undo. the page says"This page was created in response to certain topics being brought up again and again on Talk:Muhammad" |
The FAQ is (by definition) for consensus answers. It is ''not'' the place to ask questions, or to advance new arguments. Please take this to Talk:Muhammad/images. |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
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 [[sect]]s 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. |
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 [[sect]]s 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. |
||
===What about the restrictions on freedom of speech?=== |
|||
'''Presuming freedom of speech, shouldn't the [[Joel Feinberg]]'s "principle of offense" guide Wikipedia's choices?''' |
|||
# There are non-consenting readers who might involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images when visiting [[Muhammad]] article; people who visit pornography articles do expect to see such images but Muslims do not have such expectations by the virtue of visiting this article. Another point is that if someone wants to get some information about Muhammad and googles "Muhammad", this article is the first website that comes up. |
|||
# The informative value of the pictures would not be reduced if an opt-in display is shown. Censorship after all occurs when with reasonable amount of energy you can not get access to the information you are looking for. |
|||
# Typical Muslims form a significant group of those who are likely to visit Muhammad article at least once AND a good portion of them experience "shock, disgust, or revulsion". |
|||
# English language is the scientific language of time and because of that many from all around the world use this language to do research. So, the English encyclopedia particularly is not for people living in US or England |
|||
# The reactions show that the intensity of offense for the offended editors is high (e.g. count the number of reverts per day, or the number of editors blocked for removing the images from the article).'' |
|||
'''[[WP:LOP|Wikipedia policy]] states:'''<!-- No "However" here since this answer is a straight negation. Could re-write in a way that finds more common ground. --> |
|||
# There are no non-consenting readers. By coming to Wikipedia they consent to [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]]. |
|||
# Opt-ins are generally discouraged by [[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles]] as the community is afraid of the slippery slope: Opt-in for Serbian viewpoint on Kosovo, Opt-in for US success in Iraq, Opt-in for Geo-Centric Universe. |
|||
# "Casual" Muslims would be less likely than other Muslims to experience "shock, disgust, or revulsion" upon seeing Muhammad in the same way that "casual" Jews are less likely to follow prohibitions on eating bacon, shrimp, or cheeseburgers. Non-Muslims also visit this page looking for information on Muhammad. Since the goal of this site is to teach and inform, likely visitors are people with gaps in their knowledge. |
|||
# English is a global language, but English language publications need not be global, nor follow all laws in the globe. See [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]] and [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]. |
|||
# We mean no offense. While we are sorry they have taken offense, those who are offended should keep in mind that ''[[WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]'' and ''[[WP:NOT#CENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored]]''. |
|||
===Aren't the images false?=== |
===Aren't the images false?=== |
Revision as of 01:49, 29 February 2008
This is a list of Frequently Asked Questions relevant to Wikipedia's Muhammad article. This page was created in response to certain topics being brought up again and again on Talk:Muhammad, sapping many editors' time and energy by forcing them to respond repeatedly to the same issues. The FAQ addresses these common concerns, criticisms, and arguments, and answers various misconceptions behind them. The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:
- "Wikipedia is not censored" states that Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) guidelines for editing Islam-related articles to conform to a neutral encyclopedic style
There are frequent assertions that certain styles should be adopted that violate the rules and spirit of Wikipedia.
Why should the images of Muhammad not be removed?
The most important issues 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.
But doesn't this offend Muslims?
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.)
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.)
Preventing idolatry.
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.
Aren't the images false?
Yes, since they probably are inaccurate.
The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves.
However...
Similarly inaccurate images are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Jesus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images exist, it is a longstanding tradition on Wikipedia to use images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand might be inaccurate, as long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be better than using no image at all. It is important to understand that random recent depictions could 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 the history of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout Muslim history.
It is important to understand that these depictions do not mean to present the face of Muhammad; rather, they present the person in the way the artist was more comfortable with and hold no immediate religious value on their own. It is of particular interest that these means of portrayal generally convey one and only one 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 have any accuracy to them, 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 are entirely inaccurate (Jesus being, according to tradition, a Semite, whereas he is generally depicted with distinctively Byzantine or Caucasian features).
None of these pictures are meant to hold a prominent place in the article, as evident by their placement in the article, nor are they meant as an assault to Islam. It is also worth noting that several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (which resulted even in hostilities), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are (i.e. existing depictions of said people) – there is no unspoken insult intended.
How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?
If you are offended by 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.
Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw)?
It is recommended to remove all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precedes or follows 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.
Why does it look like the article on Muhammad is strongly biased towards western references?
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.
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 Islamic rules.
Why can't I edit this article?
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. Although sad, it's truly necessary, and may remain for a very long time.
In any case, the GNU Free Documentation 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.
Isn't censorship already employed to protect the masses?
Simply put, no.
Here are some examples provided on Wikipedia:
Content that can be considered blasphemous
Images that can be considered racist
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Antisemiticroths.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Golliwogg1.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazi_Anti-Semitic_Propaganda_by_David_Shankbone.jpg
Images that can be considered gruesome
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deadconfederate.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mass_Grave_Bergen_Belsen_May_1945.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Streptococcus_pneumoniae_meningitis%2C_gross_pathology_33_lores.jpg (autopsy of human brain)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coronary_artery_bypass_surgery_Image_657B-PH.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caesarian.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Modern_primitive.jpg (considered self-mutilation by some Muslims)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prisoners_whipped.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Guardia-battenti.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bound_foot.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CannibalHolocaustimpale.jpg
Images that can be considered pornographic
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Porn-site.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BannerCarrierLeft.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microkini-stick-on.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vulva_description.jpg (and its source image, too)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prince_Albert_Piercing.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Intimpiercing_Frau_aeussere.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fellatio_22.JPG
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amazon-variant-sex-position.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:%C3%89douard-Henri_Avril_%2818%29.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:%C3%89douard-Henri_Avril_%2813%29.jpg