The Metropolitan Museum of Art's recent decision to withdraw depictions of Muhammad from public display to appease a conservative segment of its Muslim audience sets a problematic precedent. Though the facial representation in the work in question, an Islamic painting from present-day Uzbekistan, The Night Journey of Muhammad on his Steed, Buraq, is unique within a tradition that has often eschewed any figural representation, it does not seemingly beach the Qur'an's general idolatry taboo, a restriction which has in Wahabist and other radical Qur'anic interpretations, been reconfigured as severe, total aniconisim. More to the point: The Met is a comprehensive museum, the closest we have to a living encyclopedia, and it is inappropriate for the curators of this--a publicly-funded museum--to cater to the specific tastes, interests, or practices of individual groups.  The portrayal of Muhammad has a substantial history within the Islamic faith (pictured here: Muhammad at the Kaaba, from Siyer-i Nebi, c. 1388) and this tradition should be represented in the wing, regardless of whether such depictions are currently forbidden in certain strains of the religion. Would it make sense for the museum to withdraw images of Catholic saints from view because Protestants dispensed with them in their practice? Certainly not. The Met has not only a right but a responsibility to present as complete a record of the Qur'anic figures as possible. And frankly, the museum should, without fear of backlash, be able to accurately reflect the historical record by balancing these piety-oriented images of Muhammad with those by William Blake, Gustave Doré, and other European artists, which, following from Dante's Inferno (Canto 28, verses 30-31), portray the prophet disemboweled, walking with a weeping Ali.  Censorship of history need not be a necessary symptom of cultural relativism.