All I’m arguing is that your footnote is, at best, dishonest and at worst, an outright lie.
Odd, that I didn’t come across any such footnotes. Of course I stopped looking after I found 2 sources that didn’t mention anything close to what your footnotes read.
Funny how people perverse history to use it for their personal gains.
I quote only from official Koran sources, and also the Sunnah as recorded by Bukhari, Muslim, Ishaq, and Tabari - Islam's earliest and more trusted sources.
Ishaq's Sira, or biography, called Sirat Rasul Allah, provides the lone account of Muhammad's life and the formation of Islam written within 200 years of the prophet's death.
The Ta'rikh is the oldest, most trusted and comprehensive history of Islam's formation and Muhammad's example, called Sunnah. It was written by Tabari. His History of al-Tabari is formatted like the Bible. It begins with Islamic creation and ends with the acts of Muhammad's companions. Tabari is a compilation of Hadith quotes and Qur'an passages.
A Hadith is an oral report from Muhammad or his companions. Muslims believe that Hadith were inspired by Allah, making them scripture. The most revered Collection was compiled in a topical arrangement by Bukhari. Allah's Book, the Qur'an, lacks context and chronology, so to understand it, readers are dependent upon the Sira, Ta'rikh, and Hadith.
All that can be known about Muhammad's deeds, means, motives, god, and scripture is enshrined in these books.
Instead of calling people who take the time and years to study these liars, try reading them yourself.
I didn't write the suras and hadith. They came directly from Islam's scriptures. If you don't like what Muhammad and Allah(one and the same) said, don't blame me. I'm just the messenger.