Background: A Prophet's Income Problem
When Muhammad arrived in Medina as a refugee, he faced a crisis: how would he and his 150+ Meccan followers survive? They had abandoned their trades and properties in Mecca. Medina's economy couldn't absorb them. The local Ansar (helpers) were already struggling.
Muhammad's solution was brutally simple: organized robbery.
Within months, he began launching raids on Meccan trade caravans. These weren't defensive actions—the caravans posed no threat to Medina. They were calculated attacks designed to plunder goods and capture people. Over the next decade, Muhammad personally led or authorized over 100 military expeditions, averaging one attack every 35 days.
The victims included not just enemy combatants, but entire families. Women and children were seized as slaves—not temporarily, but for life. Their children, and their children's children, were born into slavery, creating hereditary bondage that would last for generations. These innocent people had committed no crime except belonging to the "wrong" tribe or religion.
But even this systematic plunder wasn't enough for Muhammad.
He wanted more than an equal share. He wanted the lion's share. And conveniently, "divine revelations" began appearing that progressively increased his portion of the spoils—first claiming everything, then settling for one-fifth, and finally finding loopholes to take everything again.
This pattern of convenient revelations raises an unavoidable question: Were these messages truly from Allah, or were they the work of a man using religion to justify personal enrichment?
Read the evidence below and judge for yourself.
al-Anfal: Muhammad's Attempt to Claim All War Booty for Himself, Leaving Nothing for the Companions
Summary:
Muslims would engage in attacks on trade caravans to acquire war booty. Initially, these spoils were distributed equally among the participants. The raiding of trade caravans eventually led to the Battle of Badr in the 2nd year of Hijri.
In the Battle of Badr, the Muslims emerged victorious against the Meccans and obtained significant goods as war booty. However, this time Muhammad desired to keep the spoils for himself, denying the participants their rightful share. To justify this, he claimed a revelation of a new verse, 8:1, asserting that ALL spoils of war solely belonged to Allah and His Prophet (i.e., Muhammad), effectively excluding the companions from any share.
To further deny the companions their share, Muhammad argued that their participation in the war had no significant impact, as it was Allah who sent 1000 angels to fight and defeat the disbelievers. Consequently, Muhammad asserted that the entire spoils of the Battle of Badr belonged exclusively to Allah and His Messenger (practically only benefiting Muhammad).
Here is the verse where Muhammad claims his right over ALL the spoils of war:
Quran 8:01:
يَسْـَٔلُونَكَ عَنِ ٱلْأَنفَالِ ۖ قُلِ ٱلْأَنفَالُ لِلَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ
They ask you (Mohammed) concerning the war booty; say, “Allah and the Messenger are the owners of the war booty.
Then, Muhammad informed the participants of the war that their role in the victory was not significant, emphasizing that it was the 1000 angels who fought and defeated the disbelievers. As a result, he declared that the war booty belonged exclusively to Allah and His messenger (with Muhammad claiming sole rights over all the spoils of war), while the participants (i.e., the Sahaba) had no share in it.
Quran 8:9:
(Remember) when you sought help of your Lord and He answered you (saying): "Indeed, I am going to help you with a thousand of the Angels, following one another."
Maulana Maududi wrote under the commentary of this Surah al-Anfal, footnote 11 (link):
11. Allah is telling the events one by one which happened on the day of Badr, so that they (i.e. Muslims) would understand the significance of the word al-anfal (i.e. spoils of war). In the opening verse of this surah, the Muslims were told why they were thinking to be the owner of the spoils of war as their own hard work and efforts? No, but it was only a bonus, and the owner of bonus is Allah himself. The Muslims could see themselves how much share did their efforts has in that victory and what was the share of Allah in that victory (i.e. sending of 1000 angels to fight and defeat the Kuffar)
Verse 8:12 raises an intriguing point, as it suggests that despite dispatching 1000 angels to engage in combat, Allah deemed it insufficient and chose to personally intervene in the battle by instilling terror directly into the hearts of the disbelievers.
Quran 8:12:
And recall when your Lord inspired the angels: 'I am certainly with you (i.e. the angels). So make firm the feet of those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike at their necks and strike at every pore and tip.
Please reflect upon the following thought-provoking points:
- Why was it necessary for Allah to inspire and assure the angels that Allah was with them? It appears that Muhammad overlooked the fact that angels, as innocent beings in Islamic teachings, do not require reassurance from Allah like humans do.
- Moreover, if 1000 angels were not sufficient to fight and overcome the disbelievers (who were also only 1000 in number), why did Allah need to directly involve Himself in the war and instill terror directly into the hearts of the disbelievers?
Upon careful consideration, one may conclude that this revelation could not possibly originate from a divine and perfect Allah in the heavens. Rather, it seems to be a result of human errors, driven by the greed for war spoils.
Muhammad exploited the superstitions prevalent among his companions, who were products of the time of ignorance. Otherwise, how could his companions wholeheartedly believe in these fanciful tales that 1000 angels were actively fighting alongside them, and still they were not enough to defeat Kuffar, and therefore Allah also had to intervene directly.
Abu Zumail said that the hadith was narrated to him by Ibn `Abbas who said: While on that day a Muslim was chasing a disbeliever who was going ahead of him, he heard over him the swishing of the whip and the voice of the rider saying: Go ahead, Haizum! He glanced at the polytheist who had (now) fallen down on his back. When he looked at him (carefully he found that) there was a scar on his nose and his face was torn as if it had been lashed with a whip, and had turned green with its poison. An Ansari came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and related this (event) to him. He said: You have told the truth. This was the help from the third heaven (i.e. the angels who came from the third heaven were lashing the Kuffar with whip and kuffer were being killed due to the poison of whips).
The Prophet (ﷺ) said on the day (of the battle) of Badr, "This is Gabriel holding the head of his horse and equipped with arms for the battle.
But do you know that the Kuffar were still able to kill 14 Muslims in the Battle of Badr?
Muslims should ponder upon it:
- There were only 1000 Kuffar present there, while on the other side, there were 313 Muslims + 1000 Angels + Allah Himself casting terror in the hearts of Kuffar.
- How can you accept such an entity to be a God, who promised to cast TERROR in the heart of Kuffar, and then also sent 1000 angels to participate in it, but still 14 Muslims got killed in the battle?
al-Khums:
Summary:
- Earlier, Muhammad tried to put all the spoils of war in his pocket in the battle of Badr. He used verse 8:01 (Surah al-Anfal) for this purpose.
- But later he failed in doing it despite the help of revelation. It was due to the reason that on the day of Badr, Muhammad had already promised his companions that they would get such and such share from war booty for killing a Kafir, and such and such share for capturing a Kafir.
- Thus, Muhammad was compelled to give up his previous idea of taking the whole war booty of Badr for himself alone.
- But later he changed his tactics, and claimed 1/5th part of the war booty of the battle of Badr, in the name of Khums. He again used revelation for this purpose. This time it was verse 41 of the same Surah al-Anfal (Qruan 8:41).
Look at this Hadith, where Muhammad was telling his companions that they would get a such and such share in the war booty, before the start of the war:
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said on the day of Badr: He who kills a man will get such-and-such, and he who captivates a man will get such-and-such.
Consequently, a significant contradiction arose when Muhammad initially attempted to claim the entire war booty solely for himself, thereby depriving the companions of their rightful shares. However, this stance was later modified to claim one-fifth of the war booty. Muhammad justified this change by proclaiming the revelation of the following verse regarding Khums, found within the same Surah al-Anfal.
Quran 8:41:
And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveller.
In practice, the entirety of the one-fifth share of the war booty went into the possession of Muhammad. He retained a significant portion for himself, claiming it as the share of Allah and His Messenger. Another portion was allocated to his close relatives. Additionally, the portion intended for the needy, orphans, and travellers also ended up under Muhammad's control, as he had the authority to distribute it at his discretion.
Muhammad got a big share of the spoils of every war in the name of Khums, which he used for his personal enrichment. For example, he got at least 7 slaves in the single war booty of Khaybar, which he used to trade for a single beautiful woman Saffiyah. (Note: It may be that Muhammad got an even bigger share than 7 slaves in the war)
Sunan Abu Dawud, 2997 and Sahih Muslim, 1365e:
Anas said “A beautiful (captive) slave girl (i.e. Safiyyah) fell to Dihyah (a companion of Muhammad)”. The Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) purchased her for seven slaves. He then gave her to Umm Sulaim for decorating her and preparing her for marriage.
Why did the relatives of Muhammad receive an additional share from the war booty, in the name of Khums, even if they were not needy?
And a very important question is, why the relatives of Muhammad got an extra share from the war booty?
For example, Ali sexually exploited a minor slave girl on the same night when she was made captive after the war and gave it the name of Khums.
Narrated Buraydah:
I hated Ali as I had never hated anyone. ... The Prophet sent to us Ali, and among the female captives was a slave girl who was the finest of the female captives, and he apportioned the Khums (one-fifth of war booty given to the Prophet and his family). Ali divided the shares, and his head was dripping (after taking a ritual bath following sexual intercourse with the slave-girl). We said: "O Abu al-Hasan (i.e. Ali), what is this?!" Ali replied: "Did you not see the slave-girl who was among the female captives? I divided the shares and apportioned Khumus. Then she became part of the Khumus. Then she became part of the household of the Prophet, and then she became part of the house of Ali, and (thus) I had sexual intercourse with her." ...
Grading: Classed Sahih by al-Arna'ut
Islamic apologists have put forth the explanation that Muhammad's relatives received an additional portion of the spoils of war because they were forbidden from receiving Sadaqa (charity). However, it is important to note that charity is meant for the poor and needy, while Muhammad's relatives were neither impoverished nor in need. Obtaining a slave girl in the name of Khums and then sexually exploitingher, contradicts the concept of being needy and destitute. Hence, the straightforward conclusion is that Muhammad sought to enrich himself and his family under the guise of Khums.
Al-Fay فيء : Muhammad finally succeeded in putting the entire war booty in his pocket
Summary:
In Medina, Muhammad came with the Muslim army to attack the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadhir. But instead of fighting, they peacefully accepted the condition to be expelled from Medina.
Companions of Muhammad were again dreaming of a big share in War Booty, but Muhammad had another plan in his mind.
This time, Muhammad claimed the revelation of the following verses:
Quran 59:6-7:
And from them (i.e. Banu Nadhir), the booty which Allah gave to His Noble Messenger – so you had not charged your horses or camels against them, but it is Allah Who gives whomever He wills within the control of His Noble Messengers; and Allah is Able to do all things. The booty which Allah gave to His Noble Messenger from the people of the townships (i.e. Banu Nadhir), is for Allah and His Noble Messenger, and for the relatives, and the orphans, and the needy and the travellers – so that it does not concentrate in the hands of those who are rich among you; and accept whatever the Noble Messenger gives you; and refrain from whatever he forbids you
This time, Muhammad did not merely take one-fifth of the spoils; instead, he claimed control over the entire war booty. With the journey that began with the verse of al-Anfaal (Quran 8:1) being completed by the verse of al-Fay (Quran 59:6-7), Muhammad successfully acquired authority over the entire spoils of war.
It is essential to note that even though there was no actual fighting, the companions participated in the campaign, deploying on their horses and on foot. Their actions played a significant role in Banu Nadhir accepting defeat and agreeing to their expulsion. However, the companions received no share from the war booty, as Muhammad deprived them of their rightful portion.
Islamic Apologists: Share of al-Fay was not given to the participants of the war, while Allah didn't want the "concentration" of money in a few hands
It is important to recognize that the claim that war booty was not distributed among the participants of the war, as it was not intended for them, is merely a deceptive explanation. This excuse, however, was not presented in the Quran or by Muhammad himself. Rather, it was later fabricated by subsequent Muslims to justify the withholding of the wealth by Muhammad.
It is important to highlight the following points:
- The Quran itself does not impose any condition of wealth concentration on Muhammad and his relatives by depriving them of the 1/5th share of Khums, even in cases where no fighting took place.
- Muhammad and his relatives continued to receive substantial shares from the spoils of war, including the wealth obtained through Khums and Al-Fay (the whole of the war booty).
An example of this is Muhammad granting his daughter, Fatima, a garden called Fadak, which had a value of 50,000 Dirhams. Later, during Umar's reign, Ali assumed control of Fadak. Ali's wealth was such that he could comfortably support his nine wives, several concubines, and 17 children.
These instances shed light on the deceptive notion of non-concentration of wealth in the context of Al-Fay.
Muhammad made money through RUQYAH (Spells of Quranic Verses)
Sahaba used Ruqyah to enrich themselves, but Muhammad also used the same excuse in order to take money out of Sahaba's pocket.
Narrated Abu Sa`id:
Some of the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) went on a journey till they reached some of the 'Arab tribes (at night). They asked the latter to treat them as their guests but they refused. The chief of that tribe was then bitten by a snake (or stung by a scorpion) and they tried their best to cure him but in vain. Some of them said (to the others), "Nothing has benefited him, will you go to the people who resided here at night, it may be that some of them might possess something (as treatment)," They went to the group of the companions (of the Prophet (ﷺ) ) and said, "Our chief has been bitten by a snake (or stung by a scorpion) and we have tried everything but he has not benefited. Have you got anything (useful)?" One of them replied, "Yes, by Allah! I can recite a Ruqya, but as you have refused to accept us as your guests, I will not recite the Ruqya for you unless you fix for us some wages for it." They agrees to pay them a flock of sheep. One of them then went and recited (Surat-ul-Fatiha): 'All the praises are for the Lord of the Worlds' and puffed over the chief who became all right as if he was released from a chain, and got up and started walking, showing no signs of sickness. They paid them what they agreed to pay. Some of them (i.e. the companions) then suggested to divide their earnings among themselves, but the one who performed the recitation said, "Do not divide them till we go to the Prophet (ﷺ) and narrate the whole story to him, and wait for his order." So, they went to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and narrated the story. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) asked, "How did you come to know that Suratul- Fatiha was recited as Ruqya?" Then he added, "You have done the right thing. Divide (what you have earned) and assign a share for me as well." The Prophet (ﷺ) smiled thereupon.
So:
- The companions resorted to collecting money from ordinary individuals under the guise of Ruqya (healing practices).
- However, Muhammad devised a method to extract money from his companions, allocating a share for himself from those earnings.
- Even today, thousands of religious leaders exploit unsuspecting Muslims in the name of following the example of Muhammad, using practices like Ruqya and claiming to counter the effects of the Evil Eye.
And that 'smile' of Muhammad is disturbing. It reminds us of another 'smile' of Muhammad, when Sahla (a young woman) hesitated to breastfeed a male adult, despite Muhammad's instructions. Upon that, Muhammad smiled too.
' A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be eupon him) and said: Messengerof Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man 'Amr has made this addition in his narration that he participated in the Battle of Badr and in the narration of Ibn 'Umar (the words are): Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) laughed.
Al-Anfal: Muhammad's First Attempt to Take Everything
The Setup: Victory at Badr
In the second year after the Hijra (624 CE), Muhammad's raids on Meccan caravans escalated into open warfare. At a place called Badr, approximately 313 Muslims faced nearly 1,000 Meccan fighters—a force three times their size. Against the odds, the Muslims won decisively.
The spoils were substantial: weapons, armor, camels, and most valuable of all, prisoners who could be ransomed for significant sums. The companions who had risked their lives in battle naturally expected to divide these spoils as they had in previous raids.
Muhammad had other plans.
The Revelation: "Everything Belongs to Me"
Immediately after the victory, Muhammad announced a new revelation that fundamentally changed the rules:
"They ask you (Mohammed) concerning the war booty; say, 'Allah and the Messenger are the owners of the war booty.'"
Read that carefully. Not "Allah and the Messenger get a share." Not "Allah and the Messenger distribute it fairly." But rather: "Allah and the Messenger are the owners."
In practical terms, "Allah's share" meant Muhammad's share—Allah doesn't need earthly goods. This verse effectively declared that all spoils of Badr belonged exclusively to Muhammad, with the companions receiving nothing.
The Justification: "Angels Did All the Work"
Predictably, the companions were furious. They had fought, bled, and risked death. Now they were told they deserved nothing?
Muhammad needed a justification. Conveniently, another revelation appeared explaining why the companions had no claim to the spoils: they hadn't really won the battle—angels had.
"Indeed, I am going to help you with a thousand angels, following one another."
According to Muhammad's new narrative, 1,000 angels had descended from heaven to fight the Meccans. The human participants were merely bit players in a supernatural drama. Since the angels did the real fighting, the spoils belonged to Allah (and therefore Muhammad), not to the human soldiers.
"In the opening verse of this surah, the Muslims were told: why are you thinking you own the spoils of war through your own hard work and efforts? No, it was only a bonus, and the owner of the bonus is Allah himself. The Muslims could see for themselves how much their efforts contributed to that victory and what was the share of Allah in that victory (i.e., sending 1000 angels to fight and defeat the Kuffar)."
The Problem: The Story Doesn't Add Up
Let's examine the angel story more carefully, because it reveals the human fingerprints all over this "divine" revelation.
1. Why Do Angels Need Reassurance?
"And recall when your Lord inspired the angels: 'I am certainly with you. So make firm the feet of those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike at their necks and strike at every pore and tip.'"
Think about this. Allah is supposedly speaking to His angels—beings He created to be perfectly obedient, sinless, and fearless. Angels don't have doubt. They don't experience fear. They don't need motivational speeches.
Yet here, Allah has to reassure them: "I am certainly with you."
Why?
Because Muhammad forgot that angels aren't human. He's writing dialogue as if speaking to nervous soldiers before battle, not to supernatural beings. This is the mistake of human authorship.
2. The Mathematical Absurdity
Now let's do the math:
The Battle of Badr: Forces Comparison
Team Allah (Muhammad's Side):
- 313 Muslim fighters
- 1,000 angels with supernatural weapons
- Allah Himself, personally casting terror into enemy hearts
- Total: 1,313+ combatants with divine support
Team Mecca:
- 1,000 ordinary human fighters
- No supernatural help
- Total: 1,000 regular humans
3. The Devastating Question
If Allah promised to cast TERROR into the hearts of the disbelievers, and sent 1,000 angels to fight with poisoned whips, how did the Meccans manage to kill 14 Muslims?
- Were the angels incompetent?
- Was Allah's terror ineffective?
- Were the Meccans somehow resistant to divine intervention?
The answer is simpler: There were no angels. Muhammad invented them after the battle to justify taking all the spoils.
The "Evidence" for Angels: Supernatural Tales
To sell this story, Muhammad needed witnesses. Conveniently, they appeared:
Abu Zumail reported that Ibn Abbas said: "While on that day a Muslim was chasing a disbeliever who was going ahead of him, he heard over him the swishing of the whip and the voice of the rider saying: 'Go ahead, Haizum!' He glanced at the polytheist who had (now) fallen down on his back. When he looked at him carefully, he found that there was a scar on his nose and his face was torn as if it had been lashed with a whip, and had turned green with its poison. An Ansari came to the Messenger of Allah and related this event to him. He said: 'You have told the truth. This was the help from the third heaven.'"
The Prophet said on the day of the battle of Badr, "This is Gabriel holding the head of his horse and equipped with arms for the battle."
Notice what's happening here:
- Someone sees unusual injuries on an enemy (green scars)
- Muhammad confirms: "Yes, that's angel poison!"
- Someone thinks they saw a figure in the dust of battle
- Muhammad confirms: "Yes, that's Gabriel!"
Muhammad exploited the superstitions of his 7th-century Arabian companions. In the chaos of battle, with adrenaline, fear, and dust everywhere, people see things. Muhammad simply interpreted these experiences through a supernatural lens that served his financial interests.
The Fatal Flaw: Why This Story Proves Human Authorship
Here's the critical question Muslims must answer:
If Allah knew Muhammad would need verse 8:1 to claim the spoils, why didn't He reveal it BEFORE the battle?
Why wait until after the victory, after the companions already expected their shares, forcing Muhammad to scramble for a justification?
An all-knowing God would have established the rules beforehand. A human making up revelations to solve problems creates them reactively—exactly what we see here.
The sequence is unmistakable:
- Victory at Badr → spoils acquired
- Companions expect their shares (as in previous raids)
- Muhammad wants everything for himself
- Convenient revelation appears: "Actually, it all belongs to Allah and His messenger"
- Companions object: "We fought! We bled!"
- Another convenient revelation appears: "No, angels did all the fighting"
- Companions remain skeptical
- "Eyewitness" stories emerge: "I saw angel whip marks!"
This is reactive problem-solving, not eternal divine wisdom.
The Contradiction Within Surah Al-Anfal
We'll see in the next section that Muhammad couldn't maintain this position. He was forced to compromise. But notice this:
An Impossible Contradiction
Verse 8:1 says ALL spoils belong to Allah and His messenger.
Verse 8:41 (coming later in the same Surah) says only ONE-FIFTH belongs to Allah and His messenger.
These verses are in the same Surah.
How can both be eternal divine truth? Did Allah change His mind partway through dictating Surah 8? Or did Muhammad change his story when the companions refused to accept complete confiscation?
Summary: The First Failed Attempt
What Muhammad Tried:
- A verse declaring him owner of ALL spoils (8:1)
- A supernatural story minimizing human contribution (1,000 angels)
- "Eyewitness" accounts of angel interventions
The Result: It Failed
The companions had already been promised shares (as we'll see in the next section with Hadith 2738). Muhammad couldn't walk back those promises without risking mutiny.
So he was forced to compromise with the Khums system—taking "only" one-fifth instead of everything.
But the attempt reveals the pattern: Muhammad using "revelations" to maximize his personal wealth, adjusting the revelations when they don't work.
This is not how divine revelation functions. This is how human manipulation operates.
The question stands:
Do you believe an all-powerful, all-knowing Allah needed three tries (Anfal → Khums → Fay) to design a fair distribution system?
Or does this look exactly like a man making up rules to benefit himself and revising them when people resist?
Al-Khums: The Forced Compromise (But Still a Victory for Muhammad)
Why the First Attempt Failed: The Promise Problem
In the previous section, we saw Muhammad's audacious attempt to claim all the spoils of Badr for himself using verse 8:1. The angel story was meant to justify this complete confiscation.
But there was a fatal problem: Muhammad had already made promises before the battle began.
The Messenger of Allah said on the day of Badr: "He who kills a man will get such-and-such, and he who captivates a man will get such-and-such."
This hadith is devastating to Muhammad's credibility. Let's understand what happened:
The Timeline:
- Before Battle: Muhammad promises companions specific shares for kills and captures
- During Battle: Companions fight based on these promises
- After Victory: Muhammad suddenly announces verse 8:1 claiming everything
- Companions Object: "But you promised us shares!"
- Muhammad Forced to Backtrack: Cannot revoke explicit promises without risking mutiny
This proves that verse 8:1 was not revealed before the battle. An all-knowing Allah would have told Muhammad the distribution rules before he made promises to his companions. The reactive nature of this revelation screams human authorship.
The Compromise: "Okay, I'll Take Only One-Fifth"
Unable to claim everything, Muhammad needed a new strategy. Conveniently, another revelation appeared—in the same Surah—offering a different distribution formula:
"And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveller."
Notice the shift:
The Contradiction Within Surah Al-Anfal
Verse 8:1: "The war booty belongs to Allah and the Messenger"
↓
Translation: Muhammad gets everything (100%)
Verse 8:41: "For Allah is one fifth of it"
↓
Translation: Muhammad gets one-fifth (20%)
The Critical Question:
Which verse represents Allah's true, eternal will?
- If verse 8:1 is divine truth, then 8:41 contradicts it
- If verse 8:41 is divine truth, then why did Allah reveal 8:1 first?
- Did Allah change His mind mid-Surah?
- Or did Muhammad simply adjust his claim when companions resisted?
The answer is obvious: These are not divine revelations being adjusted by an all-knowing God. These are human claims being negotiated under pressure.
The Reality: Muhammad Still Got Everything
While verse 8:41 appears to distribute the one-fifth among six categories, in practice, Muhammad controlled all of it:
The Six "Categories" of Khums:
- Allah's share → Allah doesn't need earthly goods → goes to Muhammad
- The Messenger's share → Obviously Muhammad
- Near relatives → Muhammad's family (he decides who gets what)
- Orphans → Muhammad decides which orphans and how much
- The needy → Muhammad decides who qualifies and how much
- Travelers → Muhammad decides which travelers and how much
Evidence: Muhammad Used Khums for Personal Enrichment
Example 1: Trading Seven Slaves for One Beautiful Woman
From the spoils of Khaybar, Muhammad received at least seven slaves as his Khums share. What did he do with them?
Anas said: "A beautiful (captive) slave girl (i.e. Safiyyah) fell to Dihyah (a companion of Muhammad)." The Apostle of Allah purchased her for seven slaves. He then gave her to Umm Sulaim for decorating her and preparing her for marriage.
Think about this transaction:
- Muhammad used his Khums share (supposedly for Allah, orphans, needy, travelers) to acquire seven human beings
- He then traded all seven to obtain one specific woman he found attractive
- Safiyyah had just witnessed her husband's execution and her tribe's massacre
- Muhammad "married" her (added her to his collection of wives/concubines)
Question: Where in this transaction do we see concern for orphans, the needy, or travelers? This is personal sexual gratification using religious authority.
Example 2: Ali Rapes a Captive Girl "As Khums"
The most disturbing example of Khums abuse involves Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali:
Narrated Buraydah: I hated Ali as I had never hated anyone... The Prophet sent to us Ali, and among the female captives was a slave girl who was the finest of the female captives, and he apportioned the Khums (one-fifth of war booty given to the Prophet and his family).
Ali divided the shares, and his head was dripping (after taking a ritual bath following sexual intercourse with the slave-girl). We said: "O Abu al-Hasan (i.e. Ali), what is this?!" Ali replied: "Did you not see the slave-girl who was among the female captives? I divided the shares and apportioned Khumus. Then she became part of the Khumus. Then she became part of the household of the Prophet, and then she became part of the house of Ali, and (thus) I had sexual intercourse with her."
Let's be clear about what happened here:
- A woman was captured in war (traumatic)
- Ali, as Muhammad's family member, claimed her as "Khums"
- On the same day, he had sex with her
- She had no choice - she was property
- This was justified as his religious "right" through Khums
This is rape disguised as religious entitlement.
The "Sadaqa Excuse" Debunked
Islamic apologists claim: "Muhammad's family couldn't receive Sadaqa (charity), so they needed Khums instead."
This excuse falls apart under scrutiny:
Why This Excuse Fails:
1. Sadaqa is for the NEEDY
If Muhammad's family couldn't receive charity, it implies they weren't needy. But then why did they need Khums? You can't have it both ways.
2. Muhammad's Family Was NOT Needy
- Ali had 9 wives, multiple concubines, and 17 children
- Fatima received Fadak garden (worth 50,000 dirhams)
- Muhammad had at least 11 wives and numerous slaves
- They lived far above the standard of ordinary Muslims
3. Sexual Access ≠ Need
Ali taking a slave girl for sex on the day of capture shows Khums was about privilege and pleasure, not poverty relief.
4. The Logic is Backwards
If they were so poor they needed special provision, why ban them from regular charity? The real reason: Muhammad wanted to give them MORE than charity could provide.
Why Did Muhammad's Family Need Special Privileges?
The honest answer is simple: They didn't need them. Muhammad wanted them.
The Real Purpose of Khums
Khums was a mechanism to:
- Enrich Muhammad personally (Allah's share + Messenger's share = him)
- Buy family loyalty (give relatives extra wealth to keep them supportive)
- Provide sexual access (claim attractive captive women)
- Maintain discretionary funds (control distribution to "needy" = political patronage)
- Create religious justification (disguise personal enrichment as divine command)
Summary: The Pattern Continues
What We've Learned:
Attempt #1 (Anfal 8:1): Muhammad tries to claim everything → Fails because he'd made prior promises
Attempt #2 (Khums 8:41): Muhammad compromises by claiming "only" 20% → But actually controls all of it through discretionary distribution
Evidence of abuse: Seven slaves traded for one beautiful woman, Ali raping captive on day of capture, wealthy family members receiving war spoils
The contradiction between verses 8:1 and 8:41 in the SAME SURAH proves these were human negotiations, not divine revelations.
The Question Remains:
Would an all-knowing, all-wise God contradict Himself within the same Surah?
Or does this look exactly like a human being adjusting his claims when his followers push back?
In the next section, we'll see Muhammad's final attempt—where he successfully claims 100% of the spoils again using a new loophole.
Al-Fay (فيء): Third Time's the Charm—Muhammad Finally Takes Everything
The Evolution of Muhammad's Greed
Let's review Muhammad's progression in claiming war spoils:
Three Attempts, One Goal: Maximum Personal Wealth
Attempt #1 - Anfal (Quran 8:1):
"The war booty belongs to Allah and the Messenger"
Muhammad's claim: 100%
Result: FAILED (companions had prior promises)
Attempt #2 - Khums (Quran 8:41):
"For Allah is one-fifth of it"
Muhammad's claim: 20% (but controlled distribution of entire amount)
Result: PARTIAL SUCCESS (forced compromise)
Attempt #3 - Fay (Quran 59:6-7):
"The booty... is for Allah and His Noble Messenger" (new loophole: no horses/camels used)
Muhammad's claim: 100%
Result: SUCCESS (found the loophole!)
Notice the pattern: Muhammad kept trying different strategies until he found one that worked. This is trial and error, not divine wisdom.
The Banu Nadhir Expulsion: No Fighting = All Mine
After the Battle of Badr, Muhammad turned his attention to the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadhir living in Medina.
Muhammad besieged them with his army. Rather than fight, Banu Nadhir negotiated a peaceful surrender and agreed to leave Medina, abandoning their property—homes, gardens, date palm orchards, and other valuables.
The companions who participated in the siege naturally expected their share of the abandoned property. They had marched, surrounded the tribe, created military pressure, and facilitated the bloodless victory.
But Muhammad found a technicality.
The Loophole: "You Didn't Charge Horses or Camels"
Conveniently, a new revelation appeared with a very specific condition:
"And from them (i.e. Banu Nadhir), the booty which Allah gave to His Noble Messenger – so you had not charged your horses or camels against them, but it is Allah Who gives whomever He wills within the control of His Noble Messengers; and Allah is Able to do all things."
"The booty which Allah gave to His Noble Messenger from the people of the townships (i.e. Banu Nadhir), is for Allah and His Noble Messenger, and for the relatives, and the orphans, and the needy and the travellers – so that it does not concentrate in the hands of those who are rich among you; and accept whatever the Noble Messenger gives you; and refrain from whatever he forbids you."
Let's break down this absurd technicality:
The "No Horses or Camels" Loophole
Muhammad's Argument:
Because the companions didn't "charge" their horses or camels in a cavalry assault (since it was a siege, not open battle), their participation doesn't count. Therefore, all spoils belong to him.
The Reality:
- The companions did ride horses and camels to reach Banu Nadhir
- They did deploy militarily and create siege conditions
- Their presence did force the surrender
- Without them, Banu Nadhir wouldn't have surrendered
This is like saying police don't deserve their salary because they arrested someone without firing their guns.
Why This Technicality is Absurd
1. The Companions Did Participate Militarily
They marched, besieged, created fear, prevented escape, and forced surrender. The fact that no cavalry charge occurred is irrelevant—they achieved victory through their presence.
2. The "Charge" Distinction is Arbitrary
Why does method of participation matter? Whether you charge on horseback or lay siege on foot, you're contributing to military victory. This distinction exists only to justify confiscation.
3. It's a Post-Hoc Rationalization
This specific condition appeared after the victory, when Muhammad wanted to claim everything. If this was an eternal divine principle, why wasn't it revealed before the campaign?
4. It Contradicts Military Logic
In any army, different roles contribute to victory: cavalry, infantry, siege engineers, supply lines, scouts. Saying only cavalry charges count would invalidate most military contributions throughout history.
The Hypocrisy: "To Prevent Wealth Concentration"
The most laughable part of this verse is the stated justification:
"...so that it does not concentrate in the hands of those who are rich among you"
Let's examine this claim:
The Logic According to This Verse:
Problem: We must prevent wealth from concentrating in the hands of the rich companions
Solution: Give ALL the wealth to Muhammad and his already-wealthy family instead!
Evidence: Muhammad's Family WAS Wealthy
Islamic apologists claim this verse prevented wealth concentration. The evidence proves otherwise:
Muhammad's Family Wealth From Fay and Khums:
Fatima (Muhammad's daughter):
- Received Fadak garden from Muhammad
- Value: 50,000 Dirhams
- This alone was massive wealth concentration
Ali (Muhammad's cousin/son-in-law):
- Eventually controlled Fadak during Umar's reign
- Supported 9 wives
- Plus multiple concubines
- Plus 17 children
- This lifestyle requires enormous wealth
Muhammad himself:
- At least 11 wives (some sources say 13)
- Numerous concubines/slave women
- Multiple properties from various campaigns
- Control over all Khums (20% of every war)
- Control over all Fay (100% when no "charging")
The Real Purpose: Muhammad Testing What He Could Get Away With
The progression from Anfal to Khums to Fay reveals Muhammad's strategy:
Muhammad's Trial-and-Error Approach:
Step 1: Test maximum claim (100% via Anfal)
→ Failed because promises already made
Step 2: Settle for compromise (20% via Khums)
→ Success, but Muhammad wants more
Step 3: Find loophole for 100% (Fay - "no charging")
→ SUCCESS! Apply this whenever possible
This is how humans negotiate. This is NOT how an all-knowing God legislates.
Why an All-Knowing God Wouldn't Do This
If these revelations truly came from Allah, we would expect:
- One clear, consistent rule from the start
Instead: Three contradictory attempts
- Rules revealed BEFORE situations arise
Instead: Reactive revelations after each campaign
- No arbitrary technicalities
Instead: "Charging horses/camels" loophole appears conveniently
- Actual prevention of wealth concentration
Instead: Wealth concentrates in Muhammad's hands
- Consistency with stated principles
Instead: Claims to prevent concentration while concentrating
Islamic Apologist Excuse: "Preventing Concentration"
Modern Islamic apologists claim the Fay system prevented wealth from concentrating among rich companions. Let's examine why this excuse fails:
Why This Excuse Fails Completely:
1. The Excuse Wasn't in the Quran
The Quran says "so that it does not concentrate in the hands of those who are rich among you"—but nothing about exempting Muhammad and his family from this principle. Later Muslims invented this interpretation.
2. Khums Existed for Fighting Battles
Muhammad and family already got 20% through Khums in every war—whether charging occurred or not. Why did they need another 100% when no charging happened?
3. The Quran Never Limits Muhammad's Family
Nowhere does the Quran say "Muhammad's family is exempt from wealth concentration rules." This is pure apologetic invention.
4. The Evidence Shows Massive Concentration
50,000 dirham garden to Fatima, Ali's 9 wives and 17 children, Muhammad's 11+ wives and concubines—this IS wealth concentration.
5. Logic Contradiction
You cannot prevent wealth concentration by concentrating wealth in fewer hands. It's mathematically absurd.
Summary: Mission Accomplished
The Complete Journey:
Before Badr: Equal distribution among fighters (traditional practice)
After Badr (Anfal 8:1): Muhammad tries to claim 100%
→ FAILED (prior promises couldn't be broken)
After Badr (Khums 8:41): Muhammad settles for 20%
→ PARTIAL SUCCESS (compromise position)
Banu Nadhir (Fay 59:6-7): Muhammad claims 100% via technicality
→ SUCCESS (loophole found and exploited)
Three attempts. Three "divine" revelations. One constant: Muhammad's wealth increases.
The Verdict: Divine Wisdom or Human Greed?
Now that we've seen all three attempts, the pattern is undeniable:
Characteristics of Divine Law vs. Human Manipulation
| Divine Law Would: | Muhammad's Revelations: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Be consistent | Contradicted itself 3 times | ||
| Be proactive | Reactive to each situation | ||
| Apply universally | Arbitrary technicalities | ||
| Match stated goals | Contradicted prevention of concentration | ||
| Not benefit lawgiver | Directly enriched Muhammad
|
Directly enriched Muhamma |
Directly enriched Muhammad |
The Final Question:
Would an all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful God:
- ❌ Need three attempts to design a distribution system?
- ❌ Contradict Himself within the same Surah?
- ❌ Create arbitrary loopholes ("no charging horses")?
- ❌ Claim to prevent concentration while concentrating wealth?
- ❌ Consistently benefit one person (Muhammad) in every revelation?
Or does this look exactly like a man using religion to enrich himself?
The evidence speaks for itself. These were not divine revelations. They were calculated human manipulations, refined through trial and error, until Muhammad found what worked.


Hassan Radwan