Talk:Ali/Raids

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] From Talk:Ali/Archive1

[edit] Caravan

Zora, whats wrong whith this?:

"They hired themselves out to work and also raided caravans since they where in war with the mecca Banu Umayyed clan after their assassination attempt on Muhammad."

--Striver 6 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

It's special pleading. Those of us who are not Muslims regard a career of theft and conquest as repugnant. If you want to try to make a case that theft is OK, I'll argue against it. Otherwise we can just leave it as stated.
If you've been raised as a Muslim, reading all the triumphant accounts of conquest, then it all seems natural and right. Those of us who weren't so raised will think of the feelings of those whose caravans were robbed, whose families were killed, who were sold into slavery, etc. I'm willing to leave all that aside for the purposes of the biography, but I'm not going to let it be excused and glorified.

Oh, and the Muslims were angry at all of Mecca, not just the Umayyads. You're reading your anti-Umayyad bias into everything. Zora 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)


Regarding Umayyad, you are right, i was misstaken and lett my bias carry me away. Thank you for your correction. Regarding the caravans, isnt it a legitimit part of war to raid your enemys supply convoys? Think of the german subs vs american supplys in ww2, you know, the wolf pack subs. If that is legit, why is caravan raiding meccans not legit?

--Striver 6 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

But had Mecca declared war on the Muslims? The Muslims were now hundreds of miles away. They could have just left the Meccans alone, and then the Meccans would have left them alone. As for "it's OK to raid commerce" -- why? You think it's OK to steal from someone you don't like? You think that a "cause" justifies stealing? Radical groups in the US, like the SLA, robbed banks, saying that it was part of their war against the system. The IRA robs banks. The Chinese Triads said that they were warring against the Manchus, and turned into nothing more than gangsters. Look, I'm not trying to drag this into the article. I'm not accusing Ali of banditry. I understand that by the standards of his time, caravan raiding was no big deal. Wars of conquest and slavery were no big deal. I'm not going to try to indict him by the standards of later times -- but I'm not going to try to whitewash things so that they look nice by later standards either. Zora 6 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)


As for Meccan declaring war on the muslim, they did that when they sent a assassination squad on their leader. Of course they did not send a formal declaration of war, with a timestamp from the mail.

Regarding meccas further behavior, im currently reading a book about it, and it does not pain a nice and fuzzy picture.

No, it doesn't. Of course it doesn't. It's a pietistic Deobandi work, not real academic history. Zora 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

Further, your examples are not valid, since its not equated with what muslims whent thrue.

  • SLA did not have their leader undergo a conspiracy of death through a group of assassins. Further, they did not have any political aim, rather just a lame excuse to behave badly:

In reality, however, the SLA was nothing more or less than a criminal gang. Its principal activities were murder, bank robbery and kidnapping. It never had more than a dozen members, and is not known to have participated in any political activity. (ref)

  • the IRA robbing banks is not endorsable, since their counterparts where intrested in a peace proces. Mecca never even implied that Muhammad was entitled to peace. Unless you have a source that says otherwise. They rather kept going with a culture that endorsed the killing of daghters.

The IRA is facing fresh questions about its commitment to the peace process after an official report said that it was still involved in paramilitary and criminal activity, including the recruitment and training of new members. ([The IRA is facing fresh questions about its commitment to the peace process after an official report said that it was still involved in paramilitary and criminal activity, including the recruitment and training of new members. ref])

  • The triad indulged in "Such activities include drug trafficking, money laundering, illegal gambling, prostitution, car theft and other forms of racketeering. " which makes it obvious that they where not intrested in a legitimal and uppright goals. Did Muhmmad (as) endorse such things? no, he reveled the prohibition of alcohol, banning of money interest, sever punishment for fornification and stealing.
Yabbut, the Triads originally started as resistance groups to the Manchu invasion, just as the IRA was a protest against the English conquest and occupation of Ireland. They had good intentions at the start and then .... Zora 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

Non of those groups whent a continued chain of persecution, resulting in the loss of home due to having been sent to exile, without loosing their long term plans. They are not comaparable.

So any group that has been persecuted and dispossessed is entitled to go to war? Anyone? Does that make the world a better place? I don't think so. Zora 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

You did not answer my question: If the wolf pack subs where legit in war, why is raiding (whitout drownig the crew) not legit?

Did they not have a city of their own? Was it not Mecca vs Medina? was it not a acctual war?

Not, so far as I can tell, until the Muslims started attacking caravans during the sacred season that was supposed to be safe for transit. No, I don't approve of persecution or attempted assassination, but I don't think it justifies banditry. Zora 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

best regards, --Striver 6 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Seems as if we are not going to agree on this issue, not tonight anyhow... so lets leave the article as it is.

--Striver 6 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)


Why some refrences to sunni ideology and not all contested points are mentioned? -unsigned

How do you mean?

--Striver 6 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)

Zora, I have heard that after Meccan confiscated Muslim properties, they made a Caravan out of it. Furthermore they intentionally sent the Caravan on a way that passed from near Medina. Under the pressure of Muslims, Muhammad decided to raid that on Caravan which ended up in the Badr battle. Zora, would you please let me know if this story is true and whether it justifies the raid or not?

Thanks.

From what I have read, that is not true. The Muslims were raiding all Meccan caravans. If the Muslims left property behind them, it would have been houses and perhaps flocks. You can't take a house on a caravan, and there would be no reason to take a flock. According to Crone's book on Meccan trade, trade items taken TO settled, agricultural areas would have been hides, wool, coarse wovens, cheese, etc. They would have been bringing back grain and fancy goods. In neither case would the goods have "belonged" to the Muslims.
Every account I've read of Arabian customs suggests that caravan raiding was endemic and not regarded as wrong. I can't take that view; neither can many of our contemporaries. But the answer isn't to invent stories that make it right; it's just to say that standards of right and wrong have changed over time -- I hope for the better. Slavery isn't accepted now, for one thing. All the world religions accepted it as "natural" at one point (including mine, Buddhism, I believe). Zora 07:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Zora. It is really hard for me to believe that caravan raiding was not regarded as wrong; strange! I want to do more research. Do you know any reliable reference explaining the raids in details (e.g. How Muhammad raided the caravan, how was the situation. whom the Caravan were belonged to. a possible question of Muhammad regarding the reason for the raids. and when a caravan was defeated how Muslims were treating its people ...).

I can not reconcile Muhammad and Ali’s engagement in caravan raiding with their personality. It is said about Abu Dahr that “his tribe lived by pillaging caravans, but that he preferred to live a poor but honest life as a shepherd.” This means that they knew that caravan raiding is not a good deed. I HOPE that I can find a good explanation for that.

Thank you very much.

That story re Abu Dharr is a later popularized tale. Perhaps I shouldn't have included it? Trying to get a coherent narrative out of the hadith cited is a lot harder. If I recall correctly, they contradict each other on certain points, and say NOTHING about the poor but honest shepherd bit.
As for the raiding, here's Fred Donner, Early Islamic Conquests, 1981 -- a classic book:
"Their culture was characterized also by a great pride in martial virtues and in the exploits of their tribes in raiding other nomads or settled peoples -- an activity that seems to have been partly of political significance (the assertion of dominance over rival groups), partly of economic significance, (the redistribution of wealth), and partly perhaps, a form of entertainment, a challenging and exciting game, seldom lethal, that reduced the monotony of desert life." (p. 17)

Also Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, 1953, another classic: "Robbery in his [a nomad's] eyes is no crime, whether it be a raid on an oasis or on a caravan" (p. 2).

This was the case in Arabia up until the 20th century! Settled Arabs regarded the caravan raiding as a blight, but the nomads persisted. Also note the customs of the Beluchis, the Pathans, the Lur, the Bhaktiari -- all nomadic Muslim groups that raided caravans. Zora 09:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much Zora for the information. If there are evidences that the story re Abu Dharr is a later popularized tale, it would not be fair to have it there, although a Muslim like me may like it to be there.

But the interesting point is that even if it is a later popularized tale, then it means that Arabs didn’t like caravan raiding for otherwise they wouldn’t have made such a tale for him. In any case, it seems to be an evidence against your statement that raiding was not a crime in the eyes of Arabs. :D It has a good feeling when an ordinary guy provides an evidence against the argument of an expert. Isn't it? :D.

It is really strange that raiding was not a crime in the eyes of Arabs. I am Persian and as far as I am aware of our culture, raiding was never praised; even I remember there was a story of a guy who repented from raiding in our literature course in school. As arabs are our neighbors, It is really weird for me that this was the case in Arabia until 20th century!!

Even if this was the case that raiding in their culture was not wrong, this does not imply that Islam should approve it. There were a lot of things in the culture of Arabs that Islam didn’t approve (e.g. Islam encourages Fear of God; while having fear was a bad thing among Arabs (Bravery was praised.)). Moreover, Islam’s punishment of robbery is much stricter than what we expect (cutting hands). Maybe the reason was that robbery was common among Arabs at that time. Based on my knowledge, I can not reconcile myself that Muhammad and Ali had unreasonable caravan raids. But I have no evidence to prove it at the moment. I’ll be back one day and provide evidences explaining Muhammad’s reasons :) Thanks.

Personally I disapprove of Caravan raiding and I believe that most people did even back in Muhammad's day. It was a dirty Bedouin thing to do and not fitting for a civilized person living in a town. But the pros and cons of it are not relevent. As I see it, what happened is lost to history. The whole story about the Day of Badr was doubtless constructed on the basis of a half-dozen or so verses in the Qur'an. I am not the only one who feels this way so why not give our side a chance to speak up too. Kleinecke 23:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)