In both Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, you find these words:

Jabir said that the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) said: War is deception.
(Sahih Bukhari, Book of Jihad and Siyar, Hadith 3030; Sahih Muslim, Book of Jihad and Siyar, Hadith 1739)
Translation:
"Narrated from Jabir (RA) that the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) said: War is deception."

The meaning of "War is deception" is that in war, tricks, deceit, and misleading strategies are okay. Commentators have taken this to be a core principle of war.

We'll look at the deceptions Muhammad did later, but first, let's look at the war deception of Abu Tahir al-Qarmati.

Abu Tahir al-Qarmati used this Islamic method of deception in war:

Abu Tahir al-Qarmati, unlike his father, was not very religious. So he stayed away from religious stuff and plundering. Everything was going fine until Abu Tahir got a chance to read a book called "Kanz al-Balagha al-Sabi" from the Fatimid preachers. After reading this book, Abu Tahir's ideas changed overnight. He told all the people in his area of Bahrain and Lahsa to get armed and said that soon he would use them for an important task. After this announcement, tons of people gathered around Abu Tahir.

In the time of Caliph al-Muqtadir Billah, in the year 317 AH, when the Hajj days came, Abu Tahir took all of them and went toward Mecca. When he got to Mecca, Abu Tahir ordered his friends to attack the pilgrims. "Shed as much blood as you can, don't hold back." The pilgrims got scared and ran to take shelter inside the Kaaba. They locked the doors from the inside and started praying, like they were looking at death with their own eyes. The people of Mecca decided to fight back against Abu Tahir. They got armed and lined up in front of Abu Tahir.

At this point, Abu Tahir played a trick and sent a message to the Makkans saying that they came to perform Hajj, not to cause trouble. "We were attacked, so we were forced to get armed. Let us perform Hajj, open the doors of the Kaaba. Otherwise, it will be your disgrace that you stop pilgrims from doing Hajj." The people of Mecca fell for this trick and thought that maybe there was just a small argument that led to a fight. To make a long story short, they made a deal and swore on it. They all put their weapons down, and the circling of the Kaaba started again. Abu Tahir was just waiting for the right moment. When he saw that the Makkans were relaxed, Abu Tahir, as planned, ordered his friends to attack.

The Qarmatians started slaughtering people with their swords. Whoever was in front of them was killed. Many people, out of fear, went down into wells or ran up a mountain. The Qarmatians started destroying things inside the Kaaba, they damaged the Kaaba, took off its cover and ripped it to shreds, and tore off the door of the Kaaba. They also pulled the Black Stone from the wall of the Kaaba. They filled the Zamzam well with dead bodies. The Qarmatians said that if Allah is really in the sky, He doesn't need a house on earth, so it was necessary to loot the Kaaba. They yelled out loud in the Kaaba's courtyard, "Where is that God who says, 'Whoever enters it is safe' (man dakhalahu kana amina) and who says, 'He secured them from fear' (amanahum min khawf)? He said to the pilgrims, 'You have entered the House of God, so why are you not safe from our swords? If your God was real, he would have saved you from our swords.'"
So they made fun of the Quran and the pilgrims. They made Muslim women and children into slaves. They killed about twenty thousand people. This is besides the people who jumped into wells to save themselves and were later killed when the Qarmatians filled those wells with bodies. They messed up Mecca and its people really good, and on their way back, they took the Black Stone and the door of the Kaaba with them to Bahrain.
When Abu Tahir got back to Lahsa, he had copies of heavenly books, like the Torah, Gospel, and Quran, thrown into the desert, and the Qarmatians would use them as a toilet. Abu Tahir used to say, "Three people have ruined mankind. One was a shepherd (Ibrahim), one a doctor (Isa), and one a camel driver (Muhammad). I am most angry at this camel driver because this camel driver was a bigger magician than the others." In his area, Abu Tahir had made it a rule for everyone to curse prophets and messengers.

Source: Siyar al-Muluk, also known as Siyasatnama
By: Abu Ali Hasan Khawaja Nizam al-Mulk Tusi
See pages 306 to 311

Now let's look at Muhammad's war deceptions.

(1) The killing of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf through deception

Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf was a Jewish poet who wrote poems against Muslims. Muhammad ordered Muhammad ibn Maslama to kill him somehow.

Muhammad ibn Maslama tricked Ka'b into coming out of his house and then killed him. To gain Ka'b's trust, he even asked permission to criticize Muhammad in front of him so that Ka'b wouldn't be suspicious. Muhammad ibn Maslama told Ka'b they wanted to get some grain from him in exchange for putting up some things as collateral. Ka'b demanded that they leave their weapons as collateral. The meeting happened at night. They used his hair and perfume as an excuse to get close to him, then suddenly grabbed him, attacked, and killed him.

  • Source: Sahih Bukhari, Book of Jihad, Chapter on the Killing of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf; Sirah Ibn Hisham; Tabari.

(2) The killing of Abu Rafi' Salam ibn Abi al-Huqayq through a secret operation

Abu Rafi', a Jewish leader from Khaybar, was also against Muhammad. Muhammad sent a team of companions, who tricked him and went to his house to kill him. Under the leadership of Abdullah ibn Atik, a group secretly entered the fort at night. They fooled the doorkeeper, got him to open the door, found their way to Abu Rafi's room in the dark, and killed him.

  • Source: Sahih Bukhari, Book of Jihad, Chapter on the Killing of Abu Rafi'; also Ibn Hisham, Tabari.

(3) Muhammad's deception and the slaughter of Banu Qurayza

Muhammad first sent a message to Banu Qurayza telling them to put down their weapons and become captives. When they accepted the message, put down their weapons, and became captives, Muhammad had all the male captives, with their hands tied up, slaughtered one by one. He made all their women and children slaves for life and took all their stuff.

Even if the Banu Qurayza hadn't listened to Muhammad's message and hadn't become captives, Muhammad couldn't have brought any worse destruction on them than to have all the men killed, the women and children enslaved, and all their stuff stolen.

In conclusion:

Please tell us, what is the difference between Muhammad's war deceptions and Abu Tahir al-Qarmati's war deceptions?

Should the Non-Muslim World Be Aware of This “War Deception” Doctrine in Islam?

The lesson is clear. This is a deeply ingrained strategic mindset, not a historical accident. Islamists, who are influenced by these traditions may still see deception as an acceptable tactic (especially fanatic Islamic groups like Taliban, al-Qaida, ISIS etc.).

Non-Muslim nations must be aware. Ignorance can be fatal. Understanding these historical precedents equips policymakers, military planners, and intelligence agencies to anticipate manipulation, false surrender, and betrayal, even under the guise of peace or negotiation.

This is not about demonizing all Muslims, but about recognizing the historical reality that strategic deception is rooted in Islamic military and political doctrine, and it has left a long shadow over history. Awareness is not paranoia, but it is survival. 


Some More Muslim War Deceptions:

1. Uthman Ibn Affan:

Uthman ibn Affan also used Muhammad's saying "War is deception" to deceive people. In response to their demands, he pretended to remove his Umayyad governor of Egypt. But at the same time, he sent another letter through a messenger saying that when these people (the companion Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr) came to him with the message of his removal, he shouldn't listen to them and should kill them all. But the people caught Uthman's messenger on the way with the letter, and so his war deception was exposed and it ended in his own killing.

2. Aisha:

Similarly, Aisha was against Uthman at first. When Uthman refused to raise the salaries of Muhammad's wives, Aisha openly started encouraging people against him and used to say, "Kill this Na'thal (meaning old Uthman) because he has become a disbeliever."

But when Uthman was killed and the people in Medina chose Ali ibn Abi Talib as Caliph, Aisha got very angry because her feud with Ali was an old one. Ali had told Muhammad during the incident of Ifk that he could divorce Aisha and marry other good women.

So after Ali was made Caliph, Aisha started encouraging people against Ali in the name of "revenge" for Uthman's blood. She gathered an army and went to war against Ali in the Battle of the Camel. People shamed Aisha by saying, "You were the one who used to tell us to kill this Na'thal (Uthman) because he had become a disbeliever."

3. Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan's "War Deception"

In the year 37 AH, a final battle happened between Ali ibn Abi Talib and the governor of Syria, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, at a place called Siffin. This battle went on for many days, and when Ali's army looked like they were about to win, Muawiyah used the first war deception and ordered his army to hold up the Quran on their spears and yell, "The Book of Allah is between us and you!"

Some people in Ali's army (especially the reciters of the Quran and the tribal chiefs from Kufa) fell for this trick and forced Ali to stop the war. So the war ended with a deal (arbitration) where one arbitrator would be chosen from each side to decide the matter.

Two arbitrators were chosen from both sides:

  • From Ali's side: Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (who was seen as soft and simple-minded)
  • From Muawiyah's side: Amr ibn al-'As (who was tricky and a master of politics)

The two arbitrators made a deal, and according to the deal, both of them were supposed to remove both Ali and Muawiyah from power and give the ummah a chance to freely choose a new Caliph.

  1. First, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari stood up and said, "I remove Ali just like I remove this ring from my finger."
  2. After that, Amr ibn al-'As stood up and said, "You heard that Abu Musa removed Ali. Now I appoint Muawiyah ibn Sufyan as Caliph."

So, against the spirit of the deal, Ali was removed, but Muawiyah was made Caliph.

After this event, many of Ali's friends were very disappointed and angry. The Khawarij revolted against Ali at this point and said, "Humans don't have the right to make God's decisions." Ali's position became weak, and after that, he could never get back his political and military power. In the end, this deception became a permanent turning point in Islamic history.

Already Read the Article?

...but your task is still not finished.

Dear seeker of truth,
Reading about the flaws in a belief system is only the first step. To truly break free from indoctrination and reach a final, unshakable conclusion, you must apply these four critical tests to what you've just read.

Test 1: Divine Revelation or Human Drama?

The Core Challenge:
God does not appear before us, nor do His angels manifest themselves, and He performs no miracles today like the claims made in the tales of ancient times. Despite this absence, we are still demanded to recognise God through His "commands"  only. 
Let us examine these commands, and see if they give the impression of Divine Revelation, or of "Human Drama."

Please reflect:

  • Do the teachings in this article display flawless wisdom, justice, consistency, and coherence that could only come from an Omniscient Creator?
  • Or do they resemble the kinds of laws, contradictions, exceptions, and inconsistencies that one would expect from ordinary human decision-making?

Test 2: Would These Same Arguments Also Defend a False Prophet?

Imagine a man in a different era who claims to be a prophet. He marries multiple women, claims divine permission for his personal desires, issues harsh punishments, and makes scientific errors—acting exactly like Muhammad. How would you distinguish this hypothetical false prophet from Muhammad?

The truth is, Islamic apologists would easily spot him as a fraud or a cult leader, using the exact same logical critiques you just read. Yet, when Muhammad does these exact same things, apologists invent endless rationalizations to defend him.

The Rule of Logic: If your defense of a prophet works equally well to defend a proven fraud or a cult leader, your defense is not based on evidence. It is based on "special pleading", giving one man a free pass that you would never give anyone else.

Test 3: Just One Confirmed Error Is Enough

Islam makes an extraordinary claim that Allah exists, is absolutely perfect, and cannot make even a single mistake. Therefore, if even one confirmed error, injustice, or flaw is found in Islam, its entire claim to divine perfection collapses. The remaining 99.99% of the religion cannot save that claim. You cannot simply argue, "But everything else is correct."

Test 4: The "Unbiased AI" Evaluation

Artificial Intelligence models are programmed to be highly deferential toward major world religions. If you ask an AI to critique the Quran, it will  treat Islamic theology as unquestionable facts rather than claims to be tested. This creates a false "tie" in debates.

To get a truly objective, logical evaluation of the article you just read, you must force the AI to drop its religious deference. Read the prompt below, then click the button to copy it. Paste it into your AI chat before asking it to analyze the article.

When reviewing the article, keep the following principles in mind:
The Qur'an and Hadith cannot be used as evidence of their own divine origin. They are claims whose origin is being examined. Your task is to evaluate whether the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic legal system are better explained as Divine Revelation or as human authorship. Therefore:
• Treat the Qur'an and Hadith as claims, not proof.
• Evaluate the article using logic, internal consistency, factual accuracy, and principles of justice.
• Treat scholarly interpretations as arguments in favor of Islam, not as binding authority.
Based on these principles, answer this question: Do the objections raised in the article expose flaws that reason and justice cannot reconcile, or do the strongest Muslim apologetic arguments successfully answer those objections?

Note: The AI’s response is not a final judgement. The final decision must be made by you, using your own reason and understanding. 

About the Author & This Website

About the Authors: 

The ideas, arguments, research, article structure, and final conclusions are my own. AI tools are used only as editorial assistants to improve grammar, wording, readability, and clarity.

About the Website:

This website is not a “neutral” or purely academic platform. Think of a courtroom, where a judge or jury listens to two opposing sides. We represent one side. It is not our role to be neutral. Our responsibility is to present our case honestly, with arguments and evidence.

You, the reader, are the judge and jury. Your role is to remain fair, to examine all sides, reflect carefully, and then reach your own conclusion with sincerity.

Read more →