File talk:Maome.jpg

 

 

 

Please read en:Talk:Muhammad/FAQ first.

Online petitions

Numerous OTRS tickets have been received regarding this picture, mostly in relation to an online petition site.

OTRS agents are advised to discuss on the otrs-wiki before acting on the ticket. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You all have no respect

THIS IS JIMBO WALES! (you know what I mean!?)

You Eropeans/Americans have no respect to another beliefs. This picture has no information at all. It's not Prophet Mohamed, it's only imagination of its painter.

Please, respect others, respect difference. Delete this image.

I'm sorry if my english is not good. --ANOVA 11:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a muslim but see no reason wikimedia should sensor itself from an art depiction.192.86.100.200 19:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This has got to the stage where the image will not be deleted or altered as you request without instruction from the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Please do not keep asking for deletion. — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so it's not Mohamed? Cool, then why the heck you are trying to remove this image, if this is not him? --66.108.10.220 22:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the title (and the description) of this picture said that he is mohammad, it's a slander and can be considered as an insult to muslims. --ANOVA 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And your demands for censorship are a insult to the rest us. Stop trying to impose your views on others. We're not forcing you look at it. Talk about respect. - Rocket000 04:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I love your Jimbo Wales. XD And it's not pointy at all. ;) - Rocket000 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actualy, it is not a joke. My english is not good, so I try to find another way to explain why img:Maome should be deleted. Can you get the message (of the picture), Rocket000? --ANOVA 06:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea, why dont you write: "a man who talk to the crowd. The man with black beard was claimed to be Mohammed by Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī's." (please correct the grammar) --ANOVA 06:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• We should arrest him then for theft, since he's got the holy black stone too. -Nard 10:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a surprisingly nice and constructive suggestion, considering the tenor this debate usually has (ANOVA's comment, not Nard's, whatever that was). -Qwerty0 (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Author change

en:Muhammad just had al-Bīrūnī listed as the author of this image--likely from a misreading of the current author section. I would appreciate if an admin could keep only "Unknown" in the author section and move "From a copy of Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī's (973–1048) manuscript al-Âthâr al-bâqiya" into the description to avoid this in the future. gren 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A statement which represents the truth

Could a statements similar to "This is an imaginary illustration" be added to the description, what actually it is.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Smfaisalabbas (talk • contribs)

• Just like all the pictures of Moses, God, Abraham, and the like. It's kind of self-evident that it's just an artist's conception. -Nard 01:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• And aren't all illustrations "imaginary"? That's why not photographs? - Rocket000 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No... portraiture is quite different from this. But, to answer Smfaisalabbas' point. It does say it was drawn in the 1400s of a figure from the 600s, so I think it's safe to say that it is imaginary. gren 06:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This image must be removed as it is not allowed to depict the face of prophet Muhammad in islamic tradition. Only those pictures are allowed that extremly blur the face of prophet Muhammad (PBUH). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelahi (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I deleted the vandalised version per request. I'm not sure why that was necessary, but it's done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete this image

I call on editors to delete this image.Bu resmi silin.supprimer cette image.eliminar esta imagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.8.249 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Claim of historical misattribution of this picture to the prophet

This discussion (mostly) between two IP users (one of them me) originally started a few days ago on the Wikipedia Reference desk. Since it is about this picture, I am copying the text from there and hope that all parties involved will continue the discussion here. 2.247.241.111 03:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

---

---

= September 24 =

==Request for 17th century painting==

[...unrelated discussion...]

Another misattribution by museum people - this miniature c:File:Maome.jpg was uploaded under edit summary http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/images/3/0_01.jpg. It is in the catalogue as Le prophète Muhammad interdit l'intercalation d'une mois supplémentaire dans l'année lunaire (The prophet Muhammad forbids the intercalation of a supplementary month in the lunar year), [1] (page 37). That was done in the open (the picture is of a man preaching in a mosque to a congregation of six) and the Prophet was addressing thousands of pilgrims while seated on his camel. The misattribution has found its way into a number of Wikipedia articles and from there into the wider world, to the great distress of billions of Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.29.160 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

78.145.29.160, I truly have no idea who you are and why you have posted this here, but if you are so greatly distressed why don't you go and are bold about this, instead of preaching here? What do you hope to achieve, besides making a mockery of my attempt to demonstrate that IP users can behave responsibly and be an asset to WP? ;) 2.247.240.90 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If you know a way of removing this w:Islamic calendar#Prohibiting Nasī’ please let me in on the secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.29.160 (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure: per w:BRD you would erase what you deem wrong and ideally state your reasons on the article's talk page. Then I would probably revert it und quote the Holy Qur'an, sura w:At-Tawba as a source. And jokingly ask you if you would doubt that source (and thus commit shirk). (No offense to your religious feelings intended.) Then you could reply and we would discuss the matter until there is w:consensus for your point of view or your change gets discarded. Good luck :) 2.247.240.90 (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really knowledgeable in Islamic doctrine. Is this perchance a matter of w:Shia vs w:Sunni viewpoints of legendary events in early Islamic history? If your viewpoint is shared by many and people (preferably scholars) have written books about it, then you have a good chance of getting your view represented in the article. You just need to argue in that direction ("Millions believe this in Iran...") and quote a reliable source or two to verify your point. Then the changed article could have a paragraph about the Sunni view and one about the Shia view. Just don't insist that only you are right. That wouldn't be very productive. 2.247.240.90 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no controversy about what happened during the Farewell Sermon. The article you link to says "This prohibition was repeated by Muhammad during the w:Farewell Sermon on Mount Arafat, which was delivered during the Farewell Pilgrimage to Mecca on 9 w:Dhu al-Hijjah AH 10 (my emphasis). I would change "Muhammad prohibiting Nasī’" to "An Imam preaching in a mosque." All I need now is for you to explain to me how to do it. 78.145.29.160 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Except that this image comes from a 700-year old treatise and occurs on the very page talking about Muhammad prohibiting intercalation. We have also a copy of the full page with text: File:Mohamed Ramaḍān ibn Muḥammad al-Zǎʾiraǧī.jpg. Rmhermen (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that we are having this exchange here alone shows that there seems to be controversy. The file history mentions that there were moves to delete it on the grounds that any depiction of the prophet is felt to be offensive by some. I don't want to delve into the sources too deeply, but your angle of "This doesn't show Mohammed at all" seems to contradict the classical interpretation of w:al-Biruni's w:The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (Edinburgh codex) by western scholars who have published about the codex.

Have a look, for example, at this mini-article on the picture from the Bibliotheque Francaise. They call it "The Prophet Mohammed", ascibe it to al-Biruni's chapter on interlocation and don't mention any conflict in attributing the picture. My guess is that you'll have a hard time proving your point against what seems to be consensus by the (small) community of historians knowledgeable in the area.

A sensible start for you would be to start a discussion here on the File's talk page. Try to prove your view (using reliable sources) and achieve consensus. When everybody agrees there should be no problem in renaming the file. Again, good luck. 2.247.243.158 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Another thought that might get you on a new track: w:Al-Tawba is said to have been revealed in AH 8, while the w:Farewell Sermon was delivered in AH 10. Who says that al-Biruni's picture doesn't depict the fist revelation in AH 8, or (less probable) a teaching session in the two years in between? You seem fixed in your approach that the pic is meant to show the Farewell Sermon, and errs in doing so. I see no reason for this. 2.247.243.158 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You have this the wrong way round. I said the picture couldn't be the Farewell Sermon because Muhammad was sitting on his camel when he delivered it. Prohibiting intercalation is not something you would do in a discussion in a mosque. That would be the equivalent of the Queen delivering the Queen's Speech opening the new session of parliament from a bus shelter outside the Palace of Westminster. Think about it - Islam was widespread and communications were poor. If you prohibited intercalation during a sermon attended by six people there would be chaos. It had to be done during the pilgrimage when everyone was gathered together and the news could be transmitted back. Anyway, there was an intercalation in the spring of AD 631 so Muhammad didn't ban the practice immediately. The picture may be 700 years old but the book is 1,000 years old - the illustrations are nothing to do with the text. A shi'ite ruler wanted some pretty pictures illustrating different aspects of shi'ism in his copy of the book and he commissioned an artist to paint them. Your link is to the Bibliothèque nationale de France - the same people who synthesised the link to the prohibition of intercalation. As there's no record of this being done other than at the Farewell Pilgrimage your suggestion that it was done in a mosque is not so much original research as unsourced speculation and not something we can use in Wikipedia. You cite w:The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. That doesn't suggest that anybody other than the Bibliothèque nationale de France made the connection. Do we now have consensus that the caption is wrong? If so we can move on to discussing what to replace it with. 78.145.21.69 (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

dictionary.com has "consensus" as "1. majority of opinion" and "2. general agreement or concord; harmony." I don't see that here. This whole discussion should be moved to File_talk:Maome.jpg, by the way.

Your arguing chain is based on "It had to be done during the pilgrimage..." and the logic you base that on, which sounds to me like your own personal reasoning. Until you present reliable sources backing this up, I'd call w:or. 2.247.241.111 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

---

---

After pasting all this, I'd like to conclude with my current opinion regarding the question of misattribution. 78.145.21.69 said it himself: The book is 1000 years old and this picture is 700 years old. When asking ourselves what it shows, I find it sensible to first look at its context.

It is used to illustrate an ornate version of an old text. It is placed next to al-Biruni's chapter on interlocation. The picture shows a teaching or revelation-like situation. It seems logical to assume that the matter that is elaborated on by the speaking person in the picture has to do with the text it has been placed next to. Would it make much sense to show someone else but the prophet teaching on interlocation? I don't think so. The prophet spoke about it in sura al-Tawba and at the farewell sermon. Muslims are quite good at accepting his words as final.

Unless the original illustrator was on hashish, I have no reason to doubt that he tried to depict the prophet in this picture from the Edinburgh codex. 2.247.241.111 03:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The image has been discussed numerous times in the past on the Islamic calendar talk page by the same person hiding behind various London-area IP's. See also Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4 & Archive 5. AstroLynx (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice AstroLynx. I first thought his claims might have merit and that he just can't express his concerns very well. And tried to be impartial and civil. But now I just feel like having fed the troll. He doesn't present any reliable source, so I think his nagging can be ignored. 2.247.240.207 23:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

WARNING AND IMPORTANT SUMMARY: This image has been the subject of excessive discussion and persistent disruption at EN:Islamic calendar and possibly elsewhere.

1. Commons, English Wikipedia, and most other wikis, do not remove images of Muhammad where they are relevant.
2. It has been excessively argued that the image cannot be of Muhammad, or that the image is wrong, because some details do not match some textual historical accounts of the event. (In particular, it has been argued that Muhammad was not standing at the top of a staircase.) The image is an artist's depiction. Artist depictions are not photographs. All artist depictions contain creative elements filled in by the artist. An image represents what the artist and/or publisher say it shows, even if portions are not 100% accurate. I strongly warn editors not to waste time engaging with such arguments. It is a significant piece of historical artwork, and the book containing the image used it as a depiction of Muhammad prohibiting Nasī’. Alsee (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete this picture from an unknown author.

I urge you to remove this picture, which offends my religious belief that Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him should not be depicted. There are numerous ruling by Islamic scholars and Judges globally, in both Muslim and Non Muslim majority countries, that such an act is of spreading hate through insults.

Wikipedia must not post offensive content unless it is of a benefit to the public such as criminal acts, proven in court, or public acts of offense, etc.