User talk:Read Blooded

Bismillah درود إيبراهما Check sources for misinformation. Why would NASSER AULAQI record his objection to the death of his son-grandson...Is that of his son/grandson by executive decree one announced other concealed for the maximum infliction of pain upon tribal societies. In all of history did any draw a yemeni out except by the son. Is there any killing of yemenis except in the traditional order of father son grandson (that too most viciously). This is naught Persia. There is no greater handshake than that of the yemeni of course Muslim male guarded his chastity as well as that of the female. Only romans held the legacy of Cain where women are prostitutes to the state and have no soul. On AWLAKI registering his place of birth as yemen let this idiom ring your ears : The blood of my blood is my country. Concerning the FIQH of Jihad : Let admonishers first correct their belief-aqidah by turning their hands pens and swords against tyranny with its rule by oppression-the profound darkness that rises. There is absolutely no FIQH of fakery in Jihad... There is only the living the SELF-subsisting. There is no greater verification with that of revelation than socratic wisdom. Wisdom the lost mount of the Muslim where ever you find it seize it--Muhammadدرود إيبراهيما There is naught a thing more encyclopedic than the mind that correctly deduced facts from contesting reality. No Jihad No Islam--Muhammad صلي الله عليه عليه و سلم conveyed in verity verily by Imam Abu ABDuRRAhMAN ANWAR Bin NASSER al AWLAKI (may ALLAH have mercy upon them). And to change the facts of a CHAIN OF NARRATION WHICH is dependent upon the details of their death by aspersion is slander. The onus of proof is on the accuser in all cases the detractor from character that would set a nation at war by the murder and oppression of naught only its citizenry but also the world. The burden of proof is naught upon the defendant.

(Read Blooded (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC))

--Read Blooded (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Bold text== Misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia ==

Please note that you may not use Wikipedia--either your user page, user talk page, or article talk pages--as a forum to express your opinions about Islam, Muhammad, or anything else, per our policy WP:NOTFORUM. We are here to build an encyclopedia. That encyclopedia has a bunch of policies and regulations; you may want to start by looking at WP:Five pillars. However, if you continue to attempt to use Wikipedia as your personal soapbox, you will be blocked from editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A soapbox meant derogatorily is naught respectful to the neutral content of an encyclopedia. Everything said is fact recorded AHAD-DEATH from the Sunnah-Qur'an. It is naught personal opinion but factually recorded as much as your birth dates and death as well as written in the eternal tablet by which all men hold consciousness. If one is naught allowed to record facts in Islam neither are distorters. The five pillars of Wikipedia can build only as long as Islam is integral (one). To hide behind a facade of neutral opinion when an editor had been most aggressive and impolite to Read Blooded is unacceptable even were it speakers corner Green Park : London. And to threaten "you will be blocked from editing" produced its reciprocity from one who made the law of one. One more able. In this case you have made yourself two. A non-neutral partner. And one will never equal two except on the lawful marriage bed. I leave this post and your opinion recorded above as witness to fairness but tyranny whether open or hidden did naught respect anyone let alone the law. Readers decided neutrality by the honesty of the presentation review of sources. Editors in which Read Blooded is recorded as one made changes to provoke thought. A danger to thought police. (I do naught bold this entry because I am far above mean tactics which a few editors show). Delete fair talk fair biography with the play of your pens and there will be no Wikipedia free encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is all-around education on one subject...you may be all around but all praise is to one that one is naught your subject ! This is no misunderstanding only misrepresentation.

(Read Blooded (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia is not a Muslim encyclopedia, thus the Five Pillars of Islam have nothing whatsoever to do with our rules. And yes, we do have rules--just because everyone is free to edit does not mean they are free to do whatever they want. I don't understand most of what you wrote, but you do need to understand that Wikipedia records information from reliable sources, not just provides people a place to record their own thoughts. Further, please note that religious scriptures are not considered to be reliable sources under Wikipedia's rules except for the exact things they say. For example, we can say in an article something like "According to the Qu'ran, Muhammad spoke to the Angel Gabriel." We cannot neutrally say, as a fact, that "Muhammad spoke to the Angel Gabriel", since the only sources are the Qu'ran and other Islamic scriptures; these are primary sources, not the sorts of sources Wikipedia relies on. Please note that I mean no offense to you or your faith--I fully support your right to your faith, and hope that you can express it freely in many places. However, Wikipedia is a privately owned website; as such, we have rules about what can and cannot be posted. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

بسم الله Produce your five rules in one paragraph since Wikipedia is privately-owned then there origin will be shown  إنشاء الله to the English speaking Japanese. There are men like WARAQA bin NAUFALرضي الله عنه an Arab christian who verified to Muhammadصلي الله عليه و سلم the Angel Gabrielجبريل عليه السلام. That too is recorded. No one asked you to accept what the Muslim believed. It is acknowledged in writing. By the very orbits of the sun moon and planets your eyes. It would be discriminatory to call it Islamic scripture when writing is naught as today in a literate society where tongues loll and hands stroll. Any would take a man who died for his word which equaled his honor over one who bought and sold it. The scribes that wrote and copied it. Invented with no basis except to deceive by moving words from their rightful places. Any who is an enemy to JiBREAL and MIKAA'IL عليهم السلام is an enemy to one to mankind. For any who denied the Messenger of power (JiBREAL عليه السلام then with every breath let it be contracted and extracted in pain. For the denier of the angle of plantation then drought-famine even were shopping centers to run underground storing packaged foodstuffs refrigerated frozen.

(Read Blooded (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC))

April 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article General relativity, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cyber cobra (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Book sources. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services in relevant mainspace articles is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Cyber cobra (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bismillah The Qur'an is the most authentic source on the Arabic language. It is the guard over all scripture whether treatises on cosmogony-cosmology or the novels fairy tales with cartoons which spin from it. These form part of the Qur'an known as DaWouldداوود عليه السلام David's Dark Books of Prophecy. All mistakes are mine. Unruliness that of satan.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to second Materialscientist's warning, and clarify that you can consider this a final warning. It seems fairly clear to me that whatever you think you are here to accomplish it's not for purposes that are matching to Wikipedia's. If you add another set of personal opinions to any article or article talk page, I will block you indefinitely, because so far your account has not produced anything productive. As one final suggestion, and please do not take offense, but part of the problem here seems to be a language problem. I am fairly certain you're not a native English speaker; perhaps you would be more comfortable and even productive contributing in your native language? For instance, there is an Arabic Wikipedia; their main page is . Note that they still require that information be verified by reliable sources, and that you not use Wikipedia as a place to publish your own personal opinions...but perhaps other editors could guide you more effectively in your native language (if Arabic  is not your native langauge, search List of Wikipedias for other languages).  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(There is absolutely no need to mention the 4-momentum here, since we can just say "energy and momentum", which is equally correct but a lot more accessible. (And does not incorrectly suggest that 4-momentum is the source term in the Einstein equation) Absolutely astute Timothy Rias : To legitimize relativity by returning to Newtonian nomenclature (on momentum) when the devisor of relativity was intent from the very beginning to redesign it (i.e. limit Newtonian mechanics) is validity in science with adherence to the highest ethical standards in research.  There are applications of Newton's theorems in mathematics which have never been applied.  One grad student took a correct solution using one theorem from Newton to his professor from an undergrad first year differential calculus class and both they and the mathematicians marveled at it.  This went to prove that Newton's physics is contemporaneous not just classical in foundation. Relativity is relativity an opinion. It is naught revolutionary but devolutionary. The bankers warfront on nations and helpless human populations. But many are those steeped in arrogance boasted of their point in counsel and position in numbers of men. It is the same scene with Socrates and Plato in The Dialogs of the Cave. When an encyclopedia became a personal tool in the hands of an oligarchy of men then is socratic wisdom buried The Design of Inquiring Minds--computer application blunted. But hey that gives them a kick-joy to their miserable lives. Misery to know there is accountability for concealment of facts covering ears. For trespasses against truth and reason are immediately punished (Qur'an)  Such  is the glory of reason the highest faculty given to man. Which a few men for vested interest sought to mislead. In the case of material scientist-s t-he-y can naught create even a fly even if all men got together for that purpose. Feeble are those who petition and those who are petitioned (The Parable of the Fly 22:73-4). (Imperial) Hubris is the downfall of All the President's Men. May you be rewarded Mr.Rias in the unceasing search for truth and all which flanked it. For a lie can naught exist in absolute reality. May that be your home. Tyranny but temporary. As the Sorcerers of Pharaoh said when he decreed their death for naught taking him as their supervisor : You can only touch upon the world for a few numbered days. Those who hated that Islam is Knowledge-Light with a capitol "K" are destroyed by the ownership of their hatefulness. It didn't take a revert. Everything held is in trust (Read Blooded (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC))

Afterword :

[ In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore traveled at the speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism. In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light with respect to any inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source,[3] and explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the special theory of relativity and showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism. After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299,792,458 m/s with a measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light).

All physics is the study of the court of Pharaoh. "The speed of light with respect to any inertial frame...independent of the motion of light source" is the hand of Moses (and I am prevented from using an honorific because of the narrowed rules of Wikipedia -honorifics which should be with any man according to weighted rank because mankind is one except those who made their living by detraction). Moses upon one command drew forth his righthand shining white before Pharaoh. A subtle invitation from seated power to potential potential sought. That potential the fort of purity-for-givng. The purity of his hand distinguished him from his competitors who to this very day pull the white rabbit out of the black hat in mockery of the greatest signs of transcendence demonstrated in space-time that of light which exchanged matter. Research is current there are conflicting assertions about which Pharaoh it is yet what is essential to witness is the temporizing of time which is the main game stay of tyrants :  Divide and rule was always Pharaohs the Lord of the pegs-tent poles until he was destroyed his army of men with their monuments defaced. Time dislocated : the shattering truth behind temporization which by time delay from its command removed planets stars solar systems from their natural orbit in the creation of cosmos from the uni-verse LAA ILAH ILLAH ALLAH Muhammadar rasouloulah. It is a reminder that six Pharaohs carried one numbered title of Usertetetemps from which the material world has the word "user" to this day. That too ubiquitous. The great feat of magic which the Sorcerers called up from all cities showed were many ropes thrown first in lively motion. What we have here the packet nature of light which is woven with/like rope braided perfectly so that when the sun was well up there were shadows cast with moving magnetism between metals with rocks in motion which venerated Pharaoh in all his monuments pyramids--people after their great fear which they conceived would prostrate then applaud victory to Pharaoh for life. Moses upon command threw the staff in his righthand and it became a serpent that swallowed up all that they faked. The Stick that swallowed up falsehood. This is the story of meta matter light lucent. Greater the feat of exchange: life-death. "A complete and self-consistent theory of {[Quantum gravity]}" will naught exist except by the study of the chain "picket-fence" that formed the bed of its revelation from the Arabic Qur'an. Whether the sea of water sand time it is all plasma which only one revealed book the Qur'an recognized by fact. All the scientists mentioned along with the elite at Ivy universities exchanged research on classical Arabic sources. The question is why do you conceal what was revealed except for power and glory forever that forever pharaonic. This is only a ground entry to help in reflection upon the signs of created matter by those who had no time nor desire to rail about what is beyond all ken the creator. By all command deriving consistent laws from the mystery of creative formation where none were disposed to wrangle by the arrogance of egos because of the preference for polemical politics. Those misled who seek a doctrine discordant in the skies (Qur'an). And we say nothing good about Pharaoh because ALLAH-swt destroyed him--AWLAKI. The measured meter is a very sweeping unit in linguistics and material science.]

(Read Blooded (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC))

Use of my talk page
Please refrain from making these type of edits to my talk page.

Based on your edit to my talk page, you appear to have a misunderstanding of what the purpose of Wikipedia is. I strongly encourage you to read the five pillars of Wikipedia (which are the fundamental principles of the Wikipedia project), as well as the following Wikipedia policies:
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * No original research
 * Neutral point of view

I do not mind answering your questions, but rants that encourage editors to violate Wikipedia policy, or requires editos to follow specific religious principles or beliefs, are not tolerated. Singularity42 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

ISLAM as shocking as it is to the world and to the wool pulled over the eyes of men IS NAUGHT A RELIGION. ISLAM is DEEN=exchange. See glossary of Aisha Bewley's AL-MUWATTA The Well-troden Path. The purpose of Wikipedia is naught to falsify a culture nor to promote democracy. Which those who are culturally impaired do unwittingly and some whose purpose is to deceive do wittingly in the garb of scholarship. A Muslim can be anything but naught a liar. So far Read Blooded had naught seen any convincing evidence from any source on this page except cobra...that Wikipedia is informed and neutral about Muhammad. Read Blooded asked you Wikipedia to be neutral to lay aside illogic when it came to picturing Muhammad since a picture is a thousand words and totally in conflict with the man the message. The entry on Muhammad deleted. That is an easy matter for one greatest who is always greater. Say as you wish about Islam because no one asked you to believe. But when you have naught the courtesy to respect Muslim and must desecrate him with an image that did naught exist because the man was one in deed-speech for imperial chauvinism then Read Blooded whammed this fact to the ignorant : many are times to this day that Muhammad rode to desecrate the enemies of man. The barrier is between the dead and the living naught the living and the living (Islam). Death is only material. The Muslim is naught material. The fact that the bodies of martyrs do naught decompose is evidence to One Palestinian killed by a jewish soldier that soldier never stopped screaming Muhammad Muhammad rushing madly about until all the jewish soldiers fired upon him killing him. I witness one law where all men are blessed that there is no deity except ALLAH-swt. Do you want to give me by-laws. Bye-bye One speed (with you) One speed (with you). You may of course naught show this refrain to your refrain. There is always a chorus in every tragedy except in Islam. It is naught sufficient to adjust the browser when lies mislead causing harm to those without knowledge for the Muslim is responsible for every state of innocence desecrated jolly rogers. Apparently it is the same old garbage from losers who held no intellectual ground in the face of Islam : censorship. All pictures are censored. Is naught every image burned from uranium salts including lasers in electronic transition. A captured moment. You may have bought the rights to Wikipedia policy to rule as you like (which is only the defamation of the character of Muhammad) with the stamp of imprimatur to the message delivered by Muhammad. It was more than fair to ask Wikipedia to exclude pictures of Muhammad. Open the entry on Islam with sourced Muslim contribution. But then how would the world justify their fun and foolishness. Pay-fees to occidental orientalist. Doom left naught a recorded footprint. This is naught a rant. Read Blooded did naught encourage any editor to violate Wikipedia policy. That policy must be in conformity with a basic etiquette that does more than live and let live for there is no living with falsehood. What is falsehood it is that which did naught permit any bonding of matter. Only that in truth bonded. That is why the world will never be a sit-com. The world was naught created for play and amusement but for truth and justice (Qur'an) And there is no image for that. Are you joshing with one fifth of the world population. The first finger which hypocrites call the F**K finger. Those who invented minority rights. By the ring finger for every major rule there is one ruler LAA ILAHA ILLA ALLAH. By the forefinger check in Check out...Never Josh! --kHATTAB (Commander). By the pinky Read Blooded defeated the Pinkerton (precursor of FBI). And by the thumb Read Blooded is apposite. Never for A Fistful of Dollars. Again Islam is NAUGHT a religion. All forms of atheism denying life destroying minorities are religions.

apposite |ˈapəzit| adjective apt in the circumstances or in relation to something : an apposite quotation | the observations are apposite to the discussion. DERIVATIVES appositely adverb appositeness noun ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from Latin appositus, past participle of apponere ‘apply,’ from ad- ‘toward’ + ponere ‘put.’

religion |riˈlijən| noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion. • details of belief as taught or discussed : when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics. • a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions. • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion. PHRASES get religion informal be converted to religious belief and practices. DERIVATIVES religionless adjective

(Read Blooded (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC))

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. As I stated before, Wikipedia is not a forum for you to present your opinions about Islam, abortion, or whatever. Since you have shown time and again that you have no intention to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, blocking is necessary to prevent further disruption. As I suggested before, it may be that you need to choose a different langauge wikipedia, because not only are your edits disruptive, they make very little sense. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bismillah Wall 'ASR by the wall which held all mercy that is Muslim within it and the wrath of Allah all along its sides all along for the vicious the hypocrites it is they who are blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Read_Blooded#Response_to_Your_Comment

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________--________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Response to Your Comment
As-Salaamu Alaykum

You state that any foundation "presupposes faith". I'm afraid I don't see how you have reached such a conclusion. I have seen no real indication that it's "syncretism" or "obscurantism". Wikipedia revolves around being encyclopedic, and as such has developed a neutrality policy which neither promotes nor condemns any religion.

The notion that Wikipedia must either shape its policy to Islamic religious law or abolish its neutrality policy seems to be a false dichotomy. Indeed, there are

Furthermore, does not the policy within Islam regarding the portrayal of His Holiness Muhammad extend to all Messengers of God? Does that not mean that portayals of those blessed Personages of Jesus, Moses, Noah, Abraham, and the many Others (including portrayals of God Himself) as well would be equally in question? And indeed, with that considered, does it not also mean that Wikipedia would have to contend with the other religious perspectives vying for their beliefs to be adhered to and their perspectives given prominence?

Indeed, would you also have it be required that all portrayals of women, even historical images, observe the laws of hijab? How far would you take this before it becomes anything but a clearly and distinctly Islamic institution?

Consider indeed: do not most of the English speaking world consider themselves Christian and believe Muhammad to be (may God forgive them!) a "false Prophet"? If Wikipedia were forced to take sides in the matter, as you suggest, and it were put to a vote or something akin to it, then Wikipedia would go towards being an uncensored display of all facts to, indeed, a mouthpiece of denial and infidelity, would it not?

If a Mumeen does not wish to view a portrayal of the Prophet, then they have only to turn off images. If they object to the practice of it being put up there, then they need only remember that Wikipedia does not adhere to the laws of Islam, and they are not likewise forced to create, view, or add images if they are not so inclined (save by accidentally overlooking the ability to turn off images).

I hope you will consider these things with care and be understanding of what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Allah-u-Akbar, and Ya Baha-ul-Abha. Peter Deer (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ By the set which walled all elements in holding outside its wall the null set ("The empty set is always a null set. More generally, any countable union of null sets is null"}  there is no contribution to those who fictitiously portray pictures of Muhammad. Did he pose ???  Were drawn pictures done from any person he contacted. Adding to the hagiography of lying clearly showed total lack of neutrality.  If Wikipedia wished to display these "pictures" they could have done so under how the persian jews viewed Muhammad in their portrait of Islam.  There by referencing that these paintings were done for the purpose of mockery. Subtitled jewish Islam. But seeing that this is a website which forced their opinion with its worldview on the unsuspecting to mislead on the proposition of neutrality  then may both their bots with revenue vanish. DEEN al Islam is naught a religion it is that way of life in the trials of life and death laying the foundation of all logic the fountainhead of reason. Reason being the greatest faculty gifted to men (only in Islam). By reason is neutrality maintained. There was NO science until the jurists of Islam founded critical thought. The world in the dark ages for that reason is revelation sent when previous scripture is corrupted by call it the Invisible Hand of Adam Smith. To script scribes. Wikipedia is no better than the 70,000 rabbis who sat in the court of Jerusalem asking for money to forgive the sins of poor people who too were given rites to participate under their laws which had nothing to do with Islam. In the religion of Wikipedia the dichotomy duality in structure is theirs. They have divided thought form its moorings to present their pseudoscience. On what basis is this said the Muslim is eternally one. One in heart that can naught be divided nor is it ever necessary to do so for true science is one. The heart being an Arabic word that is at one and the same time the loft of the mind and the seat of the affections. All sound. There is no division conflict for that is the hypocrite those who would block traffic editing by their prejudices saying they are neutral when their demos with its ideology is divide and rule. Division the armies of the west with its extreme east. For the hypocrites those who would mock men make computers drunk with cut up jokes like their hand in editing There is a painful doom in this world. Allah His Angles and all of mankind curse the wrongdoers. My position on abortion is no ideology with thoughts where wrongdoers shielded sin and rancor entitle themselves with new titles ever bent on deceit and new-fangleddoctrine. With one 45-typed page paper written in one day submitted to Princeton (reported naught one red mark on it) was their god freud destroyed. A statue of freud holding a revolver to his head erected outside Indiana, PA. That paper done on computer logic. The same for einstein and darwin. Both receiving the most severe torture in the graves....einstein radiated in white light and black ...darwin hung upside down from a tree by his big toe cracking every bone in his body as a whip wielded. Wikipedia with their five rules like addison with his five staged have offended men inclusive. Keep your gods to yourselves. There is no place for them in a university founded on the uni-verse LAA ILAHA ILLA ALLAH Muhammad-ar Ra-soul-lieu-lah. Cosmos the disintegration of the universe the god of babylon form which only Ibrahim Muhammad and the Muslim in belief freed themselves from its tyranny. 'Bold text'It is only Allah-swt Who has no sides. Bold text''' Both His hands right. How easy it was to show in eighteen pages the derived origin of Kant's noumena to the antimonies of the Qur'an (A+) since sitting in the highest philosophy course offered in the west that of immanuel kant. Where the professor said the first thing we do after destroying religion (meaning revealed revelation) is to "kick-out" the poets.... Who can forget the wandering in exile of Homer. The Iliad which is said to be greek is narrated in fourteen dialects as is the Qur'an. To All Quiet on the Western Front can Wikipedia honestly still claim it is neutral by the resurrection of the platitudes of plato. Fair warning those whom masters think are their slaves including computers are deluded. For the computer is a slave to only Allah-swt. And with the entry of the word strike in arabic-english is the greatest in martyrdom operations....foretold is the striking of the hour which none know but all fear by one command.

''' Proposition nine....California Proposition 9, Marsy's Law (2008) - Ballotpedia ballotpedia.org/.../California_Proposition_9,_Marsy'... - ترجم هذه الصفحة 10 Feb 2012‏ – Proposition 9 altered laws governing victim's rights in California. It amended the California Constitution to add new provisions regarding victims ... All propositions like the immoral but prostitution to idolatry. To me my deeds and to you yours. I am free from that which you ascribe to Muhammad. The administrator living in Japan is clearly of the wrongdoers supporting wrongdoers. How oft has Allah-swt destroyed gangs like unto you. Wikipedia is clearly their tool. In the process of subversion it did naught matter whether you believed in some prophets or naught any all are EQUAL in atheism. The atheism of freud einstein darwin pitched. (Atheism by definition is the dichotomy of light-matter...in Islam the self is one until death where the soul separated from matter). And think not that atheists are materialists for that too they expend by wasting. The curse of Allah His Angles and all of mankind is on the wrongdoers--Qur'an. LAA ILAHA ILLA ALLAH Muhammad-ar Ra-soul-lieu-lah. (Read Blooded (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)) Mon 12:59 2012 Moon change. (Read Blooded (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Oooooooooookay...frankly my friend, I'm a little lost. This seems to be treating Wikipedia like an ideological battlefield which it is not, stating that it must in accordance with its own policies adhere to and support the laws of Islam which it does not. It's just an encyclopedia. You and I are in complete agreement that these ancient imagined portrayals are not accurate, but it has been determined that they add in some way to the Encyclopedic style of the article, and that such images would typically be included for many people (a good example being King Arthur) as even how they were perceived throughout history is the subject of encyclopedic interest.
 * Really...yeah, la ilaha ila-Allah, wa Muhammadun Rasul-u-llah. I testify that there is no deity save God and Muhammad is His Messenger. And truth be told, I once got in trouble in the past for doing something very similar (insistently removing images without understanding why they were there or the intensive discussions and deliberations which had gone before) and I sympathize...but I can tell you that this isn't some big conspiracy or battle or anything, it's just a conflict between some basic functional policies that have been necessary to navigate the wide, wide world of diverse and adamant and often completely conflicting beliefs people have and people who don't get why their way of doing things isn't what everyone is doing. Indeed, you can't shove Islam down people's throats, as the Qur'an says: "there is no compulsion in religion" Peter Deer (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
Your last edit involved clearly unacceptable speech per WP:POLEMIC. As with the rest of the encyclopedia, this talk page is not a free space for you to spout your ideas. I have revoked your talk page access. If you wish to pursue an unblock, you may follow the instructions at the Unblock Ticket Request System. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)