Original sentence: In his review, Daniel Pipes praised the book a "fascinating collection of essays" that raises "basic questions for Muslims concerning the prophet's role as a moral paragon".Others such as Asma Asfaruddin, a professor of Islamic studies at the  University of Notre Dame, Fred Donner, a professor of Near Eastern studies at the University of Chicago, has criticized the book for allegedly being "biased" and "one sided"
Edited sentence: "  According to Fred Donner, a professor of Near Eastern studies at the University of Chicago, Ibn Warraq's book is one-sided, with particular favoritism towards revisionist theories." She concludes that ibn Warraq regretably "continues to release more toxins into the air." She writes that ibn Warraq "clearly has an ideological axe to grind".Any traditional scholar, she states, "who revises, refines, challenges, or nuances the arguments of the rejectionist school are depicted as doing so from sinister motives, while those who unequivocally champion its views are understood to be motivated by the purest and most single-minded devotion to the indefatigable pursuit of Historical Truth.Asma Asfaruddin, a professor of Islamic studies at the  University of Notre Dame, described the book as a "partisan work.He concludes that "“Ibn Warraq’s” bias, however, causes him to omit fine contributions that pose challenges for some revisionist ideas—by H.Motzki, U.Poor editing, sloppy transliteration, and ad hominem attacks...add to the chagrin of the reader.Rubin, and many others.This lopsided character makes The Quest for the Historical Muhammad a book that is likely to mislead many an unwary general reader