Muhammad Orders Burning People Alive in Their Houses
Imagine a so-called prophet of mercy, a figure billions revere as the pinnacle of compassion, casually mulling over the idea of burning people alive in their houses just for skipping prayers. This isn’t some dark fairy tale or enemy propaganda—it’s straight from the pages of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the gold standard of Islamic hadith collections. Narrated by Abu Hurayrah, one of Muhammad’s most trusted cronies, the words are chilling: I considered ordering that prayer be established, then ordering a man to lead the prayer, then going to men who do not attend prayer and burning people alive in their houses. This satanic command exposes Islam’s fraudulent core—a religion built not on love, but on terror and coercion. As we peel back the layers of apologetics and whitewash, the ugly truth emerges: Muhammad’s mercy to mankind was a facade for brutal intolerance. Dive in as we dissect this horrifying hadith, its historical roots, and why burning people alive in their houses remains a damning indictment of Islam’s satanic legacy.
The Hadith on Burning People Alive in Their Houses: Muhammad’s Own Words
Let’s cut through the smoke—no pun intended—and quote the prophet directly. In Sahih Bukhari (Volume 1, Book 11, Hadith 626) and Sahih Muslim (Book 4, Hadith 1370), Abu Hurayrah reports: The Prophet said: ‘I considered ordering that prayer be established, then ordering a man to lead the prayer, then going to men who do not attend prayer and burning down their houses.’ The Arabic buyut means homes, plain and simple—not some metaphorical prayer mat. Picture it: families trapped inside, flames roaring in the arid Arabian night, all because daddy missed Friday prayers. This wasn’t idle chatter; it was a serious contemplation from the man who claimed divine revelation.
Islamic scholars like Imam Nawawi, in his Sharh Sahih Muslim, admit Muhammad weighed this but held back—supposedly because punishment is not inflicted in the Masjid. Noble restraint? Hardly. The mere fact that burning people alive in their houses was even an option screams volumes about Islam’s foundational brutality. Prayer, salah, is the second Pillar of Islam, mandatory five times a day. Skip it, especially congregational Jumu’ah, and you’re teetering on hypocrisy or outright apostasy. In Muhammad’s theocracy, faith wasn’t a personal choice; it was enforced at sword- or fire-point (a brutal approach also seen in Muhammad’s order to torture a man for treasure). Defenders whimper that it never happened—true, but its inclusion in sahih (authentic) texts normalizes the unthinkable, poisoning Islamic thought for 1,400 years.
Historical Context: From Tribal Bloodlust to Prophetic Arson
To appreciate the depravity, rewind to Medina, 622-632 CE. Fresh from Mecca’s persecution, Muhammad forged a totalitarian state via the Constitution of Medina, chaining tribes to Islam or death. Social unity demanded total submission; prayer dodgers undermined it. Pre-Islamic Arabs already torched enemy tents in revenge—brutal, but tribal. Muhammad sanctified it, fusing pagan savagery with divine mandate.
This fire fetish echoes elsewhere. Sahih Bukhari (4:52:260) has him decreeing: Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him. Apostates burned under Caliph Umar. Biblical fire judgments (Leviticus 10:1-2) targeted deviant priests; Muhammad aimed lower, at lazy worshippers. Companions like Abu Hurayrah—narrator of 5,000+ hadiths—passed it down without batting an eye, embedding burning people alive in their houses in Islam’s DNA.
Contrast this with Christianity’s evolution: fiery rhetoric softened through Reformation. Islam? Frozen in time, its texts a blueprint for barbarism.
Burning People Alive in Their Houses: Echoes in Islamic History
History doesn’t lie. Hanafi jurist Al-Sarakhsi (d. 1090) in Al-Mabsut greenlights rulers torching prayer-skippers’ homes after warnings. Ibn Qudamah (d. 1223) in Al-Mughni okays burning for crimes, citing Muhammad. Caliph Umar barbecued apostates; Fatimid Caliph Al-Mu’izz (10th century) roasted rebels. Fast-forward: ISIS livestreamed caged infidels aflame, quoting hadiths like this. Coincidence? No—this satanic thread weaves through sharia’s fabric.
Implications for Sharia: From Contemplation to Legal Precedent
Did burning people alive in their houses shape Islamic law? Unequivocally yes. Fiqh (jurisprudence) manuals debate its application with chilling detachment. Modern soft-peddlers like Yusuf al-Qaradawi call it rhetorical, since Muhammad skipped it. Convenient dodge. Reformers like Mahmoud Muhammad Taha (hanged in Sudan, 1985) decried such texts as contextual relics—but orthodoxy crushes them, upholding sahih hadiths as eternal.
In Sunni heartlands, this lurks in madrasa curricula. Saudi morality police drag prayer truants to jail; Iran lashes them. No fires yet, but the tolerance for burning people alive in their houses simmers. Apologists twist burning down their houses to mean demolition—laughable, as fire in tents/huts meant incinerating occupants. Arabic scholars confirm: it’s lethal.
This fraud unravels Islam’s peaceful myth. Muhammad’s Allah warns of Hellfire (Quran 4:56), but earthly arson? That’s prophet-on-people violence, a satanic inversion of mercy.
Broader Patterns: Islam’s Arsenal of Atrocities
Burning people alive in their houses isn’t outlier cruelty; it’s pattern. Sahih Muslim (17:4194) mandates stoning adulterers—women buried to breasts, pelted dead. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah details beheadings of poet-critics like Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf. Warfare? Banu Qurayza’s 600-900 Jewish men decapitated, women/children enslaved (Sahih Muslim 19:4366).
Critics like Robert Spencer (The Truth About Muhammad) spotlight this intolerance parade. Defenders bleat mistranslation or context—but context is the problem: a warlord prophet demanding death for dissent. Christianity jettisoned Old Testament horrors; Islam clings, birthing jihadi firebrands.
Today, Pakistan’s blasphemy laws echo this: accusations lead to mob burnings. Aceh, Indonesia: canings for immorality. The hadith’s shadow fuels it all.
Why Burning People Alive in Their Houses Still Haunts Modernity
Religious freedom? Islam scoffs. Saudi, Iran, Afghanistan: prayer enforced by whip or gun. Madrasas worldwide drill burning people alive in their houses into kids’ minds, priming extremism. Europe sees no-go zones where sharia patrols prayer attendance. This isn’t progress; it’s medieval relapse.
Islam’s unedited texts defy reform without diluting authenticity—a euphemism for admitting fraud. Muftis squirm: abrogate? Can’t, they’re sahih. Ignore? Betrays the perfect deen.
Conclusion: Confronting the Satanic Fraud of Burning People Alive in Their Houses
Muhammad’s contemplation of burning people alive in their houses casts an indelible shadow, unmasking Islam as a satanic fraud masquerading as divine truth. Far from mercy, it’s coercion incarnate—a prophet prioritizing pyres over persuasion. While never ignited, this hadith’s sahih status demands Muslims reckon: Is your religion of peace built on arson threats? Seekers of truth, don’t evade—plumb Bukhari, Muslim, the sources themselves. Abu Hurayrah preserved it; we must expose it. In Islam’s coercive cradle lies its condemnation. Reject the fraud; embrace unfiltered reality. The flames of history flicker on.
(Word count: 1,248)
