When Muhammad entered Yathrib in 622, he did not simply change cities. He changed methods.

In Mecca, he had demanded spiritual authority but had no sword to enforce it. In Medina, he finally had both. The men of Aws and Khazraj had pledged to fight for him “as they fought for their own families.” The emigrants from Mecca needed income. The city sat just inland from the main caravan routes linking Mecca to Syria. The pieces were in place for something new in Arabia: a religiously justified raiding state.

From 622 to 624, before the famous Battle of Badr, Muhammad’s community did not quietly pray and preach. It sent armed bands to prowl the trade routes, broke long-respected taboos about sacred months, spilled the first blood in the name of “jihad,” executed elderly critics in their beds, ordered the murder of a poetess nursing her infant, and besieged and expelled the first Jewish tribe of Medina. All this was wrapped in “revelation” that turned ghazu—traditional Bedouin raiding—into a sacred duty.

This chapter traces that transformation: how robbery became piety, how criticism became a capital offense, how Jews went from chartered allies to dispossessed exiles, and how economic strangulation of Mecca was deliberately pursued as “the way of Allah.” The image of a persecuted, passive prophet evaporates. What emerges is the founder of a raider state.

Ghazu: Sanctified Robbery Becomes Religious Duty

Long before Islam, Arabian tribes practiced ghazu: seasonal raiding against rival clans and caravans. Men would ride out, ambush a small group, seize camels, goods, and sometimes captives, then race back to safety. There were informal rules. Some months were considered too holy for fighting. Raids were ideally quick, avoiding large-scale bloodshed, and targeted at outsiders, not one’s own clan. Success brought honor; failure brought shame.

No one pretended ghazu was high morality. It was frankly about survival and pride in a harsh environment. Poets sang of daring raids; tribal elders sometimes reined in reckless young men, but the system was accepted. In that sense, Arabia was already violent and unjust before Muhammad ever claimed prophethood.

When he arrived in Medina, he did not abolish ghazu in the name of Jehovah’s righteousness. He repackaged it. The core impulse—to enrich one’s group by attacking others—remained. What changed was the justification. Raiding was now “fighting in the path of Allah.” The plunder was now “spoils” allotted by divine decree. Participation in these attacks became a mark of true belief; refusal could be treated as cowardice or even hypocrisy.

Early Medinan reports show a steady stream of small expeditions, often led by trusted companions, sent along the routes that Meccan trade caravans used. Some returned without fighting, having found no suitable target. Others made contact but hesitated to attack. The very existence of these expeditions, however, signaled a new reality: the Quraysh caravans were no longer safe.

This was not defensive warfare. The caravans did not march on Medina to burn fields or assault civilians. They carried goods between Mecca and Syria as they had for generations. Muhammad’s men left Medina, traveled considerable distances, lay in wait, and tried to strike at unarmed or lightly guarded commercial convoys. That is the behavior of raiders, not of defenders.

Instead of condemning this, Muhammad tied it directly to heavenly reward. Those who took part in “expeditions” and later full battles were promised forgiveness and paradise, especially if they died in the process. Those who stayed behind without valid excuse were warned in harsh terms. Obedience to him in raiding became a spiritual test.

The difference between this and biblical ethics is absolute. Jehovah condemned theft, even when it could be cloaked in tribal custom. He forbade His people to covet their neighbor’s goods. When Israel fought, it was under His direct command for specific purposes in salvation history, never as an ongoing economic system. The Lord Jesus did not train His disciples to ambush caravans; He sent them to preach, willing to be poor and persecuted rather than enriched by violence.

In Medina, Muhammad did the opposite. He took a pre-existing violent custom and declared it holy. The raider state was born the moment ghazu became “jihad in the path of Allah.”

Nakhla Raid: Breaking Sacred Months, First Blood Spilled

The clearest early example of this shift from preaching to raiding is the incident at Nakhla, just before the Battle of Badr. It was here that the first blood of Quraysh–Muslim conflict was deliberately spilled—and it was spilled by an ambush, during a sacred month.

Muhammad selected a small group of emigrants and put them under the command of a man from his own family line, Abdullah ibn Jahsh. According to Islamic reports, he handed Abdullah a sealed letter and told him not to open it until they had traveled two days’ distance. When Abdullah finally opened it, the message instructed him to go to Nakhla, a valley between Mecca and Ta’if, and observe the Quraysh caravans passing there. Some accounts suggest that the instruction was left vague, as if Muhammad wanted deniability about what might happen next.

At Nakhla, Abdullah’s party encountered a small Meccan caravan. The men with him hesitated. They knew it was one of the four forbidden months, a time when even pagans normally refrained from fighting. Attacking now would outrage opinion across Arabia. At the same time, the opportunity was tempting. The caravan was vulnerable; the booty would be a welcome prize, and Muhammad had sent them to this exact spot with a suggestive commission.

They chose to attack. In the skirmish, a man from the Quraysh, often named Amr ibn al-Hadrami, was killed. Two others were taken prisoner. The Muslims seized the goods and drove the captured camels back to Medina. It was the first deliberate killing of a Meccan by Muhammad’s followers in the Medinan period.

When they reached Muhammad, he faced an awkward situation. On one hand, the loot and captives were valuable; they also marked a symbolic shift—his community had finally drawn blood. On the other hand, the attack in the sacred month violated a norm that even pagans respected. Some sources report that he initially distanced himself, saying he had not ordered fighting in the sacred month. The Meccans, seizing on the incident, used it to accuse him of trampling Arabian custom and profaning what all tribes held in honor.

At this moment, Muhammad needed a “revelation” to rescue his reputation. A verse duly appeared, acknowledging that fighting in the sacred month was a grave matter, but insisting that greater sins were committed by the Meccans: turning people away from the “path of Allah,” disbelieving Him, barring access to the sacred mosque, and driving believers out. In short, the verse argued that the Quraysh’s ongoing opposition was worse than the Muslims’ violation of the holy month. Therefore, the killing at Nakhla and seizure of the caravan could be justified.

Here again we see the pattern that began with the Satanic Verses and the reduction of prayers. Muhammad acts (or authorizes others to act) in ways that scandalize or confuse, then invokes revelation to retroactively bless the deed. Instead of submitting his conscience to Jehovah’s already revealed Word—which would absolutely forbid unprovoked murder and robbery—he treats his conscience as flexible and his experiences as the source of new law.

For the Quraysh, Nakhla was clear: this man in Medina was not simply preaching. He was now sending out raiders willing to kill during sacred months and justify it as religious duty. The stage was set for Badr. The first blood had been spilled, not in a defensive battle but in a highway ambush of businessmen in a forbidden time. Muhammad owned the result, divided the spoils, and used revelation to sanctify it.

Measured by biblical standards, this alone disqualifies him as Jehovah’s prophet. The Law condemns shedding innocent blood and stealing from travelers. The Lord Jesus rebuked His disciples when they wanted to call down fire on those who rejected Him. Muhammad, faced with rejection, attacked caravans and blamed his victims for their own misfortune.

Asma bint Marwan: Poetess Murdered in Her Bed

While caravans were being stalked beyond Medina’s walls, dissenting voices within the city were being silenced in much darker ways. Two assassinations—one of a 120-year-old man, the other of a woman nursing her child—reveal how Muhammad responded to criticism once he had armed followers around him.

Asma bint Marwan was a woman from a Medinan tribe (often identified as Banu Aws or a related clan) and a poetess. In tribal Arabia, poets had immense influence. Their verses could shame, rally, or destabilize. Asma used her gift to oppose Muhammad. She satirized him, mocked the men of her tribe for following him, and urged them to stand up against his divisive preaching.

Her words were sharp, but they were words, not swords. She did not storm the mosque. She did not raid caravans. She did what poets had always done in Arabia: she used verse to shape opinion.

The early Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq, as preserved by later writers, records that when Muhammad heard of her poems, he was angered and asked, “Who will rid me of the daughter of Marwan?” A man from her own tribe, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adi, took this as authorization. He entered her house at night while she slept with her small children around her, including an infant she was nursing. He killed her in her bed.

In the morning, according to the same reports, ‘Umayr went to Muhammad and informed him of what he had done. Muhammad is said to have praised him, declaring that he had helped Allah and His messenger. He reportedly added that no two goats would butt over her—meaning, no one would care about her death. ‘Umayr later boasted that after the murder, any weakness in his tribe’s support for Muhammad evaporated. People were afraid.

This episode is devastating to claims of Muhammad’s mercy and justice. A prophet of Jehovah, confronted with hostile satire, might indeed be grieved. But he would answer with truth, patience, and calls to repentance—not with whispered requests for a volunteer to murder a nursing mother in the dark. The Lord Jesus was mocked, spat upon, and taunted. His response was to pray for His enemies, “Father, forgive them.” He never said, “Who will rid me of this woman?” and He never accepted the killing of critics as service to God.

Muslim apologists often try to dismiss the Asma story as weak in its chain of transmission. But it appears in early sources that are otherwise used to support Muhammad’s life story. It fits the character of his treatment of other opponents. And even if one tried to discard it, the pattern of assassinating critics in Medina would remain, because Asma was not the only victim.

Abu Afak: 120-Year-Old Man Assassinated for Criticism

Another name appears in the early biographies alongside Asma: Abu Afak. He was an old man, said to be around one hundred and twenty years old, from the Banu Amr ibn ‘Awf. Like Asma, he used poetry to resist the new order Muhammad was building.

Abu Afak had lived through decades of tribal conflict in Yathrib. When he watched Muhammad arrive, declare himself prophet, and begin to rearrange loyalties, he was not impressed. He composed verses lamenting that his people had surrendered their judgment to an outsider and questioning the legitimacy of Muhammad’s claims. In any healthy society, an elderly man voicing misgivings about a new leader would be an ordinary part of political debate.

In Medina under Muhammad, it was a death sentence.

According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” One of his followers, usually identified as Salim ibn ‘Umayr, accepted the mission. He went to Abu Afak at night and found him sleeping in the open among his people. The old man posed no threat. Salim thrust his sword into Abu Afak, killing him in his sleep.

Once again, the deed was presented as religious service, and once again, the message to Medina was unmistakable. Criticism of Muhammad’s authority could be answered with assassination. It did not matter that the critic was a frail centenarian. Age, poetic tradition, and personal harmlessness offered no protection.

Biblically, this is the exact opposite of what Jehovah requires from His servants. The apostle Paul told Timothy that a servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome but kind, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting opponents with gentleness in the hope that God might grant them repentance. When people in Ephesus and elsewhere opposed Paul, he did not gather disciples and ask, “Who will rid me of this man?” He reasoned from the Scriptures, accepted suffering, and left vengeance to God.

Muhammad’s resort to murder for criticism exposes his underlying belief about himself. Anyone who refused his authority was not just wrong; they were an enemy of God deserving death. The raider state was not content to attack caravans. It would also send blades into bedrooms to silence uncomfortable voices.

Taken together, the killings of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan show that the early Medinan community did not uphold freedom of conscience or speech even at the level that many pagan Arabs did. A tribal soothsayer or leader might fume at satirical verses, but the system as a whole tolerated a degree of poetic dissent. Under Muhammad, words alone could bring an assassin to your door.

Expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa Jews

Economic raiding and targeted murders were not the only ways Muhammad consolidated power. He also moved against rival communities inside Medina, starting with the Jewish tribe of Banu Qaynuqa.

The Qaynuqa were craftsmen and goldsmiths, settled in their own quarter with a fortified stronghold. As Jews, they held the Torah and knew the name of Jehovah, though they did not follow Christ and so remained in unbelief. They were economically significant in Medina and not easily dominated.

At first, under the so-called Constitution of Medina, they were recognized as allies in a broader defense pact. Muhammad claimed to respect their religion and presented himself as a prophet in continuity with Moses. But tension grew. As his Islamic community gained confidence—especially after the victory at Badr in 624—he began to resent and fear Jewish independence.

The immediate trigger for conflict, according to Muslim accounts, was an altercation in the Qaynuqa marketplace. A Muslim man allegedly demanded that a Jewish goldsmith reveal a woman’s face or tamper with her clothing. When the craftsman supposedly played a prank that exposed her, a Muslim killed the Jew. The Qaynuqa responded by killing the Muslim. This quarrel from below—sparked by immodesty and violence—became the pretext for a full confrontation from above.

Muhammad marched against the Qaynuqa, laid siege to their quarter, and after about two weeks forced their surrender. He wanted to execute the men. Some reports have him saying that Allah had given him permission to kill them and take their property. But one of the Medinan leaders, Abdullah ibn Ubayy, who had his own history with the tribe, interceded. He physically took hold of Muhammad’s armor or cloak, insisting that he show leniency. Reluctantly, and clearly displeased, Muhammad agreed to spare their lives. Instead, the Qaynuqa were expelled from Medina. Their goods, tools, and property were confiscated and divided.

Thus, the first Jewish tribe fell. Not because they had mounted an invasion of the mosque. Not because they had plotted to wipe out the Muslims. But because they were a self-contained, economically important community that could not be trusted to submit fully to Muhammad’s authority and because a marketplace quarrel gave the excuse he needed.

From that point on, the pattern was set. Jewish tribes who did not accept Muhammad as prophet would either be expelled or, in later cases, face far worse. The “Constitution of Medina” had never guaranteed permanent equality. It had set up a structure where all disputes ultimately went back to one man. When that man saw a rival as troublesome, revelation and force could be combined to remove them.

From a Christian perspective, this is deeply tragic. The Jews of Qaynuqa had the Scriptures that foretold Christ. They were being called, in Jehovah’s plan, to repent and believe in the true Messiah. Instead, they encountered a man who claimed to come in the line of prophets but whose message contradicted both Moses and Christ. He did not shepherd them toward the Gospel. He besieged them and seized their property.

This first expulsion also had a practical function. It enriched the Muslim community. The spoils of Qaynuqa’s goods, workshops, and land flowed into Muhammad’s followers’ hands. The raider state did not only live off caravans from Mecca; it also fed itself by stripping internal rivals of wealth and driving them away.

Economic Warfare and the Starvation of Mecca

While Medina was being reorganized under Muhammad’s authority, Mecca remained the religious and commercial heart of the Quraysh. The Kaaba still stood in pagan hands. Caravans still set out north for Syria and south for Yemen. Pilgrims still came to honor idols. From Muhammad’s standpoint, this could not continue. He wanted Mecca—not just as a spiritual prize, but as an economic and political center.

The strategy that emerged between 622 and 624 was economic warfare. Every raid along the caravan routes, every armed expedition, had two purposes. First, to enrich the Muslim community. Second, to strangle Meccan trade, driving the city into vulnerability.

When we look at the early campaigns recorded in Islamic sources, we find a pattern: small bands heading toward known routes, turning back when caravans eluded them, rejoicing when they captured goods. These were often described as “for God and His messenger,” complete with shares allotted to Muhammad. But Meccan merchants saw the truth: their convoys were being hunted as a matter of policy.

As raids increased and rumor of more attacks spread, Meccan leaders were forced to change routes, take larger escorts, and accept higher risks and costs. Every successful raid signaled to other tribes that siding with Mecca was dangerous and that doing business with Muhammad might be safer. The economic map of western Arabia was beginning to tilt toward Medina.

Muslim apologists insist that these raids were justified “responses” to Meccan oppression. Yet, as the previous chapters showed, Mecca’s so-called persecution had been exaggerated. There had been pressure, yes, but no attempted extermination. By the time of Nakhla and the early raids, many years had passed since any serious Meccan action against Muhammad. It was he who had begun sending armed men out of his city to threaten their commerce.

Jehovah nowhere authorizes His servants to starve a city into submission because it rejected a self-proclaimed prophet. The prophets of Israel preached in hostile environments, suffered scorn, and sometimes faced real danger. But they did not respond by forming raiding parties to intercept grain shipments and caravan trains. When Jerusalem rejected Christ, He wept over the city and foretold its destruction by Roman armies as a judgment from God—not as a campaign organized by His disciples.

Muhammad, by contrast, made economic strangulation a tool of religious policy. He wrapped it in pious language, calling it struggle in the path of Allah. Those who enriched themselves at Mecca’s expense were told they were earning eternal reward. Those who faltered or refused to join were probed and sometimes condemned as weak.

By the time the Battle of Badr arrived in 624, the pattern was fully established. The battle itself was triggered by yet another attempt to strike a major Meccan caravan. The victory at Badr would be remembered as a sign that Allah supports His messenger in war. But the war itself did not fall from the sky. It grew out of two years in which Medina became a raider state: authorizing caravan attacks, murdering inconvenient critics, dispossessing Jewish neighbors, and tightening a noose around Mecca’s economy.

The years 622–624 therefore demolish the myth of a purely defensive, gentle Muhammad. In Medina, once he had a base and men with swords, his true program emerged. Robbery became worship. Murder of poets became “helping Allah and His messenger.” Expulsion of Jews became proof of divine favor. Economic warfare became a holy duty. This was not the work of Jehovah’s prophet. It was the work of a war leader who dared to put the name of God on human greed and vengeance.

You May Also Enjoy

Resisting the Tide of Islamic Indoctrination and Cultural Apostasy With Biblical Boldness

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS