Islamic tradition often portrays Muhammad as a figure of mercy, with Hadiths citing his disapproval of killing women and children during warfare. Yet, a closer examination of the texts reveals a stark inconsistency: when questioned about the deaths of women and children in specific combat scenarios, Muhammad excuses their exposure to danger, effectively sanctioning their killings as collateral damage. This contradiction undermines claims of consistent compassion and raises serious ethical concerns about his teachings.
The Hadiths: Compassion or Convenience?
Let’s start with the Hadith frequently cited to demonstrate Muhammad’s mercy:
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
During some of the Ghazawat of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) a woman was found killed, so Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade the killing of women and children.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3014 (also Sahih Muslim 1744a)
This seems clear-cut: a prohibition on targeting women and children. However, other Hadiths paint a very different picture. When asked about the permissibility of attacks that endanger non-combatants, Muhammad’s responses shift dramatically:
Narrated As-Sa’b bin Jaththama:
The Prophet (ﷺ) passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet (ﷺ) replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).”
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3012
It is narrated by Sa’b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1745a
Sa’b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) asked: What about the children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid? He said: They are from them.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1745b
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
“I was informed by As-Sa’b bin Jaththamah who said: ‘I said: “O Messenger of Allah, our horses trampled over women and children of the idolaters.” He said: “They are from their fathers.”‘”
[Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan Sahih.
Reference: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1570
Analyzing the Contradiction
These narrations expose a glaring inconsistency:
- The Prohibition: In Sahih al-Bukhari 3014, Muhammad explicitly forbids killing women and children, a rule often highlighted to showcase his benevolence.
- The Exception: Yet, in multiple instances—Sahih al-Bukhari 3012, Sahih Muslim 1745a, Sahih Muslim 1745b, and Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1570—he justifies their deaths during night raids or cavalry attacks by stating “they are from them” or “they are from their fathers.” This implies that their association with the enemy renders their deaths acceptable.
This isn’t a nuanced clarification; it’s a reversal. The blanket prohibition becomes a flexible guideline, discarded when military tactics like night raids make distinguishing combatants from non-combatants inconvenient. By labeling women and children as extensions of the enemy, Muhammad effectively greenlights their slaughter as collateral damage.
Ethical Implications
This shift has profound implications:
- Moral Inconsistency: A leader claiming divine guidance should uphold consistent principles. Forbidding the killing of innocents one moment and excusing it the next suggests pragmatism over morality.
- Precedent for Violence: As the exemplar for Muslims, Muhammad’s actions in the Sunnah carry timeless weight. His willingness to overlook civilian deaths provides a justification that echoes through history, from early conquests to modern extremist groups.
- Undermining Mercy: The phrase “they are from them” strips away any pretense of compassion. If women and children can be dismissed as part of the enemy, the initial prohibition feels more like a public relations stance than a heartfelt ethic.
Counterarguments and Their Flaws
Defenders might argue that “they are from them” only acknowledges the inevitability of civilian deaths in war, not their deliberate targeting. But this sidesteps the issue: Muhammad doesn’t express regret or seek alternatives—he approves the raids knowing the outcome. That’s not a passive acceptance; it’s an active endorsement.
Another claim might be that these rulings were context-specific, not universal. Yet, the Hadiths lack such qualifiers, and their inclusion in canonical collections like Bukhari and Muslim implies their relevance for all time. If Muhammad’s example is eternal, so is this ethical flexibility.
Conclusion: A Troubling Legacy
The Hadiths reveal a disturbing double standard in Muhammad’s approach to women and children in warfare. He forbids their killing—until it clashes with military strategy, at which point their lives become expendable. For a religion often defended as peaceful, this contradiction is a bitter pill. It suggests that in early Islam, moral ideals bent to the demands of conquest, leaving a legacy that’s hard to reconcile with claims of universal compassion.