Dr Khalid Blankinship, an Islamic historian and professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pa, answers a question about the raids on the Meccan Caravans and the reason Muslims engaged in warfare.
Question:
If Islam is a religion of peace, why did the Muslims during the time of Prophet Muhammad engage in so many wars and bloodshed? Why did Prophet Muhammad order the raids and stealing of the Meccan caravans?
Dr. Khalid Blankenship’s response:
The Prophet (SAAS) and the early Muslim community in al- Madinah did engage in warfare against the Makkan Quraysh, but it was based on causes and was not unprovoked. It arose primarily out of the expulsion of the Muslims from Makkah and the confiscation of their property, which traditionally was a common and widely accepted cause for war. Indeed, Qur’an 22: 39-40 specifically gives this as the reason for the original permission to fight and states that the Muslims were persecuted by the Makkan Quraysh only on account of their religion.
The Muslim tradition has largely preferred to portray the migration or hijrah to al-Madinah as a voluntary migration, but the Qur’an is unambiguous on this point, clearly saying that the Muslims were expelled (Qur’an 2:191, 217; 3:195; 60:1, 8-9) and their property was confiscated (Qur’an 59:8). This even includes the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS), who was also driven out, according to Qur’an 9:40 and 47:13 (17:76 refers to an earlier threat). Elsewhere, the Muslims are told not to be aggressors (Qur’an 2:190, 193; 5:2). When the Muslim Muhajirun arrived in al-Madinah, they were thus destitute.
Although the generosity of the Madinan Ansar supported the Muhajirun at first, despite the general poverty of al-Madinah and Arabia at that time (Qur’an 59:8-9), the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS) knew that the Muhajirun would have to support themselves, and that goal seemed best and most morally achievable by recovering what was theirs by raiding the caravans of the Quraysh, starting with the raid at Nakhlah in the year 1/623, when the first blood was shed, the incident referred to in Qur’an 2:217.
After that, the rest of the wars developed out of this initial wrong done to the Muslims by the pagan Makkan Quraysh. The Muslims were also threatened with expulsion by the Madinan hypocrites according to Qur’an 63:8, a verse said in the commentaries to describe the situation of the year 4/626, after the Muslim losses in the Battle of Uhud the previous year.
This threat of expulsion also appears in association with the Battle of al-Khandaq or the Ditch in 5/627 (Qur’an 59:11-12), which might help explain some of the events of that campaign. The Quraysh and their allies are said to have been plotting to expel the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS) from al-Madinah at different times as well (Qur’an 8:30; 9:13). This is the background of the overcoming and expulsion of the Jewish tribes referred to in 33:26-27 and 59:2-4.
Besides these references in the Qur’an to the Prophet’s (SAAS) life story, there are many other references to expulsions or threatened expulsions as well in the stories of the earlier prophets (AS), including various prophets from Nuh on down (14:13), Lut (7:82; 27:56), Shu`ayb (7:88), Musa (7:110, 123; 20:57, 63; 26:35), Samu’il or Samwil (2:246), and Sulayman (27:37), and even Adam (2:36).
There is also a reference to expulsions in al-Madinah before the arrival of Muhammad (SAAS) and the Muslims (2:85).
While warfare is generally seen as politically incorrect by many today, it should be understood that conditions in ancient Arabia differed, as there was no central government, so that every group of people had to defend itself. The fears of expulsion, which many people remain under even today, were real and ever present, and the consequences went far beyond a mere loss of property. Therefore, whatever our interpretation of these verses that we apply to ourselves today may be, it is not appropriate to judge ancient and medieval peoples by our possibly fleeting contemporary standards.
Also, all of this should be seen in comparison with the content of the Torah of Musa, which contains many bloody episodes that would be politically incorrect by today’s standards, including warfare that is much less arguably defensive than that in the Qur’an, but that does not appear to place any moral burden on the followers of Judaism and Christianity.
Khalid Blankinship

Excellent response by Professor Blankinship.
Side note:
“The Muslim tradition has largely preferred to portray the migration or hijrah to al-Madinah as a voluntary migration, but the Qur’an is unambiguous on this point, clearly saying that the Muslims were expelled (Qur’an 2:191, 217; 3:195; 60:1, 8-9) and their property was confiscated (Qur’an 59:8). This even includes the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS), who was also driven out, according to Qur’an 9:40 and 47:13 (17:76 refers to an earlier threat).”
I sensed the Muslim tradition as also indicating a degree of being forced to at least some of the companions…but I take the professor’s point to be valid.
This is another example of how reading the Qur’an through the lens of tradition can distort the content (and sometimes concepts of the) Qur’an.
The Qur’an is the Furqan, the criteria and thus should be the lens through which the tradition is read…not vice versa…although the tradition can help many times in providing likely context.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Although the generosity of the Madinan Ansar supported the Muhajirun at first, despite the general poverty of al-Madinah and Arabia at that time (Qur’an 59:8-9), the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS) knew that the Muhajirun would have to support themselves”
Now we have the dole and job seeker’s allowance. No need for Muslims to raid caravans. Civilization has progressed.
“and that goal seemed best and most morally achievable by recovering what was theirs by raiding the caravans of the Quraysh, starting with the raid at Nakhlah in the year 1/623, when the first blood was shed, the incident referred to in Qur’an 2:217.”
The good professor seems to believe that Mohammed’s morals are not quite exemplary. With good reason I suspect.
When Elijah the prophet was destitute he was fed by Jehovah:
1 KIngs 17 v 2 And the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, 3 Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. 4 And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there. 5 So he went and did according unto the word of the LORD: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. 6 And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook.
Psalm 37 v 3 Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.
I don’t think attacking caravans is what the Psalmist means when he says “and do good”.
“so that every group of people had to defend itself. The fears of expulsion, which many people remain under even today, were real and ever present, and the consequences went far beyond a mere loss of property.”
So didn’t everyone have the right to plot against each other to ensure their survival and prevent themselves from being expelled by any other group? Why did the Muslims have this right and the Jews not? Let’s not pretend that the Mohammed was not plotting just as much as anyone else.
“Also, all of this should be seen in comparison with the content of the Torah of Musa, which contains many bloody episodes that would be politically incorrect by today’s standards, including warfare that is much less arguably defensive than that in the Qur’an, but that does not appear to place any moral burden on the followers of Judaism and Christianity.”
These bloody episodes were necessary to prepare for the shekinah presence of God in the temple. The land had to be cleansed before God could dwell in the midst of it. This is not an ongoing justification for violence comparable to jihad in Islam until the whole world is under sharia law.
LikeLike
Mr.Madmanna, am I reading you right? You seem to be suggesting that genocides are okay as long as they are divinely justified.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think “genocide” is a loaded word.
LikeLike
@ Kmak
Are you claiming that there are no examples of “genocide” in the Quran?
Death is a fact of life that has to be explained somehow.
LikeLike
[6.45] So the roots of the people who were unjust were cut off; and all praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.
[6.47] Say: Have you considered if the chastisement of Allah should overtake you suddenly or openly, will any be destroyed but the unjust people?
LikeLike
[11.44] And it was said: O earth, swallow down your water, and O cloud, clear away; and the water was made to abate and the affair was decided, and the ark rested on the Judi, and it was said: Away with the unjust people.
LikeLike
“It was not unprovoked” says the professor, as if ethics is formulated around retaliation.
This is one reason I dislike the Islamic ideology. It’s ethics are formulated not upon that which is morally right, but upon the retaliatory whims of a 6th century Arab.
While Jesus taught his disciples to love their enemies, Muhammad taught his to kill them.
LikeLike
Mark
You said;
“It was not unprovoked” says the professor, as if ethics is formulated around retaliation.
This is one reason I dislike the Islamic ideology. It’s ethics are formulated not upon that which is morally right, but upon the retaliatory whims of a 6th century Arab.
While Jesus taught his disciples to love their enemies, Muhammad taught his to kill them.
I say;
Not if Jesus Christ has got his population driven from their homes and without taking their belongings. Jesus would not have asked them not to struggle and get their items back.
You see, Christians tend to compare Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Moses and others but it is not a fair analysis in that
1. Jesus ministry was very short as compared to the other prophets.
2. Jesus has no one to protect
3. Jesus was under control by the power of the Romans
4. Jesus had few followers then as compared to the Jews and the Romans
So, it will be easy for Jesus to say turn the other Cheek.
5. Even with that Jesus insults people as dogs and ransacked a synagogue among other things to make it clear, if he had power he would have fought injustice and other social evil.
I bet if Jesus had got his population being beating and driven out of their homes and are constantly under threat of annvihilation, Jesus would not have issue that command of “turn the other cheek” to his followers but will ask them to protect themselves and fight anyone who fight then and fight to get their property back.
As turn the other cheek at that moment of hostility would have made that command ungodly because how will I not fight to protect myself? get my seized property back? protect my babies, wives, women, children and the elderly?
In the olden days and in this modern days no one is allowed to persecute any one and take their properties and the properties has to be returned. The Muslims had their belongings including money, gold, houses and anything valuable seized by the Quraish and the Muslims need their property back.
Imagine if you are beaten and sacked from your home. Don’t you need your home and your family pictures back? Well, the Muslims need their properties back and they attack the Meccan caravan to send a message to the Meccans that they need their valuable properties back and they got some of their properties in the process.
You said;
While Jesus taught his disciples to love their enemies, Muhammad taught his to kill them.
I say;
No, Jesus allowed innocent babies, women, animals, non combatants to be killed by men and that is genocide.
madmanna must get the difference between genocide and disaster. If a man kills people en masse it is genocide, but a natural disaster like flood, fire death etc. caused by God is not a genocide but natural disaster.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Mark, your Jesus will return one day and kill off anyone who refuses accept him. Read the Bible. Are you being inconsistent again?
LikeLike
Mark “While Jesus taught his disciples to love their enemies,….”
Jesus was a Jew, he taught his jewish disciples to love their jewish enemies (if he ever taught that, he taught in a strictly jewish context). He never taught Jews should love their pagan enemies.
LikeLike
Not only that, but he specifically told his disciples to buy swords (Luke 22:36)! Why on earth would they need swords if they were supposed to “love” their enemies?
LikeLike
Not only that, but Jesus told his disciples to buy swords (Luke 22:36). Why on earth would they need to do that if they were supposed to “love” their enemies?
LikeLike
Yes , like other prophets , Jesus never downplayed military jihad. he encouraged living by the sword. In Luke 22 Jesus told his disciples to buy a SWORD in the first place., .why would anyone buy a sword in those days unless for battle ?…. even at the cost of their own clothing…nothing metaphorical about this, just very urgent call to fight!
Also In Luke 19:27 Jesus said: “But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and SLAUGHTER THEM in my presence”
LikeLiked by 1 person