The result was speedy delete. I think we have a very clear consensus here so we need not spend any more time debating this. Its clearly snowing. Spartaz Humbug! 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This is an article by a single-purpose account who is edit-warring and using sockpuppets to ensure his preferred version of the content. The article is sourced from such peerless authorities as Ali Sina, Islam Watch, Answering Islam, Faith Freedom - well, you can probably guess the rest. A lot of it is a novel synthesis of published sources. It's a pretty blatant POV rant and fails to make the case for independent scholarship having made a significant link between Muhammad and assassination, in as much as it was pretty much a standard technique of politics in those times. Guy ( Help!) 16:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The links to those anti islam website were added 10 minues ago. you make it look like its been there for a long time.They were added because users claim some of these are not assinations. So i added the POV of the cirtics of islam to show that some people do consider ti assiantions. I do nto consider those anti islam websites legit myslef-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 16:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply