One of the claims frequently made by anti-Muslim websites is that after Prophet Muhammad emigrated to Medina, he became a warlord and launched offensive wars against the tribes around him for worldly gains. The truth is that the Meccan aristocracy had been violently intolerant of the new religion from the very beginning. The Muslims were forced to take up arms in defense of their right to practice Islam. After the Prophet fled to Medina following 13 years of persecution, the Quraysh issued an ultimatum to the leadership of Medina that they must kill the Prophet or face war. They wrote to Medina saying: إِنَّكُمْ آوَيْتُمْ صَاحِبَنَا وَإِنَّا نُقْسِمُ بِاللَّهِ لَتُقَاتِلُنَّهُ أَوْ لَتُخْرِجُنَّهُ أَوْ لَنَسِيرَنَّ إِلَيْكُمْ بِأَجْمَعِنَا حَتَّى نَقْتُلَ مُقَاتِلَتَكُمْ وَنَسْتَبِيحَ نِسَاءَكُمْ You have given protection to our companion. We swear by Allah that you must fight him or exile him, or else we will come at you in full force. We will kill your fighting men and take your women. Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 3004, Grade: Sahih This tradition was declared authentic by Al-Albani in Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd 3004. The Meccans were not content to let the Muslims worship in peace. Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, one of the Prophet’s companions, went to Mecca to perform his pilgrimage at the sacred mosque. While he was there, Abu Jahl, one of the leaders of Mecca, issued an open threat: أَلاَ أَرَاكَ تَطُوفُ بِمَكَّةَ آمِنًا وَقَدْ أَوَيْتُمُ الصُّبَاةَ وَزَعَمْتُمْ أَنَّكُمْ تَنْصُرُونَهُمْ وَتُعِينُونَهُمْ، أما والله لولا أنك مع أبي صفوان ما رجعت إلى أهلك سالما‏ I see you going around Mecca securely while you have given protection to a heretic. I imagine you are supporting and helping him. By Allah, if you were not in the company of Abu Sufyan, I would not let you safely return to your family! Source: Sahih al-Bukhari 3734, Grade: Sahih In other words, if Sa’d had not been under the protection of Abu Sufyan, a powerful tribal leader, then Abu Jahl would have had him killed In this context, Allah revealed a verse allowing the Muslims to defend themselves after having required them to be patiently endure up to this point. Allah said: أذن للذين يقاتلون بأنهم ظلموا وإن الله على نصرهم لقدير الذين أخرجوا من ديارهم بغير حق إلا أن يقولوا ربنا الله Permission to fight has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. Verily, Allah is able to give them victory. They are those who have been evicted from their homes without right and only because they say: Our Lord is Allah. Surat al-Hajj 22:39 This verse makes clear that the reason the Muslims were allowed to fight was because they had been driven out and violently oppressed only because of their religion. As the Meccans were preparing for war, the Muslims prepared to launch raids on their caravans as a means to disrupt their economic war-making capabilities. What is more, the Meccans had confiscated the property that the Muslims had left behind and were taking it to Syria to be sold for war funds. Despite suffering this persecution, the Prophet commanded the Muslims to adhere to the highest standard of conduct and he prohibited them from plundering the enemy’s wealth. Abdullah ibn Yazid Reported: عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه نهى عن النهبة والمثلة The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited plundering and mutilation. Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 5197, Grade: Sahih The Prophet declared that the one who plunders, robs, and loots people is not a true Muslim. Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: وَلَا يَسْرِقُ حِينَ يَسْرِقُ وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ وَلَا يَنْتَهِبُ نُهْبَةً يَرْفَعُ النَّاسُ إِلَيْهِ فِيهَا أَبْصَارَهُمْ حِينَ يَنْتَهِبُهَا وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ The thief is not a believer while he is stealing. The plunderer is not a believer while he is plundering and the people are watching him. Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī2343, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi Imran ibn Hussein reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: مَنْ انْتَهَبَ نُهْبَةً فَلَيْسَ مِنَّا Whoever plunders the wealth of others is not one of us. Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1123, Grade: Sahih In another narration, the Prophet said: وَمَنْ انْتَهَبَ نُهْبَةً مَشْهُورَةً فَلَيْسَ مِنَّا Whoever is notorious for plunder is not one of us. Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4391, Grade: Sahih On one occasion, the Prophet saw that some of his companions had looted the enemy’s sheep. He commanded them to return the property to their owners. Tha’labah ibn Hakam reported: We came across some sheep of the enemy, so we plundered them and set up our cooking pots. The Prophet passed by and ordered that they be overturned. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: إِنَّ النُّهْبَةَ لَا تَحِلُّ Verily, plunder is unlawful. Source: Sunan Ibn Mājah 3938, Grade: Sahih As mentioned in the verse, permission was given to fight back only as a response to aggression. Muslims are allowed to fight for the right to practice Islam and to defend innocent people from oppression. No other motives are permissible, especially not to fight for worldly gains and spoils. Abu Huraira reported: A man said, “O Messenger of Allah, a man intends to fight for the sake of Allah and he is seeking worldly gains.” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: لَا أَجْرَ لَهُ There is no reward for him. The people found that very difficult and they said, “Return to the Messenger of Allah, for perhaps he did not understand you.” The man returned and he said, “O Messenger of Allah, a man intends to fight for the sake of Allah and he is seeking worldly gain.” The Prophet said: لَا أَجْرَ لَهُ There is no reward for him. Then he returned a third time and the Prophet said: لَا أَجْرَ لَهُ There is no reward for him. Source: Musnad Aḥmad 7840, Grade: Sahih Nevertheless, the collection of spoils is an incidental consequence of war. The Prophet would collect the spoils and distribute them equitably among the community as charity. Moreover, the Prophet forbade Muslims from killing non-combatants and civilians, and he commanded them to behave magnanimously with the enemy. Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said to his army: انْطَلِقُوا بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ وَبِاللَّهِ وَعَلَى مِلَّةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا شَيْخًا فَانِيًا وَلَا طِفْلًا وَلَا صَغِيرًا وَلَا امْرَأَةً وَلَا تَغُلُّوا وَضُمُّوا غَنَائِمَكُمْ وأصلحوا وأحسنوا إن الله يحب المحسنين Go forward in the name of Allah, with Allah, and upon the religion of the Messenger of Allah. Do not kill the elderly, children, young people, or women. Do not steal from the spoils but collect them, and behave righteously and in the best manner. Verily, Allah loves those who behave in the best way. Source: Sunan Abi Dawud 2608, Grade: Hasan To conclude, the Prophet launched raids against the Meccan caravans in response to their declaration of war. The raids were meant to obstruct the Meccan’s plans to attack the new community in Medina. Even so, the Prophet prohibited his companions from stealing from the enemy and he told his army to behave honorably with them https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6sB_oIHJjeE&t=12s YouTube Jason Skywalker The Quraysh or the Muslims, Who was to Blame? (response to @Acts17A... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fYHGT5MdiJ4 YouTube Islamophobia TV Islamophobia 1 - Ep16: How could a prophet of God raid a caravan? |... https://aboutislam.net/reading-islam/about-muhammad/did-the-prophet-cause-the-battle-of-badr/ https://aboutislam.net/reading-islam/about-muhammad/what-really-happened-at-the-badr-caravan/ https://aboutislam.net/reading-islam/about-muhammad/did-the-prophet-command-an-attack-on-quraysh-caravan/ The question of caravan raids by early Muslim and their justifications is an important question with serious modern implications. This is why sound Islamic knowledge, both the letter and spirit of the law, is so important to attain. The caravan raids that took place during the early Migration period can never be used [and abused] to justify modern terrorist attacks on civilians, or cowardly assaults on one’s own countrymen Muslim or non-Muslim, or rebellion against one’s own governments whether Muslims or non-Muslims, or to conduct vigilante operations to fulfill one’s ambitions of bloodlust and revenge. The Reason Why the Caravan Raids by Early Muslims Took Place The early Believers of Makkah were mercilessly persecuted for their faith, in their own hometown, by their own kinsmen and countrymen who could not tolerate their call to fix the injustices in their society, which spanned from the spiritual to societal. For thirteen years while the Prophet (peace be upon him) lived in Mecca, he was forbidden by God Most High to do so much as lift a finger in self-defense against his persecutors. The early Muslims were powerless, outnumbered and boycotted. Still, they did not resort to guerrilla tactics, coup d’etats, terrorist methods nor assassinations, when all of that could have easily been attempted. The command on them from God Most High to keep the peace and order within their society and respect its laws, even uphold the trusts and contracts they had, is telling for how Muslims who perceive themselves in similar situations today should behave. Their only response was to increase themselves in devotion to Allah, and pray for ease. This attracted even more people to the message of Islam. After the order by God to migrate to Madina, the Muslims had their own state, but the Makkans still sought to vanquish them. Thus, the raids were in self-defense, fully conducted within the laws of Islam which forbade the killing of innocent civilians or even the harming of people with whom you have covenants of peace. Even if the early raids were pre-emptive, the trade being conducted by the hostile Makkans was the selling, at times, of the stolen properties of the exiled Muslims, in order to amass materials and weapons to exterminate the nascent Muslim community of Madina in a looming war they were planning. What took place after the migration of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to Madina with regards to the caravan raids were actions between two independent states with rulers and laws, not guerrilla leaders, militias or vigilante terrorists. They did not occur on any one state’s land- rather, on the no-man’s-land of the vast Arabian desert. There were no international laws, no government relations, no treaties of peace and diplomatic ties, nor accepted rules of engagement like there are today in our times. There were no covenants of citizenship, but even then, there was the concept that a visitor from a hostile that entered the city legally was never to be harmed. There was also no “khiyana”, or treacherous deception, even though the migrants were Makkans and looked just like their aggressing countrymen [even being from the same families], yet they clearly declared the renunciation of their citizenship, identified themselves openly and separated before they defended themselves, and never harmed civilians or acted as an “enemy from within” in Makkah. They were never a fifth column in their countries, nor attempted assassinations, overthrows, or terrorist attacks to force Makkan to accept their demands when it was possible to do so, even under the worst persecution. It is clear from this that the terrorists of today do not have a moral [therefore Islamic legal] leg to stand on. History is Not the Same as Islamic Sacred Law Historical events in the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are not Islamic legal rulings. One cannot pick up a book of Prophetic biography by themselves and come to conclusions on how to deal with complex modern-day issues of international gravity. Rather one returns to the mainstream scholars, both for guidance on how to view past and new incidents in an Islamic light, and for rulings on how to behave in contemporary contexts. When a Muslim is supposed to return to mainstream scholars on minute issues of personal law rather than go into the primary texts to find their own whimsical solutions, isn’t it more obvious that people should return to them for clarity on major issues which hold innocent life and millions of people’s safety in the balance? Likewise for those outside of Islam looking in, they should know that any wars and violent resistance in the prophetic biography should be seen in the same light as any mention of war in the holy books of other world religions, such as the Battle of Jericho and those fought by Moses, David and Solomon in the Old Testament, or the wars between the Kauravas and Pandavas in the Hindu Gita, or stories of self-defense which are the cornerstone of Sikh history. While all of these religions’ stories of struggle have been twisted by extremists to justify expedient political ends and even terrorism, the main purpose of remembering those events should be to teach good values and condemn oppression, not to justify terrorism. This space is too short to get into the nitty-gritty legal details of how and why senseless violence, terrorism and traitorous vigilante attacks are impermissible and completely against the spirit of Islam. If one is interested, a 600-page fatwa by a scholar named Shaykh Tahir al Qadri can be read which elucidates more or less what the position of the mainstream scholarship is. It is clear from that that the caravan raids of Islamic history can never justify the terrorist attacks that take place today. Violent Interpretations Must Be Refuted and Marginalized, By All Sides This seems obvious when it comes to terrorists and extremists justifying their hideous actions through distorting religious teachings. However, the misconceptions of some people who fanatically criticize and negatively portray prophetic history are the other side to the same coin that bears the warped understandings of modern day terrorists and militants Both groups actually employ the same misunderstandings of the same past events and push it on one another to fuel each other, except that the terrorists claim to be believers and use these misinterpretations to justify their heinous actions today, and the Islamophobes do not believe, and use their misinterpretations to justify fear-mongering and demonization of the Muslim communities in their countries, which are by-and-large peaceful, moderate, loyal and law-abiding. No doubt, the side of the terrorists is inexcusable however, while the Islamophobes still have a right to their opinions. Both sides blame the other for their own existence and need to struggle; furthering violent misinterpretations of Islamic history on either side then, only leads to “self-fulfilling prophecies” which convince misguided and uneducated Muslim youth that these Islamophobes represent the majority of the “other” and rather than refute their misinterpretations logically through the religion, they accept them and actually make them their own while being rebelliously proud of it. While the chicken-or-egg blame-game continues (was it terrorism or aggression?), its consequences distract the mainstream good people of both sides from reaching lasting solutions for peace. Hence, we as those who call ourselves Muslims and claim to follow the highest moral example of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) need to speak up first, to break this vicious cycle, and clarify the truth for ourselves and instruct our own people in it before anything else, and trust that good people of all walks of life will notice, listen and thus marginalize those who propagate misinterpretations from their side. How Muslims Should Deal with These Types of Historical Incidents Although an event-by-event exercise in apologetics has its place, if you are looking to answer these types of questions it will never end because the heart of the matter is not being discussed – the greater context. It is easier to adopt a general approach unless you, or the questioner, have time to delve deeply into history and fair sources. One must look at the over-arching teachings through source texts, in this case Qur’an and prophetic narrations, which will clearly show the sacredness of life and the importance of respecting covenants and legal systems. Also, the prophetic biography, taken as a whole with Makkan and Madinan periods considered, will show us this. This should teach us the spirit of the law. Then, for the law itself, we must return to the mainstream scholars, who follow the way of the majority, preferably those from the same land as the questioner so language and mentalities are clearly understood and communicated, all of whom would condemn the types of modern-day militant attacks you are asking about. One cannot compare between a prophet who is directly instructed by God on what to do, and modern-day followers who claim to draw lessons from that prophet, while completely violating known and set-down principles of the sacredness of life in their religious teachings taught explicitly by that prophet. Today, we have limited knowledge of exactly what took place and how in religious history. Thus, we accept that because God sanctioned these events, they fully took place within the context of the broader moral teachings of respect for life and justice, though we may not understand. This applies in the life stories of Moses, David, Krishna, and Muhammad (peace be upon him), to name a few across various traditions. Then, we return to the greater teachings that the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself laid down for our own actions, and emphasize historical events in a positive light that reflects the lessons of those greater teachings. Patience, being peaceful and just, and taking the higher road has always been hardest to take, but this cannot be explained to those who follow what suits them or their situation, because they did not imbibe the compassionate teachings in their own faith before acting in its name. In any case, it is obvious that people who violate Islam’s teachings on the sacredness of life will never win their struggle. While they continue with their misguidance however, it is the duty of Muslims before any other people to stop them, through force of arms and education and prayers for guidance, because the way to help your oppressive brother is to stop his hand from committing oppression, regardless of whether he feels oppressed. —————————————————— The first actions of Jihad were the campaigns ghazawät and smaller expeditions saraya directed against places to the West of Madinah. These had three aims: 1. To threaten Quraysh's trade routes to Syria, a serious blow to the mercantile economy of Makkah. 2. To make peace treaties and agreements with the other tribes who lived in the area, in order to guarantee their support or at least their neutrality in the conflict between the Muslims and Quraysh. This plan was important, and its accomplishment was a success for the Muslims, because originally these tribes had tended to favor the Quraysh, as there were historical alliances between them, which the Qur'än describes as iläf or "covenants (of security and safeguard)" (Qur'an 106:1) and through which the Quraysh sought to secure their trade with Syria and the Yaman. These tribes had a real interest in the Quraysh as the custodians of the Ka'bah, to which all the Arabs performed pilgrimage in order to worship the idols which surrounded it. The tribes and the Quraysh shared common beliefs and joined together to oppose Islam. Un-doubtedly, the fact that the Muslims were able to make treaties with these tribes and ensure their neutrality during the conflict was a great victory for them at that stage. 3. To demonstrate the power of the Muslims in Madinah to the Jews and the Mushrikun. Muslim dominance was no longer confined to Madinah; the Muslims were now beginning to establish control over the surrounding areas and tribes and influence their interests and relations. The majority of the time, in practically all cases, these caravan raids did not entail any form of looting of the actual caravans. Rather, they were to send off course the caravans from their trade routes in order to thwart and puncture holes in the economic flourishing of the Quraish. Furthermore, the goods being transported in these caravans were the property of the Muslims anyway, and in the cases where the caravans were actually looted, it was merely a confiscation and retrieval of the goods stolen from them by the Quraish. The first expedition ghazwah was Ghazwat al Abwa; which is also known as Ghazwat Wuddän. These are two adjoining sites, six or seven miles apart. Al Abwa' is approximately 14 miles from Madinah. It was mentioned in Sahih al Bukhari, in a Hadith from Zayd ibn Arqam, that the first ghazwah was al "Ashirah. Al Hafiz ibn Hajar reconciled this report with that of Ibn Ishaq by explaining that Zayd ibn Arqam meant that the first ghazwah in which he took part with the Prophet (SAAS) was al "Ashirah (Al Bidäyah wa al Nihdyah. 3/246.) There was no battle during this ghazwah, but the peace treaty with Banu Damrah (from Kinänah) was concluded. This ghazwah took place on 12 Safar in the second year of the Hijrah. According to al Mada'ini's report (Khalifah ibn Khayyat al Usfür, al Tarikh, 56), the army stayed outside Madinah until Rabi' al Awwal before they returned (Ibn Hajar al " Asqaláni, Fath al Bäri, 7/279. Khalifah: al Tarikh. 56, from a report of Ibn Ishãq. without isnäd). All of these raids led to no actual conflict but rather they simply dismantled the flow of trade routes employed by the Quraish. The only battle that really culminated from this was the battle of Badr. ‘Urwah ibn al Zubayr mentions that the Prophet sent a sariyah out from al Abwa, consisting of 60 men under the leadership of ‘Ubaydah ibn al Harith. ("ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7/279). Ibn Ishaq mentions that the sariyah was sent to Sayf al Bahr after the return to Madinah, and that another sariyah, consisting of 30 men under the leadership of Hamzah ibn Abd al Muttalib, also went to Sayf al Bahr at that time, in order to intercept a Quraysh caravan. But the two sariyahs did not engage the Quraysh in battle, because, in the case of Hamzah's sariyah, the tribes who had peace treaties with both sides prevented any fighting, and in the case of 'Ubaydah's sariyuh there was only an exchange of arrows between the Muslims and the Quraysh. (Khalifah, al Tarikh, 61-62. Abu Muhammad "Abd al Mälik In Hishäm al Himyari, al Sirah al Nabawiyyah, 1/591-2, from a report of Ibn ishaq without isnad. Al Umawi, Maghazi, also without isnad, as mentioned in Fath al Bari, 76/279.) So majority of the time there was no actual looting nor actual fighting involved. Undoubtedly the two sariyahs were aimed, in the first instance, at threatening the trade of the Quraysh. This was the first warning to the Quraysh that their trade would be in danger unless they changed their obstinate attitude towards Islam. In Rabi al Thāni, the Muslims continued their campaign against the trade routes. Ghazwat Birwat took place in Ridwa, near Yanbü', with two hundred fighters who went to intercept a Quraysh trade caravan. Then Ghazwat al Ashirah (in Yanbü') took place in Jumádã al Ula. There was no fighting in Ridwä and al 'Ashirah, but a peace treaty was concluded with Banù Mudlaj in al Ashirah' in Jumádā al Ákhirah. (Khalifah, al Tarikh, 57, transmitted through Ibn Ishiq without isnad.) Immediately after al Ashirah, Karaz ibn Jäbir al Fahri came to the outskirts of Madinah and stole camels and cattle. The Prophet (SAAS) pursued him as far as Safwan in the vicinity of Badr, hence this was called the first Ghazwah of Badr. Karaz managed to escape from his pursuers," but this event convinced the Muslims of the necess of securing their relations with the neighboring tribes, so the expeditions continued. The Muslims did not limit themselves to intercepting Quraysh's tra with Syria; they also intercepted their trade route with the Yaman. The sariyah of 'Abd Allah ibn Jahsh, with eight Muhäjirin, was sent to Nakhlah, south of Makkah, at the end of Rajab, solely to find out and assess the latest news about the Quraysh. But they intercepted a Quraysh trade caravan, seized it, killed its leader, took two of its men prisoner and took it back to Madinah." Because this event occurred during the sacred month, the Mushrikun caused a great outcry insisting that the Muslims had violated the sanctity of the sacred month. The event had a serious impact on both city dwellers and desert nomads, because it broke a tradition which had long been established in the Arabian Peninsula well before Islam. In fact, 'Abd Allah in Jahsh was aware of the seriousness of this violation and had taken the decision to fight after consulting with his companions. When he returned to Madinah, he wanted to hand over the booty, but the Prophet (SAA.S) refused to accept it, saying: "I did not order you to fight during the sacred month. Quraysh has spread the propaganda that Muhammad and his companions have violated the sacred month, spilt blood, seized wealth and taken men prisoner during this month." Some verses of the Qur'ān were revealed which clarified the soundness of the Muslims' position. The Prophet thus took the booty and ransomed the two prisoners to Quraysh. The verses were: ”They ask thee concerning fighting in the prohibited month. Say: fighting therein is a grave offence; but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the sacred Mosque, and drive out its members. Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.” (Al Baqarah 2:217) Thus the verse clearly stated that the Quraysh's actions in oppressing the Muslims and driving them out of Makkah were worse than the Muslims' fighting during the sacred month ("Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 159-60, from the mursal ahadith of " Urwah. Al Bayhaqf Abd Bakr Ahmad ibn al Husayn ibn 'Ali, al Sunan al Kubrä, 9/12, 58-9, with a sahih isnäd going back to 'Urwah. There are other similar reports in al Tabarani, with hasan or other isnads. (see: al Isabah 2/278; In Kathir, 3/251; and al Haythami, Majma' al Zawdid, 6/66-7.) When all the chains of narrators are taken into account, the hadith becomes sahih li ghayrihi.), although the first part of the verse confirms the sanctity of the "sacred month." Why, then, did the Quraysh not adhere to traditional values in their dealings with the Muslims in order to justify their claims to being the guardians of traditions and sacred things? Some doubtful individuals may mistakenly think that the Muslims' interception of the Mushrikun's caravans was the action of bandits. The response to these doubts is that the Muslims were in a state of war with the Quraysh, and their attempts to weaken the Quraysh, both in economic and human terms, were a necessity of this state of war. Another reason was the fact that the Quraysh had seized the Muslims' wealth when they had emigrated from Makkah. Even in modern times, it is still allowed to strike at the human and economic resources of the enemy in time of war. Another important event also took place in Rajab and should be mentioned because of its effect on affirming the distinctness of the Muslims and their independence in the direction of their salah. This was the changing of the qiblah from Bayt al Maqdis (in Jerusalem) to the Kabah (in Makkah).