Exposing Islam

Deep Dive Critique: Muhammad’s Use of Oaths and Curses (Mubahala and Public Condemnation)

Introduction: A Prophet of Peace or a Prophet of Curses?

Islamic tradition presents the Prophet Muhammad as a figure of unparalleled mercy — a "mercy to the worlds" (Surah Al-Anbiya 21:107). Yet the same Islamic sources that proclaim his compassion also record numerous instances of him invoking curses, issuing public condemnations, and using the practice of mubahala (mutual invocation of divine curses) against those who opposed or questioned him. This stark contrast raises a fundamental question: how can a figure of divine mercy resort to public cursing, oath-taking, and divine condemnation?

This polemic critique will expose the contradictions, ethical concerns, and logical inconsistencies within the Islamic narrative regarding Muhammad's use of oaths and curses. Far from being an act of divine justice, these practices reveal a troubling pattern of coercion, psychological intimidation, and the weaponization of religious authority.

1. The Problem of Mubahala: A Divine Showdown or Psychological Intimidation?

A. The Context of Mubahala with the Christians of Najran

Islamic tradition claims that Muhammad offered the practice of mubahala (mutual cursing) to the Christian delegation of Najran when they refused to accept his version of Jesus. According to Surah Aal-e-Imran 3:61, he challenged them to invoke Allah’s curse upon the liars among them. But this raises several critical issues:

Manipulation Through Fear: Mubahala is not an invitation to rational dialogue or evidence-based discussion. It is a psychological tactic, where the Prophet used the fear of divine punishment to silence his opponents.
A Test of Faith or a Test of Superstition? The very concept of invoking curses as a means of determining truth is fundamentally superstitious. Rational debate should be resolved through evidence and reason, not through an appeal to divine retribution.
Mubahala as a Power Play: The Christians of Najran chose to avoid mubahala, not necessarily because they believed Muhammad was right, but because they did not want to risk provoking his followers or face social and political consequences.

B. The Qur’an’s Reliance on Mubahala: A Divine or Desperate Tactic?

The Qur’an claims to be a book of “clear guidance” (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:185). Yet, instead of providing rational arguments or clear proofs to the Christians, Muhammad resorted to mubahala — a ritual curse. Why would the final revelation of God need to rely on such a tactic to establish its truth?

A Divine Revelation Should Not Need Curses: If the Qur’an is truly the final, perfect word of God, it should stand on the strength of its arguments, clarity, and evidence. Mubahala is a tactic of desperation, not divine wisdom.
A Pattern of Intimidation: This is not an isolated incident. Muhammad’s use of mubahala reflects a broader pattern of using divine threats to silence critics, rather than engaging in open dialogue.

2. Public Curses and Condemnation: A Prophet of Mercy or a Prophet of Vengeance?

A. Cursing Those Who Harmed the Muslims — Divine Justice or Personal Vengeance?

Islamic tradition claims that Muhammad invoked curses against those who harmed or betrayed the Muslims, such as the tribes responsible for the massacre at Bir Ma’una. But was this divine justice, or was it an emotional reaction rooted in personal vengeance?

The Vindictive Nature of Curses: Instead of seeking justice through peaceful means or forgiveness, Muhammad resorted to invoking divine curses — a clear display of anger and resentment.
A Prophetic Double Standard: Muhammad’s willingness to curse his enemies contradicts his supposed role as a “mercy to the worlds.” A true prophet of mercy would seek to forgive or guide his opponents, not curse them.
A Violation of Islamic Principles: The Qur’an itself advises Muslims to “repel evil with what is better” (Surah Fussilat 41:34). But Muhammad’s actions show the opposite — repelling perceived evil with curses and condemnation.

B. Cursing His Followers: A Method of Control

There are also instances where Muhammad cursed his own followers, either for disobeying him or for engaging in behavior he disapproved of:

The Case of the Li’an (Mutual Cursing) in Accusations of Adultery: In cases of adultery, if a husband accused his wife but lacked four witnesses, they could engage in mutual cursing (Surah An-Nur 24:8). But this method of resolving disputes is fundamentally flawed:
- Emotional Manipulation: Forcing a couple to curse each other in a public ritual is a form of psychological abuse, not a just legal procedure.
- Lack of Rational Proof: Instead of relying on evidence or due process, the truth is determined by who is willing to invoke divine wrath.
Cursing Those Who Disobeyed Him: Muhammad was known to curse his followers for disobedience, even in minor matters. This reveals a pattern of using curses as a means of maintaining authority and controlling behavior.

3. The Hypocrisy of Selective Mercy: Who Deserves Forgiveness?

A. Mercy for His Friends, Curses for His Enemies

While Muhammad is often praised for his forgiveness of his Meccan enemies after the conquest of Mecca, this mercy was highly selective:

Forgiveness for Abu Sufyan and Hind: These figures were forgiven despite leading wars against Muhammad. But this forgiveness was politically motivated, aimed at securing the allegiance of the Quraysh.
Curses for His Personal Opponents: In contrast, those who personally insulted or challenged him, such as the poets who mocked him, were met with curses, threats, and even assassination (e.g., Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf).
A Prophet of Convenience: Mercy was shown when it served a political purpose, but curses were invoked when it served a personal or authoritative purpose.

B. The Hypocrisy of Mubahala and Faith in Allah’s Judgment

If Muhammad truly believed in Allah’s divine justice, why did he resort to mubahala instead of simply trusting Allah to expose the truth?

If Truth Is Clear, Curses Are Unnecessary: A true prophet confident in his divine message should rely on clear arguments and divine guidance, not on fear-inducing rituals.
A Violation of Qur’anic Principles: The Qur’an advises believers to “argue with them in the best manner” (Surah An-Nahl 16:125), yet Muhammad used threats, curses, and public condemnation — a clear contradiction.

4. The Psychological Manipulation of Believers

A. Using Divine Authority to Control and Intimidate

Muhammad’s use of oaths, curses, and public condemnation was not just a method of establishing truth — it was a tool of psychological control:

Instilling Fear of Divine Wrath: By making his followers believe that disobeying him could result in divine punishment, he created a culture of unquestioning obedience.
Weaponizing Religion for Personal Authority: Curses and divine threats were used to silence critics, maintain discipline, and establish his absolute authority.

B. A Pattern of Emotional Coercion

Muhammad’s curses were not limited to his enemies. Even his close companions were sometimes threatened with divine wrath if they displeased him:

The Curse on Abu Hurairah’s Mother: When Abu Hurairah asked Muhammad to pray for his mother’s guidance, Muhammad invoked a blessing instead of a curse. But this selective use of divine invocation shows his power to manipulate the emotions of his followers.
The Curse on Those Who Refused His Orders: When some of his followers refused to participate in military campaigns, he invoked divine condemnation upon them, pressuring them to comply.

5. Conclusion: A Prophet of Peace or a Prophet of Fear?

Muhammad’s use of oaths, curses, and public condemnation is not the behavior of a prophet of mercy, but of a leader who wielded divine threats as a weapon of control. His actions reveal a troubling pattern:

Mubahala was a method of psychological intimidation, not a divine test of truth.
Public curses and condemnation were tools of fear, not justice.
Selective mercy reveals a pattern of political convenience, not genuine compassion.

In Islam, Muhammad is portrayed as a perfect model of conduct. But his use of curses and divine threats exposes a deeply problematic aspect of his leadership — one that relies on fear, intimidation, and coercion rather than genuine persuasion, compassion, or divine wisdom.