danish cartoons more appropriate to include than some of these obscure pictures from antiquity, since they seem far more significant to me. I suppose my question would be whether images that don't show a true likeness of the subject should have to be very mainstream (or mainstream at some point in time) in order to be included.

Well any thoughts and/or rebuttals would be appreciated. Talmage 21:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"It's almost as if we must search long and hard to find any pictures of him at all."

The depictions appearing here are only a small and carefully-chosen fraction of what was available, which are not at all difficult to find. What did prove amazingly dificult to find is calligraphic treatments of the name "Muhammad" as exemplified by the lead image. Having once been assured that such designs were ubiquitous, we discovered (to most everyone's surprise) that they reflected only a very recent trend.Proabivouac 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

you are thinking only go and read some thing about him that he is a holy person if you dont kn then its none of your bussiness he is a holy person and he is a great leader.

The anon does have a point in that our personal verdicts on the article subject are not relevant to this talk page. The point about "catering to Islamic sensitivities" also struck me as odd. Surely the encyclopedia should be aware of everyone's sensitivities, insofaras that does not conflict with our other values and aims? Itsmejudith 10:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree. I don't think an encyclopedia, which should be the place where objective facts are disseminated should be a place in which we consider religious sensitivities before publishing these facts. However, my only question was whether or not the pictures of Muhammad are significant enough to include. That's probably more of an indirect question than a statement. Obviously if I scrawled out a drawing of Muhammad it wouldn't be worthy enough to include in this article. I guess my question is, what is the threshold of significance? And do these images meet this threshold? The reason I mentioned my personal feelings towards Muhammad was that I didn't want others to assume I was suggesting this because I am a Muslim (which I'm absolutely not!) with a secret agenda of censoring images of Muhammad. Talmage 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For me, I tend to look at the threshold of inclusion is whether they illustrate a topic in a way that is useful to the goal of creating a encyclopedia. So, I don't usually have a seperate notability requirement for the images themselves-- in math and science subject, I'll often just make up my own images and upload them, for example. In this case, I would be totally comfortable with a modern, user-generated image if it really was the image which best illustrated the subject.

On the other hand, a different view is that we should do the "most notable" images-- historic images probably given presidence over contemporary ones. Both valid viewpoints. In this article, it seems like the "best" images and the "most notable" images are the same group. --Alecmconroy 01:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia can, and should, mention religious taboos, but to follow them itself would be the worst form of POV. If there were no pictures here, then a reader might legitimately wonder what else we have suppressed in order not to offend Muslims. Indeed, it could even be argued that by including the pictures we are actually doing a service to Muslims, who might otherwise be under the false impression that Muslims have never made pictures of Muhammad. Be that as it may, we must ensure that we are not only neutral, but seen to be neutral as well. Any policy of removing pictures of historical individuals on the grounds that they are not contemporaneous must apply equally to the whole of Wikipedia (and I would strongly oppose it). This page is not the place to argue for such a policy. TharkunColl 11:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

my freind you dont know any thing about islam how can you suppose to say that some of the muslims have made the pictures of Mohammad in his time period no one has made any picture. i dont know how people can say these dumb things in a way that they knows about muslims.if any one made a picture of him is only after his death and the question is,who made this, still we dont know.???either muslim or non muslim..!!!but we believe non muslim because muslims are not allowed to make any picture of Mohammad if he\she does he is not a Muslim. kindly read some thing which is genuine about islam dont put your ears towards those things that are not true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.224.17 (talk • contribs)

All the pictures in this article have been made by Muslims. Perhaps it is you who need to learn more about Islam. TharkunColl 07:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have told you all the FAKE pictures are made after his death... and the people who have made this, they are not Muslims because at that time when they have made it no one was alive who has seen Mohammad & it's an order of Islam not to make a picture of Mohammad if some one make a picture then he is out of Islam and still I’ll say you don’t know much about Islam and these pictures have nothing to do with Islam, Mohammad never told any one to pray his pictures....on the other hand you are saying i need to learn about Islam I say pictures does not comes in Islam & any one who thinks that these pictures are the image of Islam he is wrong and he knows nothing. Better lay off...I don’t know why you are discussing the thing which you don’t know I repeat you don’t know any thing about Islam. if some one disobeys the order of Mohammad then he is not a Muslim & the Mohammad ordered us not to make any statue or picture of him & if any one make he is not from us (Muslims). Go learn something more accurate about Islam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.224.17 (talk • contribs)

The pictures are not fake, any more than any picture of a historical person is fake. They are works of art. And it would now appear that you have taken on the right to decide who is, and who is not, a Muslim - in other words, you have appointed yourself the equal of Allah, which is surely blasphemy of the worst kind. TharkunColl 08:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls - of course, who's trolling and who's feeding depends on where you stand

Ah, now I understand. Trollbait. I used to wonder why you write what you write, but no longer. I think your words are having less and less of an inflammatory effect with every comment you make. If you troll for long enough, you might even become invisible. Congrats. What is the WP policy towards uncivil trolls ?! Do we ignore them or poke em or let them ramble on !? Unflavoured 09:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not I who threatened violence, and presumed to speak on behalf of all Muslims. TharkunColl 11:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Might you quote Muhammad's statement to this effect?Proabivouac 08:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

so, by your saying what i get is that every one is eqaul ok then you are a muslim.?? you want to call your self a muslim.????do you.??? my freind night is night & the day is day you can not call night a day & day a night this is to explain who is muslim & who is not muslim.i would rather be happy if you say no muslims no christians no jews....if you say...then who you are..??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.224.17 (talk • contribs)

help please

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I added the fact that Muhammad was buried in Aisha's house, but I do not know how to add the source. Here are a few webbies:
http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/iran/shiaislam.htm
http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/prophet_aisha.htm
http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/hadith/horns-of-satan
http://sufi.co.za/UMAR%20BURIAL.htm
would some1 please make it so that the "citation needed" won't come up !? Thanks Unflavoured 09:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You have done right changes. However, please find book or a paper using Google-book, Google-scholar (or your library). We should avoid mentioning non-academic website references. regards. --- A. L. M. 13:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will do it later. --- A. L. M. 13:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Women and the Advent of Islam

Leila Ahmed

Signs, Vol. 11, No. 4. (Summer, 1986), pp. 665-691.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-9740%28198622%2911%3A4%3C665%3AWATAOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P

This gives Muhammad as being buried in Aisha's house, but it's from a feminist journal (Signs) rather than an Islamic journal, in an article about Aisha's role in Islam. Also, it curiously gives his death date as June 11, rather than the June 8 we've got, so I've left it aside for the moment. Wily D 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The death date could easily be explained by vaguaries in the Muslim lunar calendar, which was based on observations of the new moon. TharkunColl 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The correct death date should be clarified. However, there is no reason to insist on "google book" - especially for such a trivial fact a link is enough. Or a non-google book. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir Salman Rushdie

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Is this the right article to describe what happens to anyone whom the Muslims think has insulted Muhammad? That is, death threats? If not, where should this information go? TharkunColl 23:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article does say, "Conversely, criticism of Muhammad is often equated with blasphemy, which is punishable by death in Pakistan."Proabivouac 23:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a national parliament of a foreign country unanimously voting to sanction a suicide attack against a British subject, merely for exercising his right to freedom of speech. The article needs to say these things. How about a description of the Islamic terror campaign against the West - inspired, of course, by the teachings of Muhammad? TharkunColl 23:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's specific, and reeks of recentism - there may be a place for it under the "Islam" tree, but this isn't it. Wily D 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose any criticism of Islam or any tenet of Islam could somehow be linked to Muhammad (since he is the de facto founder of Islam), but the Rushdie incident is somewhat out of scope. Terrorism is general would be more appropriately mentioned on the Islam page (and of course on Islamic Terrorism and an other pages of modern Islamic figures). Talmage 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(unproductive discussion removed)

This discussion is not relavent. Please send email for such dicussion and not use talk page. --- A. L. M. 09:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

erm, erm, impretty new but wouldnt saying that violate NPOV rules? bacause not all muslims agree on that. i dont. (Gooly 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

whatever you write sir or Madam we dont care as what he wrote was upto his mind limits.--Kashi. 12:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to Add Image

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

1827 William Blake illustration of Muhammad for Dante's Inferno.

Every picture on the page is from an Islamic source. Muhammad has been significant in Western Civilization as well, and I would suggest adding this picture to the sub-section Romantic representations of Muhammad so that there is at least one non-Muslim representation to add a little balance. The Inferno is mentioned in this sub-section. Since Westerners have until recently never had a problem depicting Muhammad, I don't see why this should be a problem for anyone. (For what it's worth, this isn't a reversal of my earlier question regarding the significance of some of the images currently on the page. I believe this image serves more of a purpose than some of the "Islamic" images depicting him that don't seem to have ever been really mainstream for the culture that produced them. This on the other hand, was never taboo for Western culture, and was certainly more mainstream given the renowned artist... but I digress.) At any rate, I think this image would add balance to the host of images, since it is a Western depiction. Talmage 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not informative, and does not in any way at all help the reader understand anything about Muhammad's life. I believe the main reason behind every picture in the article was: "to inform the reader". Also, the picture is not encyclopedic. Unflavoured 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to disagree with virtually everything you have said. First, how does it not inform? It illustrates Western attitudes towards Muhammad during the period and culture addressed by the subtopic. Second, how is it not encyclopedic? This isn't a South Park drawing, it's an illustration by William Blake of Dante's masterpiece work. I don't see why only Islamic art should be included. This would add balance and is relevant to the subsection. Talmage 04:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to ask yourself whether the article is about Muhammad the actual person, or Muhammad as he was portrayed in renaissance europe. The picture belongs in the Depictions of Muhammad page, not here. The picture itself is POV, or maybe VPOV. We are not going to put anything that is not NPOV in an article, are we ?! Unflavoured 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a correct application of NPOV - Renaissance Europe is an extremly well known if historical position. Given Muhammad's importance to renaissance Europe (which is immense) their input is probably appropriate for a section on the perception of Muhammad throughout history. I really don't understand why so many people fail to recognise that Muhammad is immensely important outside of Islam. Wily D 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the argument for including or not including images was: There are images on every other historical figure's page. Blake's work is not used in God or Jesus or Moses or Adam or Eve. Why should Muhammad's page be singled out for the inclusion of Blake's POV ?! If it is not applied elsewhere, and is inconsistent with other pages, and is not encyclopedic, then it should not be added. Unflavoured 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually lukewarm on Blake's portrayal myself - it's not a terrible choice, given it's historical prominance. There was previously (as I've mentioned) a nice image of the carving of Muhammad in the American Supreme Court building that was very appropriate, I believe. Actual image choices are an editing decision, not an overarching policy issue, really. I've advocated that we should be trying to sample all major representations - including Caligraphy, veiled and unveiled reps - as for the specific image: I agree strongly with the point that a Western portrayal is important - much the way both Indian and Oriental Gautama_Buddha's need to be there. Blake specifically? We could probably do better. Wily D 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dead set on including Blake's image, but I think some Western image needs to be provided. This image, however, is less graphic than the perhaps more famous Gustave Doré illustration, not to mention more colorful. All classical pictures from the West that I have seen do depict Muhammad in a negative light. Unquestionably Muhammad is more important to the Islamic world, which is why the majority of the pictures chosen were created by Muslims. However, he has been important to Western cultures as well, believed in the Crusades to be a false god, and in Dante's time as a false prophet. These are legitimate historical beliefs to document. Once again, it's not our place to judge whether they are right or wrong, only to document that they exist, which is what the picture and section does. William Blake is a very famous artist, but if you think there are better pictures to display on this section, I'm not opposed. In the mean time, I think this picture fits well on the page. Talmage 04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of including the Blake image. We shouldn't just have Muslim depictions. TharkunColl 07:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is the best image or not, but an image from the American Supreme Court Fresco existed for quite sometime until the licensing went into doubt. I would agree that the article in general, and the images especially, overemphasise Muhammad's role as a prophet, and underemphasise his role as a political leader. A non-Islamic image is called for - I don't know if this is the one. Wily D 13:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(unproductive discussion removed)

Refrain from personal attacks - or find yourself refrained from making them. This is a page to discuss the article Muhammad and issues related to making an encyclopaedic article. Editors who do nothing but bait and troll each other will start to find themselves unable to do so anymore unless they knock it off. I hope this is clear. Wily D 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

i am sorry willy...i wont say anything more on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.224.17 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure if you read your talk page, but please sign your posts like this: ~~~~ This will help other people from confusing your posts from being part of other posts, and also it will keep people from believing other unsigned comments might actually be from you. Talmage 17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No do not add that image. It is very offensive. Delete a image already there and replace it with a decent non-Muslim image. --- A. L. M. 08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever to add offensive nude pictures of Muhammad. --Aminz 08:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

what kind of an information available in this picture..??? the fakeness is the quality of this picture and the qaulity of the drunken old blake's mind as well.--Kashi. 12:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture conveys a great deal of information because it illustrates Muhammad's fate in hell - to be split open - according to Dante in the Inferno. This was a very influential work in European history. TharkunColl 11:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

i have his picture also in which sorry to say his A..S split open into pieces with a knife stab into it this is what the picture says but the good thing is he is in heaven i have this..and good to know that you believe in hell & heaven beacuse earlier you've told us you have no religion.--Kashi. 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

reverting blake

Latest comment: 16 years ago25 comments12 people in discussion

Please do not add any images without discussing it first and getting a consensus Unflavoured 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote: The consensus to include these images of Muhammad emerged after extensive months long discussions and efforts on both sides to balance multiple competing interests. Please do not remove or reposition these images because they are against your religion. Please do not add more images or reposition the current ones to prove a point. To avoid pointless revert-warring, blocking, and page protection, please discuss changes on the talk page. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Unflavoured 03:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the picture, and asked for a discussion before any attempt at adding more pictures. The picture was put back. I removed it again, and quoted the above, but it was put back again. So what happened to 'not adding more images' without discussion ?! Unflavoured 04:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is about removing, adding, or moving images because of religious objections or to prove a point. That's not the case here. Nobody is attempting to prove a point. Blake's illustration is from an important passage from Dante's Divine Comedy which itself is a very important work of Western literature and theological thought. It is that passage that is being referenced in this article: Western thoughts on Muhammad. Frotz 04:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please revert till consensus is reached. I do not want to be in violation of 3rr. Read above for whether the image is notable/encyclopedic. Thank you Unflavoured 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we have a poll to see where people stand? From what I've seen, it seems most people prefer to keep the picture for now. Talmage 04:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But be reasonable, you cheesed off all those interested in removing the images, so that there were none added for sometime, and the current set of contributors are all pro-images. How would a poll help ?! If you wanna make a poll, would you notify all past editors !? Note: The paragraph below is incomprehensible. Rephrase !? Unflavoured 04:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, wasn't the reason many Muslims object to images of Muhammad being shown is that they do not want him worshiped as a false god? Certainly that's not the case here, since the picture is by a non-Muslim and expressing a non-Muslim POV? As for your earlier POV statement, it's proper to document the POV of others in the article (when such POV is relevant to the article itself) or through illustration, and this doesn't necessarily indicate POV of the editors or the article itself. Talmage 04:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased by request: Okay. Why do many Muslims object to pictures of Muhammad? I thought it was because they did not want him to be worshiped or idolized. This picture was not created by a Muslim. It does not represent an Islamic point of view. There is no risk anyone would idolize this picture. About point of view. It is okay to document a point a view if it is relevant to the article. This does not mean the point of view documented is that of the editor or encyclopedia. For example, stating Muslims venerate Muhammad documents the point of view of Muslims. However that is relevant to this article. That also doesn't mean the person who writes that Muslims venerate Muhammad actually venerates Muhammad. Therefore it does not violate point of view policies. The Blake picture expresses a commonly held Western point of view for the era in which The Divine Comedy was written. The Divine Comedy is part of the discussion in that section. Therefore the picture is relevant and only expresses the point of view of Dante, and perhaps Blake, not of Wikipedia or individual editors. I hope I made it comprehensible enough for you. Talmage 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is not suitable for the article and has no place there. --- A. L. M. 08:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How does it offend you? Arrow740 08:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is so obvious and needs no explaination. --- A. L. M. 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A user above mentioned that there is no risk of you being tempted into worshiping it, and that's the usual Islamic objection. So I was hoping you could explain what other objection you have so we could see how we should react to it in terms of WP guidelines. Arrow740 08:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This picture makes a very useful addition to the article because it shows how Muhammad has been perceived by non-Muslims. And in this case, by two leading figures from very different places and eras in Western history, Dante and Blake. TharkunColl 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no consensus whatsoever for this. I'm surprised at this, not usually the way you work here. BYT 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blake and Dante's Inferno are both famous and historical. One cannot censor Wiki or history in general due to the fact that certain individuals might disagree with it based on their own POV. The image is not displayed with the intention to offend, rather with the intention of being encyclopedic. --Strothra 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does in fact exist that the inclusion of images in this article falls within WP policies. The people opposed to the Blake image are, by and large, the same folks who opposed the inclusion of ANY image of Muhammad, and that view has been rejected by consensus. Since consensus favors the inclusion of images, the burden is on those opposing these particular images to demonstrate (within Wikipedia policies and not their own personal or theological preferences) why they should not be included. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll jump in and say this image is unnecessarily inflamatory. I'm certainly not opposed to including images for educational purposes, but I don't see how this adds to the images already included. Depictions of Muhammad, fine. But this doesn't add anything to this article, and has the side effect of hacking people off even more than they already are. Dchall1 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is the Blake image doing under a heading "Romantic representations"? It shows a complete lack of respect for either Blake or Islam (or Dante for that matter). It is purely original research. The section is not laid out according to the MoS and the English is dreadful too. A lot seems to be sourced to the Encyclopedia of Islam, a reliable source, but I would like someone to check that the text actually follows what the EoI says. And I would like someone who wants the Blake image in to justify the relevance of its inclusion on encyclopedic grounds. It is not sufficient to say that "there is a consensus for images" - a) I for one do not accept that there is any such consensus and b) that does nothing to justify the inclusion of this particular image at this particular point in the article. Itsmejudith 21:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The creator of that section is extremely protective of it; past improvements have been met with edit-warring and talk page filibusters.Proabivouac 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullies on the playground again. The image is totally and ludicrously inappropriate to this article. Put Piss Christ in Jesus and see what happens. BYT 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud, why does everyone bring up Jesus? This is not an article about Jesus and it is a mistake to assume everyone supporting inclusion of the Blake image is even Christian! Furthermore if the image you mention was relevant to a passage being addressed in the Jesus article and if it met notability requirements, I'm sure you wouldn't find the objections you are finding here! It is not typically the Western way to censor anything we disagree with. It's not a reflection upon me, and if it's relevant to a topic, it should be included. If it's not relevant it shouldn't. That's a general principle throughout Wikipedia and has nothing to do with Jesus. So please stop bring up red herrings. Talmage 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Red herring, shmed herring. The articles are manifestly analagous to each other. If you wouldn't expect to get a billion Christians to buy a (well-worn) "censorship is evil" riff in support of that offensive image in an article about that religion's central figure, you shouldn't expect to get a billion Muslims to buy the same riff in an article about this religion's central figure. But why don't you try there first and see what happens. BYT 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent you didn't really read what I wrote. I'll repeat one more time: Furthermore if the image you mention was relevant to a passage being addressed in the Jesus article and if it met notability requirements, I'm sure you wouldn't find the objections you are finding here! Once again, stop assuming facts not in evidence. Talmage 06:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent you didn't really read what I wrote. Go write a borderline-bogus (or perhaps defiantly bogus) paragraph on, say, Contemporary Artistic Interpretations of Jesus. stick it into Jesus as a section unto itself, use Piss Christ as the driving image there, gauge the reaction, and then come back here and talk about this proposed edit of yours, so we can see what kind of response arises in an analagous article. BYT 17:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is bad

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Don't do it. Talk to each other, find a consensus. Cheers, Wily D 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The key point is that the illustration is appropriately placed. I would object to this being at the top of the page, or in most other sections, however non-Islamic and specifically Western attitudes towards Muhammad should be and are included in the article. As such the picture is appropriate within the confines of the section. As to the earlier statement that the picture is an insult to Dante, Blake, and is not romantic, I completely disagree. Surely the editor realizes the romantic period is a specific era in Western civilization, much like the Dark Ages, Renaissance, etc. This is a notable, historic portrayal of Muhammad, and I see no reason why only Islamic images should be included. Furthermore, this is not an article about Jesus, nor any other figure except Muhammad. Various perceptions of Muhammad are completely appropriate for this article. I included the picture, and it seems the majority of the people opposed to including it are the same people opposed to including any image of Muhammad. Since that issue has been dealt with already and isn't within the scope of this discussion, I believe it is up to them to prove this image is inappropriate for the section in which it is placed. Statements such as "it is obviously offensive and needs no elaboration" are unacceptable since there are quite a few people who have previously expressed an intent to include this picture. Furthermore, I believe the burden of proof should always be upon those seeking to censor material. Unless they are able to establish a consensus that the picture addressing the specific section in consideration is inappropriate and deserving of censor, the picture should remain. Repeat, the burden of proof should be on those wishing to censor material. Talmage 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of adding porn pictures in wikipedia? I remember a user was blocked for simply requesting a child porn to be added to an article. But I would like to hear your argument. --Aminz 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Established Wikipedia policy specifically deals with pornography. Particularly child porn is illegal in the jurisdictions in which Wikipedia is hosted. This image is not pornography, anymore than the Statue of David. In certain circumstances such as pornography designed to sexually arouse the reader, consensus has been reached. The image clearly is not sexual in the least. In general, as I stated earlier, the burden of proof should be upon those wishing to censor. I don't think anyone here has met that burden of proof and we see the same "I'm offended by pictures of Muhammad (pbuh)" arguments rehashed. Talmage 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia doesn't allow porn pictures? What is the reason behind it? --Aminz 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll humor you, though its not relevant to this discussion. In large part, pornography is banned due to legal reasons. Additionally, in most circumstances it is felt that material designed with the primary purpose of sexually arousal is not informative enough to merit inclusion. This situation is completely different. It's not pornography, and its censorship would only be on the grounds that it is offensive because it expresses an historical characterization of Muhammad that isn't in accords with Islamic belief. That's pure censorship on the grounds of religion. Talmage 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is banned for legal reasons because of other reasons. I can think of a certain group of people who may accept it. These issues are not so much up to precise mathematical reasoning nor they are supposed to be. Even the Statue of David, I am sure, would be unacceptable in many countries including Muslim countries because of its nudeness. How are these boundries set? The culture defines what is normal and what is abnormal. Something might be acceptable in one culture but not in another. Every society has to set-up such rules for reasons socielogist study. Now, not only you would like to add not only a nude picture but also a nude picture of Muhammad. That's far beyond the boundaries. I promise you that I'll remove the picture whenever I check in wikipedia. --Aminz 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Every culture has its own standards of decency. I am well aware that displaying this picture would probably be cause for death in Saudi Arabia, however the English version Wikipedia is largely governed according to acceptable standards of behavior in the English-speaking world. The Arabic Wikipedia has no picture of Muhammad in the article, because they have chosen to adhere to different cultural standards than we have (collectively). Unfortunately for those trying to censor historical perspectives, the West typically frowns upon censorship much more so than in the Middle East. It naturally makes sense that the consensuses established throughout English Wikipedia are formed in general from standards largely accepted in most of the English-speaking world, not the Standards based upon Islamic belief. But once again, we are leaving the scope of this discussion. It is ludicrous to equate the photo with pornography. Just as you say above, the Statue of David would be illegal in certain places. Does that mean its article should be censored as well? Furthermore your promise to remove the picture, despite any consensus that may be established, represents an absolute lack of good faith and willingness to abide by the process of consensus that has for so long governed Wikipedia. Talmage 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll come out of the closet as being ambivalent about the Blake image. It's not a horrible image, but I worry it's sorta giving undue weight the christian view of Muhammad. Another strike against it is that the image doesn't claim to depict an actual scene of Muhammad's, but instead is an illustration for a work of fiction. All our articles on historical figures have images of that figure-- but very few have images of those figures in Hell. On the other hand, Muhammad was a religious leader, Christianity is the most populous world religion, and so it's not totally insane to have such an image. --Alecmconroy 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I share your ambivalence. It's not unjustifiable, but it is unusual.Proabivouac 00:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to look at the version of the page in which the Blake image is there. Does it really stand out that much? I think it goes well with the section, and probably wouldn't have been noticed for quite some time had I not started a discussion on the image before deciding to include it. I do think it's important to have a non-Islamic image on the page. I see where you are coming from, to a point, in that the image is not of Muhammad specifically, but rather an illustration of the Inferno, however every image of Muhammad (and of many other religious figures for that matter) are illustrations of stories, not drawn from a first-hand encounter the artist had with the subject. The Islamic images of Muhammad, for example, are based on the Koran, a book, or from various hadiths, etc. The bottom line is that these are all illustrations of famous stories. One might try to argue that the Divine Comedy is a work of fiction and that the Koran is not, but I would argue that in taking such a position we have then endorsed Islam, which would be a sharp departure from the mission of Wikipedia to be a "free encyclopedia". Talmage 00:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there difference there is that everyone agrees the Divine Comedy is fiction, even Christians (as far as I know, anyway). The Qur'an, on the other hand, is not universally agreed to be fictional. So, I guess the real difference isn't actualy what is and what is not fiction-- it's what is and is not universally agreed to be fiction. :) --Alecmconroy 00:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, although I disagree somewhat. I think some works of fiction are so influential to certain cultures and eras that they merit inclusion. What I am trying to remind everyone is that this is not an image I chose to head the article. It is a small image chosen for a very specific section. Given that the section is entitled Christian and Western views of Muhammad: Romantic representations of Muhammad I believe the image is appropriate since The Divine Comedy is one of the most famous pieces written in history and had a profound influence on Western attitudes towards Muhammad. Talmage 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Divine Comedy is Romantic in precisely what way? And shouldn't we mention the belief of some scholars that it was drawn from an Islamic original? And do you have a source to hand on the Divine Comedy's influence on Western attitudes towards Muhammad? Itsmejudith 12:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple Questions Regarding the Blake Image

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1. Is the image on topic and appropriately placed within the sub-section entitled "Christian and Western views of Muhammad: Romantic representations of Muhammad"?

Yes.

2. Is the image designed to sexually arouse in any way?

Absolutely not.

3. Does the William Blake image meet notability requirements?

Absolutely.

4. In the event of no clear consensus, should the burden of proof be upon those seeking to include or censor information?

Censor.

5. Should only Islamic images be included in the article?

Of course not.

6. Should prominent and historical Western views that characterize Muhammad in a negative context be censored from the article?

No.

--Talmage 22:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this one then?

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Salvador Dali is equally well known and respected. These are the deatails from the image page:

In the mid 1950s, the Italian Minister of Culture commissioned Salvador Dalí to illustrate Dante’s Divine Comedy, to be published in 1965 in honor of the 700th anniversary of Dante’s birth in Florence in 1265.

This image illustrates the 28th Canto of the Divine Comedy in which the Islamic Prophet Muhammad is consigned to the ninth ditch of the eighth circle of hell for being a "sower of discord". Muhammad’s punishment is to have his abdomen split open. Upon seeing Dante and Virgil together, Muhammad cries out “See how I split open the crack in myself! See how twisted and broken Mohammed is!”

TharkunColl 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, I am as pro-inclusion as anyone else on this page, but posting this image to the talk page and edit-warring to keep it here[2][3] can only be interpreted as intentionally provocative.Proabivouac 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. It would be perfectly possible to interpret my actions as leading from a desire to have many different views of Muhammad, and not just Muslim ones. TharkunColl 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible, but not plausible.Proabivouac 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it's just that I value freedom of speech so much that I'll fight censorship wherever I see it? TharkunColl 22:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I did see this image, but decided the Blake image was more aesthetically fitting. But that was just a judgment call on my part and which Inferno picture to use could be legitimate subject of dispute. The main point I don't see anyone trying to address is this: Why should we have to justify the inclusion of an image such as Blake's when it obviously fits with the context of the section in which it appears? Shouldn't those trying to censor the picture have to justify a good reason to impede the flow of information? Talmage 23:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not show that image again. There are pictures of western views of Muhammad that are not so disturbing. Ezag 00:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain for censoring legitimate discussion in a talk page. I personally am not crazy about the Dali image, but I do think it is a legitimate matter of discussion. If you are offended by images not in strict accordance with Islam, I suggest you disable images in your browser, or only visit Islamic sites. Talmage 00:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that we should be pressing those buttons in order to make a WP:POINT.Proabivouac 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Granted, but as long as the discussion is still somewhat focussed on the issue at hand, discussion (or in this case the image) shouldn't be removed. I believe only blatant personal attacks or completely irrelevant discussion should be removed. Talmage 01:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

All I did was link the image instead of display it.Proabivouac 02:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood. I had thought Ezag had removed the picture altogether. Sorry. Talmage 03:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't catch that.Proabivouac 04:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a big no on the Dali image. --Alecmconroy 00:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This picture is Disgusting. --Aminz 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's relative. I'm personally a fan of Salvador Dalí, but I'd agree his surrealism doesn't fit well with the rest of the page. This opinion is on aesthetic grounds, not because of subject matter. Talmage 03:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Consensus

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Obviously this question is pertinent to our current issue, but the scope of what I am asking goes beyond the Muhammad page. I am trying to generalize a little. Assuming no clear consensus exists on the inclusion of a topic, section, image, etc. within an article, is the default to include the information or to censor it? Of course I am referring to a situation where a number of people support inclusion and a number of people support censorship, with no clear consensus. Do we then censor or include? Talmage 05:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally, if material has been reverted, the burden is on the contributor to gain consensus. However, arguments which violate policy should be ignored, and wikilawyering designed to achieve the same result can be discounted appropriately.Proabivouac 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to challenge your assertion, but could you point me to a relevant policy page so I can read more? Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "wikilawyering designed to achieve the same result". That seems very relative and I think if someone makes a persuasive case using logical reasoning and supported evidence, it is condescending to refer to it as "wikilawyering" unless of course I'm misunderstanding the exact meaning of the term. Thanks. Talmage 06:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Talmage, I agree with all of your points. If the image is "offensive" to some users, that is no reason to keep the image out. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Archive 17

Contents

Name

Images of Prophet Mohammad

Sargis Bkheera

Proposed talk subpage

Pictures

Is discussion at all possible?

Type error

My Strange Doubletake on this Issue

help please

Sir Salman Rushdie

Suggestion to Add Image

reverting blake

Edit warring is bad

Simple Questions Regarding the Blake Image

How about this one then?

more questions

Regarding Consensus