I did not comment on that, pending better research than you provided. It wasn't very hard to come by.

I impeached the accuracy of your source, which asserts that Mohammed massacred and expelled Jews for religious reasons, because of its agenda to discredit Islam with the intent of converting Muslims to Christianity, and because the author is not an objective scholar who goes to primary sources but an amateur who uses other derivative works which tend to reinforce his opinion and objectives.

Here is the account from a less exotic and more authoritative source, the article on Mohammed from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

After the siege of Medina [by the Meccans, who had spent decades trying to wipe the Muslims out -- MA], Muhammad attacked the Jewish clan of Qurayzah, which had probably been intriguing against him. When they surrendered, the men were all savagely executed and the women and children sold as slaves. . . .

Few great men have been so maligned as Muhammad. Christian scholars of medieval Europe painted him as an imposter, a lecher, and a man of blood. A corruption of his name, Mahound, even came to signify the devil. This picture of Muhammad and his religion still retains some influence. The English author Thomas Carlyle in 1840 was the first notable European to insist publicly that Muhammad must have been sincere, because it was ridiculous to suppose an imposter would have been the founder of a great religion. Even if Muslims have often idealized him, a mass of detail in the early sources shows that he was an honest and upright man who had gained the respect and loyalty of others who were likewise honest and upright men. His other alleged faults must be considered in the light of his time and environment. He was not condemned for them by his contemporaries, except where he abandoned practices connected with idolatry. In several respects he was a social reformer. . . .

Muhammad's connivance at assassinations and his approval of the execution of the men of a Jewish clan for treachery are matters that cannot be denied. This was the style of life of the times, and two or three unsuccessful attempts on Muhammad's life are recorded. Internal security in Arabia still depended on the law of retaliation, a life for a life, but Muhammad tried to mitigate this in practice by encouraging men to accept from fellow Muslims a blood penalty of 100 camels in place of a life, for the murder of a member of their family or clan.

Watt, William Montgomery. "Muhammad." Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropedia, vol. 12. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1975. pp. 605-609.

William Montgomery Watt, at the time he wrote this article, was Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Edinburgh. He is also the author of Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman and Muslim Intellectual: A Study of al-Ghazali, and was general editor of Islamic Surveys, in other words, someone who knows what he's talking about.

He has also provided a bibliography at the end of the article that includes primary sources:

The main sources of historical value are the early biographies (8th - 9th century), especially the Sirah of Ibn Ishaq, as edited by Ibn Hisham, and the Maghazi ("Expeditions") of Al-Waqidi, together with the supplementary materials recorded by his associate Ibn S'ad. The last item contains much material about the Companions (persons in contact with Muhammad) and thus about the Prophet's relation to and work with them. Some contemporary documents are preserved in the early biographical works, the most important being the so-called "Constitution of Medina." The latter is in Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq cited above; other documents are in Watt's Muhammad at Medina.

Mohammed did execute Jewish men of a clan that conspired against him and his followers during time of war. The method looks savage to us now, but it was common practice at the time, and it is still common practice to execute people for spying and betrayal in wartime.

Mohammed did connive in assassinations. So do the Israeli military today, and many other organizations, including the American government under many Administrations.

While this does not absolve Mohammed of responsibility for his acts, nevertheless one can hardly condemn a man for behaving in the 7th century in ways which we still practice and to a certain extent sanction today.

Would you have cared if they weren't Jewish, or is this still all about you?