No, it means Muhammad said the following (next) words, but you (or the writer) believe Muhammad would't have said them if he were a blood thirsty monster. (But we don't know what words you (or the writer) are referring to yet. Those words would be in the next sentence.)

It is part of an argument. Without knowing what follows, it's hard to be exact. The writer is saying that Muhammed really did say something. The writer is saying that Muhammed did not see the bloodthirsty monster. The writer argues that if he had seen a bloodthirsty monster, he would not have said what he said. Consider this sentence: "If he had seen a monster, he would have said Y" This is a sentence that describes a hypothetical situation that might or might not have happened. Maybe he saw a monster. Maybe he didn't see a monster. But, if he had seen a monster, he would have said Y. Therefore, if he said X, he could not have seen a monster. Now, we have to talk about "rhetorical questions." "If he had seen a monster, would he have said X?" This is a rhetorical question. It's phrased as a question. People use rhetorical questions to invite us to participate and force us to think about something. However, the writer is sure that the answer is "no." He is sure that when you think about it, you the reader, will agree that the answer is "no." "If he had seen a monster, would he have said X?" No, he would have said something else. He would have said Y. But he did say X. Therefore, he did not see a monster. Here is a simpler example of the same kind of language. Your friend says "I had a lovely walk in the park yesterday." Later that day someone else: "I heard that your friend was bitten by a dog in the park yesterday." You say "That can't be right. If he had been bitten by a dog, would he have said 'I had a lovely walk?'"

"Would he have said the following?" requires something to come after the sentence. As of now, it doesn't make sense.