To be warlord

1. Be rich/have resources
2. Have strong men under your command
3. Not be outcasted from a powerful tribe

Muhammad was

1. Barely middle class
2. The first acceptors of Islam as a religion were out casts and poor people both men and women
3. He himself was a member of the Quraish tribe. His teachings directly threatened the rich and powerful of the Quraish.

You seem to fail to understand that Islam at it's time liberated the poor and the outcasts. His teaching gathered the neglected members of the society that found some solace instead of subjecting themselves to the feudal lords and actual warlords who abused power. Remember Arabia was a shit show in 6th century AD.

Also calling him a warlord completely contradicts his own personal lifestyle and attitude. He wore clothes with patches in them and never ate more than what was required to keep kicking. He is known for "accepting" gifts and promptly giving them away to other people even if he needed them in the first place. Thing don't add up.

"Umar" was a companion of Muhammad and the 2nd Caliph (head of state). If Muhammad truly had a warlord mentality than why would his companion or more like his student suggest these rules for government servants to always obey

1.That he would not ride a Turkic horse. (Symbol of wealth)

2.That he would not wear fine clothes. (Symbol of wealth)

3.That he would not eat sifted flour.(Symbol of wealth)

4.That he would not keep a porter at his door.(Symbol of wealth)

5.That he would always keep his door open to the public. (Ease of accessibility)

For the sake of the argument, let's say God never revealed anything to Muhammad and he made it all up (the Quran)

So what Umar used to rule his empire were actually Muhammad's teaching. So by that statement, it also means that it was Muhammad who actually suggested that the Head of State must get rid of his business permanently to free the Caliph from conflict of interest (see. Donald J. Trump)

A person of warlord mentality is essentially a dictator in different attire yet his teachings to govern a state are pretty reasonable

note: notice of the 52 Muslim heads of state, how many are not business owners

Also note: Islam prohibits monarchy. See Saudi Arabia

P.S: When Islam wasn't supposedly revealed to Muhammad, even than he was known as "sadiq" and "ameen" by his non-Muslim, pagan fellows of society. There are stories of Muslims and non-Muslims fighting over petty things and when Muslims suggested (being in minority) to resolve the problem in local courts by non-Muslims elders, non-Muslims themselves would reject the idea and insist that they seek Muhammad. The reason was that the non-Muslim might not be at good terms with his elders and hence the ruling can be biased but everyone at that time knew even if you were openly hostile against Muhammad, he was still the best choice when it came to fair rulings.

Now you can take this story with a grain of salt but what you can't do is ask me for "source". I'll leave that to you. Do some of your own research. You might not be able to confirms this particular story but in the process you'll learn things that you never would've believe to be true if somebody told you. Bias can distort anything view.

Quick Question: If Muhammad was the "bad" guy, why would the rich and affluent of Quraish outcast him and force him to flee to Medina (also assassination attempts). And why would the outcasts of society accept his "warlord-ish" teachings that they knew would harm them.