Islam Critiqued makes more analogies; moral standard of biblical prophets vs quran?

In answer to the video "Muslim Problems? Muslim Polemics!"

Assuming the Quran and Muslim tradition allow all the reprehensible things Islam's critics have attributed to the prophet, how does it in anyway discredit Islam or its prophet, especially coming from Christians? They use that angle of attack to imply that he couldnt be a prophet based on his evil deeds. What is the biblical criteria for a true prophet and does it include any of those charges, including "not marrying pre-pubescent kids"? There is a reason why nothing at all is said about uprightness of character in the biblical criteria for prophethood.

In fact one needs turning to the Quran, not the Bible, to see among the criteria of a prophetic envoy, impeccable morality as one of the primary requirements. Looking at these Christians' own bible, the characters and deeds of its most prominent prophets, then, simply based on behavior, even if one would accept every single calumny the Christ-loving evangelists have been throwing, then adding many more on top, it would still do nothing to erode Muhammad's credibility even an iota. None of the individuals the bible calls "prophets" ceased being prophets while premeditating their murders, committing adultery and debauchery, hoarding wealth and enslaving nations, idolatry, capturing countless virgins in their holy genocidal wars. Some repented and others never did, and even those that did, never repented for all of their "evil deeds". But it is besides the point.

These Judeo-christian critics lack consistency and intellectual honesty; Condemning a man as a false prophet while the book they stand for approves of prophets whose deeds should give them a heart attack if they find the supposed charges against Muhammad offensive. That is why no Muslim is bothered by such dishonest criticism. They can only hope to trouble Muslims if they argue from the angle of the Quran's standards of the prophets as sublime examples of morality, then showing that the prophet Muhammad's supposed deeds are in conflict with those standards. So long as the accusers keep the bible as a standard of morality of the true prophets, these attacks self-destruct. By the Quranic standard, one that is extremely high in comparison to the Bible, as well as the accepted standards of morality, Muhammad did not commit a single inappropriate deed for a prophet. Finally, it is interesting to note that the prophet, whom those critics claim invented the Quran, as well as committed every possible misdeed under the sun (misdeeds that still make him look like a saint in comparison to the true prophets of the Bible) went out of his way to establish a pattern of morality among the prophets that contradicts his own. He had every reason to not change a single thing of what is shamelessly attributed to the Biblical prophets, so that he might justify his supposed misdeeds all the while claiming to be a prophet of God, in line with those very prophets of the Bible.

As a final observation, among the most outspoken Christian polemicists on that particular issue, many admit, knowing the lowly moral standards of those described as true prophets in their Bible, that should one prove Muhammad's prophethood then they would not object to him marrying Aisha as described in the hadith. Here lies their dishonesty, they will defend the authenticity and veracity of the information in those particular ahadith, but will reject other reports from the same books with no slightest bit of controversy as are found as regards Aisha's age, describing Muhammad as a prophet of God, receiving revelation, experiencing miracles, either as the direct agent or indirectly, making prophecies, giving information of the unseen.