And the massacre of the Jews of Medina.
I'm assuming you would be equally as concerned with the massacre of the Amelekites and Midianites.
I would be if Jesus was responsible.
Then you hold that Jesus and YHWH are not the same God? Or do you hold those massacres to be mythical rather than historical?
Kind of in between the two. Basically here might've, probably most likely was some massacres of the sort by early nomadic Jewish tribes, though not necessarily as we they are written now. And they might've attributed God's blessing as the reason they did it, as many early peoples' did. That does not mean that actually was the case.
I agree with your sentiments. I am also 100% in favour of being able to take a negative stance on a religious figure and not cow to those who consider it to be blasphemous. Blasphemy is a great expression of personal freedom. What annoys me is that there are certain figures who are 'fairer game' than others given the make-up of this board. Some figures must be 'respected' or 'seen in context' at all times. Others such as Mohammed are fair game. At least, it is to be said, someone has actually brought him up after all this time.
Now I think everyone is fair game of course but there has been no attempt at any genuine and forthright appraisal of Mohammed either in the positive or negative. Instead we have a poll that is shepherding people towards a particular answer. That's why people find this uncomfortable.
I've never argued for that. In fact I've been attacked repeatedly for not doing so and basically judging everyone in all countries and all times by my modern day personal standards.