Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 26

These paintings should be removed

These paintings should be removed because:

- The historical value of these paintings is: Zero.

- All these paintings were painted in the modern ages or the late middle ages.

- All these paintings contradict the well established historical fact: that Muhammad was incomparably good-looking.

A graphic description of the Prophet was given by an old woman at whose house the Prophet stopped on his way from the cave of Thaur to Medina and her goats gave so much milk that the Prophet and his companions were fully satisfied and yet there was much left over. When the old woman’s husband returned home and expressed his surprise, the woman gave the description of the Prophet as follows: “Handsome features, bright face, likeable temperament, neither the abdomen protruding nor hair of the head fallen out, graceful, handsome, eyes black and large, hair long and thick, voice clear, long neck, bright black of the eye, natural grey corners, thin and drooping eyelashes, black and curly hair, silent with dignity inclined to cordiality, graceful and captivating at a distance and very sweet and most handsome from near, talk sweet and words clear, neither more nor less than necessary, all talk consistent, middle-sized, neither short so as to look insignificant nor tall to look unbecoming, a fresh twig of handsome plant, charming to look at and well- built. His companions are so devoted that they always surround him, quietly listen to what he says and promptly obey what he orders. Obeyed, liked, neither verbose nor cryptic.”[1]

There are plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of historical narrations and reports that assert that Muhammad was incomparably good-looking.

Muhammad was Radiant-White and Ruddy, with black and [slightly] wavy hair.[2] --Hashim221990 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no answer in the link you referred to. It is just: (blah blah blah).--Hashim221990 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you unable to stand the Truth?! or are you unable to stand "honesty"?! These paintings don't have any historical value at all. putting these paintings in the article is meant only to deceive, brainwash, and mislead the readers. --Hashim221990 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

All your arguments have already been addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. And they have been addressed ad nauseam if you bother to look at the archive of Talk:Muhammad/images.

There are zero accurate paintings of historical figures before the advent of photography. As a counterpoint, look at all the paintings of Jesus. Everyone knows he wasn't caucasian, but that is how he has been depicted, and the paintings do have historical value.

If you have anything new to offer, please offer it, otherwise you are wasting time. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of historical reports and narrations. All of them agree that Muhammad was white and ruddy, with black and [slightly] wavy hair. All of them agree that he was incomparably good-looking man. Thus, putting these paintings in the article is only meant to mislead the readers and to brainwash them.--Hashim221990 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You object to the pictures because you don't think he's good looking enough in them? Beauty's in the eye of the beholder. DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad was "white" and "ruddy" with black and [slightly] curly hair. He was [uncompromisingly] good-looking. No human ever was given the skills to depict his appearance.

- Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "He Who Has Seen Me In A Dream Has Certainly Seen Me, because Satan cannot imitate my appearance."[3]

- It was narrated from ‘Abdullah that the Prophet said:

“Whoever sees me in a dream, has seen me in reality, because Satan cannot imitate my appearance.”[4]--Hashim221990 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well then you'll have to take it up with the painters, and you completely ignored the point above regarding Jesus being typically depicted as a white hippy. These are images of historical significance, and it is kinda to be expected that accounts of a person who lived well over a thousand years ago will differ from one to the next, and this project certainly does not give preference to religious sources. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Christians are free to depict their Jesus as they like to. Some of them depict Jesus as a black one: [5][6][7][8], and some of them depict him as a blonde one: [9], and so on.

On the other hand, Muslims are not like Christians. We don't depict the appearance of Muhammad in a painting and we don't depict him according to false-imagination. We have plenty of historical reports and narrations which tell us how he looked like. --Hashim221990 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not talking about religious sources. I am talking about historical reports and narrations. --Hashim221990 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Without some sort of policy based, new and ground breaking revelation this isn't going to happen. This has been discussed ad nausem to the point of ridiculousness. Simply because they aren't accurate is not a reason to remove. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

These paintings are "not based on history". They are based on "false-imagination". All of them were painted in the modern ages or the late middle ages. They completely contradict the plenty of historical reports we have in the books of history.

putting them in the article is only intended to mislead the readers. --Hashim221990 (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Plenty of historical reports" vs "illusion"... This is what it is.--Hashim221990 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion, one that is not shared by other editors at this time. As the project works by consensus, I think it is safe to say that there is little else to discuss here. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not an "opinion". It is "history". i can provide more than 10 historical reports to support what i say. what can you provide??! illusions??!!

Consensus??! it is very clear that a lot of editors before me demanded that these paintings should be removed.--Hashim221990 (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hadith are religious texts compiled by muslims with the intent of advancing their compiler's particular religious views. Which is not to say they have no historical value, but believing in their absolute truth is a matter of faith. It's nice that you have that, but I'm afraid you are wasting your time if you think that a neutral secular encyclopedia is going to follow your faith. DeCausa (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And furthermore, the policy-based editorial consensus is that the paintings should stay. There is a separate, religious consensus among a group of Muslims that the image should be removed, but religious motivations are irrelevant to Wikipedia's editorial policies. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

First, the books of hadiths are books of history written by Muslim historians. They are not religious books. They are not considered by Muslims to be holy books. They are simply books of history (about the history of Prophet Muhammad) gather the historical reports and narrations about Prophet Muhammad and his life. Every hadith in them is very well-sourced, and the series of the narrators is always mentioned in every hadith. They were approved by historians and scholars because they are the only historical books [in all the world and the entire history] that mention the series of the narrators of every event in such an intensive care. Even the gospels of Christians don't mention who the authors of them are, or how the information of them were gathered; which means that the historical books of Muslims are historically more authentic than the holy books of Christians.

Second, I didn't say that i believe in "their absolute truth", and no true Muslim will say that he/she believes in "their absolute truth", because Muhammad and the Qur'an are the only "Absolute Truth" in Islam. Saying that the books of hadiths or their scholars are absolute truth is not acceptable in Islam.

third, claiming that wikipedia is neutral or secular is nothing but a joke. It is far away from being neutral or secular. being neutral doesn't mean to support illusions painted in the modern ages or the late middle ages against plenty of historical reports [i can provide at least 10 of them right now] provided by a variety of different reporters. All of them mentioned that he was white and ruddy with black and [slightly] wavy hair, and that he was [uncompromisingly] good-looking man.--Hashim221990 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

saying that "religious motivations are irrelevant to Wikipedia's editorial policies." is not true. This is absolutely not true. It is quite obvious and clear that putting "these painted illusions" in the article is simply motivated by "anti-Islamic religious motivations" and intended to brainwash the readers.

"more than 10 historical reports" vs "painted illusions". This is what it is. you support the "painted illusions" simply because of "the anti-Islamic religious motivations".--Hashim221990 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement "religious motivations are irrelevant to Wikipedia's editorial policies" is 100% true in this project, I'm afraid. The images will not be removed from this article, and if you attempt to do so anyways, the edits will be reversed and you will find yourself blocked from the Wikipedia. That's what we come to, here. Tarc (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

NO...the statement is not true at all, and your answer is nothing but an opinion. I provided historical proofs and you provided illusions. I provided a discussion based on reason and history, and you provided an opinion based on "some-kind of motivations". And because you were overcome by someone who knows better than you, your answer was simply "i will do what i like to do and that is it". Threatening to block the account doesn't make sense at all. what does make sense is that I did successfully uncovered the weakness of your twisted biased logic.--Hashim221990 (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically, your argument boils down to this:

• Some Hadith describe Muhammad a certain way.
• Your personal opinion is that the images in the article don't comply with the Hadith description.
• Therefore, the images are false and should be removed.

Sorry, that is not a valid argument for removing the images. Your conclusion about the validity of the images is already addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which you have evidently not bothered to read. The images are artist depictions of Muhammad in relevant contexts in the article. Some of them were even painted by Muslims. You have offered no reliable sources beyond religious texts (an not all Muslims agree on their reliability). Your own interpretation of those religious text, as they pertain to the images in this article, amounts to original research, and that isn't an acceptable basis for editorial decisions. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I didn't say "Some hadiths". I said "plenty of historical reports". the word (hadith) literally means (a historical report/a historical narration). The books of hadiths were not written by religious figures. They weren't written by saints or prophets or whatever. They were simply written by competent scholars and historians who gathered the historical reports in their books, studied them, discussed their authenticity, classified them into "Sahih (meaning reliable series of narrators)", "Hasan (meaning good series of narrators)", "Ḍaʻīf (meaning weak series of narrators), "Munkar (meaning denounced)"......etc

This is why they were considered reliable books of history, because every historical report in them is very well-sourced (and the series of the narrators is always provided). In contrast, none of the 4 gospels of Christians mentions the name of its writer or at what time it was written or how the information in it were gathered or ...etc. This is why I said that the historical books of Muslims are historically more authentic than the holy books of Christians. Christians don't even know when Jesus was born or how he looked like or when he died...etc

The books of hadiths are NOT considered holy by Muslims, but they are considered reliable books of history. there is a difference between "holy" and "reliable". There is only ONE holy book in Islam, and that is the Qur'an.

Saying that the books of hadiths are not reliable is like saying that all the books of history are not reliable, because there were no such historical books at any time in history [except in the last 2 centuries] in which the series of the narrators of every event reported in them were given such an intensive care of studying and discussing.

When we have a plenty of historical reports reported by a variety of different reporters, and all of them give a similar description of the appearance of Prophet Muhammad, then this is without any doubt: "a historical fact".--Hashim221990 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

These paintings contradict the historical reports about the appearance of Prophet Muhammad, because the historical reports mention that he was "white and ruddy" with "black and [slightly] wavy hair. Furthermore, the historical reports mention that he was [uncompromisingly] good-looking man.--Hashim221990 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Saying that some of these images were painted by Muslims doesn't make sense. Some Muslims drink alcohol. Does this mean that it is acceptable in Islam to drink alcohol?!! of course no. Some Muslims commit crimes. Does this mean that it is acceptable in Islam to commit crimes?! of course no. And it is of course not acceptable in Islam to paint such a painting based on illusions.

The Key point here is that these painting don't have any historical value: They were painted in a very late time + they contradict plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of historical reports from those who saw Prophet Muhammad.--Hashim221990 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Final note, all Muslims in "mainstream Islam" agree on the reliability of the books of hadiths, but non of Muslims in "mainstream Islam" consider the books of hadiths to be holy. There is a difference between "reliable" and "holy".--Hashim221990 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And in spite of all that, the fact remains that you are engaging in original research. That is really the key point. No one has ever claimed that the images are representative of how Muhammad really looked. Your implication of this is a straw man argument, as is "reliable" versus "holy", which is a point no one brought up but yourself (and false, too, since not all Hadith are considered reliable by mainstream Muslims). In addition, there is no editorial policy that states a representation of an historical figure must be completely accurate. It is a well understood and uncontroversial fact that artistic license is employed by artists, and it is obvious for these images considering when they were painted. That does not invalidate their use to illustrate the article.

Your assertion (without anything to back it up) that these images have "no historical significance" is simply your personal opinion, and irrelevant. In my opinion (shared by the editorial community here), any images showing how Muhammad has been depicted in history have great historical significance, all the more so because they are rare. Furthermore, the images depict Muhammad as a distinguished, handsome man, in accordance with what you claim are historical descriptions, therefore this is no misrepresentation whatsoever.

But your opinion or my opinion don't matter. What matters most is community consensus and reliable sources. You have failed to present a single reliable source that disputes anything about any specific image presented in the article, we have only your WP:SYNTHESIS (a policy violation, read about it) saying that sources accepted by Muslims describe Muhammad a certain way, therefore the images must be removed. All we have are your opinions about how we should apply the sources you espouse, which are religious sources, in spite of your protestations that they are not. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

1st- Who is the one engaging in "original research"?!! me or you??! don't say such a ridiculous thing! who is the one putting these painted illusions "from the modern ages" [because of some-kind of motivations he has] in order to brainwash the readers and to bring a completely false idea that completely contradicts the well-established historical fact given by plenty of historical reports about the appearance of Prophet Muhammad.

2nd- You said that: "No one has ever claimed that the images are representative of how Muhammad really looked".

Since these images are not representative of how Muhammad really looked, then putting them in the article is a kind of

lying intended to mislead the readers and to completely contradict a well-established historical fact about the appearance of Prophet Muhammad.

Any image or painting of any person should be representative of that person. If it is not representative, then it is a lie.

If you are going to say that there are paintings of Jesus in the article of Jesus, then my answer is: "Christians are free to lie about the appearance of their Jesus, but Muslim don't practice this kind of lying. We don't make paintings based on illusions without any historical support. We have historical reports and well-sourced information in our historical books."

None of these paintings (especially the paintings of the Jewish hamadani or the gregori) is based on history. They are merely based on the illusions of the Jewish hamadani and gregori.

3rd- "reliable vs "holy": It wasn't me who brought up this point. DeCausa, for example, said that the books of hadiths are religious texts. I explained that the books of hadiths are not religious texts, but books of history [written by Muslim scholars] about the history of Prophet Muhammad. Thus, they are not religious text [which means that they are not holy], but they are books of historical reports.

4th- The "books of hadiths" are considered reliable in mainstream Islam, but not all the "hadiths" in them are considered reliable. I already explained in the previous reply that some hadiths are considered Daif (weak) and some of them are considered Munkar (denounced), and so on. Being a reliable book of history doesn't mean that it is a book without any error at all. the books of hadiths are reliable books of history but this doesn't mean that all the hadiths in them are necessarily true [some of the hadiths are weak and some of them are denounced and so on]

regarding the appearance of Prophet Muhammad, we don't have one or two or three hadiths. We have PLENTY of hadiths [i can provide more than 10 right now if you want to] reported by a variety of different reporters. There is a very clear consensus among all the traditional sources regarding the appearance of Prophet Muhammad.

I can provide more than 10 historical reports right now to support my claim... what can you provide other than these illusion?!!--Hashim221990 (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

All your points have already been answered. You just don't want to listen. (Oh, and being a "religious text" is not the same thing as being "holy". It just means they were written to advance a particular religious belief.) DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you ask yourself: "Why none of these images was put in the Arabic version of wikipedia?"--Hashim221990 (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Because that wiki does not adhere to the neutral point-of-view, apparently. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedia has its own rules, and its rules include adherance to religious directives. Furthermore, the Persian Wikipedia article on Muhammad does contain a good number of these images. Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa, being a "religious text" means being written by prophets or saints or claimed to be inspired by God or ...etc. The books of hadiths are not believed by Muslims to be inspired by God, or that they were written by saints or prophets or whatever. They were written by competent Muslim scholars. They are very well sourced books. this is why they are reliable books of history. They are not religious books, but they are historical books.

I said before that there were no such historical books [before the last 2 centuries] which cited the sources of every report.--Hashim221990 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, being a "religious text" means it's a text that is central to a religious tradition, written to support a body of religious belief. The Hadith are religious books. They can also be considered historical insofar as they are considered reliable, which is a point of disagreement for certain Hadith even among Muslim scholars. Not all religious texts are divinely inspired. Plenty of religious texts in other religions (Buddhism or Taoism, for example) have nothing to do with being inspired by God (Buddhism has no gods to inspire texts). Classifying people who knew Muhammad as "competent Muslim scholars" is like Christians classifying people who knew Jesus as "competent theologians".

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that you are engaging in original research, and your comments above strongly suggest that you have failed to read or understand Wikipedia:Original research. Your opinion on the accuracy of the images is simply your opinion. Not one single reference you offered mentions any of those images. It is also a widely-understood and common fact that artists employ artistic license, so even if the images lack accuracy (a point on which I disagree considering how consistently Muhammad is portrayed) it would not matter to the article. You might have better success here arguing on the basis of Wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines. That is what we have been doing. All you have done are point to Hadith, which in spite of your arguments are religious texts that Wikipedia considers as Wikipedia:Primary sources and are therefore not suitable as references. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

the books of hadiths were not written by religious figures. This is why they are not "religious text". Al-Bukhari, for example, was a Persian scholar from Iran. He was not a Companion of Prophet Muhammad. He was not a prophet. He was not a saint. He didn't claim writing an inspired book. What he did is that he gathered the historical reports about the life of Prophet Muhammad, studied the series of the narrators of every report, and always referred to the series of the narrators of every event and commented on the authenticity of each series [i.e every event mentioned in the books of hadiths is well-sourced. every saying attributed to Prophet Muhammad is well-sourced. The series of the narrators of every event is always given. This is why the books of hadiths are historically reliable].

The key point is that "the appearance of Prophet Muhammad" is not reported in one or two or three hadiths only. In fact, it is reported in a wide variety of hadiths reported by a wide variety of people who saw him. There is a clear consensus among all the traditional sources that the Prophet was white and ruddy with black and [slightly] wavy hair, and that he was [uncompromisingly] good-looking.

This consensus among a wide variety of historical reports [i.e. hadiths from people who saw him] regarding the appearance of Prophet Muhammad means that it is an established "Historical" fact that Muhammad was [uncompromisingly] good-looking.

Jurairi reported:

I said to Abu Tufail [one of the Companions of Prophet Muhammad]: Did you see the Apostle of God (peace be upon him)? He said: Yes, he had a white handsome face.Sahih Muslim

Abu't-Tufayl said: "The Prophet had white skin and a handsome face." Al-Adab Al-Mufrad

Abu Juhaifa reported:

I saw the Apostle of God (pbuh) that he had white complexion and had some white hair, and Hasan b. 'Ali resembled him.Sahih Muslim

Abu Hurayrah says:

"the Apostle of God was so clean, clear, beautiful and handsome, as though his body was covered and molded in silver. His hair was slightly curled.".Shama'il Muhammadiyah

Al-Bara' reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) had the most handsome face amongst men and he had the best disposition and he was neither very tall nor short-statured.Sahih Muslim

Narrated Anas:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was the (most handsome), most generous and the bravest of all the people. Sahih Bukhari

t is related from Jaabir that he said:

"I once saw Rasulullah (Sallallahu alaihe wasallam) on the night of a full moon. On that night he wore red clothing. At times I looked at the full moon and at times at Rasulullah (Sallallahu alaihe wasallam). Ultimately I came to the conclusion that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alaihe wasallam) was more handsome, beautiful and more radiant than the full moon."Shama'il Muhammadiyah

Abu Hurairah says, "I did not see anyone more handsome as Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam. It was as if the brightness of the sun had shone from his auspicious face.[10]

whenever Ali ibn Abi Talib radiallahu anhu described the noble features of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alaihe wasallam), he used to say:

"The Apostle of God (pbuh) was neither very tall nor short, but of a medium stature among people. His hair was neither very curly nor very straight, but had a slight wave in it. He did not have a big body nor a round face, but his blessed face was slightly round. The complexion of the Apostle of God (pbuh) was white with redness in it. The blessed eyes of the Apostle of God (pbuh) were extremely black. His eyelashes were long....."Shama'il Muhammadiyah

"The Apostle of God was a man of average height with broad shoulders, a thick beard and a reddish complexion, and his hair came down to his earlobes. I saw him in a red Hullah and I never saw anyone more handsome than him." Sunan an-Nasa'i

A graphic description of the Prophet was given by an old woman at whose house the Prophet stopped on his way from the cave of Thaur to Medina and her goats gave so much milk that the Prophet and his companions were fully satisfied and yet there was much left over. When the old woman’s husband returned home and expressed his surprise, the woman gave the description of the Prophet as follows: “Handsome features, bright face, likeable temperament, neither the abdomen protruding nor hair of the head fallen out, graceful, handsome, eyes black and large, hair long and thick, voice clear, long neck, bright black of the eye, natural grey corners, thin and drooping eyelashes, black and curly hair, silent with dignity inclined to cordiality, graceful and captivating at a distance and very sweet and most handsome from near, talk sweet and words clear, neither more nor less than necessary, all talk consistent, middle-sized, neither short so as to look insignificant nor tall to look unbecoming, a fresh twig of handsome plant, charming to look at and well- built. His companions are so devoted that they always surround him, quietly listen to what he says and promptly obey what he orders. Obeyed, liked, neither verbose nor cryptic."[11][12]

Even in the gospel of Barnabas: "Then said the priest: "How shall the Messiah be called, and what sign shall reveal his coming?" Jesus answered: "The name of the Messiah is admirable, for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in a celestial splendour."[13]--Hashim221990 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I can still provide more historical reports from those who saw Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It is not me who is doing "original research", because what i am saying is "historically" an established fact. It is these paintings that are an "original research". they are merely based on illusions, and putting them in the article is intended only to mislead the readers and to give false-information that "do not have any base in history".

The Arabic version is far more reliable and more neutral than this one, because the Arabic version represents a historical consensus about the appearance of Muhammad, while this one represents illusions "that don't have any base in history".--Hashim221990 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

these images don't have any base in history. did you think why the Arabic version didn't put them?!! because their historical value is zero [and their artistic value is zero as well]--Hashim221990 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Arabic wiki likely does not use the images because the majority of editors there are adherents of Islam, so they follow their personal beliefs rather than adhere to WP:NPOV. Religious precepts do not dictate article content at the English Wikipedia, fortunately. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hashim221990, it doesn't matter if your statements are true as long as the consensus disagrees. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, the Arabic wiki doesn't use the images because they don't have any historical value. This is why the Arabic article is more reliable.

The English wiki use the images because of the corrupted and twisted beliefs of its editors, so they follow their personal beliefs rather than adhere to reliability and neutrality.--Hashim221990 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

it is very clear that the consensus agrees with what i said as many people before me demanded that these images should be removed.--Hashim221990 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Any image of a person should be reliable and representative of that person. Otherwise, it is called a "LIE based on ILLUSIONS". There is no valuable information that can be given by "a painting based on illusions".--Hashim221990 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

...and so any image that pre-dates Louis Daguerre should be censored. Just think for thirty seconds before you type your sectarian bigoted nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't demand that the paintings of Jesus or Buddha, for example, be removed, because Christians and Buddhists are free in their beliefs [Qur'an 2:256 says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion"]. They can depict their Jesus and Buddha as much as they like to [and if you check the Arabic wiki, you will find that the paintings of Jesus and Buddha are used in the article of Jesus and Buddha, because this what Christians and Buddhists believe (and we Muslims respect their freedom in believing what they want to believe)]. On the other hand, Muslims "in mainstream Islam" believe that "any lie about Prophet Muhammad or his life" cannot be tolerated on the Day of Judgment. It is narrated that prophet Muhammad said: "He who lies about me deliberately will certainly come to his abode in Hell."[14][15][16][17][18].--Hashim221990 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So what? Even if that was Muslim belièf why should non-Muslims comply with it? DeCausa (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

and why should Muslims comply with the beliefs of non-Muslims??! I said it: "you have your own beliefs and Muslims have their own beliefs". Christians have their own beliefs about the depicting of their Jesus, and they are free to depict him as they like to. Buddhists have their own beliefs about the depicting of Buddha, and they are free to depict him as they like to. On the other hand, Muslims have their own beliefs that lying about the prophet Muhammad or his life is not acceptable, and their beliefs should be respected as they respected the beliefs of the non-Muslims [Christians, Buddhists, Atheists .....etc].--Hashim221990 (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the Islamopedia, nor is it the Jewpedia or the Christopedia. No one's religious beliefs are taken into account here, otherwise we'd be removing everything that the Christians consider blasphemous, or spelling out "God" as "G-d" to appease followers of Judaism. We have a service to provide our readers information in a neutral and free-of-censorship manner, and yes, sometimes that will mean that some groups of people will be offended, when it is decided that the need to present info outweighs the side-effect of offense. Almost 2 years ago, we held a large site-wide discussion on the matter (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images) where the 'overwhelming majority of Wikipedians chose to display this article as it currently stands. Tarc (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought there was a restriction on substantially changing the image arrangement here for three years after the community discussion - until 28 May 2015 - but I've scanned the Arbitration Committee remedies and the community discussion and can't see it anywhere. Can anyone point me to the place where the three years moratorium is explained? Is there a three year moratorium? (I haven't re-read each of those pages but it's not mentioned where I'd expect to find it and a search for "year" on each page didn't find it.)

Hashim221990, your arguments are sound and they have all been put before here, in the community discussion mentioned above, and in the Arbitration case pages (a link to those can be found at the top of the "Arbitration Committee remedies" page linked above.) Those arguments failed to win the day. This discussion may be revived in about a year to see if consensus has changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You can find some discussion of a three year intent in the RFC itself, but it doesn't appear anywhere in the final decision that I could find. You shouldn't give Hashim221990 false hope, though: his arguments were rejected the last time, and there's no reason to believe that anyone would be willing to give a religious sect control over any area of Wikipedia now or at any time in the future.—Kww(talk) 03:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

False hope. Well, nothing in my comment could imply that. No one is proposing any particular group - religious, atheist, American/Christian bigots, any group - may control the content on Wikipedia. Your suggestion that a neutral and respectful (not deferential) approach to this article is equivalent to relinquishing control to a minority speaks loudly and clearly of your grasp of the issue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a misunderstanding of the issue, it's a recognition that religious beliefs must have no impact on the editorial decisions of a secular project.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You are equating respectful and neutral presentation with giving a religious sect control, which is a false equivalence. Ergo, you haven't grasped the nature of the problem with this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You support allowing a group to demand that content be removed without providing any rational reason for doing so. Doing so under the guise of "respect" in no way lessens the fact that it is essentially doing things because they say so.—Kww(talk) 05:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with individuals or even groups arguing for the removal of useless offensive images from an article. No. Characterising that as somehow illegitimate is bizarre. Gratuitously insulting a large proportion of our readership by forcing offensive images in here just to make some nationalist, religious or anti-religious point is harmful to the encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In the RfC (and at other times) there were legitimate and valid arguments raised against the images (some of which I agreed with). The SPA who originated this thread has only raised childish arguments (Hadith says he was "good-looking"; the picture don't look like him) and dictatorial intollerance (Islam says X, you must do X). It is illegitimate. DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The OP's argument, that the artist's imaginings reproduced in this article mislead the reader about the appearance of the Prophet, per the historical sources, is perfectly sound and your characterisation of it as childish is an insult. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"He was [uncompromisingly] good-looking. No human ever was given the skills to depict his appearance." If you don't think that's infantile, well....DeCausa (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The original Islamic sources don't in fact have great praise for the beauty of his appearance. This was all covered in the original case at length. The images are not intended as portraits, but illustrations to narratives. We don't have any of the modern Shia portrait-type images, which do make him look extremely good-looking in a film star way, and also for the first time create a consistent image for him, which older Islamic images don't try to do (and probably could not have done, as skill in portraiture came late to Islamic art). Several of our images have the blank or veiled face, which was one Islamic solution to the "accuracy" question, which was of course a factor in the objections to images from early on. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the three year part actually passed reading it again now. I think the presumption was that since ARBCOM wasn't interested in seeing this problem again short term. I think a clarification request would be the wisest course before discussion begins in ernest. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Three years

It appears there was a mix-up in transferring the three year provision that was actually passed to the final decision page.[19] So, if anyone thinks this should now be reopened, clarification should be sought. As for the issue of 'Do these look like Muhammad?' That was rejected as a reason for exclusion, for a whole host of reasons, including the fact that the article does not represent them as photorealism. But again, if this is being reopened a clarification request is the way to go first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture in lead

Should the picture in the infobox be replaced with a visual depiction of Muhammad, as in similar articles (such as Jesus, Gautama Buddha and Guru Nanak)? 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Why? Have you bothered to read the lengthy discussion and ArbCom decision on the matter? ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

We've been through this several times already, and I see no reason to change the status quo. Resolute 13:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I am on a notification list for RfC's on philosophy and religion and noticed that this question had been removed from the list but I did not remember ever seeing it on it. [20]. Now I see the bot added it at 2:02 and took it off at 4:00.[21]. Why is that, what is going on? It looks like censorship to me, someone does not even want others to discuss the question.Smeat75 (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smeat75: I linked to the ANI discussion when I removed the tag. Here it is again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding depictions of Muhammad due to the recent Charlie Hebdo shooting

I noticed that on the FAQ regarding Muhammad this point is brought up: "Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of Young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible."

Now wouldn't it be much easier to agree to the terms of the adherents of these religions on the talk pages? It sounds more logical that a website which focuses on making articles from a neutral point should know that having a successful policy requires a certain amount of respect towards religious, social and similar traditions. Also considering that these depictions have caused a lot of riots within the Muslim World, do you not think that this is violent propaganda? Since it ,consciously, is hurting the adherents of Islam. Furthermore, images, unlike links and claims supported by evidence, do not affect the article itself at all, rather I'd say they are useless in this context. Regarding Muhammad though, they're not just useless, they're also offensive. So I think the smart move in the end of the day would just be to remove the pictures. Just a thought. -Emin Čamo (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in these matters you might enjoy the lengthy discussion at the Arbcom case on this issue. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec)There are so many errors and assumptions in that comment above that it's hard to know where to begin.

Wouldn't it be much easier to agree to the terms of the adherents of these religions on the talk pages?

No. Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines concerning content, and adherents of a religion are not monolithic in their views. It would be impossible to maintain an encyclopedia governed by rules from many external organizations.

It sounds more logical that a website which focuses on making articles from a neutral point should know that having a successful policy requires a certain amount of respect towards religious, social and similar traditions.

Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. That is a policy. The subject here (Muhammad) is treated with respect. Plenty of Muslims have no problem with the images. Indeed, the Persian Wikipedia article on Muhammad includes many of the same images. No matter what you put in an article, you will always find somebody who will be offended by it.

Considering that these depictions have caused a lot of riots within the Muslim World, do you not think that this is violent propaganda?

No, of course not.

It consciously is hurting the adherents of Islam.

No, it does not hurt anyone. Everyone has a choice on what offends them. Some Muslims choose to be offended. Others do not.

Images, unlike links and claims supported by evidence, do not affect the article itself at all.

Wrong, they have been carefully chosen and placed to provide appropriate illustrations for specific sections.

Regarding Muhammad though, they're not just useless, they're also offensive.

Muslims are not monolithic in that view.

I think the smart move in the end of the day would just be to remove the pictures.

You clearly haven't reviewed any of the archived discussions on the matter, or the lengthy Arbcom decision linked in the box at the top of this page. All of what you say has been discussed before. If you have any new arguments to offer, you are welcome to present them. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the matter of the fact is, the arrogance of the editors on wikipedia is too big for a normal discussion. I find it a great hypocrisy and contradiction due to your previous statements (which I will mention) how Muhammad is now depicted right at the beginning of the page. All that Muslims asked was not to depict Muhammad, and yet everybody including wikipedia, which is meant to maintain it's neutrality, does it.

Now since you have quoted my statements, I will do the same to prove how this is an issue that should simply be dealt with by removing images of Muhammad.

As regards to your, I'll call it "rebuttal":

"Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines concerning content, and adherents of a religion are not monolithic in their views. It would be impossible to maintain an encyclopedia governed by rules from many external organizations."

What you're implying here is that Muslims and aswell as scientologists for example have many requests that if taken would become biased info. This is simply not true, at least in the case of Muslims. The only request on this page that is being dealt with in high proportions are depictions of Muhammad. Therefore this doesn't present any kind of problem in changing Wikipedia's policy. The editors of Wikipedia are, I assume, at least aware of the recent event regarding Charlie Hebdo. At this point Wikipedia doesn't maintain it's neutral point of view by keeping depictions of Muhammad, and especially not by putting it at the very start of the page with an intention to annoy the adherents of Islam. Depicting Muhammad is like doing the following 2: 1. Inviting terror, 2. Hate speech We have to face the fact that depicting Muhammad will not bring any kind of contributive solutions but rather more problems in communities.

Now you might say: well if somebody doesn't want to see depictions of Muhammad they can cover it with the options given in the FAQ?

Let me rephrase that, if somebody wants to see depictions of Muhammad, why don't they just use google? There are a plenty of hateful pages towards Islam and even some Islamic pages perhaps that do depict Muhammad. The easier solution would be of course not to depict Muhammad yet again.

"Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. That is a policy. The subject here (Muhammad) is treated with respect. Plenty of Muslims have no problem with the images."

I am a Muslim myself, and I find the depictions of Muhammad offensive including a numerous amount of other people. Needless to say though if it were true that plenty of Muslims have no problem with the images, then don't you think a whole Talk:Muhammad/images page wouldn't be created? Also, since when is this a benefit? Not depicting Muhammad is not beneficial, but it is preventing bias. It would not make any kind of difference for the Muslims if the depictions were taken off at all. Every Muslim (at least the vast majority) will agree that depicting images is forbidden in Islam. With that being said, removing depictions of Muhammad is not beneficial at all so the argument of it being a "benefit for any particular group" drops. "The subject here (Muhammad) is treated with respect." First of all what do you mean by that? Second of all, this is simply not true, again this same article would not be created if it was.

"No, it does not hurt anyone. Everyone has a choice on what offends them. Some Muslims choose to be offended. Others do not." Being hurt is not a choice, it is a natural reaction of a human being. You don't choose to be offended if it is in your nature to be offended for being called fat or ugly. It takes time for you to choose not to be offended, this however is not as easy as it looks. You can't expect from every Muslim to get used to western propaganda and accept images depicting Muhammad. Some people just won't accept that. This statement is rather bizzare, it means that it is the duty upon Muslims to get used to depictions of Muhammad and go through years of discussion instead of just, AGAIN SIMPLY REMOVING THE DEPICTIONS.

Furthermore, since most people are offended, they choose not to read the wikipedia for information about Muhammad, since they don't want to look at the depictions, therefore avoiding the page itself at once before even getting to the FAQ which would lead them to avoiding depictions. This means, that depictions of Muhammad are not benefitting wikipedia, but rather causing more problems to it in any kind of aspect whatsoever.

Regarding images: "Wrong, they have been carefully chosen and placed to provide appropriate illustrations for specific sections."

Again, images in this case do not contribute at all. They are all of artistic-nature, none of them are for educational purposes. Depictions of Muhammad currently do not provide any kind of extra information, except the fact that somebody drew that same image. It is a different thing to put up a depiction of Muhammad and to put up a picture of the Vitruvian Man, which contains information about Da Vinci's findings.

Regarding this being offensive you said: "Muslims are not monolithic in that view." This is not a case only with the Muslims, of course they won't be monolithic. There were Icon-hater christians and Icon-lover christians in history. The Sunnis which make up 80-85% of the Muslim World agree that depictions of sentient beings are forbidden, let alone Muhammad. Wikipedia editors have written an article about this: Aniconism in Islam. In fact I'd rather say that Muslims and jews Aniconism in Judaism are more monolithic in this view than christians Aniconism in Christianity. However, neither Jewish nor Christian tradition accept Muhammad as their adherent or Prophet, therefore there is no problem in removing depictions of Muhammad, compared to the depictions of Moses for example because there is not a large dispute among the Muslim World, in fact not even a small one. The movie The Message (1976 film) is a good example of this.

"You clearly haven't reviewed any of the archived discussions on the matter", Not entirely true, non-sequitur and a strawman.

"...or the lengthy Arbcom decision linked in the box at the top of this page. All of what you say has been discussed before. If you have any new arguments to offer, you are welcome to present them."

Perhas I didn't detail my arguments, I apologize for that. We all make mistakes and we have to be ready to encounter them.

Lastly, earlier in the above section you said regarding the picture of Muhammad being put in the infobox: "No. Why? Have you bothered to read the lengthy discussion and ArbCom decision on the matter? ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)"

Another person answered aswell: "We've been through this several times already, and I see no reason to change the status quo. Resolute 13:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)"

Well, we have a picture in the infobox now, where's that amount of big respect?

Sincerely -Emin Čamo (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, we have heard your opinion. Be aware that Wikpedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. We do not change articles to please adherents of a religion (any religion) and we certainly do not change articles just because someone feel offended.Jeppiz (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am a Muslim myself, and I find the depictions of Muhammad offensive.... Nobody cares; being unoffended isn't a right. You are given instructions at the top of this page on how to prevent the images form being displayed when you are browsing this site. Your views and opinions do not apply to anyone else. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not bring up this discussion because I was offended, that statement was an internal non-sequitur used for emphasis as a reply to the user Amatulić where he stated that a majority of Muslims are not offended, which is not true. If you were to bother to read my article fully you would not make this comment. None of the statements were meant as a my views or opinions, I am simply giving arguments from a neutral point of view why depictions of Muhammad should not be allowed on this page. Next time before replying please read my arguments fully. -Emin Čamo (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I read your comments just fine, you can't run from your own words. It doesn't matter if the majority of Muslims or non-Muslims are offended, as people take offense to things all the time. I'm offended when the waiter brings me cold french fries. The number of people who are offended to the point of protest and violent actions over the images is a tiny minority, though. Civilized people will simply shrug and go on with their lives, rather than demand that other people perform this or that action to satisfy the complainer's religious dogma. The Charlie Hedbo terrorist attack only strengthens one's resolve to not surrender one's own ideals in the face of fanatic, murderous fundamentalism. If you are a Muslim as you claim to be, then go spend more time condemning acts that make your religion look bad, rather than coming here demanding that fanatics be appeased. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is not just a small problem as you think. Riots being caused by terrorists isn't the main issue of this page. The main issue of this page is that the images make the whole page much less contributive and attractive to Muslims. The page will certainly be avoided by a majority of Muslims, or their discussions would be brought to this page. You said: "I'm offended when the waiter brings me cold french fries." This is not relative, and even if it was, the example is not anything compared to the issue of this page.

"The number of people who are offended to the point of protest and violent actions over the images is a tiny minority, though." You are tightening my argument by limiting it to violence issues, in other words raising the bar.

"Civilized people will simply shrug and go on with their lives, rather than demand that other people perform this or that action to satisfy the complainer's religious dogma"

Obviously you did not read my arguments. Depictions of Muhammad are not beneficial to the page in any case whatsoever. They cause trouble and they are not contributive in any kind of way to the wikipedia page. Only a smart and reasonable person would get rid of the problem in the easiest way possible instead of prolonging discussion about a possible solution which would cause even more bias and even more problems.

" The Charlie Hedbo terrorist attack only strengthens one's resolve to not surrender one's own ideals in the face of fanatic, murderous fundamentalism." The idea of not depicting Muhammad has nothing to do with fanatic and murderous fundamentalism, it is a tradition in Islam, therefore your statement is wrong. You're not surrendering to anybody by removing the pictures. You're respecting other people's tradition in a manner that won't make your own product less beneficial. Again these pictures have no value at all.

Another bizzare thing is, that maybe you're implying that Islam is a fanatic murderous fundamentalist ideology? I hope that is not the case.

"If you are a Muslim as you claim to be, then go spend more time condemning acts that make your religion look bad, rather than coming here demanding that fanatics be appeased."

Non-sequitur and I am already doing this, so please refrain from being misinformed about me, as that in itself is not even relative to the article.

Sincerely -Emin Čamo (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the OP has tried to respectfully explain himself, but he must realize others disagree, and have for a long time, and after extensive prior discussion. (As an aside, the info box is a representation on the name of the subject). Beyond "offense", a fundamental issue is "educational value", and that's not an NPOV issue, it is an issue of educational mission, and Wikipedia does editorially agree that there are multiple modalities of learning, and that therefore Wikipedia aims to present "multimedia learning" including verbal, and visual (and even sometimes audio). (See eg., WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE) Couple that with the fact that Wikipedia is relating biography of a man in this article, and that the target audience for Wikipedia in more or less, the words of the boards "offensive images" consultant, is modern secular societies - here we are. So, Emin, in short that you are not educated by these images is neither here nor there. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well here's an idea then. If it is necessary to show multimedia learning as shown in this article then why not keep images explaining how depictions of Muhammad are forbidden. Why not put various images that contain beautiful caligraphy for example to show the true essence of Islamic art and culture.

Also on this page, as I've discussed before in another subsection "Offensive images", the following is found: " Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers."

The expectation of a majority of readers is that Muhammad is not depicted so it would be odd if a person found depictions of Muhammad, also aside from the general readers, the specific group of readers i.e Muslims find this as proven before offensive. (At the very least a majority of them). These are just suggestions, I apologize if I was rude. Sincerely -Emin Čamo (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has rejected those arguments, it has concluded that readers of a biography in a secular society would expect such images. The title of this article is not "Islam" (and Muhammad in Islam is another topic); this article is the man's life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand, my intention was to bring arguments that I considered were valid enough. It seems to me that there's no room for more arguing about the issue, but there is for arguing about the arguments brought up which I leave to others who are bigger experts than myself. However I still hope that my arguments contribute in some way or the other for future purposes. Thank you for the response. I'm leaving this talk page until further notice. -Emin Čamo (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Being an individual, if somebody's parents animated sketches are put up on the internet like this, would he like it? Or for that matter, anyone of you who's involved in this discussion on this page. The answer is 'certainly not'! No body would like such animated depictions of their parents or their loved ones because they are no where near to the actual manifestation of the human being, rather can be subject to be treated with less respect. For us Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be upon him) is more respectable and beloved than our own parents! The Prophet (P.B.U.H) did not like images of him being drawn, so we Muslims as his followers also discard the idea of having any imagery published which 'claims' to depict the Prophet (P.B.U.H). It is in Wikipedia's policy to take down any material that is offensive to a group of people, and its not something that I personally don't like, rather its the Muslim community as a whole. If you see images in Iran or any other place(considering a minority of people) as being treated as acceptable, this doesn't have to be taken as right or correct, or tended to be generalized for all Muslims. I hope I've made it clear enough.Hijazyr (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You realize nothing is going to happen based on "this is offensive in our religion" right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is in Wikipedia's policy to take down any material that is offensive to a group of people... is an incorrect claim. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion

Talk:Islamic_calendar#Request_for_comment --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture on Mohammedan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been restoring the picture on Mohammedan as it was removed without proper discussion however it does seem to be a fairly poor image that doesn't add much, certainly nothing essential, to the article so I thought I would ask what people think about it. Should it be removed or replaced with a different image?

Also, I have read the instructions on hiding the images which some people find offensive. They are rather complicated and limited in scope to specific images or all images on specific articles. Instead, would it be possible to provide simple tickbox based preferences for people who do not wish to see certain categories of images. It is a bit poor to tell readers to fiddle with their CSS as non-technical people may see this as an unhelpful fob off. If we could give them a simple tickbox that deals with their objections in an easy and effective way then I think that would help avoid disputes and edit wars. People on both sides of the argument could work together to get all the offensive images correctly categorised and we could turn something disruptive and divisive into something constructive that meets the needs of all readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Um. I think that if you don't actually think it's good or adds much to that article, you might want to [boldly] refrain from reverting its removal :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am actually not that bothered either way. My general approach, on any article, is to revert all unexplained content removal that is not obviously removing vandalism or complete junk. If it was any other article we would probably regard having a picture as beneficial. Maybe there is a good reason to have this picture or maybe we want a better picture rather than none at all? I am genuinely unsure. I do not want to impose my view on this. I have been reverting it simply because it is long-standing content and the Talk page has a specific instruction that images should not be removed without discussion here, which is exactly what has happened, not because I personally think the picture is of great merit or importance.

If you are saying that you think the picture is best removed then that makes me less likely to restore it again but I'd still like to see what the broad consensus is so that we can stick to it in future. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

First, this page is not the page to have discussion of that image for that article. This talk page is specific to a different article. So, if you want to have a discussion about the images for that article, it would be best to open a discussion on that articles talk page (you could neutrally link notice of the discussion here, if you like). Second, the general test is does an edit improve an article - removing what is in your opinion a poor image is generally fine in that sense. Finally, "if we were discussing another article" - is too hypothetical I think, you are discussing that article -- not another article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, that is exactly what I would do but if you look at the top of Talk:Mohammedan you will see boxes advising that special rules apply there and the third box does specifically say to discuss it here rather than on the article's own talk page. If that box is incorrect then I apologise but when I saw it I assumed that it was correct and was done for some reason, presumably to centralise the discussion of the images in one place. I thought it was odd but I wanted to do the right thing and so I came here, as it said to. I was not venue shopping. If it is incorrect then it would make sense to remove or change the instruction so that it doesn't mislead anybody else. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if it confused you but the notices above specifically say: "This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I proposed to remove the pictures with facing displayed in the article.

The pictures posted in this article is inappropriate and may conflict with WP:GOODFAITH. The pictures have no historical evidence and proof. the pictures are not accurate and may troubled with WP:PRIV. The pictures have not represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views. conflict withWP:NEUTRAL,

The pictures with facing here are not neutral, not good faith, no historical evidence in the view of significant. I proposed to remove the pictures with facing. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin (talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you read WP:GOODFAITH? If so, please reread it. It really doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. As for invoking WP:PRIV, I am almost moved to wonder whether you are joking but I will assume good faith and just suggest that you are rather confused.

Let me try to explain a few things:

1. WP:GOODFAITH is not about religion. It is a policy that says that we should assume that everybody on Wikipedia is being honest and trying to do the right thing even when they get it wrong, except when it is very clear that they are not.
2. The Privacy policy is not about censoring images (accurate or not) of the subjects of articles. It is a policy about how Wikipedia keeps the data of its users private.
3. We know that the images are not true representations and we are not trying to fool anybody that they are. They are here to show how Muhammad has been represented in the past without us endorsing those representations.
4. This has been discussed many, many times before so...

Please do not remove the images. They will only be put back.

Finally, there are some options you can use to hide the images if they offend you. The method is a bit complicated and I would welcome a bit of work being done to make this easier for people to enable this if they want to. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH is about religion, point of view, and any good aspect.

WP:PRIV is also about censoring in the person whose image is used in this article. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam gives not permission to Muslims to use his image.

We know that the images are not true representations and we are not trying to fool anybody that they are. images are not true representation but may conflict with WP:GOODFAITH because what is the intention of people who post images? Muslims knew the images are censor. what is the intention of others who post and view the images that not true representation? may conflict again with WP:NEUTRAL

This has been discussed many, many times before so...so what? If the pictures found illegal for this encyclopedia, it should be removed as it will not destroy the integrity of the website. if WP:GOODFAITH is not true, this website may fall down. I proposed to remove the pictures because the pictures have many conflict and may affect the integrity of this website. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin (talk • contribs) 01:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that English is not your first language but I can’t help thinking that you are reading the policies and seeing what you want to see instead of what they actually say.

We are not required to get permission from any person, living or dead, to include an image of them in an article (so long as it is not copyrighted to them, of course). It true than none of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, King Henry VIII of England or William Shakespeare have given us permission to use their images but that doesn't matter. We don't need it.

I mention William Shakespeare for a good reason. There are many pictures of him but nobody knows if any of them are really accurate. None-the-less we can and do use them, while acknowledging the situation. I hope you can see that we are not treating Muhammad differently or unfairly here.

You ask what the point of the images is. That is a fair question. The answer is that they show how the subject has been depicted historically. That is a relevant thing to cover even if the pictures are not true likenesses. If you look at the way Jesus has been depicted in Western art you will see that almost none of the images are plausible representations of a person from the middle east, never mind Jesus in particular. That is something that has to be acknowledged but it doesn't stop us writing about these images because they are an important topic.

Please do not try to remove the images. If you do then they will be put back. If you remove them repeatedly then you could get blocked from editing. We don't want that to happen. It would do nobody any good. Instead please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ that explains more about the images and also tells you how you can block them on your own computer without affecting the article itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

On a related topic, I do think that we could save ourselves some trouble if we had a really simple tickbox option for people who do not want to see these pictures to tick. Not everybody knows how to edit their CSS. Some people might even think that we are trying to make it difficult for them. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what is your cause and intention. My intention is to make the article clean and make the integrity of the article and website clean.

The reason why i proposed to removed the pictures here because it have many conflict.

WP:PRIV is also about censoring in the person whose image is used in this article. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam gives not permission to Muslims to use his image.

All Holy Mosque in all the world, all houses of Muslims, all clean houses have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad. The pictures are not accurate and have no historical value. The pictures have not uploaded in good faith.

It is weird and inappropriate to use 2 files in article, the text of his name and the images and may affect the neutral and good faith.

There is already one type of file in the article and that is the text of his name in this article. I think it is enough for people to view because Muslims and other people can use the text of his name displayed in their houses.

I proposed to remove the pictures here because it may clean the viewing of the viewers, losing its many conflict. thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin (talk • contribs) 07:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you reem to be refusing to listen to Daniel, let me explain: the images will NOT be removed, and the policies you are referring to do NOT mean what you think they mean. End of story.72.93.211.179 (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

you think you can make the proposal and the hard-effort statements as a trash and treat me like a clown.

I proposed to removed the pictures because it have many conflict.

prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam gives not permission to Muslims to use his image. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam is a Muslim. prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam helps people to be islam in the path of Allah. All holy Mosques in all the world, all houses of Muslims, all clean houses have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam. that's for conflict in wiki:privacy.

The pictures have not uploaded in good faith. the uploader should aware in good faith. the pictures have not fair and not open dealing in human interactions. The uploader must sincere, honest intentions or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action. that's for conflict in wiki:good faith.

the pictures are not accurate and have no historical value. We should avoid stating opinions as facts and avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. We should indicate the relative prominence of opposing view. that's for conflict in wiki:neutral.

There are many article in encyclopedia have no facing and that should be the case of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam. There are many people who don't insist to post a picture in any person due of concern of many bad conflicts and bad faith that should be the case of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi wa salam. that's for conflict in wiki:encyclopedia.

I think it's really enough and neutral to display the text of his name in the article. that's for wiki:neutral.

I proposed to removed the pictures because of have many conflicts. The pictures may uploaded in bad faith. The pictures found it offensive for more than billions of people. The pictures are not accurate and have no historical value. The pictures may conflict with privacy policy. thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin (talk • contribs) 06:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No. You are wrong.- Doctorx0079 (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Ayusinnatin, nothing you have written demonstrates that you have read or comprehended Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, nothing you have written demonstrates that you have read or understood the ArbCom decision linked at the top of this page, and you have not referenced a single relevant Wikipedia policy. Tthe privacy policy is about Wikipedia editor identity and completely irrelevant here; we are discussing content. Aside from your irrelevant privacy argument, you have failed to introduced any new arguments that aren't already covered in the FAQ. Until you do some additional homework and can demonstrate that you actually have read and understood the FAQ and previous discussions, your arguments will not get any traction here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that the only edits Ayusinnatin have made are to Talk:Muhammad/images. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if was so ignorant. i have seen faq. What i am stating right now is the conflict of images and how it may affect in encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censor but if the object violates another policy, it is illegal and does not belong in encyclopedia content.

Some important policy is wp:goodfaith and wp:neutral. if the objects do not violate that important policy, the objects can stay in this website. I hope we know that.

since 2001 to july 21 2005 there are no pictures of prophet Muhammad salALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam in article. since 2001 to july 21 2005 there are no pictures of veiled face of prophet Muhammad salALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam in article.

all Holy Mosques in all the world, all clean houses, all houses of Muslims have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad salALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam. non-iconic representations of Muhammad are traditionally discouraged.

editors and uploaders are not require to add object in the presence of obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. editors and uploaders should not violate wp:goodfaith and help the project not hurt it.

it is still wp:neutral if there are no pictures but text of the name displayed in the article. since in the neutral point of view, this article is in Islam. all of the content in this article is in Islam.

before i received negative response, i want to ask them if the pictures are in good faith. since violating wp:goodfaith can lose the integrity of whole website.

we should respect what happen in 2001 to 2005. i propose to remove the pictures in the article as it was happened before. there is clearly nothing wrong if the pictures have removed. there is nothing to insult and nothing to give offense if the pictures have removed. thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayusinnatin (talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has changed drastically since 2005. I have no reason to think that whoever added the pictures didn't add them in good faith. They are definitely of historical significance as they show some of the history of the use of images showing Muhammad. Is Iran a Muslim country? They display images of Muhammad, and our article on depictions says that this isn't uncommon among Shia Muslims. Depictions of Muhammad#Contemporary Iran. Doug Weller (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

that is not neutral point of view. the practice of all Muslims is to avoid idolatry and no pictures in Holy Mosque the house of ALLAH. what is the purpose of pictures if some viewers found it offensive? what is the purpose of pictures if all viewers found it discrimination of religion? All Holy Mosques in all the world, all clean houses of Muslims have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam. it may troubled again in good faith. is it good faith to insult most Muslims? is it good faith for the other viewers to see the pictures if most people in his religion found it offensive? is it good faith for people to be ignorant if there is strong evidence that pictures are traditionally discouraged? do you not then understand? only the wicked people can want to view the picture. the practice of mankind is to respect the belief of clean religion. it may troubled again in neutral view. All Holy Mosques in all the world, all clean houses of Muslims have not displayed any pictures of prophet Muhammad SalALLAHu Alaihi Wa Salam. editors and uploaders are not require to add object in the presence of obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. editors and uploaders should not violate wp:goodfaith and help the project not hurt it.

I proposed to remove that pictures and only display the text of his name since it was happened since this article contributed in the website and to 2005. thanks for reading.

This isn't a mosque, it's an encyclopedia, and you calling us "wicked" isn't helping your case. You state you have read the faq and apologize "for your ignorance" then display the same ignorance in the very next paragraph. You accuse us of not being neutral, yet you are arguing a strongly biased viewpoint and demanding we follow it because it's the viewpoint of muslims. Well newsflash: ALL OF US ARE NOT MUSLIMS, ergo we do not have to follow your rules.65.196.116.115 (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you actually reading the responses? Because they show that your claims are wrong if you are suggesting there are no images of Muhammad in Muslim countries. Iran at least has them. Doug Weller (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)}

Blocked by another Admin as a suspected sockpuppet of Humanidk Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Humanidk/Archive is an earlier SPI. Doug Weller (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.jpg has no FUR for Depictions of Muhammad

File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.jpg is a non-free file that has no fair-use rationale for the article Depictions of Muhammad on its image description page (WP:NFCC#10c). Consequentially, it should be removed from the article (WP:NFCCE).

I'm opposed to adding a rationale for the article on grounds of WP:NFCC#3a (minimal usage across the encyclopedia), as the linked article Everybody Draw Mohammed Day already features the image. Furthermore, I think WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) isn't met for the article Depictions of Muhammad, as the image is used there neither to identify the main subject of this article ("Depictions of Muhammad", rather it only illustrates one example thereof and plenty of free images already serve the purpose of identification) nor is the image itself an object of commentary, only the event is (see WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This particular image was drawn by Molly Norris, the person behind the whole concept of "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day". It is the most historically significant image related to the event, which generated much controversy. That qualifies it as an iconic representation for the depictions of Muhammad article. Its position in the article serves to illustrate the section about Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, and that is a legitimate fair use for the image. I agree that the image isn't necessary there, but it is certainly appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@AstroLynx:, who reverted my removal of the image for "no consensus for deleting this image", is welcome to discuss it here. Amatulic did not oppose. Let me remind you that WP:NFCC#3a for all practical purposes means that if there is a main article for the image (which in this case is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day that it depicts), then the image should not be used in other articles. This is "to minimize the total number of times items of non-free content are included within the encyclopedia" (WP:NFC#Number of items). See a recent discussion regarding NFCC#3a arriving at this conclusion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair use of logo. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that you are interpreting Amatulic's response wrongly. He actually wrote that there is "a legitimate fair use for the image", so, as far as I can tell, there is no consensus for removing the image. AstroLynx (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Asked to comment here. First the image fails NFCC#10c, as there is no given rational for its use on the depictions page, only for the event itself which is otherwise valid. That must be added or the image must be removed.

Could a valid rational be added? No, as the image fails NFCC#8 on the depictions page. Unlike the few other conferees, like the South Park or Charlie Heebo images, where the images themselves are subject of discussion, the image about the event is not at all discussed, only the event, and we do not use no free images in such an illustrative manner. This particularly more so since there is a separate page for the event where the image clearly is appropriate. If you recognize the image is not necessary, then that means it fully fails NFCC#8. We have a higher standard for image use than just fair use. --MASEM (t) 11:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with this explanation, AstroLynx (and Amatulic)? This is a pretty clear-cut non-free use case, but the Arbitration sanctions dictate that it has to be discussed on this talk page, which is hardly an ideal venue. I would very much like to proceed with the only logical outcome that follows from the non-free content criteria and remove the image from the article. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the image fails WP:NFCC#8. NFCC#8 isn't about necessity; we have no policy on necessity. It's about contextual significance; i.e. whether the image improves a reader's understanding or whether its absence would be detrimental to a reader's understanding. I would argue that the image is contextually significant in the section where it appears on the depictions page, and including the image there significantly improves a reader's understanding of the touchy nature of the event. This should be obvious... in which case the image can be kept by revising the rationale in the image description page. That said, however, I have no objection to removing it from the depictions page, because there is no requirement that the depictions page be exhaustive in the examples that it shows. 22:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the images illustrated by Rashid-al-Din_Hamadani

Hello, The inclusion of the two images illustrated by Rashid-al-Din_Hamadani, which were on the Life section on this article, doesn't seem to be respecting the WP:NPOV given that it is already in use on the article about the depictions of the prophet Muhammad (صلّى اللّه عليه و سلّم), which by itself is more enough to be a reference about it, and that these two images cannot have more weight and correctness than other images included with the separate article I've pointed out: So, to make this article lesser biased, I removed those images and instead pointed to Depictions of Muhammad on the See Also section [22]. Ttt74 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There are over two dozen pages of archives above discussing the images on the page, as well as an Arbitration that resulted in consensus for inclusion. There is also a note on the page, just before one of the images you removed, stating, "The consensus to include images of Muhammad emerged after extensive months-long discussions and efforts on both sides to balance multiple competing interests... To avoid pointless revert-warring, blocking and page protection, please discuss any prospective changes on the talk page." Thus on grounds of protocol, I urge you to revert your edit and gain consensus for removal of the images here before doing so, as was previously agreed upon. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Why should we be depending on an old consensus? It's better to discuss and seek dispute resolution here. Ttt74 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please review the WP:BRD process. Disputed changes are discussed and consensus is formed before the changes are made. "Old consensus" is current consensus until a new consensus is formed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ttt74 is making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. This article on Muhammad stands on its own and its inclusion or exclusion of certain images doesn't depend on what might be in other articles; the images here are based on long-standing consensus that has gone all the way up to Arbitration. The presence of the two images removed (and now restored) isn't indicative of any "bias" whatsoever. Dismissing the current consensus as "old consensus" as somehow invalid, is a fallacious argument.

Ttt74 also changed every instance of the word "Quran" to "Qur'an". I have reverted that also. I urge Ttt74 to review WP:COMMONNAME and the history of naming of the article Quran. This is the English Wikipedia, and on the English Wikipedia, the correct terminology is what is most common usage in English. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you concerning WP:COMMONNAME. But concerning the images I've removed, there's no reason that can make you so insisting on keeping it: It is just a false imagination about the prophet by Persian illustrators who are showing the prophet and the people around him coming from Saudi Arabia looking as Persians: it's like a POV, and there is other entities that think of it differently: Wikipedia is not here to promote any entity over the other. the See Also entry I added is enough to show not only the images I removed, but also the different illustrations concerning the depiction of the prophet Muhammad (صلّى اللّه عليه و سلّم). Ttt74 (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You will never win this argument @Ttt74: Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If what you are saying is true: then explain why. Ttt74 (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that the above user, Ttt74, has been topic-banned for six months due to disruption on various articles related to Muhammad. Aside from that, the arguments put forth by the editor are essentially rehashes of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as Amatulic noted, a misreading of WP:NPOV, self-censoring to avoid offending sensibilities/relegation to a sub-article, and a variation of the "not a true/fictitious depiction" that is oft-repeated. All of which are regularly seen and rightly rejected. The fact that none of the objections were rooted in policy, and that the editor was WP:NOTHERE, at least regarding this subject, sort of renders this discussion moot. It in indeed good of everyone to address and attempt educating users who bring this up, though. Refreshing to see you all make an attempt, even when it's not always done in good faith. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The administrators rejected WP:NOTHERE accusation. If you think that my arguments are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS then prove it, otherwise you need to respect the WP:NPOV. Ttt74 (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Your invocation of NPOV makes no sense. The paintings are clearly not by the same artist, even if the identity of the work mattered, which it does not for NPOV. One painting has Muhammad at the Kaaba with the Black Stone - the other depicts a divine revelation, a central theme of his life. Both are thus relevant and informative about the biography of Muhammad, which is the purpose of this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(re-indenting)... Ttt74, I don't want you to violate your topic ban, and complicate your future editorship here. But I'm happy to respond to your query/statement. First, EvergreenFir is not an administrator. A very capable and wiki-wise editor, but they don't wear that particular hat. Bishonen was happy to assume good faith, and that's her prerogative; that being said, I don't see any unanimous or even explicit rejection of the notion, as claimed. Making good faith edits doesn't necessarily mean that one is exempt from being WP:NOTHERE. Many, and I would even say most people, edit with at least some semblance of an unintentional systemic bias... Though most of us make a conscious effort to divorce ourselves from it. Continually trying to push a POV, after being warned and reported, and then not listening to the advice of other editors, can be construed as being "NOTHERE" within a narrow subset of a particular topic area. I understand you may have possibly misunderstood that WP:SILENCE isn't consensus, or any number of such things. No one is "biting" you here, including myself. The point of a topic ban, also, isn't to punish you, or anything of the sort... It's to relieve disruption in a particular topic area, and to encourage an editor to edit other topics which might be less problematic for them, and where they can have the opportunity to display WP:competence.

As far as your alleging that it's an "accusation" that part of your argument relies on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, essentially saying that "it can be found elsewhere, so there's no need for it here", in your saying that the material you removed can still be found at Depictions of Muhammad, is a quintessentially OTHERSTUFF argument. It's just one possible form of it.

Lastly, your invocation of WP:NPOV, as User:Alanscottwalker pointed out, is a bit baffling. I suspect that you haven't read it fully. NPOV on Wikipedia means something different than what the term "neutral point of view" might mean elsewhere, though there is a commonality there. All it means is that we convey the view that is representative of the preponderance of reliable secondary and tertiary sources. It actually doesn't usually apply to images, except in the circumstances that Alan hinted at above.

I'm usually remiss to discuss editors as opposed to content. I only did so in this case because you thought I was making some sort of accusation, and you didn't seem to quite understand what was being said. Regardless, it would behoove you to move on and edit other articles. Just take what I said with a grain of salt, and think about what was said to you at ANI. Don't violate your topic ban. I'm sure you could indeed become a productive editor. If you have any questions, especially in relation to your ban, ask an admin, the Teahouse, or the IRC help channel. The links to the latter two can be found on my user page. Good luck. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Cartoonic Pictures of Muhammad SAW

--NimXaif6290 18:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Dear "owner of this page", I am not sure that youre a Muslim or true Muslim. The Cartoonic pictures of Jibril and Muhammad are shown on this article. It will be gladness to me if you remove such pictures that are insult of our beloved Prophet Muhammad SAW. PLZ --NimXaif6290 18:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimrainayat6290 (talk • contribs)

Literally not going to happen. Many many reasons why, most of which point towards neutrality in viewpoint.78.95.210.17 (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Also @Nimrainayat6290:

• There is no "owner of this page". The Muhammad article was created by a community of editors, which also includes you.
• These images are not "cartooney", they are ancient works of art created by Muslims.

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ to understand why they won't be removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

pictures of Muhammad

I know Wikipedia isn't censored for the benefit of any group, but don't you think we should still be careful about things that could upset radical extremists who are willing to hurt people? Most other uncensored things don't have that issue.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.208.129 (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been debated before . . -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

please remove the images of prophet Mohammmad peace be upon him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.226.29.55 (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Why should we do that? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016

I would request to have the pictures of Prophet Muhammad's face be removed as it is against the rules of the religion of Islam to depict the faces of the any Prophet. Thank You.

220.240.117.23 (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Please read the Muhammad FAQ at the top of the page for more information. It has been decided by a wide scale RTF that pictures are both acceptable and used correctly within the article. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

RTF? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps they meant an RfC? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It was indeed suppose to be RFC my phone's autocorrect just hates me. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

That'll teach you to use your phone on Wikipedia for anything but reading articles. I learned that lesson recently too. Nothing is so urgent that it can't wait for me to get to my laptop or desktop. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017

The subject image should be replaced to:

Mohammad, the prophet and founder of Islam https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammad,_the_prophet_and_founder_of_Islam.jpg

the current imagery used within this wiki does not represent or depict the subject. This image depicts this subject using conventions found within comparable wikis.

The idea that Islam censors images of Mohammad should not force or control this wiki. IlikeMonkeys (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Instead of repeating the same request, please reply to the above response instead. But, in any case, this has been discussed extensively. There are pictures of Mohammed in the article, just not the initial picture. It is just considered the best practice. And not to be rude, but posting this request again will likely be considered spam. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC) EDIT: adding info regarding specific discussion per Ferret. From FAQ:

• A4: This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artist's depictions further down in the article. An RFC discussion confirmed this consensus.

• As info, note the editor made the same image swap at Muhammad (name). I've reverted, as the new upload the user made is improperly licensed and likely to be deleted from Commons. No comment on current consensus for lead images of Muhammad. -- ferret (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017

The subject image should be replaced to:

Mohammad, the prophet and founder of Islam https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammad,_the_prophet_and_founder_of_Islam.jpg

the current imagery used within this wiki does not represent or depict the subject. This image depicts this subject using conventions found within comparable wikis. IlikeMonkeys (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Islam censors all imagery of the actual Mohammad. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Also that image no longer exists on Commons due to licensing problems. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Important summary for the future

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article is permanently semi-protected. There have been coordinated off-wiki attacks on the article, as well as long term abuse by one or more block-evading individuals editing via IP edits and/or sockpuppet accounts. Such edits should be dealt with as WP:Revert, block, ignore, including edits to this talk page. There is no credible dispute that multiple Reliable Sources have described image File:Maome.jpg as Muhammad prohibiting Nasī’ / prohibiting intercalation. Several such sources are listed in the Archive 3 RFC, and additional sources were listed in the more recent RFC. There is no credible dispute that multiple Reliable Sources have used this image for the purpose of illustrating this topic. At one point the image caption described this as happening at the Farewell Sermon. The sources using this image generally do not make that claim. While it is believed Muhammad prohibited intercalation at the Farewell Sermon, we do not know whether he did so at multiple times and places. The image caption should not make claims about the time or place. Accuracy of the image contents: Photographs did not exist fourteen hundred years ago. This image is obviously an artist's attempt to depict or recreate events of the era. Was Muhammad wearing a blue robe when he said these words? Maybe, maybe not. Was he standing at the top of stairs when he said these words? Maybe, maybe not. It is undisputed that Reliable Sources consider this image suitable for illustrating this topic. Anyone viewing the image will immediately know it's an artist's impression of the event. Readers know that details of image do not have photographic-accuracy. Exactly zero time should be wasted engaging long term block-evading individuals simply demanding that Images of Muhammad be removed. Exactly zero time should be wasted engaging attempts to attack the expert-judgement of multiple Reliable Sources. Exactly zero time should be wasted engaging attempts to attack incidental details an artist's depiction. Exactly zero time should be wasted engaging any other desperate excuses, when those excuses are clearly just another ploy for removing images of Muhammad in general. Alsee (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC) The problem with the above argument is that it's based entirely on speculation (not even original research). The first person to suggest that Muhammad prohibited intercalation on more than one occasion was Alsee himself/herself, on Wednesday morning. (S)he has not produced one source (reliable or otherwise) to back his/her claim. So we have to assume that the prohibition of intercalation took place outside (not in a mosque) and was delivered when Muhammad was sitting on a camel, not standing on a minbar. In that work the artist recreated many events of the era. Most of the events recreated are not the events described in the adjacent text. I agree that the caption should not make claims about the time. I disagree that a picture of a man preaching in a mosque should not be captioned as a picture of a man preaching in a mosque. Alsee himself/herself used this very argument to remove a picture from a BLP on 24 April 2016, citing WP:SYNTH. The objection was that the source did not mention the subject of the article. Likewise, the artist does not claim the man standing on the minbar is Muhammad. All the pictures promote Shia sectarianism, Ali was the founder of Shiism and is pictured elsewhere in the series, Ali had a short beard and Muhammad had a long beard. You cannot caption a picture of a man standing on a minbar as a man sitting on a camel unless you can provide a reliable source stating that the picture of a man standing on a minbar is a picture of a man sitting on a camel, and no reliable source has said that. The above facts demolish the reliability of any source which claims that this is Muhammad prohibiting intercalation, but in fact no reliable source has claimed that. Robert Hillenbrand, "Images of Muhammad in al - Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations", in: R. Hillenbrand (ed.), "Persian Painting from the Mongols to the Qajars: Studies in Honour of Basil W. Robinson" (London/New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2000 (pp 129 - 146) says this is highly unlikely to be a picture of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. The statement in Aguilar is based on three cited sources. One of them is Hillenbrand, discussed above. Another is Priscilla P. Soucek, "An Illustrated Manuscript of al-Bīrūnī’s Chronology of Ancient Nations”, in: P.J. Chelkowski (ed.), The Scholar and the Saint: Studies in Commemoration of Abu’l-Rayḥan al-Bīrūnī and Jalal al-Din al-Rūmī (New York: New York University Press, 1975), pp. 103-168. This contains a passing reference on page 156 - no argument that this is Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. Not mentioned is T. W. Arnold, Painting in Islam, republished in 2002, Gorgias Press, which discusses the picture at p.89 and says nothing about intercalation. The only plank for the claim is the one - line description by Yvette Sauvan & Marie-Geneviève Balty-Guesdon, Bibliothèque Nationale. Département des Manuscrits. Catalogue des Manuscrits Arabes. Deuxième partie. Manuscrits Musulmans, tome V, Nos. 1465-1685 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1995), pp. 35-38, and they say it is a simple transcription of Priscilla Soucek! 78.146.222.141 (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Alsee did not have an answer to the above argument, so (s)he wiped it and asked for the discussion board to be protected for fourteen months. 78.146.222.141 (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Can you give me an explanation of what this is, other than a personal attack against Alsee? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC) See Talk:Islamic_calendar. AstroLynx (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC) It's a discussion thread about a picture of an unidentified imam with a short beard. The debate is about whether it is reasonable to conclude that the man in the picture is Muhammad, given that in this picture which all are agreed is Muhammad, he has a very long beard, and commenters noted that it rustled when he spoke for that very reason. 78.146.222.141 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC) We don't conclude anything. Do reliable outside sources say that this is an illustration of Muhammad? If so, then we can say that it is an illustration of Muhammad. --Khajidha (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC) No reliable sources say that, as was explained here: * Comment If a judge sat through a trial and then delivered a judgment without any reasons he would be laughed out of court. Alsee's first exhibit is a caption. There is no investigation into the reliability of the sources but there should be - in Jimbo's words "We are not transcription monkeys". Monkeys cannot identify the key issues but editors can: The picture is of a man preaching in a mosque. The Farewell Sermon was preached outdoors. Contemporaries say that Muhammad had a long beard which rustled as he spoke. The imam pictured has a short beard. The artist did not say that he had painted a picture of Muhammad, let alone one of him prohibiting intercalation. The caption of Alsee's second exhibit is difficult to read but it appears to say Page 13. The Prophet Muhammad preaching. Of relevance as science was his attack on intercalation - the annual addition of extra months or days to ensure that the calendar precisely adheres to solar time. Biruni severely criticised this stance, claiming it had caused much harm. Courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France. On ms Arabe 1489, fol. 5v. The picture is claimed to be a generic picture of Muhammad preaching (there are no others). This is the point made by the first of the sources quoted in the RfC - that prohibiting intercalation is an unlikely topic for a painting. As Codename Lisa asked, where are the Nasī, the camel and the pilgrims that would justify this interpretation? Without them, this is no more than synthesis. The obvious subject of the painting - a shi'ite imam preaching to a shi'ite congregation in a mosque - is far more likely to be the actual subject of this work by a theologically illiterate artist who was commissioned by his shi'ite ruler to illustrate one of the volumes in his possession. All the pictures in the manuscript follow the same polemical, sectarian agenda. Very, very few of the pictures bear any relation whatsoever to the matters Biruni is discussing at the points where they appear. Alsee's third exhibit is a book which does not illustrate the picture but claims the manuscript "explicitly says it's an image of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation." It doesn't. It couldn't, because the picture was painted 500 years after the book was written. The fourth exhibit is the manuscript itself and commentary by a cataloguer - not an art historian - which, in the absence of scholarly investigation, can only be the result of synthesis. Alsee goes on "The discussion cited multiple reliable sources, scholars and historians, describing this as a depiction of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation." It didn't. As mentioned, the first source made the point that the prohibition of intercalation was a highly unlikely topic for a book's illustrator. With so many interesting issues being discussed, why would the artist alight on that? The second source simply says the picture is one of Muhammad preaching - no mention of intercalation. The third source was cited by AstroLynx, who refuses to reveal the author's view on the matter, so it is probably safe to conclude that she concluded that this was neither Muhammad, nor the Farewell Pilgrimage, nor the prohibition of intercalation. 151.227.21.236 (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.222.141 (talk) It is an artistic depiction of Muhammed, many years after his death. Noting the length of his beard is not persuasive. No one is claiming that it is accurate, only that it is a DEPICTION. Jesus is depicted in thousands of ways- no one claims any one depiction is accurate. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Page 13. The Prophet Muhammad preaching. " So the source says it is an illustration of Muhammad, therefore we can describe it as an illustration of Muhammad. End of story. --Khajidha (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)What reliable source do you rely on to support your claim It is an artistic depiction of Muhammed, many years after his death? Certainly not the artist, because he said no such thing. He painted many pictures of different people doing various things. Friday prayer in a mosque is an obvious subject for a painting. Moreover, in the milieu in which he worked, it was not the done thing to paint pictures of Muhammad. See this comment in this discussion [23]: However, it so happens that the man on the image represents not the prophet, but an imam (Ali, since the image is from Persia). And again: I've been told that depictions of Ali are relatively common in Shi'a areas (more so than any historical Muslim leader including Muhammad), though I have no direct knowledge of this. And again: I don't know if it helps you through the decisions making process but that said i'm quite confident that this is not a Mohammed picture. Most probably it is Ali. and for that reason it should be fine. in Iran(Majority Shia Moslem) a lot of Ali pictures can be found. there is not objection from religious authorities about that. But you can rarely find a Muhammad picture. in most of the old paintings Mohammed face was not painted in detail. instead it was drawn as a big source of light. I come from Iran and would be more than happy to help you with this topic or any related issue. I'll respond to Khajidha when I've looked at her source. 78.146.222.141 (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Source: http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Thank you, El cid. I think your link just about wraps up this discussion, because it says nothing about the picture being a prohibition of intercalation. That's only to be expected, because there are no clues in it which lead to that conclusion. This means that the picture has no direct relevance to the subject of the article, the Islamic calendar, and therefore, under Jimbo's principle of least astonishment it is not appropriate to include it in that particular article. 78.146.222.141 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC) This talk page is regarding the article Muhammad. I'm very confused beyond that. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC) This whole issue has been discussed in detail on Talk:Islamic_calendar and in the archives (Archive 2, Archive 3 & Archive 4) of the same talk page. The London-area IP has for many years tried to get the image removed or the caption changed while nearly every academic source which uses or discusses the image identifies the central figure as Muhammad abolishing the practice of intercalation. AstroLynx (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)AstroLynx, which are the academic sources which identify this picture as "abolishing the practice of intercalation"? El cid's source does not say that, and having looked at Khajidha's source (plate 13) it simply claims that this is Muhammad preaching. It goes on to mention (being a book on Islamic astronomy) that Muhammad took a stand against intercalation, but in the absence of a direct claim by the author that this is a picture of prohibition of intercalation any caption saying it is would be an example of WP:SYNTH. 78.146.222.141 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Note that the 78.* IPs that have been active in this thread are banned user Vote (X) for Change, so anything they write here can/should be summarily ignored or reverted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

Those pictures Which illustrated Prophet (SAW) should be removed. 144.48.148.5 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done- there have been extensive discussions on this topic, and the consensus is for them to remain. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

if wikipedia is not censored, why isn't there directly a drawing of muhammad on the article infobox?

--Spafky (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Because this place isn't run by complete idiots. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to read the discussion about it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images. The consensus has held since then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Basically, while WP:NOTCENSORED means that we shouldn't remove existing images, WP:DUE means that we go with the most common depiction of Muhammad for the infobox -- which happens to be calligraphic. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Good answer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

While I think the usage of the calligraphy here is a good idea, this question keeps coming up because a written name (no matter how prettily or artistically done) just doesn't meet the criteria for "depiction of a person" in many people's minds.--Khajidha (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

None of the images are done "from the life", and they are essentially useful for depicting incidents rather than as portraits. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove the pictures related to Our Holy Prophet Muhammad CPBUH). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.65.93 (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• WP:NOTHERE. Do not post here to impress Muhammad. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Putting a warning box at the front of the article

Good evening. My question is whether it would be acceptable to put a warning at the front of the article stating that the article contains depictions of Muhammad and linking to the FAQ. It could also contain information about hiding the pictures with the CSS rule provided in the FAQ. I think that many people do not read the talk page before starting to read the article (or they did not even know that such a thing exists) and so they see the images unexpectedly. I would ask you if this can be an option to consider. Thank you. --Csimma Viktor (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Csimma Viktor: Thanks for the suggestion. Here is the official guideline across all of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. We don't put disclaimers at the top of articles. There is already a link to disclaimers at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia. In order to include a warning as you suggest, you would need to gain consensus from the Wikipedia community to change the guidelines.

Wikipedia already has the page Wikipedia:Content disclaimer which is sufficient notification. The FAQ is already prominently referenced at the top of this talk page. That, too, is sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Further, if a user were to try to edit the page, they would get instructions about the CSS rule as well as a link to WP:PBUH, about why we don't have honorifics after his name. —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Anyway, thank you for showing me the guideline. --Csimma Viktor (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Why would they NOT expect to see pictures here? I know that such pictures are unusual in Muslim countries, but there is no reason to expect Wikipedia to follow the rules of Islam or any other religion. --Khajidha (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove miniature picture

This not acceptable at all please remove picture, there is no use of this miniature picture Asimk687 (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

See Q3 under Frequently asked questions (FAQ). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remove prophet Mohammad pictures

Naveedur (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Please remove the prophet Mohammad pictures from Wikipedia--Naveedur (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Naveedur:  Declined. Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ to understand why these images will not be removed. It also contains instructions on configuring your account or your browser to avoid seeing these images. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2019

i request admin to remove these pictures from this article

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg" "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg" "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Prophet_Muhammad_and_the_Muslim_Army_at_the_Battle_of_Uhud,_from_the_Siyer-i_Nebi,_1595.jpg" "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg" "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maome.jpg" "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muhammad_destroying_idols_-_L%27Histoire_Merveilleuse_en_Vers_de_Mahomet_BNF.jpg" "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg"

because these illustrations are against our religion ISLAM. so kindly remove these pictures. there is not any picture of our prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) and these pictures are Blasphemy content! Asadali26 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read Talk:Muhammad/images. Favonian (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which is clearer and more concise. And they aren't "blasphemy" to all Muslims. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Images of Prophet Muhammad.

A core belief in Islam is that their should be no depictions of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and this page having a depiction is insulting and should be removed instantly. Please refer to this article for more clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:4CDF:FD42:D5A2:13A4:5D66:5216 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

References

A core belief of Wikipedia is that it is not censored. Please refer to FAQ #1 at the top of the article for clarification. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

And how does this core belief apply to a website that obviously cannot be a Muslim? --Khajidha (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

As dumb things said, presumably in an attempt to appear 'clever', that's my favourite of the week so far (but it's only Monday...). A website, like a pen, a book or a movie, is a means by which people may convey information. What possible bearing could a nonsensical question about the inanimate tool's inability to "be a Muslim" and have "beliefs" apply to it have on the value of the information conveyed using one of these tools, or its impact/interaction with the beliefs of various groups? The pen, the book, the movie and the website convey that which those who wield them wish to convey if used with skill and judgement, or fail if used badly. None of this has anything to do with some pointless observation that the pen, book, movie or website cannot "be a Muslim". I really don't think you thought this through at all... -- Begoon 10:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A "core belief in Islam" is only binding on Muslims, so I struggle to understand why the original poster thought that we would or should be bound by it. Thus my question on how such are relevant to this site. Wikipedia is not a Muslim and is not bound by Islamic beliefs. --Khajidha (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

But he didn't say Wikipedia should be "bound by Islamic beliefs". He said that it was a core belief of Islam that pictures of Muhammad should not be used, that it was insulting to those beliefs to use the images, and that Wikipedia should stop doing it. That's his opinion, and he's entitled to it. I happen to disagree, and I think if we forbade every possible thing that could ever upset every possible person or group it would be impossible to produce a useful reference work. What I find rather silly is this odd idea you have that the status of Wikipedia as a website being "not a Muslim" has any bearing on any of this rather than just being a nonsensical statement. Wikipedia is what its editors produce - no more, no less - some of them are Muslims, some are not. Some of them like ice-cream, some do not. Wikipedia can't like ice-cream either, which is roughly as useful a concept as its status of being "not a Muslim". -- Begoon 14:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to make it any clearer. Any prohibition of making or displaying images can only be applicable to those subject to it. As for the original poster's idea that we should take it down because he feels insulted, I find that even more ludicrous. --Khajidha (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said, that's his opinion, and he's entitled to it. I happen to disagree, as I also said. However, if I agreed, that would not make me "bound by Islamic beliefs" any more than my not taking a bacon sandwich into a synagogue would make me "bound by Jewish beliefs". You can try to avoid making people feel insulted without being "bound by their beliefs" - what you have to choose is where to draw the line, and I personally think, as an encyclopedia, including the images is what we should do. "Any prohibition of making or displaying images can only be applicable to those subject to it." is nonsense, by the way - I could choose to be subject to it, or just to respect it without being bound by it. Not everything is black and white - the best parts are the shades of grey... -- Begoon 14:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And this is why I pointed to the FAQ at the top of the page. The FAQ includes directions for how a viewer may suppress the images so the viewer does not see them. In other words, the OP can view within the restrictions of their beliefs without infringing on anybody else's. —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

But I am not "taking a bacon sandwich into a synagogue", the analogy is quite the reverse. Here we have the equivalent of a Jewish man walking into a BBQ restaurant and complaining that they should not be serving pork. --Khajidha (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not (generally) "a core belief in Islam that their should be no depictions of Prophet Muhammad" as the considerable numbers of Muslim images illustrating religious books over a long period show clearly. All this was gone into in great detail in the arbcom case and discussions leading up to it. It is a strong custom nowadays among many strands of Sunni Islam, but that is a different thing. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes something on Wikipedia offends somebody. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to avoid offending people. Also Wikipedia is not written according to core beliefs of Islam and doesn't need to be. But sometimes somebody wants to try to score brownie points with their deity. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg is inappropriate

In the section "Beginnings of the Quran", remove the picture thay says "Muhammad receiving his first revelation", you are not supposed to represent any prophet through a portray or an image. 125.209.82.205 (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

See Q1 under "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" higher up on this page. There's also Help:Options to hide an image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Pbuh Muhammed's imagery in the wiki page

I don't like the way you added the images of the pbuh Muhammed. Please remove all the images like with humans or animals in it because the prophet wouldn't like being politicised falsely like this, so please remove the pictures of living things as soon as possible.

Thank you, By Nevin Nevin s shams (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nevin s shams: Please see the FAQ for why the images will not be removed—and for how you can choose to make the images not display on your screen. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2020

The image for the page should be replaced with a simple decorative image of his name Muhammad. 50.100.247.30 (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Jack Frost (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Image removal

I am one many wiki readers who want any images that refer to the Prophet Mohammed (SWS) may the Pease and blessings be upon him to be removed, this is as a mark of respect no where in the Muslim world would you find any images at all referring the prophet Mohammed (SWS) and his Companions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibrasul (talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

See Q3 in the FAQ above, which has guidance on how you can block these images from your own view. WP:Content disclaimer may also be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

In The "Beginnings of the Quran" section the image used is showing prophet MUHAMMED peace be upon him and angel Gabriel which is strictly against our belief. I request you to remove these images from the page ASAP.

Link of the image image_to_be_removed

There is no image showing prophet MUHAMMED swallal lahu aliahi wasallam. Mdabrar4devops (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This question has been answered multiple times. Even on this page. Just take a look above. The answer is NO. The Muhammad images are perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, and thus will not be removed. --99.245.168.121 (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

See Depictions of Muhammad for more insights on the historical debate among Islamic scholars regarding depictions of Muhammad. Best regards, Alcaios (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ and other answers above --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 11:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

There is a picture of prophet Pbuh while setting the black stone in kabbah . Which is prohibited in our religion and is offensive to us . Kindly take it down. 39.45.161.12 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. This is the exact reason why this page is protected. Our goal is to describe things as they are, and removing content simply because some find it offensive goes against that goal. Please read the above discussions about this as well as the FAQ at the top of this talk page, which explains how to hide images of Muhammad from your view if they make you uncomfortable. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 05:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Image removal

Would it be possible to remove any images that illustrate the Prophet Mohammed (SWS), this a mark of respect, it is part of the Muslim faith that no images of the final Prophet of God should be made by and person either Muslim or none Muslim. And I request that when the name of the Prophet Mohammed (sws), SWS is put after his name meaning "may peace be upon him" again the is a great mark of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibrasul (talk • contribs) 09:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Neither of these requests will be implemented. As these practices are "part of the Muslim faith", they are not beholden upon this encyclopedia. There is no reason for us to show respect towards Muhammad beyond what is shown to other people. --Khajidha (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Consider, however, Q3 in the FAQ above, which has guidance on how you can block these images from your own view. See also Q5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, consider, that most of these images were made by Muslims, for Muslims. And that at no point in history has it been applied across the board to non-Muslims; that’s just one legal opinion in Islamic law. Obviously, even the first statement isn’t a universally held position, as Muslims continue to create images of Muhammad, for Muslims. And it was relatively common in the early 20th century before the rise of Salafism (as evidenced by the history of the “depiction of Muhammad as a boy” photograph shows- this was extremely popular in the 1930s). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Being picky, the M. Prideaux image probably wasn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t say that every image fits those criteria, though most of them do. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I did say “all”. Oops. Corrected. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: I don't think it would be accurate to claim the anti-depiction position arose out of Salafism. It's something that's been prevalent in Sunni Islam in general, which is why most historical Sunni mosques and buildings don't have any depictions of Muhammad on the walls and ceilings. Most tend to avoid depicting images of humans or animals outright in Sunni religious buildings because Sunni hadith discourages artwork. Salafism also didn't gain influence in the wider Muslim world (outside the Hejaz) until the late-20th century and early-2000s. Even in the early to mid-20th century, Muslims in South Asia and Africa used to collect donations to maintain upkeep and repairs in Mecca and Medina.

What separates Salafism from mainstream/orthodox Muqallid Sunnism (muqallid meaning someone who follows a traditional madhab) is that Salafis are very ardent about destroying shrines and historical relics and structures whereas mainstream Sunnis are more flexible about it—it depends on the particular rulership or clergy to take that step at a moment in time, which was rare in the grand scope of history. Salafism is also against Sufism in general whereas Muqallid Sunnis recognize Tasawwuf (Sufism) and whether a Sufi is considered orthodox or heretical depends on the particular Sufi or Sufi group's activities. Ibn Taymiyyah himself was a Sufi Qadiri and Abdul Wahhab's own teacher was a Naqshabandi Sufi. Both Taymiyyah and Wahhab were muqallid Hanbalis, and Ahmad Hanbal is revered by Sunni Sufis. What's noteworthy is there was a gradually increasing strictness between Taymiyyah and Wahhab, and those that came after Wahhab were the Salafis who are the Protestants of Sunni Islam. Hence, why they name themselves after the Salaf to show they reject taqlid of the madhabs. That's the main reason why they're called "Wahhabi" by critics to signify they do perform taqlid, of the madhab of Wahhab. Most Sunnis respect Ibn Taymiyyah as a Hanbali scholar but majority do not Wahhab, but that is to do so with his politics which is hard to separate from ideology. Muhammad Abdul Wahhab and Muhammad Saud formed an alliance among themselves, and in turn an alliance with the British as a foreign backer. The Saudis needed the religious justification of a Wahhab to go against the Ottoman Caliphate; most Saudi grand muftis continue to be descendants of Wahhab (the Ash-Sheikh family). So while Salafis and Saudi Hanbalis (whatever remains of the Hanbalis) revere Abdul Wahhab as a reformer of deviation and polytheism, critics will point out the stories are exaggerated and fabricated to malign the Ottomans and that no part of reforming justifies being a foreign-policy asset and collaborator with a non-Muslim power.

The third point about Salafism is that they are Atharis, as were the Hanbalis. Whereas the Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi'i are Maturidi and Ashari followers. This has implications in the way scripture is interpreted. The Salafis and Hanbalis are literalists, whereas the three largest madhabs allow for symbolic interpretations of phrases (e.g. anthropomorphic descriptions) and multiple interpretations of words. Note that Semitic scripts don't have vowels natively so the choice of pronunciation (or Arabic diacritics) can change the words themselves, so Ashari-Maturidi has an innate flexibility whereas Atharis must interpret the words literally which leads to contradiction or dilemma since one must first establish what a word is before going about interpreting it. These are some of the reasons why the Athari madhabs were always small: the Zahiri and Jariri going extinct early on and the Hanbalis in a decline since the Safavid revolution in Iran, with the Saudi revolution being the nail in the coffin for the madhab; but the Athari ideology lives on in a Protestant form. DA1 (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Both of these requests/demands have been answered many times, which is a solid no. Wikipedia does not implement policies purely because of a particular religious doctrine. --99.245.168.121 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:RNPOV and WP:CENSORED applies. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

None of these paintings have ever had any historical or theological value for Muslims or non-Muslims. The article on the Arabic wikipedia, which is a featured article, doesn't include any of these paintings.--Commenter7 (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect, this isn't a religious Encyclopedia. Things are as they are through consensus and researched information, verified and checked again.2605:A601:A880:8C00:B0A0:1C1:6BB8:3F8D (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't seem relevant to my comment. Are you confused or what is your problem? My comment was about the images not having a historical or a theological significance. I don't see in what way your comment addresses that point. --Commenter7 (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, since you brought this up in your last comment, let me correct you: things are as they are through systemic bias and cherry picking of sources. Full stop.--Commenter7 (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

From the FAQ above: "No claim is made about the accuracy of the depictions of Muhammad. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves. This fact is made absolutely clear in the image captions. The images are duly presented as notable 14th to 17th-century Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad, not as contemporary portraits. See depictions of Muhammad for a more detailed discussion of Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad.

Similar artistic interpretations are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Paul of Tarsus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. painted after life, or photographs) exist, it is a longstanding practice on Wikipedia to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand to be artistic representations, so long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be more instructive than using no image at all. Random recent depictions may be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout history.

These depictions are not intended as factual representations of Muhammad's face; rather, they are merely artists' conceptions. Such portrayals generally convey a certain aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to be accurate in the sense of a modern photograph, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted.

None of these pictures hold a central position in the article, as evident by their placement, nor are they an attempt to insult the subject. Several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (even to the point of fighting over it), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are—i.e. artistic renditions of said people." --Khajidha (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2020

Please remove the pictures shown in this article. These are fake and there is no real picture of Propet Muhammad PBUH. This is blasphemy indeed. 116.58.53.130 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ near the top of this page. No claim is made that these are accurate pictures as none such exist. O3000 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"Of all the strange crimes that humanity has legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing - with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for second and third place." - Lazarus Long [by Robert Heinlein, in "Notebooks of Lazarus Long," from Time Enough for Love (1973).] --Khajidha (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about documentation of consensus

For most consensus-found-but-still-controversial matters that rise to the level of needing a FAQ, there is typically at least one or two clear findings of consensus that can be pointed to. I'm having trouble finding those for images of Muhammad, though. Where is the evidence that it is settled? Or is it just meant to be self-evident in WP:NOTCENSORED (and if that were the case, how did it get to the stage of e.g. mediation? perhaps it is connected to a history of notcensored I'm unaware of)? To be clear, this is not an argument not to display the images -- just a request for documentation for someone interested in how disputes happen on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, see the box at the top of this page, click on "appended community discussion." Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Image again

An Imam preaching from the minbar of a mosque. Illustration added by an unknown artist to a 14th century Ilkhanid king's copy of Al-Biruni's tenth century work The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries at the point where it discusses Muhammad's prohibition of intercalation in his Farewell Sermon delivered on 7 March AD 632 from the back of a grey mule in the open air on a hilltop to 44,000 pilgrims during his final pilgrimage. 17th-century copy of an early 14th-century Ilkhanid manuscript.

All the citation tells you is that the picture appears in the cited manuscript. The manuscript does not claim that the picture is Muhammad. All pictures which are not photographs are necessarily representations. The reason why the picture has yet to be removed is (a) because the page was protected to prevent it and (b) because AstroLynx lied in the RfC. Despite being the author of numerous scholarly books on the history of Islam he chose to tell the participants that, while the location of every other ceremony in the Farewell Pilgrimage is meticulously documented, this one isn't. In fact, since this sermon is the most significant event of the whole Pilgrimage there are more contemporary reports of it than any other. 92.19.168.173 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

As Future Perfect points out in his essay, since the painter did not say he was painting Muhammad, this suggestion after 500 years is not evidence but merely a claim. Claims are original research (although in this case not even that). 92.31.137.3 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

[The arguments at Talk:Herod the Great#Image again are equally applicable here.]

The final comment relates to this article. See Special:Permalink/974669756#Image again.

You won't believe this but Future Perfect at Sunrise has protected the Islamic calendar TALK page for ONE YEAR (no kidding!) He says the last editor to post there is both "banned" and "incoherent", but the editor with whom (s)he was in discussion a few minutes earlier disagrees. Can we proceed on the basis that everything Future Perfect at Sunrise says is lies unless proved otherwise and he is a net negative to the Project? - 78.145.22.80 11:45, 27 August 2020

There is an ongoing complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PeacePeace against Ian.thomson. He revision deleted the edit summary for 11:46, 27 August 2020 on this page (Talk:Muhammad) under RD3 claiming it was "purely disruptive material". It read Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2020. This is gross misconduct - please make your views known at the ANI discussion. Watch out also for Future Perfect at Sunrise, who blocks people all over the country claiming they are the same person. This isn't ignorance of geography, it's abuse of the tools. 2A00:23A8:D43:E100:11DE:4B8A:F545:21DA (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@PeacePeace: 2A00:23A8:D43:E100:11DE:4B8A:F545:21DA (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

To save having to refer back, Tuesday's edit summary was:

Rv Anachronist. He's been banging on about this for TWELVE YEARS User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2009#What a pity..!!!!!. On page 3 of the book discussing the Ilkhanid manuscripts he cites the author says "However, the above-mentioned scenes cannot be categorized under religious painting because they were neither meant as icons nor as religious or sacred art. They were merely illustrations of historical events that had occurred during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad".

So on Anachronist's own source, this picture is what it purports to be - an Imam (Ali? - remember the Ilkhanids were Shia) preaching to the Ahl al-Bayt in a mosque @Objective3000: (he says he thrives on controversy). 81.147.142.50 (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

We should apply Occam's razor instead of overthinking this. It's difficult enough to identify ancient portraits - for example our articles Herod the Great and Ptolemy IX Soter use the same picture - whoever a portrait is of it can't be two different people! This is Future Perfect at Sunrise's idea - when an editor complained he said "too bad". Future Perfect at Sunrise does not have high regard for people other than himself - on his talk page this morning he called someone "a nasty retard".

Applying his essay WP:PORTRAIT this picture is inappropriate for an article on the Islamic calendar. The last RfC does not go so far as to say it should be removed - it decided that the caption should be amended to say that the Farewell Pilgrimage was delivered in the open air. If there are no objections I will do this in the next few days. 78.145.21.95 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Before removing the image from that article, you should seek consensus at Talk:Islamic calendar. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

...Except I see you've abused process there and gotten the talk page protected. Do not change the caption or remove the image. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia works. If you disagree with community consensus as expressed in an RfC start another one. I'll hold back for a week. As for the year-long protection of the talk page, you might like to read the discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard (penultimate section). As I said in my post, I respect the result of the RfC and do not propose removing the picture. 78.145.21.95 (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct. So, the burden on establishing community consensus is on you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

And article talk pages are not the same as user talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The idea that citing the close of an RfC imposes a burden on the citer to prove that the close accurately reflects Community consensus is a new one on me. Your comment reeks of WP:COI. Would you like to clearly set out your own stance on the issue to allay concerns - your fitness for adminship is in issue here given that you were promoted thirteen years ago with just 32 support votes.

Instead of going to Future Perfect at Sunrise's talkpage to slag off other editors (whose point of view is, I suspect, different from your own) why not actually read his essay WP:PORTRAIT. Here are some extracts:

Many articles on historical persons or events cannot be illustrated with authentic material, as no contemporary portraits or other depictions of the subject exist.

Comment: The picture which you claim (without giving any reason) is a picture of Muhammad was painted 700 years after his death.

While most historical cultures didn't produce actual portraits, many did produce other kinds of depictions of individual persons, such as depictions of rulers on ancient coins, miniatures in medieval bookpainting etc.

Comment: Unlike a picture on a coin, which can reasonably be assumed to be a representation of the ruler whose name is inscribed thereon, nothing in the picture indicates that this is a picture of Muhammad. How could it be, given that there are no known pictures of him wearing a short beard (for the simple reason that contemporary accounts say he had a beard which extended to his chest and rustled when he walked)? How could it be Muhammad delivering his Farewell Sermon when all Muslims know that the pilgrimage has always taken place in the open? The idea of labelling a mosque scene as a feature of the pilgrimage is more than just misleading - it's pernicious.

* Always add an informative caption to any non-photographic image explaining the provenance and nature of the depiction...

Comment: In other words, when framing the caption for a picture don't tell lies.

* Always be sure the image improves the encyclopedic content of any article - do not merely use images as fillers or eye-candy.

Comment: Instead of running to Future Perfect at Sunrise's talkpage to spread lies (note that he hasn't bothered to reply) why don't you instead explain how you think this picture adds to the reader's understanding of the workings of the Islamic calendar. There are plenty of places where this image is useful and therefore included but this is not one of them.

From the original version of the essay:

Since the artist is non-notable [we don't even know who he or she is!], their artistic imagination will not have been analyzed and written about in reliable sources, so we have nothing to explain and hedge the image with, and would be left with just letting it speak for itself and spread its ideological message freely. Such images may therefore be not merely useless, but actually harmful to the encyclopedia, and should be avoided.

Comment: The most distinguished Islamic scholar editing Wikipedia today had this to say in the original RfC:

• ... "three of the five Muhammad images in the Biruni manuscript are already permeated by strong sectarian feeling. Thus the polemical potential of such subject matter is there right at the beginning of religious painting in Islam: proof, if any were needed, that it was a sound instinct which had steered earlier painters away from such themes." (Persian Painting, 2001, p. 135). Unless we're making a point about sectarianism or propaganda in art, I don't see the point of having this image in this article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

... didn't see a need to examine the other two images (note the word "already" in his conclusion). Also, the third image that he used to prove the "strong sectarian feeling" (The Envoy of Musailama) has nothing to do with the investiture of Ali. Incidentally, his arguments concerning that image also applies to this image (the prominent placement of ahl al-Bayt; al-Hussien is favored over al-Hassan by being placed closest to the prophet; etc)... Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

... He actually noticed a "strong sectarian feeling" in an image that was not about the investiture of Ali, contrary to what you wrote above. Then based on how you misrepresented the source you assumed that the RFC image has no sectarian purposes, which is original research (and can be disputed by pointing at Hillenbrand's arguments about the Envoy to Musailama). In any case, I don't see a reason why I should change my !vote. Adding pages/images to a general article from a source that has been described as sectarian and agenda driven is not inline with npov. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: 92.19.175.81 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Idolism and Depiction

Worship in Islam is clearly definition of spiritual awareness and acceptance of Allah in our lives. The concept of image comes from drawing a sketch, and then you add up colors to provide depiction of figures. This is purely related to developing an idol; as these idols are represented in forms of figures. These are depictions of humans [ancestors], jins, animals. One concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, but also creating an image might lead the artist to claim the ability to create, an ability only ascribed to God. These images/idols are clearly forbidden in Islam as these are sources of Shirk.

It is impermissible in Islam to depict prophets in movies, pictures or images. There is no justification whatsoever for the depiction of the prophets and messengers of Allah (peace be upon them) due to their prodigious and venerated status. Allah’s prophets and messengers are the best of all humans, and HE raised them high above depiction by any other human being.

Allah has ranked prophets far above Satan’s impersonation in dreams. Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Name yourselves with my name (use my name) but do not name yourselves with my kunya name (i.e. Abu al-Qasim). And whoever sees me in a dream then surely he has seen me for Satan cannot impersonate me. And whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally), then let him occupy his place in hell-fire"(Bukhari and Muslim).

This hadith clearly proves that Allah Almighty preserves the status of the prophets (peace be upon them) and protects their message. Satan cannot impersonate the prophets either in reality or in a dream.

The holy Prophet of Islam Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) also said: “The intensive punishment of the people on the Day of Hereafter belongs to the drawers of pictures (idolism).”

Muhammad is an honored character among Muslims who often perceive depictions and other material critical of him — as an attack on their Muslim identity and "it is a human impulse to want to protect what's sacred to you." This is so because, by the way of Faith, a believer has a link with Allah and His Prophet, and for this reason he has been mentioned in the same line and in the row of Allah (s.w.t.) and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Prior to /’iθman mubina/ because of its importance, since calumny is counted one of the greatest hurts, and the pain of the annoyance created by it is even more intensive than the pain of sword and dagger, because the pain of the wound of a dagger is reconcilable, but the wound of the tongue is not reconcilable.

In Quran (Surah Al-’Ahzab – Verse 57) Allah says:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالأَخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَاباً مُّهِيناً

“Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and He has prepared for them a humiliating punishment.”

Annoying Allah means doing something against His desire and His consent that, instead of attracting His Mercy, one causes to bring His wrath and curse as a consequence. Purpose of annoying Allah may be purpose of annoying His Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is to reject him, to denigrate him, to treat impolitely with him (peace and blessings upon him), hurting His Ahlul Bayt (as) and also undue attributions, accusations, or creating trouble.

Based on this, it is mandatory upon Muslims to respect our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and all the other prophets and messengers of Allah by refraining from presenting, producing, and releasing artworks that depict them. Lack of knowledge and ignorance may drive some authors to distort or manipulate the biography of any prophet for personal gain.

It is established in Islamic law that preventing harm takes precedence over gaining benefit. So, despite all the benefits that depict the prophets, these works involve real evil such as tampering with the prophets’ biographies and adding irrelevant and incorrect information. Al-Azhar’s Islamic Research Academy declared in resolution no. 100 of its 14th session of the 35th round held in Cairo on June 30, 1999 CE that it is impermissible to depict the prophets, messengers, the ten Companions who were promised paradise and the household of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in any form of art.

Based on the above, it is impermissible to violate the sanctity of the prophets and messengers by personifying them in any artwork. Producers should work on finding and presenting innovative ideas to introduce the biographies of the prophets in a manner befitting their status and avoid causing strife in the Muslim community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham (talk • contribs) 16:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

None of which is relevant here. --Khajidha (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, since you attempted to vandalize this page by removing my response, everything you said above is qualified by statements such as "in Islamic law", "impermissable in Islam", etc. Guess what? Wikipedia is not subject to Islamic law. --Khajidha (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Then please stop talking about Islam on Wikipidia. None of you have any rights to alter the islamic rights just on wikipedia just for your own self contents. Islamic rules are immaculate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Eihtesham: It's not going to be removed. To learn why it's not going to be removed, read here: Talk:Muhammad/images Alssa1 (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Muslims Community reserves the rigths to take up the this matter under the Preservation of Electronics Crimes Act 2016 (PECA) for spreading the false contents especially in religious matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham (talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

As we are not spreading falsehoods, your comment is irrelevant. Not to mention the fact that as an attempt to threaten legal action it could result in your being blocked. --Khajidha (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

PS - I can't seem to find evidence of the existence of such legislation. Now who's spreading falsehoods?--Khajidha (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Also @Eihtesham: before you throw around falsehoods about what is legal or not, you might try explaining why the Persian Wikipedia, which is run by Muslims, has no problem with showing images of Muhammad. See fa:محمد. Your assertion that it is "impermissible" or even "illegal" is a lie. And Wikipedia is not subject to the laws you imagine exist.

You might also do everyone the courtesy of reading Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. You have not introduced any new argument that has not already been considered and rejected. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Eihtesham: Then by all means, take Wikipedia to court for breaching "Preservation of Electronics Crimes Act 2016 (PECA)" if you believe that the site is in breach of the law. But just remember: taking Wikipedia to court will not lead to the result you want. Alssa1 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove The Pictures

its haram in islam meaning forbidden Remove the Prophet Muhammad image this is Saving 2 types of peoples no.1 by Foolish or, peoples who don't know about islam no.2 Munafiqs Meaning Enemies of islam just remove this 2 images this the big blasphemy wikipedia is hurting muslims who can see wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDDHO (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC) --JUDDHO (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I just moved it here. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@JUDDHO: Wikipedia is not subject to the rules and injunctions of any religion, including Islam. Alssa1 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

Images of prophet Mohammad peace be upon him should get deleted from this page. It is prohibited to publish dawings of any of the prophets of god. With such a high place of honor they were given, they should at least be respected not to be in any drawing or painting. Dr.Alaa1996 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done: @Dr.Alaa1996: Please read the FAQs above for why consensus is that the images remain in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2021 (2)

There are many pictures under which it is mentioned that Prophet Muhammad is doing this and that. Kindly remove all the pictures which are drawings of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) because it is against the prestige of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and hurts the feelings of Muslims. 202.142.155.154 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I wish I'm able to remove all the images, but I can't. Sorry bud. Try logging in/create a new account and put body.page-Muhammad div.depiction {display: none;} on Special:MyPage/common.css 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 16:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, not all Muslims would agree that the images are offensive and hurts their feelings. The Persian Wiki, run by Muslims, has no problems with the images. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

—

remove photos from Muhammad receiving his first revelation from Gabriel in Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashīd al-Dīn Ṭabīb (1307) Abdul Razak Kalai (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: @Abdul Razak Kalai: You have not provided any valid rationale for removing the image. —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

You have posted a picture of our beloved Prophet Hazrat Muhammad ( S.A.W) in Eurpeon section. Kindly remove it ! It is against the ethics. You should not hurt feelings of Muslims. 182.179.182.149 (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

If you register for an account, you can configure the pictures not to display. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Your attempts to control what others can see is against ethics. It offends me. You should not do that. --Khajidha (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

the photo in the lead

I was just wondering if the main photo is the best choice, would another one with an actual depiction not be more appropriate?

or is this being done intentionally? perhaps to avoid a few extra messages from people complaining that might not continue scrolling down the article if they see that photo first?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesowismine (talk • contribs) 07:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There's an FAQ here, but the longstanding consensus is that because this is the most common depiction of Muhammad, even if it seems oddly abstract to some people, it's the most appropriate image to lead with. It is somewhat unusual, but how he's depicted is somewhat unusual, so that's that. WilyD 11:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The most common representation of Muhammad is abstract, and I think showing this gives a good sense of the flavor of Islam in general and what makes it distinctive from other popular religions. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Removing pics

The pics portraying Muhammad peace be upon him are disrespectful and be removed from this article. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be informative and not stir disrespectful images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristarinstruments (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see point 1 of the FAQ. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

its a humble request to Wikipedia that remove pictures of Hazrat Muhammad Sb. from this article because Hazrat Muhammad Sb. never had a piçture in his entire life. its a disrespect to Hazrat Muhammad Sb. Wikipedia is a informative website don't make it coñtroversial. 2405:204:101F:2C3B:0:0:1055:C8A4 (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many views on many things. Please see this link: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove Pictures if Hazrat Muhammad Sb.

Its A humble request to Wikipedia that Hazrat Muhammad S. Never Clicked or painted by anyone in his entire life. So The Artificial Image shown in this article is desperately disrespectful for Hazrat Muhammad S. and his followers. Kindly Remove all the pictures which pointed and imaged to Hazrat Muhammad Sb.. Thank you 2405:204:101A:2B26:0:0:2586:98A4 (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

kindly make amends in títle if*Of its s typing error. 2405:204:101A:2B26:0:0:2586:98A4 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We're not going to do that. To learn why we're not going to do that, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Alssa1 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Images of Muhammad

NOTE: When replying to me, please tag me with {{Re|GOLDIEM J}}
Should we really be using visual depictions of Muhammad throughout the article, while most Muslims hold views against this? GOLDIEM J (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to the FAQ at the top of the page. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J: I have moved your misplaced thread. As noted, please consult with the FAQ for why Wikipedia will use visual depictions. —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Using wrong pics

you are using wrong pics that never existed. This should be stopped. It is not the real pic . The pic of him never existed. please remove it 182.187.76.142 (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearly the pictures do exist as they are here. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

They are not drawn from life, but they are "real" anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

And Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Q2 already addresses this point. Nothing new here. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

I've read the whole article, and I did not find any problem in it except the photos. There should not be the photos of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) in the article in which his appearance is described. This thing hurt the Muslim Community who love to read articles on Wikipedia. I request you to remove the photos of Muhammad (P.B.U.H)'s appearance. Those photos should be deleted from the article. The links of Photos are given below: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#/media/File:The_Prophet_Muhammad_and_the_Muslim_Army_at_the_Battle_of_Uhud,_from_the_Siyer-i_Nebi,_1595.jpg 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#/media/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#/media/File:Maome.jpg 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#/media/File:Muhammad_destroying_idols_-_L'Histoire_Merveilleuse_en_Vers_de_Mahomet_BNF.jpg 7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#/media/File:La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg AManan00 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been discussed extensively, please see the information in the header at the top of the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@AManana00: please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ to understand why the images will not be removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

Dear Editors,

I sincerely request you to take out the pictures on this article which show a made-up face of my Prophet Muhammad (Peasse and Blessings Be Upon Him). I don't think you are aware, but in our religion of Islam, there are no pictures of any of the prophets and stupid people and just created pictures, which is forbidden. my Prophet (pbuh)never had any portrait taken off him. If you want to keep the pictures there, then i would please like you to edit the pictures and put a blank white shiny light, over what is 2supposed2 to be my blessed Prophet. I find this sickening and extremely disturbing. Furthermore, my second reqest is for you to remove the box of critisisms. All the critisms are incorrect and not based on any facts or research. it's crazy, someone crituqing something that they haven't thorughly studied and have barely any awareness about.

I shall be waiting for you changes to be impletmented,

Thank you. 193.61.240.191 (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see FAQ above, explaining the images and how to configure your experience to not see them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

image shown

as you already know, we Muslims are against putting any picture and saying him as Mohammad, so picture you put during putting stone for kaba, should be removed. hoping that you'll remove soon. no image should be there. Alif.laam.meem (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

See Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings? above on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

About the images of Prophet shown on the page

Does writing articles on this site from an irreligious and secular point of view provide a justification for disrespecting and ignoring people's religious beliefs? You don't remove these pictures because you lack empathy. I mean, when you go to the Arab or Turkish Wikipedias, you will see that when people ask why are such disrespectful deeds made, Muslim authoritatives and users will not give the offensive answers like you gave. Because they will deceive themselves. They will say that what they are doing is okay, or they will try to justify themselves, but since you probably don't belong to any religion, you can't understand our feelings the way Muslim authoritatives can understand other Muslims' feelings, even they also not do that perfect. You don't know how much these pictures disturb us, Muslims. You just disrespecting. J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The images used are historic images created by islamic scholars in the past. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, go to the Persian Wikipedia (which is presumably maintained by Muslims) and you will see many of the same images.

@J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J: This has nothing to do with lack of respect or insensitivity to feelings. Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ carefully.

Also you have a choice about what offends you. Many Muslims have no problem with the images. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

And they cannot possibly disturb you as much as your attempts to control others disturbs me. You disrespect us by attempting to force your religious dictates onto us. --Khajidha (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the deceptions of Muhmammad and its filter

Multiple images of Muhammad in the article are still shown despite "body.page-Muhammad div.depiction {display: none;}" being added to common.css. I ask that the filter is also applied to the following images stated:

Section - File name - Description

Childhood and early life - Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg - The story of Muhammad's role in re-setting the Black Stone -

Conflict with Mecca - The Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim Army at the Battle of Uhud, from the Siyer-i Nebi, 1595.jpg - "The Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim Army at the Battle of Uhud"

European appreciation - La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg - Image by M. Prideaux

I would not consider the image (Muhammad destroying idols - L'Histoire Merveilleuse en Vers de Mahomet BNF.jpg) in Depictions section as an direct depiction of Muhammad because it shows Muhammad as a flame rather than as a human.

-- Chxeese (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree partially. File:The Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim Army at the Battle of Uhud, from the Siyer-i Nebi, 1595.jpg does not show Muhammad's face; it is covered in a veil. That image is ineligible for filtering. I agree that the other two images should be filtered — and I have just added the "depiction" class to those images. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Modification to FAQ entry

I propose that Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#A3 be amended to cover any article that depicts an image of Muhammad's face.

Currently a user is instructed to add body.page-Muhammad div.depiction {display: none;} to their common.css file.

I propose we change the class name to "muhammad-depiction" and remove the body.page-Muhammad rule. Then, all anyone needs to put into common.css would be:

div.muhammad-depiction {display: none;}

Then we'd have to go through the Muhammad article and change the handful of <div class="depiction"> tags to <div class="depiction Muhammad-depiction"> (the original "depiction" would be left for backward compatibility). In any image that is not already tagged this way, we'd just enclose the image in <div class="Muhammad-depiction">.

This would allow users to filter Muhammad images from other articles such as Black Stone, Depictions of Muhammad, Prophet, and any other article where depictions of Muhammad appear. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

Dear Editors,

It requested that all images depicting the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) be removed as it is insensitive to Muslims all around the world.

Regards, Usman Ahmed Khan 103.255.6.91 (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Already covered in the FAQ, as well as in the notices at the top of this page. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2021

Dear Wiki,

You are requested please remove the photos of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in this article. We Muslim respect all the religion and expected same from the other religion. We love our prophet Muhammad (PBUM) and this act hurts our community, no doubt you depicted these sketches for better understanding and with good intention even then you are request to remove these sketches. Regards, Maygedkan (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. Melmann 09:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

There is cartoon of prophet Mohammed in this article, please remove it. It's not appropriate and will face consequences. 2402:3A80:1593:73BA:0:25:DD5C:F701 (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

See Frequently asked questions (FAQ) above on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

1) There are no cartoons here, only artwork. 2) threats will get you nowhere.--Khajidha (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2021

No pictures of Muhammad please as per Allah all pictures are haram and illegal under islamic law 71.241.213.53 (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See FAQ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

On the images depicting Pr. Muhammad and Wikipedia's incompliance with the religious prohibition

Entry for first F.A question of this page says "Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions" and this brought a question to my mind.

If the one is not enforcing a prohibition on purpose, then this may have come from the thought of aforementioned ban is not necessary to apply.

In this case, if the one does not applies this depiction ban, wouldn't it emphasise the idea of showing Muhammad's depiction is appropriate and even necessary, which is totally biased? Owerthise (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Not completely sure if I follow you here, but there is the issue of placing due weight on depictions or lack of depictions. Originally, this page had illustrations of Muhammed at the top, but after a while, the consensus became that because depictions of Muhammed are not as central in Islam as, say, depictions of Jesus are in Christianity, undue weight was being placed by including the images at the top/most prominent part of the article, i.e the one people see first, and so in the end, it could be interpretted as bias or some kind of WP:FALSEBALANCE to include such depictions in exactly the same way. That's why they were moved down the page as they are now. If I'm missing the mark with you're saying, do say so. Just thought it might be relevant to what you're getting it. Eik Corell (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Owerthise: For the longer answer, please see Depictions of Muhammad. The images used on Wikipedia were not produced for Wikipedia but are from historic Islamic sources. Most articles on Wikipedia (like most encyclopedias) have illustrations alongside the text, subject only to the principle of "to illustrate, not to decorate".

Your point is not really clear... are you saying that the 'not censored' policy means that we don't ban images but neither does it oblige us to include them. The only policy reasons to omit material are either that it is not relevant or that it is WP:UNDUE: I don't see that either applies, do you? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)