Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 3

message: Muslims strongly believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him)is the last messenger of Allah, all mighty. No one is allowed to make pics of Muhammad (peace be upon him)or make any sketch that relates to Muhammad (peace be upon him) (No, Muslims aren't allowed).  It is humbly requested to remove these pictures from the article as it can cause serious reactions from the muslim community.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atifgil (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no humility in your request, given the longish discussion we had on this, and also seeing that you couple your request with a threat. No-no! Str1977 (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, come to us on hands and knees, and the editors of the Muhammad will forgive your sins.  Atifgil, we had long and horrible discussions about this.  Make sure you read Wikipedia is not censored, WP:NPOV, and our policies in general before trying to argue against pictures.  I argued for fewer pictures for the sake of more accurate representation.  But, please don't argue that they shouldn't be here because they offend some Muslims, because that is not a good justification. gren グレン 06:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Atifgil, if you would like to comb through the discussion, please see Talk:Muhammad/images/archive. If you can find a new point to make, then feel free to voice it. --Hojimachongtalk 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I do realize that its your ideology and belief, I dont think religious laws or censorship is followed on wikipedia. If that be the case then each group will start demanding removal of pictures offensive for them. For example, atheists will ask for the removal of Jesus article and pictures. Then Muslims will ask for removal of pictures of pork as its offensive to them. Then we might have the request for the removal of the pictures of all kinds of meat because vegans might find it offensive. I dont think this works. If someone doesnt like it, they can prevent the images from showing in the browser. Images of Mohammed are available all over the internet anyway. NapoleansSword 06:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In actuality, NapoleansSword (Napolean for short?), the arguments presented by both sides were much more complex, thought-out and valid than the simple manner you presented. The link I provided in my last edit may be of interest to you, as it presents these arguments. --Hojimachongtalk 01:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Simstiger, please understand that Wikipedia means no disrespect to Muhammad or Islam by including images of him.  We here at Wikipedia have taken a vow to try to treat all subjects and all articles the same way.  We have promised our readers that we will do this.   This means we try to show images of ALL biography subjects, even though we know our Muslim readers very much wish we didn't include pictures of Muhammad.  We don't mean to insult Islam or its rules regarding depictions of Muhammad-- but we can't obey those rules ourselves and still be true to the promise we have made to our readers.  See Wikipedia is not aniconisitic.  --Alecmconroy 15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the policy is a problem, then change the policy.  Even the current policy itself states that images should only be added if they help the article.  Frankly, I question how an image would help the article.  It seems just the opposite that its inclusion is only a source of friction and pain.  I reject the "no censorship arguement." There are no authoritative pictures of Muhammad.--Bill Bisco 05:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just stop telling people what to do, OK. TharkunColl (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Do read the FAQ at the top. --Farix (Talk) 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the Pics of Muhammad 

message: With reference to the discussion about pictures depicting the Prophet (PBUH) below, I'm sure that all of my fellow Wiki-users will admit to the fact that the Wiki foundation really does a lot of homework  & that in Wiki's process of letting the masses access such information  without any hindrances, they have to let go of certain rules which may openly flout Islamic teachings/ law. One of the pillars of Islam which form what Muslims call 'Iman' is 'Shahadah' or in other words, Muslims all over the world testify to the fact that there is no other God than Allah & that The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is his Messenger. It vehemently condemns & prescribes severe punishment for those Muslims who associate anything/anyone with Allah. It also strictly forbids the reproduction/creation of any live creatures created by the Almighty. Now, when we talk about a Muslim's, let alone the Prophet's pictures being taken, created & distributed, it can be plainly termed 'haraam'. One must try & understand that the Prophet had the same restrictions/freedom as a normal Muslim had & has till date. As per a user's comment that tomorrow, a Muslim might claim that pork is forbidden in Islam & that they might request removal of pictures depicting swines from the Wiki pages. My friend, Muslims are forbidden from consuming pork & not viewing them through what we call 'eyes' , bestowed by the Almighty. Any questions on the above is welcomed.
I would also like to add, if this page is ever unprotected, please include a disclaimer that would hold individuals who edit information otherwise not included in this article by Wikipedia or any other allied subsidiary/partner, for the authenticity of the information that they append. For the general public: Please try to understand that any wrong facts stated herein may hurt people of various religions - Christians, Muslims & Jews and all others that follow the same ideology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.mzq (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you combed through Talk:Muhammad/images/archive? --Hojimachongtalk 20:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see what an analysis will reveal that hasn't been revealed by the constant discussion that goes on about this.  No new information or justification for censoring pictures of Muhammad have yet been presented.  What the "major mainstream media" does is irrelevant to how we do things on Wikipedia.  Mainstream media is notorious for censoring things for the sake of political correctness.  We don't do things like that on Wikipedia nor do we candycoat things.  Unless something new and compelling comes up as to why pictures of Muhammad should be censored, this subject should be considered settled. Frotz 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not see removing the photos make any favoritism, as Buddhism want their photos so this is fine to them. But muslims want the illustrations to be removed. --Basio (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with favoritism its about truth and reality, you people are just pushing a anti Islamic agenda under these banners. I regard it as a attempt to stain the Islamic values and history, and show new students only western view Islam and its Prophet, Wikipedia did not put any offensive picture on other topics just on topics related to Islam then try to show them as part of Islam. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) & about this page.. 

message: Wikipedia is encycolpedic, and will not show favortism to any religion.
For example, if we removed the images of Muhammad, then that would be showing favortism to Islam over Christianity because we still show images of Jesus. 
But if we removed all images of Muhammed and Jesus, then we will be showing favoritism to other religions like Buddhism by showing images of Buddha.
And if we remove all images of Muhammed, Jesus, and Buddha, then we would be showing favoritism to Islam and Christianity, because images of Buddha are very important to Buddhist.
You can see that we have no choice but to uphold the Wikipedia policy of showing depictions of all subjects of a biography article. --MahaPanta (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see removing the photos make any favoritism, as Buddhism want their photos so this is fine to them. But muslims want the illustrations to be removed. --Basio (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with favoritism its about truth and reality, you people are just pushing a anti Islamic agenda under these banners. I regard it as a attempt to stain the Islamic values and history, and show new students only western view Islam and its Prophet, Wikipedia did not put any offensive picture on other topics just on topics related to Islam then try to show them as part of Islam. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No favoritism 

message: Please: remove the alleged images of the Prophet!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.87.183.204 (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous contributor--   please understand that Wikipedia means no disrespect to Muhammad or Islam by including images of him.  We here at Wikipedia have taken a vow to try to treat all subjects and all articles the same way.  We have promised our readers that we will do this.   This means we try to show images of ALL biography subjects, even though we know our Muslim readers very much wish we didn't include pictures of Muhammad.  We don't mean to insult Islam or its rules regarding depictions of Muhammad-- but we can't obey those rules ourselves and still be true to the promise we have made to our readers.  See Wikipedia is not aniconisitic. --Alecmconroy 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alecmconroy-- Please do not patronize us by saying that the wikipedia community does not want to insult Islam.  There were no pictures on this page for a very long time and when we tried to remove the one image posted the community responded by posting multiple images.  By the admins enforce the  posting of unnecessary images the are willfully and purposefully insulting the Muslim community.  I understand the images are going to stay but just be honest and say it the way it is. --Autoshade (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles that have grown past the stub stage typically have pictures.  Frotz (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the Danish cartoons are available in Wikipedia in the article concerning the controversy.  Further, additional works with muhammad's image are available at Depictions of Muhammad.--Strothra (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored we do not remove things just because people find them offensive.  The censorship policy can be found at WP:CENSOR. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This has already been widely discussed as you can see on this page as well as the archives and the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, and the decision has been made that the images will stay. Thanks for your input. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMOVE IMAGES 

message: Good Morning.
It would be very considerate and kind of you, if you could remove all the Illustrations depicting Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W S.A.W S.A.W) that you have included in your article.
I very much appreciate that you are very respectful in the development of this article, and I believe that by you being kind enough to remove the illustrations I am refering to, would be a gesture of further respect towards Islam.
I came to this article with much happiness, but as soon as I saw the illustrations, I had no alternative but to leave. It is for this reason that I have not even been able to read the atricle yet.
At the end of the day, you are writing an article related to Islam, and you should be considerate towards the teachings of Islam and feelings of the believers.
By removing the Illustrations, you will not be making the article incomplete - it does not make any difference to this article if the illustrations are not there.
In Islam we know that Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W S.A.W S.A.W) has no shadow, no photograph or portrait was ever made of Him, and the same goes for any illustrations. Therefore, HOW can you put illustrations that have no authenticity?
Warmest Regards.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.216.65.57 (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the images have no authenticity, then what do you care?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, conforming to stringent Islamic requirements regarding pictures would be the end of Wikipedia Commons, as not just pictures of Mohammed are forbidden, but all pictures of things with a soul. Please see Kitaab At-Tawheed Ch.58 and Sahih Bukhari V7B72N833-846 for some information regarding that. I hope that Mohammed's face being veiled in most pictures and your ability to not look directly at these pictures will be enough to allow you to visit and read this page (and others). Apologies for the inconvenience. clicketyclickyaketyyak 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  can u plz make sure that u delete all the picz which mentions or potrays MUHAMMED (PBUH) because that completly forbidden in islam. do this ASAP. thankz  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaiz1 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is making a very big mistake by not removing these pictures of our prophet! This issue has already created many problems, as another muslim i am requesting Wikipedia to remove these pictures of our prophet as this is very offensive to the entire muslim community at large! Muhammed could be described as long as its accurate but this is an extreme offense!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.145.253 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is encycolpedic, and will not show favortism to any religion. For example, if we removed the images of Muhammad, then that would be showing favortism to Islam over Christianity because we still show images of Jesus. But if we removed all images of Muhammed and Jesus, then we will be showing favoritism to other religions like Buddhism by showing images of Buddha. And if we remove all images of Muhammed, Jesus, and Buddha, then we would be showing favoritism to Islam and Christianity, because images of Buddha are very important to Buddhist. You can see that we have no choice but to uphold the Wikipedia policy of showing depictions of all subjects of a biography article. --MahaPanta (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder if it would be do-able to add a special attribute to images (maybe a very specific HTML comment in the caption?) which some Muslims might find offensive, and then have a bot-generated copy of the page that omits those images, and then put a link between the two pages at the top?  That would hopefully satiate those who find such images offensive, without compromising our core policies.  Lankiveil (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a comprimise to me. --MahaPanta (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove the Illustrations 

message: Images posted are totally irrelevant to the article,wrongly quoted,and fake,they are not medieval ages pictures and have no relevancy to the article.Stop using wikipedia to set your personal scores.
I am removing them..IF you have any doubts,please discuss on this page
:Ther French National Library says they are authentic, is there any reason to doubt them. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I'm sure that there's a reason since it's been like this since February, but why has the second picture been stretched to show only the Kaʿbah instead of the Kaʿbah and a veiled Muhammad as the caption describes?Rdr0 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the changes that distorted the image and removed the figure.  As far as I know there wasn't a good reason to censor the image and it might have violated the GFDL. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks.  I normally would have been bold, but I'm not a regular contributor and the image situation in this article is so tense that I was worried I might accidentally set off World War III. Rdr0 (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second picture 

message: I think the topic of removal Illustrations of Muhammad(PBUH) has gone to long and we should finish it with making a new topic and change then name of this topic "History about Muhammad" if admins of  wikipdia want to keep these illustrations, as every body knows that almost all illustrations comes from Shi'a branch of Islam that is a small minority and majority of them are also against this illustrations.
because this article is part of "Series on Islam" that mean every reader will think that it represent Islam but in reality it is not!
we can place a link for such thing in also read or all positions where current illustrations are. I know these Illustrations are reality but that is bad reality and we should not hide it but try to contain it with proper care just like nuclear wast.
 --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Depictions_of_Muhammad. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Muhammad in general and should stay that way.  It includes views of Muhammad from numerous groups including those that created images of him, this page should not cater to one specific view point, that is the definition of neutral point of view. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this article is not about some man you can treat like this. and it can provoke a big trouble for wikipeia organisation. and you are provoke and carrying an agenda of a specific group, so only request admins to move all illustrations to a portion and put a link in also read poriton that will do. and surve the wikipedia. if u think see this petition [ http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia]--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see my comments below. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is absolutely wrong! because these illustrations are just imaginations and belong from a band group with in Muslims, so if u thing then we should put some very bad illustrations of other leaders but u will not do that, i believe you Christians are doing this in to provoke a uprise within Muslims and wikipedia in a place for knowledge not to fight so cool your religious or offensive motives and remove the illustrations. Faraz Ahmad (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, so we're getting into conspiracy theories now? First of all, MarussellPESE is not a christan, and neither am I. Like I said, this is not an islamic encyclopedia, it does not conform to islamic law. Zazaban2 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say that any body of you is Christian, i just give an example. and its not about Islamic law, its about the freedom to express truth, i know Muslim editors are in minority on Wikipedia and non Muslim editors are pushing to express there view of Islam under the non sensor and  policies banner. this is misleading and i can't let it happen--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  create a new article "illustration depicting Muhammad" 

message: They would really enrich the encyclopedic experience. --NEMT (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What kind of images you want, because there is not authentic images of Muhammad(PBUH), so we can only put images of Madeena and the grave of Muhammad(PBUH).Faraz Ahmad (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this article could use more images 

message: please remove the pictures that show prophet mohamed's face,these pics are offensive to us as muslems,in this page you can find more than 14,000 signatures from people demanding the removal of these pictures
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashwaa (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is  not censored. See WP:CENSOR. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with your point of view, but describing certain Islamic beliefs as "superstition" is needlessly offensive and uncalled for.  Please try to keep your cool.  Lankiveil (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No. This is not an islamic encyclopedia. Zazaban2 (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments below. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We know wikipedia is not sensored but it should arrange its material according to there merit. and only expert on articles should edit them not some freek and anti religion person. this article is about Muhammad(PBUH) and is part of Islamic topics so it should represent only islamic view of Muhammad(PBUH) if you want to add your bullshit create another article and put your material there.  other wise stop calling wikipedia as a free encyclopedia, and its distribution in schools so next generation can be saved from your evil motives. Faraz Ahmad (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember to remain civil.  I realise that this may be frustrating to you, and I do sympathise, however using inflammatory language like that will not get anyone anywhere.  Lankiveil (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  No, we should portray it from a Neutral point of view, not the islamic point of view. I don't think you understand wikipedia guidelines. Please look them up. Zazaban2 (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am trying to be as polite as i could, but i am trying to show the actual facts in my words. because i did not see any of you expert on any topics you are tying to moderate. I know Wikipedia guidelines and also understand the long time effects of Wikipedia. and my struggle to neutralize long term effects of this editing. As Wikipedia is used in Schools and by young student as first stop for knowledge your misguided views can damage the reality of a Religion. As happened with other religions. i hope you get this point and try to separate points. i am also against censorship but will not support damage of a religion.
*also one non related point in first statement "Muhammad was the founder of Islam" i think it should say "Muhammad is the founder of Islam"
--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Determining what is "respectful" and what is offensive can come down to a very fine line. To some, the lack of honorary blessings is also "offensive" or disrespectful. For example, "Chrestians" is offensive to me- does that seem unreasonable? Please understand that- as we have already seen- many Muslims don't have a problem with images, and indeed, the majority of the images of Muhammad that I have seen were created by Muslims themselves. On that point, you are incorrect. Your own plea for neutrality is incongruent with the request for censorship: Wikipedia is not censored, and certainly not in the interest of respect of religion.--C.Logan (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to know just how does the two Islamic depictions of Muhammad "hurt all Muslims"? The first depicts him kneeling before the Kaaba as if he was in prayer. The other images show him teaching his message to others. Neither of these images depicts Muhammad in an unflattering or vulgar manner. Just because a depiction of a person is a taboo in one culture doesn't mean it is taboo for all, especially when the taboo is mostly a modern invention. And if there are Muslims who are simply offended because there are depictions of Muhammad to begin with, we just point them to our content disclaimer. --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please remove the pictures 

message: we must remove it NOW .. please remove that picture, it is not allowed for us to put such things.. 
: Wikipedia is not an islamic encyclopedia. There is no rule that says we cannot put that picture there. Zazaban2 (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. The pictures in the article are tasteful and from Islamic sources. Historically here on WP illustrations are intended to enhance the reader's experience. If an reader considers an illustration to be offensive, then present an argument, and seek consensus on a case-by-case basis for the illustrations. Arguments that "The mere presences of this picture is offensive to us" will not pass muster. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your actions are provocative and base on hate not for knowledge, so if you really want to put these illustrations on wikipedia just put a link is "see also" section of the topic Faraz Ahmad (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is absolutely no problem with the way things are set up now. The pictures are staying. Zazaban2 (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You might not has problem but lot of other people has, and we are determine for a change its not your wikipedia its a open source so all views should be respected specially the concerned party. if you don't know how to treat sensitive issues then you has no right to discuss them. Muhammad(PBUH) is the most special person in Human  history and this article need to show that.Faraz Ahmad (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored. Also please dont say that Muhammad is the most special person in human history. Only a fifth of the world believes that, I dont for example. But as someone said, this is not about religious differences, its about policies. Read the link before I gave you. Also, not all muslims find pictures of Mohammad offensive. Just read that link. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not making that up this is an undisputed fact that Muhammad(PBUH) is the greatest person in history[] and u can not dictate lie against policies. on the contrary you has no right to edit this article. as you are an ex-Muslim(nothing personal), i know for sure that all Muslims found pictures with face shown offensive,   --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's absurd to state that anyone is undisputedly the most special person in history. Christians will dispute that, Jews will dispute that, Baha'is will dispute that, pretty much every non-muslim will dispute that. Zazaban2 (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Faraz, how do I not have any right to edit this article? Whether someone is a muslim or a non-muslim is of no importance here. Wikipedia policies are. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  @Zazaban2:I provided the refrence and i did not write that encyclopedia or not some un-matured person, so much evidence can be provided to support that argument.
@Matt57: Because of your personal experience you are tended to be anti. there are some issues that are not mention in policies. and you people are also not following them by pushing your agenda.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To be totally honest, your the one pushing an agenda, not us. Zazaban2 (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference Ahmad provided does not say that Muhammad was the "greatest person in history" it says he "was one of the great figures in history."  To say that the article should show that he is the most "special person in history" is as far from a nuetral point of view as you can get. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can play this game of denial as long as u wish. yes i am fighting for a agenda but my motive is improvement and respect. not just denial and provoking hate. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You claim your motive is respect, but you have not shown any of us any respect the entire time you've been talking here. How are we in denial? How are we provoking hate? Zazaban (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say anything about your religion or your believe. go and read the article you will see so many disputes about contents and neutrality, and when ever i put one on the top you people delete that. in the discussion uncountable requests to remove such material but all requests ware declined because all admin posts are filled by non Muslims. and majority of material is from western sources and even then contradict other big encyclopedias and biographies in west.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, you're not accepting decisions because the admins are not muslim? Uh.... On a completely unrelated note, I think this has long since earned it's place on WP:LAME. Zazaban (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now you are making up stuff, and paling blame game. i said that even non muslim(wester) writers of this article contradict other others in west who write about Islam or Muhammad. yes it is obvious to alarmed when other people take such deep interest in non related matters. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apoligise, it can be very hard to understand the point you are trying to get across sometimes. Zazaban (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  none 

message: I has created an Arbitration request this topic so top level administration in Wikipedia can be involved in this sensitive topic. you can see that can contribute in so your opinion can count Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Muhammad --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed to death over and over again. This nowhere near warrants a arbitration, the decision was made long before you showed up. Zazaban2 (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this has already been resolved. I can't remember exactly where I read it. What's the best link to give someone relating to policy re images of Muhammad? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Several masses of long debates in the archives. Zazaban2 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I already has gone through all previous discussion and i thing it was discussed between a majority of non Muslims oppressing and targeting Muslims. i did not find any common ground reached in previous discussions about Pictures, Illustrations or material in this topic. this is a anti Muslim version of article forced on readers by majority no Muslims editors of Wikipedia. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No new arguments have been introduced that have not already been resolved. There is no need for arbitration, it will be fruitless. This action is a violation of WP:POINT, please allow us to edit the article constructively and move on from this sophomoric debate that goes nowhere. --Strothra (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Faraz, cease your personal attacks now.  Assuming a victim mentality and declaring your opponents to be "oppressing and targeting Muslims" will not advance your argument. Read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Strothra (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see common grounds reached what i can see i a continues request to remove hate material and denial from other group, and both groups are divided on religious lines. why i only allow you people to edit this article and then say its a article about Islam but in reality its just represent bulk non Islamic views of Muhammad(PBUH). and already Wikipedia size limit is exceeded on this article so my suggestion is to make to articles out of it. one Islamic view of Muhammad(PBUH) and other Contemporary view of Muhammad there you people can put what ever you wish other --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Faraz, read this carefully. Simply put again, Wikipedia is not censored for religious sensitivity. This is a core policy. Also remember that not all Muslims find images of Muhammad offensive, so please let it go. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Faraz, you continuously draw divisive lines by making statements such as "you people" and calling edits "hate material." Such behavior is not conducive to constructive editing - Wikipedia is supposed to be a community of editors working together. We are all editors here and most of us are not divided along religious lines, but are simply working within Wiki policy. If you wish to change the policy, this article is not the correct place to do so. To change policies, you should discuss them on the talk pages of the respective policies such as WP:CENSOR. --Strothra (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for giving me link of WP:CENSOR talk page. but i only talk about what i see here. and i am not insisting to WP:CENSOR anything i am saying to separate both views so readers can distinguish between both views, current article is cocktail of views, confusing and distractive  for new readers. i think we can make a pole here and the rule of pole could be
*name of user
*believe Muslim or Non Muslim
*vote Yes to change or No to cahnge
then we can decide what is the line of devide
--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, sorry, this has been done before. We cant keep doing this every 3 months or thats all we'll keep doing. Read the past archives. Realize that the same situation will happen if another "poll" is taken. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The reality is that we've all behaved ourselves and the Arbitration Committee will reject such a case as a "content issue" - apart from other reasons.  WilyD 05:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I correct to say that Faraz is engaging in off-wiki canvassing? He has this petition with 15,000 signatures which explains all the people coming in to remove the picture. I think he should either stop editing here or take down that petition, correct? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not taking town that petition and i am not doing editing or undo like any other. check the history of article. i am just trying to make a point and trying to tell you all to respect others so they respect you. if you thing arbitration committee will reject the request then why are u people trying to stop me, if in case they reject then i will use other mean like i will take Wikipedia into court to resolve this issue, that petition is a clear indicator who much damage is done by Wikipedia to let such things happen.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine, do the arbitration if it will make you happy. But whatever they say WILL be final. Understand? Zazaban2 (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Faraz, I removed the legal threat you made to Wikipedia, which typically results in a block but since you're new so now you know. Anyway this is not an issue of respect, its a matter of censorship. The fact that you made this petition and are causing these people to come to Wikipedia to remove the images will not help you much.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put the threat back, there's no point in censoring somebody's post. If he wants to make threats, let him, he has to deal with that happens after. Zazaban2 (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  By the way Faraz, I highly doubt any court will take your case. This has been decided upon again and again and again, it's like trying to taking somebody who's been elected to office with an overwhelming several times to court on the grounds you personally do not like him. Zazaban2 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is your personal opinion, in reality is not just personal matter its about a religion, culture and most of all a case of more then a billion people. i am making saying any thing but just using ........., what a power of people can do. and one thing is sure all one billion agree on this point.  I personally believe some people are still in this world who respect others. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not talking about the world in general, I'm talking about right here. As of now you're the only person in opposition to the pictures. You're outvoted. You have  your petition, but can europeans vote for an american president? Zazaban (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also talking about here the Wikipedia as it effect the life of all people who read it, i am not a single person, read the archive and u will find the request to remove the picture, you answer your question does a non-Muslim will write an honest view about the Prophet of Islam, when followers of that prophet are in state of war with other non believers. i regard this as a cyber crusade. i will lobby for change, but before arbitration i will check the ArbCom members because this is a complex world  --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but they are still outnumbered. Sybercrusade eh? Zazaban (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I'm going to notify and admin. Zazaban (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the policies which have been demonstrated are clear enough. Wikipedia is not censored, and it certainly does not cater to religious demands. There is no obligation to Wikipedia or any of its editors to remove these pictures. Those without such strict religious obligations might actually learn something from these pictures; last I'd checked, that's the reason people turn to encyclopedias in the first place. It's clear that the issue is beyond settled.--C.Logan (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also clear that Faraz Ahmad is never going to back down no matter what we say. Zazaban (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  It's worth mentioning that Faraz Ahmad has also been, with less attention, trying to POV push Nazi agenda and holocaust denial. Zazaban (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think then Wikipedia and its editors has no right to offend others Religion and to undermine there right in a large society. i am not asking to remove the pictures but to move them in a separate section and keep them there so they serve there purpose. because i regard the current view as aggressive and Wikipedia require neutral and consensus. but i did not see any of them here. only one group think its settled and give no weight to other opinion, its also against Wikipedia's policies.  I will only back down when a trust worthy conclusion is reached. NEMT its literal crusade go and read the definition.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I assume you get to determine what a trust-worthy conclusion is? Zazaban (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  NO, i can't because i am pushing for this change only the readers or scholar will determine. and Wikipedia will stop receiving such requests --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Zazaban (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, you may want to check out what's happening over at your disscussions in Talk:Adolf Hitler and Talk:Holocaust. Zazaban (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your answer on Talk:Adolf Hitler has really exposed you, one one topic you are pushing for un-censorship but on the other forcing censorship. that will really help me in final discussion thanks for reminding me --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Calling somebody a hero is clearly unencyclopedic. It's not censorship. Zazaban (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But i think encyclopedia is about facts or aspect about any topic? that is a fact although minor but worth mentioning --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NOTE. Zazaban (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know these topics well and both of them are very popular and well discussed in African and Asian countries, but is censored in Europe and America by laws. I read so many articles on such topics back in home country but i know Europeans will deny that --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, do you think that Hitler was a hero? Zazaban (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thant is my personal opinion and depend what aspect of his life we are discussing, i think we should stay on course and discuss the topic we are debating --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try not to incriminate yourself with extremist opinions. Hitler is certainly a great figure in history, but the manner in which you are expressing seemingly laudatory opinions of the man without justification makes you appear rather warped, and this certainly hurts your case. It's best to keep these opinions to yourself (if not to drop them entirely).--C.Logan (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration Request created 

message: It's taking ages for letters to appear as you type in the edit window, because the page is overburdened.  The top of the edit window suggests archiving.  But I didn't like to go ahead and archive because I'm not an expert and wouldn't label what's in it well, etc.  All archiving appreciated.:) Merkinsmum 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also straitened out the image archives a bit. --Farix (Talk) 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, this is much easier to parse through now.  Thankyou!  Lankiveil (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh brill, thanks TheFarix, now I can write more easiily (poor you lot lol). Merkinsmum 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  could someone who is good at archiving a heated page, please archive? 

message: I think it interesting to see comments (like the one by User:TharkunColl above) that ask things like "Is there anything we can do to stop Muslims coming here ...".  I take it that most people here assume that "we" (meaning those contributing to wikipedia) and "believing Muslim" are mutually exclusive categories (or, at least those who insist on keeping pictures of Muhammad from long after his death, do so believe).
This, to me, is rather instructive as to the self-imagined community of many wikipedians: by self-definition, exclusive of Muslims (and perhaps all non-western POVs?).
Sad, very sad indeed. 68.215.218.14 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I think it is interesting that you misrepresent TharkunColl's comments by cutting off the end of his statement, making it sound as though he simply wants to keep out all Muslims, when if one were to read his original comments, he was referring not to Muslims in general, but to those whose only activities on Wikipedia involve coming here and demanding that the pictures be removed. TharkunColl goes on in the post to offer a very sensible solution to a problem that arises every couple of days. As you can see from the above comments, there are several Muslims involved here who also believe in the principles of Wikipedia and the principles of a open and free press. If there is a we/them dynamic at work here, it is not Non-Muslim vs. Muslim, but rather editors who want to keep Wikipedia secular, informative and independent, vs. the fundamentalists who come here and demand that we adhere to a specific religion's wishes. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (I have re-added this section as it appears it was accidentally removed in a revert) Lankiveil (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is this 'we' so many refer to here? 

message: i read FAQ and so Wikimapia use false images..
Images are put to prove/clearify topics/articles not just DECORATIONS
so the images are not proved (cant be prove) to be Mohammed (pbuh)
and there are alot of pictures that can be used instead instead(his grave picture,his cloth..ect)
Knowing its offensive is something to consider and that doesnt make you unprofessional if you remove the pics and
put others pics proven/used
and if you really wants to mentain the neutral point of view then you should use the right pitures respecting all people  .
i really hope you can be more open minded about it and use real pictures of current items(left) instead of some unknown drawings of unknown people..
Glassflowers (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are apparently no true to life pictures of Muhammad then depictions by Islamic scholars are the next best thing and will have to do. The images do improve and clarify the article, and offend a small enough minority of people that leaving the pictures in the article is worth it. -Wherethere (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as it can benefit neutral point of view to mention outside opinions of Muhammad, it can benefit NPOV to present outside depicitions of Muhammad (where such are noteworthy). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The page is semi-protected - if you account is more than four days old, you should be able to edit. WilyD 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''neutral point of view'' 

message: The only way, to do this is 
a) write or contact heads of muslim countries requesting they block wikipedia as it contains offensive articles on the prophet Muhammed. This can easily be organised just through the muslims who have requested pictures removed from this article, after all they come from many countries
b)Initiate a media campaign , saying Wikipedia deliberately insults Islam
I know many internet providers currently block offensive Wikipedia articles in various countries
Alternatively you can do your best to knock wikipedias article of Muhammed(pbuh) of the top spot in google searches by promoting the muslimwiki articles on Muhammed (pbuh)
Asking a US centric bunch of contributers to do you a favour is not going to happen  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.223.147 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Offensive" Wikipedia articles? How is this "offensive"? If anything, is not your attempts to censor the free exchange of ideas, images and other information as offensive, if not more so? --Mhking (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: US-centric?  Now that is offensive.  Lankiveil (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How To Get Wikipedia to remove the Pictures of Mohammed 

message: I hope the editors of wikipedia will delete that image because it does not illustrate anything in the article of Mohammad pbuh. 
If you really need to put an illustration , there are hundreds of useful illustrations that suit this article without offending Muslims all round the earth.
If you want to reply to me and claim that you have your own rules or regulations , then please have a look at this rule : 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR
If you like us to provide the article with more info about our prophet mohammad, please let us know, and we will be happy to provide you with great more details about him. There are tens of certified resources about our lovely prophet Mohammad,
regards,
Ala' Alsallal  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.241.173 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the presence of the Muhammad image. In my opinion, it should remain as a descriptive element of the article, despite your choosing to conveniently invoke WP:IAR, when the consensus dictates otherwise. --Mhking (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which is linked to at the top of the page. IAR does not mean we can ignore rules and regulations just because we feel like it. Hut 8.5 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: How exactly is this article defined on Western terms?  It is a large article, and, as such, has a decent amount of images to help the flow of the article.  Removing the images is itself conforming to a non-world view. Jmlk17 05:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I see two images showing his face, both of which were produced in a Muslim world/area before it became common practice to shield his face.  I could agree if it was say a 20th or 29th century depiction, but one from the 16th century, and another from 1315 (which in itself is a notable thing) certainly are historical. Jmlk17 06:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What does their current positioning have to do with it? Jmlk17 07:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I noticed that also. Most of the traditional art is at the very bottom of the page near references, whereas nontraditional art is bunched up at the top (three of the first four depictions of Muhammad are noncalligraphic). I agree that location does have an effect, especially if an image is completely disjointed from the content (e.g. an image of Muhammad preaching is right next to etymology for his name). -Rosywounds (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite normal to have these images placed highly and prominently in a biographical article.  See James Garfield or John the Baptist for instance. --Strothra (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There should be a depiction displayed at the top of the article in place of the calligraphy as is standard in biographical articles. All depictions of the individual are relevant to a biography.  The depictions of muhammad article serves moreso to explain the history of how such depictions are controversial yet have evolved over time. --Veritas (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've moved the image of Muhammad preaching in Mecca down to the "Mecca" section since it correlates better than up in the etymology section as suggested above. --Hdt83    Chat 04:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the depiction of Mohammad 

message: well, we all know that encylopedias must only include validated data, information, images, diagrams, etc..
but here on this "Encylopedia" they dont do that.. then how can we trust their articles and the data they provide on this website ?..
what wikipedia did is that they (those who run it) added a picture claiming that is belongs to the prophet Muhammad peace upon him, but where is there proof?! have they really seen him and validated it? what also puzzles me that they have two pictures claiming that they are of the prophet, but the funny thing is that they dont even match... so how can the same person have two different looks?! 
what i want is that, they either validate the truthfullness of their information and validate it, so that its accurate. or simply dont add images, dates, diagrams that they cant be sure if its right or not... 
if they fail to do that, and they still keep those images which i find is weird then how can we trust the other articles they have.. to support my point, i am studying in one of the most prestigious universities in the world, and when i prepare my reports the inctructors (non muslims), dont allow us to use wikipedia as a trusted source. 
now, adding to that all the approved laws in the united states and the laws passed to organize the internet, prevent the release of contents that might be abusive to others, and this policey is maintained in all respected websites. so, all we are asking is to bind to the law, authenticate your data and remove any abusive content.
a person might argue that these pictures are not abusive. Well, as a reply to that, a person that is not a muslim might fail to see the harm of these pictures, but we cant rely his point of view because he simply doesnt know Islam and doesnt know what is abusive adn what is not to muslims, and their prophet. what must be done to know if these pictures are abusive to muslims or not, is to simply ask a muslim. To help wikipedia ask muslims, a petition was formed signed by 40 thousand muslims and adding agreeing that they find this picture is abusive to all muslims.
so, as these pictures remain on this website i come to two conclusions. 
1) that Wikipedia cant be trusted as a real source of valid information or as an encylopedia because they have unvalid and wrong information in their articles. so as a user how can i know which article has good information and which dont.. simply i cant.
2) Wikipedia, doesnt bind to the law of united states, united nations and the laws passed to regulate the usage of the internet, as they are publishing on their website a content that is agreed by thousands of muslims as abusive to their religion and believes. in other words.
I hope this will change soon. and our points be taken into considerations.
just a last remark, someone might argue that this is a freedom of speech. But we all agree that a freedom of speech must not cause harm to a group of people.
THE IRONY, IS THAT AT THE BUTTON OF THIS PAGE, WIKIPEDIA OFFICIALS WRORTE "ENCYLOPEDIC CONTENT MUST BE VERIFIABLE". how did they verify that those images are really of the prophet Muhamad, keeping in mind that they are putting two different images of the same person.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.53.178 (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures are verifiable, the artists who drew them did actually draw them. They are art, depictions of the subject matter. They dont have to look like the people depicted. Furthermore, no law of the united states or UN say you cant publish images which make certain Muslims angry, and any internet laws are valid on a country by country basis. This freedom of speech usage does not harm anyone either, if people protest about it and get killed as happened with the Denmark cartoons, that is their fault. In conclusion, you accuracy argument is invalid, your legal argument is false and your 'must do no harm' argument is both.--172.215.138.37 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures are of Muhammad, they are easily verified and have been for hundreds of years.  My question is, why would the images be removed?  We are not censored, do not remove things that offend people, and never will.  Wikipedia is about education and educating people, and by conforming to a minority, that would be detrimental to our very basis. Jmlk17 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no one has made the claim that they are the exact likeness of muhammad.  However, they are depictions of muhammad important to the historical record. --Veritas (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear! Jmlk
i will give more explanations to my points... soon.
17 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the validation of the pictures.?!! if you cant validate then remove it..!!! as easy as that. 

message: About the images attched here in this geat article, first, I need a proof that Al-Bīrūnī is the owner of the picture attached, I can't blieve that he draw it anyway. 
I ask to remove these pictures anyway; because democracy dosn't mean anything here.
we are Muslims all rejecting these pictures, we don't need it, '''
would it be democracy to put your naked mother image on wiki ? will you be happy ? this behaviour for muslims means the same of that behaviour to anybody who respects and loves his mother'.
To prove the democracy here, I agree with making a vote to remove these picture, 
in the condition that Muslims only who asked to vote...' ==
:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Hut 8.5 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and neither a place for showing religious beliefs. It is a biographical article about a person, from an encyclopedic point of view. Mohamed 10:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  more image talk