Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Muhammad image

Include image of Ahmad?

The picture of Faraz Ahmad was removed with a concern that it's "a bit like harassment". While I considered this problem carefully before including it, I disagree and think it is important to the article. The premise of the petition is based on a particular interpretation of Islam, which would in varying degrees prohibit images of humans or possibly animals. The extent to which people apply it differs, but it's one reason why so much Islamic art is abstract or geometric. The fact that Ahmad was willing to upload a picture of himself, and had it on his user page for a time, provides useful information by indicating that at least then, he didn't have a problem with images of people generally, it seems to be specific to Muhammad. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the word "harassment" was probably wrong; I was looking for something like the Norwegian term "å henge ut" (which directly translates as "to hang out", which obviously isn't right ). "Harassment" was the closest I could think of, but it sounds too harsh.

Secondly, as far as I have understood, the Islamic rules on disallowing images of Muhammad and other prophets is based on the fourth commandments, and so doesn't apply to non-sacred people. Having Faraz' image in the article reminds me of when criminals' pictures are shown in the newspaper – even if that's not the intention. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the broadest interpretation of that commandment it can be applied to almost any image that might become an idol, because that interferes with monotheistic worship. To borrow an expression from a friend of mine, it could be a Harley-Davidson, it doesn't have to be something other people would consider sacred. There definitely exists a strain of thought, whether in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, that would support taking a prohibition on images that far.

I understand that a comparison with criminals is problematic, and certainly don't mean to suggest that he is a criminal. Even in Wikipedia terms, his actions on the wiki strike me as relatively mild to try and justify the block that was placed. But it's not a mugshot, it's his own portrait, and similar portraits are commonly used by the media to identify individuals in a positive light as well. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But it's highly unusual for the Signpost to use editor's pictures. It feels like singling him out. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel it is appropriate, it is not some mug shot that the police took but one that he has taken and uploaded himself (thus obviously the picture must meet his approval to some degree in that he likes it). And secondly this illustrates this is not some far out extremist who wants all photos of people removed, just muhammad (a picture can too say a thousand words! And I'd rather not have the article be a thousand words longer... lol). Mathmo ^Talk 19:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that his picture shouldn't be in the article. While it may not qualify as harassment, it does come too close to paparazzi-ism (is that a word?) for comfort. There is a risk, no matter how unlikely, that this issue may have real world implications for him. Do we want that? Has Ahmad given permission to use his picture, btw? Requesting permission might not be necessary under GFDL, but it would be courteous and considerate. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture should remain. We should not have articles censored because of dubious religious beliefs. Mike0001 (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What does having "dubious religious beliefs" have to do with respecting Ahmad's real life privacy? Aecis^Brievenbus 12:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

His dubious religious beliefs have put him in the limelight and hence out of the scope of real life privacy. Mike0001 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Precedent

I think the article should have mentioned a some cases of professionally produced Western, Muhammad-specific content that has shown Muslims this courtesy. One that comes immediately to mind is the History Channel's Muhammad The Prophet. It's there at about the 2:00 mark:

"Out of respect for the beliefs and practices of Muslims, no image of the Prophet Muhammad, or his immediate family, will be shown in this biography."

And they go on to have dramatic re-creations of episodes, military battles, etc. I think that it would be fine for Wikipedia to have a separate online gallery of suppose images of this guy, but not necessarily mingled with the biography. The biography should use words to present fact.--71.141.233.67 (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not offensive

I am a Christian and I am not offended by pictures of God. This person is either taking it too far or has no idea of what religions find offensive. Pictures of Muhammad with a bomb, or any other stereotypical Muslim object, I can understand but this takes it too far! Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

While depictions of Jesus are encouraged in Christianity because Christians accept Jesus as god or demmigod or part of the Trinity or whatever, Muslims very consciously attempt to submit to the will of Allah, not to the perceived will of Mohammed. The "no images" tradition attempts to avoid what is perceived as a serious risk of developing a cult of personality around the historical person of Mohammad. For instance, if the authors of the books of the Torah were a single historical person, then the Jews could as easily have come up with a similar notion if they were worried that confusion might exist about the nature of the "word of God" as written or uttered by single human author. Again, the authors of the New Testament did not cause this kind of concern because the person of Jesus is, in the sense of charisma, very dominant so there is little worry that, say, Peter or the Gospels writers will be viewed as demigods. Of course, these images are not as overtly offensive as say, a depiction of Mary and Joseph using birth control or Piss Christ (or hundreds of other less overt possibilities involving the Trinity, immaculate conception or almost anything else to do with the Virgin Mary, transubstantiation, the Latin Mass, etc.), but it is a touchy matter for a substantial part of Islam because it touches on a fundamental aspect of their faith. It does not make perfect sense because the Hadith goes and then obsesses relentlessly about every time Mohammad wiped his nose, resulting in new doctrine, but it is how their doctrine developed and it is pretty-much set in stone now. I mean, go look for references to Aisha in Hadith to see what I mean. It does not make logical sense because it is a matter of faith. The question is: should we make a non-zero amount of effort to accommodate theirs concerns? Enough of the critics might be satisfied with merely a creative solution: maybe we could put the gallery of images in a Template:Navbox and set the initial state to "collapsed". That way, you would have to hit the "show" button to see the pix, but no data would be lost. I am sure that some such compromise that is neither censorship nor waggling it the face of the sensitive would defused the matter.--Factwhen (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)