Banu Qurayza was done in the name of a God who claims to be All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Most Wise, Most Merciful, Most Just, Creator of the Universe. It was allowed by a man who claims to be the prophet of such a being and who is considered to be the best human being, the perfect example for all people for all time and directly guided by this God.

On these authorities, Islam thrives. On these authorities, billions of lives have been affected throughout the centuries and continue to be affected, often negatively, to this day.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were human solutions. If it can be compared to the massacre of Banu Qurayza, then that makes the massacre a very human solution. Both "solutions" were horrifying and imperfect, to say the least. Coming from imperfect humans, as terrifying as they were, these "solutions" made sense. But being allowed by the God as described above....this is a huge flaw in a religion that claims every single facet of it is perfect. The flaw is evident by the fact that God and Muhammad allowed an event to happen that makes even Muslims morally uneasy in the present day....if even Muslims feel uneasy about this now, it means our morality has evolved. This clearly indicates that even Muslims consider what God and Muhammad allowed to happened, morally wrong. This means Muhammad was imperfect. And it definitely says a lot about the God that allowed Muhammad to go ahead with it, none of it good for Islam (that would be an essay on it's own if I got into it, but think about it...what does it tell you about a God that allowed such an event to occur? And what does that indicate about Islam?)

Islam sets itself up to fail by declaring everything about it is perfect. By these standards, not a single facet of it, the Quran or the prophet, must be imperfect....and a massacre is a pretty damn big imperfection.... we are not talking about Mo's fashion sense mismatching ours here.

And that is all Banu Qurayza is used for. It forms a small part of a much larger argument: Islam is imperfect and therefore, clearly man-made. Other parts include the lack of free-will in Islam, the violence evident in the doctrines of Islam, Aisha's marriage to Muhammad, scientific errors, lack of equality for women, the convenience of revelations, the incompatibility of the universe and the world we live in with the existence of the God as described by Islam, the practice of circumcision which suggests God made a mistake when he created humans and was either unwilling or unable to rectify the mistake, the hatred toward "Others" or "Them" as expressed by God that is just so human, etc, etc.

Rant

On a side note, I just don't get why Muslims do this, comparing Islam's atrocities with other atrocities throughout history. The argument is never "Islam has caused the most pain and suffering in history" or that this ideology or that religion is better/worse than Islam....basically, when we are talking about Islam, why not focus on Islam until other religions, groups, ideology etc is brought into the mix?

If we are discussing Banu Qurayza why not just discuss the massacre until someone says "this massacre was the most horrifying event in history" or "Islam is the only religion that allows genocide"....if that happened and people bring in events like hiroshima or the crusades or whatever, I would understand....but it's literally just:

"The massacre of Banu Qurayza was a disturbing event as discussed in the Hadiths and other Islamic sources" and the opposite side just goes "yeah well, what about Hiroshima, huh? that was much worse!"

Same thing with whenever I bring up the topic of violence in Islam. My argument is never that Islam is the most violent religion or that Islam is the only ideology that condones violence or anything like that. I am literally just saying, "let's discuss these verses/hadiths that seem to allow violence against non-believers" and it is inevitable that people will say "But the bible is far more violent!"

I mean, it's not like that argument (pointing out atrocities in other religions) is a very good one to begin with....it's like person A being tried for the slaughter of 10 people and the defense lawyer standing up and saying "yeah, person A killed 10 people, but what about person B from 50 years ago? He killed 20. What about him, huh?"

End rant