This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I think it makes sense to not insist that Wikipedia use honorifics like pbuh or saaws after the name of the Prophet Muhammad.
I'm pro-freedom of speech and definitely appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is democratic consensus-based type of knowledge repository. But I would note that just as "pornographic" images or other offensive images don't litter every article where they are conceivably topical, perhaps we could find a less contentious way to deal with the images of Muhammad. For example, there is a seperate article on the portrayal of Muhammad. The images can be placed freely there and the Muhammad article could refer to that one.
Also, in terms of neutrality, it appears to me that many of the people in favor of places images of Muhammad on the Wikipedia page are not just calmly, neutrally in a scholarly fashion promoting truth and accuracy but that they are emotionally insisting that the pictures be put up, precisely because they are offensive to Muslims. And in giving in to such an animus, I would suggest that Wikipedia has lost a certain amount of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.201.171 ( talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Although there is great reward from God for honoring His Final Prophet, writing of honorifics after the Phophet's name is not a requirement in Islam, only what is mentioned in Hadith is 'whereby may name is mentioned & anyone who does not send to me the prayer {either "Salalllaho Aelehai wa Sallam" the shorter one or the longer one called 'Salat Ibrahimi'} he is the stingiest person'{on Earth}, since as per another Hadith 'wherever you are, send prayer to me & it will reach me {as there are angels appointed by God, as mentioned in another Hadith, just for the job of taking the Salat to the Prophet}{in the Barzakh from this world} & so it is for the reader to send Salat to which he will be rewarded a minimum of ten times as per God's encourgement of goodness & multiplied many times more innumerable as per the intention & piety of the person, his all worries will be taken care of by God {as requested by a companion to repeat it all of the time} as mentioned in another Hadith & God expressly commands Muslims to pray on the Prophet as verily God & His angels pray on the Prophet{Q.33.56}( Ilaila ( talk) 07:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
Not Only this but also on Wikipedia wherever the word Mohammad is meant for Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) it should be with (Peace Be Upon Him). That is a part of our religioun.
Remove the pictures which point to Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) Add (Peace Be Upon Him) in Wikipedia where it mentions Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him).
Majority is not a question but quality and approval from the concerned scholars is more appropriate otherwise England is not a Christian State under Church of England but a Secular state if you wanna talk of majority.
This article needs more images if anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.172.101 ( talk) 18:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The pictures are factually incorrect. No portraits of Muhammad were made in his life time and none were known to exist for up to 300 years after his death. It will, therefore, be factually incorrect, to show pictures of him and therefore, suggest to the reader that he looked like the particular person depicted in the pictures or for that matter that he lived in the settings depicted in the pictures. This would be even more erroneous because part of the believe system he, himself, proclaimed required that no pictures/paintings (especially of human beings) be made. The paintings that are included in the article are made hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad and depict an artists impression of him rather than any factual correct impression. You would therefore, note that these depictions are contemporaneous to the time/place they were made (Persia/Istanbul) rather that to cira. 600AD/Arabia where Muhammad lived. I have always read wikipedia articeles assuming a rigrous attention of factual integrity of the information. This article falls short of that. - Shiraz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.230.193 ( talk) 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Being as this page has had the same argument repeated many times, surely Wikipedia could release a statement which could be just pasted after every objection, thus saving time.
My Suggestion
After much concesus it has been decided that the material in question shall remain. Wikipedia does not endorse any product, organisation or belief and therefore its internal policy does not take the requirements of such into consideration. Wikipedia is not censored and as such has no obligation to respect the wishes of any religious, political or other view.
Or perhaps something less diplomatic
Please stop forcing your views on the rest of us. We will view/read whatever we want and if you don't like it then sod you!
Either one if fine with me. I suppose what I am trying to say is that this seems to be continuing indefinately when a firm decision has allready been made. There is no point in continuing it any further, perhaps a statement from someone in authority could draw a line under it and then such discussions could be terminated. Talk pages are not supposed to be spouting/whinging pages but a facility for discussing content and such. Such contencious issues only clog them up with whiners and do-gooders each wanting to have the same moan as the last one. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I dislike this revert on site business. It smacks of 'brush off' and can easily be construed as insensitivity to an easily inflammible subject. It's impossible (without a checkuser) to know if all IPs are trolls and not sincere new users who are unaware of our rules and policies. While I agree we are not likely to change our consensus on this issue we must adhere to core polices. As I've said before a kind word and policy explanation is usually all that is necessary to separate the trolls from the newbies. Garycompugeek ( talk) 14:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any chance we could give Nableezy's quote (at the top) some context? I've been following this page for a while (since well before it was there) and it seems as if it's just been plonked at the top. If it's there to serve a purpose to editors coming here to comment on this whole issue, then it should be introduced to them. I just don't know what I'd put to give it more context – only people who saw the original discussion really know the context; who wrote it etc. Cycle~ ( talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
For context: If you click on Nableezy's name at the end of the quotation, it opens the page where the quotation was originally written, and the discussion that followed. Subsequent discussion agreed that it was appropriate to place at the top of this talk page, to illustrate how other Muslims can adhere to a rational viewpoint regarding images of the Prophet in the article about him. The quote also directly addresses the most common argument (religion-based) put forth by Muslims who come to this talk page. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
i am ready to donate the amount to wikipedia just to remove the pictures from the article forever ....give me your demand & i'll send you.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't for sale in principle, but considering the current state of the economy, we must be realistic: if you can cough up, say, USD 787 billion you have yourself a deal. -- dab (𒁳) 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
i did'nt get you guyss....at one end you are saying not for sale....and on the other imposing your demands. you guys are dying for oil, gold, etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
All Muslims see now wikipedia has its demand for removing the picture thier encyclopida is for sale...in fact, they were waiting for this moment to sell the pictures.now you realize what they are about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
If this has a chance of working let's ask for jet packs, money trees, unicorns and anything else we can think of. RaseaC ( talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
you are just being greedy now, dears, what will the Muslims think? I think it will be a fair deal to ask for a pony for each Wikipedian. I for one pledge that I will remove the images once (only) for every pony delivered to me. -- dab (𒁳) 21:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Dab, I agree with Briangotts. You're just being silly now! RaseaC ( talk) 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thats why we love you guys your demands never sleeps.... :)you guys need only a little push...
what do you think??? i wont give you even a single penny for these FAKE IMAGES.... :)
I know this stuff is old, but seriously I had the laugh of my life when reading it. you guys rock! And to those who even for a slight nanosecond considered you guys to be serious, grow up! PureRumble ( talk) 10:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The art depicting his face is not really necessary, seeing as its usually just a generic arabic face. Anyone can draw that. So saying that it should be kept because it is informative and relevant is note exactly true. Don't you think it should be removed of the main Muhammad page? You can leave it else where, such as on the article about depictions of Muhammad, but the pictures are something that people would find offensive. I know the wikipedia is not censored, but there should be some decency. I might want to be able to find out about pornography without seeing a picture of a slutty girl with her mouth around a massive penis, just the same way I might want to read an article about Muhammed without seeing something I find offensive blasted in my face. I'm not even suggesting deleting the images, I just think that it should be left out of the main page. If people really want to see it, you can keep it on a separate page, but remove it from the main page at least. It's like having a picture of Christ nailed to an upside down cross in the Christianity article. Yeah sure, maybe it might be relevant if there was a a section on the page related to Satanism, Anti-christianity, etc., but would you really put that there? It would probably be taken down being, deemed offensive. So why are pictures of Muhammad left up, when it is clearly something that offends the people of the world's second largest religion. -- 68.199.39.111 ( talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the time-honoured WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED is needed here. However you put it, however you argue it, however you phrase is, your argument is calling for the censorship of Wikipedia and guess what? Yep, you guessed it; WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. We do not censor our encyclopedia. We will not allow censorship on Wikipedia. We will not undertake censorship programmes. We do not bow to demands for censorship. Hell, I'm bored of rephrasing it now, just remember WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. RaseaC ( talk) 19:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the arguments you are making are incorrect here. Wikipedia does not censor images that add encyclopedic value to an article, it may 'censor' images that do not. The proper answer to such a query in my mind is explaining what encyclopedic content is added by these images. There are answers to that question. If somebody comes here with the standard demand that because it is against Islam it should not be allowed then WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED may be accepted as a standard response. I think the OP is incorrect in saying that the images are not informative or relevant, as they do provide an insight into how people viewed Muhammad, and that is certainly relevant to an encyclopedic discussion on him. I have two problems with this discussion. The people demanding it be removed because of their religious beliefs, which I have already spoken on, and the people who seem to want them included because it insults a group of people. I make no claims that anybody here has done that, but it has been seen. There is intolerance on all sides of this issue. I recognize the contradiction in my beliefs as a Muslim and my responsibilities here on Wikipedia. My religious beliefs should not impact what content is available on Wikipedia, which is why I can say I think the images are valid and encyclopedic and rightfully belong in the article. But neither should my personal feelings on other groups influence content in articles. I was equally pissed off going through the archives on this page from those who called for them to be removed because of their own personal feelings as I was by those saying to keep them basically as a fuck you to all the Muslims out there. Again, neither of you have said such things and this isnt meant as a reply to the above. But I do think the answer if somebody asks what value the images bring to the article is to show what value it brings, not just say Wikipedia is not censored. Nableezy ( talk) 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
we dont mind if you bring Muhammad PBUH's real life images in order to bring the so called value to your article as i have always seen real pictures of the real article. if it is NOT CENSORED then please post the real pictures. i believe it will add mocking value to your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I read it as too. RaseaC ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
its obvious, if you dont have any images why you are tilting peoples mind on the wrong directions by showing them wrong pictures. the images are FAKE and projecting a wrong image of Muhammad PBUH. and for taking picture back in times MR.Basball bugs or Balls Bug....i am not intrested in these FAKE images you are so positive in posting those fake pictures i'll leave that job for you and for the job you have time machine too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 06:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
brother how can you associate the artistic presentations if it does not reveal the actual image becuase the images i see over here are far too different than the real Muhammad PBUH character.
Yes..!! Every time i read Quran i meet him, every time i read his daily life routines i meet him in person. my friend this is the only religion where we can see Muhammad PBUH life & character so easily so closely that you can impose his life routines into your's & this has done purposely by GOD if we can’t see the prophet’s life closely like meeting him personally than I think there is no need of prophets they were here to tell us the truth & to show us the right path you will not see a single man on earth revealing his whole personal life for a man kind. Answer to your question. What if I post a picture of Jesus without beard without mustaches? With shaved head & with nice colored shades will you agree about the depiction in the artistic representation I am sure you haven’t met him in person too..!! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.12.173.177 (
talk)
08:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
yes..!!! you got it... thanks for realizing the fact....the images we see over here are not HISTORICALY SIGNIFICANT. Publish the images that are on the basis of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 10:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
the images are historically significant. Read the faq. They are well within our standard practice of illustrating articles on historical figures, and probably have seen closer scrutiny than the images on any other article on Wikipedia. We illustrate the King Arthur article with a 14th century image. We illustrate the Charlemagne article with a 13th century image. We illustrate the Alexander the Great article with a 15th century Persian miniature. We illustrate the Gautama Buddha article with a 2nd century statue. We illustrate the Jesus article with a 6th century mosaic. Noted a pattern yet? It means that we bloody well will illustrate the Muhammad article with notable 14th to 17th century Muslim(!) artwork, because Wikipedia isn't censored, and because the only reason to refrain from doing so would be "we must not offend Muslim sensitivities", not points of encyclopedicity. All of this is perfectly obvious from reading the FAQ, and no amount of repetitive "buts" is going to change that. In fact, I believe we have already de facto caved in to the bigot whining and censored ourselves by removing these images to the lower half of the article. This was probably a mistake because it means we'll never have peace now.
But in fact I believe the anon has a point in that we do need an image of a beardless Jesus at Jesus, because that is how Jesus was depicted in the very earliest artwork. The bearded Jesus is probably informed by the Turin shroud. -- dab (𒁳) 10:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Friends, your ongoing policy like attack is the best defense is very clear it’s not my headache if wiki is censored or not. If you've placed the pictures little lower good for you what can I say more I am not going to say thank you for all these FAKE images these so called artistic representations have no concern with Muhammad PBUH or with Islam or with your non-neutral article. I don’t know what enraged you either my ironic points or simple valid questions which you haven’t answered yet again I request you to Publish the images that are on the basis of facts which speak about the character of Muhammad PBUH. If you do so, what should I worry about? If you think that you have done a mistake I don’t care for your own personal peace..!!!! You have had a chance and you’ve lost it long ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
who is enraged? PBUY, and maybe find some other website PBUI which you like, ok? The internet PBUI is big. There is no reason to prance around websites that you do not enjoy. -- dab (𒁳) 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
who is enraged….??? I am not probably. You are no one to dictate me what to do and what not to do ok..??? Secondly i am enjoying what you are doing right now Mr. Dbchmann. I am free and wiki allowing me my freedom and the freedom of speech. You can't control everything over here while roaming around —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
if you have a doubt what can i do...i believe what i believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 13:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It is funny to read the phrase "freedom of speech" from anons on a mission to impose religious censorship on Wikipedia. -- dab (𒁳) 09:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well I'm still not understanding why it is soooo necessary to have those pictures on the main article. Another picture that has his face covered would not take away from the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, and would be the best for everyone. It would end these worthless arguments, and continue to allow wikipedia to be a good enyclopedia. -- 68.199.39.111 ( talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear All, I am replacing my oringal post with the text of my entire correspondence with Wikipedia on these images (the first letter includes my oringal post), I am not told who the editors of this article are but should any like correspond with me please let me know how best to discuss this with you. Having said that, I doubt if an editor will every read this post given that everyone is generally being aggressive on this page. It seems rather odd that we are not told about the academic backgrounds of the persons behind an article.
FROM SHIRAZ KIDWAI
Subject: Factually incorrect: The portraits of Muhammad and the suggestion that these depicted factual information.
Dear Editor,
I read the article mentioned above assuming (as usual) that I would show factually correct information, however, I one factual error was immediately evident.
Factually incorrect: The portraits of Muhammad and the suggestion that these depicted factual information.
No portraits of Muhammad were made in his life time and none were known to exist for up to 300 years after his death. It will, therefore, be factually incorrect, to show pictures of him and therefore, suggesting to the reader that he looked like the particular person depicted in the pictures or for that matter that he lived in the settings depicted in the pictures. This would be even more erroneous because part of the believe system he, himself, proclaimed required that no pictures/paintings (especially of human beings) be made. His followers, a few billion of them, do not, therefore, believe it correct to have a picture of Muhammad.
The paintings that are included in the article are made hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad and depict an artists impression of him rather than any factual correct impression. You would therefore, note that these depictions are contemporaneous to the time/place they were made (Persia/Istanbul) rather that to circa. 600AD/Arabia where Muhammad lived.
These pictures do garnish the article of similar nature but given the nature of facts and the fact that Muhammad himself, did not allow his portraits to be made, I think these pictures do not suite a wikepedia article, which I have grown to know as hosting rigorously factual information.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely, Shiraz Kidwai
FROM WIKIPEDIA
Dear Shiraz Kidwai,
Thank you for your email.
Yes, these images probably are inaccurate. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves.
However, similarly inaccurate images are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Jesus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images exist, it is a longstanding tradition on Wikipedia to use images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand might be inaccurate, as long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be better than using no image at all. It is important to understand that random recent depictions could be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of the history of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout Muslim history.
It is important to understand that these depictions do not mean to present the face of Muhammad; rather, they present the person in the way the artist was more comfortable with and hold no immediate religious value on their own. It is of particular interest that these means of portrayal generally convey one and only one aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to have any accuracy to them, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted.
As an analogy, Jesus has been presented in a multitude of ways, most of which are entirely inaccurate (Jesus being, according to tradition, a Semite, whereas he is generally depicted with distinctively Byzantine or Caucasian features).
None of these pictures are meant to hold a prominent place in the article, as evident by their placement in the article, nor are they meant as an assault to Islam. It is also worth noting that several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (which resulted even in hostilities), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are (i.e. existing depictions of said people) – there is no unspoken insult intended.
Yours sincerely, Bernard Dupre -- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
FROM SHIRAZ KIDWAI
Dear Mr Dupre,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
My concern with the article is purely academic. I am an architect and am researching to write about how the religious ideology of this man affected Islamic art and architecture. I am, therefore, not concerned with pictures of, the face of Muhammad, as being an assault on Islam, nor with a comparison with Christianity and hagiographic imagery.
I also did not understand analogizing of the biographical requirements of Jesus, Homer, Charlemagne and Muhammad. Surely, articles on each of these individuals would need to critically address the individual’s biographical requirements rather than be written with a box standard strategy. Given the way Wikipedia is able to seek the skills of editors from around the globe I did not expect such broad brushing (as you suggested), in Wikipedia’s articles.
On the same note it also concerned me when you suggested that some parts of an article might be less prominent than others. I have used Wikipedia since 2003 and I expect all parts of a Wikipedia articles to be pertinent and, therefore, equally prominent to the reader.
Notwithstanding my dissatisfaction with this article, I must congratulate you, as one of the editors, for the overall high standards the Wikipedia is able to maintain.
I would, agree, with your suggestion that it is a good idea to “use images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions”. Perhaps, not because it has become a longstanding tradition with Wikipedia but, purely because such an image /depiction would indeed aid in understanding the subject.
Having said that, and having researched Islamic art and architecture for some time I wonder how one could conclude that the imagery used in this article is “historically significant” or is a “typical example of popular depictions”.
TYPICAL ... POPULAR DEPICTIONS The images used are most certainly not “typical examples of popular depictions” because the only thing popular about this man is that there are no, nor have been any, popular (i.e., well known) depictions of him.
As I have understood it, it was part of his religious ideology not to allow depictions of animals or human beings and apparently he strongly advised his followers not make depictions of him during his life or after his death (and indeed, none were known to exist for hundreds of years after his death). Perhaps that is why his followers have popularly not held and continue not to hold any images of him nor are/were any popularly displayed in places of significance to his religion.
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT The images certainly are historic; however, are they “historically significant”?
I don’t think they are, because even historically it was not common custom to depict Muhammad in paintings, these paintings are, therefore, random/sporadic historic depictions, made hundreds of years after Muhammad’s death, contemporaneously much undue in notability in their times, just as you have ascribed undue notability to random recent depictions, of our times.
While the sporadic paintings were made in Muslim lands, Muhammad was commonly not topicalized (visually) ‘throughout’ Muslim history either due to popular tradition or as a religious icon or generally for theological /academic reasons. These images would, therefore, be historically considered as more of a diminutive variance rather than the norm. Historic but not historically significant, therefore.
What is historically MORE significant than these depictions?
Perhaps it is the deliberate / conscious decision not to create a popular/iconic or significant visual topicalization of this man.
This rather unique and biographically important fact is negated in the Wikipedia article, which seems to suggest that this man’s followers (a vast majority of our civilisation) sought religious imagery similar to popular western ideas of it.
Something that does not do justice to the wider universal worldview that I believe Wikipedia is designed to capture.
IDEOLOGY / BIOGRAPHY An ideologue’s ideology becomes intrinsic to his/her biography.
In writing a biographical article about this man with these images the editors have entirely negated an important aspect of his ideology - of not visually depicting animals and humans and not creating religious mythology around his image. This ideology prevails dominantly in the religious art and architecture of his followers and should not go unstated and certainly not be negated in an article about him.
With these images this article misleads an uninitiated reader from understanding this unique aspect of the man’s biography. The reader begins to think that these depictions are how this man is/was commonly recognized/allowed himself to be depicted. This is not the case.
Perhaps, instead of these images, and to aid the reader in critically understanding this man, the article needs to state this man’s rather unique and significant ideological requisite - of not being visually depicted.
BIOGRAPHICAL IMAGERY
One could say that the article is not for critically understanding this individual but is a mere objective biography of him. But then both of us agree that there is no objectivity or biographical accuracy in these images.
How about a biography not having any image to illustrate the subject? Especially, when the subject of the biography positively disallowed such illustrations and when the only illustrations we have are factually inaccurate, sporadic and not commonly recognized.
Perhaps their use in this particular case is abetting / creating mythology where none exists instead for aiding an objective and/or critical understanding of the subject.
As I have grown to understand it, this is completely against the grain of Wikipedia which promotes – articles with academic rigour, factual accuracy and NO garnish.
Perhaps, because we, as western readers are so accustomed to associating portraits with an article about a person, we fail to understand the significance and rational of not associating any image with a person, thereby, compromising our understanding of the subject.
I hope I have been reasonable in furthering this discussion fruitfully. I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely, Shiraz Kidwai
FROM WIKIPEDIA
Dear Shiraz Kidwai,
Thank you for your email.
If you have remarks on the content of the articles, please put them on the discussion page associated with the article.
I'm sorry, but we here at the help desk really do not make editorial decisions - we'll act in cases of libel, copyright infringement and that's all. Whether the article on the prophet of Islam should feature depictions of that person totally falls outside on the issues that we can deal with.
Yours sincerely, Bernard Dupre -- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.222.117 ( talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
"His followers, a few billion of them..." your letter is factually incorrect as well, 1.2 billion != a few. sorry if i put this in the wrong place, i'm a noob here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.173.92 ( talk) 06:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
answer the shiraz point dont just jump onto other things. he has a valid point.'These pictures do garnish the article but given the nature of facts I think the do not suite a wikepedia article, which I have grown to know as hosting rigorously factual information' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 13:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
ok than keep on rejecting we'll keep on convincing.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.60.225 ( talk) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
i am not convincing YOU.....and this place does not belongs to you.....Lay off now....don’t tell me what to do..... If reading my edits are wasting your time don’t reply & don’t read them i am not asking you to do so? I know, my comment & my question is a pain your ass. Post some factual images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 07:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This is Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q3. If you have a problem with content on Wikipedia, consider WP:NOIMAGE. If you have a problem with the Internet containing objectionable content, consider pulling the network cable. -- dab (𒁳) 09:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No..!!! I am not alone here who has a problem. There are number of persons over here with bundles of problems. Like, I am having a problem with FAKE IMAGES and others will have a problem by removing FAKE IMAGES some how there is a cold war going on. Be realistic face the realism there is a problem..!! That is why you are responding but on the other hand not considering an issue. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.12.173.177 (
talk)
12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I don't get: Is there anything in the Koran prohibiting images of Muhammad, or is that just a custom that has evolved over time? The Ten Commandments prohibit idol worship. But by prohibiting images of Muhammad, it has the effect of turning Muhammad into a god. Muhammad is not considered a god in Islam, is he? Or is he? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Here, here!! RaseaC ( talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It should say something like Your contribution has been reverted because it has been discussed in depth. Please refer to the FAQ.. Maybe a little shorter, but with that general message. RaseaC ( talk) 00:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Either,
a) we're stupid
b)it's too important for one page
c)we're just pretty awesome.
We should see what others have to say about it, but I would assume it's along the lines of newbies are sooooooo great we should NEVER delete ANYTHING they EVER say because they might cry but we'll wait and see.
RaseaC (
talk)
00:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
point A is right point.
Hi All, As a muslim, Muhammad is never shown in muslim publications except when having a white veil over his face, for out of respect. What all the muslims are asking is to have the illustrative image with a veil on and nothing more....Cheers
all of you i know sooner or later wiki is going to remove the FAKE IMAGES.....whatever you say...the images does not belong to the article. baseball is that what you do when your blondie do something offensive....???
Not at all good for Wikipedia - using any religious content without creating any authentic platform for religious content without a genuine community conscience. Since all religions has the highest level of authenticity when it comes to content, how can its messages and content be revealed by Wikipedia because the level of authenticity for other content is very much well planned, organized and judged (much apprecaited) but when it comes to Islamic/ Arabic content - Not even governments legislations or acts authorize such position and posting of content that relates to Islam which is not approved by an Islamic Scholor and that he himself has been recognized from known islamic universities who also atleast has been endorsed by 2 reknowned Islamic universities. The resolution to the dispute is imidiate removal of cotnent and formation of a body within wikipedia recommended and endorsed by renowned islamic instituitions in place for atleast 20 years. I in strongest terms oppose and condemn the usage of any pictorial content that has picture of Muhammad - The Prophet and last messenger of Allah including any picture of His imidiate followers, decendents and Caliphs. Wikipedia might wanted to go by policies and take this case into dispute, voting etct.. however, wikipedia also knows that religious content do need authenticity to the level of its intensity as this is one factor that can result either in best favor of Wikipedia - if wikipedia acts promptly and seriously considering all the factors in ultimate benefit of wikipedia - or can result against Wikipedia if correct action is not taken at the right time and can result in defamation or defamatory campaings (as experience by the Denmark event), less authenticity of content offered by wikipedia thus resulting in major loss losing trust and anthenticity for audience.
The reason to postion such level of authenticity for religious content is critical for Wikipedia is because the legitimacy of Arabic/ Islamic content is an information that ralates to a human's belief, ideology and path of life, thus the audience of Wikipedia may astray getting information that isn't valid (as Islamic and Arabic content have deep roots and logics for even minor information)and all the Muslim world oppose such information which is incorrect or illegitimate. This information is critical and needs more attention for best interest of Wikipedia.
This resolution is in best favor for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanxs ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
excellent brother very detailed reasons and i am with you....stay here i cant explain things like you we need you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 11:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
exactly..!! it is not the best way to grab the things and impose any where you want.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 11:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear All,
I started this dicussion and coressponded with Wikipedia on it. The entire corresponcence is now copied on top of this section.
Regards, Shiraz Kidwai
thumb|Young Muhammad meets the monk Bahira. thumb|Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel. thumb|Mohammed before the battle of Badr. Why this biographical article is so much different then articles of other religious figures? There are a lot of images of Muhammad on commons, some of them should be put into article instead of so much maps and pictures of objects. This is a secular encyclopedia. -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
now why you are not redirecting these edits to the special created page IMAGES TALK..?? why we are not allowed to spead over here and you guys are posting again those FAKE images???i recommend to remove these pictures from the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 11:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for Redirecting the edits. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not about censorship it is about authenticity. The contents in the article like images are very irrelevant & do not match Muhammad PBUH at any level. i think wiki posts whatever they get regardless of source..!!! As mentioned, there are no authors only contributors which clear everything that no one is responsible for the contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
i'm not sure if this art is from muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Plz remove the pics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali mustafaq ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It is good to present the Prophet Muhammad to people, but we must respect him and respect the religion law. For this i like Just mention that pictures published are note true, in Islam we have not permission to drew or publish any picture of prophet. You (author) must delete this picture immediately please. If you are Muslim i am sure that you will delete this pictures now. In any way i think that you love Muhammad (because you present him to peoples) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmlamine ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I request you to please remove prophet Muhammad (PBUH) picture from ur site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.92.16 ( talk • contribs)
As a muslim, we believe that Muhammad (PBUH) is the most respected Human Being, no one can depict the personality of Muhammad(PBUH) using images and also images of Humans are not allowed in islam. So this is my request to Wikipedia that remove these images.thanx
I have been on an impression for so long that the Wikipedia is an uparalleled site to give out correct information on any topic, but today when I saw this page showing unacceptable pictures of the Prophet(pbuh)I came to know how wrong I was.
According to far authentic sources than this Wikipedia, from the so-called "Hadiths" (not one but many)and even in the Quran which says that Allah has created Prophet Mohammed SAW (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him)from His own "Noor" (which means the holy brightness or the most powerful light). This is one of the reasons that even the shadow of the Prophet Mohammed SAW (pbuh)does not fall on the ground(light cannot have its own shadow); Also He (Allah) does not want to see a second beloved Prophet like Mohammed SAW (pbuh) and He would not tolerate anybody stamping his most beloved's image/shadow. Shadow is far away from discussion not even a single strand of the Prophet Mohammed's SAW (pbuh) hair can create a shadow if exposed to light.
Every muslim knows that drawing pictures and representing the Prophet (pbuh) is a wicked thing. Borrowing pictures from xyz artist or source and uploading it in this site would be the most wicked thing ever.
Now tell me one thing, if this site is referred by so many well educated islamic scholars from every corner of this world what impression would this carry? This would definitely bring down your reputation for gathering and presenting the information. If you really want to help people who search for information, kindly don't help them in this manner. You are responsible for creation of this site and maintaining its integrity. And this is a free site, I respect and abide your policies and stick to not to use any profanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayaz.md83 ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering you knew what I meant, I can't say I care. RaseaC ( talk) 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Fayaz, if you are saying that Mohammad glowed in the dark, then you are mistaken. If you are saying that Mohammad was invisible so that light would pass through him, then you are mistaken. If you are saying that he cast no shadow for some other reason, then you are equally mistaken. People would have noticed, and his biographers would have commented on it, but they did not. If you are speaking about Mohammad metaphorically or poetically, then you are using language which could not come close to describing Mohammad's true, spiritual beauty. Likewise, the artist and his brushes commit no greater sin than the poet and his words for trying to communicate the believer's love for their prophet. Rklawton ( talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've never quoted anywhere that the Prophet Mohammed SAW (pbuh) glowed in the dark or was invisible. My point was that he cast no shadow. If you have no knowledge on this you can refer to original Hadiths like "Sahi Muslim" or "Sahi Bukhari", "Tirmidhi" which are not written by people like you or me but by them who were the companions of the Prophet Muhammad SAW (pbuh) at his time (Sahabas)and great islamic scholars. Your response was completely baseless.
These are some proofs to name a few,
From Hadiths:
• Hadith 1: Sayyidina Hakeem Tirmidhi in his book Nawaadirul-Usool narrates from Sayyidina Zakwaan , a close Companion of the Prophet , the following Hadith: "The shadow of the Prophet could not be seen in the brightness of the sun, nor in moonlight". • Hadith 2: Allamah Ibn al-Jawzi in his Kitabul-Wafa narrates a hadith from Sayyidina Abdullah ibn Abbas the cousin of the Prophet in which he said: "The Messenger of Allah had no shadow, not while standing in the sun, but the brilliance of his light (nur) surpassed the rays of the sun; nor while sitting before a burning light, but his luminous light excelled the lustre of the light". • Hadith 3: Imam Nasafi in his Tafseer Madaarik narrates from Sayyidina Uthman ibn Affan , the son-in-law of the Prophet that he said to the Prophet : "Allah Almighty does not let your shadow fall on the ground, so that no foot of man can fall on it". • Hadith 4: Imam Jalaludeen Suyuti in his Khasaa'is al-Kubra narrates from Ibn Saba : "This is also a unique feature of the Prophet that his shadow did not touch the ground, because he was light (nur), and when he used to walk in the sunshine his shadow could not be seen."
From Scholars:
Qadi Iyad: 1. Imam Qadi Iyad in his Ash-Shifa states:"The Prophet did not possess a shadow in the brightness of the sun or in the moonlight, because he was light (nur)".
Imam Ahmad Qastalani 2. Imam Ahmad Qastalani states in Al-Mawahibul-laduniyya: "That the Prophet did not possess a shadow in the brightness of the sun or moonlight is proven from the ahadith of Tirmidhi of Ibn Zakwaan and Ibn Saba ."
Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi 3. Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi states in Madaarij an-nubuwwah: "The Prophet's shadow did not appear in sunshine nor in moonlight".
Mawlana Jalaluddin Rumi 4. Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi in his Mathnawi states: "Let alone the Prophet , even if an ordinary servant of the Prophet reaches the stage of inner mortality (baqa), then like the Prophet , his shadow too disappears".
From Books:
"Body of Prophet Muhammad(SAW) didnt contain any shadow in sun and moon because he(SAW) was all noor" (Al Shafa by Qazi Ayaz) (Al Wafa by Ibn e Joza) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.29.161 ( talk) 20:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
There's an online petition (petitiononline) to have these images remove. I can't post the link here because Wikipedia's spam filter wont allow it. Does anyone know how effective it will be, there's a claim that if 100,000 signatures are achieved the images will be removed. There's also a claim that "Who ever has placed this picture is a true terrorist as he is trying to incite more then 1 billion Muslims of the world." Stephenjh ( talk) 20:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Petitions are only effective if 1) there is some way of proving that people have not voted more than once and 2) if the person or entity being petitioned has a vested interest in satisfying the petitioners' demands. Those affected by the latter generally are either elected officials or businesses. Since Wikipedia is neither elected nor a business, and since we have no way of knowing if the petition's signatures were forged, it strikes me as extremely unlikely that Wikipedia would take such a petition seriously. J.delanoy gabs adds 22:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Is nobody of the people answering this aware that we do already cover the petition, where it belongs, at depictions of Muhammad#Wikipedia_article, including the reaction by The American Muslim to the effect that this kind of thing is so utterly stupid that its only effect is to ridicule Muslims and perpetuate stereotypes of Islam as the religion of bigot dimwits. If there is anything else to be added to this topic, kindly redirect comments to Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad where they belong. -- dab (𒁳) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
WITH THE NAME OF MUHAMMAD(SAW) PLZ ADD A LITTLE DAROOD PLZ (SAW) OK THANX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.35.217 ( talk) 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
i condemn to remove this images because in islam muslims can't bear to make any image about our beloved beloved holy prophet. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
116.71.81.137 (
talk)
14:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
pictures of our prophet muhammad (SAW) should be removed from this site this is not accecptable for believers of true religion islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.120.33 ( talk) 20:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
i know you guys are much delighted when any one requests you to remove IMAGES. its evident from your commensts(It's a campaign in the hopes that systemic harrassment will generate the desired result) in fact, you are harrassing a muslim community but what do you think we will stop demanding???? NO, NO WAY>>>>>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 13:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
ok we choose what is best in our interest but now, dont you ever post any edit regarding images of Muhammad PBUH because it is not your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 14:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
english is not my first language.
i think it is pretty clear that we wont stop till we get our desired results( REMOVAL OF PICS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 14:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
READ Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. That is the bottom line. If you have any questions or comments on specific points regarding images in the FAQ, you can discuss them here. But cease arguing points that the FAQ already covers. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
All I want to say is to please remove the images of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (S). I understand that you are very obstinate about your decision. However, I strongly believe that you should have respect about the belief of other people. Even though you may not be Muslim and you may not even like Islam, you still don't have the right to go against anyone's religion. In Islam, we Muslims, believe that we should have respect for other people no matter who they are. I'm sure you already know and don't care, but you really need to remove those pictures. Also, the images that you have displayed are not even close to how the Prophet Muhammad (S) looks. I just hope you really change your mind about removing those images even though I understand your point on you not being a Muslim. I don't want to go against your religion because that is not what Islam teaches me. Islam teaches me to be respectful to others no matter who they are and to be patient with others. I know your religion may not teach you that because if it did, then you would not have put those images of the Prophet Muhammad(S). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.38.142 ( talk) 22:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
except that I do not think it is an "attack on the integrity of the project" to say "please remove pictures" a gazillion times over. It doesn't do anything but clutter this page. And this page was created for the specific purpose of giving people place to say "please remove pictures" as often as they like. Perhaps we should start blanking posts that really say just that, but then we can also leave them, seeing they do absolutely no harm.
but I really don't think it is really necessary to create archives of this page any longer. -- dab (𒁳) 07:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
you need to understand that the people commenting here aren't "the Muslim community", they're mostly a bunch of immature, invariably male, Muslim teenagers organized via internet fora, facebook etc. The Muslim community proper is rolling its eyes at this. The reason the immature male Muslim teenagers with internet access choose to bother Wikipedia rather than the Louvre website is that it is so easy to do. You just need to click the "edit" button, and people will react. Writing angry emails to the Louvre and other big institutions hosting Muhammad pictures on the internet isn't half as fun, because you tend to be simply ignored.
Hm, in that case maybe we should consider blanking not the original posts but rather needlessly chatty replies added after a sufficient "see FAQ" answer has already been given. No that it's a big deal either way. -- dab (𒁳) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
copied from main talk page
Nableezy (
talk)
05:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Please respect our faith and respect our beloved prophet Muhammed (pbuh)and sign a partition to remove the picture. The link which i have tried to post is black listed from this site, but if you type in www .petitiononline .com in google first link click on that, and then you will see another link saying depiction of muhammed (pbuh. please sign —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.69.233.3 (
talk)
12:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
yes this is not a muslims's encyclopedia but the fake article and fake picture is of the muslim and for the muslim. you got it.....
they have banned me for one month by informing me they have enuff tools....i have lot of other tools as well to post hundreds of edits...but i just wanted to tell you that we can wait and we will not stop as it is our right....wiki banned me just because they were unable to answer our questions... so no choice remain left but to ban me.... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.12.173.177 (
talk)
10:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Raseac you are abusing the authority.....you have no rights to ban people on your own.... anon has a point.....the pictures are violating the copyright act.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry RaseaC for my panicked outburst. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Noshikashi (
talk •
contribs)
10:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
see this article saying "Prophet of Islam Muhammad" in the left link pane and this article comes under section Islam and further in the last, there is link pane of "Prophets in Qur'an" and "Islam topics", I deresay, those controversial pictures must be removed, since, in Islam pictures of Prophets and saints are prohibited. If this article comes in the section of Islam, then, please make this article for the Islam. Please resolve this issue A.S.A.P. (Please notify with reason if I got too harsh or unpolite and please dont mind spelling and grammatical mistakes, i pardon for that.) saakh ( talk) 01:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC) saakh ( talk) 01:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Despite all the quasi-logical wikibabble about noncensorship, nearly all of the people who insist on keeping the potentially offensive images in this article are simply trying to win the pissing contest. They do not really have a dog in the fight, and yet, their egos and their combatitive natures compel them to continue fighting this battle out of spite within the guise of non-censorship.
I'm not a muslim, but I propose an experiment: insert photographs of Serrano's famous Piss Christ on the Wikipedia page about Jesus, and see if you have any success keeping it there, under principles of non-censorship, and "because the image exists, it is appropriate to display it." Or, alternatively, insert graphic photographs of child pornography with children under the age of 12 into the Wikipedia article about children, under principles of non-censorship, and "because the image exists, it is appropriate to display it." Now, before you mount your keyboard to deny these analogies, just pause and think about it for a moment. Piss Christ is a valid artistic representation of Christ, yet why is it not included in that article? Because it is an unusual anomaly, and (if we are to be honest), it's offensive to many. Despite our values of non-censorship, it would be untrue to claim that our editing decisions are not also guided by values of respect for others. Child pornography photographs accurately exhibit the stature, anatomy, and genitalia of children, yet why are such photographs not included in the article on children? Because such photographs are unusual anomalies within the available photographic literature on children, and (if we are to be honest), the photographs would be offensive to many, although sex with children under 12 is legal in some nations. Again: despite our values of non-censorship, it would be untrue to claim that our editing decisions are not also guided by values of respect for others.
A word to the wise: the principle of "non-censorship" is a sacred one, but it is not intended to be abused as a loophole that allows otherwise bored wiki-editors to play childish power games that have already offended many. Anyone who thinks that non-censorship mandates the inclusion of Muhammed images here is challenged to try to get Serrano's Piss Christ established as one of the permanent images in the article about Jesus. I dare you. And when you find you are unable to succeed, perhaps you will realize how bigoted you have been by your cockfights on this site, which have been thinly (and poorly) misrepresented as being guided by the principle of non-censorship. 198.187.251.181 ( talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, the images could not have been drawn by devout Muslims, because any depiction of the Prophet is considered blasphemous, go ask your local Imam if you need further evidence. Moreover, you say regarding piss Christ...the whole point of it was to anger Christians...the images of Muhammad in this article are respectful images. This again is a false statement; no image of Muhammad can be respectful to Muslims whatsoever, so please do not make erroneous statements in the future. Thanks,
Interestedinfairness (
talk)
13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In Islam picture of Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed.To respect this concept as well as Wikipedia respects other believes, Wikipedians are kindly requested to unpublished these illustrations. Wikipedia still able to put information the presence of the illustrations by links, instead of showing the illustrations in wiki page. This is not censorship, it is only frontpage modifications. This will keep Wikipedia stays complete and independent encyclopedia. Anakgunung ( talk)
remove the pics showing prophet mohammed...it's not allowed in our religion...........our feelings are being hurt....it may become a cause of violence...........please remove them.....we are muslims..we want peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.70.242 ( talk) 15:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, let me respond one my one.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I think it makes sense to not insist that Wikipedia use honorifics like pbuh or saaws after the name of the Prophet Muhammad.
I'm pro-freedom of speech and definitely appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is democratic consensus-based type of knowledge repository. But I would note that just as "pornographic" images or other offensive images don't litter every article where they are conceivably topical, perhaps we could find a less contentious way to deal with the images of Muhammad. For example, there is a seperate article on the portrayal of Muhammad. The images can be placed freely there and the Muhammad article could refer to that one.
Also, in terms of neutrality, it appears to me that many of the people in favor of places images of Muhammad on the Wikipedia page are not just calmly, neutrally in a scholarly fashion promoting truth and accuracy but that they are emotionally insisting that the pictures be put up, precisely because they are offensive to Muslims. And in giving in to such an animus, I would suggest that Wikipedia has lost a certain amount of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.201.171 ( talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Although there is great reward from God for honoring His Final Prophet, writing of honorifics after the Phophet's name is not a requirement in Islam, only what is mentioned in Hadith is 'whereby may name is mentioned & anyone who does not send to me the prayer {either "Salalllaho Aelehai wa Sallam" the shorter one or the longer one called 'Salat Ibrahimi'} he is the stingiest person'{on Earth}, since as per another Hadith 'wherever you are, send prayer to me & it will reach me {as there are angels appointed by God, as mentioned in another Hadith, just for the job of taking the Salat to the Prophet}{in the Barzakh from this world} & so it is for the reader to send Salat to which he will be rewarded a minimum of ten times as per God's encourgement of goodness & multiplied many times more innumerable as per the intention & piety of the person, his all worries will be taken care of by God {as requested by a companion to repeat it all of the time} as mentioned in another Hadith & God expressly commands Muslims to pray on the Prophet as verily God & His angels pray on the Prophet{Q.33.56}( Ilaila ( talk) 07:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
Not Only this but also on Wikipedia wherever the word Mohammad is meant for Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) it should be with (Peace Be Upon Him). That is a part of our religioun.
Remove the pictures which point to Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) Add (Peace Be Upon Him) in Wikipedia where it mentions Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him).
Majority is not a question but quality and approval from the concerned scholars is more appropriate otherwise England is not a Christian State under Church of England but a Secular state if you wanna talk of majority.
This article needs more images if anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.172.101 ( talk) 18:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The pictures are factually incorrect. No portraits of Muhammad were made in his life time and none were known to exist for up to 300 years after his death. It will, therefore, be factually incorrect, to show pictures of him and therefore, suggest to the reader that he looked like the particular person depicted in the pictures or for that matter that he lived in the settings depicted in the pictures. This would be even more erroneous because part of the believe system he, himself, proclaimed required that no pictures/paintings (especially of human beings) be made. The paintings that are included in the article are made hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad and depict an artists impression of him rather than any factual correct impression. You would therefore, note that these depictions are contemporaneous to the time/place they were made (Persia/Istanbul) rather that to cira. 600AD/Arabia where Muhammad lived. I have always read wikipedia articeles assuming a rigrous attention of factual integrity of the information. This article falls short of that. - Shiraz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.230.193 ( talk) 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Being as this page has had the same argument repeated many times, surely Wikipedia could release a statement which could be just pasted after every objection, thus saving time.
My Suggestion
After much concesus it has been decided that the material in question shall remain. Wikipedia does not endorse any product, organisation or belief and therefore its internal policy does not take the requirements of such into consideration. Wikipedia is not censored and as such has no obligation to respect the wishes of any religious, political or other view.
Or perhaps something less diplomatic
Please stop forcing your views on the rest of us. We will view/read whatever we want and if you don't like it then sod you!
Either one if fine with me. I suppose what I am trying to say is that this seems to be continuing indefinately when a firm decision has allready been made. There is no point in continuing it any further, perhaps a statement from someone in authority could draw a line under it and then such discussions could be terminated. Talk pages are not supposed to be spouting/whinging pages but a facility for discussing content and such. Such contencious issues only clog them up with whiners and do-gooders each wanting to have the same moan as the last one. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I dislike this revert on site business. It smacks of 'brush off' and can easily be construed as insensitivity to an easily inflammible subject. It's impossible (without a checkuser) to know if all IPs are trolls and not sincere new users who are unaware of our rules and policies. While I agree we are not likely to change our consensus on this issue we must adhere to core polices. As I've said before a kind word and policy explanation is usually all that is necessary to separate the trolls from the newbies. Garycompugeek ( talk) 14:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any chance we could give Nableezy's quote (at the top) some context? I've been following this page for a while (since well before it was there) and it seems as if it's just been plonked at the top. If it's there to serve a purpose to editors coming here to comment on this whole issue, then it should be introduced to them. I just don't know what I'd put to give it more context – only people who saw the original discussion really know the context; who wrote it etc. Cycle~ ( talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
For context: If you click on Nableezy's name at the end of the quotation, it opens the page where the quotation was originally written, and the discussion that followed. Subsequent discussion agreed that it was appropriate to place at the top of this talk page, to illustrate how other Muslims can adhere to a rational viewpoint regarding images of the Prophet in the article about him. The quote also directly addresses the most common argument (religion-based) put forth by Muslims who come to this talk page. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
i am ready to donate the amount to wikipedia just to remove the pictures from the article forever ....give me your demand & i'll send you.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't for sale in principle, but considering the current state of the economy, we must be realistic: if you can cough up, say, USD 787 billion you have yourself a deal. -- dab (𒁳) 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
i did'nt get you guyss....at one end you are saying not for sale....and on the other imposing your demands. you guys are dying for oil, gold, etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
All Muslims see now wikipedia has its demand for removing the picture thier encyclopida is for sale...in fact, they were waiting for this moment to sell the pictures.now you realize what they are about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
If this has a chance of working let's ask for jet packs, money trees, unicorns and anything else we can think of. RaseaC ( talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
you are just being greedy now, dears, what will the Muslims think? I think it will be a fair deal to ask for a pony for each Wikipedian. I for one pledge that I will remove the images once (only) for every pony delivered to me. -- dab (𒁳) 21:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Dab, I agree with Briangotts. You're just being silly now! RaseaC ( talk) 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thats why we love you guys your demands never sleeps.... :)you guys need only a little push...
what do you think??? i wont give you even a single penny for these FAKE IMAGES.... :)
I know this stuff is old, but seriously I had the laugh of my life when reading it. you guys rock! And to those who even for a slight nanosecond considered you guys to be serious, grow up! PureRumble ( talk) 10:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The art depicting his face is not really necessary, seeing as its usually just a generic arabic face. Anyone can draw that. So saying that it should be kept because it is informative and relevant is note exactly true. Don't you think it should be removed of the main Muhammad page? You can leave it else where, such as on the article about depictions of Muhammad, but the pictures are something that people would find offensive. I know the wikipedia is not censored, but there should be some decency. I might want to be able to find out about pornography without seeing a picture of a slutty girl with her mouth around a massive penis, just the same way I might want to read an article about Muhammed without seeing something I find offensive blasted in my face. I'm not even suggesting deleting the images, I just think that it should be left out of the main page. If people really want to see it, you can keep it on a separate page, but remove it from the main page at least. It's like having a picture of Christ nailed to an upside down cross in the Christianity article. Yeah sure, maybe it might be relevant if there was a a section on the page related to Satanism, Anti-christianity, etc., but would you really put that there? It would probably be taken down being, deemed offensive. So why are pictures of Muhammad left up, when it is clearly something that offends the people of the world's second largest religion. -- 68.199.39.111 ( talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the time-honoured WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED is needed here. However you put it, however you argue it, however you phrase is, your argument is calling for the censorship of Wikipedia and guess what? Yep, you guessed it; WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. We do not censor our encyclopedia. We will not allow censorship on Wikipedia. We will not undertake censorship programmes. We do not bow to demands for censorship. Hell, I'm bored of rephrasing it now, just remember WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. RaseaC ( talk) 19:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the arguments you are making are incorrect here. Wikipedia does not censor images that add encyclopedic value to an article, it may 'censor' images that do not. The proper answer to such a query in my mind is explaining what encyclopedic content is added by these images. There are answers to that question. If somebody comes here with the standard demand that because it is against Islam it should not be allowed then WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED may be accepted as a standard response. I think the OP is incorrect in saying that the images are not informative or relevant, as they do provide an insight into how people viewed Muhammad, and that is certainly relevant to an encyclopedic discussion on him. I have two problems with this discussion. The people demanding it be removed because of their religious beliefs, which I have already spoken on, and the people who seem to want them included because it insults a group of people. I make no claims that anybody here has done that, but it has been seen. There is intolerance on all sides of this issue. I recognize the contradiction in my beliefs as a Muslim and my responsibilities here on Wikipedia. My religious beliefs should not impact what content is available on Wikipedia, which is why I can say I think the images are valid and encyclopedic and rightfully belong in the article. But neither should my personal feelings on other groups influence content in articles. I was equally pissed off going through the archives on this page from those who called for them to be removed because of their own personal feelings as I was by those saying to keep them basically as a fuck you to all the Muslims out there. Again, neither of you have said such things and this isnt meant as a reply to the above. But I do think the answer if somebody asks what value the images bring to the article is to show what value it brings, not just say Wikipedia is not censored. Nableezy ( talk) 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
we dont mind if you bring Muhammad PBUH's real life images in order to bring the so called value to your article as i have always seen real pictures of the real article. if it is NOT CENSORED then please post the real pictures. i believe it will add mocking value to your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I read it as too. RaseaC ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
its obvious, if you dont have any images why you are tilting peoples mind on the wrong directions by showing them wrong pictures. the images are FAKE and projecting a wrong image of Muhammad PBUH. and for taking picture back in times MR.Basball bugs or Balls Bug....i am not intrested in these FAKE images you are so positive in posting those fake pictures i'll leave that job for you and for the job you have time machine too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 06:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
brother how can you associate the artistic presentations if it does not reveal the actual image becuase the images i see over here are far too different than the real Muhammad PBUH character.
Yes..!! Every time i read Quran i meet him, every time i read his daily life routines i meet him in person. my friend this is the only religion where we can see Muhammad PBUH life & character so easily so closely that you can impose his life routines into your's & this has done purposely by GOD if we can’t see the prophet’s life closely like meeting him personally than I think there is no need of prophets they were here to tell us the truth & to show us the right path you will not see a single man on earth revealing his whole personal life for a man kind. Answer to your question. What if I post a picture of Jesus without beard without mustaches? With shaved head & with nice colored shades will you agree about the depiction in the artistic representation I am sure you haven’t met him in person too..!! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.12.173.177 (
talk)
08:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
yes..!!! you got it... thanks for realizing the fact....the images we see over here are not HISTORICALY SIGNIFICANT. Publish the images that are on the basis of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 10:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
the images are historically significant. Read the faq. They are well within our standard practice of illustrating articles on historical figures, and probably have seen closer scrutiny than the images on any other article on Wikipedia. We illustrate the King Arthur article with a 14th century image. We illustrate the Charlemagne article with a 13th century image. We illustrate the Alexander the Great article with a 15th century Persian miniature. We illustrate the Gautama Buddha article with a 2nd century statue. We illustrate the Jesus article with a 6th century mosaic. Noted a pattern yet? It means that we bloody well will illustrate the Muhammad article with notable 14th to 17th century Muslim(!) artwork, because Wikipedia isn't censored, and because the only reason to refrain from doing so would be "we must not offend Muslim sensitivities", not points of encyclopedicity. All of this is perfectly obvious from reading the FAQ, and no amount of repetitive "buts" is going to change that. In fact, I believe we have already de facto caved in to the bigot whining and censored ourselves by removing these images to the lower half of the article. This was probably a mistake because it means we'll never have peace now.
But in fact I believe the anon has a point in that we do need an image of a beardless Jesus at Jesus, because that is how Jesus was depicted in the very earliest artwork. The bearded Jesus is probably informed by the Turin shroud. -- dab (𒁳) 10:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Friends, your ongoing policy like attack is the best defense is very clear it’s not my headache if wiki is censored or not. If you've placed the pictures little lower good for you what can I say more I am not going to say thank you for all these FAKE images these so called artistic representations have no concern with Muhammad PBUH or with Islam or with your non-neutral article. I don’t know what enraged you either my ironic points or simple valid questions which you haven’t answered yet again I request you to Publish the images that are on the basis of facts which speak about the character of Muhammad PBUH. If you do so, what should I worry about? If you think that you have done a mistake I don’t care for your own personal peace..!!!! You have had a chance and you’ve lost it long ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
who is enraged? PBUY, and maybe find some other website PBUI which you like, ok? The internet PBUI is big. There is no reason to prance around websites that you do not enjoy. -- dab (𒁳) 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
who is enraged….??? I am not probably. You are no one to dictate me what to do and what not to do ok..??? Secondly i am enjoying what you are doing right now Mr. Dbchmann. I am free and wiki allowing me my freedom and the freedom of speech. You can't control everything over here while roaming around —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
if you have a doubt what can i do...i believe what i believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 13:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It is funny to read the phrase "freedom of speech" from anons on a mission to impose religious censorship on Wikipedia. -- dab (𒁳) 09:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well I'm still not understanding why it is soooo necessary to have those pictures on the main article. Another picture that has his face covered would not take away from the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, and would be the best for everyone. It would end these worthless arguments, and continue to allow wikipedia to be a good enyclopedia. -- 68.199.39.111 ( talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear All, I am replacing my oringal post with the text of my entire correspondence with Wikipedia on these images (the first letter includes my oringal post), I am not told who the editors of this article are but should any like correspond with me please let me know how best to discuss this with you. Having said that, I doubt if an editor will every read this post given that everyone is generally being aggressive on this page. It seems rather odd that we are not told about the academic backgrounds of the persons behind an article.
FROM SHIRAZ KIDWAI
Subject: Factually incorrect: The portraits of Muhammad and the suggestion that these depicted factual information.
Dear Editor,
I read the article mentioned above assuming (as usual) that I would show factually correct information, however, I one factual error was immediately evident.
Factually incorrect: The portraits of Muhammad and the suggestion that these depicted factual information.
No portraits of Muhammad were made in his life time and none were known to exist for up to 300 years after his death. It will, therefore, be factually incorrect, to show pictures of him and therefore, suggesting to the reader that he looked like the particular person depicted in the pictures or for that matter that he lived in the settings depicted in the pictures. This would be even more erroneous because part of the believe system he, himself, proclaimed required that no pictures/paintings (especially of human beings) be made. His followers, a few billion of them, do not, therefore, believe it correct to have a picture of Muhammad.
The paintings that are included in the article are made hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad and depict an artists impression of him rather than any factual correct impression. You would therefore, note that these depictions are contemporaneous to the time/place they were made (Persia/Istanbul) rather that to circa. 600AD/Arabia where Muhammad lived.
These pictures do garnish the article of similar nature but given the nature of facts and the fact that Muhammad himself, did not allow his portraits to be made, I think these pictures do not suite a wikepedia article, which I have grown to know as hosting rigorously factual information.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely, Shiraz Kidwai
FROM WIKIPEDIA
Dear Shiraz Kidwai,
Thank you for your email.
Yes, these images probably are inaccurate. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves.
However, similarly inaccurate images are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Jesus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images exist, it is a longstanding tradition on Wikipedia to use images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand might be inaccurate, as long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be better than using no image at all. It is important to understand that random recent depictions could be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of the history of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout Muslim history.
It is important to understand that these depictions do not mean to present the face of Muhammad; rather, they present the person in the way the artist was more comfortable with and hold no immediate religious value on their own. It is of particular interest that these means of portrayal generally convey one and only one aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to have any accuracy to them, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted.
As an analogy, Jesus has been presented in a multitude of ways, most of which are entirely inaccurate (Jesus being, according to tradition, a Semite, whereas he is generally depicted with distinctively Byzantine or Caucasian features).
None of these pictures are meant to hold a prominent place in the article, as evident by their placement in the article, nor are they meant as an assault to Islam. It is also worth noting that several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (which resulted even in hostilities), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are (i.e. existing depictions of said people) – there is no unspoken insult intended.
Yours sincerely, Bernard Dupre -- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
FROM SHIRAZ KIDWAI
Dear Mr Dupre,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
My concern with the article is purely academic. I am an architect and am researching to write about how the religious ideology of this man affected Islamic art and architecture. I am, therefore, not concerned with pictures of, the face of Muhammad, as being an assault on Islam, nor with a comparison with Christianity and hagiographic imagery.
I also did not understand analogizing of the biographical requirements of Jesus, Homer, Charlemagne and Muhammad. Surely, articles on each of these individuals would need to critically address the individual’s biographical requirements rather than be written with a box standard strategy. Given the way Wikipedia is able to seek the skills of editors from around the globe I did not expect such broad brushing (as you suggested), in Wikipedia’s articles.
On the same note it also concerned me when you suggested that some parts of an article might be less prominent than others. I have used Wikipedia since 2003 and I expect all parts of a Wikipedia articles to be pertinent and, therefore, equally prominent to the reader.
Notwithstanding my dissatisfaction with this article, I must congratulate you, as one of the editors, for the overall high standards the Wikipedia is able to maintain.
I would, agree, with your suggestion that it is a good idea to “use images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions”. Perhaps, not because it has become a longstanding tradition with Wikipedia but, purely because such an image /depiction would indeed aid in understanding the subject.
Having said that, and having researched Islamic art and architecture for some time I wonder how one could conclude that the imagery used in this article is “historically significant” or is a “typical example of popular depictions”.
TYPICAL ... POPULAR DEPICTIONS The images used are most certainly not “typical examples of popular depictions” because the only thing popular about this man is that there are no, nor have been any, popular (i.e., well known) depictions of him.
As I have understood it, it was part of his religious ideology not to allow depictions of animals or human beings and apparently he strongly advised his followers not make depictions of him during his life or after his death (and indeed, none were known to exist for hundreds of years after his death). Perhaps that is why his followers have popularly not held and continue not to hold any images of him nor are/were any popularly displayed in places of significance to his religion.
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT The images certainly are historic; however, are they “historically significant”?
I don’t think they are, because even historically it was not common custom to depict Muhammad in paintings, these paintings are, therefore, random/sporadic historic depictions, made hundreds of years after Muhammad’s death, contemporaneously much undue in notability in their times, just as you have ascribed undue notability to random recent depictions, of our times.
While the sporadic paintings were made in Muslim lands, Muhammad was commonly not topicalized (visually) ‘throughout’ Muslim history either due to popular tradition or as a religious icon or generally for theological /academic reasons. These images would, therefore, be historically considered as more of a diminutive variance rather than the norm. Historic but not historically significant, therefore.
What is historically MORE significant than these depictions?
Perhaps it is the deliberate / conscious decision not to create a popular/iconic or significant visual topicalization of this man.
This rather unique and biographically important fact is negated in the Wikipedia article, which seems to suggest that this man’s followers (a vast majority of our civilisation) sought religious imagery similar to popular western ideas of it.
Something that does not do justice to the wider universal worldview that I believe Wikipedia is designed to capture.
IDEOLOGY / BIOGRAPHY An ideologue’s ideology becomes intrinsic to his/her biography.
In writing a biographical article about this man with these images the editors have entirely negated an important aspect of his ideology - of not visually depicting animals and humans and not creating religious mythology around his image. This ideology prevails dominantly in the religious art and architecture of his followers and should not go unstated and certainly not be negated in an article about him.
With these images this article misleads an uninitiated reader from understanding this unique aspect of the man’s biography. The reader begins to think that these depictions are how this man is/was commonly recognized/allowed himself to be depicted. This is not the case.
Perhaps, instead of these images, and to aid the reader in critically understanding this man, the article needs to state this man’s rather unique and significant ideological requisite - of not being visually depicted.
BIOGRAPHICAL IMAGERY
One could say that the article is not for critically understanding this individual but is a mere objective biography of him. But then both of us agree that there is no objectivity or biographical accuracy in these images.
How about a biography not having any image to illustrate the subject? Especially, when the subject of the biography positively disallowed such illustrations and when the only illustrations we have are factually inaccurate, sporadic and not commonly recognized.
Perhaps their use in this particular case is abetting / creating mythology where none exists instead for aiding an objective and/or critical understanding of the subject.
As I have grown to understand it, this is completely against the grain of Wikipedia which promotes – articles with academic rigour, factual accuracy and NO garnish.
Perhaps, because we, as western readers are so accustomed to associating portraits with an article about a person, we fail to understand the significance and rational of not associating any image with a person, thereby, compromising our understanding of the subject.
I hope I have been reasonable in furthering this discussion fruitfully. I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely, Shiraz Kidwai
FROM WIKIPEDIA
Dear Shiraz Kidwai,
Thank you for your email.
If you have remarks on the content of the articles, please put them on the discussion page associated with the article.
I'm sorry, but we here at the help desk really do not make editorial decisions - we'll act in cases of libel, copyright infringement and that's all. Whether the article on the prophet of Islam should feature depictions of that person totally falls outside on the issues that we can deal with.
Yours sincerely, Bernard Dupre -- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.222.117 ( talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
"His followers, a few billion of them..." your letter is factually incorrect as well, 1.2 billion != a few. sorry if i put this in the wrong place, i'm a noob here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.173.92 ( talk) 06:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
answer the shiraz point dont just jump onto other things. he has a valid point.'These pictures do garnish the article but given the nature of facts I think the do not suite a wikepedia article, which I have grown to know as hosting rigorously factual information' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 13:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
ok than keep on rejecting we'll keep on convincing.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.60.225 ( talk) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
i am not convincing YOU.....and this place does not belongs to you.....Lay off now....don’t tell me what to do..... If reading my edits are wasting your time don’t reply & don’t read them i am not asking you to do so? I know, my comment & my question is a pain your ass. Post some factual images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 07:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This is Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q3. If you have a problem with content on Wikipedia, consider WP:NOIMAGE. If you have a problem with the Internet containing objectionable content, consider pulling the network cable. -- dab (𒁳) 09:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No..!!! I am not alone here who has a problem. There are number of persons over here with bundles of problems. Like, I am having a problem with FAKE IMAGES and others will have a problem by removing FAKE IMAGES some how there is a cold war going on. Be realistic face the realism there is a problem..!! That is why you are responding but on the other hand not considering an issue. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.12.173.177 (
talk)
12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I don't get: Is there anything in the Koran prohibiting images of Muhammad, or is that just a custom that has evolved over time? The Ten Commandments prohibit idol worship. But by prohibiting images of Muhammad, it has the effect of turning Muhammad into a god. Muhammad is not considered a god in Islam, is he? Or is he? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Here, here!! RaseaC ( talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It should say something like Your contribution has been reverted because it has been discussed in depth. Please refer to the FAQ.. Maybe a little shorter, but with that general message. RaseaC ( talk) 00:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Either,
a) we're stupid
b)it's too important for one page
c)we're just pretty awesome.
We should see what others have to say about it, but I would assume it's along the lines of newbies are sooooooo great we should NEVER delete ANYTHING they EVER say because they might cry but we'll wait and see.
RaseaC (
talk)
00:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
point A is right point.
Hi All, As a muslim, Muhammad is never shown in muslim publications except when having a white veil over his face, for out of respect. What all the muslims are asking is to have the illustrative image with a veil on and nothing more....Cheers
all of you i know sooner or later wiki is going to remove the FAKE IMAGES.....whatever you say...the images does not belong to the article. baseball is that what you do when your blondie do something offensive....???
Not at all good for Wikipedia - using any religious content without creating any authentic platform for religious content without a genuine community conscience. Since all religions has the highest level of authenticity when it comes to content, how can its messages and content be revealed by Wikipedia because the level of authenticity for other content is very much well planned, organized and judged (much apprecaited) but when it comes to Islamic/ Arabic content - Not even governments legislations or acts authorize such position and posting of content that relates to Islam which is not approved by an Islamic Scholor and that he himself has been recognized from known islamic universities who also atleast has been endorsed by 2 reknowned Islamic universities. The resolution to the dispute is imidiate removal of cotnent and formation of a body within wikipedia recommended and endorsed by renowned islamic instituitions in place for atleast 20 years. I in strongest terms oppose and condemn the usage of any pictorial content that has picture of Muhammad - The Prophet and last messenger of Allah including any picture of His imidiate followers, decendents and Caliphs. Wikipedia might wanted to go by policies and take this case into dispute, voting etct.. however, wikipedia also knows that religious content do need authenticity to the level of its intensity as this is one factor that can result either in best favor of Wikipedia - if wikipedia acts promptly and seriously considering all the factors in ultimate benefit of wikipedia - or can result against Wikipedia if correct action is not taken at the right time and can result in defamation or defamatory campaings (as experience by the Denmark event), less authenticity of content offered by wikipedia thus resulting in major loss losing trust and anthenticity for audience.
The reason to postion such level of authenticity for religious content is critical for Wikipedia is because the legitimacy of Arabic/ Islamic content is an information that ralates to a human's belief, ideology and path of life, thus the audience of Wikipedia may astray getting information that isn't valid (as Islamic and Arabic content have deep roots and logics for even minor information)and all the Muslim world oppose such information which is incorrect or illegitimate. This information is critical and needs more attention for best interest of Wikipedia.
This resolution is in best favor for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanxs ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
excellent brother very detailed reasons and i am with you....stay here i cant explain things like you we need you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 11:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
exactly..!! it is not the best way to grab the things and impose any where you want.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 11:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear All,
I started this dicussion and coressponded with Wikipedia on it. The entire corresponcence is now copied on top of this section.
Regards, Shiraz Kidwai
thumb|Young Muhammad meets the monk Bahira. thumb|Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel. thumb|Mohammed before the battle of Badr. Why this biographical article is so much different then articles of other religious figures? There are a lot of images of Muhammad on commons, some of them should be put into article instead of so much maps and pictures of objects. This is a secular encyclopedia. -- Mladifilozof ( talk) 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
now why you are not redirecting these edits to the special created page IMAGES TALK..?? why we are not allowed to spead over here and you guys are posting again those FAKE images???i recommend to remove these pictures from the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 11:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for Redirecting the edits. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not about censorship it is about authenticity. The contents in the article like images are very irrelevant & do not match Muhammad PBUH at any level. i think wiki posts whatever they get regardless of source..!!! As mentioned, there are no authors only contributors which clear everything that no one is responsible for the contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
i'm not sure if this art is from muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Plz remove the pics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali mustafaq ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It is good to present the Prophet Muhammad to people, but we must respect him and respect the religion law. For this i like Just mention that pictures published are note true, in Islam we have not permission to drew or publish any picture of prophet. You (author) must delete this picture immediately please. If you are Muslim i am sure that you will delete this pictures now. In any way i think that you love Muhammad (because you present him to peoples) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmlamine ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I request you to please remove prophet Muhammad (PBUH) picture from ur site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.92.16 ( talk • contribs)
As a muslim, we believe that Muhammad (PBUH) is the most respected Human Being, no one can depict the personality of Muhammad(PBUH) using images and also images of Humans are not allowed in islam. So this is my request to Wikipedia that remove these images.thanx
I have been on an impression for so long that the Wikipedia is an uparalleled site to give out correct information on any topic, but today when I saw this page showing unacceptable pictures of the Prophet(pbuh)I came to know how wrong I was.
According to far authentic sources than this Wikipedia, from the so-called "Hadiths" (not one but many)and even in the Quran which says that Allah has created Prophet Mohammed SAW (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him)from His own "Noor" (which means the holy brightness or the most powerful light). This is one of the reasons that even the shadow of the Prophet Mohammed SAW (pbuh)does not fall on the ground(light cannot have its own shadow); Also He (Allah) does not want to see a second beloved Prophet like Mohammed SAW (pbuh) and He would not tolerate anybody stamping his most beloved's image/shadow. Shadow is far away from discussion not even a single strand of the Prophet Mohammed's SAW (pbuh) hair can create a shadow if exposed to light.
Every muslim knows that drawing pictures and representing the Prophet (pbuh) is a wicked thing. Borrowing pictures from xyz artist or source and uploading it in this site would be the most wicked thing ever.
Now tell me one thing, if this site is referred by so many well educated islamic scholars from every corner of this world what impression would this carry? This would definitely bring down your reputation for gathering and presenting the information. If you really want to help people who search for information, kindly don't help them in this manner. You are responsible for creation of this site and maintaining its integrity. And this is a free site, I respect and abide your policies and stick to not to use any profanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayaz.md83 ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering you knew what I meant, I can't say I care. RaseaC ( talk) 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Fayaz, if you are saying that Mohammad glowed in the dark, then you are mistaken. If you are saying that Mohammad was invisible so that light would pass through him, then you are mistaken. If you are saying that he cast no shadow for some other reason, then you are equally mistaken. People would have noticed, and his biographers would have commented on it, but they did not. If you are speaking about Mohammad metaphorically or poetically, then you are using language which could not come close to describing Mohammad's true, spiritual beauty. Likewise, the artist and his brushes commit no greater sin than the poet and his words for trying to communicate the believer's love for their prophet. Rklawton ( talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've never quoted anywhere that the Prophet Mohammed SAW (pbuh) glowed in the dark or was invisible. My point was that he cast no shadow. If you have no knowledge on this you can refer to original Hadiths like "Sahi Muslim" or "Sahi Bukhari", "Tirmidhi" which are not written by people like you or me but by them who were the companions of the Prophet Muhammad SAW (pbuh) at his time (Sahabas)and great islamic scholars. Your response was completely baseless.
These are some proofs to name a few,
From Hadiths:
• Hadith 1: Sayyidina Hakeem Tirmidhi in his book Nawaadirul-Usool narrates from Sayyidina Zakwaan , a close Companion of the Prophet , the following Hadith: "The shadow of the Prophet could not be seen in the brightness of the sun, nor in moonlight". • Hadith 2: Allamah Ibn al-Jawzi in his Kitabul-Wafa narrates a hadith from Sayyidina Abdullah ibn Abbas the cousin of the Prophet in which he said: "The Messenger of Allah had no shadow, not while standing in the sun, but the brilliance of his light (nur) surpassed the rays of the sun; nor while sitting before a burning light, but his luminous light excelled the lustre of the light". • Hadith 3: Imam Nasafi in his Tafseer Madaarik narrates from Sayyidina Uthman ibn Affan , the son-in-law of the Prophet that he said to the Prophet : "Allah Almighty does not let your shadow fall on the ground, so that no foot of man can fall on it". • Hadith 4: Imam Jalaludeen Suyuti in his Khasaa'is al-Kubra narrates from Ibn Saba : "This is also a unique feature of the Prophet that his shadow did not touch the ground, because he was light (nur), and when he used to walk in the sunshine his shadow could not be seen."
From Scholars:
Qadi Iyad: 1. Imam Qadi Iyad in his Ash-Shifa states:"The Prophet did not possess a shadow in the brightness of the sun or in the moonlight, because he was light (nur)".
Imam Ahmad Qastalani 2. Imam Ahmad Qastalani states in Al-Mawahibul-laduniyya: "That the Prophet did not possess a shadow in the brightness of the sun or moonlight is proven from the ahadith of Tirmidhi of Ibn Zakwaan and Ibn Saba ."
Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi 3. Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi states in Madaarij an-nubuwwah: "The Prophet's shadow did not appear in sunshine nor in moonlight".
Mawlana Jalaluddin Rumi 4. Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi in his Mathnawi states: "Let alone the Prophet , even if an ordinary servant of the Prophet reaches the stage of inner mortality (baqa), then like the Prophet , his shadow too disappears".
From Books:
"Body of Prophet Muhammad(SAW) didnt contain any shadow in sun and moon because he(SAW) was all noor" (Al Shafa by Qazi Ayaz) (Al Wafa by Ibn e Joza) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.29.161 ( talk) 20:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
There's an online petition (petitiononline) to have these images remove. I can't post the link here because Wikipedia's spam filter wont allow it. Does anyone know how effective it will be, there's a claim that if 100,000 signatures are achieved the images will be removed. There's also a claim that "Who ever has placed this picture is a true terrorist as he is trying to incite more then 1 billion Muslims of the world." Stephenjh ( talk) 20:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Petitions are only effective if 1) there is some way of proving that people have not voted more than once and 2) if the person or entity being petitioned has a vested interest in satisfying the petitioners' demands. Those affected by the latter generally are either elected officials or businesses. Since Wikipedia is neither elected nor a business, and since we have no way of knowing if the petition's signatures were forged, it strikes me as extremely unlikely that Wikipedia would take such a petition seriously. J.delanoy gabs adds 22:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Is nobody of the people answering this aware that we do already cover the petition, where it belongs, at depictions of Muhammad#Wikipedia_article, including the reaction by The American Muslim to the effect that this kind of thing is so utterly stupid that its only effect is to ridicule Muslims and perpetuate stereotypes of Islam as the religion of bigot dimwits. If there is anything else to be added to this topic, kindly redirect comments to Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad where they belong. -- dab (𒁳) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
WITH THE NAME OF MUHAMMAD(SAW) PLZ ADD A LITTLE DAROOD PLZ (SAW) OK THANX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.35.217 ( talk) 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
i condemn to remove this images because in islam muslims can't bear to make any image about our beloved beloved holy prophet. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
116.71.81.137 (
talk)
14:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
pictures of our prophet muhammad (SAW) should be removed from this site this is not accecptable for believers of true religion islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.120.33 ( talk) 20:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
i know you guys are much delighted when any one requests you to remove IMAGES. its evident from your commensts(It's a campaign in the hopes that systemic harrassment will generate the desired result) in fact, you are harrassing a muslim community but what do you think we will stop demanding???? NO, NO WAY>>>>>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 13:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
ok we choose what is best in our interest but now, dont you ever post any edit regarding images of Muhammad PBUH because it is not your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 14:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
english is not my first language.
i think it is pretty clear that we wont stop till we get our desired results( REMOVAL OF PICS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 14:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
READ Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. That is the bottom line. If you have any questions or comments on specific points regarding images in the FAQ, you can discuss them here. But cease arguing points that the FAQ already covers. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
All I want to say is to please remove the images of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (S). I understand that you are very obstinate about your decision. However, I strongly believe that you should have respect about the belief of other people. Even though you may not be Muslim and you may not even like Islam, you still don't have the right to go against anyone's religion. In Islam, we Muslims, believe that we should have respect for other people no matter who they are. I'm sure you already know and don't care, but you really need to remove those pictures. Also, the images that you have displayed are not even close to how the Prophet Muhammad (S) looks. I just hope you really change your mind about removing those images even though I understand your point on you not being a Muslim. I don't want to go against your religion because that is not what Islam teaches me. Islam teaches me to be respectful to others no matter who they are and to be patient with others. I know your religion may not teach you that because if it did, then you would not have put those images of the Prophet Muhammad(S). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.38.142 ( talk) 22:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
except that I do not think it is an "attack on the integrity of the project" to say "please remove pictures" a gazillion times over. It doesn't do anything but clutter this page. And this page was created for the specific purpose of giving people place to say "please remove pictures" as often as they like. Perhaps we should start blanking posts that really say just that, but then we can also leave them, seeing they do absolutely no harm.
but I really don't think it is really necessary to create archives of this page any longer. -- dab (𒁳) 07:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
you need to understand that the people commenting here aren't "the Muslim community", they're mostly a bunch of immature, invariably male, Muslim teenagers organized via internet fora, facebook etc. The Muslim community proper is rolling its eyes at this. The reason the immature male Muslim teenagers with internet access choose to bother Wikipedia rather than the Louvre website is that it is so easy to do. You just need to click the "edit" button, and people will react. Writing angry emails to the Louvre and other big institutions hosting Muhammad pictures on the internet isn't half as fun, because you tend to be simply ignored.
Hm, in that case maybe we should consider blanking not the original posts but rather needlessly chatty replies added after a sufficient "see FAQ" answer has already been given. No that it's a big deal either way. -- dab (𒁳) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
copied from main talk page
Nableezy (
talk)
05:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Please respect our faith and respect our beloved prophet Muhammed (pbuh)and sign a partition to remove the picture. The link which i have tried to post is black listed from this site, but if you type in www .petitiononline .com in google first link click on that, and then you will see another link saying depiction of muhammed (pbuh. please sign —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.69.233.3 (
talk)
12:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
yes this is not a muslims's encyclopedia but the fake article and fake picture is of the muslim and for the muslim. you got it.....
they have banned me for one month by informing me they have enuff tools....i have lot of other tools as well to post hundreds of edits...but i just wanted to tell you that we can wait and we will not stop as it is our right....wiki banned me just because they were unable to answer our questions... so no choice remain left but to ban me.... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.12.173.177 (
talk)
10:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Raseac you are abusing the authority.....you have no rights to ban people on your own.... anon has a point.....the pictures are violating the copyright act.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry RaseaC for my panicked outburst. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Noshikashi (
talk •
contribs)
10:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
see this article saying "Prophet of Islam Muhammad" in the left link pane and this article comes under section Islam and further in the last, there is link pane of "Prophets in Qur'an" and "Islam topics", I deresay, those controversial pictures must be removed, since, in Islam pictures of Prophets and saints are prohibited. If this article comes in the section of Islam, then, please make this article for the Islam. Please resolve this issue A.S.A.P. (Please notify with reason if I got too harsh or unpolite and please dont mind spelling and grammatical mistakes, i pardon for that.) saakh ( talk) 01:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC) saakh ( talk) 01:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Despite all the quasi-logical wikibabble about noncensorship, nearly all of the people who insist on keeping the potentially offensive images in this article are simply trying to win the pissing contest. They do not really have a dog in the fight, and yet, their egos and their combatitive natures compel them to continue fighting this battle out of spite within the guise of non-censorship.
I'm not a muslim, but I propose an experiment: insert photographs of Serrano's famous Piss Christ on the Wikipedia page about Jesus, and see if you have any success keeping it there, under principles of non-censorship, and "because the image exists, it is appropriate to display it." Or, alternatively, insert graphic photographs of child pornography with children under the age of 12 into the Wikipedia article about children, under principles of non-censorship, and "because the image exists, it is appropriate to display it." Now, before you mount your keyboard to deny these analogies, just pause and think about it for a moment. Piss Christ is a valid artistic representation of Christ, yet why is it not included in that article? Because it is an unusual anomaly, and (if we are to be honest), it's offensive to many. Despite our values of non-censorship, it would be untrue to claim that our editing decisions are not also guided by values of respect for others. Child pornography photographs accurately exhibit the stature, anatomy, and genitalia of children, yet why are such photographs not included in the article on children? Because such photographs are unusual anomalies within the available photographic literature on children, and (if we are to be honest), the photographs would be offensive to many, although sex with children under 12 is legal in some nations. Again: despite our values of non-censorship, it would be untrue to claim that our editing decisions are not also guided by values of respect for others.
A word to the wise: the principle of "non-censorship" is a sacred one, but it is not intended to be abused as a loophole that allows otherwise bored wiki-editors to play childish power games that have already offended many. Anyone who thinks that non-censorship mandates the inclusion of Muhammed images here is challenged to try to get Serrano's Piss Christ established as one of the permanent images in the article about Jesus. I dare you. And when you find you are unable to succeed, perhaps you will realize how bigoted you have been by your cockfights on this site, which have been thinly (and poorly) misrepresented as being guided by the principle of non-censorship. 198.187.251.181 ( talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, the images could not have been drawn by devout Muslims, because any depiction of the Prophet is considered blasphemous, go ask your local Imam if you need further evidence. Moreover, you say regarding piss Christ...the whole point of it was to anger Christians...the images of Muhammad in this article are respectful images. This again is a false statement; no image of Muhammad can be respectful to Muslims whatsoever, so please do not make erroneous statements in the future. Thanks,
Interestedinfairness (
talk)
13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In Islam picture of Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed.To respect this concept as well as Wikipedia respects other believes, Wikipedians are kindly requested to unpublished these illustrations. Wikipedia still able to put information the presence of the illustrations by links, instead of showing the illustrations in wiki page. This is not censorship, it is only frontpage modifications. This will keep Wikipedia stays complete and independent encyclopedia. Anakgunung ( talk)
remove the pics showing prophet mohammed...it's not allowed in our religion...........our feelings are being hurt....it may become a cause of violence...........please remove them.....we are muslims..we want peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.70.242 ( talk) 15:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, let me respond one my one.