That Umar wasn't the bloody brute shows already that the Prophet was no brute, Fool!<quoted text>Braindead Muslim Zealot,
I searched your question and posted what I found, but you didn't answer my question in turn, not that I ever expected one, because your whole schtick is pointing out how dreadfully awful the Christians have been toward the Jews and/or Muslims, and AVOIDING questions about how that murdering rape-enabling thief that you adore conducted his own terror campaigns "for Allah."
At least Umar wasn't the bloody brute that Mohammad clearly was in his own dealings with "traitorous" Jews, like the ones who once resided in Khaybar.
Umar was a brute before embracing Islam and had gone to kill the Prophet and accepted Islam there and then.
I have already told you that Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa were not wiped out by the Prophet. If he were brute, he would have finished them off but he did not.
Bloody Brute and barbaric were the European Christians, who slaughtered Jews for no reason and far more brute were the men, who penned the gospels in an extremely disgusting manner.
Jesus said this. The Jews said that. Jesus did this and the Jews did that. And then Jesus said this and the Jews picked up stones to kill him. Those damn gospels were the poison that led to the development of hate for Jews. And since the writers were Romans and Greeks, they were kinder to Pilate.