OOOEEH an outright lie.<quoted text>
I did read his book in the first place!!
And I did not just commented his "pygminess" based on any prejudice.
These people decide their "Mission" before even writing the book.
If they want to picture some one as "devil" .they first make a picture of "devil" in their mind.
Then they start "looking for evidence" and they collect one piece from here and one piece from there (all from "Authentic Islamic Book" no doubt) and then piece together to complete their picture of Devil.!!
A person who does not have actual knowledge of his mission is impressed by his deep knowledge of Islamic books.
His books are full of contradictions .They "usually" start with what great man our prophet was, his sincerity his calmness, his determination, his steadfastness .all positive traits.
Then one by one he breaks all these qualities and present the prophet as a "forger" "A sooth sayer" "A crafty man" a "Cruel man, "A sex maniac" what happened to the "positive traits shown earlier"? All vanished in thin air!!
With each episode , they offer different explanation of his character . All contradictory with each other.
This is the attitude of all such Western Scholars who write about the life of our prophet from "Authoritative Islamic Sources".
And people who do not know Arabic language and not aware of Islamic way of analysis and criticism are "taken in" by their writers.
I can find excuses for people who have no knowledge and talk from what they read in the papers and media . But no excuse for these "knowledgeable people" who try to Create Falsehood from the Truth.
These people are agents of Devil , if not the Devil in human forms!!
You did not read the book first.
I know you are familiar with f.i. Guilleaume since i quoted him extensively as well as some other more modern western writers. But if you are going to claim that the professor Margoliouth is all these people combined in one person we've stretched the byzantian to a kairoism.
So You are intimitely acquainted with all the people mentioned in the footnotes! That predate the western writers mentions by others in other threads.
Well that just can't be since a while back you never even heard of them.
(It's not that i can envisage you outguessing my next contribution and pre-read thus during my absesnse. Though you should be aware that i pick up on those little remarks like f.i. unfamiliarity or gross exagerations.)
It's only natural that the professor would point out that some behaviour would be consider contra western mores, though he frankly gave an example of a man living with the native americans and their alien ways, that serve however as an example of the way other cultures think and reason.
But i have not come upon any rant. Or outright polemics as you suggest.
So no MUQ you have not read the book.
Though i posted it so you could get familiar with a different approach. Alexander the Greats story is also not all roses and sunshine. Empire builders are usually not, but this book is about the conditions that enabled the man, a study as such.