ahmadktk 18:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)plz remove the pictures from this page....... the pictures that are not real and are just supposed to be such.thanks for actionahmadktk 18:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
These paintings should be removed because:
- The historical value of these paintings is: Zero.
- All these paintings were painted in the modern ages or the late middle ages.
- All these paintings contradict the well established historical fact: that Muhammad was incomparably good-looking.
A graphic description of the Prophet was given by an old woman at whose house the Prophet stopped on his way from the cave of Thaur to Medina and her goats gave so much milk that the Prophet and his companions were fully satisfied and yet there was much left over. When the old woman’s husband returned home and expressed his surprise, the woman gave the description of the Prophet as follows: “Handsome features, bright face, likeable temperament, neither the abdomen protruding nor hair of the head fallen out, graceful, handsome, eyes black and large, hair long and thick, voice clear, long neck, bright black of the eye, natural grey corners, thin and drooping eyelashes, black and curly hair, silent with dignity inclined to cordiality, graceful and captivating at a distance and very sweet and most handsome from near, talk sweet and words clear, neither more nor less than necessary, all talk consistent, middle-sized, neither short so as to look insignificant nor tall to look unbecoming, a fresh twig of handsome plant, charming to look at and well- built. His companions are so devoted that they always surround him, quietly listen to what he says and promptly obey what he orders. Obeyed, liked, neither verbose nor cryptic.” [1]
There are plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of historical narrations and reports that assert that Muhammad was incomparably good-looking.
Muhammad was Radiant-White and Ruddy, with black and [slightly] wavy hair. [2] -- Hashim221990 ( talk) 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Basically, your argument boils down to this:
Sorry, that is not a valid argument for removing the images. Your conclusion about the validity of the images is already addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which you have evidently not bothered to read. The images are artist depictions of Muhammad in relevant contexts in the article. Some of them were even painted by Muslims. You have offered no reliable sources beyond religious texts (an not all Muslims agree on their reliability). Your own interpretation of those religious text, as they pertain to the images in this article, amounts to original research, and that isn't an acceptable basis for editorial decisions. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought there was a restriction on substantially changing the image arrangement here for three years after the community discussion - until 28 May 2015 - but I've scanned the Arbitration Committee remedies and the community discussion and can't see it anywhere. Can anyone point me to the place where the three years moratorium is explained? Is there a three year moratorium? (I haven't re-read each of those pages but it's not mentioned where I'd expect to find it and a search for "year" on each page didn't find it.)
Hashim221990, your arguments are sound and they have all been put before here, in the community discussion mentioned above, and in the Arbitration case pages (a link to those can be found at the top of the "Arbitration Committee remedies" page linked above.) Those arguments failed to win the day. This discussion may be revived in about a year to see if consensus has changed. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears there was a mix-up in transferring the three year provision that was actually passed to the final decision page. [19] So, if anyone thinks this should now be reopened, clarification should be sought. As for the issue of 'Do these look like Muhammad?' That was rejected as a reason for exclusion, for a whole host of reasons, including the fact that the article does not represent them as photorealism. But again, if this is being reopened a clarification request is the way to go first. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 11:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Should the picture in the infobox be replaced with a visual depiction of Muhammad, as in similar articles (such as Jesus, Gautama Buddha and Guru Nanak)? 86.133.243.146 ( talk) 01:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that on the FAQ regarding Muhammad this point is brought up: "Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of Young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible."
Now wouldn't it be much easier to agree to the terms of the adherents of these religions on the talk pages? It sounds more logical that a website which focuses on making articles from a neutral point should know that having a successful policy requires a certain amount of respect towards religious, social and similar traditions. Also considering that these depictions have caused a lot of riots within the Muslim World, do you not think that this is violent propaganda? Since it ,consciously, is hurting the adherents of Islam. Furthermore, images, unlike links and claims supported by evidence, do not affect the article itself at all, rather I'd say they are useless in this context. Regarding Muhammad though, they're not just useless, they're also offensive. So I think the smart move in the end of the day would just be to remove the pictures. Just a thought. - Emin Čamo ( talk) 22:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually the matter of the fact is, the arrogance of the editors on wikipedia is too big for a normal discussion. I find it a great hypocrisy and contradiction due to your previous statements (which I will mention) how Muhammad is now depicted right at the beginning of the page. All that Muslims asked was not to depict Muhammad, and yet everybody including wikipedia, which is meant to maintain it's neutrality, does it.
Now since you have quoted my statements, I will do the same to prove how this is an issue that should simply be dealt with by removing images of Muhammad.
As regards to your, I'll call it "rebuttal":
"Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines concerning content, and adherents of a religion are not monolithic in their views. It would be impossible to maintain an encyclopedia governed by rules from many external organizations."
What you're implying here is that Muslims and aswell as scientologists for example have many requests that if taken would become biased info. This is simply not true, at least in the case of Muslims. The only request on this page that is being dealt with in high proportions are depictions of Muhammad. Therefore this doesn't present any kind of problem in changing Wikipedia's policy. The editors of Wikipedia are, I assume, at least aware of the recent event regarding Charlie Hebdo. At this point Wikipedia doesn't maintain it's neutral point of view by keeping depictions of Muhammad, and especially not by putting it at the very start of the page with an intention to annoy the adherents of Islam. Depicting Muhammad is like doing the following 2: 1. Inviting terror, 2. Hate speech We have to face the fact that depicting Muhammad will not bring any kind of contributive solutions but rather more problems in communities.
Now you might say: well if somebody doesn't want to see depictions of Muhammad they can cover it with the options given in the FAQ?
Let me rephrase that, if somebody wants to see depictions of Muhammad, why don't they just use google? There are a plenty of hateful pages towards Islam and even some Islamic pages perhaps that do depict Muhammad. The easier solution would be of course not to depict Muhammad yet again.
" Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. That is a policy. The subject here (Muhammad) is treated with respect. Plenty of Muslims have no problem with the images."
I am a Muslim myself, and I find the depictions of Muhammad offensive including a numerous amount of other people. Needless to say though if it were true that plenty of Muslims have no problem with the images, then don't you think a whole Talk:Muhammad/images page wouldn't be created? Also, since when is this a benefit? Not depicting Muhammad is not beneficial, but it is preventing bias. It would not make any kind of difference for the Muslims if the depictions were taken off at all. Every Muslim (at least the vast majority) will agree that depicting images is forbidden in Islam. With that being said, removing depictions of Muhammad is not beneficial at all so the argument of it being a "benefit for any particular group" drops. "The subject here (Muhammad) is treated with respect." First of all what do you mean by that? Second of all, this is simply not true, again this same article would not be created if it was.
"No, it does not hurt anyone. Everyone has a choice on what offends them. Some Muslims choose to be offended. Others do not." Being hurt is not a choice, it is a natural reaction of a human being. You don't choose to be offended if it is in your nature to be offended for being called fat or ugly. It takes time for you to choose not to be offended, this however is not as easy as it looks. You can't expect from every Muslim to get used to western propaganda and accept images depicting Muhammad. Some people just won't accept that. This statement is rather bizzare, it means that it is the duty upon Muslims to get used to depictions of Muhammad and go through years of discussion instead of just, AGAIN SIMPLY REMOVING THE DEPICTIONS.
Furthermore, since most people are offended, they choose not to read the wikipedia for information about Muhammad, since they don't want to look at the depictions, therefore avoiding the page itself at once before even getting to the FAQ which would lead them to avoiding depictions. This means, that depictions of Muhammad are not benefitting wikipedia, but rather causing more problems to it in any kind of aspect whatsoever.
Regarding images:
"Wrong, they have been carefully chosen and placed to provide appropriate illustrations for specific sections."
Again, images in this case do not contribute at all. They are all of artistic-nature, none of them are for educational purposes. Depictions of Muhammad currently do not provide any kind of extra information, except the fact that somebody drew that same image. It is a different thing to put up a depiction of Muhammad and to put up a picture of the Vitruvian Man, which contains information about Da Vinci's findings.
Regarding this being offensive you said: "Muslims are not monolithic in that view." This is not a case only with the Muslims, of course they won't be monolithic. There were Icon-hater christians and Icon-lover christians in history. The Sunnis which make up 80-85% of the Muslim World agree that depictions of sentient beings are forbidden, let alone Muhammad. Wikipedia editors have written an article about this: Aniconism in Islam. In fact I'd rather say that Muslims and jews Aniconism in Judaism are more monolithic in this view than christians Aniconism in Christianity. However, neither Jewish nor Christian tradition accept Muhammad as their adherent or Prophet, therefore there is no problem in removing depictions of Muhammad, compared to the depictions of Moses for example because there is not a large dispute among the Muslim World, in fact not even a small one. The movie The Message (1976 film) is a good example of this.
"You clearly haven't reviewed any of the archived discussions on the matter", Not entirely true, non-sequitur and a strawman.
"...or the lengthy Arbcom decision linked in the box at the top of this page. All of what you say has been discussed before. If you have any new arguments to offer, you are welcome to present them."
Perhas I didn't detail my arguments, I apologize for that. We all make mistakes and we have to be ready to encounter them.
Lastly, earlier in the above section you said regarding the picture of Muhammad being put in the infobox: "No. Why? Have you bothered to read the lengthy discussion and ArbCom decision on the matter? ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)"
Another person answered aswell: "We've been through this several times already, and I see no reason to change the status quo. Resolute 13:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)"
Well, we have a picture in the infobox now, where's that amount of big respect?
Sincerely - Emin Čamo ( talk) 16:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I am a Muslim myself, and I find the depictions of Muhammad offensive.... Nobody cares; being unoffended isn't a right. You are given instructions at the top of this page on how to prevent the images form being displayed when you are browsing this site. Your views and opinions do not apply to anyone else. Tarc ( talk) 16:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I did not bring up this discussion because I was offended, that statement was an internal non-sequitur used for emphasis as a reply to the user Amatulić where he stated that a majority of Muslims are not offended, which is not true. If you were to bother to read my article fully you would not make this comment. None of the statements were meant as a my views or opinions, I am simply giving arguments from a neutral point of view why depictions of Muhammad should not be allowed on this page. Next time before replying please read my arguments fully. -
Emin Čamo (
talk)
17:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is not just a small problem as you think. Riots being caused by terrorists isn't the main issue of this page. The main issue of this page is that the images make the whole page much less contributive and attractive to Muslims. The page will certainly be avoided by a majority of Muslims, or their discussions would be brought to this page.
You said: "I'm offended when the waiter brings me cold french fries." This is not relative, and even if it was, the example is not anything compared to the issue of this page.
"The number of people who are offended to the point of protest and violent actions over the images is a tiny minority, though." You are tightening my argument by limiting it to violence issues, in other words raising the bar.
"Civilized people will simply shrug and go on with their lives, rather than demand that other people perform this or that action to satisfy the complainer's religious dogma"
Obviously you did not read my arguments. Depictions of Muhammad are not beneficial to the page in any case whatsoever. They cause trouble and they are not contributive in any kind of way to the wikipedia page. Only a smart and reasonable person would get rid of the problem in the easiest way possible instead of prolonging discussion about a possible solution which would cause even more bias and even more problems.
" The Charlie Hedbo terrorist attack only strengthens one's resolve to not surrender one's own ideals in the face of fanatic, murderous fundamentalism." The idea of not depicting Muhammad has nothing to do with fanatic and murderous fundamentalism, it is a tradition in Islam, therefore your statement is wrong. You're not surrendering to anybody by removing the pictures. You're respecting other people's tradition in a manner that won't make your own product less beneficial. Again these pictures have no value at all.
Another bizzare thing is, that maybe you're implying that Islam is a fanatic murderous fundamentalist ideology? I hope that is not the case.
"If you are a Muslim as you claim to be, then go spend more time condemning acts that make your religion look bad, rather than coming here demanding that fanatics be appeased."
Non-sequitur and I am already doing this, so please refrain from being misinformed about me, as that in itself is not even relative to the article.
Sincerely - Emin Čamo ( talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Well here's an idea then. If it is necessary to show multimedia learning as shown in this article then why not keep images explaining how depictions of Muhammad are forbidden. Why not put various images that contain beautiful caligraphy for example to show the true essence of Islamic art and culture.
Also on this page, as I've discussed before in another subsection "Offensive images", the following is found: " Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers."
The expectation of a majority of readers is that Muhammad is not depicted so it would be odd if a person found depictions of Muhammad, also aside from the general readers, the specific group of readers i.e Muslims find this as proven before offensive. (At the very least a majority of them). These are just suggestions, I apologize if I was rude. Sincerely - Emin Čamo ( talk) 18:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand, my intention was to bring arguments that I considered were valid enough. It seems to me that there's no room for more arguing about the issue, but there is for arguing about the arguments brought up which I leave to others who are bigger experts than myself. However I still hope that my arguments contribute in some way or the other for future purposes. Thank you for the response. I'm leaving this talk page until further notice. - Emin Čamo ( talk) 18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Being an individual, if somebody's parents animated sketches are put up on the internet like this, would he like it? Or for that matter, anyone of you who's involved in this discussion on this page. The answer is 'certainly not'! No body would like such animated depictions of their parents or their loved ones because they are no where near to the actual manifestation of the human being, rather can be subject to be treated with less respect. For us Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be upon him) is more respectable and beloved than our own parents! The Prophet (P.B.U.H) did not like images of him being drawn, so we Muslims as his followers also discard the idea of having any imagery published which 'claims' to depict the Prophet (P.B.U.H). It is in Wikipedia's policy to take down any material that is offensive to a group of people, and its not something that I personally don't like, rather its the Muslim community as a whole. If you see images in Iran or any other place(considering a minority of people) as being treated as acceptable, this doesn't have to be taken as right or correct, or tended to be generalized for all Muslims. I hope I've made it clear enough. Hijazyr ( talk) 09:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It is in Wikipedia's policy to take down any material that is offensive to a group of people...is an incorrect claim. Tarc ( talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Islamic_calendar#Request_for_comment -- NeilN talk to me 14:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been restoring the picture on Mohammedan as it was removed without proper discussion however it does seem to be a fairly poor image that doesn't add much, certainly nothing essential, to the article so I thought I would ask what people think about it. Should it be removed or replaced with a different image?
Also, I have read the instructions on hiding the images which some people find offensive. They are rather complicated and limited in scope to specific images or all images on specific articles. Instead, would it be possible to provide simple tickbox based preferences for people who do not wish to see certain categories of images. It is a bit poor to tell readers to fiddle with their CSS as non-technical people may see this as an unhelpful fob off. If we could give them a simple tickbox that deals with their objections in an easy and effective way then I think that would help avoid disputes and edit wars. People on both sides of the argument could work together to get all the offensive images correctly categorised and we could turn something disruptive and divisive into something constructive that meets the needs of all readers. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The pictures posted in this article is inappropriate and may conflict with WP:GOODFAITH. The pictures have no historical evidence and proof. the pictures are not accurate and may troubled with WP:PRIV. The pictures have not represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views. conflict with WP:NEUTRAL,
The pictures with facing here are not neutral, not good faith, no historical evidence in the view of significant. I proposed to remove the pictures with facing. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:GOODFAITH is about religion, point of view, and any good aspect.
WP:PRIV is also about censoring in the person whose image is used in this article. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam gives not permission to Muslims to use his image.
We know that the images are not true representations and we are not trying to fool anybody that they are. images are not true representation but may conflict with WP:GOODFAITH because what is the intention of people who post images? Muslims knew the images are censor. what is the intention of others who post and view the images that not true representation? may conflict again with WP:NEUTRAL
This has been discussed many, many times before so...so what? If the pictures found illegal for this encyclopedia, it should be removed as it will not destroy the integrity of the website. if WP:GOODFAITH is not true, this website may fall down. I proposed to remove the pictures because the pictures have many conflict and may affect the integrity of this website. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not know what is your cause and intention. My intention is to make the article clean and make the integrity of the article and website clean.
The reason why i proposed to removed the pictures here because it have many conflict.
WP:PRIV is also about censoring in the person whose image is used in this article. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam gives not permission to Muslims to use his image.
All Holy Mosque in all the world, all houses of Muslims, all clean houses have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad. The pictures are not accurate and have no historical value. The pictures have not uploaded in good faith.
It is weird and inappropriate to use 2 files in article, the text of his name and the images and may affect the neutral and good faith.
There is already one type of file in the article and that is the text of his name in this article. I think it is enough for people to view because Muslims and other people can use the text of his name displayed in their houses.
I proposed to remove the pictures here because it may clean the viewing of the viewers, losing its many conflict. thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
you think you can make the proposal and the hard-effort statements as a trash and treat me like a clown.
I proposed to removed the pictures because it have many conflict.
prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam gives not permission to Muslims to use his image. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam is a Muslim. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam helps people to be islam in the path of Allah. All holy Mosques in all the world, all houses of Muslims, all clean houses have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam. that's for conflict in wiki:privacy.
The pictures have not uploaded in good faith. the uploader should aware in good faith. the pictures have not fair and not open dealing in human interactions. The uploader must sincere, honest intentions or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action. that's for conflict in wiki:good faith.
the pictures are not accurate and have no historical value. We should avoid stating opinions as facts and avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. We should indicate the relative prominence of opposing view. that's for conflict in wiki:neutral.
There are many article in encyclopedia have no facing and that should be the case of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam. There are many people who don't insist to post a picture in any person due of concern of many bad conflicts and bad faith that should be the case of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam. that's for conflict in wiki:encyclopedia.
I think it's really enough and neutral to display the text of his name in the article. that's for wiki:neutral.
I proposed to removed the pictures because of have many conflicts. The pictures may uploaded in bad faith. The pictures found it offensive for more than billions of people. The pictures are not accurate and have no historical value. The pictures may conflict with privacy policy. thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry if was so ignorant. i have seen faq. What i am stating right now is the conflict of images and how it may affect in encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censor but if the object violates another policy, it is illegal and does not belong in encyclopedia content.
Some important policy is wp:goodfaith and wp:neutral. if the objects do not violate that important policy, the objects can stay in this website. I hope we know that.
since 2001 to july 21 2005 there are no pictures of prophet Muhammad salALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam in article. since 2001 to july 21 2005 there are no pictures of veiled face of prophet Muhammad salALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam in article.
all Holy Mosques in all the world, all clean houses, all houses of Muslims have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad salALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam. non-iconic representations of Muhammad are traditionally discouraged.
editors and uploaders are not require to add object in the presence of obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. editors and uploaders should not violate wp:goodfaith and help the project not hurt it.
it is still wp:neutral if there are no pictures but text of the name displayed in the article. since in the neutral point of view, this article is in Islam. all of the content in this article is in Islam.
before i received negative response, i want to ask them if the pictures are in good faith. since violating wp:goodfaith can lose the integrity of whole website.
we should respect what happen in 2001 to 2005. i propose to remove the pictures in the article as it was happened before. there is clearly nothing wrong if the pictures have removed. there is nothing to insult and nothing to give offense if the pictures have removed. thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
that is not neutral point of view. the practice of all Muslims is to avoid idolatry and no pictures in Holy Mosque the house of ALLAH. what is the purpose of pictures if some viewers found it offensive? what is the purpose of pictures if all viewers found it discrimination of religion? All Holy Mosques in all the world, all clean houses of Muslims have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam. it may troubled again in good faith. is it good faith to insult most Muslims? is it good faith for the other viewers to see the pictures if most people in his religion found it offensive? is it good faith for people to be ignorant if there is strong evidence that pictures are traditionally discouraged? do you not then understand? only the wicked people can want to view the picture. the practice of mankind is to respect the belief of clean religion. it may troubled again in neutral view. All Holy Mosques in all the world, all clean houses of Muslims have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam. editors and uploaders are not require to add object in the presence of obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. editors and uploaders should not violate wp:goodfaith and help the project not hurt it.
I proposed to remove that pictures and only display the text of his name since it was happened since this article contributed in the website and to 2005. thanks for reading.
File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.jpg is a non-free file that has no fair-use rationale for the article Depictions of Muhammad on its image description page ( WP:NFCC#10c). Consequentially, it should be removed from the article ( WP:NFCCE).
I'm opposed to adding a rationale for the article on grounds of WP:NFCC#3a (minimal usage across the encyclopedia), as the linked article Everybody Draw Mohammed Day already features the image. Furthermore, I think WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) isn't met for the article Depictions of Muhammad, as the image is used there neither to identify the main subject of this article ("Depictions of Muhammad", rather it only illustrates one example thereof and plenty of free images already serve the purpose of identification) nor is the image itself an object of commentary, only the event is (see WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion). Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ AstroLynx:, who reverted my removal of the image for "no consensus for deleting this image", is welcome to discuss it here. Amatulic did not oppose. Let me remind you that WP:NFCC#3a for all practical purposes means that if there is a main article for the image (which in this case is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day that it depicts), then the image should not be used in other articles. This is "to minimize the total number of times items of non-free content are included within the encyclopedia" ( WP:NFC#Number of items). See a recent discussion regarding NFCC#3a arriving at this conclusion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair use of logo. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, The inclusion of the two images illustrated by Rashid-al-Din_Hamadani, which were on the Life section on this article, doesn't seem to be respecting the WP:NPOV given that it is already in use on the article about the depictions of the prophet Muhammad (صلّى اللّه عليه و سلّم), which by itself is more enough to be a reference about it, and that these two images cannot have more weight and correctness than other images included with the separate article I've pointed out: So, to make this article lesser biased, I removed those images and instead pointed to Depictions of Muhammad on the See Also section [22]. Ttt74 ( talk) 20:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
--NimXaif6290 18:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Dear "owner of this page", I am not sure that youre a Muslim or true Muslim. The Cartoonic pictures of Jibril and Muhammad are shown on this article. It will be gladness to me if you remove such pictures that are insult of our beloved Prophet Muhammad SAW. PLZ --NimXaif6290 18:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimrainayat6290 ( talk • contribs)
I know Wikipedia isn't censored for the benefit of any group, but don't you think we should still be careful about things that could upset radical extremists who are willing to hurt people? Most other uncensored things don't have that issue.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.208.129 ( talk) 22:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
please remove the images of prophet Mohammmad peace be upon him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.226.29.55 ( talk) 13:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would request to have the pictures of Prophet Muhammad's face be removed as it is against the rules of the religion of Islam to depict the faces of the any Prophet. Thank You.
220.240.117.23 ( talk) 10:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The subject image should be replaced to:
Mohammad, the prophet and founder of Islam https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammad,_the_prophet_and_founder_of_Islam.jpg
the current imagery used within this wiki does not represent or depict the subject. This image depicts this subject using conventions found within comparable wikis.
The idea that Islam censors images of Mohammad should not force or control this wiki. IlikeMonkeys ( talk) 18:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The subject image should be replaced to:
Mohammad, the prophet and founder of Islam https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammad,_the_prophet_and_founder_of_Islam.jpg
the current imagery used within this wiki does not represent or depict the subject. This image depicts this subject using conventions found within comparable wikis. IlikeMonkeys ( talk) 17:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:DENY |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article is permanently semi-protected. There have been coordinated off-wiki attacks on the article, as well as long term abuse by one or more block-evading individuals editing via IP edits and/or sockpuppet accounts. Such edits should be dealt with as WP:Revert, block, ignore, including edits to this talk page.
* Comment If a judge sat through a trial and then delivered a judgment without any reasons he would be laughed out of court. Alsee's first exhibit is a caption. There is no investigation into the reliability of the sources but there should be - in Jimbo's words "We are not transcription monkeys". Monkeys cannot identify the key issues but editors can:
The caption of Alsee's second exhibit is difficult to read but it appears to say
The picture is claimed to be a generic picture of Muhammad preaching (there are no others). This is the point made by the first of the sources quoted in the RfC - that prohibiting intercalation is an unlikely topic for a painting. As Codename Lisa asked, where are the Nasī, the camel and the pilgrims that would justify this interpretation? Without them, this is no more than synthesis. The obvious subject of the painting - a shi'ite imam preaching to a shi'ite congregation in a mosque - is far more likely to be the actual subject of this work by a theologically illiterate artist who was commissioned by his shi'ite ruler to illustrate one of the volumes in his possession. All the pictures in the manuscript follow the same polemical, sectarian agenda. Very, very few of the pictures bear any relation whatsoever to the matters Biruni is discussing at the points where they appear. Alsee's third exhibit is a book which does not illustrate the picture but claims the manuscript "explicitly says it's an image of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation." It doesn't. It couldn't, because the picture was painted 500 years after the book was written. The fourth exhibit is the manuscript itself and commentary by a cataloguer - not an art historian - which, in the absence of scholarly investigation, can only be the result of synthesis. Alsee goes on "The discussion cited multiple reliable sources, scholars and historians, describing this as a depiction of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation." It didn't. As mentioned, the first source made the point that the prohibition of intercalation was a highly unlikely topic for a book's illustrator. With so many interesting issues being discussed, why would the artist alight on that? The second source simply says the picture is one of Muhammad preaching - no mention of intercalation. The third source was cited by AstroLynx, who refuses to reveal the author's view on the matter, so it is probably safe to conclude that she concluded that this was neither Muhammad, nor the Farewell Pilgrimage, nor the prohibition of intercalation. 151.227.21.236 ( talk) 09:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.222.141 ( talk)
It is an artistic depiction of Muhammed, many years after his death? Certainly not the artist, because he said no such thing. He painted many pictures of different people doing various things. Friday prayer in a mosque is an obvious subject for a painting. Moreover, in the milieu in which he worked, it was not the done thing to paint pictures of Muhammad. See this comment in this discussion [23]: However, it so happens that the man on the image represents not the prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from Persia). And again: I've been told that depictions of Ali are relatively common in Shi'a areas (more so than any historical Muslim leader including Muhammad), though I have no direct knowledge of this. And again: I don't know if it helps you through the decisions making process but that said i'm quite confident that this is not a Mohammed picture. Most probably it is Ali. and for that reason it should be fine. in Iran(Majority Shia Moslem) a lot of Ali pictures can be found. there is not objection from religious authorities about that. But you can rarely find a Muhammad picture. in most of the old paintings Mohammed face was not painted in detail. instead it was drawn as a big source of light. I come from Iran and would be more than happy to help you with this topic or any related issue. I'll respond to Khajidha when I've looked at her source. 78.146.222.141 ( talk) 15:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Note that the 78.* IPs that have been active in this thread are banned user Vote (X) for Change, so anything they write here can/should be summarily ignored or reverted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Those pictures Which illustrated Prophet (SAW) should be removed. 144.48.148.5 ( talk) 15:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
-- Spafky ( talk) 20:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Remove the pictures related to Our Holy Prophet Muhammad CPBUH). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.65.93 ( talk) 15:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Good evening. My question is whether it would be acceptable to put a warning at the front of the article stating that the article contains depictions of Muhammad and linking to the FAQ. It could also contain information about hiding the pictures with the CSS rule provided in the FAQ. I think that many people do not read the talk page before starting to read the article (or they did not even know that such a thing exists) and so they see the images unexpectedly. I would ask you if this can be an option to consider. Thank you. -- Csimma Viktor ( talk) 21:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This not acceptable at all please remove picture, there is no use of this miniature picture Asimk687 ( talk) 19:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Naveedur ( talk) 01:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Please remove the prophet Mohammad pictures from Wikipedia-- Naveedur ( talk) 01:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i request admin to remove these pictures from this article
" /info/en/?search=File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:The_Prophet_Muhammad_and_the_Muslim_Army_at_the_Battle_of_Uhud,_from_the_Siyer-i_Nebi,_1595.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:Maome.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:Muhammad_destroying_idols_-_L%27Histoire_Merveilleuse_en_Vers_de_Mahomet_BNF.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg"
because these illustrations are against our religion ISLAM. so kindly remove these pictures. there is not any picture of our prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) and these pictures are Blasphemy content! Asadali26 ( talk) 20:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
A core belief in Islam is that their should be no depictions of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and this page having a depiction is insulting and should be removed instantly. Please refer to this article for more clarification. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:4CDF:FD42:D5A2:13A4:5D66:5216 ( talk) 22:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
"Any prohibition of making or displaying images can only be applicable to those subject to it."is nonsense, by the way - I could choose to be subject to it, or just to respect it without being bound by it. Not everything is black and white - the best parts are the shades of grey... -- Begoon 14:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "Beginnings of the Quran", remove the picture thay says "Muhammad receiving his first revelation", you are not supposed to represent any prophet through a portray or an image. 125.209.82.205 ( talk) 04:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't like the way you added the images of the pbuh Muhammed. Please remove all the images like with humans or animals in it because the prophet wouldn't like being politicised falsely like this, so please remove the pictures of living things as soon as possible.
Thank you, By Nevin Nevin s shams ( talk) 16:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The image for the page should be replaced with a simple decorative image of his name Muhammad. 50.100.247.30 ( talk) 08:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Jack Frost (
talk)
10:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)I am one many wiki readers who want any images that refer to the Prophet Mohammed (SWS) may the Pease and blessings be upon him to be removed, this is as a mark of respect no where in the Muslim world would you find any images at all referring the prophet Mohammed (SWS) and his Companions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibrasul ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In The "Beginnings of the Quran" section the image used is showing prophet MUHAMMED peace be upon him and angel Gabriel which is strictly against our belief. I request you to remove these images from the page ASAP.
Link of the image image_to_be_removed
There is no image showing prophet MUHAMMED swallal lahu aliahi wasallam. Mdabrar4devops ( talk) 04:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a picture of prophet Pbuh while setting the black stone in kabbah . Which is prohibited in our religion and is offensive to us . Kindly take it down. 39.45.161.12 ( talk) 04:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to remove any images that illustrate the Prophet Mohammed (SWS), this a mark of respect, it is part of the Muslim faith that no images of the final Prophet of God should be made by and person either Muslim or none Muslim. And I request that when the name of the Prophet Mohammed (sws), SWS is put after his name meaning "may peace be upon him" again the is a great mark of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibrasul ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
None of these paintings have ever had any historical or theological value for Muslims or non-Muslims. The article on the Arabic wikipedia, which is a featured article, doesn't include any of these paintings.-- Commenter7 ( talk) 08:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect, this isn't a religious Encyclopedia. Things are as they are through consensus and researched information, verified and checked again. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:B0A0:1C1:6BB8:3F8D ( talk) 15:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comment doesn't seem relevant to my comment. Are you confused or what is your problem? My comment was about the images not having a historical or a theological significance. I don't see in what way your comment addresses that point. -- Commenter7 ( talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
And by the way, since you brought this up in your last comment, let me correct you: things are as they are through systemic bias and cherry picking of sources. Full stop.-- Commenter7 ( talk) 02:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the pictures shown in this article. These are fake and there is no real picture of Propet Muhammad PBUH. This is blasphemy indeed. 116.58.53.130 ( talk) 11:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
For most consensus-found-but-still-controversial matters that rise to the level of needing a FAQ, there is typically at least one or two clear findings of consensus that can be pointed to. I'm having trouble finding those for images of Muhammad, though. Where is the evidence that it is settled? Or is it just meant to be self-evident in WP:NOTCENSORED (and if that were the case, how did it get to the stage of e.g. mediation? perhaps it is connected to a history of notcensored I'm unaware of)? To be clear, this is not an argument not to display the images -- just a request for documentation for someone interested in how disputes happen on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
All the citation tells you is that the picture appears in the cited manuscript. The manuscript does not claim that the picture is Muhammad. All pictures which are not photographs are necessarily representations. The reason why the picture has yet to be removed is (a) because the page was protected to prevent it and (b) because AstroLynx lied in the RfC. Despite being the author of numerous scholarly books on the history of Islam he chose to tell the participants that, while the location of every other ceremony in the Farewell Pilgrimage is meticulously documented, this one isn't. In fact, since this sermon is the most significant event of the whole Pilgrimage there are more contemporary reports of it than any other. 92.19.168.173 ( talk) 12:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The arguments at Talk:Herod the Great#Image again are equally applicable here.]
The final comment relates to this article. See Special:Permalink/974669756#Image again.
Rv Anachronist. He's been banging on about this for TWELVE YEARS User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2009#What a pity..!!!!!. On page 3 of the book discussing the Ilkhanid manuscripts he cites the author says "However, the above-mentioned scenes cannot be categorized under religious painting because they were neither meant as icons nor as religious or sacred art. They were merely illustrations of historical events that had occurred during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad".
So on Anachronist's own source, this picture is what it purports to be - an Imam (Ali? - remember the Ilkhanids were Shia) preaching to the Ahl al-Bayt in a mosque @ Objective3000: (he says he thrives on controversy). 81.147.142.50 ( talk) 08:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Many articles on historical persons or events cannot be illustrated with authentic material, as no contemporary portraits or other depictions of the subject exist.
Comment: The picture which you claim (without giving any reason) is a picture of Muhammad was painted 700 years after his death.
While most historical cultures didn't produce actual portraits, many did produce other kinds of depictions of individual persons, such as depictions of rulers on ancient coins, miniatures in medieval bookpainting etc.
Comment: Unlike a picture on a coin, which can reasonably be assumed to be a representation of the ruler whose name is inscribed thereon, nothing in the picture indicates that this is a picture of Muhammad. How could it be, given that there are no known pictures of him wearing a short beard (for the simple reason that contemporary accounts say he had a beard which extended to his chest and rustled when he walked)? How could it be Muhammad delivering his Farewell Sermon when all Muslims know that the pilgrimage has always taken place in the open? The idea of labelling a mosque scene as a feature of the pilgrimage is more than just misleading - it's pernicious.
* Always add an informative caption to any non-photographic image explaining the provenance and nature of the depiction...
Comment: In other words, when framing the caption for a picture don't tell lies.
* Always be sure the image improves the encyclopedic content of any article - do not merely use images as fillers or eye-candy.
Comment: Instead of running to Future Perfect at Sunrise's talkpage to spread lies (note that he hasn't bothered to reply) why don't you instead explain how you think this picture adds to the reader's understanding of the workings of the Islamic calendar. There are plenty of places where this image is useful and therefore included but this is not one of them.
From the original version of the essay:
Since the artist is non-notable [we don't even know who he or she is!], their artistic imagination will not have been analyzed and written about in reliable sources, so we have nothing to explain and hedge the image with, and would be left with just letting it speak for itself and spread its ideological message freely. Such images may therefore be not merely useless, but actually harmful to the encyclopedia, and should be avoided.
Comment: The most distinguished Islamic scholar editing Wikipedia today had this to say in the original RfC:
... didn't see a need to examine the other two images (note the word "already" in his conclusion). Also, the third image that he used to prove the "strong sectarian feeling" (The Envoy of Musailama) has nothing to do with the investiture of Ali. Incidentally, his arguments concerning that image also applies to this image (the prominent placement of ahl al-Bayt; al-Hussien is favored over al-Hassan by being placed closest to the prophet; etc)... Wiqi( 55) 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
... He actually noticed a "strong sectarian feeling" in an image that was not about the investiture of Ali, contrary to what you wrote above. Then based on how you misrepresented the source you assumed that the RFC image has no sectarian purposes, which is original research (and can be disputed by pointing at Hillenbrand's arguments about the Envoy to Musailama). In any case, I don't see a reason why I should change my !vote. Adding pages/images to a general article from a source that has been described as sectarian and agenda driven is not inline with npov. Wiqi( 55) 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Wiqi55: 92.19.175.81 ( talk) 12:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Worship in Islam is clearly definition of spiritual awareness and acceptance of Allah in our lives. The concept of image comes from drawing a sketch, and then you add up colors to provide depiction of figures. This is purely related to developing an idol; as these idols are represented in forms of figures. These are depictions of humans [ancestors], jins, animals. One concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, but also creating an image might lead the artist to claim the ability to create, an ability only ascribed to God. These images/idols are clearly forbidden in Islam as these are sources of Shirk.
It is impermissible in Islam to depict prophets in movies, pictures or images. There is no justification whatsoever for the depiction of the prophets and messengers of Allah (peace be upon them) due to their prodigious and venerated status. Allah’s prophets and messengers are the best of all humans, and HE raised them high above depiction by any other human being.
Allah has ranked prophets far above Satan’s impersonation in dreams. Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Name yourselves with my name (use my name) but do not name yourselves with my kunya name (i.e. Abu al-Qasim). And whoever sees me in a dream then surely he has seen me for Satan cannot impersonate me. And whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally), then let him occupy his place in hell-fire"(Bukhari and Muslim).
This hadith clearly proves that Allah Almighty preserves the status of the prophets (peace be upon them) and protects their message. Satan cannot impersonate the prophets either in reality or in a dream.
The holy Prophet of Islam Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) also said: “ The intensive punishment of the people on the Day of Hereafter belongs to the drawers of pictures (idolism).”
Muhammad is an honored character among Muslims who often perceive depictions and other material critical of him — as an attack on their Muslim identity and "it is a human impulse to want to protect what's sacred to you." This is so because, by the way of Faith, a believer has a link with Allah and His Prophet, and for this reason he has been mentioned in the same line and in the row of Allah (s.w.t.) and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Prior to /’iθman mubina/ because of its importance, since calumny is counted one of the greatest hurts, and the pain of the annoyance created by it is even more intensive than the pain of sword and dagger, because the pain of the wound of a dagger is reconcilable, but the wound of the tongue is not reconcilable.
In Quran (Surah Al-’Ahzab – Verse 57) Allah says:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالأَخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَاباً مُّهِيناً
“Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and He has prepared for them a humiliating punishment.”
Annoying Allah means doing something against His desire and His consent that, instead of attracting His Mercy, one causes to bring His wrath and curse as a consequence. Purpose of annoying Allah may be purpose of annoying His Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is to reject him, to denigrate him, to treat impolitely with him (peace and blessings upon him), hurting His Ahlul Bayt (as) and also undue attributions, accusations, or creating trouble.
Based on this, it is mandatory upon Muslims to respect our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and all the other prophets and messengers of Allah by refraining from presenting, producing, and releasing artworks that depict them. Lack of knowledge and ignorance may drive some authors to distort or manipulate the biography of any prophet for personal gain.
It is established in Islamic law that preventing harm takes precedence over gaining benefit. So, despite all the benefits that depict the prophets, these works involve real evil such as tampering with the prophets’ biographies and adding irrelevant and incorrect information. Al-Azhar’s Islamic Research Academy declared in resolution no. 100 of its 14th session of the 35th round held in Cairo on June 30, 1999 CE that it is impermissible to depict the prophets, messengers, the ten Companions who were promised paradise and the household of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in any form of art.
Based on the above, it is impermissible to violate the sanctity of the prophets and messengers by personifying them in any artwork. Producers should work on finding and presenting innovative ideas to introduce the biographies of the prophets in a manner befitting their status and avoid causing strife in the Muslim community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Then please stop talking about Islam on Wikipidia. None of you have any rights to alter the islamic rights just on wikipedia just for your own self contents. Islamic rules are immaculate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Muslims Community reserves the rigths to take up the this matter under the Preservation of Electronics Crimes Act 2016 (PECA) for spreading the false contents especially in religious matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
its haram in islam meaning forbidden Remove the Prophet Muhammad image this is Saving 2 types of peoples no.1 by Foolish or, peoples who don't know about islam no.2 Munafiqs Meaning Enemies of islam just remove this 2 images this the big blasphemy wikipedia is hurting muslims who can see wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDDHO ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC) -- JUDDHO ( talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Images of prophet Mohammad peace be upon him should get deleted from this page. It is prohibited to publish dawings of any of the prophets of god. With such a high place of honor they were given, they should at least be respected not to be in any drawing or painting. Dr.Alaa1996 ( talk) 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are many pictures under which it is mentioned that Prophet Muhammad is doing this and that. Kindly remove all the pictures which are drawings of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) because it is against the prestige of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and hurts the feelings of Muslims. 202.142.155.154 ( talk) 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
body.page-Muhammad div.depiction {display: none;}
on
Special:MyPage/common.css 🔥
Lightning
Complex
Fire🔥
16:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)—
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove photos from Muhammad receiving his first revelation from Gabriel in Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashīd al-Dīn Ṭabīb (1307) Abdul Razak Kalai ( talk) 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You have posted a picture of our beloved Prophet Hazrat Muhammad ( S.A.W) in Eurpeon section. Kindly remove it ! It is against the ethics. You should not hurt feelings of Muslims. 182.179.182.149 ( talk) 23:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I was just wondering if the main photo is the best choice, would another one with an actual depiction not be more appropriate?
or is this being done intentionally? perhaps to avoid a few extra messages from people complaining that might not continue scrolling down the article if they see that photo first?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesowismine ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The pics portraying Muhammad peace be upon him are disrespectful and be removed from this article. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be informative and not stir disrespectful images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristarinstruments ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
its a humble request to Wikipedia that remove pictures of Hazrat Muhammad Sb. from this article because Hazrat Muhammad Sb. never had a piçture in his entire life. its a disrespect to Hazrat Muhammad Sb. Wikipedia is a informative website don't make it coñtroversial. 2405:204:101F:2C3B:0:0:1055:C8A4 ( talk) 09:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Its A humble request to Wikipedia that Hazrat Muhammad S. Never Clicked or painted by anyone in his entire life. So The Artificial Image shown in this article is desperately disrespectful for Hazrat Muhammad S. and his followers. Kindly Remove all the pictures which pointed and imaged to Hazrat Muhammad Sb.. Thank you 2405:204:101A:2B26:0:0:2586:98A4 ( talk) 17:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
kindly make amends in títle if*Of its s typing error. 2405:204:101A:2B26:0:0:2586:98A4 ( talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: When replying to me, please tag me with {{Re|GOLDIEM J}}
Should we really be using visual depictions of Muhammad throughout the article, while most Muslims hold views against this?
GOLDIEM J (
talk)
06:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
you are using wrong pics that never existed. This should be stopped. It is not the real pic . The pic of him never existed. please remove it 182.187.76.142 ( talk) 14:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've read the whole article, and I did not find any problem in it except the photos. There should not be the photos of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) in the article in which his appearance is described. This thing hurt the Muslim Community who love to read articles on Wikipedia. I request you to remove the photos of Muhammad (P.B.U.H)'s appearance. Those photos should be deleted from the article. The links of Photos are given below: 1. /info/en/?search=File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg 2. /info/en/?search=File:Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg 3. /info/en/?search=Muhammad#/media/File:The_Prophet_Muhammad_and_the_Muslim_Army_at_the_Battle_of_Uhud,_from_the_Siyer-i_Nebi,_1595.jpg 4. /info/en/?search=Muhammad#/media/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg 5. /info/en/?search=Muhammad#/media/File:Maome.jpg 6. /info/en/?search=Muhammad#/media/File:Muhammad_destroying_idols_-_L'Histoire_Merveilleuse_en_Vers_de_Mahomet_BNF.jpg 7. /info/en/?search=Muhammad#/media/File:La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg AManan00 ( talk) 22:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Editors,
I sincerely request you to take out the pictures on this article which show a made-up face of my Prophet Muhammad (Peasse and Blessings Be Upon Him). I don't think you are aware, but in our religion of Islam, there are no pictures of any of the prophets and stupid people and just created pictures, which is forbidden. my Prophet (pbuh)never had any portrait taken off him. If you want to keep the pictures there, then i would please like you to edit the pictures and put a blank white shiny light, over what is 2supposed2 to be my blessed Prophet. I find this sickening and extremely disturbing. Furthermore, my second reqest is for you to remove the box of critisisms. All the critisms are incorrect and not based on any facts or research. it's crazy, someone crituqing something that they haven't thorughly studied and have barely any awareness about.
I shall be waiting for you changes to be impletmented,
Thank you. 193.61.240.191 ( talk) 13:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
as you already know, we Muslims are against putting any picture and saying him as Mohammad, so picture you put during putting stone for kaba, should be removed. hoping that you'll remove soon. no image should be there. Alif.laam.meem ( talk) 17:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Does writing articles on this site from an irreligious and secular point of view provide a justification for disrespecting and ignoring people's religious beliefs? You don't remove these pictures because you lack empathy. I mean, when you go to the Arab or Turkish Wikipedias, you will see that when people ask why are such disrespectful deeds made, Muslim authoritatives and users will not give the offensive answers like you gave. Because they will deceive themselves. They will say that what they are doing is okay, or they will try to justify themselves, but since you probably don't belong to any religion, you can't understand our feelings the way Muslim authoritatives can understand other Muslims' feelings, even they also not do that perfect. You don't know how much these pictures disturb us, Muslims. You just disrespecting. J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J ( talk) 14:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Multiple images of Muhammad in the article are still shown despite "body.page-Muhammad div.depiction {display: none;}" being added to common.css. I ask that the filter is also applied to the following images stated:
Section - File name - Description
Childhood and early life - Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg - The story of Muhammad's role in re-setting the Black Stone -
Conflict with Mecca - The Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim Army at the Battle of Uhud, from the Siyer-i Nebi, 1595.jpg - "The Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim Army at the Battle of Uhud"
European appreciation - La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg - Image by M. Prideaux
I would not consider the image (Muhammad destroying idols - L'Histoire Merveilleuse en Vers de Mahomet BNF.jpg) in Depictions section as an direct depiction of Muhammad because it shows Muhammad as a flame rather than as a human.
-- Chxeese ( talk) 19:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I propose that Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#A3 be amended to cover any article that depicts an image of Muhammad's face.
Currently a user is instructed to add body.page-Muhammad div.depiction {display: none;}
to their common.css file.
I propose we change the class name to "muhammad-depiction" and remove the body.page-Muhammad
rule. Then, all anyone needs to put into common.css would be:
div.muhammad-depiction {display: none;}
Then we'd have to go through the
Muhammad article and change the handful of <div class="depiction">
tags to <div class="depiction Muhammad-depiction">
(the original "depiction" would be left for backward compatibility). In any image that is not already tagged this way, we'd just enclose the image in <div class="Muhammad-depiction">
.
This would allow users to filter Muhammad images from other articles such as Black Stone, Depictions of Muhammad, Prophet, and any other article where depictions of Muhammad appear. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Editors,
It requested that all images depicting the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) be removed as it is insensitive to Muslims all around the world.
Regards, Usman Ahmed Khan 103.255.6.91 ( talk) 07:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Wiki,
You are requested please remove the photos of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in this article. We Muslim respect all the religion and expected same from the other religion. We love our prophet Muhammad (PBUM) and this act hurts our community, no doubt you depicted these sketches for better understanding and with good intention even then you are request to remove these sketches. Regards, Maygedkan ( talk) 09:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is cartoon of prophet Mohammed in this article, please remove it. It's not appropriate and will face consequences. 2402:3A80:1593:73BA:0:25:DD5C:F701 ( talk) 11:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No pictures of Muhammad please as per Allah all pictures are haram and illegal under islamic law 71.241.213.53 ( talk) 11:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Entry for first F.A question of this page says "Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions" and this brought a question to my mind.
If the one is not enforcing a prohibition on purpose, then this may have come from the thought of aforementioned ban is not necessary to apply.
In this case, if the one does not applies this depiction ban, wouldn't it emphasise the idea of showing Muhammad's depiction is appropriate and even necessary, which is totally biased? Owerthise ( talk) 17:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
ahmadktk 18:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)plz remove the pictures from this page....... the pictures that are not real and are just supposed to be such.thanks for actionahmadktk 18:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
These paintings should be removed because:
- The historical value of these paintings is: Zero.
- All these paintings were painted in the modern ages or the late middle ages.
- All these paintings contradict the well established historical fact: that Muhammad was incomparably good-looking.
A graphic description of the Prophet was given by an old woman at whose house the Prophet stopped on his way from the cave of Thaur to Medina and her goats gave so much milk that the Prophet and his companions were fully satisfied and yet there was much left over. When the old woman’s husband returned home and expressed his surprise, the woman gave the description of the Prophet as follows: “Handsome features, bright face, likeable temperament, neither the abdomen protruding nor hair of the head fallen out, graceful, handsome, eyes black and large, hair long and thick, voice clear, long neck, bright black of the eye, natural grey corners, thin and drooping eyelashes, black and curly hair, silent with dignity inclined to cordiality, graceful and captivating at a distance and very sweet and most handsome from near, talk sweet and words clear, neither more nor less than necessary, all talk consistent, middle-sized, neither short so as to look insignificant nor tall to look unbecoming, a fresh twig of handsome plant, charming to look at and well- built. His companions are so devoted that they always surround him, quietly listen to what he says and promptly obey what he orders. Obeyed, liked, neither verbose nor cryptic.” [1]
There are plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of historical narrations and reports that assert that Muhammad was incomparably good-looking.
Muhammad was Radiant-White and Ruddy, with black and [slightly] wavy hair. [2] -- Hashim221990 ( talk) 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Basically, your argument boils down to this:
Sorry, that is not a valid argument for removing the images. Your conclusion about the validity of the images is already addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which you have evidently not bothered to read. The images are artist depictions of Muhammad in relevant contexts in the article. Some of them were even painted by Muslims. You have offered no reliable sources beyond religious texts (an not all Muslims agree on their reliability). Your own interpretation of those religious text, as they pertain to the images in this article, amounts to original research, and that isn't an acceptable basis for editorial decisions. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought there was a restriction on substantially changing the image arrangement here for three years after the community discussion - until 28 May 2015 - but I've scanned the Arbitration Committee remedies and the community discussion and can't see it anywhere. Can anyone point me to the place where the three years moratorium is explained? Is there a three year moratorium? (I haven't re-read each of those pages but it's not mentioned where I'd expect to find it and a search for "year" on each page didn't find it.)
Hashim221990, your arguments are sound and they have all been put before here, in the community discussion mentioned above, and in the Arbitration case pages (a link to those can be found at the top of the "Arbitration Committee remedies" page linked above.) Those arguments failed to win the day. This discussion may be revived in about a year to see if consensus has changed. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears there was a mix-up in transferring the three year provision that was actually passed to the final decision page. [19] So, if anyone thinks this should now be reopened, clarification should be sought. As for the issue of 'Do these look like Muhammad?' That was rejected as a reason for exclusion, for a whole host of reasons, including the fact that the article does not represent them as photorealism. But again, if this is being reopened a clarification request is the way to go first. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 11:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Should the picture in the infobox be replaced with a visual depiction of Muhammad, as in similar articles (such as Jesus, Gautama Buddha and Guru Nanak)? 86.133.243.146 ( talk) 01:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that on the FAQ regarding Muhammad this point is brought up: "Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of Young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible."
Now wouldn't it be much easier to agree to the terms of the adherents of these religions on the talk pages? It sounds more logical that a website which focuses on making articles from a neutral point should know that having a successful policy requires a certain amount of respect towards religious, social and similar traditions. Also considering that these depictions have caused a lot of riots within the Muslim World, do you not think that this is violent propaganda? Since it ,consciously, is hurting the adherents of Islam. Furthermore, images, unlike links and claims supported by evidence, do not affect the article itself at all, rather I'd say they are useless in this context. Regarding Muhammad though, they're not just useless, they're also offensive. So I think the smart move in the end of the day would just be to remove the pictures. Just a thought. - Emin Čamo ( talk) 22:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually the matter of the fact is, the arrogance of the editors on wikipedia is too big for a normal discussion. I find it a great hypocrisy and contradiction due to your previous statements (which I will mention) how Muhammad is now depicted right at the beginning of the page. All that Muslims asked was not to depict Muhammad, and yet everybody including wikipedia, which is meant to maintain it's neutrality, does it.
Now since you have quoted my statements, I will do the same to prove how this is an issue that should simply be dealt with by removing images of Muhammad.
As regards to your, I'll call it "rebuttal":
"Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines concerning content, and adherents of a religion are not monolithic in their views. It would be impossible to maintain an encyclopedia governed by rules from many external organizations."
What you're implying here is that Muslims and aswell as scientologists for example have many requests that if taken would become biased info. This is simply not true, at least in the case of Muslims. The only request on this page that is being dealt with in high proportions are depictions of Muhammad. Therefore this doesn't present any kind of problem in changing Wikipedia's policy. The editors of Wikipedia are, I assume, at least aware of the recent event regarding Charlie Hebdo. At this point Wikipedia doesn't maintain it's neutral point of view by keeping depictions of Muhammad, and especially not by putting it at the very start of the page with an intention to annoy the adherents of Islam. Depicting Muhammad is like doing the following 2: 1. Inviting terror, 2. Hate speech We have to face the fact that depicting Muhammad will not bring any kind of contributive solutions but rather more problems in communities.
Now you might say: well if somebody doesn't want to see depictions of Muhammad they can cover it with the options given in the FAQ?
Let me rephrase that, if somebody wants to see depictions of Muhammad, why don't they just use google? There are a plenty of hateful pages towards Islam and even some Islamic pages perhaps that do depict Muhammad. The easier solution would be of course not to depict Muhammad yet again.
" Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. That is a policy. The subject here (Muhammad) is treated with respect. Plenty of Muslims have no problem with the images."
I am a Muslim myself, and I find the depictions of Muhammad offensive including a numerous amount of other people. Needless to say though if it were true that plenty of Muslims have no problem with the images, then don't you think a whole Talk:Muhammad/images page wouldn't be created? Also, since when is this a benefit? Not depicting Muhammad is not beneficial, but it is preventing bias. It would not make any kind of difference for the Muslims if the depictions were taken off at all. Every Muslim (at least the vast majority) will agree that depicting images is forbidden in Islam. With that being said, removing depictions of Muhammad is not beneficial at all so the argument of it being a "benefit for any particular group" drops. "The subject here (Muhammad) is treated with respect." First of all what do you mean by that? Second of all, this is simply not true, again this same article would not be created if it was.
"No, it does not hurt anyone. Everyone has a choice on what offends them. Some Muslims choose to be offended. Others do not." Being hurt is not a choice, it is a natural reaction of a human being. You don't choose to be offended if it is in your nature to be offended for being called fat or ugly. It takes time for you to choose not to be offended, this however is not as easy as it looks. You can't expect from every Muslim to get used to western propaganda and accept images depicting Muhammad. Some people just won't accept that. This statement is rather bizzare, it means that it is the duty upon Muslims to get used to depictions of Muhammad and go through years of discussion instead of just, AGAIN SIMPLY REMOVING THE DEPICTIONS.
Furthermore, since most people are offended, they choose not to read the wikipedia for information about Muhammad, since they don't want to look at the depictions, therefore avoiding the page itself at once before even getting to the FAQ which would lead them to avoiding depictions. This means, that depictions of Muhammad are not benefitting wikipedia, but rather causing more problems to it in any kind of aspect whatsoever.
Regarding images:
"Wrong, they have been carefully chosen and placed to provide appropriate illustrations for specific sections."
Again, images in this case do not contribute at all. They are all of artistic-nature, none of them are for educational purposes. Depictions of Muhammad currently do not provide any kind of extra information, except the fact that somebody drew that same image. It is a different thing to put up a depiction of Muhammad and to put up a picture of the Vitruvian Man, which contains information about Da Vinci's findings.
Regarding this being offensive you said: "Muslims are not monolithic in that view." This is not a case only with the Muslims, of course they won't be monolithic. There were Icon-hater christians and Icon-lover christians in history. The Sunnis which make up 80-85% of the Muslim World agree that depictions of sentient beings are forbidden, let alone Muhammad. Wikipedia editors have written an article about this: Aniconism in Islam. In fact I'd rather say that Muslims and jews Aniconism in Judaism are more monolithic in this view than christians Aniconism in Christianity. However, neither Jewish nor Christian tradition accept Muhammad as their adherent or Prophet, therefore there is no problem in removing depictions of Muhammad, compared to the depictions of Moses for example because there is not a large dispute among the Muslim World, in fact not even a small one. The movie The Message (1976 film) is a good example of this.
"You clearly haven't reviewed any of the archived discussions on the matter", Not entirely true, non-sequitur and a strawman.
"...or the lengthy Arbcom decision linked in the box at the top of this page. All of what you say has been discussed before. If you have any new arguments to offer, you are welcome to present them."
Perhas I didn't detail my arguments, I apologize for that. We all make mistakes and we have to be ready to encounter them.
Lastly, earlier in the above section you said regarding the picture of Muhammad being put in the infobox: "No. Why? Have you bothered to read the lengthy discussion and ArbCom decision on the matter? ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)"
Another person answered aswell: "We've been through this several times already, and I see no reason to change the status quo. Resolute 13:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)"
Well, we have a picture in the infobox now, where's that amount of big respect?
Sincerely - Emin Čamo ( talk) 16:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I am a Muslim myself, and I find the depictions of Muhammad offensive.... Nobody cares; being unoffended isn't a right. You are given instructions at the top of this page on how to prevent the images form being displayed when you are browsing this site. Your views and opinions do not apply to anyone else. Tarc ( talk) 16:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I did not bring up this discussion because I was offended, that statement was an internal non-sequitur used for emphasis as a reply to the user Amatulić where he stated that a majority of Muslims are not offended, which is not true. If you were to bother to read my article fully you would not make this comment. None of the statements were meant as a my views or opinions, I am simply giving arguments from a neutral point of view why depictions of Muhammad should not be allowed on this page. Next time before replying please read my arguments fully. -
Emin Čamo (
talk)
17:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is not just a small problem as you think. Riots being caused by terrorists isn't the main issue of this page. The main issue of this page is that the images make the whole page much less contributive and attractive to Muslims. The page will certainly be avoided by a majority of Muslims, or their discussions would be brought to this page.
You said: "I'm offended when the waiter brings me cold french fries." This is not relative, and even if it was, the example is not anything compared to the issue of this page.
"The number of people who are offended to the point of protest and violent actions over the images is a tiny minority, though." You are tightening my argument by limiting it to violence issues, in other words raising the bar.
"Civilized people will simply shrug and go on with their lives, rather than demand that other people perform this or that action to satisfy the complainer's religious dogma"
Obviously you did not read my arguments. Depictions of Muhammad are not beneficial to the page in any case whatsoever. They cause trouble and they are not contributive in any kind of way to the wikipedia page. Only a smart and reasonable person would get rid of the problem in the easiest way possible instead of prolonging discussion about a possible solution which would cause even more bias and even more problems.
" The Charlie Hedbo terrorist attack only strengthens one's resolve to not surrender one's own ideals in the face of fanatic, murderous fundamentalism." The idea of not depicting Muhammad has nothing to do with fanatic and murderous fundamentalism, it is a tradition in Islam, therefore your statement is wrong. You're not surrendering to anybody by removing the pictures. You're respecting other people's tradition in a manner that won't make your own product less beneficial. Again these pictures have no value at all.
Another bizzare thing is, that maybe you're implying that Islam is a fanatic murderous fundamentalist ideology? I hope that is not the case.
"If you are a Muslim as you claim to be, then go spend more time condemning acts that make your religion look bad, rather than coming here demanding that fanatics be appeased."
Non-sequitur and I am already doing this, so please refrain from being misinformed about me, as that in itself is not even relative to the article.
Sincerely - Emin Čamo ( talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Well here's an idea then. If it is necessary to show multimedia learning as shown in this article then why not keep images explaining how depictions of Muhammad are forbidden. Why not put various images that contain beautiful caligraphy for example to show the true essence of Islamic art and culture.
Also on this page, as I've discussed before in another subsection "Offensive images", the following is found: " Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers."
The expectation of a majority of readers is that Muhammad is not depicted so it would be odd if a person found depictions of Muhammad, also aside from the general readers, the specific group of readers i.e Muslims find this as proven before offensive. (At the very least a majority of them). These are just suggestions, I apologize if I was rude. Sincerely - Emin Čamo ( talk) 18:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand, my intention was to bring arguments that I considered were valid enough. It seems to me that there's no room for more arguing about the issue, but there is for arguing about the arguments brought up which I leave to others who are bigger experts than myself. However I still hope that my arguments contribute in some way or the other for future purposes. Thank you for the response. I'm leaving this talk page until further notice. - Emin Čamo ( talk) 18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Being an individual, if somebody's parents animated sketches are put up on the internet like this, would he like it? Or for that matter, anyone of you who's involved in this discussion on this page. The answer is 'certainly not'! No body would like such animated depictions of their parents or their loved ones because they are no where near to the actual manifestation of the human being, rather can be subject to be treated with less respect. For us Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be upon him) is more respectable and beloved than our own parents! The Prophet (P.B.U.H) did not like images of him being drawn, so we Muslims as his followers also discard the idea of having any imagery published which 'claims' to depict the Prophet (P.B.U.H). It is in Wikipedia's policy to take down any material that is offensive to a group of people, and its not something that I personally don't like, rather its the Muslim community as a whole. If you see images in Iran or any other place(considering a minority of people) as being treated as acceptable, this doesn't have to be taken as right or correct, or tended to be generalized for all Muslims. I hope I've made it clear enough. Hijazyr ( talk) 09:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It is in Wikipedia's policy to take down any material that is offensive to a group of people...is an incorrect claim. Tarc ( talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Islamic_calendar#Request_for_comment -- NeilN talk to me 14:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been restoring the picture on Mohammedan as it was removed without proper discussion however it does seem to be a fairly poor image that doesn't add much, certainly nothing essential, to the article so I thought I would ask what people think about it. Should it be removed or replaced with a different image?
Also, I have read the instructions on hiding the images which some people find offensive. They are rather complicated and limited in scope to specific images or all images on specific articles. Instead, would it be possible to provide simple tickbox based preferences for people who do not wish to see certain categories of images. It is a bit poor to tell readers to fiddle with their CSS as non-technical people may see this as an unhelpful fob off. If we could give them a simple tickbox that deals with their objections in an easy and effective way then I think that would help avoid disputes and edit wars. People on both sides of the argument could work together to get all the offensive images correctly categorised and we could turn something disruptive and divisive into something constructive that meets the needs of all readers. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The pictures posted in this article is inappropriate and may conflict with WP:GOODFAITH. The pictures have no historical evidence and proof. the pictures are not accurate and may troubled with WP:PRIV. The pictures have not represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views. conflict with WP:NEUTRAL,
The pictures with facing here are not neutral, not good faith, no historical evidence in the view of significant. I proposed to remove the pictures with facing. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:GOODFAITH is about religion, point of view, and any good aspect.
WP:PRIV is also about censoring in the person whose image is used in this article. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam gives not permission to Muslims to use his image.
We know that the images are not true representations and we are not trying to fool anybody that they are. images are not true representation but may conflict with WP:GOODFAITH because what is the intention of people who post images? Muslims knew the images are censor. what is the intention of others who post and view the images that not true representation? may conflict again with WP:NEUTRAL
This has been discussed many, many times before so...so what? If the pictures found illegal for this encyclopedia, it should be removed as it will not destroy the integrity of the website. if WP:GOODFAITH is not true, this website may fall down. I proposed to remove the pictures because the pictures have many conflict and may affect the integrity of this website. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not know what is your cause and intention. My intention is to make the article clean and make the integrity of the article and website clean.
The reason why i proposed to removed the pictures here because it have many conflict.
WP:PRIV is also about censoring in the person whose image is used in this article. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam gives not permission to Muslims to use his image.
All Holy Mosque in all the world, all houses of Muslims, all clean houses have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad. The pictures are not accurate and have no historical value. The pictures have not uploaded in good faith.
It is weird and inappropriate to use 2 files in article, the text of his name and the images and may affect the neutral and good faith.
There is already one type of file in the article and that is the text of his name in this article. I think it is enough for people to view because Muslims and other people can use the text of his name displayed in their houses.
I proposed to remove the pictures here because it may clean the viewing of the viewers, losing its many conflict. thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
you think you can make the proposal and the hard-effort statements as a trash and treat me like a clown.
I proposed to removed the pictures because it have many conflict.
prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam gives not permission to Muslims to use his image. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam is a Muslim. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam helps people to be islam in the path of Allah. All holy Mosques in all the world, all houses of Muslims, all clean houses have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam. that's for conflict in wiki:privacy.
The pictures have not uploaded in good faith. the uploader should aware in good faith. the pictures have not fair and not open dealing in human interactions. The uploader must sincere, honest intentions or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action. that's for conflict in wiki:good faith.
the pictures are not accurate and have no historical value. We should avoid stating opinions as facts and avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. We should indicate the relative prominence of opposing view. that's for conflict in wiki:neutral.
There are many article in encyclopedia have no facing and that should be the case of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam. There are many people who don't insist to post a picture in any person due of concern of many bad conflicts and bad faith that should be the case of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam. that's for conflict in wiki:encyclopedia.
I think it's really enough and neutral to display the text of his name in the article. that's for wiki:neutral.
I proposed to removed the pictures because of have many conflicts. The pictures may uploaded in bad faith. The pictures found it offensive for more than billions of people. The pictures are not accurate and have no historical value. The pictures may conflict with privacy policy. thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry if was so ignorant. i have seen faq. What i am stating right now is the conflict of images and how it may affect in encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censor but if the object violates another policy, it is illegal and does not belong in encyclopedia content.
Some important policy is wp:goodfaith and wp:neutral. if the objects do not violate that important policy, the objects can stay in this website. I hope we know that.
since 2001 to july 21 2005 there are no pictures of prophet Muhammad salALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam in article. since 2001 to july 21 2005 there are no pictures of veiled face of prophet Muhammad salALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam in article.
all Holy Mosques in all the world, all clean houses, all houses of Muslims have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad salALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam. non-iconic representations of Muhammad are traditionally discouraged.
editors and uploaders are not require to add object in the presence of obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. editors and uploaders should not violate wp:goodfaith and help the project not hurt it.
it is still wp:neutral if there are no pictures but text of the name displayed in the article. since in the neutral point of view, this article is in Islam. all of the content in this article is in Islam.
before i received negative response, i want to ask them if the pictures are in good faith. since violating wp:goodfaith can lose the integrity of whole website.
we should respect what happen in 2001 to 2005. i propose to remove the pictures in the article as it was happened before. there is clearly nothing wrong if the pictures have removed. there is nothing to insult and nothing to give offense if the pictures have removed. thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
that is not neutral point of view. the practice of all Muslims is to avoid idolatry and no pictures in Holy Mosque the house of ALLAH. what is the purpose of pictures if some viewers found it offensive? what is the purpose of pictures if all viewers found it discrimination of religion? All Holy Mosques in all the world, all clean houses of Muslims have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam. it may troubled again in good faith. is it good faith to insult most Muslims? is it good faith for the other viewers to see the pictures if most people in his religion found it offensive? is it good faith for people to be ignorant if there is strong evidence that pictures are traditionally discouraged? do you not then understand? only the wicked people can want to view the picture. the practice of mankind is to respect the belief of clean religion. it may troubled again in neutral view. All Holy Mosques in all the world, all clean houses of Muslims have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam. editors and uploaders are not require to add object in the presence of obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. editors and uploaders should not violate wp:goodfaith and help the project not hurt it.
I proposed to remove that pictures and only display the text of his name since it was happened since this article contributed in the website and to 2005. thanks for reading.
File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.jpg is a non-free file that has no fair-use rationale for the article Depictions of Muhammad on its image description page ( WP:NFCC#10c). Consequentially, it should be removed from the article ( WP:NFCCE).
I'm opposed to adding a rationale for the article on grounds of WP:NFCC#3a (minimal usage across the encyclopedia), as the linked article Everybody Draw Mohammed Day already features the image. Furthermore, I think WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) isn't met for the article Depictions of Muhammad, as the image is used there neither to identify the main subject of this article ("Depictions of Muhammad", rather it only illustrates one example thereof and plenty of free images already serve the purpose of identification) nor is the image itself an object of commentary, only the event is (see WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion). Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ AstroLynx:, who reverted my removal of the image for "no consensus for deleting this image", is welcome to discuss it here. Amatulic did not oppose. Let me remind you that WP:NFCC#3a for all practical purposes means that if there is a main article for the image (which in this case is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day that it depicts), then the image should not be used in other articles. This is "to minimize the total number of times items of non-free content are included within the encyclopedia" ( WP:NFC#Number of items). See a recent discussion regarding NFCC#3a arriving at this conclusion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair use of logo. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, The inclusion of the two images illustrated by Rashid-al-Din_Hamadani, which were on the Life section on this article, doesn't seem to be respecting the WP:NPOV given that it is already in use on the article about the depictions of the prophet Muhammad (صلّى اللّه عليه و سلّم), which by itself is more enough to be a reference about it, and that these two images cannot have more weight and correctness than other images included with the separate article I've pointed out: So, to make this article lesser biased, I removed those images and instead pointed to Depictions of Muhammad on the See Also section [22]. Ttt74 ( talk) 20:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
--NimXaif6290 18:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Dear "owner of this page", I am not sure that youre a Muslim or true Muslim. The Cartoonic pictures of Jibril and Muhammad are shown on this article. It will be gladness to me if you remove such pictures that are insult of our beloved Prophet Muhammad SAW. PLZ --NimXaif6290 18:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimrainayat6290 ( talk • contribs)
I know Wikipedia isn't censored for the benefit of any group, but don't you think we should still be careful about things that could upset radical extremists who are willing to hurt people? Most other uncensored things don't have that issue.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.208.129 ( talk) 22:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
please remove the images of prophet Mohammmad peace be upon him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.226.29.55 ( talk) 13:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would request to have the pictures of Prophet Muhammad's face be removed as it is against the rules of the religion of Islam to depict the faces of the any Prophet. Thank You.
220.240.117.23 ( talk) 10:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The subject image should be replaced to:
Mohammad, the prophet and founder of Islam https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammad,_the_prophet_and_founder_of_Islam.jpg
the current imagery used within this wiki does not represent or depict the subject. This image depicts this subject using conventions found within comparable wikis.
The idea that Islam censors images of Mohammad should not force or control this wiki. IlikeMonkeys ( talk) 18:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The subject image should be replaced to:
Mohammad, the prophet and founder of Islam https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammad,_the_prophet_and_founder_of_Islam.jpg
the current imagery used within this wiki does not represent or depict the subject. This image depicts this subject using conventions found within comparable wikis. IlikeMonkeys ( talk) 17:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:DENY |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article is permanently semi-protected. There have been coordinated off-wiki attacks on the article, as well as long term abuse by one or more block-evading individuals editing via IP edits and/or sockpuppet accounts. Such edits should be dealt with as WP:Revert, block, ignore, including edits to this talk page.
* Comment If a judge sat through a trial and then delivered a judgment without any reasons he would be laughed out of court. Alsee's first exhibit is a caption. There is no investigation into the reliability of the sources but there should be - in Jimbo's words "We are not transcription monkeys". Monkeys cannot identify the key issues but editors can:
The caption of Alsee's second exhibit is difficult to read but it appears to say
The picture is claimed to be a generic picture of Muhammad preaching (there are no others). This is the point made by the first of the sources quoted in the RfC - that prohibiting intercalation is an unlikely topic for a painting. As Codename Lisa asked, where are the Nasī, the camel and the pilgrims that would justify this interpretation? Without them, this is no more than synthesis. The obvious subject of the painting - a shi'ite imam preaching to a shi'ite congregation in a mosque - is far more likely to be the actual subject of this work by a theologically illiterate artist who was commissioned by his shi'ite ruler to illustrate one of the volumes in his possession. All the pictures in the manuscript follow the same polemical, sectarian agenda. Very, very few of the pictures bear any relation whatsoever to the matters Biruni is discussing at the points where they appear. Alsee's third exhibit is a book which does not illustrate the picture but claims the manuscript "explicitly says it's an image of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation." It doesn't. It couldn't, because the picture was painted 500 years after the book was written. The fourth exhibit is the manuscript itself and commentary by a cataloguer - not an art historian - which, in the absence of scholarly investigation, can only be the result of synthesis. Alsee goes on "The discussion cited multiple reliable sources, scholars and historians, describing this as a depiction of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation." It didn't. As mentioned, the first source made the point that the prohibition of intercalation was a highly unlikely topic for a book's illustrator. With so many interesting issues being discussed, why would the artist alight on that? The second source simply says the picture is one of Muhammad preaching - no mention of intercalation. The third source was cited by AstroLynx, who refuses to reveal the author's view on the matter, so it is probably safe to conclude that she concluded that this was neither Muhammad, nor the Farewell Pilgrimage, nor the prohibition of intercalation. 151.227.21.236 ( talk) 09:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.222.141 ( talk)
It is an artistic depiction of Muhammed, many years after his death? Certainly not the artist, because he said no such thing. He painted many pictures of different people doing various things. Friday prayer in a mosque is an obvious subject for a painting. Moreover, in the milieu in which he worked, it was not the done thing to paint pictures of Muhammad. See this comment in this discussion [23]: However, it so happens that the man on the image represents not the prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from Persia). And again: I've been told that depictions of Ali are relatively common in Shi'a areas (more so than any historical Muslim leader including Muhammad), though I have no direct knowledge of this. And again: I don't know if it helps you through the decisions making process but that said i'm quite confident that this is not a Mohammed picture. Most probably it is Ali. and for that reason it should be fine. in Iran(Majority Shia Moslem) a lot of Ali pictures can be found. there is not objection from religious authorities about that. But you can rarely find a Muhammad picture. in most of the old paintings Mohammed face was not painted in detail. instead it was drawn as a big source of light. I come from Iran and would be more than happy to help you with this topic or any related issue. I'll respond to Khajidha when I've looked at her source. 78.146.222.141 ( talk) 15:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Note that the 78.* IPs that have been active in this thread are banned user Vote (X) for Change, so anything they write here can/should be summarily ignored or reverted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Those pictures Which illustrated Prophet (SAW) should be removed. 144.48.148.5 ( talk) 15:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
-- Spafky ( talk) 20:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Remove the pictures related to Our Holy Prophet Muhammad CPBUH). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.65.93 ( talk) 15:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Good evening. My question is whether it would be acceptable to put a warning at the front of the article stating that the article contains depictions of Muhammad and linking to the FAQ. It could also contain information about hiding the pictures with the CSS rule provided in the FAQ. I think that many people do not read the talk page before starting to read the article (or they did not even know that such a thing exists) and so they see the images unexpectedly. I would ask you if this can be an option to consider. Thank you. -- Csimma Viktor ( talk) 21:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This not acceptable at all please remove picture, there is no use of this miniature picture Asimk687 ( talk) 19:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Naveedur ( talk) 01:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Please remove the prophet Mohammad pictures from Wikipedia-- Naveedur ( talk) 01:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i request admin to remove these pictures from this article
" /info/en/?search=File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:The_Prophet_Muhammad_and_the_Muslim_Army_at_the_Battle_of_Uhud,_from_the_Siyer-i_Nebi,_1595.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:Maome.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:Muhammad_destroying_idols_-_L%27Histoire_Merveilleuse_en_Vers_de_Mahomet_BNF.jpg" " /info/en/?search=File:La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg"
because these illustrations are against our religion ISLAM. so kindly remove these pictures. there is not any picture of our prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) and these pictures are Blasphemy content! Asadali26 ( talk) 20:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
A core belief in Islam is that their should be no depictions of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and this page having a depiction is insulting and should be removed instantly. Please refer to this article for more clarification. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:4CDF:FD42:D5A2:13A4:5D66:5216 ( talk) 22:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
"Any prohibition of making or displaying images can only be applicable to those subject to it."is nonsense, by the way - I could choose to be subject to it, or just to respect it without being bound by it. Not everything is black and white - the best parts are the shades of grey... -- Begoon 14:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "Beginnings of the Quran", remove the picture thay says "Muhammad receiving his first revelation", you are not supposed to represent any prophet through a portray or an image. 125.209.82.205 ( talk) 04:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't like the way you added the images of the pbuh Muhammed. Please remove all the images like with humans or animals in it because the prophet wouldn't like being politicised falsely like this, so please remove the pictures of living things as soon as possible.
Thank you, By Nevin Nevin s shams ( talk) 16:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The image for the page should be replaced with a simple decorative image of his name Muhammad. 50.100.247.30 ( talk) 08:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Jack Frost (
talk)
10:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)I am one many wiki readers who want any images that refer to the Prophet Mohammed (SWS) may the Pease and blessings be upon him to be removed, this is as a mark of respect no where in the Muslim world would you find any images at all referring the prophet Mohammed (SWS) and his Companions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibrasul ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In The "Beginnings of the Quran" section the image used is showing prophet MUHAMMED peace be upon him and angel Gabriel which is strictly against our belief. I request you to remove these images from the page ASAP.
Link of the image image_to_be_removed
There is no image showing prophet MUHAMMED swallal lahu aliahi wasallam. Mdabrar4devops ( talk) 04:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a picture of prophet Pbuh while setting the black stone in kabbah . Which is prohibited in our religion and is offensive to us . Kindly take it down. 39.45.161.12 ( talk) 04:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to remove any images that illustrate the Prophet Mohammed (SWS), this a mark of respect, it is part of the Muslim faith that no images of the final Prophet of God should be made by and person either Muslim or none Muslim. And I request that when the name of the Prophet Mohammed (sws), SWS is put after his name meaning "may peace be upon him" again the is a great mark of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibrasul ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
None of these paintings have ever had any historical or theological value for Muslims or non-Muslims. The article on the Arabic wikipedia, which is a featured article, doesn't include any of these paintings.-- Commenter7 ( talk) 08:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect, this isn't a religious Encyclopedia. Things are as they are through consensus and researched information, verified and checked again. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:B0A0:1C1:6BB8:3F8D ( talk) 15:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comment doesn't seem relevant to my comment. Are you confused or what is your problem? My comment was about the images not having a historical or a theological significance. I don't see in what way your comment addresses that point. -- Commenter7 ( talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
And by the way, since you brought this up in your last comment, let me correct you: things are as they are through systemic bias and cherry picking of sources. Full stop.-- Commenter7 ( talk) 02:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the pictures shown in this article. These are fake and there is no real picture of Propet Muhammad PBUH. This is blasphemy indeed. 116.58.53.130 ( talk) 11:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
For most consensus-found-but-still-controversial matters that rise to the level of needing a FAQ, there is typically at least one or two clear findings of consensus that can be pointed to. I'm having trouble finding those for images of Muhammad, though. Where is the evidence that it is settled? Or is it just meant to be self-evident in WP:NOTCENSORED (and if that were the case, how did it get to the stage of e.g. mediation? perhaps it is connected to a history of notcensored I'm unaware of)? To be clear, this is not an argument not to display the images -- just a request for documentation for someone interested in how disputes happen on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
All the citation tells you is that the picture appears in the cited manuscript. The manuscript does not claim that the picture is Muhammad. All pictures which are not photographs are necessarily representations. The reason why the picture has yet to be removed is (a) because the page was protected to prevent it and (b) because AstroLynx lied in the RfC. Despite being the author of numerous scholarly books on the history of Islam he chose to tell the participants that, while the location of every other ceremony in the Farewell Pilgrimage is meticulously documented, this one isn't. In fact, since this sermon is the most significant event of the whole Pilgrimage there are more contemporary reports of it than any other. 92.19.168.173 ( talk) 12:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The arguments at Talk:Herod the Great#Image again are equally applicable here.]
The final comment relates to this article. See Special:Permalink/974669756#Image again.
Rv Anachronist. He's been banging on about this for TWELVE YEARS User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2009#What a pity..!!!!!. On page 3 of the book discussing the Ilkhanid manuscripts he cites the author says "However, the above-mentioned scenes cannot be categorized under religious painting because they were neither meant as icons nor as religious or sacred art. They were merely illustrations of historical events that had occurred during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad".
So on Anachronist's own source, this picture is what it purports to be - an Imam (Ali? - remember the Ilkhanids were Shia) preaching to the Ahl al-Bayt in a mosque @ Objective3000: (he says he thrives on controversy). 81.147.142.50 ( talk) 08:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Many articles on historical persons or events cannot be illustrated with authentic material, as no contemporary portraits or other depictions of the subject exist.
Comment: The picture which you claim (without giving any reason) is a picture of Muhammad was painted 700 years after his death.
While most historical cultures didn't produce actual portraits, many did produce other kinds of depictions of individual persons, such as depictions of rulers on ancient coins, miniatures in medieval bookpainting etc.
Comment: Unlike a picture on a coin, which can reasonably be assumed to be a representation of the ruler whose name is inscribed thereon, nothing in the picture indicates that this is a picture of Muhammad. How could it be, given that there are no known pictures of him wearing a short beard (for the simple reason that contemporary accounts say he had a beard which extended to his chest and rustled when he walked)? How could it be Muhammad delivering his Farewell Sermon when all Muslims know that the pilgrimage has always taken place in the open? The idea of labelling a mosque scene as a feature of the pilgrimage is more than just misleading - it's pernicious.
* Always add an informative caption to any non-photographic image explaining the provenance and nature of the depiction...
Comment: In other words, when framing the caption for a picture don't tell lies.
* Always be sure the image improves the encyclopedic content of any article - do not merely use images as fillers or eye-candy.
Comment: Instead of running to Future Perfect at Sunrise's talkpage to spread lies (note that he hasn't bothered to reply) why don't you instead explain how you think this picture adds to the reader's understanding of the workings of the Islamic calendar. There are plenty of places where this image is useful and therefore included but this is not one of them.
From the original version of the essay:
Since the artist is non-notable [we don't even know who he or she is!], their artistic imagination will not have been analyzed and written about in reliable sources, so we have nothing to explain and hedge the image with, and would be left with just letting it speak for itself and spread its ideological message freely. Such images may therefore be not merely useless, but actually harmful to the encyclopedia, and should be avoided.
Comment: The most distinguished Islamic scholar editing Wikipedia today had this to say in the original RfC:
... didn't see a need to examine the other two images (note the word "already" in his conclusion). Also, the third image that he used to prove the "strong sectarian feeling" (The Envoy of Musailama) has nothing to do with the investiture of Ali. Incidentally, his arguments concerning that image also applies to this image (the prominent placement of ahl al-Bayt; al-Hussien is favored over al-Hassan by being placed closest to the prophet; etc)... Wiqi( 55) 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
... He actually noticed a "strong sectarian feeling" in an image that was not about the investiture of Ali, contrary to what you wrote above. Then based on how you misrepresented the source you assumed that the RFC image has no sectarian purposes, which is original research (and can be disputed by pointing at Hillenbrand's arguments about the Envoy to Musailama). In any case, I don't see a reason why I should change my !vote. Adding pages/images to a general article from a source that has been described as sectarian and agenda driven is not inline with npov. Wiqi( 55) 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Wiqi55: 92.19.175.81 ( talk) 12:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Worship in Islam is clearly definition of spiritual awareness and acceptance of Allah in our lives. The concept of image comes from drawing a sketch, and then you add up colors to provide depiction of figures. This is purely related to developing an idol; as these idols are represented in forms of figures. These are depictions of humans [ancestors], jins, animals. One concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, but also creating an image might lead the artist to claim the ability to create, an ability only ascribed to God. These images/idols are clearly forbidden in Islam as these are sources of Shirk.
It is impermissible in Islam to depict prophets in movies, pictures or images. There is no justification whatsoever for the depiction of the prophets and messengers of Allah (peace be upon them) due to their prodigious and venerated status. Allah’s prophets and messengers are the best of all humans, and HE raised them high above depiction by any other human being.
Allah has ranked prophets far above Satan’s impersonation in dreams. Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Name yourselves with my name (use my name) but do not name yourselves with my kunya name (i.e. Abu al-Qasim). And whoever sees me in a dream then surely he has seen me for Satan cannot impersonate me. And whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally), then let him occupy his place in hell-fire"(Bukhari and Muslim).
This hadith clearly proves that Allah Almighty preserves the status of the prophets (peace be upon them) and protects their message. Satan cannot impersonate the prophets either in reality or in a dream.
The holy Prophet of Islam Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) also said: “ The intensive punishment of the people on the Day of Hereafter belongs to the drawers of pictures (idolism).”
Muhammad is an honored character among Muslims who often perceive depictions and other material critical of him — as an attack on their Muslim identity and "it is a human impulse to want to protect what's sacred to you." This is so because, by the way of Faith, a believer has a link with Allah and His Prophet, and for this reason he has been mentioned in the same line and in the row of Allah (s.w.t.) and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Prior to /’iθman mubina/ because of its importance, since calumny is counted one of the greatest hurts, and the pain of the annoyance created by it is even more intensive than the pain of sword and dagger, because the pain of the wound of a dagger is reconcilable, but the wound of the tongue is not reconcilable.
In Quran (Surah Al-’Ahzab – Verse 57) Allah says:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالأَخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَاباً مُّهِيناً
“Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and He has prepared for them a humiliating punishment.”
Annoying Allah means doing something against His desire and His consent that, instead of attracting His Mercy, one causes to bring His wrath and curse as a consequence. Purpose of annoying Allah may be purpose of annoying His Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is to reject him, to denigrate him, to treat impolitely with him (peace and blessings upon him), hurting His Ahlul Bayt (as) and also undue attributions, accusations, or creating trouble.
Based on this, it is mandatory upon Muslims to respect our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and all the other prophets and messengers of Allah by refraining from presenting, producing, and releasing artworks that depict them. Lack of knowledge and ignorance may drive some authors to distort or manipulate the biography of any prophet for personal gain.
It is established in Islamic law that preventing harm takes precedence over gaining benefit. So, despite all the benefits that depict the prophets, these works involve real evil such as tampering with the prophets’ biographies and adding irrelevant and incorrect information. Al-Azhar’s Islamic Research Academy declared in resolution no. 100 of its 14th session of the 35th round held in Cairo on June 30, 1999 CE that it is impermissible to depict the prophets, messengers, the ten Companions who were promised paradise and the household of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in any form of art.
Based on the above, it is impermissible to violate the sanctity of the prophets and messengers by personifying them in any artwork. Producers should work on finding and presenting innovative ideas to introduce the biographies of the prophets in a manner befitting their status and avoid causing strife in the Muslim community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Then please stop talking about Islam on Wikipidia. None of you have any rights to alter the islamic rights just on wikipedia just for your own self contents. Islamic rules are immaculate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Muslims Community reserves the rigths to take up the this matter under the Preservation of Electronics Crimes Act 2016 (PECA) for spreading the false contents especially in religious matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
its haram in islam meaning forbidden Remove the Prophet Muhammad image this is Saving 2 types of peoples no.1 by Foolish or, peoples who don't know about islam no.2 Munafiqs Meaning Enemies of islam just remove this 2 images this the big blasphemy wikipedia is hurting muslims who can see wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDDHO ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC) -- JUDDHO ( talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Images of prophet Mohammad peace be upon him should get deleted from this page. It is prohibited to publish dawings of any of the prophets of god. With such a high place of honor they were given, they should at least be respected not to be in any drawing or painting. Dr.Alaa1996 ( talk) 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are many pictures under which it is mentioned that Prophet Muhammad is doing this and that. Kindly remove all the pictures which are drawings of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) because it is against the prestige of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and hurts the feelings of Muslims. 202.142.155.154 ( talk) 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
body.page-Muhammad div.depiction {display: none;}
on
Special:MyPage/common.css 🔥
Lightning
Complex
Fire🔥
16:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)—
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove photos from Muhammad receiving his first revelation from Gabriel in Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashīd al-Dīn Ṭabīb (1307) Abdul Razak Kalai ( talk) 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You have posted a picture of our beloved Prophet Hazrat Muhammad ( S.A.W) in Eurpeon section. Kindly remove it ! It is against the ethics. You should not hurt feelings of Muslims. 182.179.182.149 ( talk) 23:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I was just wondering if the main photo is the best choice, would another one with an actual depiction not be more appropriate?
or is this being done intentionally? perhaps to avoid a few extra messages from people complaining that might not continue scrolling down the article if they see that photo first?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesowismine ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The pics portraying Muhammad peace be upon him are disrespectful and be removed from this article. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be informative and not stir disrespectful images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristarinstruments ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
its a humble request to Wikipedia that remove pictures of Hazrat Muhammad Sb. from this article because Hazrat Muhammad Sb. never had a piçture in his entire life. its a disrespect to Hazrat Muhammad Sb. Wikipedia is a informative website don't make it coñtroversial. 2405:204:101F:2C3B:0:0:1055:C8A4 ( talk) 09:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Its A humble request to Wikipedia that Hazrat Muhammad S. Never Clicked or painted by anyone in his entire life. So The Artificial Image shown in this article is desperately disrespectful for Hazrat Muhammad S. and his followers. Kindly Remove all the pictures which pointed and imaged to Hazrat Muhammad Sb.. Thank you 2405:204:101A:2B26:0:0:2586:98A4 ( talk) 17:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
kindly make amends in títle if*Of its s typing error. 2405:204:101A:2B26:0:0:2586:98A4 ( talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: When replying to me, please tag me with {{Re|GOLDIEM J}}
Should we really be using visual depictions of Muhammad throughout the article, while most Muslims hold views against this?
GOLDIEM J (
talk)
06:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
you are using wrong pics that never existed. This should be stopped. It is not the real pic . The pic of him never existed. please remove it 182.187.76.142 ( talk) 14:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've read the whole article, and I did not find any problem in it except the photos. There should not be the photos of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) in the article in which his appearance is described. This thing hurt the Muslim Community who love to read articles on Wikipedia. I request you to remove the photos of Muhammad (P.B.U.H)'s appearance. Those photos should be deleted from the article. The links of Photos are given below: 1. /info/en/?search=File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg 2. /info/en/?search=File:Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg 3. /info/en/?search=Muhammad#/media/File:The_Prophet_Muhammad_and_the_Muslim_Army_at_the_Battle_of_Uhud,_from_the_Siyer-i_Nebi,_1595.jpg 4. /info/en/?search=Muhammad#/media/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg 5. /info/en/?search=Muhammad#/media/File:Maome.jpg 6. /info/en/?search=Muhammad#/media/File:Muhammad_destroying_idols_-_L'Histoire_Merveilleuse_en_Vers_de_Mahomet_BNF.jpg 7. /info/en/?search=Muhammad#/media/File:La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg AManan00 ( talk) 22:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Editors,
I sincerely request you to take out the pictures on this article which show a made-up face of my Prophet Muhammad (Peasse and Blessings Be Upon Him). I don't think you are aware, but in our religion of Islam, there are no pictures of any of the prophets and stupid people and just created pictures, which is forbidden. my Prophet (pbuh)never had any portrait taken off him. If you want to keep the pictures there, then i would please like you to edit the pictures and put a blank white shiny light, over what is 2supposed2 to be my blessed Prophet. I find this sickening and extremely disturbing. Furthermore, my second reqest is for you to remove the box of critisisms. All the critisms are incorrect and not based on any facts or research. it's crazy, someone crituqing something that they haven't thorughly studied and have barely any awareness about.
I shall be waiting for you changes to be impletmented,
Thank you. 193.61.240.191 ( talk) 13:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
as you already know, we Muslims are against putting any picture and saying him as Mohammad, so picture you put during putting stone for kaba, should be removed. hoping that you'll remove soon. no image should be there. Alif.laam.meem ( talk) 17:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Does writing articles on this site from an irreligious and secular point of view provide a justification for disrespecting and ignoring people's religious beliefs? You don't remove these pictures because you lack empathy. I mean, when you go to the Arab or Turkish Wikipedias, you will see that when people ask why are such disrespectful deeds made, Muslim authoritatives and users will not give the offensive answers like you gave. Because they will deceive themselves. They will say that what they are doing is okay, or they will try to justify themselves, but since you probably don't belong to any religion, you can't understand our feelings the way Muslim authoritatives can understand other Muslims' feelings, even they also not do that perfect. You don't know how much these pictures disturb us, Muslims. You just disrespecting. J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J ( talk) 14:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Multiple images of Muhammad in the article are still shown despite "body.page-Muhammad div.depiction {display: none;}" being added to common.css. I ask that the filter is also applied to the following images stated:
Section - File name - Description
Childhood and early life - Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg - The story of Muhammad's role in re-setting the Black Stone -
Conflict with Mecca - The Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim Army at the Battle of Uhud, from the Siyer-i Nebi, 1595.jpg - "The Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim Army at the Battle of Uhud"
European appreciation - La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg - Image by M. Prideaux
I would not consider the image (Muhammad destroying idols - L'Histoire Merveilleuse en Vers de Mahomet BNF.jpg) in Depictions section as an direct depiction of Muhammad because it shows Muhammad as a flame rather than as a human.
-- Chxeese ( talk) 19:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I propose that Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#A3 be amended to cover any article that depicts an image of Muhammad's face.
Currently a user is instructed to add body.page-Muhammad div.depiction {display: none;}
to their common.css file.
I propose we change the class name to "muhammad-depiction" and remove the body.page-Muhammad
rule. Then, all anyone needs to put into common.css would be:
div.muhammad-depiction {display: none;}
Then we'd have to go through the
Muhammad article and change the handful of <div class="depiction">
tags to <div class="depiction Muhammad-depiction">
(the original "depiction" would be left for backward compatibility). In any image that is not already tagged this way, we'd just enclose the image in <div class="Muhammad-depiction">
.
This would allow users to filter Muhammad images from other articles such as Black Stone, Depictions of Muhammad, Prophet, and any other article where depictions of Muhammad appear. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Editors,
It requested that all images depicting the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) be removed as it is insensitive to Muslims all around the world.
Regards, Usman Ahmed Khan 103.255.6.91 ( talk) 07:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Wiki,
You are requested please remove the photos of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in this article. We Muslim respect all the religion and expected same from the other religion. We love our prophet Muhammad (PBUM) and this act hurts our community, no doubt you depicted these sketches for better understanding and with good intention even then you are request to remove these sketches. Regards, Maygedkan ( talk) 09:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is cartoon of prophet Mohammed in this article, please remove it. It's not appropriate and will face consequences. 2402:3A80:1593:73BA:0:25:DD5C:F701 ( talk) 11:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No pictures of Muhammad please as per Allah all pictures are haram and illegal under islamic law 71.241.213.53 ( talk) 11:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Entry for first F.A question of this page says "Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions" and this brought a question to my mind.
If the one is not enforcing a prohibition on purpose, then this may have come from the thought of aforementioned ban is not necessary to apply.
In this case, if the one does not applies this depiction ban, wouldn't it emphasise the idea of showing Muhammad's depiction is appropriate and even necessary, which is totally biased? Owerthise ( talk) 17:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)