This article was posted on Wikipedia Talk Page on Prophet Muhammad. It was immediately deleted by the Administrators and I was given a severe warning.

There is a particular issue about Islam that is rarely mentioned. That is about its social tenet of UniversalBrotherhood. That, all individuals are basically of equal bearing and deserving equal dignity. This is where Muslims and Islam stands at divergence.

A majority of the modern day Muslims are from nations that have supremely feudal languages. These feudal languages have an array of indicant words that split up individuals socially in a vertical manner. The words used for the perceived lower persons are of extreme pejorative quality, while the higher ups are held up as sort of divinity. The societies that are formed by these kind of languages are more or less feudal, hierarchical and more or less of a corrupted kind. In that, a particular significant section of the population is painted with abominable matter.

Muslims from such nations as India, Pakistan, many other Asian nations and such do come under this quality. In fact, it may even be asserted that if they are following the total positive aspects of Islam, such languages, as Hindi, Urdu, Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada, Cantonese and possibly many languages of Africa etc. may be qualified as ‘haram’ languages for Islam. When they speak and preach in such languages, they also become the standard bearers of the local feudal customs.

This idea may be illustrated from this incident from the life of Prophet Muhammad: When he entered the mosque at Medina one day, during his days of exile, everyone stood up from their seated positions. He had to caution them that he was only another human being and not to be equated with divinity. There was no need to get up.

Well, this stance of his is more in line with English communication systems, rather than of Asian language systems. May be Arabic is more in sync with English than with the above mentioned languages of the current day Muslims. For, if a Musaliar comes in and the people seated there do not get up, it is a very evident posture of disrespect and insult in such languages. However, in English, it is a theme that may go unnoticed.

People get up, bow, act obsequious etc. in feudal language systems not as a pretence, but because they are more or less forced to do so by the words in the language.

Another thing to be mentioned is that Prophet Muhammad is found to be an extremely forgiving, polite and tolerant person with a lot of fortitude. All such pose of intimidation by feudal-language-speaking Muslims are not in line with the personal attributes of Prophet Muhammad. In fact, the features of extreme provocation shown by Asian Muslims in particular is more in line with the encoded language codes of their own languages, rather than that of Islam.

As to the right of Muslims to say that no one can make an illustration about Prophet Muhammad is a diabolic right to which they have no divine claim to. For example, anyone who admires Prophet Muhammad can draw a picture of him or a make a film out of his story or even pray to him. Muslims have the right to not do it themselves due to the regimentation of their religious beliefs. Others who do not come under this regimentation can do it. When Muslims gets provoked over this, they are simply getting out of step with the mental features of Prophet Muhammad, who was certainly a great man. Or possibly, one of the greatest of human beings. Why Prophet Muhammad forbade keeping of his picture and images, was indeed his way to denigrate the idea of making a divinity out of him.

There are other means to illustrate a person. That is through words: For example, I have seen in a South Indian language posture, the words: Nabi Thirumeni as a description of Prophet Muhammad. The word Thirumeni is a word denoting a divine person. It was actually making a human god out of Prophet Muhammad. This is what he wanted to avoid. No wonder, Islam doesn’t allow itself to be translated into other languages. Islam as understood in English is quite different from Islam that is seen in such languages as Hindi, Malayalam, Tamil etc. The same way that English Christianity is a wee bit different from Christianity in these languages.

Beyond all this, there is need to understand that Quran is different from Hadîth (Hadeez). Quran is the Word of God, while Hadeez is only what certain individuals remember as being the Prophet’s words and opinion. It would supremely nice to understand that Prophet Muhammad stood at a very much higher mental elevation compared to even his most intimate follower. In fact, there is no comparison between Prophet Muhammad and even Abu backer (Abu Bakr). To say that such a person as Prophet Muhammad who couldn’t even bear the physical trauma of tiny ants and the mental agony of a mother bird, whose young babies had been stolen, would condone Halal killing (Islamic manner of slaughter) is to say a lie. He had arrived in Arabia to change the hideous mindset of the local people there, and not to stand as a supporter of their heinous native customs. Is Halal Killing ascribed to Quran or to Hadeez?

It would be quite intelligent to understand that when people write remembrances, some of their own social compulsions, mental allegiances and cultural fetishes can also get championed.

No Muslim can claim property-rights over Prophet Muhammad. If he indeed be the Messenger of God, he is for everyone. Prophet Muhammad came with liberal ideas. Yet, he spoke in tune with the requirements and compulsions of his own times. How come he be cloaked in robes of extreme intolerance and retrograde conservatism!