Apostate prophet discusses Jewish history; Khaybar farmers serving Muslims?

In answer to the video "The Infidel and The Jizyah"

After their defeat, the tribes of Bani Nadir and Qaynuqa were expelled and over those that remained, Muhammad proposed putting their own chief Usir ibn Rizam as Governor of Khaybar over his fellow Jews, but he had to recognize the Prophet's authority and never engage in hostilities or stir up anyone against the Muslims again. He accepted but on his way back to Khaybar where he was escorted with his 30 men and some armed Muslim men, he regretted his decision and attacked the Prophet's messenger, killing him. 

Followed a heavy fight from which no Muslim died and all Jewish soldiers were killed except 1 who escaped. The history books report that one of the chiefs of the Bani Nadir named Kinana ibn Rabi, who had been given amnesty and relocated to Khaybar, was put to death under the prophet's orders, by Muhammad ibn Maslama in retaliation for the murder of his borther Mahmud. The rest of the story according to which, prior to his death, he was supposedly tortured for his refusal to indicate the location of his hidden treasure, was copied by both Tabari and Ibn Hisham from Ibn Ishaq who doesnt give any isnad with it. This report was most probably a Jewish invention as it is known that ibn Ishaq, in his effort at collecting every possible historical account regardless of authenticity (leaving the authentication process to be conducted by the subsequent generations), would borrow Jewish stories from the prophet's battles.

Further, the prophet forbade any kind of torture involving burning, and in his pattern of conduct in the authentic reports, no precedent exists for such a behavior although he could have done so on many occasions. War prisonners are to be well treated, clothed, sheltered and fed. When imam Malik was asked the Islamic ruling on torturing war prisonners to obtain military information he replied that he had never heard of such thing being done in Islam. The prophet was disinterested in pursuing wealth, whether in his battles or his reportedly austere lifestyle which his wives complained about even when the community had grown more prosperous. Neither was Kinana's family put to death, as is read in the report. It is related that Kinana's brother was alive under Umar's caliphate. 

With the collapse of their last fortress, the Jews did not pose any more threat to the Muslims. Those that were expelled had their immovable properties confiscated and redistributed to the homeless among Muslims, who still had no dwelling places since their migration from Mecca. Those that were allowed to stay, remained on the condition that they could be expelled anytime should they return to treachery, desire for war or instigating others against the Muslims. 

They could keep their property but in exchange had to provide the Muslims with part of their crops, they had to relinquish their insularity and participate in the life of the whole community with the rights and obligations that naturally ensue. Ibn Rawahah was placed as governor, and under the Prophet's instructions the Jews were allowed free practice of their religion. Now the believers had inherited under divine sanction their lands and wealth just as other unrighteous people's possessions were entirely given to them as spoils

Neh9:25"And they captured fortified cities and fat soil, and they inherited houses full of all good, hewn cisterns, vineyards, and olive trees, and fruit trees in abundance, and they ate and were sated, and they became fat, and they enjoyed pleasures with Your great goodness".

The Ishmaelites and their prophet however did not behave anywhere remotely like the Israelites and their prophets did whenever the lands of their enemies were granted to them by God, disregarding all ethics of war and humanitarian principles.

If there is one person that did not benefit from the conquest of Khaybar, it is the noble prophet. For example in 33:28-29 the prophet's wives are told that if their desire for this world and its adornment is preferable in their eyes than a life of sacrifices dedicated to their spiritual duties

"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".

After divorce the woman would have stood excluded from the category of "mothers of believers", and she would not be forbidden to any other Muslim; for she would have chosen divorce from the prophet only for the sake of the world and its adornments of which she had been given the choice. The prophet's wives had thus the option of requesting and getting a just and kind divorce for even such petty reasons like their desire to pursue this wordly life which God's prophet could not afford giving them in his household.

By the time this verse was revealed, and as shown in the direct context, the Muslims had conquered the rich agricultural region of Khaybar, and the community had grown more prosperous. But while life was becoming easier for most of its members, this ease was not reflected in the household of the Prophet. As was always his habit, he only allowed himself and his family only the absolute minimum necessary for the most simple living

28:83"that future abode, We assign it to those who have no desire to exalt themselves in the earth nor to make mischief and the good end is for those who guard (against evil)".

His prestigious status as a prophet and ruler never came in the way of that humble principle of living. Not only was he not ever one to ask for any kind of reward from his addressees 6:90,25:56-7,12:104etc but every occasion where he could make use of his status and deep knowledge for material benefit, he would do it for the sake of the needy

58:12"when you consult the Messenger, then offer something in charity before your consultation; that is better for you and purer".

The prophet's wives on the other hand naturally were longing for a share in the comparative luxuries which other Muslim women could now enjoy. His wives often stated that they had little on their shelves besides bread flour and dates. But it is reported that all of them rejected a possible seperation with the prophet and resumed their spiritual duties as "mothers of the believers", and were promised a great reward in the Hereafter for having denied themselves the ordinary comforts of life by remaining in the Prophet's house 33:31.

The prophet was at war for over 13 years with various tribes, including other Jews than Bani Qurayza. If he was a war lord that loved blood as the critics claim by raising this and other incidents, then it would be easy to provide evidence for this lust for be-heading and decapitating to establish a precedent. History on the other hand says that Jews continued to live in that region. They should have all fled following the supposed massacres, but didnt. They were only to be expelled many years after the Prophet died, by Umar. They were shifted to other regions within the Peninsula, Tayma and Ariha, and given paid settlements. Umar was being lenient here, considering that their expulsion was due to them breaching a non-aggression treaty with the Muslims. The prophet therefore could not have ordered their expulsion from the entire peninsula when he said

"I will certainly expel the Jews and Christians from the peninsula until I leave none but Muslims".

That is why the medieval scholars argued that by Arabia, what was meant was the area of the Hijaz. It is well established that when the ancients referred to Arabia, it did not necessarily mean what is understood today as the Arabian Peninsula. The order was specific to the Hijaz, more specifically the southern portion, to secure the establishment of Islam from their proven, unabated hostilities even after the prophet's death. The prophet's foresight proved to be true when he said

"Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula".

Clearly the prophet's conflict with his Israelites brethren was neither arbitrary or prejudiced. It is also to be noted it is Umar who, upon Jerusalem's conquest, cleaned the garbage dump which Christians purposefully left over the Jewish temple mount. It is Umar who invited 70 Jewish families of a nearby refugee village back into Jerusalem giving them the right to return after centuries of banishment by successive Christian leadership. Many attempts were made to reason and coexist with them. This is nothing like the 2000 years of humiliating abasement, mass expulsions, rounding up, forced conversions, false accusations and calumnies, extortions and indiscriminate mass killings of Jewish "Christ-killers" by Christians. What is even more disturbing is that this type of behavior was viewed as theologically and eschatologically justified and positive, in the sense that Christians were being "loving" and "charitable" by inciting Jews to be healed from their cursed and harmful faith.

Here is a timeline of Jewish persecution https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/historyjewishpersecution/. 

Jewish "persecution" began since before any Temple was standing, such as in ancient Egypt. As already pointed 99% of such persecution as well as the killings from that time till now come from non-Muslims. But what is most important to note is the Jewish persecution and genocides of other people, through divinely ordained commands still applicable and compulsory to this day, as well as the persecution and killing of Jews by Jews throughout their biblical history. 

As to recent times, the Arab nations had no "Jewish problem". They've been living side by side with them for centuries, even helped them escape the Nazis, especially in North Africa. Its not German antisemitic propaganda that turned the tide, causing Nazis and Arabs to ally, rather the shared hatred of the colonizers (British, French or Italian) and opposition to fascism and communism. It is known that the Arab elites did not endorse Nazism either, just as Hitler despised the Arabs. The Mufti of Jerusalem on the other hand had a "Jewish problem" (the massive influx of Jews into Palestine in the late 30s), combined with hatred of the British who opposed their nationalism. When Jews were targeted by Arabs in Arab lands, it was to prevent their emigration to Palestine, by sympathizers of the Mufti. There were no genocidal attacks/pogroms except for the event of Baghdad in '41, again in the backdrop of the politics of the time, blaming the Jews for the British invasion (they were seen as allies in relation to Palestine). But the scale of victims and damage to property is widely disputed, and some Iraqis risked their lives to hide Jewish neighbours. Although the authorities did not immidiately intervene, they eventually conducted an investigation, even executed army officers. Sure, life for a Jew in Arab lands was sometimes far from perfect, just like Muslim life is far from perfect in Israel (killings, destruction of land and property etc). But how many antisemitic incidents throughout ancient history until the 20th century came from Muslims, and were actually ordered by the authorities (as is done today in Israel)? Compare it to the scale of antimuslim attacks in Israel's short history.