Talk:Muhammad/Archive 16

message: I've read through most of this page and I really don't understand why so many people advocate catering to a minority who feel displaying a picture of Muhammad is somehow blasphemous.  Whether or not it is according to Islam should be completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.  Why do certain Muslims demand that everyone else abide by their practices?  Should the article on Jesus be revised to fit Islamic teachings, with all references to the belief of his Divinity removed?  It seems the teachings of the world's largest religion (Christianity) is in conflict with Islam.  Should we therefore revise all pages concerning Christianity to the Muslim POV?  Wikipedia is not an Islamic project, nor a religious project.  The general template of displaying a picture or other representation (when not available) for historical or modern figures is ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia, and I see no reason to make exceptions for Muhammad.  As for demanding PBUH appended after every mention of his name, that is simply ridiculous.  Apart from being an honorific title, it completely alters the article's point of view and neutrality.  Furthermore, many people believe Muhammed was not a good person, much less a prophet.  There is a place for catering to religious sensitivities, but that place is certainly not Wikipedia.  The purpose of an encyclopedia is to disseminate unbiased information about subjects of importance, not to guarantee no one will ever be offended by the display of certain information.  According to the standards stated in Apostasy in Islam many religious, political, and scientific pages could be considered blasphemous to Muslims.  Fortunately Wikipedia is not governed by Sharia Law.  As such I believe an historical representation should be displayed prominently on the page, as is the case with nearly every other person on Wikipedia. Talmage 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hail Comrade! Seriously, what a lot of people miss is that an encyclopedia cannot treat all views with equal deference, because the very project of creating an encyclopedia must be founded on the notion that such a project is a worthwhile endeavor.Cjh57 02:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would take that comment a step farther and say that the purpose of an encyclopedia should not be to spread "truth" but rather to publish "fact." Truth is generally relative.  Fact is not.  Truth requires analysis, and there is only a limited place for analysis in an encyclopedia.  FWIW, I'm a fairly orthodox Christian and a mathematician by profession.  Just as I don't use Scripture in any of my math research, I would hope anyone who contributes to this (or any other page on Wikipedia) would be able to separate his or her religious beliefs from the dissemination of provable (or nearly so) fact. Talmage 06:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Talmage: aren't facts true? Dast 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Facts are true, but not all truth is demonstrably factual.Cjh57 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.  Facts (in theory) are true, but not all "truth" can be factually proven. As a Christian, I personally believe it is a "truth" that Muhammad wasn't a prophet, but I can't publish it as general "fact". Talmage 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Catering to a Minority?

message: There is a picture showing Muhammad and the black stone with an enormous caption attached to it, relating the entire event. IMHO, such an event if important should be related in the text, if unimportant not at all. Are there any objections to moving the account to the normal text, reducing the caption to the essential information about the picture? Str1977 (smile back) 09:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That caption is longer than many articles. I've no objection, and would even say this is too much detail for the text.Proabivouac 09:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it, moving most of the caption into the text, with only a minor change for the sake of comprehensibility. Str1977 (smile back) 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture caption

message: Hi, the author of this article first said that:
"he was a prophet and messenger of God, in the same vein as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and other prophets..."
but then,
"Muhammad (Arabic: محمد Muḥammad; also Mohammed, Muhammed, Mahomet, and other variants)[2][3][4] was the founder of Islam"
it is a contradiction as Muhammad cannot be the founder of a religion when he comes to continue the same work as the other prophets. Instead it can be mentioned that Muslim believes that Muhammad was a prophet of Islam as Muslims too will not accept that Muhammad is the founder of Islam.
Shafiqpeer 04:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire paragraph makes everything clear. - Merzbow 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammd and the founder of islam 

message: FYI...
Placement of the Muhammad images on this and other pages has now been made an arbitration case here:  --Dchall1 11:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arbitration case was rightfully declined. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration