"They ask you (Mohammed) concerning the war booty; say, 'Allah and the Messenger are the owners of the war booty.'"

"Indeed, I am going to help you with a thousand angels, following one another."

"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)."

"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.'"

The Battle of Badr: Forces Comparison

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.

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."

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.

1. Victory at Badr → spoils acquired
2. Companions expect their shares (as in previous raids)
3. Muhammad wants everything for himself
4. Convenient revelation appears: "Actually, it all belongs to Allah and His messenger"
5. Companions object: "We fought! We bled!"
6. Another convenient revelation appears: "No, angels did all the fighting"
7. Companions remain skeptical
8. "Eyewitness" stories emerge: "I saw angel whip marks!"

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?

What Muhammad Tried:

1. A verse declaring him owner of ALL spoils (8:1)
2. A supernatural story minimizing human contribution (1,000 angels)
3. "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?

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."

The Timeline:

1. Before Battle: Muhammad promises companions specific shares for kills and captures
2. During Battle: Companions fight based on these promises
3. After Victory: Muhammad suddenly announces verse 8:1 claiming everything
4. Companions Object: "But you promised us shares!"
5. Muhammad Forced to Backtrack: Cannot revoke explicit promises without risking mutiny

"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."

The Contradiction Within Surah Al-Anfal

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 Six "Categories" of Khums:

1. Allah's share → Allah doesn't need earthly goods → goes to Muhammad
2. The Messenger's share → Obviously Muhammad
3. Near relatives → Muhammad's family (he decides who gets what)
4. Orphans → Muhammad decides which orphans and how much
5. The needy → Muhammad decides who qualifies and how much
6. Travelers → Muhammad decides which travelers and how much

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.

Question: Where in this transaction do we see concern for orphans, the needy, or travelers? This is personal sexual gratification using religious authority.

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."

1. A woman was captured in war (traumatic)
2. Ali, as Muhammad's family member, claimed her as "Khums"
3. On the same day, he had sex with her
4. She had no choice - she was property
5. This was justified as his religious "right" through Khums

This is rape disguised as religious entitlement.

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.

The Real Purpose of Khums

Khums was a mechanism to:

1. Enrich Muhammad personally (Allah's share + Messenger's share = him)
2. Buy family loyalty (give relatives extra wealth to keep them supportive)
3. Provide sexual access (claim attractive captive women)
4. Maintain discretionary funds (control distribution to "needy" = political patronage)
5. Create religious justification (disguise personal enrichment as divine command)

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 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.

Three Attempts, One Goal: Maximum Personal Wealth

"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."

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.

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.

"...so that it does not concentrate in the hands of those who are rich among you"

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!

Muhammad's Family Wealth From Fay and Khums:

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.

1. One clear, consistent rule from the start

   Instead: Three contradictory attempts

2. Rules revealed BEFORE situations arise

   Instead: Reactive revelations after each campaign

3. No arbitrary technicalities

   Instead: "Charging horses/camels" loophole appears conveniently

4. Actual prevention of wealth concentration

   Instead: Wealth concentrates in Muhammad's hands

5. Consistency with stated principles

   Instead: Claims to prevent concentration while concentrating

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.

The Complete Journey:

Characteristics of Divine Law vs. Human Manipulation

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.