Talk:Muhammad

A1: The most important issues raised seem to be (1) the historical accuracy with which the images depict Muhammad, and (2) the feelings the images invoke in those Muslims who believe images of their prophet are forbidden; the following paragraphs deal with these issues.

A2:

Yes, it might offend Muslims. Wikipedia recognizes that among many groups of Muslims, the depiction of Muhammad and other prophets is forbidden, and that some Muslims are offended when this prohibition is violated. (The prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities; for example, the Shi'a do not strictly prohibit these images. For a detailed discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad, Aniconism in Islam and Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad.)

However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where most of Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.) Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that is equally offensive to other religionists, 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.

The traditional reason given for the Islamic prohibitions on images of prophets is to prevent the images from becoming objects of worship as a form of idolatry, where the image becomes more important than the subject it represents. However, Wikipedia uses the images of Muhammad as examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context. Therefore, there might be less concern that the presence of the images on the articles will result in the practice of idolatry among Muslims.

A3: It is not claimed that they are accurate 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, Jesus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. photographs) exist, it is a longstanding tradition 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, as 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.

It is important to understand that these depictions do not mean to factually represent the face of Muhammad; 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.

As an analogy, Jesus has been presented in a multitude of ways, most of which reflect a certain artistic or popular style, such as in a style germane to Byzantine, Coptic or Renaissance art.

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.

A4:

If you do not wish to view the images (and you have an account), you can change your personal settings so that you don't have to see them, without affecting other users. This is done by modifying your CSS (Cascading Style Sheet) page, which is individual to each user.

To do this:

• Sign in or create an account
• Click on this link to modify your monobook.css page
  • If no page is there already, just go ahead and create a page

• Add the following line to your css page:

body.page-Muhammad img {display: none;}

This will permanently hide the images on the article for you as long as you are logged in.

A5:

It is recommended to remove all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precede or follow Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the Islamic prophet Muhammad is the recommended form.

A6:

Accusations of bias towards Western references are often made when an objection is raised against the display of pictures of Muhammad or lack of honorifics when mentioning Muhammad. All articles on Wikipedia are required to present a neutral point of view. This neutrality is sometimes mistaken for hostility. Note that exactly the same guidelines apply to articles about Christianity or any other religion.

In addition, this article is hosted on the English-language Wikipedia. While references in languages other than English are not automatically inappropriate, English-language references are clearly preferred, because they are of the most use to the typical reader. This therefore predisposes the material used in this article to some degree (see WP:NONENG).

Users wishing to participate in an online encyclopedia with a Muslim point of view might want to take a look at other projects such as MuslimWiki, whose article on Muhammad is written according to certain Islamic rules.

A7: Persistent vandalism of the page has forced us to disable editing by anonymous editors and new accounts. Accounts older than four days can still edit normally, unless the article is protected more heavily, see below. This is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future.

In any case, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License grants everybody the right to republish this article elsewhere, and even to modify it themselves, as long as the original authors are also credited.

A8:

No. Wikipedia is not censored.

Here are some examples provided on Wikipedia:

Click on show to view the contents of this section

Content that can be considered blasphemous Further information: Freedom of speech versus blasphemy Piss Christ Jesus Dress Up Jesus with erection Images that can be considered racist Image:Antisemiticroths.jpg Image:Golliwogg1.jpg Image:Nazi_Anti-Semitic_Propaganda_by_David_Shankbone.jpg Images that can be considered gruesome Image:Deadconfederate.jpg Image:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg Image:Mass_Grave_Bergen_Belsen_May_1945.jpg Image:Streptococcus_pneumoniae_meningitis,_gross_pathology_33_lores.jpg (autopsy of human brain) Image:Coronary_artery_bypass_surgery_Image_657B-PH.jpg Image:Caesarian.jpg Image:Modern_primitive.jpg Image:Prisoners_whipped.jpg Image:Guardia-battenti.jpg Image:Bound_foot.jpg Image:CannibalHolocaustimpale.jpg Images that can be considered pornographic Image:BannerCarrierLeft.jpg Image:Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png Image:Vulva_description.jpg Image:Prince_Albert_Piercing.jpg Image:Intimpiercing_Frau_aeussere.jpg Image:Fellatio_22.JPG Image:Amazon-variant-sex-position.jpg Image:Édouard-Henri_Avril_(18).jpg Image:Édouard-Henri_Avril_(13).jpg

A9:

This question has been actively discussed in Talk:Muhammad, and those discussions are archived. According to most traditional sources, Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period, therefore there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia. Even today, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is nine years old. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is not best dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha for further information.