QUOTE(jsalsman @ Thu 5th April 2012, 3:02am)
I used to be for including images until I found out that no contemporary depictions of Muhammad even exist. It's not about aniconism vs. NOTCENSORED, it's that there aren't any actual images of Muhammad. They are all made up, cartoons of someone else. So don't put any in the main article. Anyone who sees an image in the main article will be misled into thinking Muhammad may have looked like that when he didn't. That's completely unencyclopedic. Make a separate [[Depictions of Muhammad]] article and put them all there with a clear statement that they are all bogus in the first sentence.
I'd like to see you put the same response at the
Jesus (T-H-L-K-D) and see what the response would be. The image at the top isn't Jesus, it's just the WASP version of him. By all accounts the real Jesus was black.
The thing is, I don't see anyone using your argument for its removal.
But thanks anyway for teaching me a new word: "
aniconism (T-H-L-K-D)".