The Quran claims that Muhammad was sent as a mercy unto mankind:

And We have sent you (O Muhammad) not but as a mercy for the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). S. 21:107 Hilali-Khan

In this post I will quote the so-called authentic narratives proving the contrary. These ahadith will show how evil and merciless Muhammad was towards those who would dare oppose him. The reports are so explicit and clear that there will be no need for me to comment.


The hadiths make it clear that Q. 5:33,

“The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.” Hilali-Khan

Was “revealed” to basically reprimand Muhammad for his brutality and murderous torture of eight men from the ‘Ukl/Uraina tribe:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A group of eight men from the tribe of ‘Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Provide us with some milk.” Allah’s Apostle said, “I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.” So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, “They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.”) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261

Narrated Anas bin Malik
A group of people from Ukl (or ‘Uraina) tribe–but I think he said that they were from ‘Ukl- came to Medina and (they became ill, so) the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) she- camels and told them to go out and drink the camels’ urine and milk (as a medicine). So they went and drank it, and when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This news reached the Prophet early in the morning, so he sent (some) men in their pursuit and they were captured AND BROUGHT TO THE PROPHET before midday. He ordered to cut off their hands and legs and their eyes to be branded with heated iron pieces and they were thrown at Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink, they were not given water. (Abu Qilaba said, “Those were the people who committed theft and murder and reverted to disbelief after being believers (Muslims), and fought against Allah and His Apostle).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 797

Narrated Abu Qilaba:

Once ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul ‘Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him. Then he admitted them and (when they came in), he said, “What do you think of Al-Qasama?” They said, “We say that it is lawful to depend on Al-Qasama in Qisas, as the previous Muslim Caliphs carried out Qisas depending on it.” Then he said to me, “O Abu Qilaba! What do you say about it?” He let me appear before the people and I said, “O Chief of the Believers! You have the chiefs of the army staff and the nobles of the Arabs. If fifty of them testified that a married man had committed illegal sexual intercourse in Damascus but they had not seen him (doing so), would you stone him?” He said, “No.” I said, “If fifty of them testified that a man had committed theft in Hums, would you cut off his hand though they did not see him?” He replied, “No.” I said, “By Allah, Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.” Then the people said, “Didn’t Anas bin Malik narrate that Allah’s Apostle cut off the hands of the thieves, branded their eyes and then, THREW THEM IN THE SUN?” I said, “I shall tell you the narration of Anas. Anas said: “Eight persons from the tribe of ‘Ukl came to Allah’s Apostle and gave the Pledge of allegiance for Islam (became Muslim). The climate of the place (Medina) did not suit them, so they became sick and complained about that to Allah’s Apostle. He said (to them), ‘Won’t you go out with the shepherd of our camels and drink of the camels’ milk and urine (as medicine)?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ So they went out and drank the camels’ milk and urine, and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of Allah’s Apostle and took away all the camels. This news reached Allah’s Apostle, so he sent (men) to follow their traces and they were captured and brought (to the Prophet). He then ordered to cut their hands and feet, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, AND THEN HE THREW THEM IN THE SUN TILL THEY DIED.” I said, “What can be worse than what those people did? They deserted Islam, committed murder and theft.”… (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 37

Chapter 7. The Meaning Of The Saying Of Allah, The Mighty And Sublime: “The recompense Of Those Who Wage War Against Allah And His Messenger, And Do Mischief In the Land, Is Only That They Shall Be Killed, Or Crucified, Or Their Hands And Feet Be Cut Off From Opposite Sides, Or Be Exiled From The Land.” And Concerning Whom It Was Revealed, And Mentioning The Different Wordings Reported From Anas Bin Malik About That

4029. Anas bin Malik narrated that a group of eighty people from Ukl came to the Prophet, but the climate of Al-Madinah did not suit them and they fell sick. They complained about that to the Messenger of Allah and he said: “Why don’t you go out with our herdsmen and drink the milk and urine of the camels?” They said: “Yes (we will do that).” They went out and drank some of the (camels’) milk and urine, and they recovered. Then they killed the herdsmen of the Messenger of Allah, so he sent (men after them) and they caught them and brought them back. He had their hands and feet cut off and branded their eyes, and left them in the sun to die. (Sahih) (English Translation of Sunan An-Nasa’i – Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu Abdur Rahman Ahmad bin Shu‘aib bin ‘Ali An-Nasa’i [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: January 2008], Ahadith edited & referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA), Volume 5, from hadith no. 3971 to 4987, 37. The Book of Fighting [The Prohibition of Bloodshed], pp. 44-45

2578. Humaid on the authority of Anas b. Malik that people belonging to (the tribe of) Uraina came during the life-time of Allah’s Messenger. They disliked to stay at Madina due to unsuitable climate. He (the Holy Prophet) said, “If you were to go our camels (of Zakat), then drink their milk and urine.” They did that (and they recovered from their ailment). Then they deserted Allah’s Messenger and drove away his camels. Upon this, Allah’s Messenger despatched[sic] (some men) to chase them. They were brought (to the Holy Prophet) and HE cut off their hands and feet (of opposite sides) and drew out their eyes with a heated nail and deserted them in (the scorching sand of) Harra till they died. (Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, Imam Abdullah Muhammad B. Yazid Ibn-I-Maja Al-Qazwini, English version by Muhammad Tufail Ansari [Kazi Publications, 121-Zulqarnain Chambers, Gampat Road, Lahore Pakistan, first edition, 1995], Volume IV, pp. 26-27; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Killing Apostates and People who strive to cause Mischief.

Anas told that some people of ‘Ukl who had come to the Prophet and accepted Islam found Medina unhealthy, so he ordered them to go to the camels of the sadaqa and drink some of their urine and their milk. They did so and became well, after which they apostatised, killed the herdsmen and rove off the camels. So he sent people in pursuit of them, and when they were brought he had their hands and feet cut off and their eyes put out and left them to die without cauterizing them to stop the flow of blood. A version says nails were driven into their eyes. Another says he ordered nails to be heated and after having them blinded with them he had them thrown out on the harra, and although they begged for water they were left to die without being given any.

(Bukhari and Muslim) (Mishkat Al Masabih – English translation with explanatory notes, by Dr. James Robson, [Sh. Muhammad Ahsraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore-Pakistan, Reprinted 1990], Volume I, Chapter V, Book XV.- Retaliation, pp. 752, 753; bold emphasis mine)

1. Cf. Qur’an, v. 33, 64 (Ibid., p. 752; bold emphasis mine)

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
Some people raided the camels of the Prophet, drove them off, and apostatised. They killed the herdsman of the Apostle of Allah who was a believer. He (the Prophet) sent (people) in pursuit of them and they were caught. He had their hands and feet cut off, and their eyes put out. The verse regarding fighting against Allah and His Prophet was then revealed. These were the people about whom Anas ibn Malik informed al-Hajjaj when he asked him. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4356

Narrated AbuzZinad: When the Apostle of Allah cut off (the hands and feet of) those who had stolen his camels and he had their eyes put out by fire (heated nails), ALLAH REPRIMANDED HIM on that (action), and Allah, the Exalted, revealed: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution or crucifixion.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4357


Ibn Humayd–Salamah–Ibn Ishaq: When the defeated men of Thaqif came to al-Ta’if, they shut the gates of the city and made preparations for war. Neither ‘Urwah b. Mas’ud nor Ghaylan b. Salamah witnessed Hunayn or the siege of al-Ta’if [because] they were in Jurash learning the use of the testudo (al-dabbab and al-dubur) and the catapult (al-majaniq). (The History of al-Tabari:The Last Years of the Prophet, translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, NY 1990], Volume IX (9), p. 20; bold emphasis mine)

… The Messenger of God besieged Thaqif and fought them bitterly. Both sides shot arrows at each other170 until the day when the wall of al-Ta’if was stormed (shadkhah).171 [That day] a number of the Messenger of God’s companions went under a testudo and advanced up to the wall [to make a breach in it].172 Thaqif showered them with scraps of hot iron, so they came out from under [the testudo], and Thaqif shot them with arrows, killing some of them. The Messenger of God then ordered that the vineyards of Thaqif be cut down, and the men fell upon them, cutting them down.

170. Ibn Hisham (Sirah IV, 126) adds: The Messenger of God shot at them with catapults. A person whom I trust related to me that the Messenger of God was the first to use the catapult in Islam, as he employed it against the people of al-Ta’if…

172. Addition from Hisch, Ibn Ishaq, and Waqidi. The testudo and the catapult were brought by the Muslims, cf. Waqidi, Maghazi, III, 923, 927; Baladhuri, Ansab, I, 366, 367. (Ibid., 23; bold emphasis mine)

Al-Waqidi stated, “The Messenger of God then turned his attention to the inhabitants of al-Akhbiyya, and of al-Watih and al-Sulalim two forts of Abu al-Huqayq. These they defended strenuously, having been joined by all those who had been defeated from al-Natat to al-Shiqq. These joined with the rest in defending al-Qamus and al-Katiba – a very strong fortress – and in al-Watih and al-Sulalim. Ultimately they stopped looking down and the Messenger of God erected a catapult to use against them. (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad: Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Muneer Fareed [Garnet Publishing, 2000], Volume 3, pp. 269; bold emphasis mine)

Ibn Hisham stated that he also shot at them using catapults.

A trustworthy source related to me that the Prophet was the first in Islam to fire a catapult, using them against the people of al-Ta’if. (Ibid., pp. 472; bold emphasis mine)

Al-Waqidi quoted his elders similarly. It was his view that it was Salman al-Farsi who suggested using the catapult and that he himself operated it. It is said that he brought it forward, along with the two testudos. But God knows best. (Ibid., p. 473; bold emphasis mine)

An-Nizar was the most powerful fort, and the Jews came to the established conviction that it was too immune to be stormed, so they deemed it a safe place for their children and women. The Muslims, however, were not dismayed but dragged on the siege, but because standing at a commanding top, the fort was impregnable. The Jews inside were too cowardly to meet the Muslims in open fight but rather hurled a shower of arrows and stones on the attackers. Considering this situation, the Prophet ordered that catapults be used and these proved effective and caused cracks in the ramparts providing an easy access into the heart of the fort, where the Jews were put to rout and fled in all directions leaving behind their women and children…. When the Prophet, along with his army, moved to this part of Khaibar, Al-Katiba, he laid a heavy siege to it for fourteen days with the Jews barricading themselves inside their forts. When he was about to use the catapults, the Jews realized that they would perish, therefore, they asked for a negotiable peace treaty.” (Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar): Biography of the Noble Prophet Revised Edition [Darussalam Publications, January 2002], The Conquest of Khaibar, p. 438; bold emphasis mine)

“To be far from the arrow-range, the Muslims had to ascend to a higher location and camped on — i.e. to what is now called At-Ta’if Mosque.

The Prophet set up a catapult and shelled the castle. Eventually a gap was made in the castle wall, through which a number of Muslims managed to pass into the castle, sheltered by a wooden tank, with the purpose of setting fire into it. Anyway, the enemy poured down molten hot iron on them. Affected by this the Muslims stepped out of the tank and were again exposed to arrow shooting and consequently some of them were killed.” (Ibid., The Third Stage, The Tai’f Campaign, p. 482; bold emphasis mine)

“The sixth rule of this command has to do with the procedure to be followed in charging and fighting with the enemy. During a siege of the enemy, the army commander may set up large and small catapults, for the Messenger of God attacked the Ta’if population with the ram. He may also demolish their houses over their heads, and set them on fire. If he deems it better to cut down their date palms and other trees to weaken them and make it easier to vanquish them by force, or to seek a truce, he should do so, but he may not cut them down if there is nothing to be gained by such an action. When God’s Messenger had the vineyards of the people of Ta’if cut down, he prompted their conversion to Islam. In his war with the Banu al-Nadir, he ordered a certain kind of palm tree known as the ‘yellow’, the pit of which could be seen through the bark, to be cut down. As it was dearer to them than a slave, they were heartbroken and grief-stricken and said to them, ‘You have cut down some palm trees, and burnt others.’ … When the Messenger of God did that to them, Muslims found it hard to accept this action, and said to him: ‘O, Messenger of God, are we going to be rewarded for the trees we have cut down?’ Then God, Most High is He, revealed the verse: ‘Whatever tender tress (lina) you cut down or left standing upon their roots, that was by God’s leave, that He might confound the transgressors’ (Qur’an 59:5). … He [the commander] has the right to dam their water and cut it off from them, EVEN IF THERE WERE WOMEN AND CHILDREN AMONG THEM, because that is one of the most effective means of defeating them both by force and by truce. If one of them, suffering from thirst, asks for water, the commander has the option to give him or not to, just as he has the choice of killing him or letting him be. Those of them he kills, he should only hide from view, but does not have to shroud them, for the Messenger of God ordered the dead of Badr to be thrown into a dump site, and their shrouding was not necessary. None of them however may be burned alive or dead; said the Messenger of God, ‘Do not torture God’s creatures with God’s torture.’ Abu Bakr burned some apostates, probably because he had not yet learned of this ordinance.” (Al-Mawardi, The Ordinances of Government (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya w’al-Wilayat al-Diniyya), translated by Wafaa H. Wahba [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, South Street Reading, RGI 4QS, UK: Paperback Edition, reprinted 2006], IV. On Appointing War Commanders, pp. 56-58:; bold and capital emphasis mine)    


“The second category of rules of this command has to do with war management. The idolators in enemy territory are of two classes. One, those who have received the call to Islam but rejected it and turned way from it. The commander is faced in regard to them with two options from which to choose the one that is better for Muslims and more painful to the heathens; either to harass them day and night with killing and burning of their property, or to threaten them with war and array his troops against them. The other are those whom the call to Islam has not reached, who would be very few today on account of the victory the Almighty has accorded His Prophet’s mission, unless there be nations unknown to us beyond the Turks and Greeks we meet in eastern deserts and remote western areas. We are forbidden to launch surprise attacks on such people and kill them or burn their property, for we may not initiate action against them BEFORE INVITING THEM TO ISLAM, making the Prophet’s miracles known to them, and informing them of such arguments as would make them to respond favourably. Should they persist in their unbelief AFTER such evidence is shown them, HE SHOULD FIGHT THEM, for they are then from his standpoint in the same class as those who have received the call. As God, most Elevated is He, said: ‘Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair admonition, and reason with them in the best manner’ (Qur’an 16:125). ‘Call unto they Lord’s faith with wisdom’ may be interpreted either as ‘prophecy’ or ‘the Qur’an’.

“And ‘fair admonition’ may be understood in one of two ways: ‘gently’ through the Qur’an, according to al-Kalbi, or ‘by the commands and prohibitions contained in it’. ‘And reason with them in the best manner’ means that he must show them the truth and offer them proofs. Should he start by fighting them before calling them to believe in Islam or giving them warning by argument, thus killing them premeditatedly and without warning, he will owe them blood-money, which, according to the more correct view in the Shafi‘i school, is equal to that due to Muslims, although it has been suggested that it should be the same as the various amounts of compensation paid to the heathens according to their different beliefs. Abu Hanifa has, on the other hand, said: ‘There is no compensation for killing them, and their lives ARE TO BE TAKEN FREELY.’” (Al-Mawardi, The Ordinances of Government (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya w’al-Wilayat al-Diniyya), pp. 40-41; bold and capital emphasis mine)        

A Muslim may kill all idolators in the enemy camp he can lay his hands on, whether they are actively engaged in fighting OR NOT. There is some disagreement, however, concerning the killing of their elderly and monks who dwell in convents and retreats. One of the two views held with regard to them states that they should not be killed unless they fight, for, like children, they are to be left in peace. The second states that they must be killed even if they do not take part in military action because they may offer counsel that is worse for Muslims than fighting itself. After all, Durayd ibn al-Simma was killed in the battle of Hawazin at Hunayn, ALTHOUGH HE WAS OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OLD; and the Prophet watched without objecting to his killing. He was killed while extemporizing (in the tawil metre)…

“Killing women and children is not permitted in war or otherwise so long as they do not fight, owing to the Prophet’s injunction against killing them. God’s Prophet has also forbidden the killing of servants and slaves. If women or children fight, they should be fought and killed, but face to face, never from behind. If enemy troops shield themselves behind their women and children as they are getting killed, killing the women and children should be avoided, UNLESS KILLING THEM IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT KILLING THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN. If, on the other hand, they shield themselves with Muslim captives, and they could not be killed without killing the captives, they should not be killed. If leaving them alone leads to their surrounding the Muslims, the latter should try their best to get rid of them, taking car not to kill intentionally a Muslim who is in their hands…” (Ibid., pp. 44-45; bold and capital emphasis mine)

“And most of the scholars of Medina allow burning of castles and vehicles (ships, carriages…) and their residents. Al-Thawri and Al-Awdha’ee have mentioned it. (Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, p. 271)


“The Salaf were divided in regards to burning: Umar, Ibn Abbas, and others opposed it completely, neither due to apostasy, while fighting, nor as a punishment (qasas). It was, however, allowed by Ali and Khalid ibn Walid.” (Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 13, p. 150)

“And what also indicates the permissibility of burning is the action of the Sahabah (Muhammad’s Companions). And indeed, the Prophet blinded the eyes of the Arniyeen with hot metal. And indeed Abu Bakr burned the aggressors with fire in the presence of the Sahabah. And Khalid ibn Walid burned also some apostates.

Homosexual men were burnt with fire by Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah ibn Zubair, and Hisham ibn Abdul-Malik. (SOURCE: Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah, Rawdat al-Muhibbin, p. 506)

This prohibition on punishing anyone by burning with fire is general in application, but THE MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS made an exception in the case of burning with fire by way of retaliatory punishment (qisaas) and making the punishment fit the crime. If someone burns another person then it is permissible, according to this view, to punish him by burning him, by way of retaliatory punishment. 

They quoted as evidence for that the verses in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)”

[al-Baqarah 2:194]

“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)”

[an-Nahl 16:126]. 

The basic principle says that acting upon two sound texts that have not been abrogated is better than overlooking one of them

For more information, please see fatwa no. 147416 

Therefore THE MAJORITY OF FUQAHA’ think that it is permissible to burn with fire by way of retaliatory punishment

Ibn Mulaqqin said: 

One group of scholars said: Whoever burns is to be burnt. This is also the view OF MAALIK, THE SCHOLARS OF MADINAH, ASH-SHAAFA‘I and his companions, AHMAD and Ishaaq

End quote from at-Tawdeeh li Sharh al-Jaami‘ as-Saheeh (18/61) (Islam Question & Answer, No. 227776: Why did the Sahaabah use burning with fire as a punishment for some crimes?; bold and capital emphasis mine)


Muhammad and the Murder of Abu Afak

Muhammad and the Murder of Asma bint Marwan

The Deception and Murder of Kab al-Ashraf

Muhammad and the Death of Kinana

Muhammad and the Death of the Uraynians

Muhammad and the Killing of Apostates

“Kill those who Associate Partners (Mushrikun) Wherever You Find Them!”

Should Muslims Accept Peace or Not?

Fighting All People Until They Do What?

Compel them or Not?

Can They Disbelieve in the Last Day and be Safe?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s