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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
In 2006 when the caricatures of Prophet (PBUH) were published in some European newspapers, strong protests from all over the Muslim world erupted as a response. I am terribly fail to understand that if almost one third of the world population has some reservations on the publication of these caricatures, why it is not stopped, especially considering the fact that they are not real images, and are only imaginative figures. I request all the supporters and pro pounders of Inter-Religion harmony, to take a step against the mutilation of Muslims' religious sentiments. If Osama is extremist because he tries to impose his own view point on others, so are all these people who support these caricatures, knowingly that it will hurt the feelings of 1.8 billion Muslims. I therefore request the moderators of Wikipedia to remove these images of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to take back there decision of not removing these caricatures from this article. I hope my request will not fall on deaf ears.
I'll begin by saying that I support the images. I agree with the principled decisions made to keep the depictions, and approve of their inclusion. On the other hand, it is not difficult to be civil to those who disapprove of the images. While I do not agree with them, I'm fully able to empathize with them. A belief is a powerful thing. I've noticed that a lot of the responses have bordered on being inflammatory and self-righteous. Certainly, I sympathize; I don't appreciate it when people request that I censor myself, or that I adhere to religious beliefs that I do not hold. Nonetheless, I tend to agree with an editor above. A simple link to the FAQ should suffice, but if further communication is required, it just seems like you've all got to take a step back. Nothing to gain by being argumentative, nothing to win by being witty and sarcastic. Obviously, as someone who edits very little, it might not be very fair for me to comment. I'm simply saying that the article, in most respects, is good, and you've already won the war; there is no need to try and keep winning battles. Cheers, 97.73.64.167 ( talk) 13:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - if ya can't respond nicely, let someone else do it. Rklawton ( talk) 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support. I'm a huge advocate of the images, and I feel that we do owe kind responses to those who come here. These are not mere trolls looking to stir up trouble-- these are people doing their best to understand a very foreign and alien worldview. The comments received here are, usually, the first encounters these individuals have with Wikipedia, and sometimes, one of the first encounters they've had with western cultures. If you can't say something understanding, just point them to the FAQ. But they're not doing anything wrong by asking-- indeed, given their religion, they would be hypocrites if they didn't at least ask us to take them down. I very much understand getting frustrated by the monotony of it-- but we must all guard against lapses into incivility. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 06:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Every religion teaches that one should respect the religion of others. Islam strictly prohibits drawing illusions of any kind, let alone the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H). So who ever has written this article should at least do what their religion asks them, "respect the religion of others." These pictures are extremely offensive for all Muslims so they should be removed immedietly. I dont understand why is it so difficult for wikipedia to remove these pictures? If millions of people are protesting against it, then why on earth do they have such an adament attitude? I know for a fact that if some Muslim would have done the same thing, he would have been imprissoned or stoned to death by now. It just seems like the authors of this article have delibrately put up these pictures. Please I request you, remove these pictures. All the Muslims will highly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faiza6 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
i would just like to point out that freedom of religion doesn't imply you are granted protection from having your religious sensibilities offended, simply that you are free to practice whatever religion you like. so even if this provision of the US constitution did apply to wikipedia, it still would not prevent these images from being shown. 76.10.173.92 ( talk) 08:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
moved from main talk page
Nableezy (
talk)
00:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, Pleasee take out the pictures. Everyone should respect everyone's religion. It's not Muslims who are against it, it is Islam. Please.... take them out. They are very offending and that is just cruel of you to put pictures up when you know for a fact that it is disrespectful to do so. If something was offending Christians, you would be somehow forced to stop it; so why can't Muslims get the same treatment? Why can't EVERY religion get the same treatment?
Please take them out...:'( —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kyukarrahai (
talk •
contribs)
21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to post my opinion about the above stated comment: The opposition to having the images is not entirely due to the religion aspect of it. Historically, there is little to rebuff the fact that Muhammad, himself, has been against depictions of humans and deities, let alone himself. It is only sane for a publicly edited encyclopedia to respect the wishes of a person no longer in this world. If muslims were really against depictions as a whole, as their religion would want them to, they would have objected to all the numerous pictures of people that are out here, including Jesus, Moses and perhaps Greek gods. Why the centerpoint of this discussion lies on Muhammad's talk page is because he was the person who was so basically against pictorial representations of great historic personalities. I hope you are getting my point. Hasan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.26.166 ( talk) 13:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
We need a variant of the " notabilty, not truth" maxim for this. I mean, "notability, not nicety". Stuff on Wikipedia isn't necessarily considered nice or non-offensive by anyone. It can be offensive as hell and we'll still keep articles (and pictures) of it just provided it is notable. Nobody in their right mind would describe World War I as "nice" and we still have a large number of detailed articles about it. Imagine the sort of pathetic family-friendly, Disney-approved "encyclopedia" this would become otherwise, presenting exclusively the part of the "knowledge of mankind" that cannot possibly be considered "not nice". -- dab (𒁳) 13:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you have pictures of facsimiles of Prophet Muhammad when no one knows what he looks like because it is forbidden to picture him or show any image of him to avoid persons from worshipping him- for he is just a human being, not G'D! So, to put images of him in your article is really blasphemous and should be removed. Otherwise, your actions are looked upon as being very unrespectful of the religion of Islam.
The purpose of Wikipedia, I thought, was to inform, not to make mockery of... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.134.65 ( talk)
June 2009 (UTC)
Harsh is shoving your religious beliefs down other peoples throats by trying to control what they may see, do and hear. Rejecting an argument made on religious grounds with the intent of restricting freedom of speech is common sense. Why should those people be granted exemption from the same contempt they show for our freedom to post these pictures? 76.10.173.92 ( talk) 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
if you are not here solve the world's problem than why you are asking a donation from the world? & than what is the purpose of the encyclopedia?. even what i assumed is that this encyclopedia is not for Islam because all the information related to islam overe here are false.
"... mutual contempt won't solve the world's problems. Empathy might." empathy has never been a succesful tactic in dealing with muslims at any point in history. it is taken by them as a sign of weakness and only encourages more attacks. WookieInHeat ( talk) 03:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE remove the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It offends all the muslims. PLEASE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitaf3604u ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There pictures are not His! These are fake! Muhammad PBUH has no pictures available any where in the world! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.89.215 ( talk) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
this is completely true. They should be removed..... BY not doing so, Wikipedia is directly insulting the prophet, and the religion of islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.151.220 ( talk) 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Many Muslims will start donating Wikipedia if the images are removed and if not you will not get a penny of donation from the Muslim world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.151.98 ( talk) 08:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally I support dab's previous suggestion that if we are to be bribed the medium of exchange should be ponies. Honesty compels me to admit that my niece is now 12 so I have strong ulterior motives. The bottom line though is that anyone who wants to bribe us would just have to ... pony up. Doc Tropics 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
indeed. But I do trust that one billion Muslims should in theory be capable of WP:FORKing Wikipedia into a halal version if they really make an effort and pool their resources. Or if that is asking too much, they could perhaps just compile and distribute an adblock file that every Muslim can install in their browser. Individual factions could even have fun issuing fatwas against every Muslim failing to browse the web without the adblock file approved by the Mullah of their choice. So, think of all the pious things you could do with Wikipedia if you would put the time spent for pestering this talkpage to some use. -- dab (𒁳) 12:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
god forbid that wikipedia should miss out on the economic might of the islamic world. WookieInHeat ( talk) 03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
yes that is a good idea brother. all muslims should stop so called "donation" to wikipedia if they dont have an affection for the muslims religion & their prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 11:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You think that's funny? Look back in the archives to where one concerned contributor actually tried to bargain with us. Anyway, we're transgressing and almost (arguably already) breaching WP:TALK, and rules is rules. RaseaC ( talk) 02:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear sir, I want to say that the two images here in the chapter of Conquer Of Mecca is clear violation of image. These Cartoons showing Prophet (SW) with his companions should be removed. It is totally forbidden in Islam. These cartoons Of Prophet (SW) must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahadhuzur ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
no there is no answer.....for this question....the images are fake & has nothing to do with our prophet & Islam than why wiki has posted these images & it clearly shows that they post what they grab from unauthentic sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello All Editors of Wikipedia Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, open content and free to everyone to use. As a source of knowledge we must understand that true knowledge comes when we are humble and open to the beliefs and concerns of other people. As such, you must understand that the Muhammed (peace be upon him) images on the page are completely irreverent to the Islam religion. Dear Scholars of wikipedia, is it necessary to blaspheme the prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) when making an article on him? This would be a violation of the NPOV stance that you have adopted. So in conclusion you must please remove the images, there is to be no discussion on this matter because it is clearly in disrespect of the Islam Religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.150.20 ( talk) 07:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
you religion does not compell you yo use the internet or read wikipedia just as it does not compell us to not show images of muhammad.
WookieInHeat (
talk)
03:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
what your religion compells you..??? to spread wrong information of other religions...!!! this is what we see here in this article wrong information every where & above all wrong & fake images....which has nothing to do with prophet & islam. you guys even dont know islam & mohmmad how suppose you are writing fake articles & posting fake images & more intrestingly claiming that its true & authentic i feel pity on you because never in this feild has much been done so badly by so many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the way Wikipedia is supporting free discussion and its neutral points of view as you always say. BUT , when we come to religion , I think we should better listen to those who have faith in this religion rather than ignoring them. I don't want to say repeated words about forbidden images nor about the criticism of our prophet Mohamed (PBUH). But you know this is real , Our religion , ISLAM , forbids any pictures , images or even imaginary paintings of prophets , angels & of course GOD . Prophets are distinguished people , they are unlike anybody else . We should show the utmost respect when we talk about them. Wikipedia is now almost the only reliable source to get info , so why don't you tell everybody that religion is a RED LINE and prophets are far from being ordinary people and far from being criticized , only if ............ YOU ARE GIVING A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW
thanks for reading my note , DR. A.M -- Amino158 ( talk) 16:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not true that Islam 'forbids any pictures'. Please see the aniconism in Islam article, where you will learn that
and where you will also find that Wikipedia is indeed "listening" very closely to Islam, for the purposes of compiling well-referenced encyclopedic articles about Islam, and is in fact better informed about Islam than most Muslims. -- dab (𒁳) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the feedback , but i didn't say that Islam FORBIDS ALL PICTURES . As a Muslim , I know a story telling us that " in past times there were a group of very faithful people who worshiped God sincerely & the whole village loved them. But when they died , the villagers thought of idea to make them remember the good people so they made statues of them & instead of praying for God the villagers started praying for the statues and worshiped it"
This is the kind of pictures which Islam forbids , pictures of extraordinary people . I don't want to see some muslims in the next years taking this 'unreal' pictures of Muhammed (PBUH) and praying for it.
That's it ,,,, and special thanks to wikipedia for opening this productive discussion FULL OF RESPECT which is also one of our Islam teachings .-- Amino158 ( talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
we treat each field from the point of view of the relevant academic discipline. Religion from the point of view of religious studies, politics from the view of politology, society from the point of view of sociology, etc.
This is the inherent bias (yes, bias) we have, and which many people fail to see, mostly because the term "academic" doesn't resonate with any concept they are familiar with.
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is indebted to the western (yes, western) enlightenment philosophy that gave us the notions of "neutral", " critical" or "encyclopedic" in the first place, which in turn gave us science, technology, modernity, and of course also less savoury items like world wars, world hunger and climate change. Wikipedia cannot and is not trying to transcend this bias inherent in encyclopedicity itself. People who are unhappy with this are wasting their time if they compile arguments against this approach, they would be better served by forking off and creating Islamopedia, Christopedia, Conservapedia or UFO-pedia. Such projects, which decide to explore a subjective and unverifiable point of view or ideology, in an above-the-board manner, can be perfectly respectable. This simply isn't what Wikipedia aims to do, and Wikipedia's success compared to such projects is another testimony to the fitness of the method behind it. Which in turn makes Wikipedia attractive for people who want to not just present their ideology, but who want to misrepresent their ideology as sanctioned by neutral assessment. -- dab (𒁳) 10:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the original concerns presented in this section have been addressed sufficiently; the thread is veering into personal discussion best suited to editors' talkpages rather than project space. Time to let this go and move on everyone. Thanks,
Doc
Tropics
16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"I don't want to see some muslims in the next years taking this 'unreal' pictures of Muhammed (PBUH) and praying for it."
How likely is this, really? Are picture of Mohammad so irresistible to reverence? Any serious practitioner of your faith KNOWS that it's blasphemy to raise the prophet up to the level of a deity through prayer. Most NON-muslims know that, thanks to the rioting that followed that comic scandal. -- King Öomie 13:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The definition of Muslim is 'The one who submits his will to Almighty Allah' and well known Definition of Islam is 'way of life'. Islam was founded during Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH) time, also Holy Quran was revealed in his time. All those prophets(PBUT) and messengers(PBUT) who came before him, came with different revelation and different way of life (when compared to prophet Muhammad's(PBUH)) which Muslims call them as vedas, gospel and bible and they were all muslims and believed in the oneness of god. This is mentioned in the Holy Quran. Holy Quran which is a revelation from God was revealed in the 6th century but it also gives an explanation of times before Prophet Muhammad(PBUH).
As we dont judge a car like BMW or Ferrari with its driver similarly we should not judge islam by seeing its bad followers. follwers may always have contradicting opinions. The best way to judge Islam is to find its origin which are the scriptures( The Holy Quran and the Authentic Hadith), which all the muslims follow. I would suggest people reading this article to study those scriptures, only then they can have correct picture of Islam. These Scriptures are available in every Country in different translations.
The pictures of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) in the wikipedia are not authentic, the source may be authentic but the pictures are not. This display of Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH) pictures in wikipeadia does not benefit anyone in any aspect except those who are anti islamists. Instead this pictures will upset all the muslim readers of wikipedia. The use of Honorifics like PBUH has not been used after Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH) name which again upsets majority of muslim readers.
Over a billion of the world's population respects and follow Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and Islam, if wikipeadia cannot respect that then it has no right to insult their feelings and thoughts. I would request wikipedia to remove this whole article of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) because it has not been edited properly and no one is forcing wikipedia to put an artilce on him(PBUH).
If wikipedia wants non muslims to know who Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) was then get the explanation from Holy Quran or Authentic Hadith. This is the best and the ultimate sorce from where you can know about him(PBUH). Most importantly these are the sources from where Prophet Muhammmad(PBUH) and Islam are and will always be defined in the modern world. You can ask this to anymuslim and majority of them will agree to this.
I hope this makes it very logical and gives a clear understanding. If anyone has any questions please to write to me on my email rockyprime@yahoo.com Rockyprime ( talk) 15:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Rockyprime
Hi, I dont know why you assumed that I have not read the above discussions. All the above discussions are leading to a meaningless debate. You say my article is same as the above and you also say you did not bothered to read it and beleive that it is a moan. How is it possible you did not read it fully and consider it as same. You seem to be more holding stiff with your ego rather than being problem solving.
Suppose I make a website, it becomes very popular, I post some pictures of my friends mother, my friend becomes aware of it, gets furious and I tell him my website has an option using that he can hide those pictures. Will he calm down? Very logical, No. Similarly, Muslims give utmost importance to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) more than their father. You must respect it and please give me a reason why you want this article to stay and also the pictures. Rockyprime —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.52.209 ( talk) 23:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"If you can be bothered to write all of that (which I assume was a moan, I can't be bothered to read it all)" Let's be civil here. We won't gain anything from being rude or dismissive. If we can take the time to respond, we can take the time to read it, too, no matter how much it makes our blood boil. Eik Corell ( talk) 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Rockyprime makes a few valid points about Islam and the perception of Islam. But he shows no awareness of our FAQ on the Muhammad images. Politeness goes both ways, if you expect people to read a lengthy paragraph of yours, you can also be expected to read the lengthy FAQ page that was already in place and react to it. Otherwise, this isn't a discussion, it is just a text archive.
Showing historcal images of Muhammad isn't in any way disrespectful of anyone. Rockyprime completely fails to recognize that these images were painted by Muslims. Even discussing positive anti-Islamic sentiment, with images, isn't disrespectful of Islam, any more than keeping an article on antisemitism is an act of antisemitism. Rockyprime needs to read encyclopedia in order to understand what we are doing here, and specifically WP:NPOV and WP:TIGERS to understand how we go about doing it. -- dab (𒁳) 08:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
To Chowbok,
You mean to say if I make a website it becomes popular and for instance suppose I got some pictures of your mother which are inaccurate and are in a form of cartoon and I post them on the website without informing you. Will you not be offended? Will you not dislike it? You may reply No, but you know it and those reading this article that you will be offended and will dislike them. I know you can post anyone's pictures on wiki but all I am saying is its not a right thing to do if anyone gets offended.
I do read the FAQ's before posting a reply. I addressed few bits which had already been discussed in my artilce to make readers understand the neutral point of veiw in a more clear and precise way. I mentioned in my article ' the source may be authentic but the pictures are not' which I think you skipped.
In the FAQ's 'might the images offend Muslims' it says yes it offends many muslims. My question is why do you have to put the images even if they offend many muslims. Is anyone being offended in there are no images?
You are openly saying, we have a good popular website, we post what we want, nobody can stop us, if we get any sort of pictures from any legitimate source we will post it, no matter what, if anyone finds it offensive, we dont care. This is not a right thing to do.
Recently a news was published, saying police got some nude pictures of a VIP( who happens to be a wife of a country's president) . The Police is making sure of evry bit that they do not get leaked and are not made public. Do you think if they would have got from a legitimate source they would publish them?
You say images are necessary for a biography but it says in FAQ's 'it is not claimed that the images are accurate' then why do you have to post inaccurate pictures.
To dab,
It wasn't requried to express my views on FAQ's( so as to show my awareness on FAQ's) since my article was already lenghty and they say their blood boils reading them.
This battle will never end but I am giving a last try. Suppose, you take the pictures out of wikipedia, no muslim will be offended, actually nobody else will be offended. You can simply mention that images are offensive to muslims and exist nomore on wikipedia.If you think logically nobody can be benefitted by those images and neither can be of any help to anyone(sice its not benefitting). People are making community protest on Facebook, Twitter, etc., just for this images. There are so many posts, discussions and you guys are replying to every1 even though your blood is boiling. You dont have to do this if images are out.It is just the few staff of wikipedia who must be thinking they will loose the battle if images are removed.
You guys will understand the pain only if you are in those shoes. I am very hopeful, you guys will, at somepoint.Rockyprime.
you are worrying about your own concerns ...if you get offended by the removal of pictures than who cares....!!!i give a damn about these pictures. these fake images has nothing to do with prophet muhammad & with islam. Grab and post whatever you like no one cares for that but dont reveal Islam in a wrong way & that is what you guys are doing.even every muslims knows about that non neutral article which is also been edited very poorly & without authenticity. but no one is caring for that, like, how many people will get offended and are being offended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 06:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Doc sums up my feelings perfectly, and I'm sure I'm not the only one! I'll state here and no that I am still for deleting comments such as the above. RaseaC ( talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
i give a damn about these pictures. these fake images has nothing to do with prophet muhammad & with islam. Grab and post whatever you like no one cares for that but dont reveal Islam in a wrong way & that is what you guys are doing.even every muslims knows about that non neutral article which is also been edited very poorly & without authenticity. but no one is caring for that, like, how many people will get offended and are being offended.
That is exactly the reason why we can't take rules of any religion as our rules here in Wikipedia. These rules are "holy", and we can't accept any rule as "holy" here. The only thing we can accept as "untouchable" is the very personality of a real, living human being. So we don't have the right to spread lies about someone's living mother (as in your example). But of course we document things that have been important in the public view about things like, let's say, a country named Great Britain. Even if they ruin the name of this country, which means everything for so many Brits. Same with religions. Because every religious person is insulted when another point of view than his own is taken, we never can really follow any religious point of view. So, what sources do we have to take to write about a person like Jesus - just the bible? - Disrespectful to all muslims! Also the quran? - Disrespectful to all christians, because Jesus is not Christus in the muslim`s perspective. So what will we do? - We cite al relevant points of view about one topic, and we heavily cite 1. the versions which truth has been tested with scientific means and 2. which have been relevant in history. And not only the versions that any 1 billion people nowadays like the most! Here, we have pictures that are supposed to show the Islam prophet Mohammad, which tells us a lot about the way people have thought about Mohammad in different times and in different places. And that is something no holy book could ever tell us.-- JakobvS ( talk) 04:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Due to my liking of the online repository of world's knowledge I feel obligated to draw attention of decision makers at Wikipedia to a "Cause" page on facebook which is about to reach 300,000 members. If Wikipedia doesn't take note of sentiments of its Muslim users it will lose some valuable ethical ground.
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/57379/58852744?m=646ae194&ref=nf
Kind regards,
Muhammad Altaf Hussain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltafhussains ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Islam prohibits portraying God, prophets, or angels out of respect to them. That is why all of the icons that picture Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are considered imaginative figures portrayed hundreds of years after his death.
The question now is why does Wikipedia insist on using such imaginary material to back up such an article in the presence of several real photos of the Prophet's tomb, sword, and footprints? Such pictures would be very interesting, reliable, and noncontroversial.
It is not about censorship, it is about showing what is true. If an icon is set into a museum, it means it is old but not necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haney G. ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
i am amazed to see the picture on the top of the article one more thing why we keep on hearing that dont force your beliefs we can see very clearly that who is forcing his beliefs/ethics on others. muslims are only requesting a removal of pictures but wiki is forcing their beliefs on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
if you "see the picture on the top of the article" you should have your eyes examined. There is no picture of Muhammad at the top of the article. The picture in question is the name of Muhammad wrtten in calligraphy. Sheesh. At least have the decency to even look at the thing you are going to complain about. Also, do us the courtesy to read the FAQ before "asking" things that are explicitly answered there. This page is for people who have (a) seen the article and (b) read the FAQ and then want to raise some point not already covered there. -- dab (𒁳) 20:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
hi, i have readed all the requested subject and the responded answers and i felt very sorry about the Wikipedia website. we also didnt expect such answers from one of the biggest site that we have knows ,like wekipedia In my opinion why you will not remove the whole (PROPHET MAHAMMED'S)SUBJECT I have noticed something from non-muslims that you always wants to hert muslims .....i dont why .Even we are not touching you
So either correct it by removing the picture or remove the whole thing about our Phrophet(PBUH)
PLEASEIT IS SERIOUS to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.41.98 ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not true to add the picture of Holy Prophet MUHAMMAD (Peace Be Upon Him). Either you remove this picture or give me the permission to remove the pictures. This is totally false picture. Nobody can draw the image of Muhammad (PBUH). This is a way by which Muslims are going angry and International world say that Muslims are extremist. While Muslims are not extremist but these types of actions (which are not TRUE but TOTALLY FAKE) are creating the grounds. Mpkhalid ( talk) 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Remove pictures. It hurts our sensibilities. It is about respecting tenets of the religion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.151.152.56 (
talk)
00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of redacted statement |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Struck my comments. Any object if I remove everything after my first reply? -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Go ahead and do so. It would only make sense to strike everything after your first reply off. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas ( talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
|
no, no, he means the IMAGINARY PICTURES. The FAQ just addresses the actual jpeg files. I second this complaint, imaginary images have no business whatsoever to hang around non-imaginary Wikipedia articles. I do call upon all imaginary editors to do their duty and remove any remaining imaginary pictures asap. -- dab (𒁳) 21:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand the concerns on all sides, but I'm not sure the current solution is ideal. One glaring problem with the current solution is that hidden away on the talk pages, there's a note on how to prevent the browser from displaying (all) images, but the vast majority of people using Wikipedia would never find it; any effective warning would have to be in the namespace.
So, I have an idea: we could create a subpage called Muhammad without depictions or whatever, and have a hatnote guiding the user there as an alternative. It could be automatically updated by a bot to be exactly the same as this page, less either images of him or all images. It would be fairly easy to implement (I think) and it would go a long way towards making it a lot less offensive. Thoughts? Oreo Priest talk 16:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, users are free to configure their browsers to not show the images if they wish, that's enough. A censored version of the page isn't necessary. RaseaC ( talk) 19:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's licensing allows anyone to put their own copy of this article on their own website as long as they give credit to the original. Once on your own website you can show or not show what you desire. Anyone can do this, but Wikipedia itself will not be doing this. Chillum 15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
What encyclopedic information do they advance? Do they help advance the quality of the article? Do they help advance any encyclopedic POV? Do they help the article in any way? The answer to all of this seems to be that no they do not. It seems that they only degrade the article and cause it controversy. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas ( talk) 22:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, one upside to the image controversy is that those in this article are probably some of the most discussed on WP. A good cross-section of contributors, with all sorts of backgrounds and experiences, have argued both for and against inclusion and, given that the consensus is that they stay, these are probably the most legitimate images on WP. An article about any person, even an historical figure, benefits from images of how that person has been perceived historically. In short, the images are a good thing. RaseaC ( talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Besides, the images of Muhammad are themselves notable, having been covered in many third party sources, and are thus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. 68.83.179.156 ( talk) 02:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to complain that showing the images of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)in the article is not very logic. Because in Islam, it is forbidden to view any of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)faces, especially in pictures.
As a Muslim, I should respect for him; and to my opinion, showing his faces are the most "ridiculous" things I have ever seen.
Thank you, Salam-- Muhammad Mukhriz ( talk) 08:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
moved from main talk page. Jarkeld ( talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I request wikipedia on behalf of all muslims to remove these pictures..first of all because there were no pictures at that time..n in islam it is forbidden to draw pictures or cartoon imagery of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) or any messengers..so it would be a cause offence to muslims all over the world..i have come across manyy petitions on the web including groups on facebook that condemn this n request wikipedia to wipe these pics out..i suggest wikipedia pay heed to them..
there are many pages on wikipedia that don't have pictures..why can't this page be one of them considering the fact that this is not really the Prophet himself and there is absolutely no need for one here..why make one picture a reason to spark tensions? wikipedia has a extremely wide user base of which many are muslims..as a favor to those users and respecting their views, i ask wikipedia.com to delete them. it will be highly appreciated.
m.a.j, pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.178.250 ( talk) 07:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like for someone to EDIT (not remove) the pictures that are depicting Prophet Muhammad.
It is forbidden to draw pictures showing his face. would someone please blank out the faces.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilRazi ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think all policies regarding the exclusion of disclaimers should be ignored in favour of Artic.gnome's suggestion! RaseaC ( talk) 22:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You are stubborn.
I think it shouldnt show any images indicating Prophet Mohumad as a respect of feelings for all muslims allover the world
Such acts will make feelings of hates among nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.140.174.83 ( talk) 12:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I called up this article to see if Muhammad was usually drawn with a beard, and I had to scroll halfway down to find a picture! Jesus has a nice portrait, why not Muhammad? I know there's some issue with muslims but that's not our problem. .froth. ( talk) 22:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
If Then The history, say'd Play Would You find The (Koran); The Religion To Have , shall we say. The old bible & the old Number's & Acts part Of muhammads' life in a game of China and Number's And Nato un De liber to germany's Acts ' terrorism. Then history again?We can't Cannon the bible.We must Know You too Anonamus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.128.233.93 ( talk) 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
if you wanted to know "if Muhammad was usually drawn with a beard", your answer would be, if you bothered to read the article, that Muhammad is not "usually drawn", at all. So what if you had to scroll halfway down to find a few of the depictions that do exist. Wikipedia articles are for reading, not just for looking at the pictures. -- dab (𒁳) 15:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
See here:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0058.html —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
137.186.210.174 (
talk)
22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
In 2006 when the caricatures of Prophet (PBUH) were published in some European newspapers, strong protests from all over the Muslim world erupted as a response. I am terribly fail to understand that if almost one third of the world population has some reservations on the publication of these caricatures, why it is not stopped, especially considering the fact that they are not real images, and are only imaginative figures. I request all the supporters and pro pounders of Inter-Religion harmony, to take a step against the mutilation of Muslims' religious sentiments. If Osama is extremist because he tries to impose his own view point on others, so are all these people who support these caricatures, knowingly that it will hurt the feelings of 1.8 billion Muslims. I therefore request the moderators of Wikipedia to remove these images of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to take back there decision of not removing these caricatures from this article. I hope my request will not fall on deaf ears.
I'll begin by saying that I support the images. I agree with the principled decisions made to keep the depictions, and approve of their inclusion. On the other hand, it is not difficult to be civil to those who disapprove of the images. While I do not agree with them, I'm fully able to empathize with them. A belief is a powerful thing. I've noticed that a lot of the responses have bordered on being inflammatory and self-righteous. Certainly, I sympathize; I don't appreciate it when people request that I censor myself, or that I adhere to religious beliefs that I do not hold. Nonetheless, I tend to agree with an editor above. A simple link to the FAQ should suffice, but if further communication is required, it just seems like you've all got to take a step back. Nothing to gain by being argumentative, nothing to win by being witty and sarcastic. Obviously, as someone who edits very little, it might not be very fair for me to comment. I'm simply saying that the article, in most respects, is good, and you've already won the war; there is no need to try and keep winning battles. Cheers, 97.73.64.167 ( talk) 13:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - if ya can't respond nicely, let someone else do it. Rklawton ( talk) 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support. I'm a huge advocate of the images, and I feel that we do owe kind responses to those who come here. These are not mere trolls looking to stir up trouble-- these are people doing their best to understand a very foreign and alien worldview. The comments received here are, usually, the first encounters these individuals have with Wikipedia, and sometimes, one of the first encounters they've had with western cultures. If you can't say something understanding, just point them to the FAQ. But they're not doing anything wrong by asking-- indeed, given their religion, they would be hypocrites if they didn't at least ask us to take them down. I very much understand getting frustrated by the monotony of it-- but we must all guard against lapses into incivility. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 06:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Every religion teaches that one should respect the religion of others. Islam strictly prohibits drawing illusions of any kind, let alone the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H). So who ever has written this article should at least do what their religion asks them, "respect the religion of others." These pictures are extremely offensive for all Muslims so they should be removed immedietly. I dont understand why is it so difficult for wikipedia to remove these pictures? If millions of people are protesting against it, then why on earth do they have such an adament attitude? I know for a fact that if some Muslim would have done the same thing, he would have been imprissoned or stoned to death by now. It just seems like the authors of this article have delibrately put up these pictures. Please I request you, remove these pictures. All the Muslims will highly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faiza6 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
i would just like to point out that freedom of religion doesn't imply you are granted protection from having your religious sensibilities offended, simply that you are free to practice whatever religion you like. so even if this provision of the US constitution did apply to wikipedia, it still would not prevent these images from being shown. 76.10.173.92 ( talk) 08:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
moved from main talk page
Nableezy (
talk)
00:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, Pleasee take out the pictures. Everyone should respect everyone's religion. It's not Muslims who are against it, it is Islam. Please.... take them out. They are very offending and that is just cruel of you to put pictures up when you know for a fact that it is disrespectful to do so. If something was offending Christians, you would be somehow forced to stop it; so why can't Muslims get the same treatment? Why can't EVERY religion get the same treatment?
Please take them out...:'( —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kyukarrahai (
talk •
contribs)
21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to post my opinion about the above stated comment: The opposition to having the images is not entirely due to the religion aspect of it. Historically, there is little to rebuff the fact that Muhammad, himself, has been against depictions of humans and deities, let alone himself. It is only sane for a publicly edited encyclopedia to respect the wishes of a person no longer in this world. If muslims were really against depictions as a whole, as their religion would want them to, they would have objected to all the numerous pictures of people that are out here, including Jesus, Moses and perhaps Greek gods. Why the centerpoint of this discussion lies on Muhammad's talk page is because he was the person who was so basically against pictorial representations of great historic personalities. I hope you are getting my point. Hasan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.26.166 ( talk) 13:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
We need a variant of the " notabilty, not truth" maxim for this. I mean, "notability, not nicety". Stuff on Wikipedia isn't necessarily considered nice or non-offensive by anyone. It can be offensive as hell and we'll still keep articles (and pictures) of it just provided it is notable. Nobody in their right mind would describe World War I as "nice" and we still have a large number of detailed articles about it. Imagine the sort of pathetic family-friendly, Disney-approved "encyclopedia" this would become otherwise, presenting exclusively the part of the "knowledge of mankind" that cannot possibly be considered "not nice". -- dab (𒁳) 13:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you have pictures of facsimiles of Prophet Muhammad when no one knows what he looks like because it is forbidden to picture him or show any image of him to avoid persons from worshipping him- for he is just a human being, not G'D! So, to put images of him in your article is really blasphemous and should be removed. Otherwise, your actions are looked upon as being very unrespectful of the religion of Islam.
The purpose of Wikipedia, I thought, was to inform, not to make mockery of... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.134.65 ( talk)
June 2009 (UTC)
Harsh is shoving your religious beliefs down other peoples throats by trying to control what they may see, do and hear. Rejecting an argument made on religious grounds with the intent of restricting freedom of speech is common sense. Why should those people be granted exemption from the same contempt they show for our freedom to post these pictures? 76.10.173.92 ( talk) 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
if you are not here solve the world's problem than why you are asking a donation from the world? & than what is the purpose of the encyclopedia?. even what i assumed is that this encyclopedia is not for Islam because all the information related to islam overe here are false.
"... mutual contempt won't solve the world's problems. Empathy might." empathy has never been a succesful tactic in dealing with muslims at any point in history. it is taken by them as a sign of weakness and only encourages more attacks. WookieInHeat ( talk) 03:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE remove the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It offends all the muslims. PLEASE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitaf3604u ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There pictures are not His! These are fake! Muhammad PBUH has no pictures available any where in the world! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.89.215 ( talk) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
this is completely true. They should be removed..... BY not doing so, Wikipedia is directly insulting the prophet, and the religion of islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.151.220 ( talk) 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Many Muslims will start donating Wikipedia if the images are removed and if not you will not get a penny of donation from the Muslim world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.151.98 ( talk) 08:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally I support dab's previous suggestion that if we are to be bribed the medium of exchange should be ponies. Honesty compels me to admit that my niece is now 12 so I have strong ulterior motives. The bottom line though is that anyone who wants to bribe us would just have to ... pony up. Doc Tropics 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
indeed. But I do trust that one billion Muslims should in theory be capable of WP:FORKing Wikipedia into a halal version if they really make an effort and pool their resources. Or if that is asking too much, they could perhaps just compile and distribute an adblock file that every Muslim can install in their browser. Individual factions could even have fun issuing fatwas against every Muslim failing to browse the web without the adblock file approved by the Mullah of their choice. So, think of all the pious things you could do with Wikipedia if you would put the time spent for pestering this talkpage to some use. -- dab (𒁳) 12:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
god forbid that wikipedia should miss out on the economic might of the islamic world. WookieInHeat ( talk) 03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
yes that is a good idea brother. all muslims should stop so called "donation" to wikipedia if they dont have an affection for the muslims religion & their prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 11:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You think that's funny? Look back in the archives to where one concerned contributor actually tried to bargain with us. Anyway, we're transgressing and almost (arguably already) breaching WP:TALK, and rules is rules. RaseaC ( talk) 02:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear sir, I want to say that the two images here in the chapter of Conquer Of Mecca is clear violation of image. These Cartoons showing Prophet (SW) with his companions should be removed. It is totally forbidden in Islam. These cartoons Of Prophet (SW) must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahadhuzur ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
no there is no answer.....for this question....the images are fake & has nothing to do with our prophet & Islam than why wiki has posted these images & it clearly shows that they post what they grab from unauthentic sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello All Editors of Wikipedia Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, open content and free to everyone to use. As a source of knowledge we must understand that true knowledge comes when we are humble and open to the beliefs and concerns of other people. As such, you must understand that the Muhammed (peace be upon him) images on the page are completely irreverent to the Islam religion. Dear Scholars of wikipedia, is it necessary to blaspheme the prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) when making an article on him? This would be a violation of the NPOV stance that you have adopted. So in conclusion you must please remove the images, there is to be no discussion on this matter because it is clearly in disrespect of the Islam Religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.150.20 ( talk) 07:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
you religion does not compell you yo use the internet or read wikipedia just as it does not compell us to not show images of muhammad.
WookieInHeat (
talk)
03:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
what your religion compells you..??? to spread wrong information of other religions...!!! this is what we see here in this article wrong information every where & above all wrong & fake images....which has nothing to do with prophet & islam. you guys even dont know islam & mohmmad how suppose you are writing fake articles & posting fake images & more intrestingly claiming that its true & authentic i feel pity on you because never in this feild has much been done so badly by so many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 12:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the way Wikipedia is supporting free discussion and its neutral points of view as you always say. BUT , when we come to religion , I think we should better listen to those who have faith in this religion rather than ignoring them. I don't want to say repeated words about forbidden images nor about the criticism of our prophet Mohamed (PBUH). But you know this is real , Our religion , ISLAM , forbids any pictures , images or even imaginary paintings of prophets , angels & of course GOD . Prophets are distinguished people , they are unlike anybody else . We should show the utmost respect when we talk about them. Wikipedia is now almost the only reliable source to get info , so why don't you tell everybody that religion is a RED LINE and prophets are far from being ordinary people and far from being criticized , only if ............ YOU ARE GIVING A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW
thanks for reading my note , DR. A.M -- Amino158 ( talk) 16:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not true that Islam 'forbids any pictures'. Please see the aniconism in Islam article, where you will learn that
and where you will also find that Wikipedia is indeed "listening" very closely to Islam, for the purposes of compiling well-referenced encyclopedic articles about Islam, and is in fact better informed about Islam than most Muslims. -- dab (𒁳) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the feedback , but i didn't say that Islam FORBIDS ALL PICTURES . As a Muslim , I know a story telling us that " in past times there were a group of very faithful people who worshiped God sincerely & the whole village loved them. But when they died , the villagers thought of idea to make them remember the good people so they made statues of them & instead of praying for God the villagers started praying for the statues and worshiped it"
This is the kind of pictures which Islam forbids , pictures of extraordinary people . I don't want to see some muslims in the next years taking this 'unreal' pictures of Muhammed (PBUH) and praying for it.
That's it ,,,, and special thanks to wikipedia for opening this productive discussion FULL OF RESPECT which is also one of our Islam teachings .-- Amino158 ( talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
we treat each field from the point of view of the relevant academic discipline. Religion from the point of view of religious studies, politics from the view of politology, society from the point of view of sociology, etc.
This is the inherent bias (yes, bias) we have, and which many people fail to see, mostly because the term "academic" doesn't resonate with any concept they are familiar with.
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is indebted to the western (yes, western) enlightenment philosophy that gave us the notions of "neutral", " critical" or "encyclopedic" in the first place, which in turn gave us science, technology, modernity, and of course also less savoury items like world wars, world hunger and climate change. Wikipedia cannot and is not trying to transcend this bias inherent in encyclopedicity itself. People who are unhappy with this are wasting their time if they compile arguments against this approach, they would be better served by forking off and creating Islamopedia, Christopedia, Conservapedia or UFO-pedia. Such projects, which decide to explore a subjective and unverifiable point of view or ideology, in an above-the-board manner, can be perfectly respectable. This simply isn't what Wikipedia aims to do, and Wikipedia's success compared to such projects is another testimony to the fitness of the method behind it. Which in turn makes Wikipedia attractive for people who want to not just present their ideology, but who want to misrepresent their ideology as sanctioned by neutral assessment. -- dab (𒁳) 10:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the original concerns presented in this section have been addressed sufficiently; the thread is veering into personal discussion best suited to editors' talkpages rather than project space. Time to let this go and move on everyone. Thanks,
Doc
Tropics
16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"I don't want to see some muslims in the next years taking this 'unreal' pictures of Muhammed (PBUH) and praying for it."
How likely is this, really? Are picture of Mohammad so irresistible to reverence? Any serious practitioner of your faith KNOWS that it's blasphemy to raise the prophet up to the level of a deity through prayer. Most NON-muslims know that, thanks to the rioting that followed that comic scandal. -- King Öomie 13:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The definition of Muslim is 'The one who submits his will to Almighty Allah' and well known Definition of Islam is 'way of life'. Islam was founded during Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH) time, also Holy Quran was revealed in his time. All those prophets(PBUT) and messengers(PBUT) who came before him, came with different revelation and different way of life (when compared to prophet Muhammad's(PBUH)) which Muslims call them as vedas, gospel and bible and they were all muslims and believed in the oneness of god. This is mentioned in the Holy Quran. Holy Quran which is a revelation from God was revealed in the 6th century but it also gives an explanation of times before Prophet Muhammad(PBUH).
As we dont judge a car like BMW or Ferrari with its driver similarly we should not judge islam by seeing its bad followers. follwers may always have contradicting opinions. The best way to judge Islam is to find its origin which are the scriptures( The Holy Quran and the Authentic Hadith), which all the muslims follow. I would suggest people reading this article to study those scriptures, only then they can have correct picture of Islam. These Scriptures are available in every Country in different translations.
The pictures of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) in the wikipedia are not authentic, the source may be authentic but the pictures are not. This display of Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH) pictures in wikipeadia does not benefit anyone in any aspect except those who are anti islamists. Instead this pictures will upset all the muslim readers of wikipedia. The use of Honorifics like PBUH has not been used after Prophet Muhammad's(PBUH) name which again upsets majority of muslim readers.
Over a billion of the world's population respects and follow Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and Islam, if wikipeadia cannot respect that then it has no right to insult their feelings and thoughts. I would request wikipedia to remove this whole article of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) because it has not been edited properly and no one is forcing wikipedia to put an artilce on him(PBUH).
If wikipedia wants non muslims to know who Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) was then get the explanation from Holy Quran or Authentic Hadith. This is the best and the ultimate sorce from where you can know about him(PBUH). Most importantly these are the sources from where Prophet Muhammmad(PBUH) and Islam are and will always be defined in the modern world. You can ask this to anymuslim and majority of them will agree to this.
I hope this makes it very logical and gives a clear understanding. If anyone has any questions please to write to me on my email rockyprime@yahoo.com Rockyprime ( talk) 15:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Rockyprime
Hi, I dont know why you assumed that I have not read the above discussions. All the above discussions are leading to a meaningless debate. You say my article is same as the above and you also say you did not bothered to read it and beleive that it is a moan. How is it possible you did not read it fully and consider it as same. You seem to be more holding stiff with your ego rather than being problem solving.
Suppose I make a website, it becomes very popular, I post some pictures of my friends mother, my friend becomes aware of it, gets furious and I tell him my website has an option using that he can hide those pictures. Will he calm down? Very logical, No. Similarly, Muslims give utmost importance to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) more than their father. You must respect it and please give me a reason why you want this article to stay and also the pictures. Rockyprime —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.52.209 ( talk) 23:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"If you can be bothered to write all of that (which I assume was a moan, I can't be bothered to read it all)" Let's be civil here. We won't gain anything from being rude or dismissive. If we can take the time to respond, we can take the time to read it, too, no matter how much it makes our blood boil. Eik Corell ( talk) 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Rockyprime makes a few valid points about Islam and the perception of Islam. But he shows no awareness of our FAQ on the Muhammad images. Politeness goes both ways, if you expect people to read a lengthy paragraph of yours, you can also be expected to read the lengthy FAQ page that was already in place and react to it. Otherwise, this isn't a discussion, it is just a text archive.
Showing historcal images of Muhammad isn't in any way disrespectful of anyone. Rockyprime completely fails to recognize that these images were painted by Muslims. Even discussing positive anti-Islamic sentiment, with images, isn't disrespectful of Islam, any more than keeping an article on antisemitism is an act of antisemitism. Rockyprime needs to read encyclopedia in order to understand what we are doing here, and specifically WP:NPOV and WP:TIGERS to understand how we go about doing it. -- dab (𒁳) 08:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
To Chowbok,
You mean to say if I make a website it becomes popular and for instance suppose I got some pictures of your mother which are inaccurate and are in a form of cartoon and I post them on the website without informing you. Will you not be offended? Will you not dislike it? You may reply No, but you know it and those reading this article that you will be offended and will dislike them. I know you can post anyone's pictures on wiki but all I am saying is its not a right thing to do if anyone gets offended.
I do read the FAQ's before posting a reply. I addressed few bits which had already been discussed in my artilce to make readers understand the neutral point of veiw in a more clear and precise way. I mentioned in my article ' the source may be authentic but the pictures are not' which I think you skipped.
In the FAQ's 'might the images offend Muslims' it says yes it offends many muslims. My question is why do you have to put the images even if they offend many muslims. Is anyone being offended in there are no images?
You are openly saying, we have a good popular website, we post what we want, nobody can stop us, if we get any sort of pictures from any legitimate source we will post it, no matter what, if anyone finds it offensive, we dont care. This is not a right thing to do.
Recently a news was published, saying police got some nude pictures of a VIP( who happens to be a wife of a country's president) . The Police is making sure of evry bit that they do not get leaked and are not made public. Do you think if they would have got from a legitimate source they would publish them?
You say images are necessary for a biography but it says in FAQ's 'it is not claimed that the images are accurate' then why do you have to post inaccurate pictures.
To dab,
It wasn't requried to express my views on FAQ's( so as to show my awareness on FAQ's) since my article was already lenghty and they say their blood boils reading them.
This battle will never end but I am giving a last try. Suppose, you take the pictures out of wikipedia, no muslim will be offended, actually nobody else will be offended. You can simply mention that images are offensive to muslims and exist nomore on wikipedia.If you think logically nobody can be benefitted by those images and neither can be of any help to anyone(sice its not benefitting). People are making community protest on Facebook, Twitter, etc., just for this images. There are so many posts, discussions and you guys are replying to every1 even though your blood is boiling. You dont have to do this if images are out.It is just the few staff of wikipedia who must be thinking they will loose the battle if images are removed.
You guys will understand the pain only if you are in those shoes. I am very hopeful, you guys will, at somepoint.Rockyprime.
you are worrying about your own concerns ...if you get offended by the removal of pictures than who cares....!!!i give a damn about these pictures. these fake images has nothing to do with prophet muhammad & with islam. Grab and post whatever you like no one cares for that but dont reveal Islam in a wrong way & that is what you guys are doing.even every muslims knows about that non neutral article which is also been edited very poorly & without authenticity. but no one is caring for that, like, how many people will get offended and are being offended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 ( talk) 06:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Doc sums up my feelings perfectly, and I'm sure I'm not the only one! I'll state here and no that I am still for deleting comments such as the above. RaseaC ( talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
i give a damn about these pictures. these fake images has nothing to do with prophet muhammad & with islam. Grab and post whatever you like no one cares for that but dont reveal Islam in a wrong way & that is what you guys are doing.even every muslims knows about that non neutral article which is also been edited very poorly & without authenticity. but no one is caring for that, like, how many people will get offended and are being offended.
That is exactly the reason why we can't take rules of any religion as our rules here in Wikipedia. These rules are "holy", and we can't accept any rule as "holy" here. The only thing we can accept as "untouchable" is the very personality of a real, living human being. So we don't have the right to spread lies about someone's living mother (as in your example). But of course we document things that have been important in the public view about things like, let's say, a country named Great Britain. Even if they ruin the name of this country, which means everything for so many Brits. Same with religions. Because every religious person is insulted when another point of view than his own is taken, we never can really follow any religious point of view. So, what sources do we have to take to write about a person like Jesus - just the bible? - Disrespectful to all muslims! Also the quran? - Disrespectful to all christians, because Jesus is not Christus in the muslim`s perspective. So what will we do? - We cite al relevant points of view about one topic, and we heavily cite 1. the versions which truth has been tested with scientific means and 2. which have been relevant in history. And not only the versions that any 1 billion people nowadays like the most! Here, we have pictures that are supposed to show the Islam prophet Mohammad, which tells us a lot about the way people have thought about Mohammad in different times and in different places. And that is something no holy book could ever tell us.-- JakobvS ( talk) 04:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Due to my liking of the online repository of world's knowledge I feel obligated to draw attention of decision makers at Wikipedia to a "Cause" page on facebook which is about to reach 300,000 members. If Wikipedia doesn't take note of sentiments of its Muslim users it will lose some valuable ethical ground.
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/57379/58852744?m=646ae194&ref=nf
Kind regards,
Muhammad Altaf Hussain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltafhussains ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Islam prohibits portraying God, prophets, or angels out of respect to them. That is why all of the icons that picture Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are considered imaginative figures portrayed hundreds of years after his death.
The question now is why does Wikipedia insist on using such imaginary material to back up such an article in the presence of several real photos of the Prophet's tomb, sword, and footprints? Such pictures would be very interesting, reliable, and noncontroversial.
It is not about censorship, it is about showing what is true. If an icon is set into a museum, it means it is old but not necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haney G. ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
i am amazed to see the picture on the top of the article one more thing why we keep on hearing that dont force your beliefs we can see very clearly that who is forcing his beliefs/ethics on others. muslims are only requesting a removal of pictures but wiki is forcing their beliefs on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
if you "see the picture on the top of the article" you should have your eyes examined. There is no picture of Muhammad at the top of the article. The picture in question is the name of Muhammad wrtten in calligraphy. Sheesh. At least have the decency to even look at the thing you are going to complain about. Also, do us the courtesy to read the FAQ before "asking" things that are explicitly answered there. This page is for people who have (a) seen the article and (b) read the FAQ and then want to raise some point not already covered there. -- dab (𒁳) 20:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
hi, i have readed all the requested subject and the responded answers and i felt very sorry about the Wikipedia website. we also didnt expect such answers from one of the biggest site that we have knows ,like wekipedia In my opinion why you will not remove the whole (PROPHET MAHAMMED'S)SUBJECT I have noticed something from non-muslims that you always wants to hert muslims .....i dont why .Even we are not touching you
So either correct it by removing the picture or remove the whole thing about our Phrophet(PBUH)
PLEASEIT IS SERIOUS to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.41.98 ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not true to add the picture of Holy Prophet MUHAMMAD (Peace Be Upon Him). Either you remove this picture or give me the permission to remove the pictures. This is totally false picture. Nobody can draw the image of Muhammad (PBUH). This is a way by which Muslims are going angry and International world say that Muslims are extremist. While Muslims are not extremist but these types of actions (which are not TRUE but TOTALLY FAKE) are creating the grounds. Mpkhalid ( talk) 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Remove pictures. It hurts our sensibilities. It is about respecting tenets of the religion. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.151.152.56 (
talk)
00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of redacted statement |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Struck my comments. Any object if I remove everything after my first reply? -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Go ahead and do so. It would only make sense to strike everything after your first reply off. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas ( talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
|
no, no, he means the IMAGINARY PICTURES. The FAQ just addresses the actual jpeg files. I second this complaint, imaginary images have no business whatsoever to hang around non-imaginary Wikipedia articles. I do call upon all imaginary editors to do their duty and remove any remaining imaginary pictures asap. -- dab (𒁳) 21:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand the concerns on all sides, but I'm not sure the current solution is ideal. One glaring problem with the current solution is that hidden away on the talk pages, there's a note on how to prevent the browser from displaying (all) images, but the vast majority of people using Wikipedia would never find it; any effective warning would have to be in the namespace.
So, I have an idea: we could create a subpage called Muhammad without depictions or whatever, and have a hatnote guiding the user there as an alternative. It could be automatically updated by a bot to be exactly the same as this page, less either images of him or all images. It would be fairly easy to implement (I think) and it would go a long way towards making it a lot less offensive. Thoughts? Oreo Priest talk 16:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, users are free to configure their browsers to not show the images if they wish, that's enough. A censored version of the page isn't necessary. RaseaC ( talk) 19:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's licensing allows anyone to put their own copy of this article on their own website as long as they give credit to the original. Once on your own website you can show or not show what you desire. Anyone can do this, but Wikipedia itself will not be doing this. Chillum 15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
What encyclopedic information do they advance? Do they help advance the quality of the article? Do they help advance any encyclopedic POV? Do they help the article in any way? The answer to all of this seems to be that no they do not. It seems that they only degrade the article and cause it controversy. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas ( talk) 22:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, one upside to the image controversy is that those in this article are probably some of the most discussed on WP. A good cross-section of contributors, with all sorts of backgrounds and experiences, have argued both for and against inclusion and, given that the consensus is that they stay, these are probably the most legitimate images on WP. An article about any person, even an historical figure, benefits from images of how that person has been perceived historically. In short, the images are a good thing. RaseaC ( talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Besides, the images of Muhammad are themselves notable, having been covered in many third party sources, and are thus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. 68.83.179.156 ( talk) 02:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to complain that showing the images of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)in the article is not very logic. Because in Islam, it is forbidden to view any of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)faces, especially in pictures.
As a Muslim, I should respect for him; and to my opinion, showing his faces are the most "ridiculous" things I have ever seen.
Thank you, Salam-- Muhammad Mukhriz ( talk) 08:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
moved from main talk page. Jarkeld ( talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I request wikipedia on behalf of all muslims to remove these pictures..first of all because there were no pictures at that time..n in islam it is forbidden to draw pictures or cartoon imagery of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) or any messengers..so it would be a cause offence to muslims all over the world..i have come across manyy petitions on the web including groups on facebook that condemn this n request wikipedia to wipe these pics out..i suggest wikipedia pay heed to them..
there are many pages on wikipedia that don't have pictures..why can't this page be one of them considering the fact that this is not really the Prophet himself and there is absolutely no need for one here..why make one picture a reason to spark tensions? wikipedia has a extremely wide user base of which many are muslims..as a favor to those users and respecting their views, i ask wikipedia.com to delete them. it will be highly appreciated.
m.a.j, pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.178.250 ( talk) 07:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like for someone to EDIT (not remove) the pictures that are depicting Prophet Muhammad.
It is forbidden to draw pictures showing his face. would someone please blank out the faces.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilRazi ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think all policies regarding the exclusion of disclaimers should be ignored in favour of Artic.gnome's suggestion! RaseaC ( talk) 22:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You are stubborn.
I think it shouldnt show any images indicating Prophet Mohumad as a respect of feelings for all muslims allover the world
Such acts will make feelings of hates among nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.140.174.83 ( talk) 12:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I called up this article to see if Muhammad was usually drawn with a beard, and I had to scroll halfway down to find a picture! Jesus has a nice portrait, why not Muhammad? I know there's some issue with muslims but that's not our problem. .froth. ( talk) 22:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
If Then The history, say'd Play Would You find The (Koran); The Religion To Have , shall we say. The old bible & the old Number's & Acts part Of muhammads' life in a game of China and Number's And Nato un De liber to germany's Acts ' terrorism. Then history again?We can't Cannon the bible.We must Know You too Anonamus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.128.233.93 ( talk) 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
if you wanted to know "if Muhammad was usually drawn with a beard", your answer would be, if you bothered to read the article, that Muhammad is not "usually drawn", at all. So what if you had to scroll halfway down to find a few of the depictions that do exist. Wikipedia articles are for reading, not just for looking at the pictures. -- dab (𒁳) 15:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
See here:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0058.html —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
137.186.210.174 (
talk)
22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)