Here is an excellent article by David Wood who is a leading apologist on Islam.
By David Wood
With a superb script, unparalleled directing, and flawless acting, Sergio Leone’s The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is the greatest “spaghetti western” of all time. I have only one problem with the film. While I understand why the sociopathic mercenary Angel Eyes is called “the Bad,” and why the underhanded bandit Tuco is called “the Ugly,” I’ve never been able to figure out why the bounty hunter Blondie is called “the Good.” In the film, Blondie’s money-making scheme is to capture criminals, turn them in to collect the reward, free them before they are executed, and split the money with them. He then turns the criminals in at the next town, collects the reward, and so on. When a criminal’s bounty is no longer increasing, Blondie takes him deep into the desert to die of heat exhaustion. Why, then, is he good? The only answer I’ve ever been able to come up with is this: Blondie is played by Clint Eastwood, so he must be good—regardless of what he does.
We find a similarly puzzling bit of reasoning when we turn to Islam. Muslims confidently proclaim that Muhammad was history’s greatest moral example, a man whom all people would do well to emulate (see Qur’an 33:21). What happens, then, when we turn to history and meet a shockingly different figure? The unstated Muslim response seems to be: “Muhammad was God’s greatest prophet, so he must be good—regardless of what he did.”
In this article, we will examine the life of the Historical Muhammad, that is, the Muhammad we learn about through careful historical investigation, rather than the Muhammad of faith. As we shall see, there is a massive difference between the two.