Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.12.173.177 (talk) at 12:34, 11 March 2009 (→Misplaced Pages is (not) censored). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Important notice: This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page, within Misplaced Pages talkpage guidelines. If you have come here to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, please don't post here. Such objections have been raised before, and been given our consideration. If you have come here to protest against how Muslims are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Misplaced Pages, please don't post here. That is not new either. A summary of the current consensus regarding pictures of Muhammad can be found at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you personally want to avoid seeing the images, you might want to read How to set your browser to not see images. Suggestions are expected to be informed by Misplaced Pages guidelines, in particular Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles. Suggestions for an adaptation of standing guidelines are offtopic on this page and belong on Misplaced Pages talk:No disclaimers in articles or Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Because of disruption and trolling, the Muhammad page can be edited only by established Misplaced Pages users. Please be polite and calm. Trolling or aggressive rhetoric either for or against the use of images will not be tolerated. As a Muslim, I find it troubling that so many people wish to use their religious beliefs to impose on the actions of others. Muslims have suffered from such impositions. We as Muslims are forbidden from displaying said images; we are not required to make it so the whole world does the same. If you as a Muslim are uncomfortable with displaying the pictures of Muhammad, then don't. But don't expect the world to follow the rules of a religion that they have not accepted. There is nothing in your faith that requires you do so, in fact many of the laws of Islam plainly and clearly state that they are applicable only to those who have embraced the faith. You shouldn't use your faith to attempt to control the actions of others. — Nableezy, 2009-01-12

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Archive Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Honorifics

I think it makes sense to not insist that Misplaced Pages use honorifics like pbuh or saaws after the name of the Prophet Muhammad.

I'm pro-freedom of speech and definitely appreciate the fact that Misplaced Pages is democratic consensus-based type of knowledge repository. But I would note that just as "pornographic" images or other offensive images don't litter every article where they are conceivably topical, perhaps we could find a less contentious way to deal with the images of Muhammad. For example, there is a seperate article on the portrayal of Muhammad. The images can be placed freely there and the Muhammad article could refer to that one.

Also, in terms of neutrality, it appears to me that many of the people in favor of places images of Muhammad on the Misplaced Pages page are not just calmly, neutrally in a scholarly fashion promoting truth and accuracy but that they are emotionally insisting that the pictures be put up, precisely because they are offensive to Muslims. And in giving in to such an animus, I would suggest that Misplaced Pages has lost a certain amount of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.201.171 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Although there is great reward from God for honoring His Final Prophet, writing of honorifics after the Phophet's name is not a requirement in Islam, only what is mentioned in Hadith is 'whereby may name is mentioned & anyone who does not send to me the prayer {either "Salalllaho Aelehai wa Sallam" the shorter one or the longer one called 'Salat Ibrahimi'} he is the stingiest person'{on Earth}, since as per another Hadith 'wherever you are, send prayer to me & it will reach me {as there are angels appointed by God, as mentioned in another Hadith, just for the job of taking the Salat to the Prophet}{in the Barzakh from this world} & so it is for the reader to send Salat to which he will be rewarded a minimum of ten times as per God's encourgement of goodness & multiplied many times more innumerable as per the intention & piety of the person, his all worries will be taken care of by God {as requested by a companion to repeat it all of the time} as mentioned in another Hadith & God expressly commands Muslims to pray on the Prophet as verily God & His angels pray on the Prophet{Q.33.56}(Ilaila (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Uploading Our Beloved Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) is offensive

Not Only this but also on Misplaced Pages wherever the word Mohammad is meant for Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) it should be with (Peace Be Upon Him). That is a part of our religioun.

Remove the pictures which point to Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) Add (Peace Be Upon Him) in Misplaced Pages where it mentions Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

Majority is not a question but quality and approval from the concerned scholars is more appropriate otherwise England is not a Christian State under Church of England but a Secular state if you wanna talk of majority.

You were not the first to ask this, and you will not be the last. No, we will not remove the images. No, we will not use the words peace be upon him (or pbuh or saw, or anything else) to refer to Muhammad. We are not bound by the rules and laws of any religion or of any religious scholar. Misplaced Pages has no religion. Aecis·(away) 19:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

England doesn't have its own government, under the Church of England or otherwise. It's a constituent of the United Kingdom whose government, despite the existence of an established church, is indeed secular to all intents and purposes. 82.132.136.190 (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct my if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason you don't like the pictures of Muhammad because your religion is afraid it will promote idolatry(worshipping of the image of Muhammad instead of Allah)? If that's the case then have some self-control and just don't worship the images of Muhammad. If you're really that worried you'll start worshipping the images don't even look at them. You know there's a picture of Muhammad in some government building in DC(forget which one, Supreme Court of Congress). It's been there for a long time aside other paintings of people in history. Haven't heard any Muslims complain about it.TheRealdeal (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(comments deleted by poster)

Every one of your points above are addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Please read it.

By your definition, all historically significant drawings are "fake". That is not an acceptable point of view to inflict upon an encyclopedia.

You are free to follow your faith, and not put up drawings. Because you did not put the pictures in this article, you have done nothing wrong. You do not commit a sin by happening to view a picture.

The rules you follow are applicable only to you, not to the rest of the world. Even the Qu'ran says that many of the rules apply only to the faithful.

The drawings are respectful. Perhaps not according to your personal beliefs, but according to the Muslim artists who created them, they are respectful. Many other Muslims have no problem with the images. Removing the images doesn't show "respect". In fact, it shows just the opposite, by diluting the encyclopedic value of this article, because information of interest to non-Muslims is eliminated, thereby disrespecting the non-Muslim readers.

Read the quotation from a Muslim at the top of this page.

Remember, Misplaced Pages is not censored for the benefit of any religion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel a point was made by a very intelligent and reasonable person, so I deleted my last writing. Thanks for giving an understanding, and hopefully, people will take your words with a smile. 69.118.145.80 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

This article needs more images if anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.172.101 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you back that up you'll probably find that you're ignored. RaseaC (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith with new or anonymous editors. They may not realize that the image of Muhammad is a sensitive issue in the Muslim faith. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More images of what? gren グレン 20:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kittens, of course. — Hiddekel (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are factually incorrect. No portraits of Muhammad were made in his life time and none were known to exist for up to 300 years after his death. It will, therefore, be factually incorrect, to show pictures of him and therefore, suggest to the reader that he looked like the particular person depicted in the pictures or for that matter that he lived in the settings depicted in the pictures. This would be even more erroneous because part of the believe system he, himself, proclaimed required that no pictures/paintings (especially of human beings) be made. The paintings that are included in the article are made hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad and depict an artists impression of him rather than any factual correct impression. You would therefore, note that these depictions are contemporaneous to the time/place they were made (Persia/Istanbul) rather that to cira. 600AD/Arabia where Muhammad lived. I have always read[REDACTED] articeles assuming a rigrous attention of factual integrity of the information. This article falls short of that. - Shiraz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.230.193 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are totally missing the point. Depictions of Muhammad, or Jesus, or Moses, or George Washington for that matter, are all artists' conceptions. No one is claiming Muhammad looked like those illustrations. The illustrations show how people of particular times "saw" Muhammad, just as illustrations of Jesus do. Baseball Bugs 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Standard Reply

Being as this page has had the same argument repeated many times, surely Misplaced Pages could release a statement which could be just pasted after every objection, thus saving time.

My Suggestion

After much concesus it has been decided that the material in question shall remain. Misplaced Pages does not endorse any product, organisation or belief and therefore its internal policy does not take the requirements of such into consideration. Misplaced Pages is not censored and as such has no obligation to respect the wishes of any religious, political or other view.

Or perhaps something less diplomatic

Please stop forcing your views on the rest of us. We will view/read whatever we want and if you don't like it then sod you!

Either one if fine with me. I suppose what I am trying to say is that this seems to be continuing indefinately when a firm decision has allready been made. There is no point in continuing it any further, perhaps a statement from someone in authority could draw a line under it and then such discussions could be terminated. Talk pages are not supposed to be spouting/whinging pages but a facility for discussing content and such. Such contencious issues only clog them up with whiners and do-gooders each wanting to have the same moan as the last one.Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this would go against various policies which have already been discussed when your suggestion has been made in the past so go ahead and look through these archives for why this can't be done. Also, WP has made enough statements in various newspapers, on various websites and on various articles to no avail so it probably wouldn't work anyway. RaseaC (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to quote, at the top of this page, the Muslim editor who wrote the gracious and wise words in the section called #A Muslim reaction above. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

...which just got archived, so I included it in the lead infobox above. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for including it at the top. Just thought I'd make my thoughts known incase someone argues against.RaseaC (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a surprisingly lifelike stick figure drawing my son did of Muhammad I think should be included. That the picture is not of Muhammad (saw) the religious figure, but of our neighbor's son, shouldn't matter. Nor should the fact that this picture comes over a 1000 years after the actual Muhammad lived. Nor should the fact that there is no drawing anywhere that shows what he looked like and any drawing of him hundreds of years after his death has no baring upon a biography of him because you aren't talking about that time period at all. If you put a drawing of Muhammad (saw) that comes hundreds of years after his death, I don't see why my son's drawing can't be included as well. Get back to me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.204.94 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your son's drawing will be included in the article when it is deemed notable by professional artist and historians. See needed for inclusion and more specifically no original research. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"when a firm decision has allready been made. There is no point in continuing it any further, perhaps a statement from someone in authority could draw a line under it and then such discussions could be terminated." - intransigent positions like this are not beneficial to Misplaced Pages. Someone may have an argument that could change the current consensus on this matter. I would rather this be kept open for discussion. Your position is no different to those who insist on having the images removed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The only argument anyone has been able to muster against the images so far is that they are "against Islam", an argument which cuts no mustard at all here. If they were to argue that the images are somehow not notable, or in violation of[REDACTED] rules, then they might have something. Baseball Bugs 13:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What people have argued previously is irrelevant - the point is that regardless of how often someone uses the same argument, that in itself should not render all discussion on the topic obsolete. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

However, the argument that it's "against Islam" remains an irrelevant argument, until such time, if any, that[REDACTED] changes its policies to allow pressure groups to censor content. And that's pretty much the only argument that's been posed here. Baseball Bugs 19:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's in fact true. The actual use has changed substantially (if slowly) since I first became aware of the issue. It's possible (though it seems unlikely) there's some argument that just hasn't been considered. WilyD 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I dislike this revert on site business. It smacks of 'brush off' and can easily be construed as insensitivity to an easily inflammible subject. It's impossible (without a checkuser) to know if all IPs are trolls and not sincere new users who are unaware of our rules and policies. While I agree we are not likely to change our consensus on this issue we must adhere to core polices. As I've said before a kind word and policy explanation is usually all that is necessary to separate the trolls from the newbies. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the standard reply should simply be to refer the complainer to the appropriate answer in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. The rash of recent complaints that "the paintings are false!" could be answered by referencing Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q3, instead of wasting time with lengthy replies or debating reverting. That's what the FAQ is for. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still all for reverting. RaseaC (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote

Is there any chance we could give Nableezy's quote (at the top) some context? I've been following this page for a while (since well before it was there) and it seems as if it's just been plonked at the top. If it's there to serve a purpose to editors coming here to comment on this whole issue, then it should be introduced to them. I just don't know what I'd put to give it more context – only people who saw the original discussion really know the context; who wrote it etc. Cycle~ (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I havent been here in a while, and as flattered as I am that you think my words may help stop this constant demanding that the images go, it seems my comment was a violation of the rules posted at the top: If you have come here to protest against how Muslims are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Misplaced Pages, please don't post here. That is not new either. Seems odd to put a post like that directly beneath rules that say you shouldnt write something like that. If yall want to keep it up there that is fine with me (I dont really have a choice though as whatever I write here is in the public domain). Whatever yall want to do though feel free. Nableezy (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For context: If you click on Nableezy's name at the end of the quotation, it opens the page where the quotation was originally written, and the discussion that followed. Subsequent discussion agreed that it was appropriate to place at the top of this talk page, to illustrate how other Muslims can adhere to a rational viewpoint regarding images of the Prophet in the article about him. The quote also directly addresses the most common argument (religion-based) put forth by Muslims who come to this talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I know Nableezy's last comment is a couple of weeks old but, if it is ever questioned, I think the quote should stay. RaseaC (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

@Amatulić: I know the context of the quote, but to someone who's not read this page (or related discussions) it may seem out of place. I think it's good having it there, but it seems as if it's just been dumped in the top banner without regard for who's reading it. Cycle~ (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I "dumped" the quote in the benner with regard for everyone who reads it. The intended context is to present the viewpoint of one Muslim Wikipedian, and I think that's obvious. Anyone may click on Nableezy's name to view the page that contains the original context. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

how much donation you need to remove the pictures..

i am ready to donate the amount to[REDACTED] just to remove the pictures from the article forever ....give me your demand & i'll send you.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshikashi (talk • contribs) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't for sale in principle, but considering the current state of the economy, we must be realistic: if you can cough up, say, USD 787 billion you have yourself a deal. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good down-payment. Baseball Bugs 14:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Information is priceless. Resolute 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to the deletionist wing of the community. Baseball Bugs 15:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll bid against Dbachmann. For the low-low price of just US$5 billion wired to my Swiss bank account, I will delete the pictures. I can't guarantee that they won't be re-added within seconds, but that's why you get the discounted rate. Dzimmer6 (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yall should watch out, in a few months that 787 billion USD could be worth 12 pesos (or 40 CD). Nableezy (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Please send gold :) Garycompugeek (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

or make that oil. We can't operate the servers by burning gold. --dab (𒁳) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i did'nt get you guyss....at one end you are saying not for sale....and on the other imposing your demands. you guys are dying for oil, gold, etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything has a price. "Not for sale" is usually just a slogan meaning "It might be for sale, but you couldn't afford it." Baseball Bugs 12:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All Muslims see now[REDACTED] has its demand for removing the picture thier encyclopida is for sale...in fact, they were waiting for this moment to sell the pictures.now you realize what they are about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all Muslims, just the ones who lack a sense of humor. On the other hand, if y'all come up with a check for 787 billion dollars, we'll have to consider it. Once the check clears, that is. Baseball Bugs 12:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is lost on the masses. Resolute 14:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just impressed that they're apparently considering the 787 billion dollar asking fee. Maybe we set the bar too low. We should add another 700 or 800 billion to cover Bush's bailout also. Either that, or they're funnin' us. :) Baseball Bugs 15:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If this has a chance of working let's ask for jet packs, money trees, unicorns and anything else we can think of. RaseaC (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That, and peace for our time. Aecis·(away) 15:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How true. But here's the deal-breaker: A World Series victory by the Chicago Cubs. Baseball Bugs 16:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And us finally winning the World Cup. No, that's really impossible ;) Aecis·(away) 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You will probably win the World Cup before the Cubs win the Series. Baseball Bugs 17:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

you are just being greedy now, dears, what will the Muslims think? I think it will be a fair deal to ask for a pony for each Wikipedian. I for one pledge that I will remove the images once (only) for every pony delivered to me. --dab (𒁳) 21:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You're eventually going to end up with more ponies than you can feed in an economical manner. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Dab, I agree with Briangotts. You're just being silly now! RaseaC (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you know I intend to feed them? I never said I was a vegetarian. --dab (𒁳) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Either way, the complainants here would have to pony up. Baseball Bugs 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

thats why we love you guys your demands never sleeps....  :)you guys need only a little push...

what do you think??? i wont give you even a single penny for these FAKE IMAGES.... :)

Whatever. The guy who started the thread made the open-ended offer. We just tried to answer it. With sincere, not-at-all-sarcastic responses. Baseball Bugs 12:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is what you need. Donate your money to a web hosting company and a set of developers. Tell them to download a Misplaced Pages dump and to host it on your own servers. Then you can remove whatever you like! Chillum 14:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they can try their luck at conservapedia?? Gotta love this obsession with pictures. Wire me ten million bucks and I'll remove it once a day til I get banned. Hell, I'll ring up friends and get them to remove it too.

To the original guy: This is an online encyclopaedia, it has information on more than just the Qur'an. For some people there's more to life than just the sum total of an ancient book, that's what this project is about documenting. It has to treat everything with a certain fairness, that means we can't aim to adhere to every superstition, avoid every offence etc. Even if say in the case of Islam people have been murdered over depictions of mohammed. It simply isn't possible, especially considering the ever growing list of what offends certain religious groups. So just like Jesus, who is documented in stories somewhere between factual historical figure and fantasy supernatural there needs to be a range of coverage of such a figure. You could always block that particular image via an adblocker or something, or perhaps simply don't look at it. Get a postit note and stick it over that part of the page. NathanLee (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the White-Out idea better (see farther down the page). Baseball Bugs 02:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1 trillion? Why stop there? How about enough trillions to pay off the national debt (and the Iraq war, while we're at it) plus maybe a 10 percent bonus? Baseball Bugs 01:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary?

The art depicting his face is not really necessary, seeing as its usually just a generic arabic face. Anyone can draw that. So saying that it should be kept because it is informative and relevant is note exactly true. Don't you think it should be removed of the main Muhammad page? You can leave it else where, such as on the article about depictions of Muhammad, but the pictures are something that people would find offensive. I know the[REDACTED] is not censored, but there should be some decency. I might want to be able to find out about pornography without seeing a picture of a slutty girl with her mouth around a massive penis, just the same way I might want to read an article about Muhammed without seeing something I find offensive blasted in my face. I'm not even suggesting deleting the images, I just think that it should be left out of the main page. If people really want to see it, you can keep it on a separate page, but remove it from the main page at least. It's like having a picture of Christ nailed to an upside down cross in the Christianity article. Yeah sure, maybe it might be relevant if there was a a section on the page related to Satanism, Anti-christianity, etc., but would you really put that there? It would probably be taken down being, deemed offensive. So why are pictures of Muhammad left up, when it is clearly something that offends the people of the world's second largest religion. --68.199.39.111 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparing a depiction of Muhammed to a porn picture is pretty offensive by itself. Baseball Bugs 18:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

When you look up a subject in Misplaced Pages you are likely to see a picture of the subject. If that offends you then I suggest you don't look up that subject, or if you like use some sort of image blocking add-on for your browser. You don't have to load it. Chillum 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's vaguely similar to the argument about whether to reveal the endings of movies. If you go to a page, you can expect to see ANYTHING that's factual. And if it's factual and you don't like what you see, don't look at it. That seems simple enough. Baseball Bugs 19:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the time-honoured[REDACTED] IS NOT CENSORED is needed here. However you put it, however you argue it, however you phrase is, your argument is calling for the censorship of Misplaced Pages and guess what? Yep, you guessed it;[REDACTED] IS NOT CENSORED. We do not censor our encyclopedia. We will not allow censorship on Misplaced Pages. We will not undertake censorship programmes. We do not bow to demands for censorship. Hell, I'm bored of rephrasing it now, just remember[REDACTED] IS NOT CENSORED. RaseaC (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The exception to that general policy would be where information is in violation of the law. For example, child pornography is subject to censorship, i.e.[REDACTED] is bound by the law. Same goes for, for example, publishing the whereabouts of members of the witness protection program. Although I could also argue that that kind of information is also forbidden by law from being published by reliable sources. Presumably if[REDACTED] were being hosted in Saudi Arabia, maybe the law would forbid these images (and thousands more, but that's another story). But it isn't. Baseball Bugs 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, staying on the right side on the law is a little different from taking off some pictures. RaseaC (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the arguments you are making are incorrect here. Misplaced Pages does not censor images that add encyclopedic value to an article, it may 'censor' images that do not. The proper answer to such a query in my mind is explaining what encyclopedic content is added by these images. There are answers to that question. If somebody comes here with the standard demand that because it is against Islam it should not be allowed then[REDACTED] IS NOT CENSORED may be accepted as a standard response. I think the OP is incorrect in saying that the images are not informative or relevant, as they do provide an insight into how people viewed Muhammad, and that is certainly relevant to an encyclopedic discussion on him. I have two problems with this discussion. The people demanding it be removed because of their religious beliefs, which I have already spoken on, and the people who seem to want them included because it insults a group of people. I make no claims that anybody here has done that, but it has been seen. There is intolerance on all sides of this issue. I recognize the contradiction in my beliefs as a Muslim and my responsibilities here on Misplaced Pages. My religious beliefs should not impact what content is available on Misplaced Pages, which is why I can say I think the images are valid and encyclopedic and rightfully belong in the article. But neither should my personal feelings on other groups influence content in articles. I was equally pissed off going through the archives on this page from those who called for them to be removed because of their own personal feelings as I was by those saying to keep them basically as a fuck you to all the Muslims out there. Again, neither of you have said such things and this isnt meant as a reply to the above. But I do think the answer if somebody asks what value the images bring to the article is to show what value it brings, not just say Misplaced Pages is not censored. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good explanation. Baseball Bugs 21:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

we dont mind if you bring Muhammad PBUH's real life images in order to bring the so called value to your article as i have always seen real pictures of the real article. if it is NOT CENSORED then please post the real pictures. i believe it will add mocking value to your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning what? Baseball Bugs 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the anon wants us to find a photograph taken some 1400 years ago and use that. Nableezy (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I read it as too. RaseaC (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I for one am not doing his research for him. He can go look for the photo of Muhammad, and get back to us when he finds one. That should keep him busy for awhile. Baseball Bugs 23:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont think he is going to want to look for another picture of Muhammad to put in the article, but thats just my guess. And there is that pesky problem of when the methods of photography were first used, would seem to make that a pretty difficult picture to find. Nableezy (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I could lend him my digital camera and my Wayback machine, and he could go back to the appropriate time and take a photo himself. Baseball Bugs 23:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

its obvious, if you dont have any images why you are tilting peoples mind on the wrong directions by showing them wrong pictures. the images are FAKE and projecting a wrong image of Muhammad PBUH. and for taking picture back in times MR.Basball bugs or Balls Bug....i am not intrested in these FAKE images you are so positive in posting those fake pictures i'll leave that job for you and for the job you have time machine too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. We do not have actual photos of Muhammad, nor of Jesus, nor of anyone who lived before photography. We only have note worthy artistic representations. They're not "fake", they're "art". -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

brother how can you associate the artistic presentations if it does not reveal the actual image becuase the images i see over here are far too different than the real Muhammad PBUH character.

Oh? And when did you last see Muhammad in person? Baseball Bugs 14:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes..!! Every time i read Quran i meet him, every time i read his daily life routines i meet him in person. my friend this is the only religion where we can see Muhammad PBUH life & character so easily so closely that you can impose his life routines into your's & this has done purposely by GOD if we can’t see the prophet’s life closely like meeting him personally than I think there is no need of prophets they were here to tell us the truth & to show us the right path you will not see a single man on earth revealing his whole personal life for a man kind. Answer to your question. What if I post a picture of Jesus without beard without mustaches? With shaved head & with nice colored shades will you agree about the depiction in the artistic representation I am sure you haven’t met him in person too..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If this hypothetical image of Jesus in sunglasses and with a shaved head was historically significant it would certainly be used in the article. --Leivick (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

yes..!!! you got it... thanks for realizing the fact....the images we see over here are not HISTORICALY SIGNIFICANT. Publish the images that are on the basis of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

the images are historically significant. Read the faq. They are well within our standard practice of illustrating articles on historical figures, and probably have seen closer scrutiny than the images on any other article on Misplaced Pages. We illustrate the King Arthur article with a 14th century image. We illustrate the Charlemagne article with a 13th century image. We illustrate the Alexander the Great article with a 15th century Persian miniature. We illustrate the Gautama Buddha article with a 2nd century statue. We illustrate the Jesus article with a 6th century mosaic. Noted a pattern yet? It means that we bloody well will illustrate the Muhammad article with notable 14th to 17th century Muslim(!) artwork, because Misplaced Pages isn't censored, and because the only reason to refrain from doing so would be "we must not offend Muslim sensitivities", not points of encyclopedicity. All of this is perfectly obvious from reading the FAQ, and no amount of repetitive "buts" is going to change that. In fact, I believe we have already de facto caved in to the bigot whining and censored ourselves by removing these images to the lower half of the article. This was probably a mistake because it means we'll never have peace now.

But in fact I believe the anon has a point in that we do need an image of a beardless Jesus at Jesus, because that is how Jesus was depicted in the very earliest artwork. The bearded Jesus is probably informed by the Turin shroud. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can find one with Jesus in shades, then you'll have something. Or a snap of the famous moment where Jesus was in line at the Jerusalem Steak n Shake, and Satan wickedly jumped the queue, and Jesus said, "Hey! Get behind me, Satan!" Baseball Bugs 12:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Friends, your ongoing policy like attack is the best defense is very clear it’s not my headache if wiki is censored or not. If you've placed the pictures little lower good for you what can I say more I am not going to say thank you for all these FAKE images these so called artistic representations have no concern with Muhammad PBUH or with Islam or with your non-neutral article. I don’t know what enraged you either my ironic points or simple valid questions which you haven’t answered yet again I request you to Publish the images that are on the basis of facts which speak about the character of Muhammad PBUH. If you do so, what should I worry about? If you think that you have done a mistake I don’t care for your own personal peace..!!!! You have had a chance and you’ve lost it long ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

who is enraged? PBUY, and maybe find some other website PBUI which you like, ok? The internet PBUI is big. There is no reason to prance around websites that you do not enjoy. --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

who is enraged….??? I am not probably. You are no one to dictate me what to do and what not to do ok..??? Secondly i am enjoying what you are doing right now Mr. Dbchmann. I am free and wiki allowing me my freedom and the freedom of speech. You can't control everything over here while roaming around —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you would enjoy such freedom at religious websites. Baseball Bugs 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

if you have a doubt what can i do...i believe what i believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You would have less freedom at a religious website than you would here. Baseball Bugs 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is veering off topic. The purpose of this page is to discuss ways to integrate images in to the article. To those who want to complain: please read the infobox at the top, read the archives, read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, and don't repeat old arguments. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is funny to read the phrase "freedom of speech" from anons on a mission to impose religious censorship on Misplaced Pages. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm still not understanding why it is soooo necessary to have those pictures on the main article. Another picture that has his face covered would not take away from the encyclopedic nature of Misplaced Pages, and would be the best for everyone. It would end these worthless arguments, and continue to allow[REDACTED] to be a good enyclopedia. --68.199.39.111 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures are Facutally Incorrect

Dear Editor,

I read the article mentioned above assuming (as usual) that I would show factually correct information, however, I one factual error was immediately evident.

Factually incorrect: The article showed portraits of Muhammad and suggest that these depicted factual information.

No portraits of Muhammad were made in his life time and none were known to exist for up to 300 years after his death. It will, therefore, be factually incorrect, to show pictures of him and therefore, suggesting to the reader that he looked like the particular person depicted in the pictures or for that matter that he lived in the settings depicted in the pictures. This would be even more erroneous because part of the believe system he proclaimed required that no pictures/paintings (especially of human beings) be made. His followers, quite a few billion of them!!, do not, therefore, believe it correct to have a picture of Muhammad.

The paintings that are included in the article are made hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad and depict an artists impression of him rather than any factual correct impression. You would therefore, note that these depictions are contemporaneous to the time/place they were made (Persia/Istanbul) rather that to cira. 600AD/Arabia where Muhammad lived.

These pictures do garnish the article but given the nature of facts I think the do not suite a wikepedia article, which I have grown to know as hosting rigorously factual information.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely, Shiraz Kidwai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.230.193 (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are totally missing the point. Depictions of Muhammad, or Jesus, or Moses, or George Washington for that matter, are all artists' conceptions. No one is claiming Muhammad looked like those illustrations. The illustrations show how people of particular times "saw" Muhammad, just as illustrations of Jesus do. Baseball Bugs 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

answer the shiraz point dont just jump onto other things. he has a valid point.'These pictures do garnish the article but given the nature of facts I think the do not suite a wikepedia article, which I have grown to know as hosting rigorously factual information' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is factual that these are depictions of Muhammad as seen by Muslims at certain points in history. Baseball Bugs 13:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Staying are pictures the. RaseaC (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have a valid point. Anyone smart enough to read an encyclopedia is smart enough to realize that an artists conception of something is just that. It's an argument without any basis, and one that has been rejected repeatedly. Resolute 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

ok than keep on rejecting we'll keep on convincing.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.60.225 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No you won't. You've haven't convinced anyone of anything, and that will continue to be the case. If you have nothing better to do then go on about it, we can probably find people with nothing better to do then reply to you. It is a waste of time though unless you can pull a new argument out of your ass. RaseaC (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

i am not convincing YOU.....and this place does not belongs to you.....Lay off now....don’t tell me what to do..... If reading my edits are wasting your time don’t reply & don’t read them i am not asking you to do so? I know, my comment & my question is a pain your ass. Post some factual images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q3. If you have a problem with content on Misplaced Pages, consider WP:NOIMAGE. If you have a problem with the Internet containing objectionable content, consider pulling the network cable. --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The user 212.12.173.177 is expecting everyone else to do the work. He needs to go find some "factual" images himself. Baseball Bugs 10:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No..!!! I am not alone here who has a problem. There are number of persons over here with bundles of problems. Like, I am having a problem with FAKE IMAGES and others will have a problem by removing FAKE IMAGES some how there is a cold war going on. Be realistic face the realism there is a problem..!! That is why you are responding but on the other hand not considering an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem here, this is an encyclopedia, we don't care about the 'laws' of islam. That's what being discussed here so any other issue is of no interest. RaseaC (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, we do care about Islamic law. We aspire to documenting it carefully, at our Sharia article, and related. See also WP:TIGERS. The world is full of "problems". Encyclopedias don't solve them, they document them. Which, incidentially, is the first step to be taken by anyone who does intend to solve them.

and yes, we even document the problem you are talking about at the moment. Why do you feel you need to tell us about it when it is already fully discussed at the proper place? If you have anything to add to our coverage, come to Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad#Wikipedia_controversy_section. It is unclear what you want here, since it must be clear even to you that you aren't telling anyone anything they don't already know. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the context in which I was speaking, i.e. with regards to the exclusion of images based on Islamic 'law' we do not take it into account, and therefore do not care about it. RaseaC (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

obviously. That's as easy as saying WP:NPOV. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I don't get: Is there anything in the Koran prohibiting images of Muhammad, or is that just a custom that has evolved over time? The Ten Commandments prohibit idol worship. But by prohibiting images of Muhammad, it has the effect of turning Muhammad into a god. Muhammad is not considered a god in Islam, is he? Or is he? Baseball Bugs 14:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

you, too, want to read depictions of Muhammad, and aniconism in Islam. Verbatim from the article,

The Qur'an, the Islamic holy book, does not explicitly prohibit the depiction of human figures; it merely condemns idolatry (ex.: 5:92, 21:52). Interdictions of figurative representation are present in the Hadith, among a dozen of the hadith recorded during the latter part of the period when they were being written down. Because these hadith are tied to particular events in the life of Muhammad, they need to be interpreted in order to be applied in any general manner. Sunni exegetes, from the 9th century onward, increasingly saw in them categorical prohibitions against producing and using any representation of living beings. There are variations between religious schools and marked differences between different branches of Islam. Aniconism is common among fundamentalist Sunni sects such as Salafis and Wahhabis (which are also often iconoclastic), and less prevalent among liberal movements in Islam. Shi'a and mystical orders also have less stringent views on aniconism.

Misplaced Pages is in its 9th year now, and unsurprisingly, all of this has come up numerous times before. This is why we put it in articles, where people can read about it.

in a nutshell, it's a 9th century idea, not a 7th century one. Which still makes it nearly as old from today's point of view, of course. --dab (𒁳) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not about what Islam requires or does not require of its adherents. This is about intimidation and dominance, and imposing those requirements on everyone. Those who debate about what Islam does or does not require are entirely missing the point. 38.104.110.126 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. And it's clear that even Muslims don't agree on this point. They're also hypocritical, given that pictures of guys like Arafat were all over the place. Veneration is veneration, no matter the medium. No Islam-based argument is valid in trying to censor wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For those Muslims under the false belief that Muslims never depict Muhammad, we are actually doing a favour - by disabusing them of such an erroneous notion. And that's precisely the goal of Misplaced Pages, to spread knowledge. ðarkuncoll 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! Now, here's a radical idea: The same questions have been asked and answered countless times here. How about, in the future, regarding those questions as vandalism, and deleting them on-sight? Baseball Bugs 20:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here, here!! RaseaC (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary would say something like, "Already asked. Answer is still NO." Baseball Bugs 23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And a link to the FAQ. I think it is well worth giving that a serious discussion rather than just writing it off as 'biting the newbies' because there is a difference between a newbie and someone just trying to be a nuisance. RaseaC (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. And what is that link again? Baseball Bugs 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It should say something like Your contribution has been reverted because it has been discussed in depth. Please refer to the FAQ.. Maybe a little shorter, but with that general message. RaseaC (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Yeh, I would shorten it a bit. Also, we seem to have the same discussion happening on 2 different pages. How did that happen? Baseball Bugs 00:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Either,
a) we're stupid
b)it's too important for one page
c)we're just pretty awesome.
We should see what others have to say about it, but I would assume it's along the lines of newbies are sooooooo great we should NEVER delete ANYTHING they EVER say because they might cry but we'll wait and see. RaseaC (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably "all the above". And I'd be more impressed if they cried in proper English, but that's the way things go. Baseball Bugs 01:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

point A is right point.

Hi All, As a muslim, Muhammad is never shown in muslim publications except when having a white veil over his face, for out of respect. What all the muslims are asking is to have the illustrative image with a veil on and nothing more....Cheers

Thanks for your interest. Misplaced Pages is not a Muslim publication, nor is anyone compelling Muslims to look at it. And as noted elsewhere, "never" is an untrue statement. Thanks for your interest. Baseball Bugs 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And here's another solution I got from a girlfriend, whose name is... well, I'll just call her "Blondie". So, what you do is, buy some White-Out and put it on your computer screen to cover anything offensive that turns up. Before long, there will be absolutely nothing offensive showing on your screen. Baseball Bugs 04:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt we'll find any reliable, naked pictures of Mohammad with just a veil over his face, but you're welcome to keep on looking. Hint: set "safe search" to "off" when using Google. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

all of you i know sooner or later wiki is going to remove the FAKE IMAGES.....whatever you say...the images does not belong to the article. baseball is that what you do when your blondie do something offensive....???

WP will not remove the images. You're wasting your time. RaseaC (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all good for Misplaced Pages - using any religious content without creating any authentic platform for religious content without a genuine community conscience. Since all religions has the highest level of authenticity when it comes to content, how can its messages and content be revealed by Misplaced Pages because the level of authenticity for other content is very much well planned, organized and judged (much apprecaited) but when it comes to Islamic/ Arabic content - Not even governments legislations or acts authorize such position and posting of content that relates to Islam which is not approved by an Islamic Scholor and that he himself has been recognized from known islamic universities who also atleast has been endorsed by 2 reknowned Islamic universities. The resolution to the dispute is imidiate removal of cotnent and formation of a body within[REDACTED] recommended and endorsed by renowned islamic instituitions in place for atleast 20 years. I in strongest terms oppose and condemn the usage of any pictorial content that has picture of Muhammad - The Prophet and last messenger of Allah including any picture of His imidiate followers, decendents and Caliphs. Misplaced Pages might wanted to go by policies and take this case into dispute, voting etct.. however,[REDACTED] also knows that religious content do need authenticity to the level of its intensity as this is one factor that can result either in best favor of Misplaced Pages - if[REDACTED] acts promptly and seriously considering all the factors in ultimate benefit of[REDACTED] - or can result against Misplaced Pages if correct action is not taken at the right time and can result in defamation or defamatory campaings (as experience by the Denmark event), less authenticity of content offered by[REDACTED] thus resulting in major loss losing trust and anthenticity for audience.

The reason to postion such level of authenticity for religious content is critical for Misplaced Pages is because the legitimacy of Arabic/ Islamic content is an information that ralates to a human's belief, ideology and path of life, thus the audience of Misplaced Pages may astray getting information that isn't valid (as Islamic and Arabic content have deep roots and logics for even minor information)and all the Muslim world oppose such information which is incorrect or illegitimate. This information is critical and needs more attention for best interest of Misplaced Pages.

This resolution is in best favor for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanxs (talk • contribs) 10:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

excellent brother very detailed reasons and i am with you....stay here i cant explain things like you we need you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

exactly..!! it is not the best way to grab the things and impose any where you want.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

you clearly somehow think Islam is "special" compared to other religions. This is your right, of course, but you need to be clear on the fact that Misplaced Pages doesn't. Misplaced Pages will continue to treat Islam exactly like any other religion, namely as an encyclopedic topic, discussed on the basis of encyclopedic and academic sources, and not based on primary sources of religious doctrine. This isn't negotiable, and I really don't see why people keep trying to negotiate it still. --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Precicely. Misplaced Pages is a secular project, and thus has no responsibility to consult with religious leaders of any kind. The simple truth is, the Islamic point of view is completely irrelevant, except as part of a section discussing how Muhammad is viewed, in terms of writing an encyclopedic article about a historical figure. Every argument you guys have made, or will make, has been discussed dozens of times over, and rejected every time. Even the ridiculous threat of a "defamation campaign" by Armanxs has been stated and treated for what it is: empty words of no value. We are not going to bend to a religious point of view. It is as simple as that. Resolute 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't really understand what that long post says but I'm assuming it's along the lines of 'remove pictures'. It is your choice and your choice only not to look at images of Muhammad, we have not chosen to follow Islam, and as such are more than happy to look at images of Muhammad. Feel free to configure your browser to remove the images, but do not undermine our use of this encyclopedia. RaseaC (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is (not) censored

thumb|Young Muhammad meets the monk Bahira. thumb|Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel. thumb|Mohammed before the battle of Badr. Why this biographical article is so much different then articles of other religious figures? There are a lot of images of Muhammad on commons, some of them should be put into article instead of so much maps and pictures of objects. This is a secular encyclopedia. --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look in the article you will see several depictions of Muhammad, five of them by my count. Chillum 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 images of Muhammad and 15 other images. I suggest at least 3 more images of Muhammad, with the important scenes from his life.--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What encyclopedic value would be added to this article by including these images? Nableezy (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, they show early follower's perceptions of Muhammad, his life, and his companions. Rklawton (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We dont already do that? I think maybe the second one could go in, but dont see the point in the others. Nableezy (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We should probably include one or two of the most famous images and then add in a link to commons. Rklawton (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, it reveals something about fashion sense of that era. Note the Angel Gabriel (or is it Gabrielle?) wearing something that looks like it belongs on Dorothy Lamour. Baseball Bugs 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

now why you are not redirecting these edits to the special created page IMAGES TALK..?? why we are not allowed to spead over here and you guys are posting again those FAKE images???i recommend to remove these pictures from the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

These edits have now been directed to the talk page for images.

If you want to add more historical Muslim images of the Prophet, there are more than the article can possibly contain at Commons:Muhammad#Muslim depictions. Adding one or two more images that are appropriate for specific sections of Muhammad's biography would be an improvement, in my opinion. Several even have the face obscured or veiled, so they should elicit no objections from Muslims. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Redirecting the edits. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would urge anyone acting on Amatulic's advice to disregard his last sentence and select only images that add encyclopedic merit to the article, and for that reason only, not because they may or may not be objectionable to Muslims or anyother reason.RaseaC (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that images with his face would be preferred to ones where it is veiled? And if so, why? Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. RaseaC, don't be hasty. What I meant was that some of those images have Muhammad's face deliberately obscured by the artist, and therefore should be acceptable. Others have the face obscured by the uploader, which is not acceptable. A faithful representation of original artwork is fine, but defacing artwork is unacceptable. All clear now? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not about censorship it is about authenticity. The contents in the article like images are very irrelevant & do not match Muhammad PBUH at any level. i think wiki posts whatever they get regardless of source..!!! As mentioned, there are no authors only contributors which clear everything that no one is responsible for the contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They are authentic works of art by Muslim artists. Nobody has ever claimed, not even the artists, that they know exactly what Muhammad looks like. That is not the point of historically significant works of art. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Clear, yes, but being obscured by the artist isn't necessarily a reason to choose an image above another. You mentioned not elicting objections, and that shouldn't be a factor when selecting an image to include in the article. RaseaC (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure if this art is from muslims.

Removal of Pics required

Plz remove the pics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali mustafaq (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no. But thanks for asking so politely. Chillum 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See: this discussion Rklawton (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Demand and claim to the Author

It is good to present the Prophet Muhammad to people, but we must respect him and respect the religion law. For this i like Just mention that pictures published are note true, in Islam we have not permission to drew or publish any picture of prophet. You (author) must delete this picture immediately please. If you are Muslim i am sure that you will delete this pictures now. In any way i think that you love Muhammad (because you present him to peoples) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmlamine (talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored based on one religion or another. This page has further information regarding the images. (and boy, does that link need to be in 60 point type at the top of the page.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one here, I should think, is "present him to peoples" (sic) because he loves him, but because he is a historically significant individual. We also present Adolph Hitler, and there aren't many around who love him, and we also present cheese, and there's no-one here who loves it (at least not in the way you mean love).

While most of us would agree that the devotion and sincerity you show for what you truly believe is admirable, we might have a bit more respect for you if you could show the same appreciation for our devotion to what we believe.

RavShimon (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP doesn't have authors, just contributors. RaseaC (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

the difference being? You own the copyright to your contributions because you are their author. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The contributor was addressing the author, I was pointing out that no individual wrote the article, but that a number of contributors created it. RaseaC (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The depictions of Hazrath Mohammed SAW (pbuh)

I have been on an impression for so long that the Misplaced Pages is an uparalleled site to give out correct information on any topic, but today when I saw this page showing unacceptable pictures of the Prophet(pbuh)I came to know how wrong I was.

According to far authentic sources than this Misplaced Pages, from the so-called "Hadiths" (not one but many)and even in the Quran which says that Allah has created Prophet Mohammed SAW (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him)from His own "Noor" (which means the holy brightness or the most powerful light). This is one of the reasons that even the shadow of the Prophet Mohammed SAW (pbuh)does not fall on the ground(light cannot have its own shadow); Also He (Allah) does not want to see a second beloved Prophet like Mohammed SAW (pbuh) and He would not tolerate anybody stamping his most beloved's image/shadow. Shadow is far away from discussion not even a single strand of the Prophet Mohammed's SAW (pbuh) hair can create a shadow if exposed to light.

Every muslim knows that drawing pictures and representing the Prophet (pbuh) is a wicked thing. Borrowing pictures from xyz artist or source and uploading it in this site would be the most wicked thing ever.

Now tell me one thing, if this site is referred by so many well educated islamic scholars from every corner of this world what impression would this carry? This would definitely bring down your reputation for gathering and presenting the information. If you really want to help people who search for information, kindly don't help them in this manner. You are responsible for creation of this site and maintaining its integrity. And this is a free site, I respect and abide your policies and stick to not to use any profanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayaz.md83 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are those who find censorship equally repugnant. And fortunately, it is people such as these who run Misplaced Pages. No one is forcing you or anyone else to look at it. Freedom of expression means precisely what it says. ðarkuncoll 20:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a radical idea: The same questions have been asked and answered countless times here. How about, in the future, regarding those questions as vandalism, and deleting them on-sight? Baseball Bugs 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs, have done so in the past, and will do so in the future. This really has to be trolling or stupidness. RaseaC (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not too big of a spelling Nazi, but stupidness isnt a word (at least according to my dictionary of choice), I think you are looking for stupidity. Nableezy (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering you knew what I meant, I can't say I care. RaseaC (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

They're not vandalism, and stupidness is a word. Cluelessness of new users is not maliciousness of new users. WilyD 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll revert them with the edit summary "see FAQ" and be done with it. Baseball Bugs 22:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with that stance Wily, it is clear that people still raising the same issues are choosing to do so, and therefore it's malicious. I'm still with Bugs. RaseaC (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other sub-page, it has been suggested that we post the FAQ link as part of the edit summary upon reverting. Do you know what the specific link is? Baseball Bugs 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Template responses for persistant questions are sensible. But it is unreasonable to expect new users to find edit summaries. Just a "This has been discussed here, here, and here. Cheers" would be a perfectly sensible response. WilyD 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other page in which this same topic is being discussed, an edit summary for the reversion, containing a civil but short explanation, along with the FAQ link, has been proposed and seems reasonable. Baseball Bugs 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fayaz, if you are saying that Mohammad glowed in the dark, then you are mistaken. If you are saying that Mohammad was invisible so that light would pass through him, then you are mistaken. If you are saying that he cast no shadow for some other reason, then you are equally mistaken. People would have noticed, and his biographers would have commented on it, but they did not. If you are speaking about Mohammad metaphorically or poetically, then you are using language which could not come close to describing Mohammad's true, spiritual beauty. Likewise, the artist and his brushes commit no greater sin than the poet and his words for trying to communicate the believer's love for their prophet. Rklawton (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, I posted the link on the other page along with my suggestion. Wily, I've had a quick look at the FAQ and from it you can navigate to relevant discussions/archives. There's no point in replying to every post individually, if people are bothered enough to ignore all the warnings at the top of the page then they should be bothered enough to do a bit of reading to find their answer. RaseaC (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I saw. Baseball Bugs 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never quoted anywhere that the Prophet Mohammed SAW (pbuh) glowed in the dark or was invisible. My point was that he cast no shadow. If you have no knowledge on this you can refer to original Hadiths like "Sahi Muslim" or "Sahi Bukhari", "Tirmidhi" which are not written by people like you or me but by them who were the companions of the Prophet Muhammad SAW (pbuh) at his time (Sahabas)and great islamic scholars. Your response was completely baseless.

These are some proofs to name a few,

From Hadiths:

• Hadith 1: Sayyidina Hakeem Tirmidhi in his book Nawaadirul-Usool narrates from Sayyidina Zakwaan , a close Companion of the Prophet , the following Hadith: "The shadow of the Prophet could not be seen in the brightness of the sun, nor in moonlight". • Hadith 2: Allamah Ibn al-Jawzi in his Kitabul-Wafa narrates a hadith from Sayyidina Abdullah ibn Abbas the cousin of the Prophet in which he said: "The Messenger of Allah had no shadow, not while standing in the sun, but the brilliance of his light (nur) surpassed the rays of the sun; nor while sitting before a burning light, but his luminous light excelled the lustre of the light". • Hadith 3: Imam Nasafi in his Tafseer Madaarik narrates from Sayyidina Uthman ibn Affan , the son-in-law of the Prophet that he said to the Prophet  : "Allah Almighty does not let your shadow fall on the ground, so that no foot of man can fall on it". • Hadith 4: Imam Jalaludeen Suyuti in his Khasaa'is al-Kubra narrates from Ibn Saba  : "This is also a unique feature of the Prophet that his shadow did not touch the ground, because he was light (nur), and when he used to walk in the sunshine his shadow could not be seen."

From Scholars:

Qadi Iyad: 1. Imam Qadi Iyad in his Ash-Shifa states:"The Prophet did not possess a shadow in the brightness of the sun or in the moonlight, because he was light (nur)".

Imam Ahmad Qastalani 2. Imam Ahmad Qastalani states in Al-Mawahibul-laduniyya: "That the Prophet did not possess a shadow in the brightness of the sun or moonlight is proven from the ahadith of Tirmidhi of Ibn Zakwaan and Ibn Saba ."

Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi 3. Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi states in Madaarij an-nubuwwah: "The Prophet's shadow did not appear in sunshine nor in moonlight".

Mawlana Jalaluddin Rumi 4. Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi in his Mathnawi states: "Let alone the Prophet , even if an ordinary servant of the Prophet reaches the stage of inner mortality (baqa), then like the Prophet , his shadow too disappears".

From Books:

"Body of Prophet Muhammad(SAW) didnt contain any shadow in sun and moon because he(SAW) was all noor" (Al Shafa by Qazi Ayaz) (Al Wafa by Ibn e Joza) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.29.161 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages is NOT Islamic, we don't consider hadiths to be proof of anything, nor do we practice censorship for the benefit of a religous group. 67.173.185.224 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read the Arabic version. It's funny how these guys can't even push their fundamentalist crap on that version, either. The only concession I could find regarded images - and even then - they just direct readers to this article. Rklawton (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Online petition to remove images

There's an online petition (petitiononline) to have these images remove. I can't post the link here because Misplaced Pages's spam filter wont allow it. Does anyone know how effective it will be, there's a claim that if 100,000 signatures are achieved the images will be removed. There's also a claim that "Who ever has placed this picture is a true terrorist as he is trying to incite more then 1 billion Muslims of the world." Stephenjh (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We're had the discussion about the petition before here. Their claims that they can affect Misplaced Pages policy are wholly without merit. Nuttin to worry about. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, last I knew it was well past 100 000. Not sure how fast it can be filled up, may well be to the millions, billions or trillions by now. WilyD 20:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the info. Stephenjh (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be rude, but was that a serious question?RaseaC (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would you think otherwise? It's asked seriously, he was answered seriously, and responded appropriately? Why chomp at the bit to find bad faith? WilyD 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's of no relevance to wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 21:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Was what a serious question? The first post? Yes, this petition is being distributed amidst the internet as a serious way to have the images removed, i.e. Misplaced Pages will remove the images if 100,000 people petition. Stephenjh (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to chomp at the bit when it's that blatant.RaseaC (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not chomping, nor am I understanding where you're coming from, or what your point/s is/are. Stephenjh (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Petitions are only effective if 1) there is some way of proving that people have not voted more than once and 2) if the person or entity being petitioned has a vested interest in satisfying the petitioners' demands. Those affected by the latter generally are either elected officials or businesses. Since Misplaced Pages is neither elected nor a business, and since we have no way of knowing if the petition's signatures were forged, it strikes me as extremely unlikely that Misplaced Pages would take such a petition seriously. J.delanoy_adds 22:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To summarise. I believe that your original post was made in bad faith because it was, frankly, pretty ridiculous. You bypassed every warning and discussion that said we don't cave into positions, then went on to quote that anyone that posts an image is a terrorist. Wily then claimed i was 'chomping at the bit', i.e. wanting to find bad faith for the sake of it. RaseaC (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He might be onto something, though. If there really is such a survey, maybe some enterprising web programmer could figure out a way to keep registering votes until it crashes their server. Baseball Bugs 22:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well (RaseaC), it does seem that you are chomping at the bit, and the replies are out of sync' so that doesn't help. Firstly there's no Bad Faith. Period. Secondly I haven't bypassed any warning that I am aware of and thirdly the part I quoteed was to inform people as to what is being claimed BY OTHERS not me. If the link was a permissible link I wouldn't have quoted it as everyone could read it for themselves. Calm down and stop making acusations. Stephenjh (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it is known that many of the signatures were added by bots. The comments stay the same, but the name/location change. If you want to go and look, you will see pretty clearly. WilyD 22:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You honestly thought a petition would have an effect on Misplaced Pages? Come on, you've been here three years! The warnings are at the top of the page by the way. RaseaC (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Now I see the warning, thanks for pointing it out. did you see the one about keeping calm? ;-) Stephenjh (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I did, thanks. I've been pointed towards the rules a lot of times. As far as I'm concerned they need to be read and applied with a degree of interpretation. RaseaC (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is nobody of the people answering this aware that we do already cover the petition, where it belongs, at depictions of Muhammad#Wikipedia_article, including the reaction by The American Muslim to the effect that this kind of thing is so utterly stupid that its only effect is to ridicule Muslims and perpetuate stereotypes of Islam as the religion of bigot dimwits. If there is anything else to be added to this topic, kindly redirect comments to Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad where they belong. --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NAME

WITH THE NAME OF MUHAMMAD(SAW) PLZ ADD A LITTLE DAROOD PLZ (SAW) OK THANX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.35.217 (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The following link addresses your request: Note also that even the Arabic version of this article doesn't use a darood. Rklawton (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

i condemn to remove this images because in islam muslims can't bear to make any image about our beloved beloved holy prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.81.137 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Image discussions go here Rklawton (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

pictures of our prophet muhammad (SAW) must be removed from this site

pictures of our prophet muhammad (SAW) should be removed from this site this is not accecptable for believers of true religion islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.120.33 (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please go here for image discussion and explanations as to why we won't be doing that, as is stated at the top of the page.

(Regular editors: is this kind of traffic always this high, or has it been higher the last couple days? Seems busier than usual.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems higher lately. And in spite of me moving one infobox up higher on this page, and increasing the font size in the text exhorting people to use the images subpage, it seems that these people still have a reading comprehension problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reading comprehension problem. It's a campaign in the hopes that systemic harrassment will generate the desired result. Dzimmer6 (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)