I had a couple of thoughts on that too.
How can the doctrine of a religion, however it is written, surpass the actions of the founder of it? Even if he wrote it? All internecine arguments can be defeated by citing the founder's own actions. ie "How can X be wrong when the founder did X?"
Mohammed was a vicious murderer who forced conversion by the sword and murdered others for no reason at all. He was a pedophile and a thief. Anyone who argues that Muslims should not kill, steal etc., is, by definition, condemning the "prophet" Mohammed. It's a logical fallacy and the "moderate Islam" argument sinks in that quicksand.
Now add to that that the doctrine doesn't argue against murder, lying, stealing and so on, and actually encourages it, and there's nothing at all for a "moderate Muslim" to stand on within the framework of "Islam." To reject the mindset of violent psychosis IS to be apostate from Islam.
SOOooooo true, and your list of criminality does him little justice. He was everything wrong in a mans body unless he was satans messenger.
I remember that mu HAM mad said that none of his followers were ever to have anything he did not have when he wrote his queeran. If that is the case, why do these 6th century animals need a 13 story mosque?