Should wikipedia remove pictures of Muhammad

There has been an ongoing issue at wikipedia for a while about the use of images of Muhammad.Muhammad - WikipediaYou can also see discussion about the matter here:Talk:Muhammad - Wikipediaand here:Talk:Muhammad/images - WikipediaThe matter has now been picked up by the media.Wikipedia - Prophet Muhammad - Internet - The New York TimesI'm interested in people's thoughts on this - where does freedom of speech end and how much should it be tempered by respect for others?(I'm thinking coffee shop for this?)

The main argument is that it upsets Muslims and causes offense - do you consider that a "good argument?Edited by CK, : typo

someone told me that's not true - that the actual prohibition is about living people or animals but over the years they just focus on Mo.Anyone know for sure?

quote:

---

someone told me that's not true - that the actual prohibition is about living people or animals but over the years they just focus on Mo.

​

Anyone know for sure?

---

Well CK, this is what an expert had to say about the matter:

quote:

---

[In their refusal to delete the images,] Wikipedians are supported by Professor Harun Behr, who is training school teachers for Islamic religious education at the University of Erlangen. "There is no absolute aniconism [prohibiton of images] in Islam", Behr explains to FOCUS Online. The Wikipedia article only shows unproblematic depictions from the Middle Ages [according to Behr]. "In the school books which we are designing for islamic religious education, we are using similar illustrations", Behr explains. While there is a broad consensus within Islam to abstain from images of Muhammad, this abstainment is a sign of respect and not an absolute prohibition of images [according to him]. "Somebody who is demanding the deletion of these images is clearly crossing a boundary", Behr says.

---

Wikipedia: Proteste gegen Mohammed-Bilder - FOCUS online