Talk:Depictions of Muhammad

Links to pertinent articles

• Christiane Gruber (9 January 2015) "The Koran Does Not Forbid Images of the Prophet" on Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298

• Vanessa Van Renterghem (29 October 2012) "La représentation figurée du prophète Muhammad" on the Les carnets de l'Ifpo http://ifpo.hypotheses.org/4445

The articles contain PD images. Aa77zz (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Both very useful. I've added Gruber as an EL, and the images should be taken for Commons. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

New article: Artworks of Muhammad

I'm almost positive the newly created Artworks of Muhammad can be merged to Depictions of Muhammad, and can either remain a redirect or speedily-deleted as a duplicate per WP:A10. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added the merge tags to both articles. Ordinarily I would have just done the merge, but I suspect anything associated with Muhammad is likely to be controversial. Pathore (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Merge. I agree that it should be merged. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge Certainly. In fact I think all the text is already covered here, so just redirect is needed. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I've boldly redirected it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Speedied per G5. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Bias against non-salafis

This article implies that depictions of Muhammad are banned altogether based on the ahadith. Shia Muslims don't have such ahadith at all, historically many Sunnis also accepted visualization of Muhammad until Saudi sponsored wahhabism started being spread. This article is bias and has to be rewritten, it alludes to the reader that depictions are forbidden but Shias and Iran allow them, which alludes that the latter are not "true" Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.201.226 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have sources for your claims? If so, please post them here. Please note that theological arguments are not accepted on their own, although sources stating that arguments contrary to that presented as typical in this article are widespread are accepted.

I see no need for a re-write of an otherwise mostly unbiased article.

However, I suggest changing the wording in order to indicate that this is a matter of theological dispute. "The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures.[3] It is agreed on all sides that there is no authentic visual tradition as to the appearance of Muhammad, although there are early legends of portraits of him, and written physical descriptions whose authenticity is often accepted." should be changed to "The Quran does not appear to explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith which, according to common theological interpretations, have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures.[3] It is agreed on most sides that there is no authentic visual tradition as to the appearance of Muhammad, although there are early legends of portraits of him, and written physical descriptions whose authenticity is often accepted.". I would also suggest that you make an account. Although IP edits are allowed, it is better to sign your edits with a username. --Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources required are already in the article. The IP objects to presenting information in a way that might unintentionally demean smaller branches of Islam while favoring the majority Sunni view. Your suggested change of wording is OK except for the weasel words "appear to", which can be removed, and "It is agreed on most sides..." could be active voice "Most sides agree..." The paragraph is still missing an explanation that not all hadith are accepted by all flavors of Islam. The Sunnis and Shia follow hadith that have a large intersection, but don't match in some areas such as depictions of Muhammad. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. What does "does not appear to explicitly forbid images of Muhammad" mean? Either it explicitly forbids it or it doesn't. If there is any ambiguity then the word "explicitly" (which literally means "leaving no room for confusion or doubt") can't be used anymore. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Much too weaselly. What are the Muslim "sides" that think there is any "authentic visual tradition as to the appearance of Muhammad"? None! The Sunni/Shia distinction mainly applies to the modern day; the Persian tradition was well established before the royal courts turned Shia, and the Sunni Ottomans also produced some images. It is the Arabic-speaking areas that very rarely did so. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Dante and Virgil Meet Muhammad and His Son-in-law, Ali in Hell.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Bad-faith nominations like that won't last long. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lifeofmahomet.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Another bad-faith nomination that won't go anywhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 760 - Jeune arabe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Banu Qurayza.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Which images are necessary/ Undue weight to figurative depictions

Hi just wondering why images such as Muhammad and his followers massacring the Banū Qurayẓa or the beheading of Nadr ibn al-Harith are necessary, seems to be unnecessarily painting a bit of a bad light on a venerated guy? Especially since the massacre image is taken from the cover of an anti- Islam book. Also is it necessary to include so many from the Siyer-i Nebi and the Jami Al-Tawarikh. Just a couple of images showing different styles of figural depictions would suffice. Consider that in this article there are 37 figural depictions of Muhammad but only twenty- three non- figurative depictions and representations of him, which the articles states make up the majority of depictions of him. Seems to be giving undue weight to figurative depictions of Muhammad. Cheers Paul the Carrot (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul the Carrot (talk • contribs) 06:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

"figures"

This word in the opening paragraph is unclear to me. 216.8.188.31 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Not sure what is "correct" here. Sentient beings? Human figures? Got those from Aniconism in Islam. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps human figures, at least for now? 216.8.188.31 (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going with it. We'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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 cartoons 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 (S) 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) 16:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear if you are suggesting a change to the article, but see Help:Options to hide an image, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and WP:NOTFORUM. And you are of course welcome to Boycot WP as much as you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Statues of Muhammad

There doesn't appear to be any mention of statues. "For the first half of the 20th century, an eight-foot-tall marble statue of the Prophet Muhammad overlooked Madison Square Park from the rooftop of the Appellate Division Courthouse at Madison Avenue and 25th Street." Source NY Times: A Statue of Muhammad on a New York Courthouse More recently an artist in Australia with support from the Secular Party of Australia is building a statue mocking the prophet as an exercise in freedom of speech. Source: Wayne Smith building Muhammad Statue mocking the prophet. Strange that no mention of this far more grandiose imagery appears in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.219.227 (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It deserves a mention, although Facebook cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Paty's beheading

I'd like to add a short comment in the _Charlie Hebdo_ section :

On January 7, 2015, the office was attacked again with 12 shot dead, including Stéphane Charbonnier, and 11 injured. Following this, on 16 October of 2020, middle-school teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded because he had shown cartoons portraying Mohammed Murder_of_Samuel_Paty.

--FrancescoSagredo (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Since you are unable to edit the article since it is semi-protected, I added it for you. Some1 (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022

Use Template:Hidden image for the images which seems to be unwanted to watch by some readers. 103.230.107.2 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not censored. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Medieval Persian manuscript Muhammad leads Abraham Moses Jesus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo image

FYI in case anyone is interested: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_April_12#File:Charlie_Hebdo_Tout_est_pardonné.jpg Some1 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

It is offensive to Muslims when creating a picture of any prophet, and we do not appreciate how you displayed those images here, please remove them. Hassamohammed (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. It is against our policy to censor things because some may find them offensive. At the FAQ you can find instructions on how to hide those images on your account Cannolis (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"It is offensive to Muslims" We don't care. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you don't care. That is not why we have the policy. WP:Wikipedia is not censored applies to all religions and none, to all interest groups and individuals. That is the policy because it is the only way we can be neutral, despite knowing that some readers will be offended. We regret that offence but will not concede on our fundamental principles. (Oh, and by the way, the depiction of Muhammed in the article was made by a muslim artist: the hadith against depiction is a modern and disputed one, as the opening paragraphs of the article explains.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"the hadith against depiction is a modern and disputed one" It is basically presentism at work, and represents only a minority of Muslims. Dimadick (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, no, we don't care. People have a choice over what they get offended about. We cannot cater to everyone's preference. We don't remove content because it offends someone. The fact that we don't care also means that we don't deliberately try to provoke offense either by including gratuitous images, because we don't care either way. By design, we are neutral, and therefore we are deaf to the offenses perceived by others. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia article" paragraph

This paragraph seems outdated. The current English wikipedia article about Muhammad no longer displays that picture (unlike in other languages), so it appears that wikipedia did indeed give in to censorship eventually. Thus the part of this paragraph claiming it didn't ought to be changed. 90.119.26.215 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It is still in the article, see the "Farewell pilgrimage" section. Hut 8.5 17:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Should this article be split?

It seems to me that the history of artistic depictions of Muhammad over the centuries in Islam is a quite different topic to the matter of 21st-century protests against depictions of him. Would it be worth splitting off the latter into a separate article titled something like Muhammad cartoon controversies? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Some of those instances have their own articles already. This being a sort of overview article, I think the content largely fits. WP:TOOBIG is not currently a problem here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking under WP:TOOBIG grounds- moreso that there isn't currently any article focused on the matter of contemporary depiction of Muhammad in cartoons. For comparison, Depiction of Jesus is an article focused on the religious/artistic perspective and doesn't include mention of things like this Onion article. It would be possible to greatly expand the Depictions of Muhammad#Controversies in the 20th and 21st centuries section of this article, as much of the content of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Background, opinions and issues is really about modern cartoon depiction of Muhammad in general and not specifically about the Jyllands-Posten cartoons so should be located in a more general article- but in the event of moving that content into here, this article would quickly become a WP:COAT article. For that reason, I feel like a separate article for the overview of Muhammad cartoons in the 21st century aside from any specific incident would be useful. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

Could you remove depictions of Prophet in the article. There are billions of Muslims in the World. Do you think these are acceptable to Muslims? SaloxiddinTursunaliyev (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not bound by the tenets of any faith, including Islam. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:CODI. Melmann 16:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Because many those images were created by Muslims, I'd say yes, those are acceptable, including the ones in the Muhammad article. This is an article about depictions so it should hardly be surprising that it would include depictions from a variety of sources. If they aren't acceptable to you personally, then see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Q3 for instructions on how to configure your account to avoid seeing them. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)