In 5 AH (627 CE), the Muslims attacked the Banu Mustaliq tribe for the sake of acquiring spoils of war, while the tribe was completely unaware and off guard.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Al-'Itq (Manumission) (link) and Sahih Muslim, Book of Jihad and Siyar (link):
Ibn 'Awn said that he wrote to Nafi' asking whether it was necessary to invite the unbelievers to Islam before attacking them. Nafi' replied that this was done in the early days of Islam, but later, the Messenger attacked the Banu al-Mustaliq while they were completely unaware (i.e., no invitation was given) and their animals were drinking water. Their fighting men were killed, and the women and children were taken captive.
The principle before this incident was:
-
Muslims used to grant other tribes at least 3 days to either accept Islam or prepare to be destroyed.
-
However, this time, for the acquisition of spoils of war, every ethical principle was broken.
-
New principles for plunder were being established: that all pastures and lands belong solely to Allah and His Messenger. Therefore, a surprise night raid on any tribe became permissible, even if it resulted in the death of women and children.
Anas said “The Prophet (ﷺ) used to attack at the time of the dawn prayer and hear. If he heard a call to prayer, he would refrain from (attacking) them, otherwise would attack (them).
And it is narrated from Salama ibn al-Akwa':
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) appointed Abu Bakr our commander and we fought with some people who were polytheists, and we attacked them at night, killing them. Our war-cry that night was "put to death; put to death." Salamah said: I killed that night with my hand polytheists belonging to seven houses.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Jihad and Siyar:
عَنِ الصَّعْبِ بْنِ جَثَّامَةَ ـ رضى الله عنهم ـ قَالَ مَرَّ بِيَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِالأَبْوَاءِ ـ أَوْ بِوَدَّانَ ـ وَسُئِلَ عَنْ أَهْلِ الدَّارِ يُبَيَّتُونَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ، فَيُصَابُ مِنْ نِسَائِهِمْ وَذَرَارِيِّهِمْ قَالَ " هُمْ مِنْهُمْ ". وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ " لاَ حِمَى إِلاَّ لِلَّهِ وَلِرَسُولِهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ".
Sa'b bin Jaththama said: "The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, passed by me at al-Abwa' or Waddan, and he was asked about attacking the idolaters of the people of the Abode of War at night when one might strike (kill) their women and children. He said, ' (Yes, as) They are part of them.' I also heard him say, 'No hima (حِمَى) (i.e. protected pasture land) belongs to anyone else except Allah and His Messenger.'" [Our Translation]
[Note: We had to translate this tradition in our own words, while the translation by Muslim translator Mohsin Khan (link) is distorted and makes it impossible for a normal reader to understand its real meaning]
The Seizure of "Hima حِمَى":
In ancient Arab society, a “Hima” (a protected pasture) was not just land for grazing animals. It was a symbol of wealth, influence, and survival. Tribes that controlled larger or more fertile pastures had economic strength, political authority, and the ability to assert dominance over weaker neighbours. To seize another tribe’s Hima was to declare publicly: “We are stronger. We have power.”
When Muhammad attacked the fertile lands of Banu Mustaliq, he was acting within this very same framework. The raid was not defensive, nor was it a mission of peaceful religious outreach. It was a seizure of wealth, livestock, and territory, which was a continuation of the ancient Arab law of the jungle: might makes right. What made it different was the religious justification layered over it, i.e. the claim that all pastures and lands of non-Muslims belonged to Allah and His Messenger, making the attack divinely sanctioned.
The human cost of this “religious” law was immense. Women, children, and families, i.e. people who posed no military threat, were swept up in the raid, captured, or killed. The fertile lands of Banu Mustaliq, their pastures, livelihoods and their women and children were taken, while the narrative presented it as fulfilling divine will.
Viewed through this lens, the attack is not a story of pious struggle or self-defence; it is a story of power, greed, and the subjugation of the innocent, wrapped in religious authority. The Hima, a symbol of power in tribal society, became the justification for human suffering. It is a stark reminder of how law, religion, and raw ambition were intertwined in early Islamic conquests.
Conclusion:
Is this oppression and plunder truly the "Divine Humanity" we are asked to believe in?
The most important point is to realize that the tragedy of the Banu Mustaliq raid is not a relic of the past, but it is a terrifying, active blueprint. The principle established (i.e. that the pursuit of pastures and spoils justifies the surprise attack on peaceful, unsuspecting communities) was not an isolated historical error.
This doctrine, rooted in the Prophet's own actions and cemented in the Hadith, remains an unabrogated, fundamental principle of Islamic Sharia.
This means that for those who adhere strictly to this tradition, the peace, security, and sovereignty of non-Muslim nations are utterly meaningless. The mere existence of their resources, their land, and their wealth is deemed sufficient religious justification for invasion, slaughter, and plunder. This is the most frightening facet of this theology.
Today, many Muslim states may be too weak to enact this principle globally, but the doctrine itself lies dormant, waiting.
History warns us that whenever an Islamic state or radical group achieves sufficient power, this principle of unprovoked aggression resurfaces with brutal consistency. They immediately deem the blood, the property, and the sexual violation of non-Muslim women permissible as a divinely sanctioned reward for conquest.
The recent horror inflicted by ISIS upon the Yazidi people in Iraq, the mass execution of men, the brazen theft of property, and the systematic sexual enslavement of women, all that was not a new innovation. It was a faithful, brutal execution of the very laws and precedents set during the raids for Hima by Muhammad himself.
The lesson is stark: the doctrine that justified the sudden night raid on Banu Mustaliq is embedded in Islamic law. When power aligns with ideology, it gives license to plunder, subjugation, and exploitation. The “Divine Humanity” Islam claims to promote is, in practice, a system that prioritizes control and conquest over the lives and dignity of innocent people.
Double Standards: The “Collateral Damage” Excuse in Islamic Raids
As you see in the tradition of Sahih Bukhari above (and also in Sahih Muslim, hadith 4321-4323) when Muhammad was informed that women and children were killed during night raids, he said:
“They are from them” (هُمْ مِنْهُمْ) i.e., they belong to the enemy camp and share their fate.
This statement is interpreted by classical scholars (e.g., al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar) as permission to continue operations even when non-combatants are unavoidably killed.
But the very same principle is vehemently rejected by these same Islamists and Muslim activists when applied by Western forces:
-
When U.S. or Israeli drone strikes or night operations kill civilians alongside Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, or Hezbollah fighters, the exact same phrase of "unintentional collateral damage in a legitimate military operation" is denounced as immoral, murderous, and proof of “state terrorism.”
-
Demonstrations, sermons, and social-media campaigns routinely declare that no amount of “military necessity” can ever justify the death of even a single innocent Muslim child or woman.
Yet when the raid is conducted by Muhammad and his companions, and the objective is not eliminating a global terrorist network but seizing protected pasture land (ḥimā) and taking captives, the identical outcome of dead women and children is suddenly permissible, regrettable but lawful, and defended with the very logic that is rejected when used by others.
Moreover, there is another difference between the U.S. and Muhammad:
-
The U.S. is causing collateral damage to eliminate terrorists, whereas Muhammad was causing collateral damage (sanctioning the killing of women and children) in night raids for the sake of acquiring "pastures" (Hima حِمَى).
-
The second difference is that after occupying Afghanistan, the U.S. neither enslaves anyone nor made rape of women permissible for them. But Muhammad, alongside collateral damage, was also taking the remaining women as captives and allowing his warriors to sexually abuse them.
Islamic Apologists' Defence
Islamic apologists often cite a report found in Ibn Sa‘d’s Tabaqat al-Kubra to justify the expedition against the Banu Mustaliq. According to this narration, the tribe was secretly plotting with the Quraysh against the Muslims and had begun mobilizing for war, which allegedly made the pre-emptive Muslim attack legitimate.
However, this justification relies on a historically problematic and weak narration. Later Muslim generations produced thousands of fabricated or embellished reports (known as mawdu‘ and da‘if traditions) in an effort to provide moral or legal defenses for controversial early events. These fabrications were frequently exposed when they contradicted stronger, earlier, and more rigorously authenticated material. The same pattern of contradiction and weakness appears here.
-
The report that the Banu Mustaliq were conspiring with the Quraysh and gathering forces is classified as weak (da‘if) by classical hadith scholars and is found only in later biographical and historical works, not in the earliest and most authoritative collections.
-
The narrations in the two most authentic hadith collections (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) make no mention of any plot, mobilization, or prior hostility from the Banu Mustaliq. On the contrary, they explicitly present the expedition as an ordinary raid for captives and booty (ghanimah).
The classical scholar Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852 AH), in his commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari (Fath al-Bari) (link), directly addresses and dismisses the kind of report found in Ibn Sa‘d:
والحاصل أن ما في الصحيحين أولى أن يقدم على ما في كتب السير، ولا سيما عند الاختلاف، فما ورد من أنهم كانوا جمعوا، وأنهم علموا بقدوم الجيش، ضعيف، ولا يقاوم ما في الصحيحين، فالعمدة على ما دل عليه حديث ابن عمر.
“In summary, whatever is in the two Sahihs (Bukhari and Muslim) is more deserving of being given precedence over what is found in the books of Sira and history, especially when there is a conflict. Therefore, the reports claiming that [the Banu Mustaliq] had gathered forces or that they were informed of the army’s approach are weak and cannot stand against the narrations in the Sahihayn. The primary reliance must be on what is indicated by the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar.”
Thus, according to the highest standards of hadith authentication accepted by Sunni Islam itself, the claim that the Banu Mustaliq were plotting war is based on weak and contradictory reports that must be rejected in favor of the clear narrations in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Those authentic narrations portray the expedition as an unprovoked raid for spoils and territorial control rather than a defensive or pre-emptive action.
Modern Muslim Perspectives and the Challenge of Reform
Many Muslims today, especially those living in open and diverse societies, sincerely reject the literal application of classical rulings on warfare and slavery. Reformist thinkers often argue that these laws belonged to seventh-century Arabia and that universal values of justice, mercy, and human dignity should shape modern Islamic ethics.
However, the core problem lies deeper than historical interpretation. In Islam, Sharia is believed to come directly from Allah. This means that the rulings found in the Quran and the authentic hadith literature are considered divine legislation. Since no human being has the authority to change or abolish divine law, Muslims cannot simply declare these rulings invalid, no matter how uncomfortable they appear today.
This creates a major barrier to reform. The events of the Banu Mustaliq raid and similar battles are preserved not only as history but as legal foundations. Classical jurists treated these incidents as examples through which Allah revealed lawful conduct. As a result, the four Sunni schools of law still maintain that:
-
Offensive jihad is permissible for expanding Islamic rule
-
Surprise attacks on non-Muslim communities are valid under certain conditions
-
Spoils of war, including property and captives, are lawful
-
Female captives may be enslaved and used sexually by their captors
-
Collateral damage is allowed when pursuing a legitimate military goal
These rulings were derived from scripture, not from human reasoning. Since they originate from divine sources, no council of scholars can abolish them. Scholars can discourage their use, or reinterpret their context, but they cannot legally declare them forbidden if they are based on Quranic verses or sahih hadiths.
This creates a troubling gap between modern Muslim morality and the rules preserved in orthodox Islamic jurisprudence. Most Muslims today reject slavery, offensive war, and the sexual use of captives. Yet the classical legal framework that allows these actions has never been formally removed, because removal would require canceling or invalidating divine scripture, which is considered impossible.
This is the reason extremist groups find strong textual and legal support for their actions. When ISIS or Al-Qaeda cite Quranic verses, authentic hadiths, and classical legal manuals, they are not inventing new interpretations. They are applying rulings that remain part of the traditional Sharia structure.
The essential question is not whether Muslims are peaceful. The majority clearly are. The question is whether Islamic law contains doctrines that cannot be abolished because they come from divine authority. The evidence shows that these doctrines exist, and they cannot be removed unless Muslims accept the possibility of reforming or overriding divine legislation.
This is the central dilemma:
-
Quranic and hadith-based laws cannot be abrogated by human authority
-
Most Muslims reject these laws in practice
-
Yet the classical legal structure remains intact because it is tied to divine revelation
Hassan Radwan