QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Sat 29th December 2007, 2:11am)
The underlying problem is that most Muslims aren't accustomed to Islam or its key figures being discussed objectively, without the reverence accorded to the sacred and the supernatural, of which the prohibition on imagery is but one component.
QUOTE(SenseMaker @ Sat 29th December 2007, 1:58am)
I don't think this is a slipperly slope issue as the Muhammad article is a historical/religious/mythical figure, it is not a scientific article nor does it deal with Wikipedia policy.
Muhammad is
not a mythical figure, but one of the most influential real persons in history. To treat him as if he somehow "belongs" to Muslims deprives others of the opportunity to learn about
their own history, in which, if you're a human being living on earth, Muhammad played a major role.
Don't worry, I know that technically Muhammad existed, but like many other religious figures, he is surrounded by myths. In my atheist world view, Muhammad designation as a "prophet" from God is a myth. Jesus existed too, but much of what is acribed to him didn't really happen either.
I am not saying that the criticism of Muhammad should be removed, nor objective historical discussion. Rather simply the depiction of Muhammad should be removed from the main Muhammad article since there isn't an objective point to including it except to bait Muslims. There is, on the other hand, significant reasons for including objective historical analyses and other aspects, I am not advocating for their removal in any way.
What I am saying is that I am against baiting Muslims for the primary purpose of provoking emotive responses. That style of engagement doesn't change people's minds, rather it creates reactions that push people further apart. The fact that the petition has 18,000 signatures while on the Muhammad talk page a bunch of Christians and Jews are making fun of the comments on the petition and on the talk page while preventing any changes to the article is incredibly telling -- its not a mystery as to what is going on.
This post has been edited by SenseMaker: