The book claims that Muhammad said terrorism made him victorious and that he used to tempt people with paradise so they would crush his enemies.
The author also accuses Muhammad of treason, breaching the Treaty of Hudaybiya with the Meccan tribe of Quraish, and instigating Muslims to kill Jews.
Spencer, the director of the Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch websites, also claims that the prophet encouraged Muslim men to take women captive to control them.
And which of these statements is untrue? Muhammed’s violation of his sacred oath and signed treaty (not once, but twice) is well known to Muslims. It’s an integral part of the Hegira story. And widely admired, as a very clever trick. The president of Pakistan cited the story of how Muhammed broke his oaths with the Jews of Medina and the Infidels of Mecca in his speech to the nation explaining why he was entering into a treaty with Bush after 9/11.
The speech was broadcast to the world (I heard the translation on NPR), but the NY Times evidently thought that part wasn’t important enough to include in its printed transcription the next day.
These three items are all commonplaces among Muslims, accepted and admired. They just don’t like infidels to know about them. But notice that the article doesn’t deny any of it—it just finds it insulting for Infidels to talk about it.
The Mohammedans hate that a few modest-sized publications like HUMAN EVENTS do not kowtow to them the way the big and powerful TIME, NEWSWEEK, and the MSN types do.