I can see Dave's point and will try to remember it.

Submitted by Prashant (United States), Aug 25, 2022 at 02:35

Dear Dr Pipes, Reader Dave clarified that discovering the truth about the origin and life of Muhammad is necessary because if Muhammad did not exist or his story is somehow less true, then Muslims can be persuaded not to believe in him so stubbornly (my paraphrasing). That is a valid point.

As a polytheistic Hindu, I am quite used to being told by everyone that my method of worship and the religious theory that I adhere to is wrong. This criticism of Hindu belief system has one advantage: I am not too afraid to tell others that their method of worship might be wrong as well. For me finding flaws in the message of Islam (politely) is not a big deal. So, I take a slightly different approach from Dave's. My contention is that whether Muhammad existed or not, the message attributed to him is severely deficient.

Either way, the Islamic tendency to defend Islam stubbornly and aggressively is the common problem faced by both mine and Dave's approaches. That forms a consensus. Hope I do not forget it. Thanks to Dave for explaining his point.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".