Talk:Muhammad

Edit request from Danishullahkhan, 8 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The currently says: Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) "was the founder of the religion of Islam"

This is totally incorrect. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was not the founder of the religion of Islam, he was the last and the final messenger of Islam. The religion of Islam was founded since time immemorial, since Prophet Adam stepped on this earth. So please correct this enormous mistake that will mislead people about Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

Thanks you.

Danishullahkhan (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this...It is a huge mistake...It will surely mislead people of other faiths...Muslims believe Islam has always been in existence (i.e. since Prophet Adam)...Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not the only messenger of Islam...There were many others before him...But he was the last messenger of Islam... — Preceding unsigned comment added by EXquisite Inception (talk • contribs) 03:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is misled. The article says "Muslims thus consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets." It's just that people who are not Muslims (most people on the planet are not Muslims) don't accept as fact what you happen to believe as a matter of faith.DeCausa (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. This has been discussed at length on this talk page in the past; please see the archives. Basically you are stating a religious belief, not a neutral statement in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is an artifact of the English language that the word "founder" is appropriate because there was no religion known as "Islam" before Muhammad came along. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I wouldn't object to some other wording. Instead of "founder of Islam", perhaps "known for introducing Islam to the world" or something similar. The point is we need to mention the one fact that makes Muhammad notable, as well as maintain the secular tone of an encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The OP's view is explained in the second half of the first sentence and all of the second sentence. The only way that we could make it more clear would be to reorder the first sentence to say that he is regarded by Muslims as the final messenger and by everyone else as the founder. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any harm in adding after "founder of Islam" something like "(although Muslims do not consider him the founder because they believe Islam pre-dated him)"? For me (as a non-Muslim) that actually gives me some information. It seems to me to clarify the connection between him being founder and the last sentence of the paragraph, which to the casual reader is slightly contradictory. (I know it isn't really, but often the 'casual' reader needs things being quite explicit to get the info across.) DeCausa (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a smaller tweak, just to that last sentence: "Thus, rather than founder, Muslims consider Muhammad ...". It's the state the obvious principle. /ninly_(talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. DeCausa (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue was raised by me earlier also and no solution found till date. I also feel the tweak suggested by Ninly will serve the purpose.--Md iet (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be a little clumsy to add the information to the sentence, but it works pretty well as a footnote. I've added one to that effect. Please feel free to fix my somewhat awkward wording, and (especially) to source it.—Chowbok ☠ 10:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Note seems not convey the meaning properly. All the justifications already exist in the lead Para only slight link is to be given to word 'founder'. The tweak suggested as "Thus, rather than founder' fits perfectly, if any better suggestion on the wording available you may suggest.--Md iet (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say.—Chowbok ☠ 13:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Note modified now seems clarify the position better.--Md iet (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

First a simple question: Wouldn't it be according to the neutrality ideal of the wikipedia community to let the Muslim population have as much to say in regard of the presentation of Muhammed(PBWH), as the Christian population have influence on the presentation of Jesus(PBUH)? If all other religious adherents and others in general stated in an imaginary Wikipedia that Christians believed that Jesus created the World. Whereas the Christians would like the article to say that Jesus in fact was the Son of God, sent to redeem all people and so on, would it in such a case be as evidently erroneous to seek for a compromise? Hopefully it could bring a solution in which the Christians, in this case, not necessarily found the information on Jesus to be based on grounds of infidelity, or anything like it. My point is that if the information given on Wikipedia is against your religion, it is a great possibility for abjection, in best case a mutual disregard. In regard of the importance of a hightened sense of Discourse ethics I propose that the main article is moved from Muhammad to Muhammad (PBUH). And full accept for the correction proposed by Danishullahkhan. There are full support for a betterment of the climate in the sphere of inter-religious talk by all religious authorities. Wikipedia, including this talkpage, should therefor strive towards efforts that help such. The proposed changes will do so. --Xact (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the neutrality policy says that we don't add any "opinions" to articles without citing them, not that we allow people who are involved to decide what they prefer best. By your logic, we could "neutrally" allow biographical subjects or companies to expunge all negative information about themselves because that's what they preferred. I think, perhaps you're confusing the requirement that article content be neutral with our desire that all people can edit regardless of their personal opinions. It is correct that our neutrality policy contradicts the requirements of some groups. But that will always be true. For instance, we have articles on Democracy, even though reading about that subject in China is forbidden; should we remove or somehow hide that information? Similarly, many religions prohibit openly discussing sexuality, so should we strip out all of those articles? And what about those religions that consider bare arms on women to be a prohibited form of nudity--must we purge all such pictures? And what happens when the preferences of two groups are contradictory? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Xact, should the contents of the Ahmadiyya article be determined by Ahmadiyya adherents or Islamophobia by Islam-haters and Satanism by Satanists? DeCausa (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that you're missing my point, and avoiding my question about intercultural neutrality. My dissident point of view in this case, doesn't necessarily imply that I am in the opposite position of your stands. I simply take it for a reality that christians do edit Jesus and Muslims Muhammad (Peace be Upon them both). Indeed, I hope both edit both, as I hope atheists edit God. I believe I am pointing my finger to a problem that needs to be solved. Wikipedia are perhaps regarded more in tune with worldviews held by White Anglican Saxon People. I don't identify myself as a cultural relativist, but I'm humble enough to not to assume my cultural background as of priveleged status in regard of truths and facts. In regard of the 'Ahmadiyya'-arguement; it would be an asset for the article if it would be considered not offensive by Ahmadiyya adherents and that they could enjoy parttaking in the talk:pages. The Academic standards are erroneously held to be a merely western ideal summoning. --Xact (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This kind of thing belongs at WP:VILLAGEPUMP, not Talk:Muhammad. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Xact (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Because (and this may be a misunderstanding) you seem to be seeking a change in the policy on verifiability, which currently says that the content of articles must be verifiable by reliable sources. A Muslim (Christian, Buddhist, pagan, atheist etc) who wishes to add or change content in any article, including the articles on Muhammad, Jesus etc, must be able to find a published source for it. You appear to be saying that a religious person should be able to edit the article and insert their own religious knowledge/opinion, which would be a big change and require community consensus, which it is very unlikely to get. Now it may be that what you meant was that as editors on the English Wikipedia tend to be western (although we have a considerable number of editors from the Indian subcontinent), they tend to preferentially use sources in English which, in the case of Muhammad, tend to be from a western viewpoint. This is almost certainly true, although good editors strive to avoid it, if they have no Arabic, then sources in Arabic are inaccessable. This may mean that a good deal of scholarly information is not included, and may be known only to Arabic speakers with an interest in Muhammad. A position that we should encourage those with access to such sources to take an interest in editing the article, and bringing in more sources, is a good one, as it would introduce a more rounded view and help to prevent errors.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Elen at the roads... Yes, it is a misunderstanding. With all due respect, among academic scholars of religion there are people of all sorts of religious orientation. To held a view does not imply that one cannot be scientific in one's approach and study. To have a life is an indication that one is biased. A proper academic approach is to a matter of being aware of it, and put one's biased orientation into context. I am Norwegian. I will be biased in regard of how I edit Norway and related articles. I'm an artist, I have a view on art, it affects me in how I read, and write about Henrik Ibsen. I'm trained in Semiotics, holding an higher degree, it's like a plague in my mind, reading, or editing philosophy related articles, or politics, not to mention history. The huge difference between wikipedia and other encyclopedia is exactly that the articles here do not have a single subjective author and signature. When we are not aware of that, it sometimes turn out to be a most embarrasing feature of the wikipedia, as is examplified by the current english Muhammad (PBUH) article. I'm emotionally saddened by how it looks right now. Both in regard of the image-debate, and the pointing at him as the founder of the Religion of Islam. It is embarrassing because it reduces the academic standard of Wikipedia enormously. It is incredible insensitive to the otherwise scholarly awareness of the problem regarding 'religion' as a scientific concept and subject of study. Especially in connection with the challenge of translating the 16th Century invention of using the Latin concept 'Religionem' as scientific concept, into Arabic 'Din', the relationship between religion and science is profound. It is an unsolved issue. It is terribly misleading to signal it differently. To state in the very first line of the article that Muhammad (PBUH) (I say without regarding myself a muslim) is the founder of the Religion of Islam, is tremendously ethnocentric, i.e. biased, an example gratia of not-neutral. The Prophet is explicitly stating that he is not a founder of Religion himself (citation needed, but it shouldn't be to difficult to find). It is hard to believe such narrowness of mind which is here displayed. It is utterly unscientific. With 'unscientific' I signify rational cognition dictated by libidinal forces such as desire and fear. The fact that the vast majority of the western world are indoctrinated from child school and everyday media that Islam is a religion founded by Saint Muhammad, does not make such an assumption scientifically valid! On the other hand, it is a question of how the concept 'Religion' is defined. If an excommunicated person within a religious community continue to gain followers, allthough claiming the same authenticity in regard of lineage, we may come to agree that this is a possible way for a religion to take form (as the years go by). But even in such a case, the Prophet, could hardly be seen as the founder, as his christology relates to excommunicated Presbyter Arius of Alexandria, some 300 years ahead of him. In matter of fact, it would paradoxically, be more in line with a neutral ground to state that Muhammad (PBUH) is the originator of the heretical movement called Islam, or Mohammedanism. This is NOT my suggestion, but simply an attempt to show the graveness in regard of the breach in understanding; or what I see as lack of realising inherent ethnocentrism. Scientific standards is a matter of ethics, as metaphysics is about physics. --Xact (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you see so many problems with the article, why not fix it yourself? You should be able to edit the article since you are a registered user. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Because xe knows that there isn't consensus to make the changes xe is suggesting. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

He should be able to change consensus with good enough sources. "Because that's how I feel" is of course not a good enough reason. If you can cite verifiable sources then it's fine. IF. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pedophile

Mohammed was a Paedophile why isn't that stated in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.213.254 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to support that claim? --Dekker451 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources. However, this is already addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Judging someone who lives 1400 years ago on today's standards, very smart. Why do you people even reply to obvious troll posts set out to offend certain people? >_> --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Asimali700, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} please change by most Muslims, the last prophet of Islam as taught by the Qur'an. to this by all Muslims, the last prophet of Islam as taught by the Qur'an.

because as by reference no.3 ^ Qur'an 33:40 he is the last prophet and anyone who doesn't believe in qur'an is not considered as a muslim

in the Notes no. 4 : Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is not considered as Muslims by most Muslims in the world

Asimali700 (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Qur'an is not a reliable source, because your point here is your interpretation of the Qur'an. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, read the footnote attached to that statement in the article. There are groups who consider themselves Muslim who recognize later prophets. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Baphomet

The main problem with this article is that it draws too heavily on the Muslim view of Muhammad. Muhammad was an extremely influential person, and belongs to the history of the whole human race (for good or ill). We would never, for example, consider having an article on Hitler written largely from the standpoint of neo-Nazis. In particular, other people worshipped Muhammad who were not Muslims. As is well known, the Knights Templar worshipped him under the name of Baphomet (or at least were accused of doing so, which is just as noteworthy). The figure of Baphomet survived in European belief, and was famously depicted by Eliphas Levi, as pictured. Baphomet has since become a very important deity in European and American Neopaganism. The article should mention this. ðarkuncoll 00:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The only way I can see Muhammad resembling Baphomet is one of several spellings of that name (ie, "Mohamet"). Arabic is rather weird about many words having multiple spellings when written with the Latin alphabet. The circumstances of the destruction of the Templars make the assertion that the Templars worshipped Baphomet rather dubious. Frotz (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Baphomet article has citations to this connection with Muhammad, as well as to a claim that some Templars were bringing Islamic ideas into the group. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless neopagans consciously worship Muhammad under the name Baphomet, I can't see the relevance. The fact that they worship a deity who was given a name by Levi which he got from the trumped-up evidence aginst the Templars, and which in turn is thought to have been an orthographical error for "Muhammad" is, well, tenuous in the extreme and really just trivia. So, besides the "Baphomet connection", who else worships Muhammad? If no one, I can't really see the point of the original post. DeCausa (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

By saying that, you appear to be making a judgement about the validity of Neopagan practice compared to that of Islam. ðarkuncoll 16:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I said "unless neopagans consciously worship Muhammad under the name Baphomet, I can't see the relevance". If you have sources showing there is a worship of Muhammad (albeit under the name Baphomet), you might have an argument for a mention under "Legacy", though it would need some back-up on numbers etc. But if not, what's neopaganism got to with it except a tenuous name link? And who are these others that worship Muhammad? In any case, even if neo-pagans do worship Muhammad, what specifically would change in the text of the article outside of 'Legacy', in your view? DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Lead might have to change to something like: "...is considered the founder of the religion of Islam, and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God and is also considered by neo-pagans to be a deity linked to the Sabbatic Goat and often called Baphomet..." If we thought we got a lot of postings about PBUH, "founder" and images, well........ DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Images (but not the "Muslim" or "WP:NOTCENSORED" viewpoints)

I know this should go on the Images Talk page but it's difficult to get a discussion going there because it's pretty much ignored (due to postings of the usual requests). I hope thius can be left here for a short while anyway because I wanted to raise a different point. Here is a post I made on that page:

"I'm increasingly coming to the view that these images are somewhat problematic and that focusing the argument on WP:NOTCENSORED (bacause of the Muslim reaction) has stunted a "normal" discussion on the images value. I posted on this in an earlier thread but that didn't really go anywhere. I'll cut and paste the main point: "It seems to me that, as a generality, there would be three reasons to chose an image: to show what the person actually looked like (not applicable); to show what they might have looked like - typical style of dress etc (not applicable to most, as Ottoman/Ilkhanid styles are shown - perhaps applies to the Russian paninting); and to show what the prevalent cultural image of that person is, eg as with Jesus (mostly not applicable - since by definition there is no cultural image in general. The images shown are representative of 2 relatively narror cultural sources)." I think the representation of Muhammad in calligraphy in the infobox actually satisfies the third justification of an "image" since that is the overwhelmingly preponderent way of representing him. There's a real discussion to be had on this but it's been drowned out by the "Islamic" v. "not censored" positions."

It's slightly expanded in this thread. Any thoughts? DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There aren't just three reasons to choose an image. A fourth reason would be to provide an illustration of an historical event. A fifth reason would be to create a visual break-up of a monotonous flow of text with an image that has relevance to that text. Both of these purposes add value to an article, they are valid, and applicable to this article.

The only reason the images generate controversy is because some Muslims choose to be offended by them — for which the counterargument is WP:NOTCENSORED. Take all that discussion out of the talk page archives and you have almost nothing left. The real question is, do the images add value to the article? From my point of view, when I read through the article from my non-Muslim perspective, I would give a resounding "yes". ~Amatulić (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

<sigh...> I don't want to get involved in this debate at the moment, but I have to point out the NOTCENSORED is intended to preserve the ability of the encyclopedia to present necessary information in articles. It is not carte blanche for indulging every little bit of prurience and crapulence that wikipedia editors might enjoy (because - unfortunately - wikipedia by its open nature is a bottomless pit of petty prurience and crapulence). there is no necessary reason to show an image of the prophet in this article, and any argument one might give for doing so will ultimately boil down to ILIKEIT, and do I really need to comment on the poverty of common sense that puts an ILIKEIT rationale ahead of offense to hundreds of thousands of other people? like I said: petty crapulence. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The same could be said for any image on Wikipedia. WP:NOTCENSORED says nothing whatsoever about including only "necessary" information. That would violate the purpose of a project intended to be encyclopedic, useful, and interesting. Including relevant information is what WP:NOTCENSORED is all about (read it). Furthermore, let's stick to the topic. WP:NOTCENSORED is a side issue in this thread. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You've added two further reasons to my three. ("A fourth reason would be to provide an illustration of an historical event. A fifth reason would be to create a visual break-up of a monotonous flow of text with an image that has relevance to that text.") On the illustration of a historical event, by the nature of the stylistic approach (the paintings are art not journalism) I think it's difficult, again with the exception of the Russian painting, to argue that they are very informative depictions of an event. With regard to your fifth reason, I think that has always to be a minor one and I think that it is reasonable to say that this reason must be subject to not giving offence (since it is so minor in an encyclopedia). I notice that you didn't argue that the pictures are acceptable under the three reasons I give. I'm left feeling a little uncomfortable with our rationale for having these pictures. Is it just about defying a POV and defending WP:NOTCENSORED? You say you give a "resounding yes" to "do they add value". I'm not really seeing it at the moment. DeCausa (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Paintings of historical events are never journalism. I'm surprised you would make that argument. Go to any royal palace in Europe and look at the ceiling murals depicting key battles in the country's history. They are artwork, intended to glorify a specific subject. Nobody ever claims they adhere to any standard of journalistic accuracy. And they need not do so (one particular ceiling of the royal palaces in France and Sweden, for example, depict the same battle scene between Sweden and France, commissioned by the same artist, but with different emphasis to please the customer). The point is that they depict an historical event. My fourth reason was "to provide an illustration of an historical event". The images serve that purpose, and they serve that purpose very well.

Don't belittle the value of creating a break in the monotony of lengthy text. You may regard this as minor, but it isn't. Just seeing an image or two in a section can make a person more willing to read the section. Even if I don't look at the images, the visual effect keeps the interest up. Like many other human beings, I tend to skip over walls o' text. An article's ability to inform a reader should not be overridden by the fact that some readers may find an image offensive. The images are not disrespectful, many Muslims have no problem with them, and we have mechanisms for readers to avoid seeing them, so "it might offend someone" is a bogus argument.

I felt no need to argue the reasons you presented because I don't agree with them. The two reasons I proposed boil down to "are they pertinent and encyclopedic in nature" (see WP:IMAGES) and "do they make the article interesting". To the images here, I would give a resounding "yes". This is my benchmark to weigh the value of any image in any article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My point on "art not journalism" wasn't a general one (of course works of art, as in the one's you mention, give a particular perspective). I was pointing out that these ones specifically are highly stylized and it's difficult to actually see what's happening in them. I agree with your other point about "walls of text" - but that's not what I was suggesting. There's no reason to have that - other pictures could be included. Because they don't satisfy any of the three reasons I first mentioned, I'm having difficulty seeing that they add much to the reader's understanding of the subject. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel the same way about the depiction of Jesus on the Jesus page? thx1138 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No (a point I've already made in my first post). DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is an illustrated article better than a wall of text? Yes. Do these pictures represent events discussed in the text? Yes. Will the article be better without them? No. No reason to remove except "I dont like" IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but that seems to ignore (or suggest you haven't read) the above points. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read and do not agree with to your arguments. Illustrated articles are better than non-illustrated articles, these illustrationas are relevant, and removing them does not improve the article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But I didn't say that this article shouldn't have illustrations. I agree illustrated articles are better than non-illustrated. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone move away from the horse. It's dead, and it's not rising again. We have a big blurb at the top of the page and a separate talk page for this anyway. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the archives on the image question and cannot find where this has been properly discussed. It's all bogged down in Islamic view v Notcensored (both of which are irrelevant to the point I'm raising). I've also asked anyone involved at the time where in the archive this is discussed - no one has. If you know, point it out. The blurb at the top also doesn't address the point I'm raising. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I already addressed it, but not directly. Pardon me for speaking in a roundabout way. I contend that the illustrations add exactly as much to this article as the illustrations on Jesus add to that article. This is an article about Mohamed. The images in this article are images of Mohamed created by Muslims, just as the images in the Jesus article are images of Jesus created by Christians. The images don't tell us anything about the men themselves, but they do tell us something about the people who created them. thx1138 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the reliable source we have, 3 or 4 of the images in this article are not known to have been drawn by Muslims. It is disputed, and the article as it stands gives the wrong impression. Wiqi55 (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

this page is rife with wp:IDHT, isn't it? Just in the spirit of fun, allow me to demolish your arguments:

• Many images on wikipedia contribute meaningful information to articles that cannot be adequately captured in words: Images of people show their likeness; images of events give a sense of realism; images of objects help identify them and show functional relationships. none of these points apply to images of Muhammed, since no one knows what he looks like and depictions of the events of his life are at best fanciful.
  • images of Muhammed have no intrinsic encyclopedic value, like the way an image of a corkscrew or a photo of Hiroshima after the bombing do - these pictures are just aesthetic additions.
• The images of Jesus on the Jesus article are perfectly fine because no one really cares whether one makes an image of Jesus. Images of Muhammed, by contrast, are objectionable to may people.
• One can easily find images to break up the text and beautify this page that do not feature the prophet, and the page will not suffer any loss of information or attractiveness.

In other words, these images are not needed, other images could be easily found that would fulfill their beautification function perfectly well, and people are offended by them - so why are we keeping them on the article? the only conceivable reason to keep them on the article is so that some editors can get their rocks off by pissing off Muslim readers - pure crapulence. no need to say more on the issue. --Ludwigs2 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)