Wikipedia should not remove the images of Muhammad from the article "Muhammad".

The Wikipedia article in question can be found here... http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is complete nonsense and Wikipedia are right to keep the pictures on the site.

Thanks for accepting.

It's my understanding that certain Muslim communities forbid any depictions of Muhammad.

It is widely questioned as to whether the images on Wikipedia might be offensive to some Muslims. My question is simply, what makes Islam so special that people should treat it differently from other religions?

What makes Muslims think they have the right to demand these pictures be removed from a public encyclopedia? Wikipedia is neutral in this matter... it does not deem Islam to be wrong or inhuman.

Although not exactly facts... these images are culturally relevant a great number of people.

Islam does not deserve special treatment from anyone.

I thank my opponent for his argument and will now proceed to offer my own in place.

The current images of Muhammad are not of the highest possible quality. Indeed, if we were to keep the same paintings and sketches of Muhammad, we would be sacrificing the display of a superior image for an inferior one. There are four images of Muhammad which directly show the prophet’s face.

The first one, an illustration of Muhammad re-setting the Black Stone, can be located at http://goo.gl... – note that upload.wikimedia.org refers to Wikimedia Commons, where Wikipedia publishes and draws its public domain images. This file, used on Wikipedia, is resolved at 626 x 459. A superior image of the exact same composition can be found at http://goo.gl... – which is 640 x 469. This is a 14 x 10 improvement over the original Wikipedia image.

The second image, a graphic showing Muhammad’s revelation from the angel Gabriel, is found at http://goo.gl... – this image is 720 x 542. A grander image can be found at http://goo.gl... and has a resolution of 800 x 602. This is an enhancement of 80 x 60, a considerable change in overall quality.

The third illustration, Muhammad’s arrival in Mecca, can be found at http://goo.gl... and has a resolution of 497 x 777. Once again, a larger, quality picture can be seen at http://goo.gl... and is 550 x 860. This resolution change is 53 x 83.

The last illustration, depicting Muhammad’s teaching to Muslims, has been uploaded to http://goo.gl... and has a resolution of 600 x 360. It does not take much work to find a superior image, located at http://goo.gl... and which has a resolution of 736 x 442. This enhancement is 136 x 82.

For each and every one of Wikipedia’s current images of the prophet Muhammad, a superior and higher quality image can be found elsewhere on the Internet. Note that these images are all in the public domain so copyright infringement is irrelevant. Because there are enhanced pictures available online, and because Wikipedia displays pictures that are not up to par, I thus insist that Wikipedia should remove the current pictures of Muhammad, and, of course, replace these images with the higher quality duplicates.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

Perhaps my opponent is trolling, or simply doesn't understand what this debate is about.

Is there any point trying to have a serious debate about the disgusting wishes of Islam ?

I think it's obvious that I'm not talking about the quality of the images.

Muslims believe it's disrespectful towards them to show ANY images of Muhammad.

I thank my opponent for ruining what could have been a very provocative and interesting debate.