Acts17apologetics defend freespeech; Did Muhammad allow criticism?

In answer to the video "Muhammad: The Suicidal Messenger (David Wood)"

On the issue of criticism, Islam is realistic and pragmatic. One can only engage in a discussion when the opposite side wants to conduct a constructive dialogue. There are several ways it gives to identify the sincere critic.

When the critic's aim is to objectively assess the Islamic arguments, carefully listen and evaluate the Islamic position, instead of shutting his ears or pretending to listen while preparing his counter arguments, telling others to do the same, raising irrelevant objections just for the sake of discrediting, without any solid basis for argument, isolating a word or a sentence from its context, hairsplitting it so as to make it a basis of doubts and accusations, misconstruing words so as to prevent them being properly understood 4:46,40:4-5,56,41:40 then a meaningful discussion can be engaged

16:125"with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner".

The prophet's own life and ability to take on criticism is testimony to this. As well, Muslims can freely mingle with kindness and justice with any non-muslims who do not seek to fight Islam, do not opress Muslims unjustly 60:8-9.

Bukhari for example reports an incident where the prophet was disrespected in front of a large gathering. A companion felt so offended that he requested to kill the culprit. The prophet refused, just as he rejected the Muslims' desire to mutilate a captured Quraysh leader following the battle of Badr, Suhayl b. Amr, by uprooting his front teeth

“so that he could never preach against the Messenger”.

Compare this as a side note, to David's unwarranted mutilation of the Phillistines, among a long list of crimes and sins for which he never was reprimanded since in God's eyes only his adulterous behavior was considered sinful 1Kings15:5. The prophet similarily did not allow his followers to assassinate a man that had spoken in favor of uprooting the Muslim leadership shortly after the defeat of Uhud. On another occasion in Medina, Ibn Salool a known hypocrite constantly working to undermine the prophet's authority, rudely cut the prophet as he was preaching to an audience

“Stay in your home. If someone would like to hear your message, they will come to you.”

In another narration,

“Now leave, the smell of your donkey bothers us.”

The Muslims became irate upon hearing these insults, but the Prophet forbade them from retaliating. When he received Urwa b. Mas‘ud as he was still a pagan an representing the enemy side, during the negotiations for a peace treaty, he was physically and verbally abusive but despite the companions threatening him with their weapons, and the fact that some time ago Urwa's tribe, of whom he was the chief, assaulted the prophet, he honored this ambassador’s stay and hosted him for as long as he stayed. There are many other such incidents, like his eloquent answer to a group of Jews' playing on words and saluting him, inside his home, with

"As-Sâmu ‘alayk (Death be upon you)”.

The prophet was at that point in a position of authority in Medina, meaning that just as in our days where verbally assaulting authority figures makes one liable to prosecution, he would surely have been justified in exercizing his judicial authority. He instead answered

“And upon you”.

When Aisha felt compelled to add,

“Death be upon you, along with the curse of Allah and His wrath!”

The prophet admonished her against being vulgar and instead answer this kind of talk gently. It is this same gentleness that made a leading Jewish figure convert. Zayd b. Su‘na was astonished at the prophet's response to his public disrespect, under the false pretext that he had failed paying his debt as agreed. Not only did the prophet hold back his companions from doing any harm to Zayd but added

"O ‘Umar, we do not need this…Go with him, pay off his loan, and give him twenty additional sâ‘ (32 kg) of dates because you frightened him.”

It was that response that convinced Zayd b. Su‘na to embrace Islam. That incident is similar to when a Bedouin to whom the prophet owed a camel was repaid with a better one although he demanded it in an uncivil manner that vexed the Companions. They were again, as in the previous examples about to hurt him before the prophet prevented them.