User talk:Jargon777/Archives/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Jargon777/Archives, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is because after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly: for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks.   An optimist on the run! 17:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Merl Iorne

Hi, Jargon. Just wanted to let you know that I only did the level-4 warning because all the edits looked like vandalism to me. On second examination, I can see how some of them might not be, but a few definitely are. I'll replace it with a level two; that will give a more coherent chain of escalation from your warning to mine. Thanks for double-checking me! Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Piaget's theory of cognitive development

I don't want to start a fight, but I really think that your Huggle app. goofed by deleting my edit (which was really just a reinstatement of a few words that I believe had inadvertently been chopped off by a previous edit long back). You tell me: does the article read better as it is now or with my edit reinstated? Please reconsider this. 173.28.244.122 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that you corrected it now. Sorry and thanks. 173.28.244.122 (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Spam"

This edit was vandalism, not spam. I suggest you slow down a bit while using Twinkle and Huggle; judging by your edit summaries and the above post, you are going way too fast. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cracked

I've restored the text with additional reference citations. (There are numerous others, but I chose three: two that are sources frequently used as refs on Wikipedia, and a two-volume book on the magazine's history. I also changed "blatantly" to "conspicuously"; the cites support both adverbs, but perhaps "blatant" is too confrontational. I hope you find this satisfactory! Potter Zebby (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It was that, but I was also concerned with the way you described the mascot (if it actually was dumb then maybe using a different word was better). Jargon777 Leave a message 14:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

2.97.44.195

Hi. Sorry i have looked at the edit of mine you reverted. And that is vital information. If you don't like the way i did it. Then i'd ask you to put the same information in the page yourself in a way that it is included in a correct encyclopedic way. But the murder of 800 Qurayzah men and boys who were all innocent is one of the most clear crimes of humanity by Mohamed personally. And you should not be deleting that information from wikipedia if it is not shown there already. Please look into that. I am sure the muslims who wrote the page with one sided propaganda and false claims would love to have wikipedia be their mouthpiece to say that the genocide of peaceful people was because they did some treachery or attacked Mohamed first, because no muslim can ever believe that Mohamed did aggressive wars, because they are told everyone Mohamed attacks deserves it. Without actually checking their own historical documents: ishaq's sirat, tabari's biography, bukhari's hadiths where it is clear that those people were innocent, and were attacked unprovoked, and then the men and boys over 13 killed, and women and children enslaved. And yes that qualifies as negating the passage which said "Mohamed had many jewish friends" he didn't because he killed them all! Like i said, It is misrepresentation by muslims, to whitewash and cover up facts of bad things in islam. As you know muslims are forbidden from saying anything bad about islam, and can only say good. I am quite annoyed that wikipedia does not care about misrepresentation especially of such an important topic. But you only care about when its supposedly against islam right? Everything i wrote was true, and is the islamic history. Even if i didn't write it well. Leaving out vital opposing information on an encyclopedia is an offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.44.195 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page as well, but your content was not formatted properly (content does not go in square brackets, etc) and was not written from a neutral point of view. You did not cite any references for any of the content you added, and the content you added was written in a combative and accusational manner. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for information and verified content. If you want to add this content, consider finding reliable sources and writing the article in a suitable fashion. Thanks! Jargon777 Leave a message 18:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

RE 2.97.44.195

Hi. If you care about the truth. You will see all the sources below which show that each of the 5 things I had written, to correct the misrepresentation and falsification of the truth, are true. And you will either restore the 5 things I wrote in my edit. Or else somehow with your brain, and using the sources I have written extensively here on your page. You will try to edit and add them yourself, by writing them in a way that is acceptable for you as a guy who likes to undo other people's edits. Without checking the truth to see if they are correct. And that if you look at the sources and writing I have given below, you can see that the information I wrote is true. And you can see that the information I was correcting on the page, was not true, or had left out vital information, and so was one sided, biased, sugar coating islam to hide bad things, and presenting Mohamed as friendly and kind and peaceful to the jews, and missing out the opposing information that contradicted and negated that, which is that he attacked them aggressively, unprovoked, and killed, enslaved, or exiled them. I won't make assumptions about whether you are a muslim, because of course if you were you definitely will ignore all that I have written, despite the time and effort that I have taken to write it. And would not care about the truth at all. Because muslims only care about islam, and are only allowed to present it as good, and are forbidden from telling anything bad which is true about islam. And have an obligation to stop islam looking bad in any way, by hiding bad things, or leaving them out, or covering them up instead. Hopefully I didn't waste a few hours writing all this information, in a way that is clear, and answers your complaints. And searching for all these sources. Just to have you ignore it. And to be inconsiderate of my time and effort. Thanks. All the sources are below. The information is laid out as follows: Contents:

My edit.

Then your actions.

All the sources.

This is my edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism?diff=494986811

Number of points which were biased, false, and I corrected to be "balanced, neutral - i.e. giving two sides, and the full truth". (5.)

1. "Muhammad is also known to have Jewish friends" I corrected with: "[any jewish friends who stayed alive by the time Mohamed died? Or were they all killed, exiled, or converted, like the rest?]"

2. "and had a Jewish wife (Safiyya)" I corrected with: "[a 17 year old prisoner of war taken in slavery after Mohamed murdered her family, her husband and many of her tribe. And offered her the choice is slavery or marriage. It is misrepresentation to use this as an example of how good muslims were to jews, when she was a prisoner of war and had seen her people killed, then has a choice of slavery if she doesn't marry, or freedom if she marries)"

3. "the degree to which Muhammad shows his respect, for each religion [Jews and Christians] is remarkable" I corrected with: "[respect to kill and ethnically and religiously cleanse jews from medina, and then arabia. Respect to attack meccan caravans and then force them out of mecca after they defend themselves. And respect to attack so many people and countries aggressively and unprovoked. This is correcting that yet another gross misrepresentation of the facts.]"

4. "According to Pinson, Rosenblatt and F.E. Peters, they also began to connive with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca to overthrow him (despite having signed a peace treaty). According to F.E. Peters, they also began to secretly to conspire with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca to overthrow him (despite having been forced by their conquerors to sign a peace treaty.)" I corrected with: "[a reference but incorrect facts taken straight from orientalist muslim apologist 1970s revisionist history]"

I actually disputed the truth of the facts given by the reference. So did you actually check this with other sources of information to see if I was correct? Or if the reference is wrong about the facts? You could have even searched on wikipedia. But you didn't did you? You just deleted the opposite version, and left the pro islamic falsified version of history.

5. "It is significant that the death of Muhammad was not caused by Jews." I corrected with:

"[The preceding sentence is false. Mohamed died from being poisoned by a Jewess whose family Mohamed had killled - as usual, according to islamic sources]" Again. I disputed the facts. And the sources. And you deleted the information, without trying to search any sources, or even wikipedia, to check what the true facts are for yourself. You just deleted them, leaving the pro islamic, sugarcoated, one sided biased falsified version of history.

This is the part about what you did, after I had edited the page

In summary, your thinking appears to have been like this:

These edits are not formatted correctly, don't sound professional. They might be true , but i don't give a shit. And so i won't check them, I won't care that the article is one sided, biased, pro islamic, has been accused by the editor of missing out vital facts which outweigh the good sounding ones which are allowed to stay and rule the page. And to create every readers manipulated perceptions of a good Mohamed and a good islam, which never did something bad, because the bad things are not written on the page as opposing facts, alongside the pro islam "islam is peace, loves jews, and never did anything bad to jews" facts.

Then your actions were like this:

You then undid that edit, and reversed it to be again "a sugarcoated pro islam, lie and false truth which misses out multiple negative things which Mohamed did, which outweigh and negate all the lies and misrepresentations on the page, which I had corrected to be the true representation of the facts, by including the full facts in my comments.

Here are the sources for each of the things I corrected

1. [any jewish friends who stayed alive by the time Mohamed died? Or were they all killed, exiled, or converted, like the rest?] Sources for the fact that Mohamed killed, exiled, or converted all the jews in Medina. And ordered any remaining jews in the Arabian peninsula to be killed or exiled, by the time he died. Attacking, killing, and exiling - - Medina Jewish tribe 1 : Banu Qaynuqa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qaynuqa http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-qaynuqa.htm

Attacking, killing, and exiling - - Medina Jewish tribe 2: Banu Nadir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Nadir http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-nadir.htm

Attacking, killing, and murdering 800 men and boys, and enslaving the women and children -

- Medina Jewish tribe 3: Banu Qurayza

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-qurayza.htm

Attacking, killing, and enslaving the women and children, and men - - Khaybar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar#Aftermath

Ethnically and religiously cleansing - - All other Jews in the Arabian peninsula:

Hadith Muslim 19-4366

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

http://www.hadithexplorer.org/hadith/hadith/94031 http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=019&translator=2&start=0&number=4366

"

"Meccans who would not change their religion were forcibly expelled from the city following that last Haj (Quran 9:5). The Christians and Jews living in Arabia at the time suffered the same fate on Muhammad's deathbed order. They were given the choice of either accepting Islam or being forced off their land (Sahih Muslim 19:4366)."

The Jews at Khaybar were not at war with Muhammad when he ordered his warriors to attack them. Even his faithful son-in-law, Ali, whom he chose to head the mission, was somewhat perplexed as to the pretext on which they were to assault this peaceful farming community so far away from Medina:

Muhammad said: 'Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory', and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: 'Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?' Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: 'Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger' (Sahih Muslim 31:5917)

Before he died, Muhammad sent his warriors against pagan Arab tribes, such as the al-Harith, demanding that they either convert to Islam or be wiped out (naturally, they opted for the Religion of Peace). He cursed Christians and Jews to the very end (Bukhari 8:427).

"

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/013-forced-conversion.htm

2. About Safiyah: "[a 17 year old prisoner of war taken in slavery after Mohamed murdered her family, her husband and many of her tribe. And offered her the choice is slavery or marriage. It is misrepresentation to use this as an example of how good muslims were to jews, when she was a prisoner of war and had seen her people killed, then has a choice of slavery if she doesn't marry, or freedom if she marries)"

Sources for the fact that Safiyah was 17, a prisoner of war, taken in slavery, after Mohamed murdered her family, her husband, and many of her tribe. And that Mohamed offered her the choice of marrying him and being free, or else being his slave.

All these facts about Safiyah on one page: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Safiyah http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm

Safiyah was 17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safiyya_bint_Huyayy

Safiyah was a prisoner of war:

"In the aftermath, the female captives were divided amongst Muhammad and his followers.[5] Safiyya was assigned to Dihya ibn Khalifa, but Muhammad selected her while compensating Dihya with two of her cousins,[7] or, according to other sources, seven head of cattle,[3] and according to a differing source, seven female slaves.[8] She then converted to Islam, thereby becoming Muhammad's wife; her dowry being her emancipation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safiyya_bint_Huyayy#Battle_of_Khaybar

Safiyah was taken in slavery:

"In the aftermath, the female captives were divided amongst Muhammad and his followers.[5] Safiyya was assigned to Dihya ibn Khalifa, but Muhammad selected her while compensating Dihya with two of her cousins,[7] or, according to other sources, seven head of cattle,[3] and according to a differing source, seven female slaves.[8] She then converted to Islam, thereby becoming Muhammad's wife; her dowry being her emancipation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safiyya_bint_Huyayy#Battle_of_Khaybar

"The Jews were caught entirely be surprise, of course. Their wealth was stolen and their women and children taken and distributed as slaves by the prophet of Islam to his men. Muhammad even took a woman for himself - after ordering the death of her husband."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/013-forced-conversion.htm

Mohamed murdered her husband, family and many of her tribe:

"Despite her conversion, Muhammad's other wives teased Safiyya of her Jewish origin. Doubts about Safiyya's loyalty to Islam and the suspicion that she would avenge her slain kin are themes in the Sirah Rasul Allah (biographies of Muhammad).[15] In these stories, Muhammad or Umar express great displeasure at such doubts and reaffirm her loyalty"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safiyya_bint_Huyayy#Marriage_to_Muhammad

"Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever"

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm

"The Jews were caught entirely be surprise, of course. Their wealth was stolen and their women and children taken and distributed as slaves by the prophet of Islam to his men. Muhammad even took a woman for himself - after ordering the death of her husband."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/013-forced-conversion.htm

She was offered the choice of marrying Mohamed and being free, or else not marrying him and being his slave:

"

The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . (Sahih Bukhari 1.367)

Mahr or dowry is a money that a bride receives from her husband when he marries her. Muhammad did not pay Safiyah her Mahr because he had to pay it to himself for manumitting her. Of course the irony is that he did not buy her but enslaved her by raiding her town. This story is significant because it gives us an insight into the moral and ethical values of the Prophet of God (Peace be upon his immaculate soul).

Our modern sensibility makes us cringe with stories like this, yet amazingly Muhammad taught that he is going to receive two rewards by marrying Safiyah. One for manumitting someone whom no one but himself had enslaved and the other for marrying the prettiest girl who was 40 years younger.

Abu Musa reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said about one who emancipated a slave woman, and then married her, that for him there are two rewards. (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3327)

Also in another part

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'. (Sahih Bukhari V.5 B.59 N.512)

"

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm

3. "[respect to kill and ethnically and religiously cleanse jews from medina, and then arabia. Respect to attack meccan caravans and then force them out of mecca after they defend themselves. And respect to attack so many people and countries aggressively and unprovoked. This is correcting that yet another gross misrepresentation of the facts.]"

Sources for Mohamed attacking Meccan caravans, and then forcing the Meccans out of Mecca after they defended their caravans.

Mohamed attacking Meccan caravans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-raid-caravans.htm

Mohamed forcing the Meccans out of Mecca after they defended their caravans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_badr#Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-badr.htm

Sources for Mohamed attacking so many people and countries aggressively and unprovoked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_after_the_conquest_of_Mecca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Conquest_of_Arabia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad

Sources for followers of Mohamed attacking so many people and countries aggressively and unprovoked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

4. "[a reference but incorrect facts taken straight from orientalist muslim apologist 1970s revisionist history]"

I actually disputed the truth of facts given by the reference. So did you actually check this with other sources of information to see if I was correct? Or if the reference is wrong about the facts? You could have even searched on wikipedia. But you didn't did you? You just deleted the opposite version, and left the pro islamic falsified version of history.

The facts which I am disputing the truth of, and which my edit was answering to. Is the accusation that "they were conniving against Mohamed".

First of all, they have made a general accusation, accusing all the jewish tribes of conniving and treachery against Mohamed.

And they claim this, to try and justify the offensive unprovoked aggressive attacks by Mohamed, against each of the jewish tribes. Claiming his attacks are justified, because they were all conniving and treacherous against him.

And so presenting him, as attacking someone who was a threat to him. Instead of the truth which is that he was attacking various different people, unprovoked, simply because he wanted to conquer them as soon as he could, and take their land, and exile, kill, or enslave them. To become dominant in power over the whole land of Arabia.

Here are some facts:

• Each of the jewish tribes is separate.
• There is no proof that any of them has been conniving against Mohamed or deserved an attack. And the sources on the page have not satisfactorily given any proof of that.
• Even if one had been conniving, their actions would not be an acceptable justification for him to attack other separate tribes, which he did.

And so the accusation generally against all the jews, as conniving, and using it as a justification to excuse Mohamed's aggressive war and conquest of all of them. Is falsifying the facts of history, and is just coming down on the pro islamic side, which is because the source is orientalist from the 1970s when exactly this kind of rewriting of history to be false and excuse Mohamed of all his aggressive actions, and to try and promote islam as good and peaceful, was happening.

So my edit was correct. And the accusation they made to blame the victims of Mohamed's attacks as conniving before he attacked them and deserving it, without there being any proof for them conniving or deserving anything. Was wrong. Especially when several of the sources I have given you on this page, including the ones about the attacks on each of the Jewish tribes, say that he attacked them because he claimed the angel Gabriel appeared and told him to attack them (which was itself an excuse to attack, and to try and justify his aggressive unprovoked attack on people he was supposed to be at peace with.

5. "[The preceding sentence is false. Mohamed died from being poisoned by a Jewess whose family Mohamed had killled - as usual, according to islamic sources]"

Sources for showing Mohamed was poisoned by a Jewish woman, whose family he had killed:

"

Muslim biographers of Muhammad tell a story that a Jewish woman Zeynab bint Al-Harith attempted to poison Muhammad to avenge her slain relatives. She poisoned a piece of lamb that she cooked for Muhammad and his companion, putting especially much poison into the shoulder; Muhammad's favorite part of lamb. The attempt on Muhammad's life failed because he reportedly spat out the meat, feeling that it was poisoned, while his companion ate the meat and died. Muhammad's companions reported that, on his deathbed, Muhammad said that his illness was the result of that poisoning.[50]

"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/mo-death.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Muhammad_poison_by_a_Jew_if_it_truth_why_the_must_he_died_in_such_a_wayafter_all_he_is_a_beloved_prophet_of_Islam_religion

"

Muslim sources unashamedly acknowledge that certain Jews, specifically a Jewess, successfully poisoned Muhammad which resulted in his death:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Khaibar was conquered, a (cooked) sheep containing poison, was given as a present to Allah's Apostle. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 551)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophets as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, "Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were collected and the Prophet said (to them), "I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?" They said, "Yes." The Prophet asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You have told a lie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are right." He said, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?" They replied, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father." On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said, "We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us." The Prophet said, "You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it." Then he asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They said, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?" They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would NOT HARM YOU." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 394)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Khaibar was conquered, Allah's Apostle was presented with a poisoned (roasted) sheep. Allah's Apostle said, "Collect for me all the Jews present in this area." (When they were gathered) Allah's Apostle said to them, "I am going to ask you about something; will you tell me the truth?" They replied, "Yes, O Abul-Qasim!" Allah's Apostle said to them, "Who is your father?" They said, "Our father is so-and-so." Allah's Apostle said, "You have told a lie, for your father is so-and-so," They said, "No doubt, you have said the truth and done the correct thing." He again said to them, "If I ask you about something; will you tell me the truth?" They replied, "Yes, O Abul-Qasim! And if we should tell a lie you will know it as you have known it regarding our father," Allah's Apostle then asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They replied, "We will remain in the (Hell) Fire for a while and then you (Muslims) will replace us in it." Allah's Apostle said to them. You will abide in it with ignominy. By Allah, we shall never replace you in it at all." Then he asked them again, "If I ask you something, will you tell me the truth?" They replied, "Yes." He asked. "Have you put the poison in this roasted sheep?" They replied, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do that?" They replied, "We intended to learn if you were a liar in which case we would be relieved from you, and if you were a prophet then it would NOT HARM YOU." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 669)

Carefully note what the Jews said to Muhammad. If Muhammad were a true prophet then the poison would not harm him, which means that if the poison did affect him, then he would not be a true prophet. This point is significant, as we will shortly see.

The next set of traditions affirms that a Jewess successfully poisoned Muhammad which, even by Muhammad's own admission, caused him great pain that eventually resulted in his death:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786)

Anas reported that a Jewess came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) with poisoned mutton and he took of that what had been brought to him (Allah's Messenger). (When the effect of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it. He (the narrator) said that they (the Companion's of the Holy Prophet) said: Should we not kill her? Thereupon he said: No. He (Anas) said: I felt (the affects of this poison) on the uvula of Allah's Messenger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 026, Number 5430)

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so 'AbdurRahman bin 'Auf said to 'Umar, "We have sons similar to him." 'Umar replied, "(I respect him) because of his status that you know." 'Umar then asked Ibn 'Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse:-- "When comes the help of Allah and the conquest of Mecca..." (110.1)

Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except what you understand." Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713)

One online Islamic site, www.Islamqa.com, candidly admits that Muhammad would even be treated with cupping (a procedure which seeks to extract blood from the body) in order to undo the painful effects of the poison which he consumed:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to feel ill because of this food, and he would be treated with cupping for that.

Ahmad (2784) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that a Jewish woman sent a gift to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) of a poisoned roasted sheep. He sent for her and asked her, "What made you do what you did?" She said, "I wanted to see if you were a Prophet, then Allaah would tell you about it, and if you were not a Prophet the people would be rid of you." Whenever the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) felt ill as a result of that he would have himself treated by cupping. On one occasion he traveled and when he entered ihraam he felt ill as a result of that and he had himself treated by cupping. The editor of al-Musnad classed it as saheeh. (Question #32762: The Jews’ attempts to kill the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): online source)

"

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/muhammad_poison.htm

Um

I received a message from you about reverting a certain edit to a "earl of sandwich". Thing is...i never made a edit on that page. The I.P you sent it to was 2.49.40.75. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.49.40.75 (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL

LOL definitely wasn't me as I have never been on that page before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.116.167 (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Bugle Page Change

You reverted a change I made to the Bugle wiki page, where I redirected the word pontullius from it's last link (the part of Sharon Stone's page dealing with her comments about the Chinese earthquake) to the page for Vagina. I believe this was a mistake. In the episode, Andy is using pontullius to refer to this part of the female anatomy, and without the redirect, the word will appear to anyone unfamiliar with the episode to be random gibberish, since Zaltzmann made the word up and it has no meaning. It's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things, but it does make the page slightly more comprehensible.

Substing User Talk Templates

Hi there! When using certain templates on talk pages, such as welcome templates and user warnings, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:welcome}} instead of {{welcome}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. If you need any further help on the matter just ask me on my talk page. Cheers. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Icthus

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus

Hello,

I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Jargon777! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)