Please go right now and read Wikipedia policy.  You must treat other users with respect and not address them in such a confrontational tone.  Do not insinuate that they are morons for taking certain positions on this issue.
Now, to your point.  No one is claiming that the image of Muhammad is any more "real" than the image of Qin Shi Huang.  They are both done in later times to represent an historical figure.  Muslims do have a tradition of representing the prophet in images even if it is not the most prevalent.  What the image on the page represents is part of the tradition that Muslims have in representing Muhammad.  Now, feel free to enter into discussion about whether or not you believe such images are important enough to warrant inclusion on Muhammad but make sure you are arguing about depictions in Muslim tradition and not merely your own personal feelings.  Also note that Depictions of Muhammad (AVOID if you will be offended) has various images of MuhammadMuslim and non-Muslim over time.  Because Wikipedia is not censored it will remain no matter how insulting the images are to many people.  However, the debate here is whether or not images are warranted on the main page for Muhammad.  Thank you.  グレン