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 (*bayāt*) 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 AbuBakr 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]
Today, the U.S. launches drone strikes against Taliban terrorists and calls the innocent people killed alongside them 'collateral damage.' Muslims, however, do not accept this U.S. 'collateral damage' theory. But can these same Muslims reject their Prophet's identical collateral damage theory, or will they deem the killing of women and children by Muhammad permissible for the sake of pastures?
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.
Muslim Apologists' Defence
In response to this objection, Muslim apologists present the following narrative as evidence that Banu Mustaliq were plotting with the Quraysh against the Muslims, and therefore they were attacked. [Reference: Tabaqat al-Kubra by Ibn Sa'd]
Our Reply:
-
This narration by Ibn Sa'd, which Muslims base their claim that the Banu Mustaliq conspired with the Quraysh, is not an "authentic" tradition.
-
The traditions in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are clear that Banu Mastaliq didn't wage any war, and the attack was done only for spoils of war and getting control of protected pasture lands.
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, refuting Ibn Sa'd's narration, writes (link):
"والحاصل أنَّ 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 دلّ عليه حديث ابن عمر."
The conclusion is that the narrations in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are more deserving of being preferred over those in Sirah (biographical/historical) books, especially when there is a contradiction. Therefore, the reports claiming that the Banu Mustaliq had gathered or were aware of the army's arrival are weak and cannot compete with the narrations in the Sahihayn (i.e. Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim). The main reliance is on what is indicated by the Hadith of Ibn Umar.
The Seizure of "Hima حِمَى": Power Cloaked in Piety
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.
Hassan Radwan