Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 4

message: Adding a picture for the prophets generally is something forbidden for the muslims, and solid in their doctrine, as we do not have the philosophy of the holy person, and being sacred is left only to God Almighty. And as we are not concerned, as muslims, for imposing our ideas on the other religions so we are not against publishing photos for Jesus Christ, by the chrisitans, however we found ourselves responsible for prohibiting such photos for our prophet because it constitutes threats for the islamic doctrine, especially for the coming generations, exposing the muslims doctrine for alterations specially for those who are born and raised in western countries where they are subject for the majority of the time to westen media, and not taking the religion from its specialized scholars. 
Moreover neither of such photos were done for phrophet Muhammed (PBUH) during his life or by his order, nor they were aknowledged by him. And as we respect your site as one of the most important knowledge sources, we are asking you kindly to remove all the photos impersonating prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from you respectful site.  And I think respectng the others feelings, and doctrines are important factors constituting the policy of this website, and its so clear now that such photos have caused unpleasent and pasive feeings among the muslims who where informed with this issue, and among the users of the website.  
And I think it will be a matter of respect, before any other considerations, to remove such photos, specially that it is not representing any added values or information to the issue discussed.
Regards,
Hazem Mohamed
Italy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel (talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not asking us to respect your doctrine, you are asking us to follow it.--172.202.230.119 (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I appreciate that you have taken the time to formulate this message, but it has been gone over one too many times before, and the consensus on the issue favors inclusion. See the FAQ. I also agree with the sentiment of the anon- the encyclopedia does not favor any religion in particular, and as such will include many topics which can and do cause upset or ire in adherents (I know of many topics which unsettle me, but I don't oppose their inclusion unless a policy violation is being made). Understand that you are imposing your religious requirements upon us to some extent. Additionally, note the fact that not all Muslims have a religious sanction against images, and that many of these images were created by a Muslim for another Muslim (at least in the case of al-Biruni's illustrations.--C.Logan (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Muhammad is not owned by Islam. As a human being with a definite - indeed, in his case, extremely important - place in history, he belongs to all of us, and the views expressed in this article should not simply be those of Muslims. To exclude the pictures because of Muslim pressure would devalue Wikipedia beyond measure, because our readers would legitimately wonder what else we had censored to avoid causing offense. TharkunColl (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to start, Hazem Adel, by thanking you for raising this issue in a respectful and polite manner.  It is certainly a difficult and for some emotive topic that has as you can see caused some controversy.  Wikipedia has had extensive discussions on this topic, and we have reached consensus on many occasions that such controversial images, like the ones you refer to, are best left in the articles, as they are of great historical interest and relevant to the topic.  This is the only reason for their inclusion, they are most definitely not intended in this context to insult or be disrespectful towards either Muhammad or Muslims in general.  I acknowledge that many Muslims will either not believe this, or will not accept this decision, which truly does sadden me, but Wikipedia's policies for building consensus must be followed on all articles, regardless of content, including this one.  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it would help for those who do not like the images to understand why they are there.  It is Wikipedia policy that we do not remove material relevant to an article for reasons external to encyclopedic value and NPOV.  I find the number of pictures to be a tad ridiculous as they over represent a minority view in favor of standard representation of human beings.  While this is not ideal by any means it is the consensus version and while it over emphasizes a means of representation it is rather more difficult to invoke NPOV when their purpose is primarily aesthetic (although, I argue it still is relelvant).  The point is Wikipedia is driven by consensus and generally that should be respected even though the Islam-related articles seem to be troll magnets.  If you would like to discuss the images according to Wikipedia policy feel free to.  But, even if the images are someday removed from Muhammad some  will still remain on Depictions of Muhammad where there is no doubt that they are relevant.  Not to open a-whole-nother can of worms but there will be images that insult some Muslims because notable artists create them.  For Christians there is Piss Christ, for Muslims you have the Muhammad cartoons and even Peter Klashorst's work of nude models with niqab on.  Regardless of images here, there is no way that Wikipedia will remove all offensive images. gren グレン 08:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respecting the others doctrine 

message: The article really should have an example of Sini script. For exampleIslamic Calligraphy in China, figure 16 shows an honorific of the Prophet, although the most mind-blowing are probably figures 6 and 15. What a fantastic artistic tradition! Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think C.Logan and I have agreed that more calligraphy could be useful. You do bring up a good idea.. I had already brought up Nastaliq as another style that we could use (since its common for Persian and Urdu). Sini calligraphy seems even more interesting, since it differs so much in its look (Nastaliq is more simplified, with an emphasis on Arabesques). The Chinese already have a strong calligraphic tradition of their own, so I'm sure their styles do carry a sense of uniqueness, even if they are written in modified Arabic script. -Rosywounds (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Figure 8 is my personal favorite, but I fear it's not quite distinct enough (when compared to the more traditionally Chinese-influenced forms displayed).--C.Logan (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally speaking, I find the calligraphy offensive. It has no representative function for anyone who cannot read Arabic. And it is also far more recent than the pictures. Why should it be the first image shown? TharkunColl (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sarcasm or not, it is a refreshing change of pace. In any case, I'm beginning to wonder how one would respond if the comment above is indeed serious.--C.Logan (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't sarcasm. Why is there a calligraphy image given pride of place? TharkunColl (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please elaborate on this argument.--C.Logan (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All articles on historical figures - especially important historical figures - have an image at the head of the article of that figure. The fact that this article consigns those images to secondary places is itself censorship, and we really should put one of them - say the Biruni one - at the top. Besides, the calligraphy image is repeated just a few inches further down in the info box. TharkunColl (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I do agree that we might want to choose a less redundant calligraphic representation. As far as the images are concerned, I have no greater preference for either.--C.Logan (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that the "lead" image is calligraphic, with the other images relegated to below the fold, as a deliberate concession to the people who don't want the images here at all.  This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable and appropriate compromise. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This also seems a sensible compromise and basis for a policy to me.  I do not support wholesale removal of all the images in question, but there's no point in rubbing them in the noses of Muslims who find the pictures offensive by cramming as many as we possibly can into the top 10% of the article.  Especially when there is calligraphy and other images available that can illustrate this article just as well.  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In no other instance do we put pictures of the subject "below the fold". Treating this article differently because of the objections of a vocal minority would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. We should treat the article about this man no differently than an article about any other man.—Chowbok ☠ 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Not only, I argued for calligraphy first (and I wanted fewer images, not none) because it is by far the most common representation of Muhammad in Islamic history and an important part of Islamic tradition. gren グレン 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More calligraphy please 

message: The image that is there with reference of Albeironi is of no scholarly/historic significance. Albeironi was born after almost 04 centuries after the prophet (PBUH) hence he did not know how the prophet looked like. The image if it is there just for the sake of illustration then it should be like the Ottoman image i.e. not showing the face of the prophet (PBUH). Thus it would not be hurting anyone's feelings and illustration is also possible. The reason that you are giving that it would make people think that wikipedia is hiding things because of the protest from muslims is in itself showing the importance of people. So do illustrate but only after keeping in view the thinking and feelings of the people (muslims in this case). If you want the "Albeironi refered image" in the article then like the ottoman image the face should not be clear. That would be more neutral so let commom sense prevail.Rehanz 138 (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, as well as Talk:Muhammad/images. Jmlk17 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Not really.  It's a depiction of him, as true, photographic images haven't even been around for more than about 160 years or so.  They're depictions of Muhammad for educational purposes. Jmlk17 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the "appearance section" below regarding the educational purposes. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No. The images are centuries-old drawings/paintings that have only been said to depict Muhammad, and have been accepted as so, including by Muslims since their inception. Sorry if the images offend you and other Muslims, but blurring Muhammad's face would censor them, and Wikipedia does not do that for any reason, at all, ever. Jmlk17 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Rehanz, by that same logic, we'd have to remove the images of Jesus, Buddha, Charlemagne, Alexander the Great, Homer, Socrates, Moses, Adam, Plato... basically everybody who lived before the fifteenth century (when accurate portraiture first became commonplace). That's a pretty tall order. You really want all of those images to be removed?—Chowbok ☠ 00:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Presumably, if you presented those characters on canvas and they acquired some sort of notability/relevance/historical value, then yes, we could include such an image on the Air article, I suppose. The funny thing about many of these arguments presented to somehow "defeat the logic behind the images" is that they are actually valid possibilities which are reasonably allowed within Wikipedia guidelines.--C.Logan (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No we are not passing any incorrect information.  Our image of Muhammad from 1315 is the earliest verifiable depiction of him, hence it is included.  His face is not covered or marked out, conforming to the accepted laws of the time when it was produced, as well as the others.  Your argument has little to no basis based upon fact. Jmlk17 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 1. Since it doesn't claim to be an accurate depiction of Muhammad, but merely a painting, that doesn't matter. 2. If people get offended by it, too bad. In case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is not censored. JuJube (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Since the inception of the images.  There are no actual images of Jesus, Buddha, nor anyone until the mid 19th century.  The images are used to show a story, or tell a tale, and are coming from a Muslim source.  I still fail to see exactly what your argument is other than "they are incorrect". Jmlk17 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: They are widely accepted images/depictions of Muhammad, and hence belong in an encyclopedia.  You're argument that they are invalid, is, in itself, invalid.  Wikipedia is not censored, not for myself who might be offended by certain things, nor for yourself who finds Muhammad's depicted face offensive.  We serve as an educational site, and are using these images in their correct context. Jmlk17 02:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Everything, every image and painting throughout human history could easily have the exact same label attached to it though.  Muhammad is no different than any other man's depictions throughout history. Jmlk17 03:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Many paintings are only available as reproductions.  Your question is irrelevant. JuJube (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: How is it incorrect? For all we know there's some obscure culture that calls what is beneath the earth just that. Zazaban (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly Zazaban.  And Rehanz, your argument that they are incorrect simply because the images are from the 13th century and not from before has no basis.  They are commonly accepted as depictions of Muhammad, have been for hundreds of years, and hence will stay.  End of story my friend.  We will not removed them, especially under some unfounded basis as being "incorrect". Jmlk17 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You think I'm Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж?! Wow, thanks! I thought you were upset at me and all, and then you go and say such nice things. Have a cookie. Also, I really think this whole argument is absurd. This is not a conspiracy to offend muslims, it's simply a picture. It's no different from pictures of quite a few other historical figures, and I don't see what makes this so special. If you want this image gone, go and protest all the other articles mentioned above. Zazaban (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument makes no sense. The images of muhammad are valid, and shall stay, due to our being an encyclopedia, one that is not censored.  End of story. Jmlk17 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What's "laking" in common sense is people expecting the images to be removed simply because they're "offensive to millions".  Your arguments, which are a sideways justification to the same old "zomg muslims are offended" ruckus repeatedly brought in here, have already been shot down and you're just repeating the same thing over and over.  Give up. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image of no scholarly/historic significance 

message: please remove the pictures of muhammad (PBUH) as you don't even know how he looks like at all. No one knows how he looks like except ALLAH (SWT). SO if you don't have respect for your own relegion, then don't assume others don't either. And stop with your empiricism ideas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamictruth1985 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with empiricism? Oh, and no, we won't remove the pictures because Wikipedia does not subscribe to Muslim dogma. TharkunColl (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the FAQs... and no, we are not censored. Jmlk17 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMOVE PICTURES 

message: Dear sir/madam, if you don't want to remove pictures of prophet Muhammad and i understand that you have your own reasons but at least can you place a little remark under the pictures, saying this is not an actual picture of prophet Muhammad, it would be great move on your side. Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.106.127 (talk • contribs) 18:27, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)
:I totaly support this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk • contribs) 18:41, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)
::They already do - notice the use of the word depiction. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  you don't want to remove pictures 

message: As a Muslim, I feel very offended that Wikipedia has chosen to include portraits which display an image of Prophet Muhammad. Not only is this a red line for Muslims who never attempt to draw the picture of any Prophet (not only Muhammad) because it is considered unlawful in Islam to do so - Muslims believe that by drawing Prophets people may end up worshipping them instead of worshipping Allah(God), but such portraits are unathentic since it has been known for centuries that Muslims don't draw Prophets. Thus, whoever drew this portrait is basing it on an assumption that this is how Muhammad looked like (fictional), not based on fact since there is no authentic prof that dates back to his era. In conclusion, such portraits, not only offend Muslims and I request that they be removed, but they are also unathentic with no basis of proof. And even if they did have a basis of proof, which is not the case, one needs to respect the beliefs of 1.5 Billion Muslims worldwide who consider this a huge offence. I kindly request that Wikipedia include a different portrait of something different - there is a lot of islamic designs and architecture that can be great substitutes. 
K.Ginena 86.36.66.129 (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you are offended, as this is not our intention.  But there is no proof on how anyone looked definitively until the mid 19th century with the advent of photography.  Our intention is not to offend Muslims, but rather, as an encyclopedia that is not censored, we intent to (and do) educate. Jmlk17 04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia does not belong to any country, although it may be managed by somebody who lives in a certain country. In this case, it is the United States. Zazaban (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portraits showing Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) 

message: This is getting incredibly boring and amazingly pointless. The only way to stop these interminable discussion is to ignore any post that challenges the current policy. This talk page is for discussion to improve the content of the article. --Gazzster (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, very true. Jmlk17 05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boring and Pointless 

message: Posting this picture is an obvious insult on behalf of Wikipedia. Your response to the previous comment ("I'm sorry you're offended" and not "we are sorry for publishing this") is an exact replica of the supposed "apology" given by the editors at the Danish daily which portrayed Prophet Muhammad in a caricature last year. The picture supposedly representing prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is fictional. As a source of information, Wikipedia should not include this picture because first and foremost it is misleading people regarding Prophet Muhammad's image (as you said no one knew how anyone looked like until photography recently). Secondly, it is misleading people, who are trying to find out about Prophet Muhammad through this website, by making them think that portraits of prophets are allowed in Islam. So, by including this picture you are actually misinforming people, rather than informing people, which is the supposed "purpose" of Wikipedia. Please find an alternative design and remove this picture.
Sameh Abdel Megied
"75.156.115.92 (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not.  This conversation trying to get us to censor ourselves to "respect" Islam is ridiculous, gets us nowhere, and will no longer continue.  It is a waste of time.  Jmlk17 06:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then quit engaging them. Pairadox (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it worth it? 

message: I commend wikiepdia as a source of public knowledge for people around the world. However, the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is problematic to the stance of neutrality of Wikipedia. 
The depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in an article that is meant to educate about the religion is Islam in inappropraite and violates neutrality. While it is true that there are visual representations of the Prophet (pbuh) in Muslim cultures--these are strictly prohibited in Islam. Thus, it is inaccurate to have such images in an article about the religion. This clearly violates the neutrality policy of wikipedia for it is asserting Western and non-Islamic standards over an Islamic topic. It would be prudent to replace the picture with something that is representative of Islam--for example, calligraphy, architecture, etc instead of a culturally based and inaccurate visual representation that confuses the content of the page (about Islam) with cultural manifestations of the religion (which are non-Islamic). To conflate Muslim culture with Islam would be a major inaccuracy, and thus to maintain a higher standard of knowlegde dissemation--i strongly urge wikipedia to replace this picture. 
Thank you.
Sana
209.148.248.101 (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Jmlk17 06:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This is not an article about Islam, it's an article about a person who is associated with Islam. Incidentally, Islam is not the only religion where he is revered. Zazaban (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depicting Prophet Violates Neutrality 

message: Ok! just listen to this difference...
1) The pics are as it is now and as ur description says, Prophet(PBUH) is preaching the Quran.
2) You are blurring or making it white at the face part where you have said that Prophet (PBUH) is preaching the Quran. 
Alrite! In both the cases we get it.
It's just about that face part that doesnt make sense!!!
We understand WITH and WITHOUT the description of the face that He was proclaiming the Quran. Then just why would you want to put it when it affects millions of people around the world???
Ok! I understand that Wikipedia does not censor any of its images, but see it this way:
A Hindu comes to wikipedia to learn about Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and he sees that pic but doesnt understand the caption well and it comes to his mind as "Ah! So, this is kind of how he looked". Isn't this wrong??? Doesn't it look like Wikipedia is giving the wrong Information??
I myself refer to Wikipedia for tons of things, i just see what i believe and read, i dont verify them or something. In that case, if something like the above happens, what would Wikipedia do? Or can u guys guarantee that something like this will never happen???
Luvmyth aish (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Might happen, just as it might happen if they looked up Jesus, Confucious, Buddha, Socrates, Nero, etc. Jmlk17 07:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Alright.  A Hindu's learning perception would not change simply because Muhammad's face isn't veiled.  I fail to see what difference the showing of his face does to educate/uneducate. Jmlk17 07:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure thing... speaking of following rules as you mention, check out Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Jmlk17 07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Because we are not censored, as one of our very basic and beginning rules.  Luvmyth, I am more than willing to continue this conversation, but for the sake of keeping it from just creating more of a mess on this article, let's move it to my talk page. Jmlk17 08:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the Face?

message: Jmlk says: "as an encyclopedia that is not censored, we intent to (and do) educate." And others have said that this is Wikipedia's policy; however, by infringing on other people's freedom of religion, while intending to be an objective source of knowledge, as an expression of our your own freedom you are crossing your boundries. Furthermore, what have you accomplished? 
With freedom of anything comes the responsibility to make sound decisions and common-sense choices. Deciding to not include these offensive and unreal pictures has nothing to do with freedom; it has everything to do with respecting another person's beliefs and the common sense. Moreover it diverts you from your goal which is to educate based on sound and authentic knowledge.
Once again, a person's freedom stops where others' begins and we should respect other people's belief as much as we want that they respect ours.Wikipedia should be very aware of this given that this is not an encyclopedia owned by anyone. It is the people's encyclopedia! These pictures having nothing to do with Islam or Muhammad and they should be removed. What should be spoken about is the content of his message (that is what is authentic and should serve as something that is educational for people).
K.Ginena 86.36.66.129 (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an encyclopedia governed by those who edit it, under a basic set of rules. It is irresponsible to conform to a certain groups' ideals and beliefs, in sacrifice of open and free education. In hopes of keeping this talk page free of the clutter that is growing, I invite you to read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, then post on my talk page if you'd like to continue a dialogue with just me, or continue to post here, but I should let you know that we are not a forum, and this conversation will probably not get you anywhere here. Jmlk17 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture issue and Freedom of speech - freedom stops where others' begins