" 

 == Historical View == 

 I find it funny how Wikipedia loves to place unnecessary crap like the So-Called Historical section written by liberals who are anti-gentile and Christaphobic. I don't see you doing the same thing by including a section on the article about Nero - There is more proof for Jesus then there is of Nero but there is no section on the ""Historical Nero"" quoting lame books by so-called scholars that claim he never existed. I bet there will never be a section suggesting that Muhammad never existed. In fact the Christaphobic bigotry (or is it just plain cowardliness)of Wikipedia is so obvious in the fact that the only ""Criticism"" in the Muhammad article is the lame cowardly attempt below 

 :::Criticism of Muhammad 
 ::::Muslims consider Muhammad to be the final prophet, the messenger of the final revelation that he called the Qur'an. However, criticism of Muhammad has existed since the 7th century, for his marriages, military expeditions and the laws he established, such as those concerning slavery. 

 Come on Wikipedia if you are going to be anti-Christian bigots at least try and cover it up better - You just appear to be lazy when you do it this way. There is so much you can add about Muhammad, His child molestation of a 9 year old girl or his masturbation over her at age 6. His mass murder of those that rejected his teachings, His excrement fetishes and his belief that demons fly up you butt when you expel gas - do I have to do all your work for you? So what is it, are you Anti-Christian Jesus Haters, Cowards or just lazy? it has to be one or another   "