> but it also contains links to the primary sources. Look up what those sources are. I have looked up more sources in Arabic (not mentioned on the Wikipedia pa

> but it also contains links to the primary sources. Look up what those sources are. I have looked up more sources in Arabic (not mentioned on the Wikipedia page). There is practically a universal consensus among scholars that the narrations of this incident are fabricated, based on analyzing the chain of narration (all contain known liars and fabricators). > Furthermore, this is a standard part of islamic law (killing for criticism). Do you dispute that as well ? Yes. The religion is open to criticism. Show me where it says otherwise. > Plus muhammad had over a dozen poets executed, as well as entire camps of people suspected merely of leaving his army... Famously he had a tribe massacred... Citation needed. Again, it's not about being "famous" or not, it's about whether a certain narration conforms to the very rigorous standards that have been set in examining such accounts, not to mention other approaches to determine authenticity. Otherwise, anybody can say anything (e.g. all four Bibles have anonymous authors). Each particular incident must be examined to see what exactly happened, instead of throwing blanket statements like this.