Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 3: Chapter 52


 

MUHAMMAD STEALING: LOOT FOR MUHAMMAD (AKA ALLAH)

You several places meet Muhammad's claim that he claimed nothing for himself. The claim is not true - Muhammad demanded much: 20% of everything stolen from victims - included 20% of all victims made slaves - and 100% if the victims gave in without a fight. (This in addition to different taxes and valuables given from more or less free will from his followers.) He spent most of it for bribes to get or keep followers, and for the expenses of raids and wars, but some for the poor, for his many women, and a little for other purposes.

Muhammad's principal law for honest behavior in war and towards victims - a law which is the respected and morally correct one even today and for the entire future, as it is part of the Quran and of Islam:

######312 8/69a: “ "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, #######lawful and good - - -”. This is one more of the moral and ethical pinnacles in the Quran: Wage war, and then it is “lawful and good” to steal and rob and plunder and extort - and rape the women and girl children and take slaves. It actually is connected to 8/68a above, but like so often in the Quran specific episodes, etc, is given general meaning.

During war/raids and after conquests Muslims can steal ANYTHING they like, included raping women and girl children (history also clearly indicates that homosexuality was part of life for a percentage of Muslims, resulting in rape of also some young men and boys) and - at least according to the Quran - take what slaves they want, and non-Muslim victims can say and do nothing about it. Yes, in principle Muslims can do this against non-Muslims any time they want, as long as they see to it that there are no Muslim witnesses - according to the rules non-Muslims cannot witness against Muslims.

########To us this is perhaps the most disgusting and revealing sentence in the entire Quran and the entire Islam - especially the words "lawful and good" make an impression - and even more so because it is done in the name of their god. It at least is one of the two most disgusting and likely the most revealing sentence in the Quran concerning behavior.

xxx 8/69ca: We have met the question: There are certain kinds of men who are the "normal" perpetrators when women - and children - are raped. Self-centered, low on compassion for others for others, and often low quality - from "the rubble". It is the same kind of humans who often are the ones stealing from or robbing others. Now the Quran has favoured this kind of men and behaviour - go to war and suppress and kill, and be paid by stealing and raping - for 1400 years. Can this have influenced the DNA of Arabs and other Muslims? - the ones who rape often and the ones who get more wives and concubines because they are rich (f.x. from stolen valuables), gets more babies. ######Kan this be a little piece of the explanation for the inhumanities we see from Arabs and other Muslims?

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

001 8/1c: “They (the warriors*) ask thee (Muhammad*) concerning (things taken as) spoils of war (riches and slaves and sometimes land*). Say: (Such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*)”. This is one of the rules Muhammad or the omniscient Allah had to change later (and not much later) - in the end Muhammad only got 20%, except if the victims gave in without a fight (then Muhammad still got 100%). (Islam has another explanation - all belongs to Allah, but 80% may be given to the warriors and to their leaders. But when a "may be" becomes a rule, it is not a "may be" any more). You meet Muslims saying Allah/the Quran never changed anything, but here is one point which was changed shortly afterward. Often Muslims explains changes with that the rules really were not changed, only made stricter or clarified (why should that be necessary for an omniscient god?) Here is an absolute rule which later had to be changed - the warriors demanded their share of the spoils. Besides: How primitive or greedy has a person to be in order to see a good and benevolent god in a god who permits stealing/robbing, rape, enslaving, suppression, murder, etc. in his name? Incompatible with NT.

####But there is another and very - extremely - serious point here: When raids and wars and slave-taking expeditions and whatever are planned and executed just for that purpose: To be able to see this as anything but plain and dishonest thievery or robbing, you have be a very special person or belong to a very special culture.

####It happens that Muslims asks about why on Earth they are disliked just because they are Muslims? Parts of the Quran's moral code explain a large percent of that question - it is too far from normal moral codes. (But Muslims are so used to it, that they are unable to see its excesses, dishonesty and inhumanity, and honestly believe it is a perfect and most honorable code.)

002 8/1d: “(The spoils of war*) “are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -.” All that was stolen and looted and robbed in raids and war, included slaves and prisoners for extorting money (this early – 624 AD – it mainly was raids to steal/rob/extort) belonged to Allah – represented by his envoy on earth: Muhammad. But his officers and warriors were too greedy to accept this – they wanted a share of the riches, too. So a bit later in the surah – a few “revelations” later (?) there came a contra order – and abrogation:

  1. ###8/41: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah - - -.” Muhammad had to give the warriors their share – except that he saved everything for himself in the cases where the victims gave in without fighting – then the warriors had done nothing and could not demand a share. Muhammad needed riches. Though it is likely it is true he was not much interested in much luxury, he needed riches for bribes/"gifts" and for waging war to get more power and more riches, included slaves – war cost money even if he paid his warriors with religion and religious promises, then all the same food and equipment cost money – and he needed riches for “gift” to attract more warriors/followers/believers and to keep some of the lukewarm-warm ones - - - and some for social use (help to the poor). Muslims try to explain away this contradiction and abrogation by saying that it all belongs to Allah/the leader, but 80% is given to the warriors/robbers. But the moment it becomes a right for the robbers in raids and warriors in war, the rank and file’s share no longer belongs to the leader.

Are Yahweh and Allah the same god? Or Jesus and Muhammad in the same religion? The rules of war - and of spoils of war - are strong mathematical strength proofs to the fifth power for that none of those two never documented claims are true.

003 8/1e: “(The spoils of war*) are at the disposal of Allah and the Prophet (Muhammad*) - - -.” Incompatible with the Bible. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah is not the same god - and for that Jesus and Muhammad was not in the same line of prophets - Just try to think about Jesus demanding his share of things stolen in war, not to mention his share of slaves taken!! - the very thoughts are utterly impossible for anyone knowing NT. In OT it was permitted to take booty, but for the warriors. Only once (4. Mos. 31/28-29) did Yahweh ask for a share of the booty: 1 in 500 from half and 1 in 50 from the other half for the priests and Levites (the priest tribe). In NT there is no question about booty at all. Allah demands 1 in 5 if there was fighting and everything if the victim gave in without fighting. The same god? Just guess!! (When it comes to treatment of victims and also of their possessions, it is easy to think about the Mafia or the Triads, and about primitives and greed, when we read about Muhammad's and his Muslims' raids and wars - not about somebody like Jesus).

004 8/7c: "- - - one of the two (enemies) - - -". Muhammad and his some 300 men set out from Medina to attack and plunder a big and rich caravan - some 1000 camels with much to steal. That was the first of the two enemies. Instead they met a small army which had come to the rescue of the caravan. That was the second enemy. The "good and benevolent and just example for all Muslims" simply was a robber baron.

#####005 8/41a: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) - - -.” These 20% - 100% in some cases - in reality were for Muhammad to use. Did he "demand no payment for what he did" like he claims some places in the Quran?

All this is totally foreign to Yahweh and Jesus - one more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god and Jesus and Muhammad not in the same religion: Too different moral codes, etc.

006 8/41b: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) - - -.” Part of the background for paragraphs in the sharia law.

007 8/41c: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) (an all if the victims gave in without a fight*) - - -.” Try to find something like this in the Bible, not to mention in the NT! Yahweh and Allah the same god? An imbecile question. (The only time Yahweh asked for part of a booty - and then for his priest and the Levites (4. Mos. 31/28-29) he asked for 1/500 of half and 1/50 of the other half = 2.2% and nothing of that for himself).

008 8/41d: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah (/Muhammad*) - - -.” Which means that 80% is for the warriors and leaders in the war – an economical incentive which for many a poor man counted much more than the religion – war and terror = good business. Many became well-to-do, many became rich, and some became very rich – and were dream models for new generations of robber warriors and robber barons. But Muslims and Islam never mentions the cost in destruction and destroyed lives which were the price millions had to pay for this unjust prosperity of the robbers and destroyers. It frequently took (the surviving) locals 100-200 years and more just to regain their standard of life, not to mention freedom. The warriors of the good and benevolent god of “the Religion of Peace” frequently mass murdered and massacred and enslaved “en gross” – and stole everything. Jerusalem f.x. got a hunger catastrophe after being occupied in 638 AD - the Muslims stole everything, included the food.

009 8/41e: "- - - out of all the booty that ye may acquire - - - a fifth share is assigned to Allah - and to the Messenger (and to be paid to Muhammad*) - - -". No place in the NT Yahweh or Jesus demand part of stolen things (politely called booty). One single place in OT Yahweh demands a small share (see 8/41c above). Even compared to this Muhammad - not one, but each time - demanded on behalf of Allah 10 - 100 times as much - and not for sacrifice (mostly for "gifts" (bribes) to stay popular and stay in power, for "gifts" to buy new or keep doubting followers, to pay for more war, and some for Muhammad and his family - and some for the poor). The same god, like the Quran and Islam claims? - and Muhammad and Jesus in the same line of prophets like that book and Islam claims? - believe it if you want, but you have to want to believe it to be able to do so".

010 8/41g: "- - - to Allah - and to the Messenger (Muhammad*), and to near relatives (In YA1209 we find "In the Prophet's (Muhammad's*) lifetime a certain portion was assigned to him and his near relatives"), orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer- - -". He forgot to mention (?) for the expansion of Islam and for war. Also see 63/5a below.

######011 8/69a: “ "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, #######lawful and good - - -”. This is one more of the moral and ethical pinnacles in the Quran: Wage war, and then it is “lawful and good” to steal and rob and plunder and extort - and rape the women and girl children and take slaves. It actually is connected to 8/68a above, but like so often in the Quran specific episodes, etc, is given general meaning.

During war/raids and after conquests Muslims can steal ANYTHING they like, included raping women and girl children (history also clearly indicates that homosexuality was part of life for a percentage of Muslims) and - at least according to the Quran - take what slaves they want, and non-Muslim victims can say and do nothing about it. Yes, in principle Muslims can do this against non-Muslims any time they want, as long as they see to it that there are no Muslim witnesses - according to the rules non-Muslims cannot witness against Muslims.

But of course this made it easy and cheap for Muhammad and his successors to get warriors. That such behavior is a catastrophe for any and all victims - and in some cases set back the civilization may be some hundred years like in Persia/Iran (according to science it took Persia 100+ years to return to the level it had before the Arabs attacked) - does not count, as non-Muslim “Untermench” ("sub-humans" in Nazi German) do not count.

This even more so as for fanatics nearly every situation they do not like, can be defined as war against Islam “in the widest meaning of the word” - not to mention that according to Islam’s definition all areas not dominated by Islam are “land of war”. Really a morally and ethical superior religion - compare f.x. to the silly and invalid "Do unto others like you want others do against you", which many religions and culture have as their "constitution" more or less. And really a peaceful one.

And honestly the word “good” in ”lawful and good” classifies Muhammad, the Quran and Islam. Laws can be twisted and remade and it is no problem for an absolute dictator to make what laws he wants and thus make things “lawful(?)” – quotation marks used on purpose. But the word “good” is an absolute – flexible “borders”, but fundamentally an absolute. Allah’s/Muhammad’s real rules for behavior against all outsiders is way outside “good”, and the hypocrisy in the using of abrogated verses in the Quran to make outsiders believe something else, makes this aspect of the religion and its hypocrisy even more disgusting.

This quote also tells a lot about the person Muhammad.

########To us this is perhaps the most disgusting and revealing sentence in the entire Quran and the entire Islam - especially the words "lawful and good" make an impression - and even more so because it is done in the name of their god. It at least is one of the two most disgusting and likely the most revealing sentence in the Quran concerning behavior.

Also: Combine this quote with Islam's slogan: "Islam is the Religion of Peace" and "Allah is good and benevolent" and weep - or laugh.

What lacks now is that Islam starts claiming that "Islam is the Religion of Honesty - no Lying, no Deceiving, no Stealing". (Remember here that looting and robbing both = stealing.)

One more point: In most cases the Muslims were the attackers, and they behaved horribly stole and destroyed, raped and suppressed and killed. But you NEVER hear a Muslim regret or even talk about the horror or catastrophe this was for the victims. The Muslim warriors were heroes, and that is it!

011a 8/69ca: We have met the question: There are certain kinds of men who are the "normal" perpetrators when women - and children - are raped. Self-centered, low on compassion for others for others, and often low quality - from "the rubble". It is the same kind of humans who often are the ones stealing from or robbing others. Now the Quran has favoured this kind of men and behaviour - go to war and suppress and kill, and be paid by stealing and raping - for 1400 years. Can this have influenced the DNA of Arabs and other Muslims? - the ones who rape often and the ones who get more wives and concubines because they are rich (f.x. from stolen valuables), gets more babies. ######Kan this be a little piece of the explanation for the inhumanities we see from Arabs and other Muslims?

012 12/104a: “And no reward dost thou (Muhammad*) ask of them (people/Muslims*) for this (the new religion*) - - -“. No, nothing except 20% of all stolen/robbed values and slaves from raids and wars, 100% of all values taken from victims who surrendered without fighting, plenty of women and lots and lots of absolute and undisputed power/dictatorship, and lots and lots of free warriors – he only had to pay them with promises about paradise and promises about rich spoils of war stolen from humans and countries. And the “poor-tax” - zakat - (normally 2,5% - 10% not of your income, but of your possessions each year if you were not too poor) – which he far from only spent for the poor – and the jizya – the tax from non-Muslims (free for the ruler to say how much – and that sometimes meant really much). Much of this as said was spent for waging more wars and for “gifts”/bribes to make neighboring Arabs good Muslims + some was given to the poor.

And the price for their riches was neighboring cultures and humans and lives they destroyed – to gain more power for him and riches and slaves for his warriors. It is indisputably clear from the Quran that he at least liked women and power and that he needed riches for bribes - f.x. up to 100 camels to a chief. You must steal a lot to be able to give lots of such bribes - and who cares about the victims?! Long live the Quran's moral code! Similar claims in 25/57a – 34/47 - 38/86 – 42/23.

###013 25/57a: “No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you - - -“. Nothing - - - except 20% of everything stolen or extorted in/after raids and wars, 100% of what was looted or extorted without fighting, plenty of women and total and unrestricted power. And 2.5% (up to 10%) of your possessions each year in “poor-tax” - - - partly for the poor, but also at least as partly to pay the lukewarm to become or stay Muslims, and not to forget to use for waging war. And a little to himself and all his women and few children (may be not of the "poor-tax", but plenty from the looting - Muhammad f.x. had estates 3 different places (Medina, Khaybar and Fadang), something which is never mentioned by Muslims, when they talk about how poor he was personally). Hypocrisy.

###*To be exact the "poor-tax" - zakat - according to Hadiths after Al-Bukhari (comment 1 to Chapter 24) is for 8-9 different purposes:

  1. Help the "Fuqara" - a category of poor people.
  2. Help the "Al-Masakin" - another category of poor people. (These two points = the purpose of helping the poor. Lump them together, and you get 8 purposes.
  3. Paying the persons administrating the zakat. (Originally Muhammad).
  4. Bribing people to become Muslims and in other ways to promote Islam.
  5. Bribing lukewarm Muslims to stay Muslims.
  6. To free Muslim captives.
  7. To help indebted persons.
  8. To wage war for the religion - and for its leader(s).
  9. To assist travelers (often pilgrims to Mecca).

It seems that a sizable percentage was used for points 4, 5, and 8. (You also will find claims that there are 5 purposes for the zakat. Then they lump 1 and 2 together and omit something - often 6 and 8. We some places in this book have used that list.)

014 26/109a: "No reward do I (Noah*)ask of you (people*) for it (my preaching*) - - -". Another - and wrong - of Muhammad's mantras - see 26/108 just above. Muhammad also demanded much from his followers obedience, respect, women, riches for bribes and women, and total power.

015 26/127a: "No reward do I (Hud*) ask of you for it - - -". Also this was one of Muhammad's claims about himself - see 26/125 and 26/126 above. At least for Muhammad this claim was enormously wrong, as he at least claimed total power over his followers, enormous riches (which he according to Islamic books mostly used for bribes to attract and keep followers + not a little to wage war) and lots of women - typical for some false prophets throughout history and even today, whereas real prophets seldom had or wanted much riches and as seldom had more than one wife if any at all (a man like Solomon with all his wives is reckoned to be a powerful king, not a prophet, except in the Quran - the same goes for David (though the word prophet is mentioned)). Also see 26/209a above.

016 36/21a: "Obey those who ask no reward of you (for themselves) - - -". This is reflecting Muhammad's often repeated, but very wrong claim that he demanded nothing from his followers. He demanded much - extremely much - included their lives, total power, huge fortunes to use as gifts/bribes to attract and keep followers, respect, lots of women, etc. Persons like Jesus and Buddha really claimed nothing for themselves, and there is an irony in that if Muslims are to follow verses like this in the Quran, they cannot follow Muhammad but have to follow f.x. one of the two mentioned.

017 36/21d: (YA3967): "Prophets do not seek their own advantage". If you read the Bible, you will find that this mostly is correct. Which is another indication/proof for that Muhammad was no prophet - he wanted and got power (in addition to riches for bribes for more power and women - he was well off when he died (in spite of Muslims' claims about his poverty), f.x. with estates in Medina, Fadang, and Khaybar).

018 38/86a: “No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask for this (Quran) - - -“ - - - except absolute power over you all + plenty of women + plenty of valuables for bribes + free or nearly free warriors for raids and wars to gain more power and more riches for more raids and wars and bribes and power.

019 42/23f: “No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you (Muslims/people*) - - -“. - - - except total dictatorship over you, total obedience from you, plenty of women, cheap warriors, plenty of riches for bribes, etc., etc.

020 42/23g: "No reward do I (Muhammad*) ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin". Well, except 20% of all stolen goods and enslaved people - 100% if they gave in without a fight - 2.5% (average) of all your belongings each and every year in tax (though it is likely Muhammad used little or nothing of just this point personally), plenty of women and undisputed and total power over you, + lots of warriors to fight and may be die for me, among other things. One of the in reality most and strongest contradicted and abrogated by reality verse in the entire Quran. Good propaganda towards followers unable to think for themselves.

Two words: Hypocrisy. Dishonesty.

One of the places where Muhammad knew he was lying in the Quran.

021 52/40a: "Or is it that thou (Muhammad*) dost ask for a reward - - -". Muhammad liked to claim he asked for no reward from his followers - and unbelievably his followers believed and still believe it, even though they saw his demand for power, his demands for wealth (mostly used for bribes, but he also had 3 estates) and all his women.

##022 59/6a: “What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (Muhammad*) (and taken away) from them (Banu al-Nadir*) – for this ye (the Muslim warriors*) made no expedition with either cavalry or camelery - - -.” This was very nice for Muhammad, because when there was no fight and the enemy just gave in, all the spoils of war was called “fay” and was for Allah/Muhammad alone. Muhammad in a short time got a good economy. We may add that you often find Islam boasting about rich plunder. But you will never - never - find Islam reflecting over what terror, what destruction, what catastrophe - and what setbacks to the culture - the Muslim attacks and destruction and murdering meant to others. Empathy with others, not to mention with non-Muslims, at least was outside Islam's capability - and still is at least within some parts of Islam.

#####It must be added that to be thieves, robbers, enslavers and murderers - and rapists - in the name of a god, makes both the religion and the god extra distasteful - and it makes the claim that Allah is a good and benevolent god an unintended, black joke. Compare Islam to the gold standard; "do against others like you want others do against you" and shudder in distaste. ####Also remember that dishonesty is not only words, but also deeds - to steal/rob/extort are dishonest deeds - to say the least of it.

####023 63/5a: "- - - the Messenger of Allah - - -". Here something is wrong if Allah is a god. No omniscient god ever sent a messenger with so much wrong information, so many contradictions, so many cases of invalid logic, so many cases of unclear language, etc. like Muhammad and his Quran. And no good and benevolent god ever sent a messenger with such a bloody, inhuman, dishonest (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, deceive, break your oaths, betray, etc.), lying even in the Quran (f. x. "miracles will make no-one believe anyhow"), steal-and-rob, suppress others, and partly (highly) immoral teaching like the one of Muhammad and his Quran. If Allah sent him as a messenger, then Allah is neither an omniscient, nor a good and benevolent god, but something from the dark forces pretending to be a god and sending something pretending to be an angel to tell Muhammad this and that ###(if Gabriel was not a later good idea and a made up claim - Muhammad did not name him in the Quran until after he fled to Medina, something which sounds extremely unlikely if Muhammad really had met him). (As it is possible Allah is real, but from dark forces, we classify Muhammad's claim to be his messenger not as obviously wrong (it only is obviously wrong that he is the messenger of an omniscient and good/benevolent god) but as likely wrong, as Muhammad may have been the representative of a dark Allah - though even this is unlikely, as even not a dark Allah would make so many mistakes, etc. in his "holy" book, as the mistakes, etc. would be found out sooner or later and his credibility destroyed, except perhaps if the low quality was a condition from the god for permitting him trying to deceive humans).

024 74/6a: "Nor expect, in giving, any increase for thyself (Muhammad*)!" This is an easy claim, and a claim followed up by Islam, telling how poorly Muhammad lived and how little his family inherited after him. They normally never mention that the reason why his family inherited so little, was that he had said that what he owned should go to the religion, not to his family. He at least had 3 estates (in Medina, Fadang, and Khaybar), and each of his long time wives had her own house (though possibly small ones) according to Hadiths. His daughter Fatima fought the first caliph, Abu Bakr, the rest of her short life to get the inheritance after her father - also never mentioned by Muslims. It also takes a good increase in wealth to run a family with 10 long-time wives (1 - Khadijah - was dead) + concubines + short time wives + others (one knows the name of 11 short time wives, 16 short time wives, 2 concubines and 7 where one does not know whether was married to him or not = 36 all together - see the chapter about Muhammad and his women in http://www.1000mistakes.com .)

But the real increase was his increase in power - parts of it built on rich bribes stolen from the surroundings.

Sub-total Chapter 52 = 24 + 4.753 = 4.777.


>>> Go to Next Chapter

>>> Go to Previous Chapter

This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".