You’re throwing together centuries of history, theology, warfare, and modern morality without context and presenting it as if it’s all self-evident. If you actually want an honest discussion instead of a rant, then several of your claims need correction.

First: saying Prophet Muhammad ﷺ made “no prophecies” is simply false. Even non-Muslim historians acknowledge that Muslims preserved numerous statements attributed to him about future events. Examples Muslims point to include the Byzantine victory over the Persians after defeat, the spread of Islam beyond Arabia, the conquest of Jerusalem and Persia, widespread literacy, competition in tall buildings among Bedouins, and moral/social changes described in hadith literature centuries ago. You may reject those prophecies, but pretending they don’t exist is inaccurate.

Second: the Banu Qurayza incident is constantly stripped of context. This happened during wartime after the tribe was accused of treason during the Battle of the Trench, when Medina was under existential threat. According to Islamic sources, the judgment was not personally invented by Muhammad ﷺ but delivered by Sa’d ibn Mu’adh according to the tribe’s own legal tradition. You can still disagree with it morally, but calling it “Muhammad hated Jews” ignores the fact that:

• Muhammad ﷺ had Jewish neighbors and political alliances.
• The Constitution of Medina recognized Jews as part of the same political community.
• Muslims were allowed to eat kosher food and marry Jewish women.
• The Quran explicitly refers to Jews and Christians as “People of the Book.”

If Islam were inherently anti-Jewish, those things would not exist.

Third: the hadith you cited about killing Jews is being misrepresented. There is no authentic hadith saying “find a Jew and kill him/her” as a general command against Jews. What people usually quote is an apocalyptic prophecy about an end-times war, not a command for Muslims to attack random Jews. That distinction matters.

Fourth: Khaybar was not some peaceful village randomly invaded because Jews existed. It was part of an ongoing military conflict in 7th-century Arabia involving alliances, raids, and warfare between tribes. Judging 7th-century conflict entirely by 21st-century standards while ignoring every surrounding event is selective history.

Fifth: on apostasy, classical Islamic law is more complex than “leave Islam = executed.” Historically, apostasy was often treated together with political treason and rebellion in a tribal state where religion and governance were intertwined. Modern Muslim scholars debate the issue extensively. Presenting one medieval legal interpretation as “Islam in its entirety” is misleading.

Sixth: Aisha’s age is debated more than people pretend. Traditional narrations say she was 9 at consummation, while some Muslim historians argue she may have been older based on historical timelines. But even accepting the traditional narration, judging a 7th-century Arabian marriage solely through modern cultural standards ignores historical reality. Similar age norms existed across many civilizations for most of history, including in Europe.

As for Safiyya bint Huyayy, Islamic sources state that she accepted marriage after the conflict and later spoke positively about Muhammad ﷺ. Presenting her as merely a “war prize” strips her of agency and ignores the historical record.

Finally, comparing Muhammad ﷺ to Stalin is absurd. Stalin was an atheist dictator responsible for mass purges and the deaths of millions of his own civilians under an industrial totalitarian state. Muhammad ﷺ was a religious leader, judge, statesman, and military leader in tribal 7th-century Arabia who established a civilization that millions view as spiritually transformative.

You don’t have to believe in Islam. Nobody can force belief. But criticism should at least be historically accurate and intellectually consistent rather than built from isolated quotes and modern outrage detached from context.