![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Adding a picture for the prophets generally is something forbidden for the muslims, and solid in their doctrine, as we do not have the philosophy of the holy person, and being sacred is left only to God Almighty. And as we are not concerned, as muslims, for imposing our ideas on the other religions so we are not against publishing photos for Jesus Christ, by the chrisitans, however we found ourselves responsible for prohibiting such photos for our prophet because it constitutes threats for the islamic doctrine, especially for the coming generations, exposing the muslims doctrine for alterations specially for those who are born and raised in western countries where they are subject for the majority of the time to westen media, and not taking the religion from its specialized scholars.
Moreover neither of such photos were done for phrophet Muhammed (PBUH) during his life or by his order, nor they were aknowledged by him. And as we respect your site as one of the most important knowledge sources, we are asking you kindly to remove all the photos impersonating prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from you respectful site. And I think respectng the others feelings, and doctrines are important factors constituting the policy of this website, and its so clear now that such photos have caused unpleasent and pasive feeings among the muslims who where informed with this issue, and among the users of the website.
And I think it will be a matter of respect, before any other considerations, to remove such photos, specially that it is not representing any added values or information to the issue discussed.
Regards,
Hazem Mohamed Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, may be I was not clear in my previous message, I am neither trying to impose my believes on any person, or debating the source of the pictures. Because simply I am not claiming the fidelity of our prophet or even asking for confession that he was a prophet, also I am not debating about a conspiracy theory of who issued such photos. I am simply saying that such photos are not of additive value, and it will cause passive feelings among the "majority" (not all) of the muslims. And the same could be implied for any idea that is not a matter of debate, has no additive value, and offensive for a large group of people.
It seems its some how difficult to have a meeting point, because simply the west can't understand the senstivity of the religious issues for us, and we can't admit the freedom theory of the west as well. However I am gratefull for your fruitful contribution (to Logan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, just a reply to Tharkuncoll, you may debate that Muhammed's (PBUH) output to the humanity should not be patented by the muslims, however you can not argue about the fact that the muslims are the most affected people with what written and published about Muhammed (PBUH), affected by all means (moraly, phsycologicaly, politicaly,....), hence it is something normal that what published about prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is much more concerning the muslims than any other group, for the muslims, it is not a matter of patenting a product for commercial or scientefic purposes, its a matter of feelings, and morals, exactly like the feeling of a mother toward her child, sure she is not patenting him, but she is the most one caring about him.
For the rest of the messages; As I said before we are both playing a game with different rules, however because the field is yours we are urged to comply with your rules, or it will be fair enough to quite the game.
MY FINAL CUT IS A MESSAGE FOR ALL THE MUSLIMS OPPOSING THE PHOTOS "THIS IS THE POLICY OF THE SITE, IT DON'T REMOVE PUBLISHED MATERIAL BECAUSE IT IS OFFENDING TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE, SO U HAVE THE CHOICE NOW, EITHER TO COMPLY OR JUST SIMPLY DRAG THE SITE UNDER UR RESTRICTED SITES LIST" ITS FAIR ENOUGH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
i think all Muslims should know that because wikipedia owners think that they know more than muslims about Islam. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had never been pictured , but you people insist that the fake picture in the article belong to him. you can keep the picture , whatever you people do, islam will stay the fastest growing religion in the world and all the world will be muslim someday.
to I question your understanding of "free" Muslims claim that the pictures in the article dont belong to the prophet , non-muslims claim that they belong to him, so how do you people know more than muslims ?! thats my question...... i think there should be 2 Articles talking about Muhammad pbuh , one according to Muslims and one according to your imaginary sources. to gazzster offend me ? lol , if you want i can give you the link of the danish cartoons and you can add them too, i dont really care because, it wont hurt me , the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is DEAD ,it will hurt wikipedia only because people are going to see it as a source of false informations , and by keeping this pictures, 1400000000 persons in this world see it like that.
These conversations are incredibly futile and all too common. We need to resurrect Talk:Muhammad/images and have a policy of moving all discussion there. I have no problem with responding to these queries to try to explain to the editors but they are not discussing relevant issues with article that will make it better. They also make it rather difficult to discuss legitimate issues dealing with the pictures because editors become so frustrated by discussions of the images which have nothing to do with WP policy. If a few common editors voice their support I'll move some of the discussions over there. gren グレン 01:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to remove the pictures where Prophet Muhammad SAW is shown . ( Bilalsarwar ( talk) 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)).
Please remove the images based on the following logical reasons:
1. As an encyclopedia, you must not present a fabricated stuff as an original. This the utmost action misleading and deception. As u can see in images, they were produced in 14th-16th century, whereas the era of The Prophet was during 8th century. Only a senseless & biased person can believe that the pictures are NOT wrong / fabricated.
2. Regardless of the correctness of the pictures, it is an humanitarian issue. Remember the purpose of knowledge is to benefit people, not to make troubles. This is not an issue of "beliefs of a group of few (100's or 10,000's or even 100,000's) people. This is related to fundamental belief of 1.5 Billion people (1/5 th of the total population today) and even Billions of Muslims since last 1400+ years. There is not authentic record in history that the picture of Prophet was made. Instead it has been STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.
3. I don't agree with your definition of "neutrality-of-religions". Neutrality should mean that all religions have equal rights to be included. But when describing facts, you have to agree to the community that own those beliefs, as you are an outsider. As William Shakespeare said: "Your freedom ends where my nose starts." So your have right to be free and neutral in your beliefs UNLESS & UNTIL you run into other's space.
4. For an example, can you associate some theory with Newton or Einstein which cannot be found in their books, articles or any proven material produced by them, just because some Mr ABC claims so years after them?
I hope I'll get a logical response (the best would be the removal of pictures).
After scanning the previous discussions, I see no-one suggesting use of the hidden template, so you have to click on "Show" to see them, or "Hide" to hide them. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Removing or not removing will obviously never meet consensus. Perhaps hiding template will make things less painful for muslims, without being censorship either. Anthere ( talk) 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Still gets back to the point that we are not censored, and that is own of our biggest features. There are countless articles and images on this website that someone could find offensive, but we do not conform to the minority who wishes for censorship. Jmlk 1 7 21:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The article really should have an example of Sini script. For example Islamic Calligraphy in China, figure 16 shows an honorific of the Prophet, although the most mind-blowing are probably figures 6 and 15. What a fantastic artistic tradition! Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am assuming (hoping) that is sarcasm. - Rosywounds ( talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do disagree with you here. Visual imagery has always taken a secondary role when it comes to depictions of Muhammad; for that reason, giving heavier emphasis to an art form that conforms to Western aesthetic comes across as somewhat of an intellectual imperialism. I am not pro-censorship (in fact, I'm Shiite), but I still think the calligraphic styles and veiled styles, which represent the more typical forms, should taken precedent here. The reason most articles do not use such examples at the top is because most other historical figures have not been depicted in such a way. - Rosywounds ( talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I am really glad that Wikipedia has this section to post our discussions and different views. I will explain to everyone why all Muslims want these pictures of the prophet Muhammad peace upon him removed. We all know that these pictures are not of the prophet Muhammad and that there is no way that these pictures can resemble him accurately in anyway, simply because there is no real picture of him nor that there is any drawing of him while he was alive. These pictures were drawn many years after his death, or the death of those who lived around him. You told me that no one said that these pictures are really of the prophet peace upon him, but in the article it clearly says the opposite. Some pictures do say that these pictures are only depictions while the others don’t. This will certainly confuse any reader. It should be very clear to all readers that these pictures are nothing but depictions of actions and have no resemblance to the prophet in his looks, as you have told me. I was one of those who were confused by the pictures and what they really resemble, especially the one with the black stone. Also in the other picture, where the drawer claims that this is the prophet reading preaching Quran, it clearly opposes what we know of Muhammad peace upon. The prophet had a long beard, unlike the one in the picture, the prophet used to sit on the floor and his companions around him while he taught them about Islam and read Quranic verses to them. So the question I raise is how did Wikipedia validate the accuracy of these depictions? Its not enough to bring any picture from any Muslim scholar, many Muslim scholar might have drawn wrong images, and all humans are not flawless, so I want those pictures to be validated accurately with the descriptions of the prophet peace upon him, and his ways of teaching Islam and preaching Quran. The big question is why Muslims don’t have image depictions of the prophet? The simple answer is that, we highly respect and love our prophet peace upon him, we value him higher than we value our kids or our parents. Since we simply don’t know how he really looked like (we have a description of his looks, and these pictures drawn on this website don’t even match the descriptions in any way) we don’t draw him or depict him out of respect and love. We don’t want to draw any picture that might have some flaws that weren’t present in his looks. We don’t want to have a specific figure of him that might not match how he actually looks. We don’t want to have an Idol of him that might not match his character and looks. We simply leave it for every person to read his description and have their own mental image. It does hurt our feelings when someone draws him based on nothing and out of nowhere and then claims that this is how he looks like. If you compare the pictures with the valid description of his looks, you will understand the differences. This website is indeed educational, and I don’t see what is the educational purpose of the pictures present in this article. It will be simple to depict how he prayed or how he read the Quran based on valid descriptions, but with removing the face on the picture, similar to the one present in this article. This will actually represent an educational part of his real actions, to those interested. If you want to keep the pictures for the educational purposes then you need to do two things. Remove the face of the prophet from the pictures, then make sure that this is actually how he was doing the action. You can do that by matching it with the valid and detailed descriptions of his actions. This will be for the sincerity of the educational part, since I am sure no one wants to end up learning the wrong thing. Removing the face from the picture will not give the learner a certain figure and claim that this is of the prophet, this will definetly wont change the quality of the educational material. You replied to me, that these pictures are actually validated, or to be precise “can be easily validated”. Well I want to see how these pictures were validated, and on which bases. I also want a valid truth from Wikipedia that, those who wrote the article and attached the pictures have actually validated these pictures to his looks. Having this said, I request action. Wikipedia has always been a good source for educational research and studies. I don’t want this to affect its reputation all over the world. I am sure Wikipedia added this material with good heart, hence it wont be hard to comply with the requests to ensure sincerity. I wish you added some of his descriptions that would have definetly given the reader a better educational sense of the Prophet Muhammad peace upon him, than those pictures added.
Here is a description of how Prophet Muhammad looks like. His appearance is historically well recorded. Here is some of his description, I am sure you can find more with which to validate those pictures.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) was of a height a little above the average. He was of sturdy build with long muscular limbs and tapering fingers. The hair of his head was long and thick with some waves in them. His forehead was large and prominent, his eyelashes were long and thick, his nose was sloping, his mouth was somewhat large and his teeth were well set. His cheeks were spare and he had a pleasant smile. His eyes were large and black with a touch of brown. His beard was thick and at the time of his death, he had seventeen gray hairs in it. He had a thin line of fine hair over his neck and chest. He was fair of complexion and altogether was so handsome that Abu Bakr composed this couplet on him: "as there is no darkness in the moonlit night so is Mustafa, the well-wisher, bright." His gait was firm and he walked so fast that others found it difficult to keep pace with him. His face was genial but at times, when he was deep in thought, there there were long periods of silence, yet he always kept himself busy with something. He did not speak unnecessarily and what he said was always to the point and without any padding. At times he would make his meaning clear by slowly repeating what he had said. His laugh was mostly a smile. He kept his feelings under firm control - when annoyed, he would turn aside or keep silent, when pleased he would lower his eyes (Shamail Tirmizi).
He was always the first to greet another and would not withdraw his hand from a handshake till the other man withdrew his. If one wanted to say something in his ears, he would not turn away till one had finished (Abu Dawud, Tirmizi). Those who have seen him, in describing him they always described him as someone in appearance whom they never saw before, and never saw even after his death.
He was especially fond of children and used to get into the spirit of childish games in their company. He would have fun with the children who had come back from Abyssinia and tried to speak in Abyssinian with them. It was his practice to give lifts on his camel to children when he returned from journeys (Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2 pg.886). He would pick up children in his arms, play with them, and kiss them. ( Copied for educational purposes from Ispiration and Creative thoughts website) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 ( talk) 12:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have already said I'm not particularly interested in removal of all pictures, but I feel like there are some errors/half-truths here. Shia Islam wasn't anything more than a fringe sect until the Safavids. Moreover, Shiites generally don't use images of Mohammad as frequently as many of these editors have suggested (most of whom aren't Muslims, although that doesn't mean they are automatically ignorant). I am personally a Shiite, and we are more well known for using images of Hussein on the day of Ashura. Certainly we don't forbid imagery like many Sunnis do, but to say that Shiites prominently display images of Muhammad in their homes is an exaggeration. Geometric art and calligraphy is still the dominant form in Iran. Take a look at Isfahan, the former capital of the Shiite Safavid Empire. In fact, imagery is nonexistent in actual mosques (places of worship). Mosques in Najaf, Karbala, Kufa, Qom, etc. are all perfect examples of holy Shia cities that don't have an "overdose" of depictions. As I've clarified in previous threads, I don't think the images should all be shot down, but this article certainly is skewed towards nontraditional and minority views. The article on Jesus doesn't have a single Middle Eastern depiction of Jesus, even though the majority of the historical and scientific community believes that Jesus had a Middle Eastern appearance. Yet, all non-White (non-Western) depictions of Jesus have been given their own separate article (which can be considered POV fork, perhaps even a racially motivated one). That comparison from within the FAQ is pretty weak, and I think there is somewhat of a Western bias there (and perhaps here), even if its unintentional. - Rosywounds ( talk) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
i have many shite friends and i have never saw a picture of Muhammad peace upon him in any of their homes, but i will still accept the argument posted by my friend above. but what is really confusing me is the truthfulness of the depiction. ofcourse it matters, and it matters alot. preaching Quran is one of the biggest and amongst the most major things the prophet Muhammad peace upon him did, and all muslims want to recite Quran and teach it as he actually did, thats why you will find a detailed description of how that was done by him. As i said since people look at how the prophet did something and then they do it, it becomes very important to describe his actions with the utmost care and precission. So, now as this website is created for educational purposes, many will seek knowldge on how the prophet preached Quran, and they will use the "unaccurate image" to learn that. what i am saying is that, since this charachter is highly valued and all his actions are infact done by his followers, having a picture saying that he did this very important part of Islam, in a wrong way will mislead many people, and might actually believe that this is the way he did, while infact it is not. that is why i have raised the issue of validity of the image. i find it funny, that the author doesnt want to edit the image to remove the face, because this will change how it was actually drawn, yet he adds an image that changes how a major thing was done by the character described. the latter change is by all means worse, and has lots of consuquences especially its claimed to be an educational website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 ( talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
To all who still insist that the accuracy of the portrayal is important for the practice itself, I have an interesting revelation to make: almost all middle-ages depictions worldwide are in the form of pictoral (or other similar) illustrations that severely lack realism; still, I've never heard any of the people of any time till quite recently complain about them. Do you want to know why?
These people forget that the depiction in itself means nothing; for all we know, without the proper data to back it up, these very images could be thought of as a bearded man talking to bearded men - yet we have the data and know that this is just a depiction (i.e. an illustration that does not mean to be used as an accurate drawing or painting) of his. What is even more important is that his followers know what he tought without even having to know such an image exists anyway.
How do these relate? Simple: even alchemical and martial arts treatises had such illustrations which, speaking in a like manner, not only make no sense unless you understand the basic principles, but can even seem quite absurd. And we are talking about manuals that were seeing everyday use back in their days, not dusty tomes on a bookcase.
The rules are simple, concise, and all-inclusive: the images won't go; period. - RaspK FOG ( talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have really enjoyed reading these replies, but what really gave me the best smile of amusment was the reply to the example i wrote of the flat earth depiction. Well, ofcourse dear friends with adding a good illustration under the flat earth picture and saying that this is how people used to think earth looked like, then of course it will be very well accepted. But notice, we Added a good illustration explaining its contents precisely and accurately. my argument still holds true, i said simply that if we add that image (flat earth) and only said that (this is how earth looks like), meaning we give it unaccurate explanation and illustration, then i dont think anyone will object that there is a problem. I have also given a better example with the hunteres and gatherers depiction of them using tools that didnt exist during their time, ofcourse the depiction then will be having a problem. I am emphasizing on the accuracy of the depiction once more, because as i have read through this discussion that many are agreeing that a good depiction, or in other words correct and accurate depiction is a important in conveying the educational sense of that depiction. A level of accuracy must be maintained no matter what. I am not asking for a violation of the rules, and incase those rules had errors in them, i will definelty ask for a change in them, but What I am asking here, is who is the one in charge (reponsible) for this article is to make the necessary changes to increase the educational value of this article. I dont understand why it is so hard to edit the illustration to make it very clear that this is nothing but an imaginary depiction that has no real connection to the real act, or get a better depiction that has a better historical connection and truthfulness. Many have been saying that in Islam only a few part of muslims forbide using images of the prohpet Muhammad, so i guess it wont be very hard to get a better one. Plus you can find plenty of images depicting the action you want, accurately and with not having the face shown, similar to one posted in this article. This will definetly reflect that sencirty of this website of putting a good reliable educational material for those interested. I have not once referred to censorship of any material, I am asking to improve the quality of the material. It wont affect those who wrote this article to spend some few more minutes looking for a better depiction, with better illustration, with better value, that will serve the purpose needed from these depictions here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Pictures are what he would have wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 ( talk) 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin of wikipedia-
Kindly remove all the images related to Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) and his companions especially from the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad specially this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg
Alright, I've got your point... I got what values you follow and what you don't... sorry that i expected this from you at first place. Anyways, I think your "PERHAPS" in this matter is a personal opinion, so do think over it, if it's a good idea (hinting at following) "My goal is to argue that the images can be (and should be) added to the Depictions of Muhammad article, but they shouldn't be added to Muhammad article unless they are in hidden template form" -- MissSultan ( talk) 05:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
== Wikipedia should act as a responsible organization and should immediately remove all such offensive materials. Not to
Wikipedia is not subject to Sharia law. Surely the question is that simple. We respect Muslims rights not to draw pictures of their Prophet Muhammed, but this is not an Islamic encyclopedia. The images do not defame or harm his reputation. The suggestion that we should hide them out of sensitivity, is like suggesting everyone should follow the laws of the country next door as well as their own, in order to be "sensitive". Censorship would establish a dangerous and unacceptable precedent. I'm surprised this subject has received as much debate as it has, it is a non-issue. Lostsocks ( talk) 10:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC) mention, it shouldn't have been published at first place ==
If the default position is to hide, then this is obvious censorship - regardless whether the images are subsequently obtainable or not. If the default position is to show, then this would be defeating any purpose in making the change. At the risk of repeating myself censoring articles by hiding either text or pictures that could upset the sensibilities or beliefs of certain groups is not something that Wikipedia should be doing. The arguments against hiding or deleting pictures are not limited to this however, as the FAQ shows. C Logan makes a very good point in the fact that the FAQ provides people with an easy way to enable them to self censor, to prevent these images being displayed.... below....
Please note that if you are offended by the images (and you have an account), you can change your personal settings so that you don't have to see them, without affecting other users. To do this, create a page at User:YourUsername/monobook.css and add the following line:
body.page-Muhammad img {display: none;}
•CHILLDOUBT• 20:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the faith and beliefs of Muslims, painting / sketching of the LAST MESSENGER OF GOD, MUHAMMAD (MAY PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE ON HIM AND HIS AHL-E-BAIT AND HIS COMPANIIONS AND HIS UMMAH) and of any other PROPHETS of GOD is strictly prohibited. So, the management / editors of Wikipedia are respectfully asked to remove those from the article on PROPHET MUHAMMAD (MAY PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE ON HIM AND HIS AHL-E-BAIT AND HIS COMPANIIONS AND HIS UMMAH). It is a part of our belief so I request you to remove those sketches. ADAM, NOAH, ABRAHAM, JEOSPH, MOSES, DAVID, JESUS (the SON of BLESSED MARRY)and ALL other PROPHETS of GOD [BLESSED BE ALL] are similarly respectful to US. So if there is a similar case with the articles on any of them, I again request you people to remove them. We (Muslims) believe in ALL PROPHETS of GOD and respect all in a same way. And these acts hurt our feelings quite badly... remove these pictures as it hurts religious beliefs of Muslims around the world. this is no censorship, its about human feelings, Urgent action required, please remove the pics.
Avruch talk 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The image that is there with reference of Albeironi is of no scholarly/historic significance. Albeironi was born after almost 04 centuries after the prophet (PBUH) hence he did not know how the prophet looked like. The image if it is there just for the sake of illustration then it should be like the Ottoman image i.e. not showing the face of the prophet (PBUH). Thus it would not be hurting anyone's feelings and illustration is also possible. The reason that you are giving that it would make people think that wikipedia is hiding things because of the protest from muslims is in itself showing the importance of people. So do illustrate but only after keeping in view the thinking and feelings of the people (muslims in this case). If you want the "Albeironi refered image" in the article then like the ottoman image the face should not be clear. That would be more neutral so let commom sense prevail. Rehanz 138 ( talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a separate discussion. What I am telling you is that (1) The image is of no scholarly/ historic significance. (2) If it is there only for the illustration purpose then the face of the prophet (PBUH) should be blurred so that incorrect information about how he looked like should not be there in the article. So use common sense. Your article has incorrect information shown in the image that the prophet (PBUH) looked like that image. Do you have any proof that he looked like this? The information is incorrect and has to be corrected. Do all articles have information like this without any proof at all?? Rehanz 138 ( talk) 23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
So information that he looked like that image is not verified and hence should not be there in the article. " À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù " This is a depiction of how air looks like... Would you be publishing it in article "air". The depiction is not verified by any reliable sources. and completely based on assumption. Muslims (people) who use this website are being offended by a depiction (1) Not based on reality (2) Not verified (3) Useless. Blur the face of the depiction. Describe with a pen how he looked like, what he wore. The information should be creditable. Not all based on assumptions...
So information that he looked like that image is not verified and hence should not be there in the article. " À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù " This is a depiction of how air looks like... Would you be publishing it in article "air". The depiction is not verified by any reliable sources. and completely based on assumption. Muslims (people) who use this website are being offended by a depiction (1) Not based on reality (2) Not verified (3) Useless. Blur the face of the depiction. Describe with a pen how he looked like, what he wore. The information should be creditable. Not all based on assumptions... Rehanz 138 ( talk) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Muslims started at arround 613, and the image is of arround 10th century. Who were the earliest muslims who accepted the image? I am not talking about images of other personalities. May be those are verifiable or not... Those images are based on reference to bible etc. Do you have any such image based on Quran or a painting by someone who was there at that time? We had cave drawings and egypt drawings arround 5000 years ago. There are pages of Quran that were written 1400 years ago...Do you have any verified image of the prophet (PBUH) more then 1400 years old??? The bottomline:- An image that is not verified, based on assumption, has incorrect information, offends a large number of people stays on Wikipedia...You don't want a censorship. but you are passing incorrect information. Never say never again... Rehanz 138 ( talk) 00:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) The image is taken not directly from Albeironi, it is taken from a french translation of Albeironi. Is that translation verified. Have the arabic of that manuscript has been checked? Translation errors are common in the whole world...where is the original. (2) Jmlk17, on 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC) you said that the image is accepted by muslims since their inception. Muslims started at 613 and the iamge is 0f 14th century. How could muslims accept the image before it was created. (3) My argument is based on facts. From 7th century to 13th century there are 8 centuries, There was no image. Suddenly in 13th century an image appears in a french translation which "is accepted" by the muslims as you tell. Why those between 6th century to 13th century, did not produce an image of the prophet?? Because it was prohibited. Now an image produced after 08 centuries of the prophet (PBUH) is bound to be inaccurate, not verified and incorrect info. (4) If its just a depiction. This is a depiction of sky "З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і". Put it in you "Sky" article. This is a wrong depiction. Description is inaccurate and not based on facts. Your information is being created out of thin air. Rehanz 138 ( talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) The images you are talking about are wrong but they are widely accepted "images". The image of the prophet (PBUH) is or was never accepted by muslims. Its not about a small group of muslims. you don't find imasges in any mosque of muslims. You can't find an image of the 6th century, although you do find the verses of Quran that were written on rocks,leather, pages etc. Images were/are not accepted by muslims. (2) The images are not from a muslim source. These are from translations. If these are from a muslim source. Give reference of the muslim source. (The arabic/persian book). (3) Above description of "Sky" also tells a story why don't you put it in your article "Sky". You don't put it in "Sky" because it is incorrect, not based on facts and is not widely accepted. That is exactly why you shouldn't put the incorrect image. Why insist on incorrect information? Rehanz 138 ( talk) 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The images are taken from translations...There are chances of errors in the translation. The images may not be in the originals in the first place, may be added by the translaters. Where are the Oraiginals? Refering from the translations that are not verified is not scholarly. An encyclopedia has to check the credibility of the information, so far I have not found any thing because of which these images are considered important or relevant enough. How do you define "Widely Accepted". This is widely accepted depiction of sky "З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і".
You are incorrect again. I repeat my question. You have taken the images from translations. Where are the originals? How do the images suddenly appear in 13th century although there are works available before that...Information is not useful if it is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehanz 138 ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) Have you ever read two translations of the same book. You would notice the difference (2) Sometimes translaters add there own material while translating You can't tell me about the originals and you tell me that these are from eminent muslim scholars. These are not, these are from translations. Information is incorrect... Rehanz 138 ( talk) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This is incorrect that these images are of the prophet (PBUH). It is incorrect to put the wrong images(wrong info) in the article without verifying those images. It is incorrect to believe that "Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж" is what is beneath this earth.
You want to say Wikipedia is that obscure culture which says things without verfying any thing at all...This is nonsense on the part of wikipeida. They are not able to prove what they say yet insist on putting it there. There arguments are fake, they are not listening to people, they are laking in common sense and they are "Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж" Rehanz 138 ( talk) 03:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not permitted in Islam to draw a sketch / painting of either the last Prophet Muhammed or the previous Prophets such as Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam, Joseph etc. (peace of Allah be upon them all). Muslims are bound to surrender to this Islamic teaching and non-muslims are required to respect this. It is not "neutral" to connect to Islam what is prohibited in Islam. DELETE ANY KIND OF SKETCH OR PAINTING CLAIMED TO BE THAT OF PROPHET MUHAMMED (posted by Abu Bakr Al Falahi)
I want to understand what policy you guys are talking about..? and how could this be a violation..?? its pretty confusing, on how removing a picture is a policy violation? on which bases are those policies created? and who wrote them? and since when every article must have a facial depiction of the character? and since when you can violate part of the policy and not violate the other part? so i understand that you can block the editing of the article, which I considered as a policy violation, but you cant remove a picture?... where is the equality that you are talking about... actually why each time, i talk about the depiction people reply to me and tell me, "according to the WESTERN LAW a depiction must not be accurate" so now this encyclopedia is western biased?! or since it is allowed by the western law then we all must submit to it, but when it is not allowed by the Islamic law no body listens or cares..? of course some, smart person will say that it is allowed by some Muslims,, but you should consider the majority and not the minority, and sha'i only make 200 million of the 1.2 billion Muslims... sorry guys, but what is a policy violation and not only to this encyclopedia, but to every educational source, and to every knowledge seeker, are those images. These images are a true and living example of how the west is biased to their own ideas and ideologies. And how they lack understanding of others ideas and believes!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 ( talk) 23:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say - the bottom line is that this topic has been done to death - Wikipedia is a secular site, we are not bound by Islam law and we are not removing the pictures. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 23:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
We are not bound by any religious laws, including Islamic. Hence, since 5/6ths of the world is NOT Muslim, and since we are secular, the images of Muhammad stay. Jmlk 1 7 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
please remove the pictures of muhammad (PBUH) as you don't even know how he looks like at all. No one knows how he looks like except ALLAH (SWT). SO if you don't have respect for your own relegion, then don't assume others don't either. And stop with your empiricism ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamictruth1985 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear sir/madam, if you don't want to remove pictures of prophet Muhammad and i understand that you have your own reasons but at least can you place a little remark under the pictures, saying this is not an actual picture of prophet Muhammad, it would be great move on your side. Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.106.127 ( talk • contribs) 18:27, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)
As a Muslim, I feel very offended that Wikipedia has chosen to include portraits which display an image of Prophet Muhammad. Not only is this a red line for Muslims who never attempt to draw the picture of any Prophet (not only Muhammad) because it is considered unlawful in Islam to do so - Muslims believe that by drawing Prophets people may end up worshipping them instead of worshipping Allah(God), but such portraits are unathentic since it has been known for centuries that Muslims don't draw Prophets. Thus, whoever drew this portrait is basing it on an assumption that this is how Muhammad looked like (fictional), not based on fact since there is no authentic prof that dates back to his era. In conclusion, such portraits, not only offend Muslims and I request that they be removed, but they are also unathentic with no basis of proof. And even if they did have a basis of proof, which is not the case, one needs to respect the beliefs of 1.5 Billion Muslims worldwide who consider this a huge offence. I kindly request that Wikipedia include a different portrait of something different - there is a lot of islamic designs and architecture that can be great substitutes.
K.Ginena 86.36.66.129 ( talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
can any one tell me wikipedia belogs to which country?
thanks —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
59.181.118.62 (
talk)
05:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This is getting incredibly boring and amazingly pointless. The only way to stop these interminable discussion is to ignore any post that challenges the current policy. This talk page is for discussion to improve the content of the article. -- Gazzster ( talk) 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Posting this picture is an obvious insult on behalf of Wikipedia. Your response to the previous comment ("I'm sorry you're offended" and not "we are sorry for publishing this") is an exact replica of the supposed "apology" given by the editors at the Danish daily which portrayed Prophet Muhammad in a caricature last year. The picture supposedly representing prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is fictional. As a source of information, Wikipedia should not include this picture because first and foremost it is misleading people regarding Prophet Muhammad's image (as you said no one knew how anyone looked like until photography recently). Secondly, it is misleading people, who are trying to find out about Prophet Muhammad through this website, by making them think that portraits of prophets are allowed in Islam. So, by including this picture you are actually misinforming people, rather than informing people, which is the supposed "purpose" of Wikipedia. Please find an alternative design and remove this picture.
Sameh Abdel Megied
" 75.156.115.92 ( talk) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"
Redirecting them to the FAQ is a sufficient response to them. At this point, one has to assume someone is just coming here everyday with a different IP (notice none of these people that come here are even registered users; many don't even have a single contribution before they post in this talk page). - Rosywounds ( talk) 07:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I commend wikiepdia as a source of public knowledge for people around the world. However, the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is problematic to the stance of neutrality of Wikipedia.
The depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in an article that is meant to educate about the religion is Islam in inappropraite and violates neutrality. While it is true that there are visual representations of the Prophet (pbuh) in Muslim cultures--these are strictly prohibited in Islam. Thus, it is inaccurate to have such images in an article about the religion. This clearly violates the neutrality policy of wikipedia for it is asserting Western and non-Islamic standards over an Islamic topic. It would be prudent to replace the picture with something that is representative of Islam--for example, calligraphy, architecture, etc instead of a culturally based and inaccurate visual representation that confuses the content of the page (about Islam) with cultural manifestations of the religion (which are non-Islamic). To conflate Muslim culture with Islam would be a major inaccuracy, and thus to maintain a higher standard of knowlegde dissemation--i strongly urge wikipedia to replace this picture.
Thank you.
Sana
209.148.248.101 ( talk) 06:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok! just listen to this difference...
1) The pics are as it is now and as ur description says, Prophet(PBUH) is preaching the Quran.
2) You are blurring or making it white at the face part where you have said that Prophet (PBUH) is preaching the Quran.
Alrite! In both the cases we get it.
It's just about that face part that doesnt make sense!!!
We understand WITH and WITHOUT the description of the face that He was proclaiming the Quran. Then just why would you want to put it when it affects millions of people around the world???
Ok! I understand that Wikipedia does not censor any of its images, but see it this way:
A Hindu comes to wikipedia to learn about Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and he sees that pic but doesnt understand the caption well and it comes to his mind as "Ah! So, this is kind of how he looked". Isn't this wrong??? Doesn't it look like Wikipedia is giving the wrong Information??
I myself refer to Wikipedia for tons of things, i just see what i believe and read, i dont verify them or something. In that case, if something like the above happens, what would Wikipedia do? Or can u guys guarantee that something like this will never happen???
Luvmyth aish ( talk) 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Ayisha
Those are different articles. Dont include them in this. People of those religion should talk about it, not me. What about my answers?
Luvmyth aish ( talk) 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, he wouldn't even know that to believe in Prophet's(PBUH) pictures is forbidden in Islam. If he sees it censored everywhere, wouldn't that itself educate him that maybe such pictures are not allowed in Islam???? Though it is a small matter, if Wikipedia is so concerned about its readers and strictly following its rules, i guess it should take this thing too into consideration, ya?
Luvmyth aish ( talk) 07:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen that. I just dont understand the difference between Showing and Not showing His pic. It conveys to us the same message ya???? And if you dont put the pic, everyone's fine with it. And when you put it, Millions of Muslims around the world feel its wrong. See, which reaction is stronger, is Wikipedia really ok with such a thing? Ofcourse, i understand what you feel too. You think its a very small matter. But it isnt the same for us. Coz we follow a complete different religion. Iam aware that Wikipedia is free from religious bias. But when censoring the pic conveys the exact same message as it does when not censored, then what's stopping Wikipedia from removing it??
Luvmyth aish ( talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
no probs!
Luvmyth aish ( talk) 08:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Jmlk says: "as an encyclopedia that is not censored, we intent to (and do) educate." And others have said that this is Wikipedia's policy; however, by infringing on other people's freedom of religion, while intending to be an objective source of knowledge, as an expression of our your own freedom you are crossing your boundries. Furthermore, what have you accomplished?
With freedom of anything comes the responsibility to make sound decisions and common-sense choices. Deciding to not include these offensive and unreal pictures has nothing to do with freedom; it has everything to do with respecting another person's beliefs and the common sense. Moreover it diverts you from your goal which is to educate based on sound and authentic knowledge.
Once again, a person's freedom stops where others' begins and we should respect other people's belief as much as we want that they respect ours.Wikipedia should be very aware of this given that this is not an encyclopedia owned by anyone. It is the people's encyclopedia! These pictures having nothing to do with Islam or Muhammad and they should be removed. What should be spoken about is the content of his message (that is what is authentic and should serve as something that is educational for people).
K.Ginena 86.36.66.129 ( talk) 08:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, Why would you post something that is offensive to others? Don't you know that "Your freedom ends where the freedom of others start."
I ask the editors of Wikipedia to remove these pictures as soon as possible. Also, i would like to appeal to the writer of the topic by asking: "would you be happy if I offended your faith?" how about: "would you be happy if i offended your belief especially if that faith is followed by 1.7 Billion people worldwide?"
Thanks
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Adding a picture for the prophets generally is something forbidden for the muslims, and solid in their doctrine, as we do not have the philosophy of the holy person, and being sacred is left only to God Almighty. And as we are not concerned, as muslims, for imposing our ideas on the other religions so we are not against publishing photos for Jesus Christ, by the chrisitans, however we found ourselves responsible for prohibiting such photos for our prophet because it constitutes threats for the islamic doctrine, especially for the coming generations, exposing the muslims doctrine for alterations specially for those who are born and raised in western countries where they are subject for the majority of the time to westen media, and not taking the religion from its specialized scholars.
Moreover neither of such photos were done for phrophet Muhammed (PBUH) during his life or by his order, nor they were aknowledged by him. And as we respect your site as one of the most important knowledge sources, we are asking you kindly to remove all the photos impersonating prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from you respectful site. And I think respectng the others feelings, and doctrines are important factors constituting the policy of this website, and its so clear now that such photos have caused unpleasent and pasive feeings among the muslims who where informed with this issue, and among the users of the website.
And I think it will be a matter of respect, before any other considerations, to remove such photos, specially that it is not representing any added values or information to the issue discussed.
Regards,
Hazem Mohamed Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, may be I was not clear in my previous message, I am neither trying to impose my believes on any person, or debating the source of the pictures. Because simply I am not claiming the fidelity of our prophet or even asking for confession that he was a prophet, also I am not debating about a conspiracy theory of who issued such photos. I am simply saying that such photos are not of additive value, and it will cause passive feelings among the "majority" (not all) of the muslims. And the same could be implied for any idea that is not a matter of debate, has no additive value, and offensive for a large group of people.
It seems its some how difficult to have a meeting point, because simply the west can't understand the senstivity of the religious issues for us, and we can't admit the freedom theory of the west as well. However I am gratefull for your fruitful contribution (to Logan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, just a reply to Tharkuncoll, you may debate that Muhammed's (PBUH) output to the humanity should not be patented by the muslims, however you can not argue about the fact that the muslims are the most affected people with what written and published about Muhammed (PBUH), affected by all means (moraly, phsycologicaly, politicaly,....), hence it is something normal that what published about prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is much more concerning the muslims than any other group, for the muslims, it is not a matter of patenting a product for commercial or scientefic purposes, its a matter of feelings, and morals, exactly like the feeling of a mother toward her child, sure she is not patenting him, but she is the most one caring about him.
For the rest of the messages; As I said before we are both playing a game with different rules, however because the field is yours we are urged to comply with your rules, or it will be fair enough to quite the game.
MY FINAL CUT IS A MESSAGE FOR ALL THE MUSLIMS OPPOSING THE PHOTOS "THIS IS THE POLICY OF THE SITE, IT DON'T REMOVE PUBLISHED MATERIAL BECAUSE IT IS OFFENDING TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE, SO U HAVE THE CHOICE NOW, EITHER TO COMPLY OR JUST SIMPLY DRAG THE SITE UNDER UR RESTRICTED SITES LIST" ITS FAIR ENOUGH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
i think all Muslims should know that because wikipedia owners think that they know more than muslims about Islam. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had never been pictured , but you people insist that the fake picture in the article belong to him. you can keep the picture , whatever you people do, islam will stay the fastest growing religion in the world and all the world will be muslim someday.
to I question your understanding of "free" Muslims claim that the pictures in the article dont belong to the prophet , non-muslims claim that they belong to him, so how do you people know more than muslims ?! thats my question...... i think there should be 2 Articles talking about Muhammad pbuh , one according to Muslims and one according to your imaginary sources. to gazzster offend me ? lol , if you want i can give you the link of the danish cartoons and you can add them too, i dont really care because, it wont hurt me , the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is DEAD ,it will hurt wikipedia only because people are going to see it as a source of false informations , and by keeping this pictures, 1400000000 persons in this world see it like that.
These conversations are incredibly futile and all too common. We need to resurrect Talk:Muhammad/images and have a policy of moving all discussion there. I have no problem with responding to these queries to try to explain to the editors but they are not discussing relevant issues with article that will make it better. They also make it rather difficult to discuss legitimate issues dealing with the pictures because editors become so frustrated by discussions of the images which have nothing to do with WP policy. If a few common editors voice their support I'll move some of the discussions over there. gren グレン 01:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to remove the pictures where Prophet Muhammad SAW is shown . ( Bilalsarwar ( talk) 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)).
Please remove the images based on the following logical reasons:
1. As an encyclopedia, you must not present a fabricated stuff as an original. This the utmost action misleading and deception. As u can see in images, they were produced in 14th-16th century, whereas the era of The Prophet was during 8th century. Only a senseless & biased person can believe that the pictures are NOT wrong / fabricated.
2. Regardless of the correctness of the pictures, it is an humanitarian issue. Remember the purpose of knowledge is to benefit people, not to make troubles. This is not an issue of "beliefs of a group of few (100's or 10,000's or even 100,000's) people. This is related to fundamental belief of 1.5 Billion people (1/5 th of the total population today) and even Billions of Muslims since last 1400+ years. There is not authentic record in history that the picture of Prophet was made. Instead it has been STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.
3. I don't agree with your definition of "neutrality-of-religions". Neutrality should mean that all religions have equal rights to be included. But when describing facts, you have to agree to the community that own those beliefs, as you are an outsider. As William Shakespeare said: "Your freedom ends where my nose starts." So your have right to be free and neutral in your beliefs UNLESS & UNTIL you run into other's space.
4. For an example, can you associate some theory with Newton or Einstein which cannot be found in their books, articles or any proven material produced by them, just because some Mr ABC claims so years after them?
I hope I'll get a logical response (the best would be the removal of pictures).
After scanning the previous discussions, I see no-one suggesting use of the hidden template, so you have to click on "Show" to see them, or "Hide" to hide them. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Removing or not removing will obviously never meet consensus. Perhaps hiding template will make things less painful for muslims, without being censorship either. Anthere ( talk) 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Still gets back to the point that we are not censored, and that is own of our biggest features. There are countless articles and images on this website that someone could find offensive, but we do not conform to the minority who wishes for censorship. Jmlk 1 7 21:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The article really should have an example of Sini script. For example Islamic Calligraphy in China, figure 16 shows an honorific of the Prophet, although the most mind-blowing are probably figures 6 and 15. What a fantastic artistic tradition! Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am assuming (hoping) that is sarcasm. - Rosywounds ( talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do disagree with you here. Visual imagery has always taken a secondary role when it comes to depictions of Muhammad; for that reason, giving heavier emphasis to an art form that conforms to Western aesthetic comes across as somewhat of an intellectual imperialism. I am not pro-censorship (in fact, I'm Shiite), but I still think the calligraphic styles and veiled styles, which represent the more typical forms, should taken precedent here. The reason most articles do not use such examples at the top is because most other historical figures have not been depicted in such a way. - Rosywounds ( talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I am really glad that Wikipedia has this section to post our discussions and different views. I will explain to everyone why all Muslims want these pictures of the prophet Muhammad peace upon him removed. We all know that these pictures are not of the prophet Muhammad and that there is no way that these pictures can resemble him accurately in anyway, simply because there is no real picture of him nor that there is any drawing of him while he was alive. These pictures were drawn many years after his death, or the death of those who lived around him. You told me that no one said that these pictures are really of the prophet peace upon him, but in the article it clearly says the opposite. Some pictures do say that these pictures are only depictions while the others don’t. This will certainly confuse any reader. It should be very clear to all readers that these pictures are nothing but depictions of actions and have no resemblance to the prophet in his looks, as you have told me. I was one of those who were confused by the pictures and what they really resemble, especially the one with the black stone. Also in the other picture, where the drawer claims that this is the prophet reading preaching Quran, it clearly opposes what we know of Muhammad peace upon. The prophet had a long beard, unlike the one in the picture, the prophet used to sit on the floor and his companions around him while he taught them about Islam and read Quranic verses to them. So the question I raise is how did Wikipedia validate the accuracy of these depictions? Its not enough to bring any picture from any Muslim scholar, many Muslim scholar might have drawn wrong images, and all humans are not flawless, so I want those pictures to be validated accurately with the descriptions of the prophet peace upon him, and his ways of teaching Islam and preaching Quran. The big question is why Muslims don’t have image depictions of the prophet? The simple answer is that, we highly respect and love our prophet peace upon him, we value him higher than we value our kids or our parents. Since we simply don’t know how he really looked like (we have a description of his looks, and these pictures drawn on this website don’t even match the descriptions in any way) we don’t draw him or depict him out of respect and love. We don’t want to draw any picture that might have some flaws that weren’t present in his looks. We don’t want to have a specific figure of him that might not match how he actually looks. We don’t want to have an Idol of him that might not match his character and looks. We simply leave it for every person to read his description and have their own mental image. It does hurt our feelings when someone draws him based on nothing and out of nowhere and then claims that this is how he looks like. If you compare the pictures with the valid description of his looks, you will understand the differences. This website is indeed educational, and I don’t see what is the educational purpose of the pictures present in this article. It will be simple to depict how he prayed or how he read the Quran based on valid descriptions, but with removing the face on the picture, similar to the one present in this article. This will actually represent an educational part of his real actions, to those interested. If you want to keep the pictures for the educational purposes then you need to do two things. Remove the face of the prophet from the pictures, then make sure that this is actually how he was doing the action. You can do that by matching it with the valid and detailed descriptions of his actions. This will be for the sincerity of the educational part, since I am sure no one wants to end up learning the wrong thing. Removing the face from the picture will not give the learner a certain figure and claim that this is of the prophet, this will definetly wont change the quality of the educational material. You replied to me, that these pictures are actually validated, or to be precise “can be easily validated”. Well I want to see how these pictures were validated, and on which bases. I also want a valid truth from Wikipedia that, those who wrote the article and attached the pictures have actually validated these pictures to his looks. Having this said, I request action. Wikipedia has always been a good source for educational research and studies. I don’t want this to affect its reputation all over the world. I am sure Wikipedia added this material with good heart, hence it wont be hard to comply with the requests to ensure sincerity. I wish you added some of his descriptions that would have definetly given the reader a better educational sense of the Prophet Muhammad peace upon him, than those pictures added.
Here is a description of how Prophet Muhammad looks like. His appearance is historically well recorded. Here is some of his description, I am sure you can find more with which to validate those pictures.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) was of a height a little above the average. He was of sturdy build with long muscular limbs and tapering fingers. The hair of his head was long and thick with some waves in them. His forehead was large and prominent, his eyelashes were long and thick, his nose was sloping, his mouth was somewhat large and his teeth were well set. His cheeks were spare and he had a pleasant smile. His eyes were large and black with a touch of brown. His beard was thick and at the time of his death, he had seventeen gray hairs in it. He had a thin line of fine hair over his neck and chest. He was fair of complexion and altogether was so handsome that Abu Bakr composed this couplet on him: "as there is no darkness in the moonlit night so is Mustafa, the well-wisher, bright." His gait was firm and he walked so fast that others found it difficult to keep pace with him. His face was genial but at times, when he was deep in thought, there there were long periods of silence, yet he always kept himself busy with something. He did not speak unnecessarily and what he said was always to the point and without any padding. At times he would make his meaning clear by slowly repeating what he had said. His laugh was mostly a smile. He kept his feelings under firm control - when annoyed, he would turn aside or keep silent, when pleased he would lower his eyes (Shamail Tirmizi).
He was always the first to greet another and would not withdraw his hand from a handshake till the other man withdrew his. If one wanted to say something in his ears, he would not turn away till one had finished (Abu Dawud, Tirmizi). Those who have seen him, in describing him they always described him as someone in appearance whom they never saw before, and never saw even after his death.
He was especially fond of children and used to get into the spirit of childish games in their company. He would have fun with the children who had come back from Abyssinia and tried to speak in Abyssinian with them. It was his practice to give lifts on his camel to children when he returned from journeys (Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2 pg.886). He would pick up children in his arms, play with them, and kiss them. ( Copied for educational purposes from Ispiration and Creative thoughts website) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 ( talk) 12:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have already said I'm not particularly interested in removal of all pictures, but I feel like there are some errors/half-truths here. Shia Islam wasn't anything more than a fringe sect until the Safavids. Moreover, Shiites generally don't use images of Mohammad as frequently as many of these editors have suggested (most of whom aren't Muslims, although that doesn't mean they are automatically ignorant). I am personally a Shiite, and we are more well known for using images of Hussein on the day of Ashura. Certainly we don't forbid imagery like many Sunnis do, but to say that Shiites prominently display images of Muhammad in their homes is an exaggeration. Geometric art and calligraphy is still the dominant form in Iran. Take a look at Isfahan, the former capital of the Shiite Safavid Empire. In fact, imagery is nonexistent in actual mosques (places of worship). Mosques in Najaf, Karbala, Kufa, Qom, etc. are all perfect examples of holy Shia cities that don't have an "overdose" of depictions. As I've clarified in previous threads, I don't think the images should all be shot down, but this article certainly is skewed towards nontraditional and minority views. The article on Jesus doesn't have a single Middle Eastern depiction of Jesus, even though the majority of the historical and scientific community believes that Jesus had a Middle Eastern appearance. Yet, all non-White (non-Western) depictions of Jesus have been given their own separate article (which can be considered POV fork, perhaps even a racially motivated one). That comparison from within the FAQ is pretty weak, and I think there is somewhat of a Western bias there (and perhaps here), even if its unintentional. - Rosywounds ( talk) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
i have many shite friends and i have never saw a picture of Muhammad peace upon him in any of their homes, but i will still accept the argument posted by my friend above. but what is really confusing me is the truthfulness of the depiction. ofcourse it matters, and it matters alot. preaching Quran is one of the biggest and amongst the most major things the prophet Muhammad peace upon him did, and all muslims want to recite Quran and teach it as he actually did, thats why you will find a detailed description of how that was done by him. As i said since people look at how the prophet did something and then they do it, it becomes very important to describe his actions with the utmost care and precission. So, now as this website is created for educational purposes, many will seek knowldge on how the prophet preached Quran, and they will use the "unaccurate image" to learn that. what i am saying is that, since this charachter is highly valued and all his actions are infact done by his followers, having a picture saying that he did this very important part of Islam, in a wrong way will mislead many people, and might actually believe that this is the way he did, while infact it is not. that is why i have raised the issue of validity of the image. i find it funny, that the author doesnt want to edit the image to remove the face, because this will change how it was actually drawn, yet he adds an image that changes how a major thing was done by the character described. the latter change is by all means worse, and has lots of consuquences especially its claimed to be an educational website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 ( talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
To all who still insist that the accuracy of the portrayal is important for the practice itself, I have an interesting revelation to make: almost all middle-ages depictions worldwide are in the form of pictoral (or other similar) illustrations that severely lack realism; still, I've never heard any of the people of any time till quite recently complain about them. Do you want to know why?
These people forget that the depiction in itself means nothing; for all we know, without the proper data to back it up, these very images could be thought of as a bearded man talking to bearded men - yet we have the data and know that this is just a depiction (i.e. an illustration that does not mean to be used as an accurate drawing or painting) of his. What is even more important is that his followers know what he tought without even having to know such an image exists anyway.
How do these relate? Simple: even alchemical and martial arts treatises had such illustrations which, speaking in a like manner, not only make no sense unless you understand the basic principles, but can even seem quite absurd. And we are talking about manuals that were seeing everyday use back in their days, not dusty tomes on a bookcase.
The rules are simple, concise, and all-inclusive: the images won't go; period. - RaspK FOG ( talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have really enjoyed reading these replies, but what really gave me the best smile of amusment was the reply to the example i wrote of the flat earth depiction. Well, ofcourse dear friends with adding a good illustration under the flat earth picture and saying that this is how people used to think earth looked like, then of course it will be very well accepted. But notice, we Added a good illustration explaining its contents precisely and accurately. my argument still holds true, i said simply that if we add that image (flat earth) and only said that (this is how earth looks like), meaning we give it unaccurate explanation and illustration, then i dont think anyone will object that there is a problem. I have also given a better example with the hunteres and gatherers depiction of them using tools that didnt exist during their time, ofcourse the depiction then will be having a problem. I am emphasizing on the accuracy of the depiction once more, because as i have read through this discussion that many are agreeing that a good depiction, or in other words correct and accurate depiction is a important in conveying the educational sense of that depiction. A level of accuracy must be maintained no matter what. I am not asking for a violation of the rules, and incase those rules had errors in them, i will definelty ask for a change in them, but What I am asking here, is who is the one in charge (reponsible) for this article is to make the necessary changes to increase the educational value of this article. I dont understand why it is so hard to edit the illustration to make it very clear that this is nothing but an imaginary depiction that has no real connection to the real act, or get a better depiction that has a better historical connection and truthfulness. Many have been saying that in Islam only a few part of muslims forbide using images of the prohpet Muhammad, so i guess it wont be very hard to get a better one. Plus you can find plenty of images depicting the action you want, accurately and with not having the face shown, similar to one posted in this article. This will definetly reflect that sencirty of this website of putting a good reliable educational material for those interested. I have not once referred to censorship of any material, I am asking to improve the quality of the material. It wont affect those who wrote this article to spend some few more minutes looking for a better depiction, with better illustration, with better value, that will serve the purpose needed from these depictions here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Pictures are what he would have wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 ( talk) 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin of wikipedia-
Kindly remove all the images related to Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) and his companions especially from the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad specially this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg
Alright, I've got your point... I got what values you follow and what you don't... sorry that i expected this from you at first place. Anyways, I think your "PERHAPS" in this matter is a personal opinion, so do think over it, if it's a good idea (hinting at following) "My goal is to argue that the images can be (and should be) added to the Depictions of Muhammad article, but they shouldn't be added to Muhammad article unless they are in hidden template form" -- MissSultan ( talk) 05:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
== Wikipedia should act as a responsible organization and should immediately remove all such offensive materials. Not to
Wikipedia is not subject to Sharia law. Surely the question is that simple. We respect Muslims rights not to draw pictures of their Prophet Muhammed, but this is not an Islamic encyclopedia. The images do not defame or harm his reputation. The suggestion that we should hide them out of sensitivity, is like suggesting everyone should follow the laws of the country next door as well as their own, in order to be "sensitive". Censorship would establish a dangerous and unacceptable precedent. I'm surprised this subject has received as much debate as it has, it is a non-issue. Lostsocks ( talk) 10:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC) mention, it shouldn't have been published at first place ==
If the default position is to hide, then this is obvious censorship - regardless whether the images are subsequently obtainable or not. If the default position is to show, then this would be defeating any purpose in making the change. At the risk of repeating myself censoring articles by hiding either text or pictures that could upset the sensibilities or beliefs of certain groups is not something that Wikipedia should be doing. The arguments against hiding or deleting pictures are not limited to this however, as the FAQ shows. C Logan makes a very good point in the fact that the FAQ provides people with an easy way to enable them to self censor, to prevent these images being displayed.... below....
Please note that if you are offended by the images (and you have an account), you can change your personal settings so that you don't have to see them, without affecting other users. To do this, create a page at User:YourUsername/monobook.css and add the following line:
body.page-Muhammad img {display: none;}
•CHILLDOUBT• 20:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the faith and beliefs of Muslims, painting / sketching of the LAST MESSENGER OF GOD, MUHAMMAD (MAY PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE ON HIM AND HIS AHL-E-BAIT AND HIS COMPANIIONS AND HIS UMMAH) and of any other PROPHETS of GOD is strictly prohibited. So, the management / editors of Wikipedia are respectfully asked to remove those from the article on PROPHET MUHAMMAD (MAY PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE ON HIM AND HIS AHL-E-BAIT AND HIS COMPANIIONS AND HIS UMMAH). It is a part of our belief so I request you to remove those sketches. ADAM, NOAH, ABRAHAM, JEOSPH, MOSES, DAVID, JESUS (the SON of BLESSED MARRY)and ALL other PROPHETS of GOD [BLESSED BE ALL] are similarly respectful to US. So if there is a similar case with the articles on any of them, I again request you people to remove them. We (Muslims) believe in ALL PROPHETS of GOD and respect all in a same way. And these acts hurt our feelings quite badly... remove these pictures as it hurts religious beliefs of Muslims around the world. this is no censorship, its about human feelings, Urgent action required, please remove the pics.
Avruch talk 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The image that is there with reference of Albeironi is of no scholarly/historic significance. Albeironi was born after almost 04 centuries after the prophet (PBUH) hence he did not know how the prophet looked like. The image if it is there just for the sake of illustration then it should be like the Ottoman image i.e. not showing the face of the prophet (PBUH). Thus it would not be hurting anyone's feelings and illustration is also possible. The reason that you are giving that it would make people think that wikipedia is hiding things because of the protest from muslims is in itself showing the importance of people. So do illustrate but only after keeping in view the thinking and feelings of the people (muslims in this case). If you want the "Albeironi refered image" in the article then like the ottoman image the face should not be clear. That would be more neutral so let commom sense prevail. Rehanz 138 ( talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a separate discussion. What I am telling you is that (1) The image is of no scholarly/ historic significance. (2) If it is there only for the illustration purpose then the face of the prophet (PBUH) should be blurred so that incorrect information about how he looked like should not be there in the article. So use common sense. Your article has incorrect information shown in the image that the prophet (PBUH) looked like that image. Do you have any proof that he looked like this? The information is incorrect and has to be corrected. Do all articles have information like this without any proof at all?? Rehanz 138 ( talk) 23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
So information that he looked like that image is not verified and hence should not be there in the article. " À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù " This is a depiction of how air looks like... Would you be publishing it in article "air". The depiction is not verified by any reliable sources. and completely based on assumption. Muslims (people) who use this website are being offended by a depiction (1) Not based on reality (2) Not verified (3) Useless. Blur the face of the depiction. Describe with a pen how he looked like, what he wore. The information should be creditable. Not all based on assumptions...
So information that he looked like that image is not verified and hence should not be there in the article. " À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù " This is a depiction of how air looks like... Would you be publishing it in article "air". The depiction is not verified by any reliable sources. and completely based on assumption. Muslims (people) who use this website are being offended by a depiction (1) Not based on reality (2) Not verified (3) Useless. Blur the face of the depiction. Describe with a pen how he looked like, what he wore. The information should be creditable. Not all based on assumptions... Rehanz 138 ( talk) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Muslims started at arround 613, and the image is of arround 10th century. Who were the earliest muslims who accepted the image? I am not talking about images of other personalities. May be those are verifiable or not... Those images are based on reference to bible etc. Do you have any such image based on Quran or a painting by someone who was there at that time? We had cave drawings and egypt drawings arround 5000 years ago. There are pages of Quran that were written 1400 years ago...Do you have any verified image of the prophet (PBUH) more then 1400 years old??? The bottomline:- An image that is not verified, based on assumption, has incorrect information, offends a large number of people stays on Wikipedia...You don't want a censorship. but you are passing incorrect information. Never say never again... Rehanz 138 ( talk) 00:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) The image is taken not directly from Albeironi, it is taken from a french translation of Albeironi. Is that translation verified. Have the arabic of that manuscript has been checked? Translation errors are common in the whole world...where is the original. (2) Jmlk17, on 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC) you said that the image is accepted by muslims since their inception. Muslims started at 613 and the iamge is 0f 14th century. How could muslims accept the image before it was created. (3) My argument is based on facts. From 7th century to 13th century there are 8 centuries, There was no image. Suddenly in 13th century an image appears in a french translation which "is accepted" by the muslims as you tell. Why those between 6th century to 13th century, did not produce an image of the prophet?? Because it was prohibited. Now an image produced after 08 centuries of the prophet (PBUH) is bound to be inaccurate, not verified and incorrect info. (4) If its just a depiction. This is a depiction of sky "З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і". Put it in you "Sky" article. This is a wrong depiction. Description is inaccurate and not based on facts. Your information is being created out of thin air. Rehanz 138 ( talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) The images you are talking about are wrong but they are widely accepted "images". The image of the prophet (PBUH) is or was never accepted by muslims. Its not about a small group of muslims. you don't find imasges in any mosque of muslims. You can't find an image of the 6th century, although you do find the verses of Quran that were written on rocks,leather, pages etc. Images were/are not accepted by muslims. (2) The images are not from a muslim source. These are from translations. If these are from a muslim source. Give reference of the muslim source. (The arabic/persian book). (3) Above description of "Sky" also tells a story why don't you put it in your article "Sky". You don't put it in "Sky" because it is incorrect, not based on facts and is not widely accepted. That is exactly why you shouldn't put the incorrect image. Why insist on incorrect information? Rehanz 138 ( talk) 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The images are taken from translations...There are chances of errors in the translation. The images may not be in the originals in the first place, may be added by the translaters. Where are the Oraiginals? Refering from the translations that are not verified is not scholarly. An encyclopedia has to check the credibility of the information, so far I have not found any thing because of which these images are considered important or relevant enough. How do you define "Widely Accepted". This is widely accepted depiction of sky "З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і".
You are incorrect again. I repeat my question. You have taken the images from translations. Where are the originals? How do the images suddenly appear in 13th century although there are works available before that...Information is not useful if it is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehanz 138 ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) Have you ever read two translations of the same book. You would notice the difference (2) Sometimes translaters add there own material while translating You can't tell me about the originals and you tell me that these are from eminent muslim scholars. These are not, these are from translations. Information is incorrect... Rehanz 138 ( talk) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This is incorrect that these images are of the prophet (PBUH). It is incorrect to put the wrong images(wrong info) in the article without verifying those images. It is incorrect to believe that "Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж" is what is beneath this earth.
You want to say Wikipedia is that obscure culture which says things without verfying any thing at all...This is nonsense on the part of wikipeida. They are not able to prove what they say yet insist on putting it there. There arguments are fake, they are not listening to people, they are laking in common sense and they are "Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж" Rehanz 138 ( talk) 03:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not permitted in Islam to draw a sketch / painting of either the last Prophet Muhammed or the previous Prophets such as Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam, Joseph etc. (peace of Allah be upon them all). Muslims are bound to surrender to this Islamic teaching and non-muslims are required to respect this. It is not "neutral" to connect to Islam what is prohibited in Islam. DELETE ANY KIND OF SKETCH OR PAINTING CLAIMED TO BE THAT OF PROPHET MUHAMMED (posted by Abu Bakr Al Falahi)
I want to understand what policy you guys are talking about..? and how could this be a violation..?? its pretty confusing, on how removing a picture is a policy violation? on which bases are those policies created? and who wrote them? and since when every article must have a facial depiction of the character? and since when you can violate part of the policy and not violate the other part? so i understand that you can block the editing of the article, which I considered as a policy violation, but you cant remove a picture?... where is the equality that you are talking about... actually why each time, i talk about the depiction people reply to me and tell me, "according to the WESTERN LAW a depiction must not be accurate" so now this encyclopedia is western biased?! or since it is allowed by the western law then we all must submit to it, but when it is not allowed by the Islamic law no body listens or cares..? of course some, smart person will say that it is allowed by some Muslims,, but you should consider the majority and not the minority, and sha'i only make 200 million of the 1.2 billion Muslims... sorry guys, but what is a policy violation and not only to this encyclopedia, but to every educational source, and to every knowledge seeker, are those images. These images are a true and living example of how the west is biased to their own ideas and ideologies. And how they lack understanding of others ideas and believes!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 ( talk) 23:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say - the bottom line is that this topic has been done to death - Wikipedia is a secular site, we are not bound by Islam law and we are not removing the pictures. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 23:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
We are not bound by any religious laws, including Islamic. Hence, since 5/6ths of the world is NOT Muslim, and since we are secular, the images of Muhammad stay. Jmlk 1 7 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
please remove the pictures of muhammad (PBUH) as you don't even know how he looks like at all. No one knows how he looks like except ALLAH (SWT). SO if you don't have respect for your own relegion, then don't assume others don't either. And stop with your empiricism ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamictruth1985 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear sir/madam, if you don't want to remove pictures of prophet Muhammad and i understand that you have your own reasons but at least can you place a little remark under the pictures, saying this is not an actual picture of prophet Muhammad, it would be great move on your side. Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.106.127 ( talk • contribs) 18:27, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)
As a Muslim, I feel very offended that Wikipedia has chosen to include portraits which display an image of Prophet Muhammad. Not only is this a red line for Muslims who never attempt to draw the picture of any Prophet (not only Muhammad) because it is considered unlawful in Islam to do so - Muslims believe that by drawing Prophets people may end up worshipping them instead of worshipping Allah(God), but such portraits are unathentic since it has been known for centuries that Muslims don't draw Prophets. Thus, whoever drew this portrait is basing it on an assumption that this is how Muhammad looked like (fictional), not based on fact since there is no authentic prof that dates back to his era. In conclusion, such portraits, not only offend Muslims and I request that they be removed, but they are also unathentic with no basis of proof. And even if they did have a basis of proof, which is not the case, one needs to respect the beliefs of 1.5 Billion Muslims worldwide who consider this a huge offence. I kindly request that Wikipedia include a different portrait of something different - there is a lot of islamic designs and architecture that can be great substitutes.
K.Ginena 86.36.66.129 ( talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
can any one tell me wikipedia belogs to which country?
thanks —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
59.181.118.62 (
talk)
05:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This is getting incredibly boring and amazingly pointless. The only way to stop these interminable discussion is to ignore any post that challenges the current policy. This talk page is for discussion to improve the content of the article. -- Gazzster ( talk) 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Posting this picture is an obvious insult on behalf of Wikipedia. Your response to the previous comment ("I'm sorry you're offended" and not "we are sorry for publishing this") is an exact replica of the supposed "apology" given by the editors at the Danish daily which portrayed Prophet Muhammad in a caricature last year. The picture supposedly representing prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is fictional. As a source of information, Wikipedia should not include this picture because first and foremost it is misleading people regarding Prophet Muhammad's image (as you said no one knew how anyone looked like until photography recently). Secondly, it is misleading people, who are trying to find out about Prophet Muhammad through this website, by making them think that portraits of prophets are allowed in Islam. So, by including this picture you are actually misinforming people, rather than informing people, which is the supposed "purpose" of Wikipedia. Please find an alternative design and remove this picture.
Sameh Abdel Megied
" 75.156.115.92 ( talk) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"
Redirecting them to the FAQ is a sufficient response to them. At this point, one has to assume someone is just coming here everyday with a different IP (notice none of these people that come here are even registered users; many don't even have a single contribution before they post in this talk page). - Rosywounds ( talk) 07:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I commend wikiepdia as a source of public knowledge for people around the world. However, the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is problematic to the stance of neutrality of Wikipedia.
The depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in an article that is meant to educate about the religion is Islam in inappropraite and violates neutrality. While it is true that there are visual representations of the Prophet (pbuh) in Muslim cultures--these are strictly prohibited in Islam. Thus, it is inaccurate to have such images in an article about the religion. This clearly violates the neutrality policy of wikipedia for it is asserting Western and non-Islamic standards over an Islamic topic. It would be prudent to replace the picture with something that is representative of Islam--for example, calligraphy, architecture, etc instead of a culturally based and inaccurate visual representation that confuses the content of the page (about Islam) with cultural manifestations of the religion (which are non-Islamic). To conflate Muslim culture with Islam would be a major inaccuracy, and thus to maintain a higher standard of knowlegde dissemation--i strongly urge wikipedia to replace this picture.
Thank you.
Sana
209.148.248.101 ( talk) 06:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok! just listen to this difference...
1) The pics are as it is now and as ur description says, Prophet(PBUH) is preaching the Quran.
2) You are blurring or making it white at the face part where you have said that Prophet (PBUH) is preaching the Quran.
Alrite! In both the cases we get it.
It's just about that face part that doesnt make sense!!!
We understand WITH and WITHOUT the description of the face that He was proclaiming the Quran. Then just why would you want to put it when it affects millions of people around the world???
Ok! I understand that Wikipedia does not censor any of its images, but see it this way:
A Hindu comes to wikipedia to learn about Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and he sees that pic but doesnt understand the caption well and it comes to his mind as "Ah! So, this is kind of how he looked". Isn't this wrong??? Doesn't it look like Wikipedia is giving the wrong Information??
I myself refer to Wikipedia for tons of things, i just see what i believe and read, i dont verify them or something. In that case, if something like the above happens, what would Wikipedia do? Or can u guys guarantee that something like this will never happen???
Luvmyth aish ( talk) 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Ayisha
Those are different articles. Dont include them in this. People of those religion should talk about it, not me. What about my answers?
Luvmyth aish ( talk) 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, he wouldn't even know that to believe in Prophet's(PBUH) pictures is forbidden in Islam. If he sees it censored everywhere, wouldn't that itself educate him that maybe such pictures are not allowed in Islam???? Though it is a small matter, if Wikipedia is so concerned about its readers and strictly following its rules, i guess it should take this thing too into consideration, ya?
Luvmyth aish ( talk) 07:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen that. I just dont understand the difference between Showing and Not showing His pic. It conveys to us the same message ya???? And if you dont put the pic, everyone's fine with it. And when you put it, Millions of Muslims around the world feel its wrong. See, which reaction is stronger, is Wikipedia really ok with such a thing? Ofcourse, i understand what you feel too. You think its a very small matter. But it isnt the same for us. Coz we follow a complete different religion. Iam aware that Wikipedia is free from religious bias. But when censoring the pic conveys the exact same message as it does when not censored, then what's stopping Wikipedia from removing it??
Luvmyth aish ( talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
no probs!
Luvmyth aish ( talk) 08:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Jmlk says: "as an encyclopedia that is not censored, we intent to (and do) educate." And others have said that this is Wikipedia's policy; however, by infringing on other people's freedom of religion, while intending to be an objective source of knowledge, as an expression of our your own freedom you are crossing your boundries. Furthermore, what have you accomplished?
With freedom of anything comes the responsibility to make sound decisions and common-sense choices. Deciding to not include these offensive and unreal pictures has nothing to do with freedom; it has everything to do with respecting another person's beliefs and the common sense. Moreover it diverts you from your goal which is to educate based on sound and authentic knowledge.
Once again, a person's freedom stops where others' begins and we should respect other people's belief as much as we want that they respect ours.Wikipedia should be very aware of this given that this is not an encyclopedia owned by anyone. It is the people's encyclopedia! These pictures having nothing to do with Islam or Muhammad and they should be removed. What should be spoken about is the content of his message (that is what is authentic and should serve as something that is educational for people).
K.Ginena 86.36.66.129 ( talk) 08:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, Why would you post something that is offensive to others? Don't you know that "Your freedom ends where the freedom of others start."
I ask the editors of Wikipedia to remove these pictures as soon as possible. Also, i would like to appeal to the writer of the topic by asking: "would you be happy if I offended your faith?" how about: "would you be happy if i offended your belief especially if that faith is followed by 1.7 Billion people worldwide?"
Thanks