Talk:Muhammad/archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'd like to call a Vote on a picture of Mohammed

Yes to Picture: There are many pictures, both contemporary and historical, of Mohammed out there, I do not see why, as Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia that is supposed to be secular and impartial, why we should bow to the wishes of Muslims simply because it is 'offensive' to them. No one can be as offensive to Muslims as the Quran is to non-muslims, ergo, asking not to have a picture of Mohammed (offensive, hatefilled language) is tantamount to me saying that they should remove verses from their Quran that offend me.

Vote for a picture of Mohammed, we have one of Jesus, lets be impartial and continue to be secular - GreekWarrior

No to Picture: No. I don't want information censored, but any picture of Muhammad is pure fantasy. If we had a photo (as we do of Baha'ullah) of course it should be shown. We don't. Why be needlessly offensive? Zora 20:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No to Picture: We have a rendition of him on Muhammad where it belongs in terms of Muslim veneration. It is not a common thing and pictures are not informative. When there is not a good source of what he looked like we don't just use any source. gren グレン 20:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither do we have any real understanding of how Jesus looked, but we have what many would consider to be educated guesses based on sciptural descriptions, other descriptions, the general style of fashion and look at that time in Palestine and so on, finding a picture that best fits these criteria is another matter. We could do the same on Mohammed and then find a picture which best fills the criteria. And Gren, I am well aware of the almost deific status in which you hold Shamil Basayev, and the fact you are known Beslan Massacre apologist.

It's not a point about historical, authentic, ethical, encyclopaedic, racist, oxfamic, wikipaedic, islamic... It's simply a point about who did it! Nobody agrees that it was him, not only more than 5 persons! So, briefly speaking, 5 can not tell the world they are right! Cheers -- Szvest 22:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Szvest 22:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

No to Picture: First off, make sure to post with four tildes (~~~~). Second, you're comparison to Jesus is irrelevant because I know for a fact Christians do not take offense at having pictures of Jesus. That's why his likeness on a cross in nearly every single church in the world. Third, the tenor of your post proves what User:Anonymous editor said in his 16-Nov-2005 post, that the only reason the Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) picture would be included in this article is to insult Muslims. Your disparaging parody of "peace be upon him" and your belief that "no one can be as offensive to Muslims as the Quran is to non-muslims" implies you have a bias against Muslims that surpasses that of the average person.

You are more than entitled to be offended by the Qur'an, but I just want to point out that the current version of the Bible isn't exactly a fairy-tale story either. Maybe a homosexual would be offended by Leviticus 20:13[1] which basically states that homosexuals should be put to death. Maybe Jews are offended by Matthew 8:12[2] which says that "children of the kingdom" [Jews] should be cast out into outer darkness. So before you state that the holiest book in Islam is offensive, why don't you take a look at the holiest book in Christianity? To omit verses from the Qur'an that offend you, GreekWarrior, would be appropriate for Christianity-themed articles. But, to do that in an article about the Qur'an or about Islam would be nothing short of silly.

I also remain skeptical that an accurate drawing of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) due to the fact that he lived fourteen centuries ago, and as I said before, he lived the majority of his life in the company of pious Muslims. If one did exist, however, we could comprimise by having a link to his picture (and not actually having his picture in this article). But I will reiterate that there is really no advantage to having one except that it appeases people like you who have had a history of making edits biased against Islam.

To conclude, at some other point in time, I may agree that a picture of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would add something to the article (although I would never look at it). But based on the tenor of this post, GreekWarrior, I see no purpose that his picture should be added to this article other than to pester pious Muslims. May Allah forgive you for your blasphemous beliefs. joturner 22:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• we have a picture of Muhammad riding some sort of funny centaur, already. If we had Muhammad's mugshot, of course it would be relevant and I would support adding it. We don't. All we do have are artists' impressions. If we are to add those, they have to be notable, wrt Muhammad. The Persian Miraj image is relevant. If you like we can add other images from the Siyer-i Nebi. If you have other notable Muslim artwork, suggest it. No, we will not add random cartoon or Chick publication images of Muhammad. dab (ᛏ) 23:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes to a picture. There are no contemporary pictures of Jesus; the oldest picture in the article on Jesus was made a thousand years after Jesus' time.

Joturner's ad hominum rant against the admittedly irritating GreekWarrior aside, I'm sure that a depiction of Muhammed could be found that was made within a thousand years of his life.

If we are going to start scrubbing articles on religions to make sure that nothing in the offends adherents of that religion, we are going to end up with some pretty short articles.--Anonymous User

um, as I just said, we already have a picture. The images on Jesus are pious Christian representations, and just so, we'll have pious Muslim representations here (yes they exist, Ottoman and Persian ones). dab (ᛏ) 23:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No . Well if there was an actual picture , then it would heve been a totally different thing . But adding fictious paintings.....I dont see any reason . Provided with the fact that muslims get offended by these kinds of depictions , and christians dont , there isnt any comparasion . Thirdly , it doesnt improve the informative quality of article .

A friendly suggestion , read from orignal sources , from people who say we do it , rather than people who say they do it. Because every thing bad is always done by them . Still if it seems difficult to understand , try reading/observing other things of same kind , it helps a lot . And dont skip the context .

Atleast this one looks better than that funny one with a cantaur . And it doesnt show his face either . I vote this one in place for that funny one on article . Although having no picture at all was a better option IMO . Farhansher 23:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, alright; call it ad hominum. But you have to admit that GreekWarrior's post was an ad hominum attack itself. This topic had already been brought up before with no concrete decision. Although his disparaging post is now sparking a reasonable discussion about the inclusion of a photo, you'd have to admit that his original post was more of an attack on Muslims (as you can see from his history) rather than a restrained, decent arguement. In my post I was simply agreeing with the comment with User:Anonymous editor in a more assertive way. The picture proposed by Dbachmann probably won't offend anyone, but is anything gained from that photo? The only advantage I can think of is that it would be helpful in explaining that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is rarely depicted? joturner 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I would expect to see some depiction of any major historical figure in any article on them. Dbachmann's picture might work, though I'd prefer to see a more naturalistic depiction.-Anonymous user

No to Picture As far as I know, there are no factual portraits of Muhammad accepted by Muslims. However, if by picture you mean something similar to the one above, then that really adds absolutely nothing to the article, IMHO. Pictures of him by various artists belong under the article for the artist as they are imaginative renditions accepted by the respective artists. If there were any factual renditions accepted by a significant portion of Muslims, then I would probably be inclined to change my vote. Pepsidrinka 01:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (Previously left unsigned.)

If by "factual rendition" you mean a realistic portrait painted from life, there is, of course not one of Muhammed. But no portraits from life exist of Moses, Jesus, Buddha, or Confucius, yet all are depicted in their articles. And "acceptance by "a significant portion of Muslims" is a red herring. Shall all articles on religious figures be censored by the faithful?-Anonymous User

Point taken regarding my previous comment ("accepted by a significant portion of Muslims"). On a secular project as this one is, religion should not be above the fray in major decision makings. Nonetheless, I still feel that this proposal will not add any value to the article as others have mentioned. The picture of Moses would, in my opinion, be better off on the Michaelangelo article rather than the Moses one. It doesn't add anything to what Moses looked like, but rather it gives insight into the works of Michaelangelo. The pictures on Jesus and Confucius also do not adding anything of worth to those respected articles. Pepsidrinka 01:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring all of the nattering above about pov this, and not so subtle digs that, I present some rough math: +small amount of usefulness -High probability of offending=-good idea--Tznkai 01:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No to Picture —although I'd love to see an article discussing the Moslem objection to the depiction of natural objects, which could reasonably include artistic impressions of Muhammad, and to which this article could be linked. — JEREMY 08:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

NO TO PICTURE For all the reasons stated. Furthermore "GreekWarrior" uses secularism as cover for his hatred toward muslims, his final sentence clearly shows his hatred towards The Prophet, peace and prayer be upon him.

No to Picture offensive, etc. Everything about it has been mentioned above. No to picture. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason that this should continue, and leaving it up seems to be doing nothing to attract sniping. There is a clear consensus that the picture is undesired and people's blood is getting hot. Barring objection, I will archive this section in 24 hours.--Tznkai 15:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

fine, but many articles have an image next to their lead. what about Image:Muhammad callig.gif then? I see no reason to stash that away at the bottom of the article. dab (ᛏ) 15:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Also, completly diffrent tone from the "vote" above. Coincidence? I think not.--Tznkai 15:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes the callig pic will be better.

User: Chaosfeary

Hello:

How are you planning on verifying this claim:

After her death he married Aisha, who was nine years old when he engaged in sexual intercourse with her to consummate the marriage. Later, he married Hafsa.

—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why this material should not be added:

• It is pov: this statement is highly disputed in academic and historian circles. To say it the way it is written by chaosfeary is pov.
• It is already mentioned in the Aisha article. The Muhammad article only provides an overview of his marriage and relations. The rest of the material is in the article of the main person that is being regarded.

Also Chaosfeary, you have violated the 3rr, which means that you can be blocked from editing, so please do not do this and instead use the talk page first. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

He has been blocked for 24 hours.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 02:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice abuse of admin.

13.01 Made a change, Anonymous Whiner reverts.

1. 14.53 Reverted once

2. 17.58 Reverted twice

3. 20.51 Blanked the page accidentally, meaning to revert (I think this was some problem to do with Firefox actually, I had several tabs open. Definitely didn't manually delete the text..)

4. 21.01 Reverted a THIRD time

That's THREE reverts, not four. Can't you count?

3RR was NOT broken, you are abusing your admin for your own purposes.

It's called the 3 REVERT rule, not the "3 edit rule".

--Chaosfeary 12:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Blanked the page accidentally, meaning to revert". You said it yourself. Hmmm...maybe you want me to count that blanking edit as vandalism/trolling instead of a revert? Either way you would have gotten blocked. And the above comment is an insulting double-post, on the wrong talk page, with inflammatory bold text, which is borderline trolling itself.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No need to make personal attacks, Chaosfeary, especially since you clearly violated 3rr and didn't even participate in discussion on this page. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t

This is on its way to archives because of its spectacular uselessness. Objections? (Same 24 hour time span I always give)--Tznkai 21:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit war about atheist website

Regarding the ongoing edit war regarding the site that User:Mistress Selina Kyle wants to include and I don't, let it be said that if you really want that description from the Sprenger book, then quote the book, not the atheist website, which is irrelevant. The reason I said it's not critical is because it doesn't even deserve to be called critical; it looks like an incompetent piece of writing - ' he gave Abraham the black stone, which is the Holy Kaaba,... '. Could be that the word 'in' is missing from the sentence; but maybe not. The article says a lot of factually correct things, but is clearly propaganda for the website. This is also reflected in the fact that you called me a "Muhammadist". Please refrain from personal insinuations. Thanks. Also, I just read your last comment; be patient - it takes time to write. MP (talk)

If you say "see talk", it's implied that when you are saying it there's actually something to see. not, "come back in a few minutes" (/"tomorrow").

It's just as valid criticism as anything else: The sites on Islamic websites are just as much propaganda.

Also:

Mpatel: rv redundant biography link (it's not even critical); also, possibly an insidious attempt to promote an atheist site - not appropriate here)

Me: If you read it, it is. I suspect you have read it but deem the content worthy of being removed. No doubt as part of the ongoing censorship - I note that you're a "Muhammedist" yourself.

That's not a personal insinuation: I saw on your talk page it says that you're a Muslim, so obviously you resent that that article calls Muslims Mohammedists. You want it censored, obviously. It's understandable when looking from a blinkered religious view, but just because it's an atheist site doesn't mean it's "not appropriate here". --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 10:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere on my talk page does it say that I'm a muslim. So in that sense, it is an insinuation. On my talk page, someone invited me to join the The Muslim Guild, which, by the way is for Muslims and Non-muslims, so I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that I'm a muslim from that. The website will be removed. MP (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh puhhhleease. I notice you didn't actually deny it, just tried to say "my talk page doesn't say I'm a muslim though!" Heh, sorry but I notice sneakiness like that. :p

Your contributions makes it clear, as well as the now-deleted comments on "Why do Christians think hijab is so bad when liekomgMARY WEARS ONE IN SUM PICTURES DRAWN BY MUSLIMS!!!" -_-

I just looked at the site. It's not a very good critical site. The Ibn Warraq, to which we DO link, is both more directly critical and more informative. Zora 11:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... there is no reason that site should be linked... it really offers nothing to this discussion. Also... please stop this silliness of calling people Muslim or non-Muslim or whatever... If Mpatel doesn't want the link because he's Muslim or because he's as pretty as a peacock it doesn't matter. His reasons are his own. They have no bearing on whether the link stays or goes. So cut it out. gren グレン 11:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It has a lot of bearing. The fact is that from what I've seen quite a few of Muslim editors seem to dedicate their time to going around Wikipedia censoring any criticism of Islam they can and POV-warrioring. It's quite apalling.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, if Muslim editors started linking to Science proved Islam's truth you'd find me to be an editor dedicated to going around Wikipedia removing something so stupid, biased, unscientific, etc. That's not any crticism. If they start removing valid and relevant comments from Bernard Lewis then we have a problem. gren グレン 23:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone can give me an adequate reason for discussing the religious persuasion of editors who are not you, someone will also have explained their way out of breaches of WP:Civility and WP:NOT. Otherwise drop it!--Tznkai 00:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No one has given me reason, so I'll request a sufficient reason this shouldn't be considered a breach of WP:NOT, WP:Civility, and of so little use that it deserves to be shuffled off into archives. I'll give it 24 hours.--Tznkai 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Before possibly shuffling this into an archive, let it be stated for the record (for those who haven't figured it out yet) that I am a Muslim (I wasn't trying to deny that Selina, just that your argument was pathetic). My point to Selina is that I agree with gren that this does not have any bearing on my neutrality when contributing to articles (unlike Selina, who appears to be out to discredit Islam). Some non-muslim editors 'guard' the Islam pages more than I do. Regarding that issue about the Hijab on my user page - which, by the way you misquoted, and should read, "Why do some Christians think derisively of the hijab, when many images of Mary show her wearing one ?" - there was a good reason why I deleted it (no-one asked me to delete it, I realised it was inappropriate). Based on the above, if you can't figure why I thought it was inappropriate, Selina, then I suggest you educate yourself some more before hurling yourself into disputes. Thanks. MP (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)