Talk:Muhammad/images

If you wish to request that Wikipedia remove images of Muhammad, please do so on this page.

If you would like to prevent your web browser from displaying any images in the Muhammad article, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.

Please do not remove

"After all, nobody goes around making fun of the Holocaust or JFK or 9/11 or of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." You obviously have never watched Family Guy, The Simpsons, Southpark, or been to 4chan. JFK Unleashed? Christians don't get outraged about Raptor Jesus (Paintings and other artwork of Jesus which has Jesus's head replaced with a dinosaur; along with offensive dudespeak) I think Raptor Jesus, Raptor Pope etc are all more offensive than showing historical paintings of your prophet. Wikifreedom!

Please remove, its against wikipedia

Please remove the images. There are so many things censored by wikipedia already for instance, wikipedia agrees to US FED and calls conspiracy "conspiracy" not the "truth". So, why you should create unrest in 1.7 billion population of this world ? Wikipedia please remove it.

Wikipedia is very useful website of this new millenium, It has risen with the confidence of almost everybody. I hope they will keep the confidence of muslims on wikipedia now.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.66.197 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove

• If Muslims are offended by the images they can and should choose to not view them. While I understand that they may find the images to be offensive, they have neither the right nor the obligation to determine what the rest of the world views on these pages. Jrkarp (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• I Understand that Muslims are not allowed to depict the prophet, but not everyone is a Muslim. The image should stay. That's what really Freedom of speech is.If you don't want to watch it, don't look at it.
• People who want the image down, should post a valid reason why it should be put down. Anonymous, 17:00, 5 February 2008 (GMD +1)
• Hot damn! The muslims are throwing everything they can think of at that think aren't they? Mediation, Arbitration, Copyrights, Censorship, Shock sites, Violence. Unfortunately Wikipedia, does use commons sense so trying to find a window or loophole in the rules is not going to work. Let me also add my voice to the Do not remove the images from the article. If they are being insulted, it's their own fault --DB0 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Don't remove. You have the right to believe whatever you like but tnot the right to infringe upon other's rights to information. --Strappado (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Muslims have to follow Muslim law. The rest of the world doesn't. If anyone is doing anything wrong it is them, by looking at the image, and it is only wrong by force of their own religious law. If who originally posted the image is a Muslim then he is also wrong, but, again, only according to his religion's laws, which hold no value to anyone who isn't Muslim or who doesn't live in a Muslim state. The rest of us is doing nothing wrong and things should stay the way they are. Do not remove the images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.102.83.153 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove

please remove the pics of Muhammad as it greatly hearts the feelings of Muslims. There is a petition signed by thousands of peoples for removal of these pics http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia

aww boo hoo.. little islamic feelings are hurt. Murdering babies.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.208.232 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We've seen it... petitions like that have no bearing around here. Jmlk17 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt matters while the wikipedia is muslim site or not but the thing is it must not hurt any other feelings because they dont have any right of violating the principles of other religion, no Ifs no buts these pictures must be removed immediately because pictures give us an illusions of the personality in our minds. You cannot prove that these pictures are even near to original , so you dont have any right to put fake things publically, Its a humble request that it should be removed immediately to stop any tensions which can bulid up in near future. No Ifs no Buts you are breaking a law, and you must be guilty.

Dont Remove Counterpetition

If you think the pics should stay up, feel free to sign the counterpetition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/support-wikipedia-muhammad-pics --anonymous203.84.185.186 (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dont Remove

dont remove em but atleast BLUR out the face in the Pictures, hardly takes 5 minutes. u can do that, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.184.206 (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, this is one of the basic rules.Eik Corell (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there :)

I would just like to say that the act of portraying the prophet in any way is not permitted in Islam. I know it would be ok for non muslims... But Muslims cannot do this nor can we view this. Hollywood once made a movie, a story about the prophet. Hollywood is extremely secular, but still they managed to understand and respect the Islamic way of not portraying the prophet. I think all we ask for is understanding.

Salaam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.56.250 (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"I think all we ask is for understanding." If that is true, then "understand" this: Wikipedia does not censor content. Not in the past, not now, and not ever. If you do not wish to be "offended" by the image, take a hint -- DON'T VIEW IT. Close your eyes. Squint if you have to. Put a piece of paper over that spot on the monitor. Use a web filter to mask the image. But do NOT require non-Muslims to comply with Muslim "law." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.132.139 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A request

please remove the pic of Muhammad (PBUH), as islam donot give the permission of doing this. Abdul Manan (pakistan)

This is a request from all the Muslims that please remove the picture of Muhammad (P.B.U.H) from this website because it is not allowed in Islam. Emad Akhtar (Pakistan)

Wikipedia is a secular web site, and not subject to Islamic rules/governances. --Mhking (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"This is a request from all the Muslims."

And you are the King of all Muslims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.136.112 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Must remove PIC

• the signs in the petition bears the testimony the fact that Muslims all Over the world are harassed and depressed by this WIKI move to not allow removal of pic in the name of freedom of expression.I request wikipedian administrators to allow the removal of pics in Order to maintain the dignity of Muslims feelings as No expression can allow to abuse someone's Prophet.Shabiha ^(t 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrators don't have that sort of power - they generally rule on the behaviour of editors and other administrative matters, they cannot take sides in content disputes where the material is sourced and accepted to be of a certain standard. This is a matter for the wikipedia community as a whole. The community has decided that wikipedia is a secular website and will not censor articles on religious matters because various faiths would be offended. No abuse is intended. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You wish for them to delete the pics in the name of freedom of expression, yet are you not attempting to deny that freedom to Wikipedia itself? Denying their freedom of expression?

Must remove

Actually, there is no need of these pics here. I don't think that the removal is purely censorship, but these pics are also useless as they are all manuscripts created hundreds of years after Muhammad(PBUH).--Builder w (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is addressed in the FAQ.—Chowbok ☠ 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Depressing Comments

It is more depressing in wikipedia to read that Picture will not be Removed .Though there may be some Consensus but that does mean that on those articles where Consensus has been Reached there cant be any Change.It seems frankly an Organized propganda of Editors to

• To harass Muslims when they Constitute a good concentration of WIKIPEDIAN editors and Readers .

• To hurt their feelings in the name of Consensus by inserting someone else Picture with the name of Prophet S.A.W

• To show arbitrariness on wiki by writing that PIC will not be removed What does that mean?

• It shows finally wikipedia a tool to harass Muslims in the name of freedom of Expression.

• I fear that this arbitrary Step of wikipedians to not allow the removal of Pic may Lead to Confusion and Unrest in the Muslim world.Shabiha ^(t 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not another conspiracy theory... Zazaban (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Depressing comments indeed. The quality of the arguments to remove pictures surely has to improve soon? •CHILLDOUBT• 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it "harrassment"? Nobody has to come here. If you go to a restaurant and you don't like the food, are they "harrassing" you by serving you food you don't like?—Chowbok ☠ 17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think my earlier suggestion has merit - leave this page to the "please remove" crowd and do all of the discussion about the article on a sub-page". --Fredrick day (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"I fear that this arbitrary Step of wikipedians to not allow the removal of Pic may Lead to Confusion and Unrest in the Muslim world." Is this a threat of violence? Because it sounds suspiciously like one. TharkunColl (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When isn't there unrest in the Muslim world?—Chowbok ☠ 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take your propaganda aside and let us discuss. Get some treatment from this person.--Builder w (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Zakir Naik would be the best choice. On a side note, Shabiha's comments are possibly the utter low point in all of the discussion I have seen on the matter. Simply reading it causes much exasperation.--C.Logan (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reaction is troubling. You have to understand, that we dont care about your theism. This is a fact-based endevour, not a worthless collection of opinion.

70.178.97.83 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that Anonymous IP is wrong here; we do care about this theism, and this opinion, and that's we have an article on it. --Wikinterpreter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is so sadly true. Do a Google search on words like Wikipedia, Muhammad, and pictures, etc, and it turns out that there are already countless hate sites out there spewing filth against this article (and this is no doubt where all the trolls have been coming from lately). What they perhaps don't realise is that freedom of speech far more sacred to those of us who grew up in a free society than adherence to any religious dogma can ever be. TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, reminds me of the Cartoon Wars episode of South Park...

---

Image solution

(This section has been imported from this edit) gren グレン 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Any Muslims offended by the images should use Firefox with the Adblock add-on. Then they can block the images that offend them from appearing on their computers. Everyone's happy. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it. The point of the controversy is to harrass and threaten and force non-Muslims to obey Muslim rules out of fear of giving offense (and the chance of receiving a violent response). They don't want ANYONE to see these pictures. Frankly, I don't like disresectful pictures of Norman Numchuks, but I will defend to the death the right of anyone to print them.Scott Adler (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is so sadly true. Do a Google search on words like Wikipedia, Muhammad, and pictures, etc, and it turns out that there are already countless hate sites out there spewing filth against this article (and this is no doubt where all the trolls have been coming from lately). What they perhaps don't realise is that freedom of speech far more sacred to those of us who grew up in a free society than adherence to any religious dogma can ever be. TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this is a truth that is in all of islam. Even the paedophile prophet says so himself. People must accept islam, or "repression", or "submission", not because it is the truth, but because of force. The paedophile prophet was a mass-murderer, a racist genocidal maniak. This is what happens when you tolerate intolerance. By definition the paedophile worshippers can never be placated until everyone's defeated or dead (quran 8:23)

No, I get it and I completely disagree with those who are trying to remove the images. I simply offered them a solution to protect their sensitive eyes. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly to read such a post and a reply on a respectful site!

I think the Adblock solution is really fine. The problem applies only to Muslims, and they have proper remedies to avoid seeing images of their prophet. We can't have Wikipedia ruled by arcane religious laws anyway. Henrik R Clausen

Dear Sir,

I have never thought of being a secular as to be disrespectful to others beliefs or disrespectful to 1.5 billion believers seeing in such posted picture an insult to their prophet.

I always thought of secularism as a balanced thoughtful human respecting rule of thumb ideology and never the opposite. You are not promoting secularism at its best, but you are promoting sectarianism which I am really sorry to see such in here. Wikipedia is one of the common and famous references on the web, in the meantime, they are not entitled to put their own articles about any religion as per being a secular website as some wikipedia administrators replied, you are not entitled of any religious debate, article, study, or even any related to religious nature material.

By doing so and by rejecting the request to remove the picture posted please allow me to tell you that you are far from being secular but more likely closer to be a sectarian who is promoting sectarianism and nothing more. There is nothing called I own this then I do whatever I like, specially when it does provoke others and attacking or disrespecting their core of beliefs.

I really laughed when someone of the administrator was comparing religion to a restaurant "what an ignorance indeed!", if you to assign administrators please make sure that they are well educated seculars on the level of culture at least. I am only passing the following "you have to be respectful to be respectable".

"Your freedom ends when others freedom begins

if you truly thought so you would immediately propose a law outlawing islam, since, to put it mildly, it doesn't respect this principle. Forcing others to become muslims* is a central duty of islam ("hisbah")

• (oh I'm sorry this is not true, they must only DO EVERYTHING muslims do and DO NOTHING that muslims don't do)

Isn't it the ultimate core of understanding and mutual respect. Freedom of speech, a hanger where we hang our personal and social failure on and claim that it is sacred (where the word sacred is a religious term that is not related to secularism in any way). The better yet is "Respect" where everyone is entitled for such, as if freedom of speech means or equal to no respect then goodbye humanity.

Regards. Aulic

No, we are refusing to cave into secular demands. Jmlk17 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And indeed, I was always taught that respect has to be earned. TharkunColl (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend this dispute go to Mediation, and if that fails? Arbitration. Then, whatever ruling is handed down? all editors will have to abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that done already? Jmlk17 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me the Arbitration Ruling. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[1] is one. Jmlk17 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's Mediation, where's the Arbitration Case GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure if there is one man. Jmlk17 01:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm neither concerned if the images are kept 'or' removed. I am concerned that an article has been caught up in a 'holy war'. I strongly recommend to the combatants, to take this dispute to Arbitration. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely not a bad idea at all. Jmlk17 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And if it goes to arbitration and the status quo is upheld, then what -- will you find yet some other way to continue to protest and try to impose your will on everyone else? --Mhking (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is an Arbcom issue. It's about content, not specific user behavior, which is Arbcom's sole purpose, unless I understand Arbcom wrong. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Jmlk17 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom will reject it as a content issue most likely, but if someone wants to establish as precedent that ArbCom will reject the issue, go ahead. I think there may be a declination somewhere, but I don't know where. WilyD 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're likely right, but I'd agree with tossing it in the ring just to get it on record. I doubt it would silence any of the critics, but better to establish a solid paper-trail. --Mhking (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad himself didn't approve of painting living objects

When we upload the picture of a living person we worry about copyright, we worry about that person's permission to upload the image (if not taken at a public meeting). We don't publish people's imgae taken by hidden camera in the washroom on Wikipedia. Almost everyday we have cartoons and caricatures US President George Bush published in various newspapers / magazines across the world. Should we publish those images on Wikipedia (if found under a free license)? Right now, there is a big upset in Hong Kong, because some nude images of a few celebrities have leaked on internet without their permission. Should Wikipedia use those images as soon as their copyright expires? Not sure what the exact policy on Wikipedia is, but I believe very logically, we shouldn't; especially if the subject of the article would not want to be identified by any of those images. When naming people on Wikipedia we always use the name the subject person wants to be called by. If there is a derogatory nickname of a person that the person doesn't approve, should we use that name in Wikipedia to identify him or her? Certainly not.

What has all this to do with Muhammad's (Sm.) images? There is no Images of Muhammad drawn during his lifetime - because Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve of painting his image. It is a historical fact Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve drawing images of living things. All his life he fought against creation of idols and images of people, especially those of famous people, heroes, and historical figures - because such practices eventually lead the image to become more important than the teaching (arguably what has happened to the Crush symbol).

Now, given some people (though Muslims) have drawn images of the Prophet (perhaps unknowingly) with little respect to Prophet's prejudice against such painting, should Wikipedia repeat (or escalate) the mistake by posting the images? When there is clearly no way to get to a compromise between showing and not showing the image, whose preference should Wikipedia respect, the preference of the person about whom the article is, or the preference / interest of the people who may be curious to know how the Prophet was "drawn" in isolated cases by people unaware / not respectful about Prophet's prejudice against painting? I strongly feel, Wikipedia should follow the preference of the subject of the article (The Prophet in this case), at least in the article about him.

This is not Censorship - this is respecting a very important person's own preference about how he wanted to be depicted. If the images are retained in the separate article on "Depiction of Islamic Prophet Muhammad" for historical interest, that's understandable.

If wikipedia admins still decide against removing the picture, please on the FAQ page under Q.1, In addition to It offends Muslims and The images are false add a third section heading "Muhammad himself didn't approve of painting living objects" and clarify that Wikipedia policy is to totally disregard people's personal view in deciding how they should or should not be portrayed. Arman ^(Talk) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assumptions are incorrect, therefore your conclusions are flawed. Absolutely we would publish a derogatory cartoon of George Bush, assuming it was relevant and not under copyright. The opinion of the subject of the cartoon is irrelevant. Same with the derogatory nickname hypothetical; the only considerations when deciding whether to include it are its relevance and its importance. The "approval" of the subject is not a consideration.—Chowbok ☠ 06:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Arman, the request, as placed in the form of the heavy-handed begging that Islam-adherants have come her with, is not only censorship, it is blackmail. Wikipedia is not governed by Islamic doctrinal guidelines; it is secular, and stands above and beyond the governing of any one party or parties. If you don't want to read the article, don't read the article. Don't look at the images. But you don't have the right to prohibit me or anyone else from doing so. And the constant begging that this has turned into is bordering almost childish blackmail. --Mhking (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chowbok's reasoning seems reasonable. Only what I didn't understand, how some poorly drawn "cartoon" type images after hundreds of years of a person's death become so important that they have to be on the artcile. The only historical importance of these images that I can see is the one artifically created by a handful of Wikipedia admins by forcing these images in the article on Prophet Muhammad (Sm.). Anyway, let's clarify this line of argument on the FAQ page, shall we?

For Mhking, I am not begging you or anyone to do anything, so please stop directing me what I read on wikipedia and what I don't. I was just pointing out that, I believe everyone reserves the right to decide how he/she should be figuratively depicted. If there is a criticism of a person on factual basis, that can and should be included irrespective of person's opinion. If we are talking about a photograph or a painting done to show a person's actual resemblance, that can be considered factual with respect to that person. But cartoons, drawings (based on imagination), nicknames - are not facts, they are pure and simple "POV" about a person in a figurative form, and the inclusion of such material on a person's biography should consider that person's acceptance / rejection of such materials. If Wikipedia's policy does not cover it yet, then the policy is deficient and needs to be changed, and I am hoping the clear inclusion of this stance on the FAQ page will open the door to the discussion which will lead to that change in policy. Arman ^(Talk) 07:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply amazed that some fantics want the pictures sencored! Why should non-religous people follow religous laws? Are these muslims trying to pick a fight? I say, mind you own business, if it hurts your feelings, then look the other way - don't try to opose your believes onto us! Besides islamic law also prohibits the depiction of other islamic prophets like Jesus, Moses and Abraham; howcome this isn't an issue, when there are pictures of them? It just show, that this demand of removing the Mohammad picture is grounded in hypocrisy - and a way to try to force us to follow their laws. It's wrong! 11:51 CET, 5. February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.245.80 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arman, are you honestly contesting the use of the image based on it's quality? Because it's a 'cartoon', as you put it? One must make allowances for 17th century art, having not been as evolved as contemporary art, but 'cartoon' or not, the depiction is cited as being the earliest surviving representation of Muhammad, and that is something you'll have to take up with the editors of Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Turkish Art, not Wikipedia. Because of these fellows we have a cited source as to why this is believed to be the earliest depiction. -99.241.142.163 (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Censor for all Musulman regions

There is no liberty of expresion in that countries. A simple pic make thousend of people to mobilizate. It could be better to censor wikipedia to all Musulman regions, and then, whait.

Sorry, any policy we enact will be applied equally to all. It is possible that there could be some kind of opt-out through a monobook.js but other than that we will not be making a decision to give different people different articles. gren グレン 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an Islamic website

This website is not an Islamic one, and therefore does not, and should not adhere to Islamic laws/values. Any Muslim who for some reason feels offended by these pictures can use free tools to block them. Trying to force Wikipedia to censor these pictures is no less than Religious Coercion, which has no place here. AxelRafaeli (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The two unsigned comments above are disturbing and childish, respectively. If you object to the presence of these images on a public website dedicated to free (as in freedom) information, do not visit this website and DO NOT threaten those who do. On the other hand, we who support the freedom of information must not descend to the level of intolerance and anger demonstrated by the previous post. --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable comments have been removed. This is not a forum to debate Islam. Thanks for pointing them out. gren グレン 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just beat me to removing them. I've already warned the IP responsible for it. They've had several comments removed that were designed to inflame the situation. Resolute 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Shock sites

Why does Wikipedia not uphold their policy of not censoring on entries of shocksites like 2girls1cup and other perversions? Why are there no images of those things on their respective wiki pages? In fact, all I can see are people with an anti-Islamic agenda defending the completely useless inclusion of the images. What do they have to do with the topic? If I were to make a random image of Bush and upload it, no matter how crude it is, and add it to Bush's wikipedia page, would it be removed? My image, of course, would not have much to do with the topic because I can just label the random stick figure drawing "Bush" and post it to Wiki.

Not to mention the fact that nearly all respectable major Encyclopedias, print or otherwise, have never included those pictures in their entries about the Prophet (pbuh). And I'm pretty sure that it wasn't due to self-censorship since a lot of these encyclopedias are quite old but have not included such images.

The pictures seem to be presented in the entry simply for baiting Muslims. I'm sure Christians would take offense to a South Park Jesus added to the 'Jesus' entry. It would be foolish to add such an image to such an entry in the first place. Hey, while we're at it, why not post pictures of dead babies to their relevant entries? After all, you guys are such proponents of freedom of speech and anti-censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.153.232 (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy for deciding when images are appropriate and inappropriate. They have picked a policy that to remove images that are generally agreed upon as "offensive" world-wide. I hope you understand that Wikipedia can't bow down to every interest group (whether a religion or not) that gets offended more easily than the average person. 208.124.58.119 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what "censored" means in a wikipedia context, we will not censor content that we as a community deem suitable for an article. We as a community have decided that their historical context means they should be included. No offense is intended but this is a secular site and we cannot adhere to religion traditions of a particular faith - be it Islam, Christianity or scientiology. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There certainly can be such images (for example, autofellatio), but the issue is more complicated than that. There are often disputes over which picture to use, picture quality, relevance, necessity and other factors (most often copyright limitations). In any case, your comparison is tenuous at best. Let me respond point-by-point:

1.In fact, all I can see are people with an anti-Islamic agenda defending the completely useless inclusion of the images. What do they have to do with the topic?

They are depictions of the topic; they possess historical relevance as well. I don't see the inclusion of the images as being "useless". While it may be entirely possible that some users may have a latent agenda, I have seen nothing to this effect. Additionally, several Muslim editors also oppose removing the images.

2.If I were to make a random image of Bush and upload it, no matter how crude it is, and add it to Bush's wikipedia page, would it be removed?

This is an overly simplified scenario. An illustration of Bush's head on a the body of a primate would be perfectly acceptable if the notability and relevance of the image were established. Bush is a living person, so WP:BLP is an issue, and his article is a top-level article, so WP:UNDUE would also be worth minding. In cases of artistic depiction, the notability of the artist or artwork must be established first, especially when it is of a person (in other instances, such as depicting a body part, it is acceptable to upload an image of your own for illustrative purposes without addressing "notability" and all that). This is not an issue on the Muhammad article, as both the artist and artwork are undeniably notable and of complete relevance to the subject.

3.My image, of course, would not have much to do with the topic because I can just label the random stick figure drawing "Bush" and post it to Wiki.

Well, it would have everything to do with the topic according to you. It is a depiction of Bush, is it not? Again, notability and relevance must be addressed.

4.Not to mention the fact that nearly all respectable major Encyclopedias, print or otherwise, have never included those pictures in their entries about the Prophet (pbuh).

To be quite honest, images are very rare in most of the encyclopedias that I've encountered, paper especially (for space concerns). Even online encyclopedias rarely host images, so this isn't much of an argument. Additionally, it doesn't quite matter what they do, because we are not affiliated with them and- to be honest- we endeavor to be more useful and reliable than they are (and interestingly, I've seen a study which determined that Wikipedia was more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica, believe it or not).

5.The pictures seem to be presented in the entry simply for baiting Muslims.

Can you explain what makes it appear so?

6.I'm sure Christians would take offense to a South Park Jesus added to the 'Jesus' entry. It would be foolish to add such an image to such an entry in the first place.

Offended? No, not really. I'm sure some would, but that doesn't really matter too much. There are other policies which prevent this from occurring (unless there happens to be a change in the article at a later point). Currently, the article is in such a state that it would be undue weight to include modern depictions (specifically pop-culture presentations) in the article. This has prevented the display of Piss Christ and other modern examples. Typically, these images would find a home on relevant sub-articles. Again, this example is not comparable to the discussion at Muhammad, as the images there possess historical relevance and are most certainly respectful attempts to depict the prophet- posting them is more comparable to posting an image of Jesus from a manuscript illumination detail or something along those lines.

7.Hey, while we're at it, why not post pictures of dead babies to their relevant entries?

There is currently no dead babies article. Additionally, such images are often used in a propaganda-like manner, so great care is often taken to avoid misuse. There is nothing policy-wise which limits the inclusion of images in such a manner.

8.After all, you guys are such proponents of freedom of speech and anti-censorship.

That we are.--C.Logan (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, who is "We as a community" here - I can see an overwhelming majority of editors feeling that these images are inappropriate for the article. Arman ^(Talk) 10:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The community is the body of editors devoted to improving articles while adhering to policies and guidelines. Learning about this article on an Islamic forum and flying by to post "remove the images" does not count one as an "editor". I have not seen a single established editor support the removal of images- even when those editors are, in fact, Muslims.--C.Logan (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, wow, please don't make such hasty conclusions here, I have made my first edit on Wikipedia before you did and have an edit count in five digits. Not an admin and don't want to be, but if someone says I am not an editor on Wikipedia, I have to consider that as uncivil and nonsense. Arman ^(Talk) 11:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, no one is asking you to adhere to any religion. The request is to remove images from an article that are "inappropriate" to the article, and the discussion/debate is on whether or not these images are appropriate; not whether Wikipedia has to declare Islam as its official religion. So please stom saying we cannot adhere to religious traidion etc. Arman ^(Talk) 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The images are appropriate. They depict the subject in a traditional manner, and they were created by Muslims for the edification of others (in many cases, other Muslims). They also possess great historical value, and one image in particular is noted as being the earliest surviving depiction of Muhammad. I haven't really seen a good argument against the inclusion- most arguments have been, unfortunately, "we don't like it, so remove it". The simple answer to such a request is "no".--C.Logan (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning for the appropriateness of these images are that they are "Notable" and "Relevant", Relevant agree as someone has tried to draw the subject, (just like I can try to draw a celebrity), but exactly how are they notable? They are notable because they are old, or because they are preserved in some museum? Did anyone ever claim that these images are true /reasonable / acceptable representation of Muhammad other than the painter? If so, please provide the evidence, and I will shut up on this topic once and for all. Arman ^(Talk) 11:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

-

The topic has been beaten to death. The image has historical relevance as the earliest known depiction of Muhammad. The article is about Muhammad, in case you didn't get that from the title at the top of the page. Your objections are not based upon any desire to see non-relevant material removed from the article; your prior posts show your motivations to be religious, not procedural. You are simply using the procedural context to further your desire for religious censorship and forcing Muslim conformance on non-Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.132.139 (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we should have screenshots of sites like 2girls1cup as we do for other sites. The same going for some of the anatomical pages as well. A user created Bush image would not be relevant whereas these images are from classic texts. Print encyclopedias have to make editorial decisions to save money and space that we don't have to. gren グレン 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times Coverage of Image Controversy

As an FYI and heads up, an article in today's edition of The New York Times (Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized), talks about this ongoing controversy. I'm sure there are lots more folks who will come take a look at this article now. --Mhking (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, we really don't need more publicity. Zazaban (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Common Law versus Sharia

What we have here is a conflict of Common Law, that system of law which governs the majority of the English speaking world, and Sharia law, the religious law of Islam.

Under Common Law (in most circumstances), the right of the individual to display images or speak certain things is considered indesputable and paramount over the objections of any group within the community, no matter how offensive someone may find it. Codified Law, which much of the rest of the Western World operates under, has similar if somewhat muted guarantees of same.

Under Sharia law, the individual is subject to the rule of the Koran, and displaying certain images or speaking certain things is unacceptable.

The principle issue here is that Wikipedia operates under Common Law, not Sharia. As such, no matter how offended Muslims, Christians, or other sectarian groups may be by something posted on Wikipedia, it is permitted.

Please note that, being a private organization, Wikipedia does not have to allow all expression, but merely that expression it finds to be relevant and substantive to the topic at hand. In fact, Wikipedia as an organization could censor just about anything it wanted for any reason it may have chosen.

Since Wikipedia operates under Common Law, it can have any viewpoint expressed that the people who regulate it deem is relevant. Were Wikipedia based in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, I would not expect this to be the case.

Like pornography to Christians, the fact that anyone can access these images, and the public awareness of them, causes disturbance to Muslims.

The fact is, no one has forced anyone else to use Wikipedia. It is simply a common source for providing, storing and gathering information. The images themselves already exist in the world. Reproducing them here is little different than making a photocopy. It is the ease of access that causes so many to be upset, not the subject matter itself.

There is plenty of information about Socialism on this website, as well as environmentalism. Both of these subjects, as presented, cause me disgust and violate my guiding principles of individual freedom and acheivement (a discussion for another time and location, thank you), however I have not called for their removal. The information is available so that those people who wish to view it can do so and evaluate it for themselves. If you do not wish to view it, look somewhere else.

In closing, I feel as though many Muslims are coming to this page in the way that anyone might be drawn to a house fire or the aftermath of a serious auto accident. They come for the spectacle and then, ashamed of themselves, denounce the site and those who have provided the images. To this I say simply, if your religious views do not allow something then do not do it, but allow others to act in the manner they so choose, so long as it does not directly prevent you from practicing your faith as you see fit; then do not directly prevent others from practicing their faith as they see fit.

As the saying goes, "Live and let live."

Elwood64151 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A very succinct way of putting the controversy. Thanks, Elwood! --Mhking (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mhking on this nonsense.Alex1996Ne (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion is bogus

NOT ALL MUSLIMS IN HISTORY HAVE BELIEVED THIS. (Look around, there are many articles that back this up). In fact, there are substantial minorities in Islamic history and today that have been ok with portrayals of Muhammed. Therefore, we are being intimidated by various radical groups, that may not even be a majority, into censoring our own encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censored, and we should not be intimidated by Islamists or anyone else that does not believe in free speech. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

please remove the pic 220.226.81.1 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You going to give rationale behind your request, or are you sticking with begging? --Mhking (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be so brusque, please. ITAQALLAH 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is getting very old, very quickly. I'll back off of the snarky remarks, but something more constructive needs to be said -- using this as a giant club to force Wikipedia to the will of the religious domatics is completely out of line and well over the top. --Mhking (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mhking on this nonsense.Alex1996Ne (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)