Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 6

message: Before I address the actual "Remove the Picture" topic, I'd like to point out that making derogatory comments about Muslims as a whole goes against your own "talk page guidelines". Stuff like the rude reply above or this statement I found further along the page:
oh and the muslim world's moral compass sure points north right?punishing a victim of sexual assault, shooting school childeren in the back, and treating women like porperty are not allowed in america, so why dont you work on that first, then you can come back and advise us.
I don't know who this person is, but you obviously haven't met very many Muslims in your life and have clearly never even picked up a book about us either. Thank you for your ignorance. Keep watching your terrorist flicks. But if you want facts about the religion, or if you'd rather just start slinging mud about atrocities committed by people, I can start naming groups from any religion and country in the world. Just let me know.
Now. Back to the original point: it's not a matter of freedom of speech or Islamic Law. Putting up pictures of Muhammad is something that promotes inaccuracy and can divert one from the whole point of the religion. It's like how a very common topic in the Christian world is whether or not Jesus Christ was white. Being Muslims, we would prefer that questions about the physical appearance of Muhammad don't detract from the true spirit of the religion, and that it doesn't influence over-zealous believers to try and emulate him physically. That's not really what Islam is about, you see.
Plus it's insulting to the memory of a man who has had such a major impact on world history, whether you believe in his faith or not.
Second, you're forgetting that Muhammad is our Prophet. Whether or not you have to obey Islamic Law, sheer common decency and consideration for what is a belief held by (at least) a third of the global population would dictate that a matter like this be resolved with our wishes in mind first.
This is how the Muslim world respects its religious icons, how difficult is that to understand?
I mean, Freedom of Speech doesn't have to mean "inconsiderate and rude".
After all, nobody goes around making fun of the Holocaust or JFK or 9/11 or of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know for a fact that after 9/11 movies and TV shows were asked to edit out any footage of the Twin Towers as a mark of respect. Where was Freedom of Speech and Liberty then? They had to postpone the launch of a Spider-man movie to make the necessary changes in the film. And that was okay, right?
It's very simple, if it's a sensitive topic for the parties involved, so you don't go near it.
So why is it such a big deal to remove a picture if it's a sensitive topic now?
Is it really just because you want to prove that you don't have to abide by Muslim Law?
But last of all, I was just wondering that if the Encyclopedia Britannica did not have a problem removing a picture of Muhammad from their latest edition when asked to do so by a concerned Muslim, then why is Wiki getting all bent out of shape about it?
Ankledeep (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal 

message: * the signs in the petition bears the testimony the fact that Muslims all Over the world are harassed and depressed by this WIKI move to not allow removal of pic in the name of freedom of expression.I request wikipedian administrators to allow the removal of pics in Order to maintain the dignity of Muslims feelings as No expression can allow to abuse someone's Prophet.Shabiha (t   17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're for or against here... Jmlk17 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not run by petition. Wikipedia is not governed by offended Muslims. And threats of war show how tenuous, petty and silly your position is to begin with. --Mhking (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument from popularity / Petition

message: Just put a disclaimer that these pictures are not original or are not copies of any original and simply imagination of some artists who possibly could not have any knowledge of details about Muhammad's figure and complexion. Thanks to Wiki for presenting ways for hiding the images whoever want to.
See, Muhammad did not let any of his image be drawn or survived is because he never wanted to become an object or worship in the way Jesus became (though with the imaginery pictures). 
::Er... Jesus is worshipped because he is the Son of God and the Savior of man. Not because of any pictures.--DanteAgusta (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclaimer 

message: Hello I am a Bahai and I think it's only fair that my prophet and Islam's prophet are treated similarly. Right now, the article on Bahaullah, there is a note in italics saying that a copy of the photograph can be found at the end of the article. There should be something similar here.--Goon Noot (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. Hopefully the the note on Bahaullah will be removed, since it seems to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on disclaimers in articles. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it as it is already covered in the content disclaimer. Nakon 04:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised to see your removal was reverted. Looks like there's a consensus there that the disclaimer should stay...though I am not sure whether consensus is supposed to override policy. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is though that WP:No disclaimers in articles is not a policy, it is a style guideline. Unlike in terms of policy, exceptions can be made. --Veritas (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  And, once the furor dies down, we might consider a similar discussion for this article.  However, it will be a few days yet before this talk page slows down sufficiently to allow for a proper discussion, I would imagine. Resolute 05:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A disclaimer may be a good idea, in the same vein as spoiler warnings :-) Wouter Lievens (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implement Warning  

message: The images add no value to the article. If they were drawn in 1315 and mohammad lived around 632, then the depictions are not based on a live picture but an abstract concept of Muhammad. Their inclusion is no different from someone who decides to draw a picture of Muhammad today. The inclusion of the pictures is more gratuitous than is necessary. Mpondopondo (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  they are there for their historical context not because we claim they are accurate representations. your analogy of someone drawing a picture today is incorrect and has been repeated over and over again. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he makes an interesting point.  Why not use the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons to supplement the images already present? Keshik (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment of the day! пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Nobody claims they are accurate images of Muhammad: it's a representation of the way the Muslims imagined he was, just as it is with the representations of Jesus. bogdan (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images of no value to the article 

message: Images of the Prophet Muhammad, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, are irrelevant to the subject of the article
Earliest images refer to the 14 century. There are no evidence corraborating their authenticity. 
Allahu aqbar!
::Hence, it is part of Islamic history, and therefore vaild for inclusion in the article. Fsjonsey (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images Irrelevant to the article 

message: If you object to the images, become an active editor and work towards removing them
The editors here seem to agree that Wikipedia works by consensus of an article's editors, not the opinions of "outsiders" (whatever that means, and no matter how numerous).  If you object to these images, you can help by becoming a registered, active editor of this article, and if enough editors of this article support the images' removal, then it will happen.  129.116.79.240 (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how it works. Jmlk17 23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You seem not to understand how Wikipedia works. You're welcome to read the guidelines that exist, and please note that Wikipedia is not censored, despite the admonitions of those who wish the images in question removed. --Mhking (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Become an active editor

message: *Simply put, Wikipedia is not a place for hiding or destroying information, and should never become one. If offending a belief system becomes grounds for removal of content, just give up the project now. Iconoclastodon (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for Keeping the images 

message: "After all, nobody goes around making fun of the Holocaust or JFK or 9/11 or of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." You obviously have never watched Family Guy, The Simpsons, Southpark, or been to 4chan. JFK Unleashed? Christians don't get outraged about Raptor Jesus (Paintings and other artwork of Jesus which has Jesus's head replaced with a dinosaur; along with offensive dudespeak) I think Raptor Jesus, Raptor Pope etc are all more offensive than showing historical paintings of your prophet. Wikifreedom!
----------
Just to add, I this isn't about "making fun" - those pictures are useful and educational and as far as I am concerned they improve the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.246.209 (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: We're not making fun of anyone

message: as the first amendment only applies to the government.  This is a common sense issue.  Wikipedia is no more obligated to follow the religious practices of some muslims any more than wikipedia is obligated to keep kosher or wear a st. christopher's.  If you're offended, you are welcome to leave.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.82.72.77 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a non censored encyclopedia.  Not a muslim text book.  Nothing is worse than caving to groups of people and letting them censor this kind of stuff.  we dont censor here, doesnt your religion not allow anal sex?  are you going to try to get that page taken down too?  where does it end once it starts? Mike240se (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This isn't a first amendment issue

message: The pictures were painted by muslims and Wikipedia is not a religious site. If it offends you, dont come here. KEEP THE PICTURES.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.111.208 (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Painted by muslims

message: Wiki has clearly stated the pics will be staying, nuff said. There is nothing any of ya can do about it.--DanteAgusta (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is Pointless

message: This website is not an Islamic one, and therefore does not, and should not adhere to Islamic laws/values.
Any Muslim who for some reason feels offended by these pictures can use free tools to block them.
Trying to force Wikipedia to censor these pictures is no less than Religious Coercion, which has no place here.
AxelRafaeli (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unacceptable comments have been removed.  This is not a forum to debate Islam.  Thanks for pointing them out. gren グレン 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just beat me to removing them.  I've already warned the IP responsible for it.  They've had several comments removed that were designed to inflame the situation. Resolute 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I dont see any article on wikipedia promoting Islam or islamic ethics.Fsjonsey (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not an Islamic website 

message: NOT ALL MUSLIMS IN HISTORY HAVE BELIEVED THIS. (Look around, there are many articles that back this up). In fact, there are substantial minorities in Islamic history and today that have been ok with portrayals of Muhammed. Therefore, we are being intimidated by various radical groups, that may not even be a majority, into censoring our own encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censored, and we should not be intimidated by Islamists or anyone else that does not believe in free speech. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You going to give rationale behind your request, or are you sticking with begging? --Mhking (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not be so brusque, please. ITAQALLAH 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but it is getting very old, very quickly. I'll back off of the snarky remarks, but something more constructive needs to be said -- using this as a giant club to force Wikipedia to the will of the religious domatics is completely out of line and well over the top. --Mhking (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you have nothing positive to say, say nothing.  If you don't want to have to keep responding to tired requests, don't.  Someone else will. WilyD 22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This whole discussion is bogus

message: Suggest merging with "Common law Versus Shariah" above Filmore (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would never happen - there is no way on earth, that a US court would comply with such requests. it's a non-issue, the libel stuff uses part elements of the law that do not apply in this situation. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: See WP:PEREN#Legal issues. Wikipedia employs a lawyer who is paid to worry about these things. If people want a definitive view, ask him. No amount of theorising from armchair lawyers will make a jot of difference. Mayalld (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not subject to Shariah law. 

message: In its coverage of this controversy, German news magazine FOCUS has asked a professor of Islam for his opinion. Translation from , with wikilinks added:
:[In their refusal to delete the images,] Wikipedians are supported by Professor Harun Behr, who is training school teachers for Islamic religious education at the University of Erlangen. "There is no absolute aniconism [prohibiton of images] in Islam", Behr explains to FOCUS Online. The Wikipedia article only shows unproblematic depictions from the Middle Ages [according to Behr]. "In the school books which we are designing for islamic religious education, we are using similar illustrations", Behr explains. While there is a broad consensus within Islam to abstain from images of Muhammad, this abstainment is a sign of respect and not an absolute prohibition of images [according to him]. "Somebody who is demanding the deletion of these images is clearly crossing a boundary", Behr says.
Regards, High on a tree (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claims that "such type of article where images(of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) are displayed is banning the right of freedom, violating rules and creating prejudice" are ridiculous on their face.  Firstly, free speech cannot "ban" freedom, it can only expand it.  If you do not wish to view these images, you are not required to do so merely because they are available -- your rights are not at all infringed ( you do not have the "freedom" to force others to adhere to your standards); on the other hand, to compel their removal would be severely to restrict the freedom of expression of many people, including myself.  Secondly, Wikipedia has no rules which prohibit the display of these images, nor is it subject to islamic law or the prohibitions of any religious doctrine.  Thirdly, I reject the idea that these images in any way create prejudice; what is far more likely to be damaging to people's judgment of Muslims is unreasoned arguments and knee-jerk reactions such as these. Thelatinist (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic scholar: Wikipedia's use of the images is not problematic 

message: REMOVE PICTURES OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMED PEACE BE UPON HIM!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.140.121 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we won't remove the pictures of Muhammad. But thanks for demanding. --Mhking (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As been said at least a hundred times or more now. The pics stay. Nuff said.--DanteAgusta (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Posted under "Need Clarification"