Answers to Potential Objections
1) About Women Being Intellectually Deficient:
Some may try to say Muhammad was just directing this towards the group of women he was talking to and was not meaning this as a general statement toward women. However, he also said that the majority of people in hell were them, referring to women (Sahih Al-Bukhari 6:301, 24:541). Since the group he was talking to obviously wouldn't be large enough to make up the majority of hell (which will probably be in the billions), he was clearly talking about women in general, not just this specific group of women.
2) About Muhammad Allowing and Encouraging His Men to Rape Women:
In Surah 4:24, 23:6, and 70:30 it talks about "whom your right hand possess," then read Sahih Muslim 8:3432. It shows how Muhammad let, and even emboldened his men, to have sexual intercourse with the captured women. What captured woman would want to have a sexual relationship with the men who she just saw murder her family? Obviously, she wouldn't. So, the men were forcing themselves on the women they captured (raping them).
3) About Muhammad Telling a Woman to Breastfeed a Grown Man to Remove the Temptation of the Two Having Sex Outside of Marriage:
Some may say this verse was just for Sahla bint Suhail, Abu Hudhaifa's wife (they may reference Sahih Muslim 8:3429). First, even if this was true, it is still an insane command from Muhammad. Second, this command was not just for Abu Hudhaifa's wife. The verse about breastfeeding 10 times was revealed before the situation with Sahla bint Suhail and Abu Hudhaifa, which was for 5 times: Muwatta Malik 30:12, 17.
4) About Muhammad Giving His Men a Loophole to Engage in Prostitution and Adultery by Allowing Them to Have "Temporary Marriages" (Called "Nikah Mut'ah"):
Some will say this isn't allowed today because Muhammad eventually forbade temporary marriages (Sahih Al-Bukhari 59:527, 86:81), but that doesn't change the fact that Muhammad allowed it. It may be forbidden now, but he still at some point allowed his men to engage in prostitution and adultery by giving them a loophole through "temporary marriages".
5) About Muhammad Being Extremely Violent and Intolerant:
Some Muslims will try to say that Islam does not promote violence and instead is a religion of peace. Those who say this will usually go to two verses: Surah 2:256 and Surah 5:32.
The first verse, Surah 2:256, says there is no compulsion in religion, and the second one, Surah 5:32, says to kill a human is to kill all of mankind and to save a human is to save all of mankind.
However, there are huge problems with this approach. Let's look at the first verse, Surah 2:256. First, Muhammad said kill whoever changes his religion (Sahih Al-Bukhari 52:260, 84:57, 64, 89:271) and to fight people until they only believe in Allah (Surah 8:39; Sahih Al-Bukhari 2:24), so obviously Muhammad believed there was compulsion in religion. Second, this verse is abrogated by later revelations (like Surah 9), so it's now invalid because it has been replaced (see below for more info on the Doctrine of Abrogation).
Now concerning the second verse, Surah 5:32. First, this command is for the Children of Israel, not for Muslims. The next verse (Surah 5:33) is for Muslims, and this verse tells Muslims to execute, crucify, cut the hands and feet off, ban, or imprison those who fight against Allah and Muhammad. Second, even if this was a command to Muslims (it isn't), this verse is abrogated by later revelations (like Surah 9), so it's now invalid (also, this saying in Surah 5:32 is not originally from Muhammad, but rather it's from Tractate Sanhedrin 37a of the Babylonian Talmud).
Now concerning the Doctrine of Abrogation as mentioned above, this doctrine invalidates the two verses (Surah 2:256 and Surah 5:32) Muslims use when they attempt to show Islam is a religion of peace. The Doctrine of Abrogation is based on two verses in the Quran: Surah 2:106 and Surah 16:101. This doctrine teaches that the verses revealed at a later date abrogate the verses revealed at an earlier date if they are in conflict with each other. The Medinan verses were revealed after the Meccan versus, which means the later, intolerant, and violent Medinan verses which command jihad abrogates the earlier more peaceful Meccan verses.
Furthermore, Surah 9, which is a very violent and intolerant chapter, was the second to last chapter supposedly revealed to Muhammad, with Surah 110 being the last. This means Surah 110 is the only chapter in the Quran that can abrogate the violent and intolerant verses of Surah 9. Well, Surah 110 only consists of 3 verses, and none of those 3 verses are in conflict with Surah 9, therefore abrogating none of the verses in Surah 9. So, this means the violent and intolerant commands in Surah 9 are still valid and are what Muslims are to live by today.
6) About Jihad Being Just an Internal Struggle and Not Being About One Physically Fighting Against Their Enemies:
Jihad is a physical fight against people, not just an internal struggle. When Muhammad talked about jihad, it was in the context of war spoils and being martyred (Sahih Al-Bukhari 2:35, 52:46, 53:352, 93:549, 93:555.). How can one attain war spoils and be physically killed if it’s just an inward struggle? So obviously jihad is referring to physical warfare. Jihad is a physical fight against the unbelievers. So, the context makes it clear that Muhammad was talking about physically fighting against people, not just an inward struggle. It’s impossible to be martyred and gain war spoils by an inward struggle. Being martyred and gaining spoils of war is only possible if it’s referring to the physical body and to physically participating in warfare. Jihad is literally a call to engage in physical warfare against the enemies of Islam, not just an internal struggle.
7) About Muhammad Committing Shirk:
Some Muslims will say that shirk is forgivable, but that it must be repented of in order to be forgiven, whereas all other sins can be forgiven by Allah without repentance, at his discretion. But if this interpretation is true, then what's the point of converting to Islam? Allah could, at his discretion, simply forgive someone of the sin of being an unbeliever. What's the point of repentance if Allah forgives sins that people don't even want to repent of?
Concerning shirk, Muhammad also contradicts himself. He said that the people who made and worshipped the golden calf were forgiven (Surah 2:51-54, 4:153), even though that would have been shirk, yet he says shirk is unforgivable (Surah 4:48, 116). So, the Quran says shirk is unforgivable but then tells us people who committed shirk were forgiven. Again, some Muslims will say that shirk is forgivable, but that it must be repented of in order to be forgiven, whereas all other sins can be forgiven by Allah without repentance. But as stated above, if that's true, then what's the point of repentance if Allah simply forgives people of sin that they don't even repent of?
8) About the Son of Man Being Divine:
Some Muslims will say that when Jesus claimed to be the "Son of Man" He was not claiming to be Divine because in Numbers 23:19 it says that God is not a son of man. However, as with everything, context matters. When read in context, this passage is referring to lying. Balaam is saying that God cannot lie and doesn't change His mind like man does. The verse says, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" (Numbers 23:19 ESV) So again, Balaam is saying that God does not lie and change His mind like man does. However, in Daniel 7:13-14 God is clear that this Son of Man is Divine. The Son of Man is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom and the world is going to serve Him, and it says His dominion is everlasting. Clearly these are attributes of the Divine. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, He made it clear that He was referring to the Divine Son of Man in the book of Daniel, and this is indisputable because the Divine Son of Man in Daniel came with the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:13), and when Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man during His trial He also told the people they would "see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62 ESV). So Jesus made it clear that He was referring to the Son of Man in the book of Daniel. Furthermore, this fact is confirmed by the response of the high priest. After Jesus made this claim, the high priest tore his garment and accused Jesus of blasphemy (Matthew 26:63-65; Mark 14:61-64). Obviously it wasn't blasphemous for a man to simply claim to be a man, but it was blasphemous for a man to put himself in the place of God. This is why the high priest tore his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy. The high priest knew Jesus was putting Himself in the place of God and claiming to be Divine. So again, this clearly shows that Jesus wasn't referring to the son of man in Numbers 23:19 but to the Divine Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14.