You say that Muhammad 'used peace treaties as weapons of war, against Jews', but the historical record shows the complete opposite, and the full story makes your accusation look absurd.
The Banu Qurayza violated the Treaty of Medina during wartime, which was considered an act of treason in violation of the constitution agreed by all citizens of Medina, including the Banu Qurayza Jews.¹
They broke their treaty obligations by conspiring with attacking forces during the siege of Medina.
But here's the part that completely destroys your narrative: *The Banu Qurayza themselves appointed Sa'd ibn Mu'adh as their judge, and declared they would agree with whatever was his verdict.*²
They chose their own judge: Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, who was from the Aws tribe and had been their ally.
And the judgment? *The verdict for the Banu Qurayza was consistent with the Old Testament, specifically based on Deuteronomy 20:12-14.*³ Sa'd judged them to execution according to Jewish law, not Islamic law.
So let me get this straight: The Jews broke the treaty, they requested to be judged by their own ally, that ally judged them according to their own Torah, and somehow this becomes Muhammad "using peace treaties as weapons against Jews"?
This is the exact opposite of what you claimed. The Jews broke the treaty, chose their own judge, and were judged by their own law.
If someone gets such a well-documented historical event completely backwards while making inflammatory accusations, that tells you everything you need to know about the reliability of their other claims.
1. W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina (Oxford University Press, 1956). Fred Donner, Muhammad and the Believers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010)
2. William Muir, The Life of Mahomet (Smith, Elder & Co., 1861), Vol. 3, Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955).
3. Deuteronomy 20:12-14 (Hebrew Bible); Barakat Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews (Vikas Publishing, 1979).
For example, these ayatollahs, who have forgotten more about islam than any muslim I've ever discussed with has ever known, claim that women who refuse to cover up (it was really more burning hijabs and demonstrating) can't be executed according to islamic doctrine for that, if they were young and virgins. Sounds great.
Except what they decided what this "islamic doctrine" meant was to have them raped repeatedly by soldiers ... and THEN execute them. Virgin problem solved.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/iran-security...
Oh here is the list of credentials of khamenei, the person in charge of that. But let me guess, you "know better" and "know" this somehow isn't islam. Of course, you aren't willing to do anything about it either ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
Some highlights:
"Khamenei's education began at the age of four, by learning the Quran at Maktab;[7] he spent his basic and advanced levels of seminary studies at the hawza of Mashhad, under mentors such as Sheikh Hashem Qazvini and Ayatollah Milani. Then, he went to Najaf in 1957,[26] but soon returned to Mashhad due to his father's unwillingness to let him stay there. In 1958, he settled in Qom where he attended the classes of Seyyed Hossein Borujerdi and Ruhollah Khomeini.[7]"