Reading an article at American Thinker, I head to the linked book review and someone reminds us of the following: that while the sin of Washington and Jefferson as slave-owners is a regular part of the current moral autopsy so beloved of progressives, it is not cool to point out that Muhammad was a slave owner.
Slavery remains an uncontested and traditional part of Sharia law. Some Islamic sources encourage (but do not require) manumission. St Paul had the same attitude (see the Epistle to Philemon). But Sharia is divine law and Muhammad, who owned slaves, (including Black ones), traded them and okayed their owners having sex with them even if the women were married, remains the perfect example of humanity.
If I ever own a car again, perhaps a bumper sticker?