Yes, these images probably are inaccurate. The artists who painted these images
lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves.

However, similarly inaccurate images are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne,
Jesus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images exist, it is a
longstanding tradition on Wikipedia to use images that are historically
significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images
that readers understand might be inaccurate, as long as those images illustrate
the topic effectively, is considered to be better than using no image at all. It
is important to understand that random recent depictions could be removed as undue
in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late
Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of the history
of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout Muslim history.

It is important to understand that these depictions do not mean to present the
face of Muhammad; rather, they present the person in the way the artist was more
comfortable with and hold no immediate religious value on their own. It is of
particular interest that these means of portrayal generally convey one and only
one aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the
act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not
meant to have any accuracy to them, and are presented here for what they are: yet
another form in which Muhammad was depicted.

As an analogy, Jesus has been presented in a multitude of ways, most of which are
entirely inaccurate (Jesus being, according to tradition, a Semite, whereas he is
generally depicted with distinctively Byzantine or Caucasian features).

None of these pictures are meant to hold a prominent place in the article, as
evident by their placement in the article, nor are they meant as an assault to
Islam. It is also worth noting that several factions of Christianity oppose the
use of hagiographic imagery (which resulted even in hostilities), but the images
are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are (i.e. existing depictions of
said people) – there is no unspoken insult intended.

Yours sincerely,
Keegan Peterzell

--
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are
not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For
official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail
at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org