No that's already been done to death by everyone else, but Muhammed actually led a polar opposite life to Christ and Buddha, so it's actually fair enough to read his life story and say "is this really a guy who should be emulated? Since Muhuammed is called the best of muslims who should be emulated. ". Anyway im told this is the wrong thread for this, so we can countinue the discussion in the Religion - what's the point the thread. You can also read the biograghy of Muhammed yourself and make up your own mind about it.
The thing is, If Christians had just gotten as far as getting the Thou shall not kill part, they be closer to getting their religion right. Apart from declaring us the kings of the jews, if christians lived according to jesus christ then the world would have been a lot better place. If you simply read the life of the prophet Muhammed who is the iconof 1.8 billion people and who is said to the best of all humans and best of all humans who every muslim should emulate it becomes pretty fecking important how he actually led his life. So when he actually directly or indirectly was reponsible for the death of a lot of people, the destruction of all other religions, enslaving people and trading enslaved women and children for his, and having slaves of his own and chose barbaric punishment for crimes, then you've got a pretty huge problem when 1.8 billion people elevate this person to hold the highest divine authourity in the history of mankind.
With Siddharta Gautama there isn't really much dirt on him. The main critism you can make is that in some of his teachings, he describes a female rebirth to be lower than a male rebirth. I take this mainly to mean that it has historically been more unfortuntate to be woman in human history because women have almost everywhere until recently in the 20th and 21st been oppressed by the men and there havn't been gender equality. In the 21st century western world, I don't think this difference applies.
And what is morbid about developing a critique against religions that seek political power and dominion over everyone one else? Is there inherently anything more morbid or wrong than being anti-islamist than being anti-maoist? What's the difference for you? If Muslims want to prove they are tolerant they could start with promoting freedom of religion in their muslim majority countries where it is prohibited. And in Denmark anyone public figure who is a vocal critic of Islam basically has to be live under police protection. That is a pretty damn severe problem.
I know someone else had answered you but let me try it too.
In my opinion you have got the wrong end of the stick.
Yes every Muslim would say he is the best man and they are correct in their opinion. But on the other hand what is written about him may not be all correct. And it's a fact that some hadeeth or his sayings people quote now are pure fabrications.
As for slavery he didn't have any slaves. It was this that led to his clash with the Meccans. They didn't mind him trying to teach a new religion. But they very much minded when he started preaching that all mankind are equal. Because that led to their slaves joining the new religion.
Let's look at the deaths you quote. Apart from one instance where he is supposed to pass the death penalty on the males of one tribe, there is nothing to show he put anyone else to the sword. Even this the decision was made by another Arab, under whose protection they lived. According to the custom of those days it was done in this manner.
The Arab conquests started after him.
You can't blame the religion for it. The same way you can't blame Jesus for the Inquisition or the forceful conversion to Christianity of non Christians.
You can't blame Buddha for the genocide of the Rohingya by the Burmese or Moses of the persecution of the Palestinians by the Israelis.
As for the religious freedom, yes in Islam there is no compulsion in religion.
This is why I repeatedly say it's not the religion itself but people who make all the problems in religious interpretation. Let's look at non Muslims under a Muslim government in those days. They are free to practice their religion. Yes they pay a tax. But this tax eliminate them from military service. The Muslims have to fight while non Muslims are not obliged to fight. That didn't stop a lot of non Muslims fighting in the Arab army.
Now look at today. A few Muslim countries do not allow religious freedom. To be honest I think it's about 3 or 4 countries only that doesn't allow. But this is not a religious issue. This is a political issue.
There are many Muslim political leaders. Pakistan had one. Bangladesh has been having one for a very long time. Indonesia the largest Muslim country had one. There are many others too.
An Arab from Saudi is very much different from an Arab from Jordan. Even the way they speak is different. It's like saying a white Canadian from Quebec is the same as a white man/woman from France is the same. To someone who doesn't speak French they look the same and speak French. But in reality they may look the same but officially they may speak French but many times they don't understand each other.
It's not the religion per se is the issue. It's us, the humans who created divisions and mayhem in this world.