A number of news outlets and even some Christians (unfortunately) have taken to referring to Mohammad as "the Prophet Mohammad," "Prophet Mohammad" or even just "the Prophet."
Occasionally when one objects to this one hears that it is just like the phrase "Jesus Christ" and has no more significance--that is, that it does not represent any catering to Muslim sensibilities by appearing to acknowledge the status of Mohammad as a prophet.
There are a bunch of things wrong with this comparison.
First and most obviously, the word "Christ" is in fact a transliteration of the Greek word which was used by Jews in Jesus' time to mean "the Messiah," but that fact is not widely known or immediately understood among English speakers, which is why when an English-language source says "Jesus Christ" it need not either be intended or taken to mean "Jesus the Messiah." In contrast, the word "prophet" is an ordinary English word the meaning of which is well understood. So even to refer to Mohammad as "the Prophet Mohammad" has a significance that goes well beyond "Jesus Christ." Hence, a better analogy would be to the phrase "the Lord Jesus," which you would never find a secular publication using!
It might be argued that the phrase "the Prophet Mohammad" is understood to be in silent scare quotes--that is, he is given this title in Islam, and the speaker is giving him this title while not actually agreeing that he was really a prophet or even that there are such things as prophets. In the same way, an atheist might refer to "the Prophet Elijah." My strong guess, though, is that he would do so without capitalizing "prophet" in that case.
In the present cultural context, it would be just as well to be honest and to acknowledge that Muslims want such indications of deference as the word "prophet" with capital letter, whereas Christians don't much care whether a non-Christian person or non-Christian publication refers to "Jesus" or to "Jesus Christ." The fact that indications of respect for Islam are demanded and that there is a certain amount of nervousness, sometimes amounting to fear, about not giving such indications is relevant to the cultural meaning of a phrase like "the Prophet Mohammad" in a major publication.
What, moreover, are we to say of "the Prophet" cum capital letter and without any name following it when uttered by a non-Muslim? It is quite simply absurd even to attempt to say that this is not a deferential designation for the purpose of currying favor with Muslims. It's quite clear why Muslims would do it: Mohammad is, in their view, the prophet of Allah, as the Muslim statement of faith indicates. But he isn't the prophet either to a secular person or to a Christian. (Or to a Hindu, while we're at it.) It is completely inappropriate and inexcusable for a Christian to refer to Mohammad as "the Prophet," and all the worse if no one actually has a gun to your head when you do it.
Words mean things. You can't just make a gesture and then pretend that you are not making that gesture. Let's be clear, especially among ourselves as Christians. Calling Mohammad "the Prophet Mohammad" or, worse, "the Prophet" is not like saying "Jesus Christ."