Hisham this is my preliminary answer of your confusion

Submitted by Hassan Pierre (Philippines), Apr 19, 2007 at 08:00

Many non-muslims had grossly commited error in judging Prophet Muhammad as per the prophetic career of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elisha, John and Jesus. They want Prophet Muhammad to be like them who never resorted to rebellion, raise arms or engage in battles. But those prophets are simply not warrior prophets because their mission is different in context, and were not authorized by God to lead an army to defend the believers from the attacked of disbelivers, bent on killing/anihilating them. But we have warrior prophets of God also such as Abraham, Moses, Joshua and David! So prophet Muhammad should be judged and compared as per the career of the warrior prophets of God rather than of those who are not, like john and Jesus.

If moses and jushua were authorized by God to use swords to protect themselves as they established Islam in Canaan, then why didnt God permit also to use swords to protect the Muslims from the aggression of the unbelievers? If Moses or Joshua was permitted to use sword who was only a national prophet sent for the Jews in order for them to be succesful in establishing Islam in Canaan, then prophet Muhammad will be expectedly permitted also as he established Islam in Arabia!!!

In the bible, Prophets Moses, Joshua, and david had engaged in wars and killings and they have done battles by the command of God! These Israelite Prophets were given by God to attack and massacre all the surrounding pagan tribes in contrast to Prophet Muhammad whose wars are just all in self-defense!

As per bible records, Moses, Joshua and David by the command of God, had killed and massacred not only men in war of the pagans but also their women and children, even the infants and animals! But we have to bear in our mind that the biography or story of Moses, Joshua and David are not so well comprehensively documented compared to that of Prophet Muhammad, which we have not only in the hadith but also in the sira or biography.

Of course, we have to take note also that not all the reports about Muhammad in hadith and history are true, but many of them are false, just simply hearsay, poorly or not accurately reported, simply fabricated by the henchmen of the tyrant Ummayad caliphs for political and moral propaganda in order to justify their evil deeds during their rule. Such as the Ummayads will just simply argue to their critics that why you will find fault in us where in fact our prophet is also doing like this...see the hadith reports which according by so and so Muhamamd is also doing this so and so?

But unlike the Jews and christians who regarded the Bible as purely the words of God ,hence they are obliged to believe that the killings and massacres commited by Moses, Joshua and David are authorised or commanded by God, but Muslims never regarded all the reports in Hadiths and sira/history as all true but we read them with caution, and we have to verify the veracity and truthfulness of the reports through the Holy Qur'an. If the hadith or history reports about Muhamad contradicts that of the Holy Qur'an then that reports are simply false and be rejected outright!

In short....let us be fair in judging Prophet Muhammad...

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".