| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád' - Showing that all the Wars of Mohammad Were Defensive; and - that Aggressive War, or Compulsory Conversion, is not - Allowed in The Koran - 1885
Author: Ali, Moulavi Gerágh
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád' - Showing that all the Wars of Mohammad Were Defensive; and - that Aggressive War, or Compulsory Conversion, is not - Allowed in The Koran - 1885" ***
A
CRITICAL EXPOSITION
OF THE
POPULAR "JIHÁD."
A
CRITICAL EXPOSITION
OF THE
POPULAR "JIHÁD."
SHOWING THAT
ALL THE WARS OF MOHAMMAD WERE DEFENSIVE; AND THAT
AGGRESSIVE WAR, OR COMPULSORY CONVERSION,
IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE KORAN.
WITH APPENDICES
PROVING THAT THE WORD "JIHAD" DOES NOT EXEGETICALLY MEAN
'WARFARE,' AND THAT SLAVERY IS NOT SANCTIONED
BY THE PROPHET OF ISLAM.
BY MOULAVI GHERÁGH ALI,
_Author of_
"REFORMS UNDER MOSLEM RULE,"
"HYDERABAD (DECCAN) UNDER SIR SALAR JUNG."
CALCUTTA:
THACKER, SPINK AND CO.
1885.
CALCUTTA:
PRINTED BY THACKER, SPINK AND CO.
NOTE.
I here take the opportunity of removing a wrong idea of the alleged
injunction of the Prophet against our countrymen the Hindús. The Hon'ble
Raja Sivá Prasad, in his speech at the Legislative Council, on the 9th
March, 1883, while discussing the Ilbert Bill, quoted from Amir Khusro's
_Tarikh Alái_ that, "Ala-ud-dín Khiliji once sent for a Kází, and asked
him what was written in the Code of Mehammadan law regarding the Hindús.
The Kází answered that, the Hindús were _Zimmis_ (condemned to pay the
Jízya tax); if asked silver, they ought to pay gold with deep respect
and humility; and if the collector of taxes were to fling dirt in their
faces, they should gladly open their mouths wide. God's order is to keep
them in subjection, and the Prophet enjoins on the faithful to kill,
plunder and imprison them, to make Mussulmáns, or to put them to the
sword, to enslave them, and confiscate their property....'" [_Vide_
Supplement to the _Gazette of India_, April 21, 1883, page 807.]
These alleged injunctions, I need not say here, after what I have stated
in various places of this book regarding intolerance, and compulsory
conversion, are merely false imputations. There are no such injunctions
of the Prophet against either _Zimmis_, (_i.e._, protected or
guaranteed) or the Hindús.
TO
THE HONORABLE
SYED AHMED KHAN BAHADUR, C.S.I.,
THIS BOOK
IS, WITHOUT EVEN ASKING PERMISSION.
AND WHOLLY WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE.
DEDICATED
AS A SLIGHT BUT SINCERE TESTIMONY OF ADMIRATION FOR HIS LONG
AND VARIOUS SERVICES IN THE CAUSE OF ISLAM
AND
IN RESPECT OF HIS RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL REFORMS IN THE
MOSLIMS OF INDIA,
AND
OF GRATITUDE FOR MUCH PERSONAL KINDNESS AND FRIENDSHIP,
BY
THE AUTHOR.
[Transcriber's Note: All errata listed below have been corrected in the
e-text. Mistakes not listed below have been left as they appeared in
the printed book, although missing or misplaced punctuation marks have
been corrected.]
ERRATA.
_Page_ _Line_ _For_ _Read_
v 21 them _Omit_
" 22 them it
xvii _f.n._ Maaddite Moaddite
xxxiv 21 Morra Murra
" 22 Soleim Suleim
xlii 9 Kauuka Kainuka
xliii 22 _f.n._ Mozeima Mozeina
xlv 25 Khusain Khushain
liv 1 Ban Bani
" 10 Ghassianide Ghassanide
lxxxviii 30 Khalips Khalifs
xci 30 Caliphater Caliphate
11 10 Kurzibn Kurz-ibn
18 9 God[2] God:
" " desist[3] desist
" 16 persecution persecution[2]
" 17 (fitnah (fitnah[3])
27 5 liberty and liberty, any of
" 6 brethern merely brethren, merely
" 6-7 such a manner such manner
" 8 Society or Society, or
" 9 of it materially of it, materially
" 12 deserve pity deserve only pity
34 6 Ibu Ibn
61 6 Rafi Rafe
72 24 ibu ibn
" 25 ibu ibn
73 4 bil bin
90 1 as stallions for breeding
purposes
135 28 Durar Dinar
136 16 Sirni Sirin
192 1 Jihad does not mean {Read this as a
the waging of war marginal gloss
" 3 _Jahad_ _Jahd._
" 14 Katal and Kital Read this as a
marginal gloss.
" 20 Conclusion Ditto, ditto.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS.
Introduction i-civ
Note cv
Genealogical Table of the Arabs cvi-cvii
I. The persecutions suffered by the early Moslems 1-11
II. The Meccans or the Koreish 11-16
III. The defensive character of the wars of Mohammad 16-34
IV. The Jews 34-40
V. The Christians or Romans 40-41
VI. The intolerance 42-51
VII. The ninth chapter of _Sura Barát_ 51-55
VIII. The alleged interception of the Koreish caravans
by the Moslems 55-60
IX. The alleged assassinations by the command or
connivance of Mohammad 60-76
X. The alleged cruelty in executing the prisoners of war 76-91
XI. Some miscellaneous objections refuted 91-114
XII. The popular Jihád or Crusade 114-161
Appendix A. The word Jihad in the Koran does not mean warfare 163-192
Appendix B. Slavery and concubinage not allowed by the Koran 193-223
Appendix C. Koranic references 225-227
Index 229-249
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction--
Paras. Page.
1. Object of the book i
2. Early wrongs of the Moslem; justification in taking up
arms, if taken ii
3. Commencement of the war; the Koreish being public
enemy were liable to be treated as such _ib._
4. But the Moslems could not take up arms to redress their
wrongs under certain circumstances iii
5. Moslems otherwise engaged at Medina had no intention
of suffering the horrors of war by taking the initiative,
but were in imminent danger from the enemy iv
6. The Koreish first attacked the Moslems at Medina. They
could not forbear the escape of the Moslems v
7. Three battles waged by the Koreish against Mohammad--Badr,
Ohad, and Ahzáb: these wars on the Moslem side
were purely in defence, not waged even to redress their
wrongs or re-establish their rights vii
8. The battle of Badr was defensive on the part of Mohammad.
Reasons for the same viii
9. Mohammad at Medina, owing to the attacks, inroads, and
threatening gatherings of the Koreish and other tribes,
had hardly time to think of offensive measures xi
10. Armed opposition of the Koreish to the Moslem pilgrims
from Medina in the vicinity of Mecca. The truce of
Hodeibia xv
11. The Koreish again commit hostilities and violate their
pledge. War declared against those who had violated
the truce. War not carried out xvi
12. War with foes other than Koreish xviii
13. Expedition to Tabúk to check the advancing enemy. No
war took place xix
14. Number of the wars of Mohammad much exaggerated:
_Ghazava_ defined; number of actual wars xx
15. The Revd. Mr. Green's remarks on the wars of Mohammad
criticised xxiii
16. Another view of the wars of Mohammad xxviii
17. Caravans if waylaid were waylaid by way of reprisal xxx
18. Intolerance; no compulsory conversion enjoined or took
place during Mohammad's lifetime:
Sir W. Muir quoted and refuted xxxi
19. A brief sketch of the propagation of Islam at Mecca:
Islam at Mecca;
Islam at Abyssinia;
Conversions at Nakhla xxxii
20. Rapid stride of Islam at Medina xxxvii
21. The increasing number of Moslem converts at Mecca
after the Hegira xxxix
22. Disturbed state of the public peace among the tribes
surrounding Medina. Internicine wars, an obstacle to
the propagation of Islam xl
23. Sketch of the intertribal wars in Arabia during the lifetime
of Mohammad xli
24. Spread of Islam in the surrounding tribes at Medina
after the Hegira I--VI xliii
25. Mecca a barrier against the conversion of the Southern
tribes xliv
26. Tribal conversions in the sixth year. Conversion among
several other tribes of the North and North-east in
A.H. VIII xlv
27. Surrender of Mecca, A.H. VIII xlvii
28. Mecca not compelled to believe _ib._
29. The wholesale conversion of the remaining tribes,
A.H. IX and X xlviii
30. The various deputations in the 9th and 10th year of the
Hegira li
31. A list of the deputations of conversion received by
Mohammad at Medina during A.H. IX and X li--lviii
32. All conversions, individual and tribal, were without any
compulsion lix
33. Mohammad was not favoured with circumstances round
him. The difficulty Mohammad encountered in his
work. Marcus Dods quoted:
Dr. Mohseim's causes of the spread of Islam and Hallam
quoted lx--lxv
34. Mohammad's unwavering belief in his own mission and
his success show him to be a true prophet. Mohammad's
efforts established monotheism in Arabia. His
manly exertions, and his single handed perseverance.
The business and office of a prophet described. Sir W.
Muir and Stobart quoted lxv--lxix
35. The reforms of Mohammad, his iconoclastic policy. The
redemption of Arabia from venal debauchery and infatuated
superstition. Muir, Marcus Dods, Stephens
quoted lxix--lxxvii
36. Indictment against Mohammad. His alleged cruelty and
sensuality. Muir, Rev. Hughes, Marcus Dods, and
Stanley Poole refuted lxxviii--lxxxvii
37. Objections to the (1) Finality of the social reforms of
Mohammad, (2) positive precepts, (3) ceremonial law,
(4) morality, (5) want of adaptability to the varying
circumstances lxxxvii--lxxxix
38. All these objections apply rather to the teaching of the
Mohammadan Common Law than to the Koran xc
39. (1) Finality of social reforms of Mohammad discussed.
Intermediary not to be considered final xc--xcii
40. (2) Positive precepts and (3) ceremonial law, pilgrimage,
_Kibla_, amount of alms, fasts, forms and attitude of
prayer, &c.: pretentious prayers and ostentatious
almsgiving xcii--xcvii
41. (4) The Koran, both abstract and concrete in morals xcvii--cii
42. (5) Adaptability of the Koran to surrounding
circumstances cii--ciii
43. Suitability of the Koran to all classes of humanity ciii--civ
Note cv
Genealogical tables of the tribes mentioned in para. 31 of
the Introduction cvi--cvii
ALL THE WARS OF MOHAMMAD WERE DEFENSIVE.
_I.--The Persecution._
1. The early persecution of Moslems by the people of Mecca 2
2. Notices of the persecutions in the Koran 4
3. Insults suffered by Mohammad 5
4. Historical summary of the persecutions 8
5. The Hegira, or the expulsion of the Moslems from Mecca 9
6. The persecution of the Moslems by the Koreish after their
flight from Mecca 11
_II.--The Meccans or the Koreish._
7. A Koreish chieftain commits a raid near Medina, A.H. 1 _ib._
8. The Koreish march to attack Medina. Battle of Badr _ib._
9. Attack by Abu Sofian upon Medina, A.H. 2 12
10. Battle of Ohad 12
11. Mohammad's prestige affected by the defeat _ib._
12. Abu Sofian threatened the Moslems with another attack next
year 13
13. The Koreish again attack Medina with a large army.
Mohammad defends the city. The enemy retire. A.H. 5 14
14. Mohammad with his followers advanced to perform the
lesser pilgrimage of Mecca. The Koreish oppose Mohammad,
who return disappointed. The treaty of Hodeibia 15
15. Violation of the treaty by the Koreish and their submission 16
16. Two other tribes assume the offensive _ib._
_III.--The Defensive Character of the Wars._
17. Verses from the Koran in support of the defensive character
of the wars 25
18. What the above quoted verses show 26
19. Justification of the Moslems in taking up arms against their
aggressors 27
20. The first aggression after the Hegira was not on the part
of Mohammad 28
21. The alleged instances examined 29
22. Hamza and Obeida's expeditions _ib._
23. Abwa, Bowat, and Osheira expeditions 30
24. The affair at Nakhla 31
25. At Badr Mohammad came only in his defence 33
26. The first aggression after the Hegira if from Mohammad,
might fairly be looked upon as retaliation 34
_IV.--The Jews._
27. The Jews broke treaties _ib._
28. Bani Kainukaa, Bani Nazeer, Khyber, and Ghatafán 35
29. Notice of them in Koran 37
30. The judgment of Sád 38
31. Defensive character of the expedition against the Jews of
Khyber 40
_V.--The Christians or Romans._
32. Tabúk, the last expedition _ib._
33. Description of the wars concluded 41
_VI.--The Intolerance._
34. Mohammad never taught intolerance 43
35. In what sense the wars were religious wars 44
36. The alleged verses of intolerance explained 45
37. Sir William Muir quoted 47
38. Comment on the above quotation 50
39. Object of Mohammad's wars 51
_VII.--The Ninth Chapter or Sura Barát._
40. The opening portion of the IX Sura of the Koran only
relates to the Koreish who had violated the truce 55
_VIII.--The alleged Interceptions of the Koreish Caravans._
41. The nine alleged interceptions of the Koreish caravans 57
42. The interceptions were impossible under the circumstances
in which Mohammad was placed 59
43. The interceptions, if occurred, were justified by way of
reprisal 60
_IX.--The alleged Assassinations._
44. Instances of the alleged assassinations cited 61
45. Mr. Stanley Poole quoted 62
46. Asma-bint Marwan 63
47. The story deserves not our belief 64
48. Abu Afak 65
49. Kab, son of Ashraf 66
50. Mohammad could never have had any share in Kab's murder 68
51. Sofian bin Khalid 69
52. Justification of Sofian's alleged murder 70
53. Abu Rafe 72
54. Oseir bin Zarim 73
55. The intended assassination of Abu Sofian 74
56. Irving and Muir quoted; concluding remarks 76
_X.--The alleged Cruelties in executing Prisoners of War
and others._
57. Treatment of the prisoners of war _ib._
58. Law of nations regarding the prisoners of war 77
59. The execution of Nadher Ibn Harith 79
60. The execution of Okba 80
61. Free liberty granted to Ozza, a prisoner of war 81
62. Abul Ozza proved a traitor and was executed _ib._
63. The execution of Moavia Ibn Mughira _ib._
64. Justification of Mughira's execution 82
65. The intended execution of the prisoners of Badr and the
wrong version of Sir W. Muir 83
66. Mohammad was never blamed in the Koran for releasing
prisoners 84
67. The Koran enjoins the prisoners of war to be either freely
liberated or ransomed, but neither executed nor enslaved 87
68. High treason of the Bani Koreiza against Medina and their
execution 88
69. The whole of the Bani Koreiza were never executed _ib._
70. The women and children of Bani Koreiza were never sold 89
71. The exaggerated number of persons executed 91
_XI.--Some Miscellaneous Objections refuted._
72. The execution of Omm Kirfa for brigandage 92
73. The alleged mutilation of the Urnee robbers 93
74. Amputation or banishment substituted temporarily in place of
imprisonment for want of a well organized system of jails 95
75. Torture of Kinana 96
76. The alleged execution of a singing girl 97
77. The charitable spirit of Mohammad towards his enemies 98
78. Abu Basir not countenanced by the Prophet in contravention
to the spirit of the treaty of Hodeibia 101
79. Nueim not employed by the Prophet to circulate false reports
in the enemy's camp 102
80. Deception in war allowed by the International Law _ib._
81. Lecky's standard of morality 104
82. The alleged permission to kill the Jews 106
83. Sir W. Muir quoted 108
84. The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer _ib._
85. Their fruit-trees were not cut down 109
86. Females and the treaty of Hodeibia 110
87. Stanley defended 111
88. Marriage a strict bond of union 113
_The Popular Jihád._
89. The Koran enjoins only defensive wars 114
90. The Mohammadan Common Law and the Jihád 116
91. When is Jihád a positive injunction _ib._
92. The Hedáya quoted and refuted 117
93. Rule of interpretation 118
94. The Common Law and its commentators 119
95. Kifáya quoted 120
96. Further quotations 121
97. The _Kifáya_ refuted 122
98. S. IX, 5, discussed 123
99. S. II, 189, discussed _ib._
100. S. II, 189, and VIII, 40, are defensive 124
101. All injunctions were local and for the time being 125
102. _Ainee_ quoted and refuted _ib._
103. _Sarakhsee_ quoted and refuted 126
104. _Ibn Hajar_ quoted 128
105. _Ibn Hajar_ refuted 129
106. _Halabi_ quoted _ib._
107. _Halabi_ refuted 132
108. _Ainee_ again quoted and refuted _ib._
109. Continuation of the above 133
110. Traditions quoted and refuted _ib._
111. Early Moslem legists against the Jihád 134
112. Biographical sketches of the legists 135
113. European writers' mistakes 137
114. Sir W. Muir quoted and refuted 138
115. Islam not aggressive 139
116. Mr. Freeman quoted and refuted 140
117. The Revd. Mr. Stephens quoted and refuted 141
118. Mr. Bosworth Smith quoted and refuted 143
119. Mr. George Sale quoted and refuted _ib._
120. Major Osborn quoted 146
121. Major Osborn refuted 149
122. The IX Sura of the Koran _ib._
123. The Revd. Mr. Wherry quoted 150
124. Example cited from Jewish history explained 152
125. Mosaic injunctions 153
126. The Revd. Mr. Hughes quoted and refuted 154
127. Meaning of the word Jihád 155
128. Sura XLVIII, 5, explained 156
129. The Revd. Malcolm MacColl quoted 157
130. The untenable theories of the Mohammadan Common Law 158-161
APPENDIX A.
1. Jihád or Jihd in the Koran does not mean war or crusade 163
2. Classical meaning of Jihád, &c. 164
3. Post-classical or technical meaning of Jihád 165
4. The classical logic and Arabian poets _ib._
5. The conjugation and declination of Jahd or Jihád in
the Koran 166
6. The number of instances in which they occur in the Koran 167
7. In what sense they are used in the Koran 168
8. Conventional significations of Jihád 169
9. Mohammadan commentators, &c., quoted 170
10. When the word Jihád was diverted from its original
signification to its figurative meaning of waging
religious wars 171
11. All verses of the Koran containing the word Jihád and its
derivations quoted and explained 176
12. The above verses quoted with remarks 177
_The Meccan Suras._
13. _Lokman_, XXXI, 14 _ib._
14. _Furkan_, XXV, 53, 521 178
15. _The Pilgrimage_, XXII, 76, 78 _ib._
16. _The Bee_, XVI, 108, 111 179
17. _The Spider_, XXIX, 5 180
18. _Ibid_, 7 _ib._
19. _Ibid_, 69 _ib._
20. _The Bee_, XVI, 40 181
21. _Creator_, XXXV, 40 _ib._
_The Medinite Suras._
22. _The Cow or Heifer_, II, 215 182
23. _Al Amran_, III, 136 _ib._
24. _The Spoils_, VIII, 73 183
25. _Ibid._ 75 _ib._
26. _Ibid._ 76 _ib._
27. _The Cattle_, VI, 109 _ib._
28. _Mohammad_, XLVII, 33 184
29. _Battle Array_, LXI, 11 _ib._
30. _Woman._ IV. 97 185
31. _Light._ XXIV, 52 _ib._
32. _The Forbidding._ LXVI, 9 _ib._
33. _The Immunity._ IX, 74 186
36. _The Tried_, LX, 1 187
35. Hatib's _Story_ 188
36. _The Apartment_, XLIX, 15 _ib._
37. _The Immunity_, IX, 16 _ib._
38. _Ibid_. 19 _ib._
39. _Ibid_, 20 189
40. _Ibid_, 24 _ib._
41. _Ibid_, 41 _ib._
42. _Ibid_, 44 190
43. _Ibid_, 82 _ib._
44. _Ibid_, 87 _ib._
45. _Ibid_, 89 191
46. _The Table_, V, 39 _ib._
47. _Ibid_, 58 _ib._
48. _Ibid_, 59 _ib._
49. Jihád does not mean the waging of war 192
50. _Katal_ and _Kitál_ _ib._
51. Conclusion _ib._
APPENDIX B.
1. Slavery and concubinage not allowed by the Koran 193
2. Measures taken by the Koran to abolish future slavery 194
3. None of the prisoners of war was enslaved 196
4. _Bani Koreiza_ not enslaved 198
5. _Rihana_ 201
6. Omar, the second Khalif, liberated all the Arab slaves 202
7. Concubinage 203
8. Maria the Coptic 204
9. Despatch of _Mokowkas_ 205
10 & 11. Maria neither a slave nor a concubine 207
12. Maria had no son 209
13. The story of Maria and Haphsa a spurious one 211
14. The affair not noticed in the early biographies 212
15. Sir W. Muir's authority not valid _ib._
16. The best commentators and traditionalists refute the story 214
17. The story not accredited by the Koran _ib._
18. The story when fabricated _ib._
19. Zeinab's case 215
20. The story a spurious one 216
21. Sir W. Muir's conjectures not justified 217
22. A wrong translation of Sir W. Muir 219
23. In Zeinab's case no exceptional privilege was secured 220
24. The false story traced to _Mukatil_ _ib._
25. _Katádas_ conjectural interpretation not warranted 222
26. Other conjectures 223
APPENDIX C.
I.--The verses of the Koran referring to the persecution of
the Koreish at Mecca 225
II.--The verses of the Koran referring to the aggressions of
the Koreish at Medina as well as those of the inhabitants
thereof _ib._
III.--The verses of the Koran alluding to the wars of defence
against the Koreish and Arabs, &c., with several references
to their aggressions _ib._
IV.--The verses of the Koran alluding to the various battles 226
INTRODUCTION.
[Sidenote: Object of the book.]
1. In publishing this work, my chief object is to remove the general and
erroneous impression from the minds of European and Christian writers
regarding Islam, that Mohammad waged wars of conquest, extirpation, as
well as of proselytizing against the Koreish, other Arab tribes, the
Jews, and Christians;[1] that he held the Koran in one hand and the
scimitar in the other, and compelled people to believe in his mission. I
have endeavoured in this book, I believe on sufficient grounds, to show
that neither the wars of Mohammad were offensive, nor did he in any way
use force or compulsion in the matter of belief.
[Footnote 1: "He now occupied a position where he might become the agent
for executing the divine sentence, and at the same time triumphantly
impose the true religion on those who had rejected it." The Life of
Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, page 211. London, 1877. (New Edition.)
"The free toleration of the purer among the creeds around him, which the
Prophet had at first enjoined, gradually changes into intolerance.
Persecuted no longer, Mohammad becomes a persecutor himself; with the
Koran in one hand, and scymitar in the other, he goes forth to offer to
the nations the three-fold alternative of conversion, tribute,
death."--Mohammed and Mohammedanism, by Mr. R. Bosworth Smith, page 137.
Second Edition.]
[Sidenote: Early wrongs of the Moslems.]
[Sidenote: Justification in taking up arms, if taken.]
2. All the wars of Mohammad were defensive. He and those who took
interest in his cause were severely oppressed at intervals, and were in
a sort of general persecution at Mecca at the hands of the ungodly and
fierce Koreish. Those who were weak and without protection had to leave
their city, and twice fly to the Christian land of Abyssinia, pursued by
the wrathful Koreish, but in vain. Those who remained at Mecca were
subject to all sorts of indignities, malignity and a deprivation of all
religious and social liberty, because they had forsaken the inferior
deities of the Koreish, and believed in the only ONE GOD of Mohammad, in
whose mission they had full belief. Mohammad and his followers had every
sanction, under the natural and international law, then and there to
wage war against their persecutors with the object of removing the
(_fitnah_) persecution and obtaining their civil rights of freedom and
religious liberty in their native city.
[Sidenote: Commencement of the state of war.]
[Sidenote: The Koreish being public enemies were liable to be
treated as such.]
3. The fierce persecutions renewed by the Koreish at the time of the
expulsion of the Moslems from Mecca were acts of hostility tantamount to
a declaration of war. From that time commenced the state of war between
the parties. In the Arab society at Mecca there was neither an organized
Government, nor any distinction between a public and private person and
property. There was no regular army in the State, and what existed was
not a permanently organized body, so provided with external marks that
it could be readily identified. The form of Government at Mecca was
patriarchal, and the chiefs of the Koreish and the citizens of Medina
themselves constituted an army when occasion arose. Therefore, since the
commencement of hostilities or the state of war, every individual of the
Koreish or the Meccans was a public enemy of the Moslems, and liable to
be treated as such in his person and property, except those who were
unable to take part in the hostilities, or, as a matter of fact,
abstained from engaging in them. Therefore it was lawful for the Moslems
to threaten or to waylay the caravans of the enemy, which passed to and
from Mecca close to Medina, and also to attack the Koreish at Mecca, if
they could possibly do so.
[Sidenote: But the Moslems could not take up arms to redress their
wrongs under certain circumstances.]
4. But as the people amongst whom the Prophet and his fugitive Moslems
now sojourned had only pledged to defend them at Medina, the flying
Mohammadans could not take up arms against their aggressors, the
Koreish, to defend their rights of religious liberty and citizenship,
much less of taking arms to compel the non-believers to believe in
Moslem faith, and so they preferred to live in peace at Medina, and
enjoy the blessings of their new religion without any disturbance from
without, if possible.
[Sidenote: Moslems otherwise engaged at Medina had no intention of
suffering the horrors of war by taking the initiative.]
[Sidenote: But were in imminent danger from the enemy.]
5. In fact, the Moslems, after suffering so long such heavy persecutions
at Mecca, had at length got an asylum of peace at Medina, where they had
very little desire left to entertain any idea of commencing hostilities
or undergoing once more the horrors of war, and were too glad to live in
peace after their last escape. The people of Medina had only agreed to
defend the Prophet from attack, not to join him in any aggressive steps
towards the Koreish. The attention of Mohammad and his followers who had
fled with him was mainly occupied in preaching and teaching the tenets
of Islam, in establishing a fraternity between the refugees and the
citizens, in building a house for prayer, in providing houses for
refugees, in contracting treaties of neutrality with the Jews of Medina
and other surrounding tribes, Bani Zamra (a tribe connected with Mecca)
and also with Bani Mudlij (a tribe of Kinana related to the Koreish), in
anticipation of the impending danger[2] from the Koreish, who had
pursued them on the similar occasions before, and in organizing, above
all these, some of the religious and civil institutions for the
Moslems, who were now fast assuming the position of an independent
society or commonwealth. Under such circumstances, it was next to
impossible for Mohammad or his adherents to think of anything like an
offensive war with their inveterate foes, or to take up arms for
proselytizing purposes.
[Footnote 2: See Sura XXIV, verse 54.]
[Sidenote: The Koreish first attacked the Moslems at Medina. They could
not forbear the escape of the Moslems.]
6. The Koreish, seeing the persecuted had left almost all their native
lands for a distant city out of their approach, except by a military
expedition, and losing Mohammad, for whose arrest they had tried their
utmost, as well as upon hearing the reception, treatment, religious
freedom and brotherly help the Moslems received and enjoyed at Medina,
could not subdue their ferocious animosity against the exiles. The
hostility of the Koreish had already been aroused. The severity and
injustice of the Koreish was so great, that when, in 615 A.D., a party
of 11 Moslems had emigrated to Abyssinia, they had pursued them to
overtake them. And again, in 616 A.D., when the persecution by the
Koreish was hotter than before, a party of about 100 Moslems had fled
from Mecca to Abyssinia, the Koreish sent an embassy to Abyssinia to
obtain the surrender of the emigrants. There is every reason to believe
that the Koreish, enraged as they were on the escape of the Moslems in
their third and great emigration in 622 A.D., would naturally have
taken every strong and hostile measure to persecute the fugitives.[3]
It was in the second year from the general expulsion of the Moslems from
Mecca that the Koreish, with a large army of one thousand strong,
marched upon the Moslems at Medina. Medina being 250 miles or 12 stages
from Mecca, the aggressive army, after marching 8 stages, arrived at
Badr, which is 3 or 4 stages from Medina. Mahommad--with only 300
Moslems, more being from among the people of Medina than the
refugees--came out of Medina in self-defence to encounter the Koreish,
and the famous battle of Badr was fought only at thirty miles from
Medina. There could be no doubt that the affair was purely and
admittedly a defensive one.
Sura XXII, verses 39-42, copied at page 17 of this book, was first
published in the matter of taking up arms in self-defence after the
battle of Badr.
[Footnote 3: The idea of forbearance on the part of the Koreish, as
entertained by Sir W. Muir, is not borne out by their former conduct of
persecuting the believers and pursuing the fugitives among them. He
says: "Mahomet and Abu Bakr trusted their respective clans to protect
their families from insult. But no insult or annoyance of any kind was
offered by the Coreish. Nor was the slightest attempt made to detain
them; although it was not unreasonable that they should have been
detained as hostages against any hostile incursion from Medina"[A]. They
were contemplating a grand pursuit and attack on the Moslems, and had no
reason to detain the families of Mahomet and Abu Bakr as hostages whilst
they could not think that the Moslems will take the initiative, as they
were too glad to escape and live unmolested.]
[Footnote A: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol II, page 265.]
[Sidenote: The three battles waged by the Koreish against Mohammad.]
7. The Koreish carried on three aggressive battles against the Moslems
at Medina. The first, called the Battle of Badr, took place at thirty
miles from Medina, the Koreish having come down 250 miles from Mecca.
The second, called the Battle of Ohad, was fought at a distance of one
mile from Medina, the enemy having advanced 250 miles from Mecca. The
third was the battle of confederates, in which they had mustered an army
of ten thousand strong. The city was besieged for several days, and the
Moslems defended themselves within the walls of Medina which they had
entrenched. These were the only battles between the Koreish and
Mohammad, in each the latter always acted on the defensive. Neither he
attacked the Koreish offensively to take revenge, nor to compel them by
force of arms to accept his religion.
[Sidenote: These wars were purely in defence, not to redress their
wrongs or to establish their rights.]
Even these three battles were not waged by Mohammad to redress wrong or
establish imperilled rights. They were only to repel force by right of
self-defence. Had Mohammad and his Moslems invaded Mecca and fought
battles against the Koreish there, he would have been justified for
waging war to redress the injuries of person and property inflicted by
the Meccans on the Moslems whom they were tormenting for their religion
and had expelled them from their homes, and had even barred their
yearly visitation to the shrine of Kaába. A war which is undertaken for
just causes, to repel or avert wrongful force, or to establish a right,
is sanctioned by every law, religious, moral or political.
[Sidenote: The battle of Badr was defensive.]
8. Sir W. Muir, the great advocate for the aggressive Koreish, holds
that the war of Badr was "brought on by Mahomet himself,"[4] and that he
intended to surprise the caravan of the Koreish returning from Syria
under the charge of Abu Sofian, and had come out to Medina to waylay it.
Abu Sofian sent for an army of the Koreish for his aid, and thus
commenced the battle of Badr. I have given my reasons at pages 74-76 of
the book to show that this is a false account. I will point out from
contemporary records, _i.e._, the Koran, that Mohammad neither meant,
nor had he come out of Medina, to attack the caravan.
[Sidenote: Reasons for the same.]
I. The verses 5 and 6 of Sura VIII[5] show that a part of the believers
were quite averse to Mohammad's coming out of Medina on the occasion of
the battle of Badr. Had their mission been one of plundering rich
caravans, as it is generally alleged, there could be no reason for that
aversion of a party of believers who are accused so often of a hostile
attitude towards the Koreish, and possessed of that great love of booty
and adventure so prominent among the Arabs. The fact is, a party of
believers had disputed with Mohammad the necessity of the combat and its
probable result outside Medina. They preferred to defend themselves
within its walls. This argument is against the allegation that Mohammad
with his followers had started to waylay the caravan, and the Koreish
had come only to rescue it.
II. The 43rd[6] verse of the same Sura shows that it was by a mere
accident or coincidence that all the three parties of the Moslems, the
Koreshite army and the caravan had arrived, and encamped close to Badr
in front of each other. This is an argument against those who say that
Mohammad had intentionally come to Badr to waylay the caravan there.[7]
There was, in fact, no predetermination on the part of Mohammad either
to waylay the caravan, or encounter the Koreish army at Badr. Mohammad
with his followers had come out only to check the advancing enemy in his
self-defence.
III. The seventh[8] verse of the same Sura shows that while the parties
had so accidentally encamped close to each other, the Moslems had
desired then and there only to attack the caravan, as a reprisal or by
way of retaliation, instead of combating with the Koreish army. This is
an argument in support of my contention that there was no previous
arrangement to attack the caravan.
IV. The same verse also shows that Mohammad had no intention of
attacking the caravan either before his coming out of Medina, as it is
alleged by ignorant people, or after coming at Badr in front of the
enemy's army.
V. Sura VIII, verse 72,[9] which treats of the prisoners of the war
taken at Badr, expressly notes the treachery of the Meccans before their
being taken prisoner, and refers obviously to their aggressively setting
out of Mecca to attack the Moslems at Medina.
VI. Sura IX, verse 13,[10] at a subsequent event of the violation of
the truce of Hodeibia by the Koreish, very distinctly charges them with
attacking first and waging offensive war and being aggressive. As there
was no war or attack from the Koreish on the Moslems before Badr, I
conclude that in the war of Badr the Koreish were aggressive.
[Footnote 4: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 255, _foot-note_. This
note has been expunged in the New Edition of "The Life": _Vide_ page
317.]
[Footnote 5: 5. "_Remember_ how thy Lord caused thee to go forth from
thy home on _a mission_ of truth, and verily a part of the believers
were quite averse to it."
6. "They disputed with thee about the truth after it had been made
clear, as if they were being led forth to death and saw it before them."
Sura VIII.]
[Footnote 6: 43. "When ye were encamped on the near side of the valley,
and they were on the further side, and the caravan was below you, if ye
have made an engagement to _attack_, ye would assuredly have failed the
engagement; but _ye were led into action notwithstanding_, that God
might accomplish the thing _destined_ to be done." Sura VIII.]
[Footnote 7: Muir's Life of Mahomet. New Edition, page 226.]
[Footnote 8: "And _remember_ when God promised you that one of the two
troops should fall to you, and ye desired that they who had no arms
should fall to you: but God purposed to prove true the truth of his
words, and to cut off the uttermost part of the infidels."]
[Footnote 9: "But if they seek to deal treacherously with thee--they
have already dealt treacherously with God before! Therefore hath He
given you power over them."]
[Footnote 10: "Will ye not do battle with a people who have broken their
covenant and aimed to expel your Apostle and attacked you first? Will
you dread them?"]
[Sidenote: Mohammad, owing to the attacks, inroads and threatening
gatherings from the Koreish and other Arab tribes, had hardly time to
think of offensive measures.]
9. But Mohammad, harassed and attacked every year by the Koreish and
other hostile Arab tribes, had hardly any time to wage an aggressive war
against his Koreshite foes, to establish his imperilled rights, or to
redress the injuries of the Moslems or his own wrong; much less of
taking up arms to compel them to renounce idolatry and believe in his
Divine mission. During the first year after their expulsion from Mecca,
the Moslems were in constant danger from the ferocity of the Koreish,
and when Mohammad was contracting treaties of neutrality with the
neighbouring tribes, Kurz-bin-Jábir, a Koreish of the desert, committed
a raid upon Medina. In the course of the second year the Koreish fought
the battle of Badr, followed by a petty inroad of theirs upon Medina at
the end of the year. The Bani Nazeer treasoned against Medina by giving
intelligence to, and entertaining, the enemy. In the beginning of the
third year, the nomad tribes of Suleim and Ghatafán, inhabitants of the
plains of Najd, and descendants of a stock common with the Koreish,
twice projected a plundering attack upon Medina. At the same time the
Moslems were defeated at the battle of Ohad, near Medina, by the
Koreish, which circumstance greatly affected the prestige of the
Prophet, who was threatened with a similar fate the next year by his
victorious enemies. With the opening of the fourth year, the inimical
spirit of many of the Bedouins, as well as that of the Jews of Bani
Nazeer, was perceptible, and in various quarters large masses were
organized to act against Mohammad and to take advantage of the defeat at
Medina. The tribes of Bani Asad and Bani Lahyán were brought together to
follow the victory of the Koreish at Ohad. And last, not least, the
Moslem missionaries were cut to pieces at Ráji and Bir Máuna. At the
close of the year, the people of Medina were alarmed by an exaggerated
account of the preparations at Mecca to attack Medina as promised last
year (Sura III, v. 176). During the fifth year certain tribes of
Ghatafán were assembling with suspicious purposes at Zat-al-Rikaa and
the marauding bands near Dumatal Jandal threatened a raid upon Medina.
The Bani Mustalik, a branch of Khozaa, hitherto friendly to Mohammad's
cause, took up arms with a view of joining the Koreish in the intended
attack upon Medina. At the end of the year, the Koreish, joined by an
immense force of the Bedouin tribes,[11] marched against Medina, and
laid siege to it for many days. The Bani Koreiza, having defected from
Mohammad, joined the Koreish army when Medina was besieged.
In the beginning of the sixth year Uyeina, the chief of the Bani
Fezárá, had committed an inroad upon Medina.[12] A Medinite caravan,
under the charge of Zeid-bin-Háris, was seized and plundered by the Bani
Fezárá.[13] In the month of Zul-Kada, (the eleventh month of the Arab
lunar year), when war was unlawful throughout Arabia, but much more so
within the sacred precincts of Mecca, Mohammad and his followers,
longing to visit the house of their Lord and the sacred places around
it, and to join the yearly pilgrimage which they had grown from their
childhood to regard as an essential part of their social and religious
life, not to mention their intense desire of seeing their houses and
families from which they were unjustly expelled, started from Medina for
performing the lesser pilgrimage. They were under the impression that,
in the peaceful habits of pilgrims, the Koreish would be morally bound
by every pledge of national faith to leave them unmolested, and Mohammad
had promised them a peaceful entry. But the Koreish armed themselves and
opposed the progress of the Moslems towards Mecca, notwithstanding the
pious object and unwarlike attitude of the pilgrims. At length a treaty,
in terms unfavourable to the Moslems, but in fact a victory won by
Islam, was concluded by Mohammad and the Koreish at Hodeibia. By this
peace war was suspended for ten years.
From my brief sketch of Mohammad's first six years' sojourn in Medina,
it is evident that during this time Medina was constantly in a sort of
military defence. The Moslems were every moment in the danger of an
invasion, attack, or inroad from without, and treachery, conspiracy and
treason from within. They either had to encounter superior numbers or to
disperse hostile gathering or to chastise sometimes marauding tribes. So
Mohammad could scarcely breathe freely at Medina, but much less could he
find time and opportunity to mature a scheme of attacking the Koreish at
Mecca in order to revenge himself and his refugees for the persecutions
which the Koreish had inflicted on the Moslems, to redress their wrongs,
and to re-establish their rights of civil and religious liberty, or to
make converts of them or any other tribes at the point of sword.
[Footnote 11: Bani Ashja, Murra Fezárá, Suleim, Sád, Asad, and several
clans of Ghatafán, the Jews of Wady-al-Koraa and Khyber.]
[Footnote 12: A party of Moslems at Zil Kassa was slain, and Dihya, sent
by Mohammad to the Roman Emperor, on his return, was robbed of every
thing by the Bani Juzám beyond Wady-al-Kora.]
[Footnote 13: The Jews at Khyber were enticing the Bani Fezárá and Bani
Sad-bin-Bakr and other Bedouin tribes to make depredations upon Medina.]
[Sidenote: Armed opposition of the Koreish to the Moslem pilgrims in the
vicinity of Mecca.]
[Sidenote: Mohammad proclaimed war against the opposing Koreish to
obtain the right of civil and religious liberty at Mecca.]
10. It was only when the Moslems, unarmed as they were in pilgrim's
garb, were opposed by the armed Koreish, who had encamped at Zú Towa,
clothed in panther's skin, or, in other words, with a firm resolution to
fight to the last, and when Osman, the Moslem envoy to Mecca, was
actually placed in confinement,[14] of whom the rumour was constantly
rife that he was murdered at Mecca, and when a party of the Koreish had
actually attacked the camp of Mohammad,[15] that excitement, alarm and
anxiety prevailed in the Moslem camp, and Mohammad took a solemn oath
from the Faithful to stand by their cause even unto death. (Sura
XLVIII.[16]) In the meantime appeals were received from the Moslems
detained in confinement at Mecca, and otherwise oppressed for
deliverance. _Vide_ Sura IV, verses 77, 99, 100; Sura VIII, verses 72,
73. He, on this occasion, proclaimed a war with the Koreish in the event
of their attacking first, and enjoining the believers to redress their
earlier and later wrongs, to establish their civil and religious
liberty, to have free access to their native city, to have the free
exercise of their religion, and to make away with the oppressions of
Koreish once for all.
The following verses were published on the occasion:--Sura II, verses
186-190, 212-215. The Sura XLVIII afterwards had reference to the
occasion, specially verses 10, 22-27. They are quoted in pp. 17-19.
[Sidenote: The war thus proclaimed did not take place.]
But happily a truce was agreed upon, and not a drop of blood was shed on
either side. Thus the injunctions contained in the verses referred to
above were never carried out. Mohammad, in proclaiming this war, had all
the laws and justice on his side. Even this war, had it been waged,
would have been defensive, undertaken for the purpose of establishing
the civil rights of the Moslems and their religious liberty, hitherto
unjustly denied them.
[Footnote 14: Ibn Hisham, p. 746.]
[Footnote 15: _Ibid._ 745, see Sura XLVIII.]
[Footnote 16: Mohammad had gained over some of the Bedouin tribes in the
direction of Mecca, and were on friendly terms with him. At this time
they were summoned by Mohammad to join him if there be a war. They did
not join him except a very few.]
[Sidenote: The Koreish again commit hostilities and violate their
pledges.]
[Sidenote: War declared against those who had violated the truce.]
11. This truce did not last long. The last act of hostility on the part
of the aggressive Koreish was the violation of the truce within two
years of its being concluded. This resulted in the submission of Mecca.
The tribe of Bani Khozáa,[17] who were now converts to Islam since the
truce, and who had entered into an open alliance with Mohammad at the
treaty, were attacked by the Koreish and their allies, the Bani
Bakr.[18] The aggressed Moslems appealed for aid to Mohammad through a
deputation, that displayed their wrongs to Mohammad and his followers in
very touching terms, urging in a plaintive tone to avenge them upon the
treacherous murderers. War was declared by Mohammad against the
aggressors, who had violated the truce, and attacked the Bani Khozáa, to
redress their wrongs. A proclamation was issued declaring immunity from
God and his Apostle to those who had broken the league and aided the
Bani Bakr against the Khozáa. Four months' time was allowed them to make
terms, in default of which they were to be warred against, seized, and
besieged, in short, to suffer all the hardships of war. Sura IX, verses
1-15, was published declaring the war. It has been copied at pages 22-25
of the book.
[Sidenote: War not carried out.]
But the threatened war did not actually take place, and Mecca
surrendered by a compromise. Thus Mohammad obtained his object of civil
and religious liberty of the Moslems at Mecca and Medina, and averted
the (_fitnah_) persecutions and oppressions of the Koreish without
actual war or bloodshed, and also secured peace for his followers in
exchange of the constant fear and agitation impending over them. This
was promised some years ago in Sura XXIV, verse 54, which runs as
follows:--
"God hath promised to those of you who believe and do the things
that are right, that He will cause them to succeed other in the
land, as He gave succession to those who went before them, and that
He will establish for them their religion in which they delight,
and that after their fears He will give them security in exchange.
They shall worship Me: nought shall they join with Me: And whoso
after this believe not, they will be the impious."
[Footnote 17: The Bani Khozáa are also taken notice of in Sura VIII,
verses 73-74.]
[Footnote 18: The Bani Bakr, son of Abd Monát, were a branch of Kinána
of the Moaddite stock.]
[Sidenote: War with foes other than the Koreish.]
12. Now I shall dispense with the Koreish and refer to the wars of other
enemies of the early Moslems. There is only one war of the Arab tribes
other than the Koreish noticed in the Koran, and that is the battle of
Honain. In this war the Sakifites were the aggressors. The battle of
Muraisia is not noticed in the Koran, but it is stated by biographers
that information of a new project against him after the defeat at Ohad
in the direction of Mecca, and the Bani Mustalik's raising fresh forces
with a view of joining the Koreish in the threatened attack of Medina
having reached Mohammad, he resolved by a bold attempt to prevent their
design. I have shown in the book that the expedition of Mohammad against
Khyber was purely in self-defence. A war undertaken to protect ourselves
from the impending danger of an attack from the enemy and with the
purpose of checking its advance, is a defensive war under the Law. I am
not going to treat of expedition of the Bani Koreizá separately, but
this much is necessary to say here, that they had treacherously defected
from the Moslem with whom they had entered into a defensive alliance,
and had joined the confederate army against the Moslems. For a detail
account of them, the reader is referred to pages 87-91 of this book.
[Sidenote: Expedition to Tabúk to check the advancing enemy. No war took
place.]
13. The expedition of Mecca, already described, ended in a submission
and compromise without any resort to arms; that against Tabúk was
undertaken, as it is admitted by all writers, Moslem and European, for
purely defensive purposes. Mohammad was much alarmed on this occasion
owing to the threatening news of a foreign invasion against the Moslem
commonwealth. The following verses of the Ninth Sura are most probably
directed towards the Romans and their Jewish and Christian allies,[19]
if not towards the Jews of Khyber:--
29. "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been
given as believe not in God or in the last day, and who forbid not
that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not
the profession of the Truth, until they pay tribute out of hand,
and they be humbled."
124. "Believers wage war against such of the unbelievers as are
your neighbours, and let them assuredly find rigour in you, and
know that God is with those who fear him."--_Sura IX._
Mohammad returned without any war, and there was no occasion to carry
out the injunctions contained in these verses.
Mohammad had taken great pains, according to the severity of the
impending danger, to induce the Moslems to go to war in their own
defence. But as the season was hot, and the journey a long one, some of
them were very backward in doing so.
There is a very violent denunciation against those who on various false
pretences held back on the occasion.
[Footnote 19: The Jews of Macna Azrúh and Jabra, and the Christian
Chiefs of Ayla and Dúma.]
[Sidenote: Number of the wars of Mohammad.]
14. The above sketch of the hostilities will show that there were only
five battles in which actual fighting took place. The biographers of
Mohammad and the narrators of his campaigns are too lax in enumerating
the expeditions led by Mohammad. They have noted down the names and
accounts of various expeditions without having due regard to a rational
criticism, or without being bound by the stringent laws of the technical
requirements of traditionary evidence. Consequently, they give us
romances of the expeditions without specifying which of them are true
and which fictitious. There are many expeditions enumerated by the
biographers[20] which have, in fact, no trustworthy evidence for their
support; some are altogether without foundation, and some of them are
wrongly termed as expeditions for warring purposes. _Ghazávát_ is
wrongly understood by European writers as meaning "plundering
expeditions." Deputations to conclude friendly treaties, missions to
teach Islam, embassies to foreign chiefs, mercantile expeditions,
pilgrims' processions, parties sent to disperse or chastise a band of
robbers, or to watch the movements of an enemy, spies sent to bring
information, and forces dispatched or led to fight with or check an
enemy are all called "_Ghazavát_" (expeditions,) "_Saráya_" and "_Baús_"
(enterprises and despatches). Thus the number of Mohammad's expeditions
has been unduly exaggerated, first by biographers, who noted down every
expedition or warlike enterprise reported in the several authentic and
unauthentic traditions long after their occurrences, and did not at all
trouble their heads by criticising them; and secondly by giving all
missions, deputations, embassies, pilgrims' journies, and mercantile
enterprises under the category of "_Ghazavát_" and "_Saráya_," lately
construed by European writers as "plundering expeditions," or "a
despatch of body of men with hostile intents." The biographers, both
Arabian and European, have gone so far as to assert that there were 27
expeditions led by Mohammad in person, and 74 others headed by persons
nominated by himself, making in all 101. This number is given by Ibn Sád
Kátib Wákidi (vide _Kustaláni_, Vol. VI, page 386). Ibn Is-hak also
gives the number of Mohammad's expeditions to be 27, while others led at
his order are put down at 38 only (vide _Ibn Hishám_, pp. 972 and 973).
Abú Yola has a tradition from Jabir, a contemporary of Mohammad, who
mentions only 21 expeditions. But the best authority, Zeid-bin-Arqam, in
the earliest traditions collected by Bokhári, _Kitábul Maghazi_, in two
places in his book, reduces the number to 19, including all sorts of
expeditions and the number in which he was with Mohammad. Out of these
alleged 27, 21, 19 and 17 expeditions, there were only 8[21] or 9,[22]
in which an actual fighting took place. Even the latter minimized
numbers are not deserving of confidence. The actual expeditions are as
follow:--
1. Badr.
2. Ohad.
* Muraisi.
3. Ahazáb.
* Koreiza.
4. Khyber.
* Mecca.
5. Honain.
* Táyif.
There are no good authorities for the war at Muraisi with the Bani
Mustalik. There were no fightings with the Koreiza, as their affair was
but a continuation of the war of Ahzab, and therefore does not require a
separate number. At Mecca there was no action, and it surrendered by a
compromise. As for Táyif it was a part of the battle of Honain like
Autás. It was besieged to lay hold of the fugitives who had sought there
a shelter, and subsequently the siege was raised. Thus, there remain
only five expeditions, which I have numbered out of nine, in which
Mohammad fought against his enemies in his and his followers' defence.
Even these five scarcely deserve the name of battle. From a military
point of view, they were but petty skirmishes in their results. The
enemy's loss at Badr was 49, at Ohad 20, at Ahzáb 3, at Khyber 93, and
at Honain 93; but the last two numbers are open to doubt, and seem to be
exaggerated. The loss on the Moslem side was 14, 74, 5, 19, and 17
respectively. The whole casualties in these wars on the side of the
Moslems were 129, and on that of the enemies 258, which is exactly
double those of the Moslems, and looks suspicious; hence it must be
accepted with caution.
[Footnote 20: The biographers have only compiled or arranged the mass of
popular romances and favourite tales of campaigns, which had become
stereotyped in their time, but were for the most part the inventions of
a playful fantasy.]
[Footnote 21: Musa-bin-Akba (died 141 A.H.)]
[Footnote 22: Ibn Sád and Ibn Is-hak as already alluded to.]
[Sidenote: Mr. Green quoted.]
15. The Rev. Samuel Green writes:--
"It has been insinuated that Mahomet first took up arms in his own
defence, and by more than one historian he has been justified in
seeking to repel or prevent the hostilities of his enemies, and to
exact a reasonable measure of retaliation. 'The choice of an
independent people,' says Gibbon, 'had exalted the fugitive of
Mecca to the rank of a sovereign, and he was invested with the just
prerogative of forming alliances, and of waging offensive or
defensive war.'[23] That such a sentiment was entertained by a
Mahometan does not at all surprise us, nor is it marvellous that it
should be justified by an infidel; if it be true, war needs nothing
to render laudable but the pretext of former injuries and the
possession of power. The defence set up for Mahomet is equally
availing for every sanguinary and revengeful tyrant; and men,
instead of being bound together by the ties of clemency and mutual
forgiveness of injuries, are transformed into fiends, watching for
the opportunity of destroying each other."[24]
There was no pretence of former injuries on the part of the Moslems to
make war on the Koreish. They were actually attacked by the Koreish and
were several times threatened with inroads by them and their allies. So
it was not until they were attacked by the enemy that they took up arms
in their own defence, and sought to repel and prevent hostilities of
their enemies. The defence set up for Mohammad is not equally availing
of every sanguinary and revengeful tyrant. It was not only that Mohammad
was wronged or attacked, but all the Moslems suffered injuries and
outrages at Mecca, and when expelled therefrom, they were attacked upon,
were not allowed to return to their homes, and to perform the pilgrimage
there. The social and religious liberty, a natural right of every
individual and nation, was denied them. A cruel or revengeful tyrant may
not be justified in taking up arms in his own defence, or in seeking to
redress his personal wrongs and private injuries; but the whole Moslem
community at Mecca was outraged, persecuted and expelled,--and the
entire Mohammadan commonwealth at Medina was attacked, injured and
wronged,--their natural rights and privileges were disregarded--after
such miseries the Moslems took up arms to protect themselves from the
hostilities of their enemies and to repel force by force; and were
justified by every law and justice.
The right of self-defence is a part of the law of nature, and it is the
indispensable duty of civil society to protect its members. Even if a
sanguinary and revengeful tyrant were to do so in his own behalf, he
would be quite justified in this particular act. A just war, that is one
undertaken for just causes to repel or revert wrongful force, or to
establish a right, cannot be impeached on any ground, religious, moral,
or political. But the Moslems had tried every possible means of
obtaining a pacific solution of the difficulty which had arisen between
them and their enemies, the Koreish and the Jews, to avert war and its
horrors. Mohammad had repeatedly informed the Koreish that if they
desist they will be forgiven.
88. "But if they desist, then verily God is gracious, merciful."
189. "But if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save
against wrong-doers."--_Sura II._
19. "_O Meccans!_ if ye desired a decision, now hath the decision
come to you. It will be better for you to give over _the struggle_.
If ye return _to it_, we will return; and your forces, though they
be many, shall by no means avail you aught, because God is with the
faithful."
39. "Say to the infidels: If they desist what is now past shall be
forgiven them; but if they turn _to it_, they have already before
them the doom of the former."--_Sura VIII._
And the same was the case regarding the Jews.
104. "Many of those who have Scripture would like to bring you back
to unbelief after you have believed, out of selfish envy, even
after the truth hath been shown to them. Forgive them then, and
shun them till God shall come with his decree. Truly God hath power
over all things."--_Sura II._
63. "But if they lean to peace, lean thou also to it; and put thy
trust in God. He verily is the hearing, the knowing."--_Sura VIII._
16. ... "Thou wilt not cease to discover the treacherous ones among
them, except a few of them. But forgive them and pass it over.
Verily God loveth those who act generously."--_Sura V._
But there could be no peace or mutual agreement on the part of the enemy
until the truce of Hodeibia, which was also violated by them in a short
time.
Even in the wars which were waged for self-preservation, the Prophet had
very much mitigated the evils which are necessarily inflicted in the
progress of wars. Fraud, perfidy, cruelty, killing women, children and
aged persons were forbidden by Mohammad;[25] and a kind treatment of the
prisoners of war enjoined. But foremost of these all--slavery, and
domestication of concubinary slaves, the concomitant evils of war--were
abolished by him, ordering at the same time that prisoners of war should
be either liberated gratis or ransomed. Neither they were to be enslaved
nor killed. (_Vide_ Sura XLVII, verses 4 and 5; and Appendix B of this
work.) Attacking offensively was forbidden by the Koran (II, 186 _La
Taatadú_, _i.e._ 'Do not attack first'). Mohammad had taken oaths from
the Moslems to refrain from plundering (_vide_ page 58 of this book).
"All hostilities and plundering excursions between neighbouring
tribes that had become Musalman he forbade on pain of death; and
this among those who had hitherto lived by plunder or by war, and
who he knew might be deterred by such prohibition from joining him.
'Let us make one more expedition against the Temim,' said a tribe
that was almost, but not altogether, persuaded to embrace the
faith, 'and then we will become Musalmans.'"[26]
"In avenging my injuries," said he (Mohammad), "molest not the
harmless votaries of domestic seclusion; spare the weakness of the
softer sex, the infant at the breast, and those who in the course
of nature are hastening from this scene of mortality. Abstain from
demolishing the dwellings of the unresisting inhabitants; destroy
not their means of subsistence, respect their fruit trees, and
touch not the palm, so useful to the Syrians for its shade, and
delightful for its verdure."[27]
"The Bani Bakr," writes Sir W. Muir, "meanwhile, foreseeing from
the practice of the Prophet that, under the new faith, their mutual
enmities would be stifled, resolved upon a last passage of arms
with their foes. The battle of _Shaitain_ fought at the close of
630 A.D. was a bloody and fatal one to the Bani Tamím."[28]
[Footnote 23: "Decline and Fall, Chap. 1."]
[Footnote 24: The Life of Mahomet, founder of the religion of Islamism
and of the Empire of the Saracens, by the Rev. Samuel Green, page 126:
London, 1877.]
[Footnote 25: Mohammad's instruction to Abdal-Rahman was--"In no case
shalt thou use deceit or perfidy, nor shalt thou kill any child."--Muir,
Vol. IV, p. 11.]
[Footnote 26: 'Quoted by Dr. Cazenove,' "Christian Remembrancer,"
January, 1855, page 71, from Caussin de Perceval. Mohammed &
Mohammedanism. By R. Bosworth Smith, Second Edn., pp. 257 & 258. London,
1876.]
[Footnote 27: An History of Mohammedanism; comprising the Life and
Character of the Arabian Prophet; by Charles Mills, page 27. London
1818.]
[Footnote 28: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, Intro., p. ccxxvii. London,
1861.]
[Sidenote: Another view of the wars of Mohammad.]
16. There is another view of the wars of Mohammad held by some of the
European and American writers that he commenced hostilities on the
caravans of the Koreish which passed from Medina by way of reprisal and
retaliation,[29] and that he at first took up arms in his self-defence,
but at last he proclaimed, and waged, offensive wars against the
Koreish.[30] I have already shown how improbable the line of action was
on the part of Mohammad under the circumstances at Medina; and this line
of policy is quite contrary to the several verses of the Koran on the
subject, all enjoining the waging of wars in self-defence. But supposing
that hostilities were first commenced by Mohammad after the Hegira, the
state of war having commenced at the expulsion of the Moslems from
Mecca, it was lawful for him to take up arms to redress the wrongs of
the Moslems and to establish their lawful right by force of arms. A war
commenced on these grounds is a defensive war, though from a military
point of view it may be an offensive one.[31]
"The right of self-defence," writes Kent, a great authority on the
International Law, "is part of the law of our nature, and it is the
indispensable duty of civil society to protect its members in the
enjoyment of their rights, both of person and property. This is the
fundamental principle of the social compact.... The injury may
consist, not only in the direct violation of personal or political
rights, but in wrongfully withholding what is due, or in the
refusal of a reasonable reparation for injuries committed, or of
adequate explanation or security in respect to manifest and
impending danger."[32]
[Footnote 29: Sir W. Muir doubts the intense hatred and bitter cruelty
attributed by tradition to the Koreish, and says: "In accordance with
this view is the fact that the first aggressions, after the Hegira, were
solely on the part of Mahomet and his followers. It was not until
several of their caravans had been waylaid and plundered and blood had
thus been shed that the people of Mecca were forced in self-defence to
resort to arms." The Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, page 265, foot-note.
London, 1861. This note disappears in the new edition of 1877. In his
work "The Coran," page 24, London, 1878, Sir W. Muir says: "The caravans
of Mecca offered a tempting opportunity for reprisals, and several
expeditions were organized against them."]
[Footnote 30: Mr. G. Sale writes: "He gave out that God had allowed him
and his followers to defend themselves against the infidels; and at
length, as his forces increased, he pretended to have the divine leave
even to attack them." _The Prelim. Dis. Sect. 11._ Mr. Henry Coppée
writes regarding Mohammad: "But he soon found that he must take up arms
in self defence, and in the thirteenth year of his mission, he announced
that God permitted him not only to fight in his self-defence, but to
propagate his religion by the sword." History of the Conquest of Spain
by the Arab-Moors, by Henry Coppée. Vol. I, page 39. Boston, 1881. But
Dr. A. Sprenger makes the object of the wars of Mohammad purely
defensive. He writes:--"The Prophet now promulgated, in the name of God,
the law to fight their enemies, in order to put a stop to persecutions;
and this became henceforth the watchword of his bloody religion." The
Life of Mohammad, p. 207: Allahabad, 1851.]
[Footnote 31: M. Bluntschili, a modern authority on the International
Law, holds: "A war undertaken for defensive motives is a defensive war,
notwithstanding that it may be militarily offensive." The International
Law, by William Edward Hall, M.A., Oxford, 1880, page 320.]
[Footnote 32: Kent's Commentary on International Law. Edited by J.T.
Abdy, LL.D., Second Edition, page 144.]
[Sidenote: Caravans, if waylaid, were by reprisal.]
17. As regards the threatened attack on the caravans or capturing of it,
there are not any satisfactory grounds of proof; but if they were
attacked and captured, I do not see any reason why they should be
objected to. When hostilities commence, the first objects that naturally
present themselves for detection and seizure are the person and property
of the enemy. Even under the International Law of most civilized
countries, the legitimacy of appropriating the enemy's property rests on
the commencement of the state of war. Under the old customs of war a
belligerent possessed the right to seize and appropriate all the
property belonging to an enemy's state or its subjects, of whatever kind
they be or in whatsoever place where the acts of war are permissible. So
those who object to the early Moslems' threatening, or capturing, or
appropriating the person or property of the enemy, and call them
robbery, rapine or brigandage, show their complete ignorance of the
International Law, ancient or modern.
[Sidenote: Intolerance--no compulsory conversion enjoined, or took
place during Mohammad's life-time.]
18. The subject of the alleged intolerance on the part of Mohammad, the
Prophet, towards the unbelievers has been fully discussed in paragraphs
34-39 (pp. 41-51). It is altogether a wrong assumption of European
writers that the Koran enjoins compulsory conversion of the unbeliever,
or that Mohammad proselytized at the point of the sword. Sir W. Muir
writes:--
[Sidenote: Sir W. Muir quoted.]
"Persecution, though it may sometimes have deterred the timid from
joining his ranks, was eventually of unquestionable service to
Mahomet. It furnished a plausible excuse for casting aside the garb
of toleration; for opposing force to force against those who
obstructed the ways of the Lord; and last of all for the compulsory
conversion of unbelievers."[33]
Opposing force to force and even redressing our wrongs and
re-establishing our imperilled rights is not 'intolerance.' Mohammad did
repel the force of his enemies when it was quite necessary for the
Moslem self-preservation and protection, but he never compelled any of
his enemies or unbelievers, whether a single individual, or a body of
men, or a whole tribe, to believe in him. The Koran and history
contradict such an allegation. The Koran everywhere in the Meccan and
Medinite Suras preaches complete toleration of every religion. History
nowhere authentically records any instance of Mohammad's enforcing
conversion by means of the sword.
[Footnote 33: The Life of Mahomet from original sources, by Sir W. Muir,
LL.D. New Edition, page 68, London, 1877. See also page 57 of the
same.]
[Sidenote: A brief sketch of the propagation of Islam at Mecca.]
[Sidenote: Conversion at Nakhla.]
19. Mohammad propagated his religion both at Mecca and Medina before, as
well as after, the Hegira, by persuasion and preaching sustained by
reasonable evidence. It prevailed against all persecution and opposition
of the Koreish and Jews. In fact, it flourished and prospered under the
severe persecutions and crushing oppositions by the mere dint of its own
truth.[34] Sometimes the persecution of the Koreish itself was the cause
of conversion to the Moslem faith.[35] The number of converts during the
first three years after the assumption by Mohammad of his prophetical
office is estimated at fifty. Then commenced the general persecution and
the overwhelming opposition. Mohammad had, in order to prosecute his
endeavours peaceably and without interruption, occupied the house of
Arqam, one of his early converts, and there preached and recited the
Koran to those who used to be conducted to him. A great multitude
believed therein; but the brunt of the jealousy and enmity of the
Koreish fell upon the converted slaves, as well as upon strangers and
believers among the lower classes, who had no patron nor protector. Some
believers, sixteen in number, had already left for Abyssinia. Some came
back and brought tidings of their kind reception there. At this time
about a hundred Moslems emigrated to Abyssinia.[36] This shows the
increasing number of the converts, who represented for the most part
fugitives of Mecca. There were some Christian converts to Islam at
Abyssinia also.[37] The Koreish being disquieted by the hospitable
reception of the refugees at Abyssinia, and enraged by the refusal of
Najashee to surrender them, sought to stay the progress of secession
from their ranks by utterly severing the party of the Prophet from
social and friendly communication with them. In the seventh year of the
Prophet's mission the ban commenced, and lasted for full three years.
There could be very few conversions during the period of this weary
seclusion. The efforts of the Prophet were chiefly confined to the
conversions of the members of his own noble clan, the Bani Hàshim, who,
though unbelievers in his mission, had resolved to defend his person,
and were with him in their confinement. The time of pilgrimage alone
afforded Mohammad a wider field. He preached against idolatry at the
fairs and assemblages of the pilgrims[38]. After his release from
imprisonment in the tenth year of his mission, he went to preach at
Tàyif, but was ignominiously expelled the city[39]. On his return to
Mecca he converted a party of the tribe of Jinn[40] (not Genii according
to the vulgar notion)[41] at Nakhla. After his return from Tàyif he
preached to an audience of six or seven persons from Medina, who
believed and spread Islam there.
[Footnote 34: I do not mean to say that flourishing under persecution is
a convincing proof of the divine origin of a religion. Not that a
religion established by force is altogether of human invention. Almost
all religions are divine however they may have been established, but
flourishing under opposition and persecution is a natural course.
Christianity suffered from persecutions and other harrowing evils for
300 years, after which time it was established, and paganism abolished
by public authority, which has had great influence in the propagation of
the one and destruction of the other ever since.]
[Footnote 35: "The severity and injustice of the Cureish, overshooting
the mark, aroused personal and family sympathies; unbelievers sought to
avert or to mitigate the sufferings of the followers of the Prophet; and
in so doing they were sometimes themselves gained over to his side." The
Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Second Edition, page 68.]
[Footnote 36: Among them were the representatives of the following
tribes or clans of the Koreish, the Háshimites, Omiyyiads, Bani Abd
Shams, Bani Asad, Bani Abd bin Kosáyy, Bani Abd-ud-Dár, Bani Zohrá, Bani
Taym bin Morra, the Mukwhumites, the Jomahites, and the Bani Sahm.
_Vide_ Sprenger, page 190, Allahabad, 1851.]
[Footnote 37: _Vide_ Hishamee, page 259. An allusion to these converts
may be found in Sura V, verses 85 and 86, if it does not refer to those
of Najrán.]
[Footnote 38: He preached to the following tribes among others:--Bani
Aamr bin Sasaa, Bani Mohárib, Bani Hafasa (or Khafasa), Bani Fezára,
Bani Ghassán, Bani Kalb, Bani Háris, Bani Kab, Bani Ozra, Bani Murra,
Bani Hanifa, Bani Suleim, Bani Abs, Bani Nazr, Bani Bakka, Bani Kinda,
and Bani Khozaimah.]
[Footnote 39: "There is something lofty and heroic in this journey of
Mahomet to Tâyif; a solitary man, despised and rejected by his own
people, going boldly forth in the name of God,--like Jonah to
Nineveh--and summoning an idolatrous city to repentance and to the
support of his mission. It sheds a strong light on the intensity of his
own belief in the divine origin of his calling."--The Life of Mahomet,
by Sir W. Muir, Vol. II, page 207.]
[Footnote 40: The Arabs also had a similar clan named Bani Shaitán, a
clan of the Hinzala tribe, the descendants of Tamim, through Zeid Monat
of the Moaddite stock. The Bani Shaitán (the children of Satan) dwelt
near Kúfa.--_Vide_ Qalqashandi's Dictionary of Arab Tribes.]
[Footnote 41: Sura XLVI, verses 28, 29. These people were from Nisibin
and Nineveh in Mesopotamia. They were Chaldeans, soothsayers, and
cabalists. In the book of Daniel the Chaldeans are classed with
magicians and astronomers, and evidently form a sort of the priest class
who have a peculiar "tongue" and "learning" (Dan. I. 4). In Arabic,
persons of similar professions were called _Kahins_. Some of this class
of people pretended to receive intelligence of what was to come to pass
from certain satans or demons, whom they alleged to hear what passed in
the heavens. Others pretended to control the stars by enchanting them.
They produced eclipses of the sun and moon by their alleged efficiency
in their own enchantments. They practised astrology as well as astronomy
and fortune-telling.
It appears that the Chaldeans (Kaldai or Kaldi) were in the earliest
times merely one out of the many Cushite tribes inhabiting the great
alluvial plain known afterwards as Chaldea or Babylonia. In process of
time as the Kaldi grew in power, their name prevailed over that of the
other tribes inhabiting the country; and by the era of the Jewish
captivity it had begun to be used generally for all the inhabitants of
Babylonia. It had thus come by this time to have two senses, both
ethnic: in the one, it was the special appellative of a particular race
to whom it had belonged from the remotest times; in the other, it
designated the nation at large in which the race was predominant.
Afterwards it was transferred from an ethnic to a mere restricted sense,
from the name of a people to that of a priest caste or sect of
philosophers. The Kaldi proper belonged to the Cushite race. While both
in Assyria and in Babylonia, the sernitic type of speech prevailed for
special purposes, the ancient Cushite dialect was purely reserved for
scientific and religious literature. This is no doubt the "learning" and
the "tongue" to which reference is made in the Bible (Dan. I. 4). It
became gradually inaccessible to the great mass of people who had
emigrated by means, chiefly, of Assyrian influence. But it was the
Chaldean learning in the old Chaldean or Cushite language. Hence all who
studied it, whatever their origin or race, were, on account of their
knowledge, termed Chaldeans. In this sense Daniel himself, "the master
of Chaldeans" (Dan. V. 11.), would, no doubt, have been reckoned among
them, and so we find Seleucas, a Greek, called a Chaldean by Strabo
(XVI. 1, § 6). The Chaldeans were really a learned class, who by their
acquaintance with the language of science became its depositaries. They
were priests, magicians or astronomers, as their preference for one or
other of those occupations inclined them; and in the last of these three
capacities they probably effected discoveries of great importance. The
Chaldeans, it would appear, congregated into bodies forming what we may
perhaps call universities, and they all engaged together in it for their
progress. They probably mixed up to some extent astrology with their
astronomy, even in the earlier times, but they certainly made great
advance in astronomical science to which their serene sky and
transparent atmosphere specially invited them. In later times they seem
certainly to have degenerated into mere fortune-tellers (_vide_ Smith's
Dict. of the Bible, Art. _Chaldeans_).
In their practice of astromancy or enchanting the stars, and in
pretending to overhear what passed in the heavens, they, the Jinns, used
to sit on the tops of lofty mansions at night-time for hours offering
sacrifices to the stars and enchanting them. In their peculiar tongue
and learning they called this practice "stealing a hearing" and "sitting
for listening" (Suras XV, verse 17, and LXXII, verses 8, 9).
Now at the time of Mohammad's assuming the Prophet's office there had
been an unusually grand display of numerous falling stars, which at
certain periods are known to be specially abundant. At the same time
there were good many comets visible in different parts of heavens, which
certainly might have smitten with terror these Jinns, _i.e._, the
astromancers and soothsayers. There was one comet visible in 602 A.D.,
and other two appeared in 605 A.D. In 607 A.D. two more comets were
visible; another one appeared in 608 A.D. Each of the years 614 and 615
had one comet. There were also comets visible in 617 A.D. (_vide_
Chambers's Descriptive Astronomy). These comets are most probably
noticed in the contemporary record (_i.e._ the Koran). A comet is called
_Tariq_, or "night comer," in Sura LXXXVI, verse 1; and described as the
star of piercing radiance. (_Annajmus Saqib. Ibid_ 3.)
The _Kahins_ were very much alarmed at the stupendous phenomena of the
falling stars and the comets; and had stopped their soothsaying and
divinations. Whenever they used to sit on their places of listening,
enchanting, and divination during night-time, looking at the heavens,
their eyes met with showers of shooting stars and brilliant comets which
bewildered them very much. It is said that the first whose attention was
attracted to the unusual shooting stars was a clan of the Sakeefites of
Us-Tayif (Ibn Hisham, page 131). These Jinns, when they were converted
to Islam at Nakhla near Tayif, expressed their bewilderment from the
unusual shower of falling stars and the appearance of numerous comets in
their peculiar language:--
"The heaven did we essay but found it filled with mighty garrison and of
darting flames."
"We sat on some of the seats to listen, but whoever now listeneth
findeth a darting flame in ambush for him."
"We know not whether evil be meant for them that are on earth, or
whether their Lord meaneth true guidance for them."--Sura LXXII, verses
8-10.
So the pretenders of hearing the discourses of heavenly bodies being
quite harassed by the extraordinary showers of the falling stars, and
the appearances of numerous comets, had stopped their divination. This
was taken notice of in the Koran:--
"They overhear not exalted chiefs, and they are darted from every side."
"Driven off and consigned to a lasting torment; while if one steal by
stealth then a glistering flame pursueth him."--Sura XXXVII, verses
8-10.
"Save such as steal a hearing, and him do visible flames pursue."--Sura
XV, verse 18.
"The satans were not sent down with this _Koran_. It beseemed them not,
and they had not the power. For they are far removed from the
hearing."--Sura XXVI, verses 210-212.
As an instance of terror and bewilderment caused by meteors and shooting
stars among credulous people, I will quote the following anecdote:
About the middle of the tenth century an epidemic terror of the end of
the world had spread over Christendom. The scene of the last judgment
was expected to be in Jerusalem.
In the year 999 the number of pilgrims proceeding eastwards, to await
the coming of the Lord in that city, was so great that they were
compared to a desolating army. During the thousandth year the number of
pilgrims increased. Every phenomenon of nature filled them with terror.
A thunderstorm sent them all upon their knees. Every meteor in the sky
seen at Jerusalem brought the whole Christian population into the
streets to weep and pray. The pilgrims on the road were in the same
alarm. Every shooting star furnished occasion for a sermon, in which the
sublimity of the approaching judgment was the principal topic (_vide_
Extraordinary Popular Delusions by Charles Mackay, LL.D., London, pp.
222 and 223).
It was a conceit or imposture of the _Kahins_ to pretend that their
demons had access to the outskirts of the heavens, and by assiduous
eavesdropping secured some of the secrets of the upper world and
communicated the same to the soothsayers or diviners upon earth. The
Jews had a similar notion of the demons (schedim), learning the secrets
of the future by listening behind the veil (pargôd). The Koran falsified
them in their assertions. It says that the heavens (or the stars) are
safe and protected against the eavesdropping (or enchantments) of the
soothsayers.
"We have set the signs of Zodiac in the heavens, and we have decked them
forth for the bewilders."
"And we guard them from every stoned satan."--Sura XV, verses 16, 17.
"Verily we have adorned the lower heaven with the adornment of the
stars;"
"And we have guarded them against every rebellious satan."--Sura XXXVII,
verses 6, 7.
"... And we have furnished the lower heaven with lights and have
protected it...."--Sura XLI, verse 11.
The Koran further says that the soothsayers impart to their votaries or
to those who go to consult them what they have heard from other people
and are liars:--
"They impart what they have heard, but most of them are liars."--Sura
XXVI, verse 223.
It is nowhere said in the Koran that the stars are darted or hurled at
the Satans. Sura LXVII, verse 5, literally means, "of a surety we have
decked the lower heaven with lights and have made them to be (means of)
'_Rojúm_' conjectures to the (or for the) devils, _i.e._ the
astrologer." The primary meaning of _Rajm_ is a thing that is thrown or
cast like a stone: pl. '_Rojúm_,' but it generally means speaking of
that which is hidden, or conjecturing or speaking by conjecture, as in
Sura XVIII, verse 21. In Sura XIX, verse 47, the word "_La-arjomannaka_"
has been explained both ways, meaning (1) "I will assuredly cast stones
at thee," and (2) "I will assuredly say of thee, (though) speaking of
that which is hidden (from me) or unknown (by me), what thou dislikest
or hatest." _Vide_ Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, page 1048.]
[Sidenote: Rapid stride of Islam at Medina.]
20. Next year twelve new converts were made from persons who had come to
see the Prophet from Medina. They returned as missionaries of Islam, and
Islam spread rapidly in Medina from house to house and from tribe to
tribe. The Jews looked on in amazement at the people whom they had in
vain endeavoured from generations to convince of the errors of
polytheism, and to dissuade from the abominations of their idolatry,
suddenly of their own accord casting away idols and professing belief in
the one True God.[42] Thus speedily without let or hindrance, force or
compulsion, did Islam take firm root at Medina and attain to a full and
mature growth. There remained not a single house among the Aws and
Khazraj tribes[43] of Medina in which there were not believing men and
women, excepting the branch of the Aws Allah, who were not converts till
after the siege of Medina. At this time there were many Moslems in
Mecca, Medina, and Abyssinia, and not a single one of them could be said
to have been converted to Islam by compulsion: on the contrary, they
were used to be forced to renounce Islam.
[Footnote 42: "After five centuries of Christian evangelization, we can
point to but a sprinkling here and there of Christian converts;--the
Bani Hârith of Najrân: the Bani Hanîfa of Yemâma; some of the Bani Tay
at Tayma, and hardly any more. Judaism, vastly more powerful, had
exhibited a spasmodic effort of proselytizm under Dzu Nowâs; but, as an
active and converting agent the Jewish faith was no longer
operative."--Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, page ccxxxix.]
[Footnote 43: The Aws or Khazraj were two branches of the Azdite tribes
of Yemen from the Kahlanite stock. After their emigration to the North
they separated themselves from the Ghassinides and returned to Medina,
where they settled.]
[Sidenote: The increasing number of Moslem converts at Mecca after the
Hegira.]
21. When the Moslems were obliged to emigrate from Mecca under the
severe Koreishite persecutions, all the followers of the Prophet with
the exception of those detained in confinement or unable to escape from
slavery had emigrated with their families to Medina. But there were many
new converts at Mecca since the expulsion of the Moslems. Those unable
to fly from Mecca in the teeth of the oppressions of the wrathful
Koreish (Sura IV., 77, 79, 100) were increasing. They appealed for
deliverance and aid, while the Moslem pilgrims were near Mecca at
Hodeibia, six years after the Hegira, and an allusion is made to the
great number of the Meccan converts, living at Mecca during that time in
Sura XLVIII, 25.
[Sidenote: Disturbed state of the public peace among the tribes
surrounding Medina. Internecine wars an obstacle to the propagation of
Islam.]
22. Irrespective of the wars prosecuted by the Koreish from the South
against Mohammad at Medina, and the constant danger of inroad and attack
upon Medina from the neighbouring tribes--a great obstacle in the
propagation of Islam which could only be successfully accomplished in a
state of peace and tranquility of both parties,--the most important and
great tribes in the North and Centre of Arabia were at war against each
other during the life of Mohammad, either before his mission from 570 to
610 A.D. or during his public mission from 610 to 632 A.D. The
disastrous internecine wars were kept up for scores of years and the
evils necessarily inflicted in their progress were not confined to the
belligerents only. It required years to remove the evils of war and to
efface the traces of misery and sorrow the wars had brought.[44]
[Footnote 44: The same remarks apply to the wars fought during
Mohammad's lifetime but before his public mission.]
23. Here I will give a brief sketch of the internecine wars which took
place among the various Arab tribes during the time of Mohammad.
*Wars during Mohammad's Lifetime, between the Arabian Tribes in the North
and Centre of Arabia.*
_Before his mission_, 570-610, A.D.
(1.) The battle of Rahrahán between Bani Aamir bin Saasaa and Bani Tamim
in Najd, 578, A.D.
(2.) The Bani Abs on the side of Bani Aamir and Bani Zobian on the side
of Tamim, 579, A.D., at _Sheb Jabala_.
(3.) Sacrilegious war at Táyif called Harb fi-jár, 580-590, A.D.
(4.) Several battles between Bani Bakr and Tamim in 604, A.D. and the
following years.
_During his mission._
(A)--_While at Mecca, 610-622, A.D._
(1.) The war of Dáhis between Bani Abs and Zobian, the branches of
Ghatafán in Central Arabia; lasted forty years, 568 to 609, A.D.
(2.) The battle of Zú-kár between the Bani Bakr and the Persians in the
Kingdom of Hira, 611, A.D.
(3.) The Bani Kinda and Bani Háris attacked Bath Tamim when they had
retired to Kuláb in the confines of Yemen and repulsed them.
(4.) The Bani Aws and Khazraj of Medina were at war. The battle of Boás
was fought in 615, A.D. The Bani Aws were assisted by two tribes of
Ghassan, by Mozeima and the Jewish tribes Nazeer and Koreiza. The Bani
Khazraj were supported by Joheina, Ashja and the Jews of Kainuka.
(B)--_While at Medina_, 622 to 632, _A.D._
(1.) The standing warfare between the Bani Hawázin and the Bani Abs,
Zobian, and Ashja of Ghatafán was kept up by assassinations and petty
engagements till they become converts to Islam.
(2.) The Koreish fought two battles of Badr and Ohad against the Moslems
at Medina in 624 and 625, A.D., respectively.
(3.) Several clans of the great Ghatafán family (the Bani Murra, Ashja
and Fezára) the Bani Suleim and Sád, a branch of Hawázin, and Bani Asad
from Najd Bedouin tribes, and Bani Koreiza the Jews, had besieged Medina
in 627, A.D., in confederation with the Koreish.
(4.) Bani Tamim and Bani Bakr renewed their hostilities, and from 615 to
630, A.D., several battles occurred between them. The last battle was
that of Shaitain in 630, A.D.
In this year, after the battle, both the tribes were converted to
Islam.
(5.) The Bani Ghaus and Jadila branches of Bani Tay in the north of
Medina warred against each other. The war of Fasád continued twenty-five
years till they embraced Islam in 632, A.D.
[Sidenote: Spread of Islam in the surrounding tribes at Medina after the
Hegira I-VI.]
24. During the six eventful years of Mohammad's sojourn at Medina, from
the Hegira to the truce of Hodeibia, where he was every year attacked or
threatened by other hostile Arab tribes, acting always in self-defence,
he had converted several members or almost entire tribes residing round
Medina.
Among them were the following:--
1. The Bani Aslam.[45]
2. Joheina.[46]
3. Mozeina.[47]
4. Ghifár.[48]
5. Saad-bin-Bakr.[49]
6. Bani Ashja.[50]
We never find a single instance even in the _Magházis_ (accounts of the
campaigns of Mohammad, however untrustworthy they be) of Mohammad's
converting any person, families, or branches of tribes by the scimitar
in one hand and the Koran in the other.
[Footnote 45: The Bani Aslam tribe settled north of Medina in the valley
of Wady-al-Koraa. They were a branch of the Kozaaite tribes descended
from Himyar.]
[Footnote 46: Joheina were a branch of Kozaa, the descendants of Himyar.
This tribe inhabited in the vicinity of Yenbo, north of Medina.]
[Footnote 47: Mozeina were a tribe of the Moaddite stock of Mecca. They
inhabited in Najd, north-east of Medina.]
[Footnote 48: Ghifár were sons of Moleil-bin-Zamra, the descendants of
Kinána, one of the Moaddite tribes.]
[Footnote 49: Saad-bin-Bakr were a branch of Hawazin. Mohammad had been
nursed among them.]
[Footnote 50: The Bani Ashja were a branch of the Ghatafán of the Meccan
stock of the Moaddites. The Bani Ashja appear all to have been hostile
to Mohammad. They fought against the Prophet at the siege of Medina with
four hundred warriors in their contingent. Sir W. Muir says, "The Bani
Ashjâ, who had joined in the siege of Medina, gave in their adhesion
shortly after the massacre of the Coreitza; they told Mahomet that they
were so pressed by his warring against them, that they could stand out
no longer.--K. Wackidi, page 60." Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, 107,
_footnote_. This story is altogether false. We never hear of Mohammad
warring against Bani Ashja; on the contrary, they had themselves invaded
Medina.]
[Sidenote: Mecca a barrier against the conversion of the southern
tribes.]
25. Up to this time, notwithstanding the persecutions, exiles and wars
against Islam, it had spread by the mere force of persuasion among the
Meccans, some of whom had emigrated to Abyssinia and most to Medina, the
whole of the influential tribes of Aws and Khazraj at Medina, as well as
among the Jews there, and among some of the tribes in the north, and
east of Medina and the centre of Arabia. But as Mecca in the south had
declared war against Islam, most of the Arab tribes connected somehow
with the Meccans, and those inhabiting the southern and south-eastern
parts of Arabia, to whom Mecca served geographically as a barrier,
watched the proceedings of the war and the fate of Islam, and had no
opportunity of coming to Medina to embrace Islam, nor of having friendly
intercourse with the Moslems, nor of receiving Mohammadan missionaries
in the face of the wars waged by the Koreish who were looked upon as the
guardians of the Kaaba, the spiritual or religious centre of the
idolatrous Arabs. At the end of the last or the fifth year many Bedouin
tribes, among whom might be counted the Bani Ashja, Murra, Fezara,
Suleim, Sad-bin-Bakr and Bani Asad, had furnished several thousand Arabs
to the Koreish for the siege of Medina. Only when the aggressions of the
Koreish against the Moslems were suspended that the warring tribes and
those of the Central, Southern and Eastern Arabia could think of what
they had heard of the reasonable preaching of Islam against their
idolatry and superstitions.
[Sidenote: Tribal conversions in the sixth year.]
26. Since the truce of Hodeibia at the end of the sixth year after the
Hegira Mecca was opened for intercourse, where there were some more and
fresh conversions. The Bani Khozaa, descendants of Azd, were converted
to Islam at the truce of Hodeibia. At the pilgrimage in the following
year some influential men of Mecca adopted Islam. The movement was not
confined to these leading men, but was wide and general. In the seventh
year the following tribes were converted to Islam and their deputations
joined Mohammad at Khyber:
1. Bani Ashár.[51]
2. Khushain.[52]
3. Dous.[53]
[Sidenote: Conversions among several other tribes of the North and
North-east in A.H., 8.]
During the same year Mohammad converted several other tribes in the
north and north-east of Arabia. Among them were--
1. Bani Abs.
2. Zobián.
3. Murra.
4. Fezara.[54]
5. Suleim.[55]
6. Ozra.
7. Bali.
8. Juzám.[56]
9. Sálaba.[57]
10. Abdul Kays.[58]
11. Bani Tamim.[59]
12. Bani Asad.[60]
[Footnote 51: The Bani Ash-ár inhabited Jedda. They were of the
Kahlánite stock, the descendants of Al-Azd.]
[Footnote 52: The Bani Khushain were a clan of Kozaá, of Himiarite
stock.]
[Footnote 53: The Bani Dous belong to the Azdite tribe of the stock of
Kahtán. They lived at some distance south of Mecca. They had joined
Mohammad at Khyber.]
[Footnote 54: These were the sub-tribes of Ghatafán of the Meccan stock.
The chief families of Ghatafán were the Bani Ashja, Zobian, and the Bani
Abs. Murra and Fezára were the branches of Zobian. They all inhabited
Najd. Uyenia, the chief of the Bani Fezára, had committed an inroad upon
Medina in A.H. 6. In the same year the Bani Fezára had waylaid a Medina
caravan and plundered it.]
[Footnote 55: The Bani Suleim, a branch of the Bani Khasafa and a sister
tribe to Hawázin, who lived near Mecca, and in whose charge, Mohammad,
when but an infant, was placed, were also a tribe of the Meccan stock
descended through Khasafa from Mozar and Moádd. Bani Suleim, like Bani
Murra and Fezára, branches of Ghatafán, had long continued to threaten
Mohammad with attacks. The Bani Suleim having joined Aamir bin Tofeil,
chief of Bani Aamir, a branch of the tribe of Hawázin with their clans
Usseya, Ril, and Zakawán, had cut to pieces a party of Moslem
missionaries at Bir Mauna, invited by Abu Bera Amr ibn Málik, a chief of
the Bani Aamir, who had pledged for their security. The Bani Suleim had
joined also the Koreish army at the siege of Medina. In the seventh
year, they had slain another body of Moslem missionaries sent to them.]
[Footnote 56: The Bani Ozra were a tribe of Kozaá, like Joheina. They,
together with the Bani Bali and Juzám, inhabited the north of Arabia in
the part of the territory belonging to Ghassan. The family of Himyar,
descendants from Kahtán in Yemen, had flourished through the line of
Kozaá, the Bani Ozza, Joheina and other important tribes to the north of
the Peninsula on the border of Syria. It has been quoted by Sir W. Muir
from Katib Wakidi that the chief of the Bani Juzám carried back to them
a letter from Mohammad to this tenor: "Whoever accepteth the call of
Islam, he is among the confederates of the Lord; whoever refuseth the
same, a truce of two months is allowed for him for consideration."
(Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 107, _foot-note_). The words "for
consideration" are not in the original Arabic.--_Vide_ Ibn Hisham, p.
963. It is not clear what was meant by the two months' truce he was
advised to give them, to make terms before he could commence
hostilities, if the tradition for which there is no authority be true.
This has nothing to do with their compulsory conversions.]
[Footnote 57: Salaba was a branch of the Zobián.]
[Footnote 58: The Bani Abd-ul-Kays are a Moaddite tribe, the descendants
of Rabia. They inhabited Bahrein on the Persian Gulf.]
[Footnote 59: The Bani Tamim were branch of Tábikha, a tribe of the
Moaddite stock of Mecca and a sister tribe of Mozeina. They are famous
in the history of Najd, a province north-east of Medina, from the
confines of Syria to Yemen. Some of these branches were with Mohammad at
the expeditions to Mecca and Honain. All the branches of the tribes that
had not yet embraced Islam were now converted.]
[Footnote 60: The Bani Asad ibn Khozeima were a powerful tribe residing
near the hill of Katan in Najd. They were of the Moaddite tribe of the
Meccan stock. Tuleiba, their chief, had assembled a force of cavalry and
rapid camel-drivers to make a raid upon Medina in A.H. 4. They were
dispersed by the Moslems. In the next year they joined the Koreish in
the siege of Medina.]
[Sidenote: Surrender of Mecca. A.H., 8.]
27. The position of Islam at Mecca was greatly strengthened since the
truce in A.H. 6, by increase in the number of Moslems, influential and
leading, as well as of persons of minor note and importance there,
consequently the advocates of Islam, peace and compromise were growing
in number and confidence. Among the idolatrous Koreish there were no
chiefs of marked ability or commanding influence left at Mecca; almost
all of them had gone over to the cause of Islam. In the meantime the
infraction of the terms of the truce by the Bani Bakr and Koreish caused
the surrender of Mecca without bloodshed.
[Sidenote: The Meccans not compelled to believe.]
28. Though Mecca had surrendered, all its inhabitants had not already
become converts to Islam. Mohammad did not take any compulsory means to
convert the people: "Although the city had cheerfully accepted his
supremacy," writes Sir W. Muir, "all its inhabitants had not yet
embraced the new religion, or formally acknowledged his prophetical
claim. Perhaps he intended to follow the course he had pursued at Medina
and leave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished
without compulsion."[61]
[Footnote 61: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 136.
Those who had newly joined the Moslem Camp at Mecca to repel the
threatening gathering of Hawázin, and those of them who preferred
submission to the authority of Mohammad, are called by Sir W. Muir "his
new converts." (IV., 149). But in fact they were not called believers.
They are called simply _Muallafa Qolubohum_ in the Koran (IX., 60) which
means whose hearts are to be won over.]
[Sidenote: The wholesale conversion of the remaining tribes in A.H., 9
& 10.]
29. Now it was more than twenty years that the Koran had been constantly
preached to the surrounding tribes of Arabs at Mecca at the time of
fairs[62] and at the annual pilgrimage gatherings,[63] by Mohammad, and
by special missionaries of Islam from Medina, and through the reports of
the travellers and merchants coming and going from Mecca and Medina to
all parts of Arabia. The numbers of different distant tribes, clans and
branches had spread the tidings of Islam. There were individual converts
in most of the tribes. Those tribes already not brought over to Islam
were ready to embrace it under the foregoing circumstances. Idolatry,
simple and loathsome, had no power against the attacks of reason
displayed in the doctrines of the Koran. But the idolatrous Koreish
opposed and attacked Islam with persecution and the sword, and
strengthened idolatry with earthly weapons. The distant pagan tribes on
the side of the Koreish, geographically or genealogically, were
prevented by them from embracing the new faith. As soon as the
hostilities of the Koreish were suspended at the truce of Hodeibia, the
Arabs commenced to embrace Islam as already described, and no sooner
they surrendered and Kaaba[64] stripped of its idols--and the struggle
of spiritual supremacy between idolatry and Islam was practically
decided--all the remaining tribes on the south and east who had not
hitherto adhered to Islam hastened to embrace it hosts after hosts
during the 9th and 10th year of the Hegira.
[Footnote 62: Okáz between Táyif and Nakhla. Mujanna in the vicinity of
Marr-al Zahrán, and Zul-Majáz behind Arafat, both near Mecca.]
[Footnote 63: "From time immemorial, tradition represents Mecca as the
scene of a yearly pilgrimage from _all_ quarters of Arabia:--from Yemen,
Hadhramaut and the shores of the Persian Gulph, from the deserts of
Syria, and from the distant environs of Híra and Mesopotamia."--Muir, I,
ccxi.]
[Footnote 64: Sir W. Muir thinks: "The possession of Mecca now imparted
a colour of right to his pretensions; for Mecca was the spiritual centre
of the country, to which the tribes from every quarter yielded a
reverential homage. The conduct of the annual pilgrimage, the custody of
the holy house, the intercalation of the year, the commutation at will
of the sacred months,--institutions which affected all Arabia,--belonged
by ancient privilege to the Coreish and were now in the hands of
Mahomet.... Moreover, it had been the special care of Mahomet artfully
to interweave with the reformed faith all essential parts of the ancient
ceremonial. The one was made an inseparable portion of the other."--The
Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 169. But the remaining tribes who had not
hitherto embraced Islam, and the chiefs of the Southern and Eastern
Arabia, did not adopt Islam, because Mohammad possessed Mecca, a
position of no political supremacy. No paramount authority throughout
the Peninsula had ever been vested in the chief who possessed Mecca.
Mohammad on the surrender of Mecca had abolished all the idolatrous
institutions which might have served as political or social inducements
to the Pagan Arabs to embrace Islam. The intercalation of the year and
commutation of the sacred months were cancelled for ever in the plain
words of the Koran: "Verily, twelve months is the number of months with
God, according to God's book, _since_ the day when He created the
Heavens and the earth, of these, four are sacred; this is the right
usage." ... "To carry over _a sacred month to another_ is an increase of
unbelief only. They who do not believe are led into error by it. They
allow it one year and forbid it another, that they may make good the
number of _months_ which God hath hallowed, and they allow that which
God hath prohibited. The evil of their deeds hath been prepared for them
_by Satan_; for God guideth not the people who do not believe."--Sura
IX, verses 36, 37. The custody of the house was no more an office of
honour or privilege. The ancient ceremonial of pilgrimage was not
interwoven with the reformed faith. The rites of Kaaba were stripped of
every idolatrous tendency. And the remaining and essential part of the
pilgrimage was depreciated. "By no means can their flesh reach unto God,
neither their blood; but piety on your part reacheth Him."--Sura XXII,
verse 38. And after all the idolaters were not allowed to enter it. "It
is not for the votaries of other gods with God, witnesses against
themselves of infidelity, to visit the temples of God."--Sura IX, verse
28. Sir W. Muir himself says regarding Mohammad: "The rites of Kaaba
were retained, but stripped by him of every idolatrous tendency; and
they still hang, a strange unmeaning shroud, around the living theism of
Islam."--Vol. I, Intro., p. ccxviii.]
[Sidenote: The various deputations and embassies in the 9th and 10th
year of the Hegira.]
30. During these two years deputations of conversion to Islam were
received by Mohammad at Medina from the most distant parts of the
Peninsula, from Yemen and Hazaramaut from Mahra Oman and Bahrein in the
south, and from the borders of Syria and the outskirts of Persia. Many
of the chiefs and princes of Yemen and Mahra, of Oman, Bahrein and
Yemama--christians and pagans--intimated by letter or by embassy their
conversion to Islam. The Prophet used to send teachers with deputations
and embassies, where they were not already sent, to instruct the newly
converted people the duties of Islam and to see that every remnant of
idolatry was obliterated.
[Sidenote: List of the deputations of conversion received by Mohammad at
Medina during A.H. 9 and 10.]
31. Here is a list of the important deputations and embassies as well as
the conversion of notable personages during these two years arranged in
alphabetical order with geographical and genealogical notes.[65] Sir W.
Muir thinks it "tedious and unprofitable" to enumerate them all,[66]
while he takes notice of every apocryphal tradition and devours with
eagerness all fictions unfavourable to the cause of Islam.
Bani Aámir.[67]
Bani Abd-ul-Kays.[68]
Bani Ahmas.[69]
Bani Anaza.[70]
Bani Asad.[71]
Bani Azd (Shanovah).[72]
Bani Azd (Oman).[73]
Bani Báhila.[74]
Bani Bahra.[75]
Bani Bajíla.[76]
Bani Baka.[77]
Bani Bakr bin Wail.[78]
Bani Bali.[79]
Bani Báriq.[80]
Bani Dáree.[81]
Farwa.[82]
Bani Fezára.[83]
Bani Gháfiq.[84]
Bani Ghánim.[85]
Bani Ghassán.[86]
Bani Hamadán.[87]
Bani Hanífa.[88]
Bani Háris of Najrán.[89]
Bani Hilál bin Aamir bin Sáasáa.[90]
Bani Himyar.[91]
Bani Jaad.[92]
Bani Jaafir bin Kelab bin Rabia.[93]
Jeifer bin al Jalandi.[94]
Bani Joheina.[95]
Bani Jufi.[96]
Bani Kalb.[97]
Bani Khas-am bin Anmár.[98]
Bani Khaulán.[99]
Bani Kiláb.[100]
Bani Kinána.[101]
Bani Kinda.[102]
Bani Mahrah.[103]
Bani Mohárib.[104]
Bani Morád.[105]
Bani Muntafiq.[106]
Bani Murrah.[107]
Bani Nakhá.[108]
Bani Nohd.[109]
Bani Ozra.[110]
Bani Raha.[111]
Bani Rawasa.[112]
Bani Saad Hozeim.[113]
Bani Sadif.[114]
Bani Sadoos.[115]
Bani Sahim.[116]
Bani Sakeef.[117]
Bani Salámáni.[118]
Bani Shaibán.[119]
Bani Sodaa.[120]
Bani Taghlib.[121]
Bani Tajeeb.[122]
Bani Tamim.[123]
Bath Tay.[124]
Bani Zobeid.[125]
[Footnote 65: For these deputations see Ibn Is-hak (died 151), Hishamee
(died 213), Ibn Sad (died 213), Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, Chap.
30th, Seerat Shámí (died 942), and Halabí (died 1044). For the
genealogies of these tribes consult Qalqashandi's Dictionary of Tribes,
and Ibn Khaldún's History. Regarding the geographical positions of these
tribes the reader is referred to the most valuable map of Arabia in Sir
W. Muir's Annals of Early Caliphate, London 1882.]
[Footnote 66: The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, pp. 181 and
226.]
[Footnote 67: A branch of Hawázin and sister tribe of the Sakeef
inhabited the province of Najd and were of the Moaddite stock. The tribe
had taken little share with the rest of the Bani Hawázin at the battle
of Honain against the Moslems A.H. 8. The famous poet Lebid, author of
one of the Moallakas, belonged to that tribe. [See the Life of Lebid
from Ketab-ul-Aghani, in an article on the Moallaqah by Lebid, by C.J.
Lyall, C.S., in the Journals of the Asiatic Society, Bengal, No. 1,
1877, pp. 62-76: Calcutta.]]
[Footnote 68: Bani Abd-ul-Kays from Bahrein. The tribe has been
described at page 47. There were many persons in the embassy. They were
Christians before they embraced Islam.]
[Footnote 69: Descended from Anmár of the Kahtanite stock of Yemen.]
[Footnote 70: A sub-tribe of Asad, descendants of Rabia of the Moaddite
stock. These are the Aneze of Burkhardt.]
[Footnote 71: Already described at p. 47. The rest of them now embraced
Islam. It is said that Sura xlix, 17, refers to them.]
[Footnote 72: Bani Azd (Shanovah) from Yemen. This tribe was a portion
of the Azdite tribe left at Yemen at the time of the northern emigration
of Azd. They were a branch of Kahtan of the Kahtanite stock. In their
emigration northward from Yemen they resided a long time in Hijaz at
Batn Murr near Mecca. In their journey further on to the north of Syria,
leaving Kozaa, they changed their name to Ghassán from their long
residence, by the way, near a fountain of that name. The tribes Aus and
Khazraj had separated afterwards from these Ghassanides, and settled at
Yathrib, afterwards known as Medina. One Surad was the chief of the
embassy of Azd from Yemen to Mohammad at Medina. Sir W. Muir says: "This
person was recognized by Mahomet as the ruler of his clan, and
commission was given to him to war against the heathen tribes in his
neighbourhood." (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 219.) The Arabic
word "_yojáhid_," in the original biographies, only means "to strive,"
and does not mean "to make war," as understood by Sir W. Muir. He has
himself translated the same word as "striving" in Vol. III, page 32. At
page 265 of the same volume he translates it by "to do utmost." I have
discussed the subject in full in Appendix A. of this work.]
[Footnote 73: Another branch of the Azd described above.]
[Footnote 74: Bani Báhila, otherwise called Sáad Manát, descendants of
Ghatafán of the Moaddite stock.]
[Footnote 75: Bani Bahra (bin Amr bin Al-Háf bin Kozaá), who were a
branch of the Kozaá of the Himyarite stock, had emigrated to the north,
and settled in the Ghassanide territory.]
[Footnote 76: Bani Bajíla, a sister of Khas-am and descendants of Anmar
bin Nizar of the Kahtanite stock. They inhabited Yemen. The Bajíla after
professing Islam had destroyed the famous image of Kholasa.]
[Footnote 77: A branch of Bani Aamir bin Sáasáa in the centre of
Arabia.]
[Footnote 78: They lived about Yemama and the shores of the Persian
Gulf. They were one of the Moaddite tribes. The war of Basus between
Bani Bakr and their sister tribe Bani Taghlib had lasted for forty
years. There have been famous poets in the Bani Bakr tribe, among whom
are Tarafa, Haris bin Hiliza, and Maimún Al-Asha. The Bani Bakr and Bani
Tamim were constantly at war, which was abandoned under the influence of
Islam, when both the parties were converted to it during the lifetime of
Mohammad.]
[Footnote 79: They were a branch of the Kozaá from the Himyarite stock,
the descendants of Kahtan, and had settled in the north of Arabia in the
Ghassanide territory on the borders of Syria.]
[Footnote 80: A sub-tribe of Kozaá.]
[Footnote 81: A clan of the tribe of Lakhm.]
[Footnote 82: An Arab of the Bani Juzam in the north of Arabia and
Governor of Amman in the Ghassanide territory announced his conversion
to Mohammad by a despatch in A.H. 8.]
[Footnote 83: They have already been described at page 46. Their
deputation waited upon Mohammad on his return from Tabúk.]
[Footnote 84: Descendants of Anmár of the Kahtanite stock.]
[Footnote 85: A sub-tribe of Azd at Yemen.]
[Footnote 86: Already described under Bani Azd.]
[Footnote 87: Bani Hamadán of the Kahtanite descent. An important tribe
in the east of Yemen.]
[Footnote 88: A Christian branch of the Bani Bakr who inhabited Yemama.
"The account of the embassy of the Bani Hanífa is more decidedly
unfavourable to Christianity, but its details appear of doubtful
authority. Moseilama, the false Prophet, was among the number, and there
are some unlikely anticipations of his sacrilegious claims.
"As the embassy were departing, Mahomet gave them a vessel in which were
the leavings of the water with which he had performed his lustration;
and he said,--'_When you reach your country, break down your church, and
sprinkle its sight with this water, and make in its place a mosque_'....
"The story appears to me improbable, because nowhere else is Mahomet
represented as exhibiting such antagonism to Christians and their
churches when they submitted themselves to him."--Muir's Life of
Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 303-4, _footnote_. The author changes his opinion
in the fourth volume of his work and says: "I have there stated (in Vol.
II) the story to be improbable. But I am now inclined to think that
during the last year or two of Mahomet's life, there was quite enough of
antagonistic feeling against Christianity as it presented itself in the
profession of the Arab and Syrian tribes to support the
narrative."--Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 218,
_footnote_.
This is a mere presumption on the part of the writer, and there is no
proof of Mohammad's antagonism towards Christianity at any period of his
life except against those who waged war with him. The following verse of
the Koran will show how far I am true:--
"Verily they who believe (Moslems), and they who follow the Jewish
religion, and the Christians and Sabeites, whoever of those believeth in
God and the Last Day, and doth that which is right shall have their
reward with their Lord: Fear shall not come upon them, neither shall
they be grieved."]
[Footnote 89: Also a Christian tribe in Yemen descended from the
Kahtanite stock of the Bani Madhij, and collateral therefore with Bani
Kinda. Two of the embassy, one of them being Akil or Abd-ul-Masih, the
chief of the deputation, adopted Islam. The rest returned with a full
guarantee from Mohammad for the preservation of their social and
religious liberty. Further information regarding the Bani Háris of
Najrán will be found at pp. 48 and 106 of this book.
"_Kâtib al Wâckidi_, p. 69. The subsequent history of the Najrán
Christians is there traced. They continued in possession of their lands
and rights under the treaty during the rest of Mohammad's life and the
whole of Abu Bakr's Caliphate. Then they were accused of taking usury,
and Omar expelled them from the land, and wrote as follows:--
"The despatch of Omar, the Commander of the Faithful, to the people of
Najrán. Whoever of them emigrates is under the guarantee of God. No
Moslem shall injure them;--to fulfil that which Mahomet and Abu Bakr
wrote unto them.
"Now to whomsoever of the chiefs of Syria and Irâc they may repair, let
such chiefs allot them lands, and whatever they cultivate therefrom
shall be theirs; it is an exchange for their own lands. None shall
injure or maltreat them; Moslems shall assist them against oppressors.
Their tribute is remitted for two years. They will not be troubled
except for evil deeds.
"Some of them alighted in Irâc, and settled in Najránia near to Cufa.
"That the offence of usury is alleged in justification of this measure
appears to me to disprove the common tradition that a command was said
to have been given by Mahomet on his deathbed for the Peninsula to be
swept clear of all other religions but Islam."--Muir's Life of Mahomet,
Vol. II, pp. 301-2.]
[Footnote 90: Descendants of the great Ghatafán tribe already
described.]
[Footnote 91: Bani Himyar from Yemen. The Himyarites are too well-known
to be described. The Himyarite princes of Ro-en, Mu-afir, Hamadan and
Bazan, all of the Christian faith in Yemen, embraced Islam and announced
their conversion by letter sent to Mohammad through their emissaries
which reached him after his return from Tabúk.]
[Footnote 92: Either a clan of Lakhm, or a branch of Bani Aámir.]
[Footnote 93: A sub-tribe of the Bani Aámir bin Sáasáa already
described.]
[Footnote 94: The King of Omán, together with the people of Omán,
embraced Islam during A.H. 8 and 9. The people of Omán were of the
Azdite stock.]
[Footnote 95: Already described at page 43.]
[Footnote 96: A branch of Saad-al-Ashira from the Kahtanite stock. This
tribe inhabited Yemen. They had some peculiar prejudice against eating
the heart of an animal. Mohammad had caused their chief to break his
superstition, which he did by making him eat the roasted heart of an
animal.
But they returned disgusted when told that his (the chief's) mother who
had committed infanticide was in hell. However they sent another
deputation a second time and finally embraced Islam.]
[Footnote 97: They settled in Dumat-ul-Jundal, now Jal-al-Jowf, north of
Arabia. They were a tribe of the Bani Kozaá descended from Himyar.]
[Footnote 98: A tribe of the Kahtanite stock at Yemen. They lived in a
hilly country of that name in Yemen.]
[Footnote 99: They were a tribe of the Kahtanite stock on the coast of
Yemen.]
[Footnote 100: A clan of the Bani Aámir bin Sáasáa of the Hawázin tribe
already described.]
[Footnote 101: Descendants of Khazima of the Moaddite stock.]
[Footnote 102: The Bani Kinda princes, Vail bin Hijar and Al-Ash-as bin
Kays; the former, the chief of the coast, and the latter, the chief of
the Hazaramaut in the south of Arabia. They with their whole clans
embraced Islam. Bani Kinda were a powerful tribe of the Kahálánite
stock.]
[Footnote 103: A clan of Ozra from Kozaá described at page 46.]
[Footnote 104: Descendants of Ghatafán of the Moaddite stock.]
[Footnote 105: They inhabited the sea-coast of Yemen, and were a tribe
of Muzhie of the Kahtanite stock.]
[Footnote 106: A branch of the tribe of Aámir bin Sáasáa.]
[Footnote 107: A branch of Zobian.]
[Footnote 108: They were a tribe of the Kahtanite stock, residing in
Yemen. Their deputation consisted of two hundred persons. It is said
this was the last deputation received by Mohammad. Some time before this
Ali was sent to the Bani Nakh-a and other tribes of the Mudhij stock in
Yemen.]
[Footnote 109: A tribe of Kozaá of the Himyarite stock at Yemen.]
[Footnote 110: A sub-tribe of Kozaá inhabiting Syria described at page
46.]
[Footnote 111: A tribe of Muzhij of the Kahtanite stock at Yemen.]
[Footnote 112: They were a clan of the Bani Aámir bin Sáasáa already
described.]
[Footnote 113: A tribe of the Kozaá of the Moaddite stock, and according
to some from Yemen.]
[Footnote 114: Descendants of Hazaramaut of the Kahtanite stock at
Yemen.]
[Footnote 115: A clan of the Bani Hanifa, descendants of Bakr bin Wail
already described.]
[Footnote 116: A clan of the Bani Shaiban, the descendants of Bakr bin
Wail already mentioned.]
[Footnote 117: The Bani Sakeef (Thackif) were a branch of the Mazar
tribes of the Moaddite stock. They were a sub-tribe of the Hawázin and
sister tribe to the Bani Adwán, Ghatafán, and Suleim. They (the Bani
Sakeef) lived at Tayif and worshipped the idol _Lat_ or _Táqhia_. Orwa,
a chief of Tayif, had gone to Medina to embrace Islam. His first
generous impulse was to return to Tayif and invite his fellow-citizens
to share in the blessings imparted by the new faith. Upon his making
public his conversion, he was wounded by a mob and suffered martyrdom.
But he left a favourable impression of Islam at Tayif. Their deputation
consisted of six chiefs with fifteen or twenty followers. The Prophet
received them gladly and pitched a tent for their accommodation in the
court of his mosque. Every evening after supper he paid them there a
visit and instructed them in the faith till it was dark. Sir W. Muir
writes:--"The martyrdom of Orwa compromised the inhabitants of Tayif,
and forced to continue the hostile course they had previously been
pursuing. But they began to suffer severely from the marauding attacks
of Bani Hawazin under Malik. That chief, according to his engagement,
maintained the increasing predatory warfare against them."--Life of
Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 204. At page 155 he says regarding Malik,--"being
confirmed in his chiefship he engaged to maintain a constant warfare
with the citizens of Tayif." But there was no such engagement with
Málik. The authority (Hishamee) referred to by Sir W. Muir does not
speak anything of the alleged engagement. _Vide_ Hishamee, page 879.
Hishamee has only so much that Mohammad made Malik chief of those who
were converted from the tribe. These were the clans of Somála, Salma,
and Fahm, and that he used to fight with them against the Sakifites. Sir
W. Muir further writes that the inhabitants of Tayif said among
themselves: "We have not strength to fight against the Arab tribe all
around that have plighted their faith to Mahomet, _and bound themselves
to fight in his cause_" (Vol. IV, p. 205). The italics are mine and
these words are not to be found in the original authorities. Hishamee
(page 914) has _Bayaoo va Aslamoo_, _i.e._, they have plighted and
submitted (or converted to Islam).]
[Footnote 118: Descendants of the Kozaá inhabited the hills of that name
(Salámán).]
[Footnote 119: Descendants and branch of Bakr bin Wail.]
[Footnote 120: A tribe of the Kahtanite stock from Yemen.]
[Footnote 121: The Bani Taghlib bin Wail were a tribe of the Moaddite
stock of Meccan origin and a sister tribe to the Bani Bakr bin Wail.
Their wars are famous in the annals of Arabia. The war of Basús has been
already alluded to under Bani Bakr. These tribes, the Bani Bakr and
Taghlib, were located in Yemama, Bahrein, Najd, and Tihama, but lastly
the Bani Taghlib had emigrated to Mesopotamia and professed the
Christian faith. The members of their deputation to Mohammad wore golden
crosses. When invited to Islam, they did not embrace it, but promised to
allow their children to become Moslems. Mohammad allowed them to
maintain unchanged their profession of Christianity. Their Christianity
was of a notoriously superficial character. "The Taghlib," said Ali, the
fourth Khalif, "are not Christians; they have borrowed from Christianity
only the custom of drinking wine."--Dozy _Historie_, i, 20.]
[Footnote 122: A clan of Kinda from the sub-tribe of Sakun at Yemen.]
[Footnote 123: The Bani Tamim were descendants of Tabikha bin Elyas of
the Moaddite stock. They are famous in the history of Najd, the
northeastern desert of which from the confines of Syria to Yemama they
inhabited. They were at constant warfare with the Bani Bakr bin Abd
Monát, descendants of Kinána of the Moaddite stock, from 615 to 630 A.D.
All the branches of the tribe which had not yet converted to Islam were
now converted in A.H. 9.]
[Footnote 124: The Bani Tay was a great tribe of the Kahtanite stock of
Yemen, had moved northwards, and settled in the mountains of Ajá and
Salmá to the north of Najd and Hijaz and the town of Tyma. They had
adopted Christianity, but some of them were Jews and Pagans. Their
intertribal war has been alluded to in para. 26. The whole tribe now
embraced Islam. "A deputation from the Bani Tay, headed by their chief,
Zeid-al-Khail, came to Medina to ransom the prisoners, soon after Ali's
expedition. Mahomet was charmed with Zeid, of whose fame both as a
warrior and a poet he had long heard. He changed his name to Zeid _al
Kheir_ (_the beneficent_), granted him a large tract of country, and
sent him away laden with presents."
Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 178.]
[Footnote 125: They were a branch of Sad-al-Ashirá of the Mazhij tribe
of the Kahtanite stock. They inhabited the sea-coast of Yemen.]
[Sidenote: All the conversions, individual and tribal, without any
compulsion.]
32. Thus all these tribal conversions and the speedy spread of Islam in
the whole of Arabia was accomplished without any resort to arms,
compulsion, threat, or "the scymitar in one hand and the Koran in the
other." The Pagan Arabs, the Christians and the Jews, those who embraced
Islam, adopted it joyfully and voluntarily. Islam had been much
persecuted for many years from the third year of its Prophet's mission
to the sixth year after the Hegira--a period of about sixteen years, but
it flourished alike during persecutions and oppositions as well as
during periods of peace and security of the Moslems. It was the result
of Mohammad's staunch adherence to the uncompromising severity of his
inflexible principles of preaching the divine Truth and his sincere
belief in his own mission that he bore steadfastly all the hardships of
persecutions at Mecca and the horrors of the aggressive wars of the
Koreish and others at Medina, and persuaded the whole of Arabia, Pagan,
Jewish and Christian, to adopt Islam voluntarily.[126]
[Footnote 126: The rebellion of almost the whole of Arabia--wrongly
called apostasy--after the death of Mohammad was chiefly against the
Government of Abu Bakr, the first Khalifa of the Republic of Islam. No
such paramount power over the whole of Arabia was ever vested in the
chiefs of Mecca, and the Arabs were unaccustomed to this new form of
Government. They had neither rebelled against Islam, nor apostatized
from their religion, except a very few of them who had attached
themselves to Moseilama for a short time.]
[Sidenote: Mohammad was not favoured with circumstances round him.]
33. It was not an easy task for Mohammad to have converted the Arabs
from their national idolatry to a religion of pure and strict
monotheism. The aspect of Arabia was strictly conservative, and there
were no prospects of hopeful changes. The indigenous idolatry and
deep-rooted superstition, the worship of visible and material objects of
devotion,--idols and unshaped stones,--something that the eyes can see
and the hands can handle,--and the dread of invisible genii and other
evil spirits, held the Arab mind in a rigorous and undisputed thraldom.
Arabia was obstinately fixed in the profession of idolatry which the
Peninsula being thickly overspread, widely diffused and thoroughly
organized, was supported by national pride and latterly by the sword.
"It was," writes Dr. Marcus Dods, "certainly no hopeful task which
Mohammed undertook when he proposed by the influence of religion to
combine into one nation tribes so incapable of being deeply
influenced by any religion, and so irreconcilably opposed to one
another; to abolish customs which had the sanction of immemorial
usage; and to root out an idolatry, which, if it had no profound
hold upon the spiritual nature, was at least bound up with old
family traditions and well-understood tribal interests."[127]
The sacrifices made to, and the requirements essential to Islam, its
numerous positive prohibitions, the immediate repudiation of old
prejudices, the renunciation of all sorts of idolatry and superstition,
the throwing aside of favourite idols and the abandoning of licentious
rites and customs, the total abstinence from much-relished vices, the
demand for producing practical effect on the will and character, and the
reaping of material fruits from holy and religious life--were barriers
insurmountable for the speedy progress of Islam.
Notwithstanding these impediments Mohammad succeeded, by the influence
of his religion, in combining into one nation the wild and independent
tribes, and putting a stop to their internecine wars; in abolishing the
custom which had the sanction of immemorial usage; and in rooting out
the national idolatry of indigenous growth, without compromising his
inflexible principles of truth and sincerity and honesty; and without
adopting the superstitions and vices of the people.
Dr. Mosheim thinks that, "the causes of this new religion's rapid
progress are not difficult to be discovered: Mahomet's law itself
was admirably fitted to the natural disposition of man, but
especially to the manners, opinions and vices prevalent among the
people of the East; for it was extremely simple proposing few
things to be believed; nor did it enjoin many and difficult duties
to be performed, or such as laid severe restraints on the
propensities."[128]
It is manifest from the history of religions that the people generally
try their best to obtain religion's sanction for the vices prevalent
among them. But there is no doubt in this that Mohammad never sanctioned
the idolatries and superstitions of the Arabs, nor he framed his
doctrines according to the opinions and fancies of the people. He
preached vehemently against everything he found blamable in the people;
he spared not their dear idols and beloved gods and the dreaded genii,
nor accommodated his preaching and reform to indulge them in their evil
practices; nor did he adopt any of the vices current among the people
into his system.
Mohammad certainly did lay stress on the propensities of the mind and
made the actions of the heart answerable to God, and preferred inward
holiness to outside form.
53. "The heart is prone to evils."--Sura XII.
38. "The hearing and the sight and the heart, each of these shall
be inquired of."--Sura XVI.
225. "God will not punish you for a mistake in your oaths; but He
will punish you for that which your hearts have assented to. God is
gracious, merciful."
284. "Whatever is in the Heavens and in the Earth is God's, and
whether ye disclose what is in your minds or conceal it, God will
reckon with you for it; and whom He pleaseth will He forgive, and
whom he pleaseth will He punish; for God is All-powerful."--Sura
II.
5. "And unless made with intent of heart, mistakes in this matter
shall be no crimes in you."--Sura XXXIII.
The teachings of the Koran make our natural inclination subject to
regulation. It lays stress upon the heart of men. Note the following
injunctions regarding internal purity:
120. "Abandon the outside iniquity and its inside."--Sura VI.
152. "Come not near the pollutions outside or inward."--_Ibid._
31. "Say: Truly my Lord hath forbidden filthy actions whether open
or secret, and iniquity and unjust violence."--Sura VIII.
Referring to Dr. Mosheim's cause of the spread of Islam, I will quote
Henry Hallam's opinion regarding the causes of the success of Islam.
Henry Hallam, after enumerating the three important causes of the
success of Islam, the first of which is "those just and elevated notions
of the divine nature and of moral duties, the gold-ore that pervades the
dross of the Koran, which were calculated to strike a serious and
reflecting people," and explaining the two others which are not against
us, he says:--
"It may be expected that I should add to this what is commonly
considered as a distinguishing mark of Mohammedanism,--its
indulgence to voluptuousness. But this appears to be greatly
exaggerated. Although the character of its founder may have been
tainted by sensuality as ferociousness, I do not think that he
relied upon inducements of the former kind for the diffusion of his
system. We are not to judge of this by rules of Christian purity,
or of European practice. If polygamy was a prevailing usage in
Arabia, as is not questioned, its permission gave no additional
license to the proselytes of Mohammed, who will be found rather to
have narrowed the unbounded liberty of oriental manners in this
respect; while his decided condemnation of adultery and of
incestuous connections, so frequent among barbarous nations, does
not argue a very lax and accommodating morality. A devout Mussulman
exhibits much more of the stoical than the epicurean character. Nor
can any one read the Koran without being sensible that it breathes
an austere and scrupulous spirit. And in fact, the founder of a new
religion or sect is little likely to obtain permanent success by
indulging the vices or luxuries of mankind. I should rather be
disposed to reckon the severity of Mohammed's discipline among the
causes of its influence. Precepts of ritual observance, being
always definite and unequivocal, are less likely to be neglected,
after their obligation has been acknowledged than those of moral
virtue. Thus the long fasting, the pilgrimages, and regular prayers
and ablutions, the constant almsgiving, the abstinence from
stimulating liquors, enjoined by the Koran, created a visible
standard of practice among its followers, and preserved a continual
recollection of their law.
"But the prevalence of Islam in the lifetime of its Prophet, and
during the first ages of its existence, was chiefly owing to the
spirit of martial energy that he infused into it. The religion of
Mohammed is as essentially a military system as the institution of
chivalry in the west of Europe. The people of Arabia, a race of
strong passions and sanguinary temper, inured to habits of pillage
and murder, found in the law of their native prophet not a license,
but a command, to desolate the world, and the promise of all that
their glowing imaginations could anticipate of Paradise annexed to
all in which they most delighted upon earth."[129]
This is sufficient to refute the opinion of Dr. Mosheim. But what
Hallam says regarding the prevalence of Islam in the lifetime of the
Prophet, and during the first ages of its existence, that "the people of
Arabia, a race of strong passions and sanguinary temper, inured to
habits of pillage and murder, found in the law of their native prophet
not a license, but a command, to desolate the world," is untenable.
There was neither a command nor a license to desolate the world, nor was
any person or tribe converted to Islam with that object in view. All the
teachings of the Koran and the history of the early spread of Islam
falsify such an idea.
[Footnote 127: Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., page
83.]
[Footnote 128: Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chap. III,
page 73.]
[Footnote 129: Hallam's Middle Ages, Vol. II, pp. 118-9.]
[Sidenote: Mohammad's unwavering belief in his own mission and his
success show him to be a true prophet.]
34. I will pause here for a while, and ask the indulgence of the reader
to reflect upon the circumstances of the persecutions, insults and
injuries, expulsion and attack suffered by Mohammad and his early
followers,[130] and his unwavering adherence to preach against the
gross idolatry and immorality of his people, which all show his sincere
belief in his own mission, and his possession of an irresistible inward
impulse to publish the Divine Truth of his Revelations regarding the
unity in the Godhead and other moral reforms. His preachings of
monotheism, and his enjoining righteousness, and forbidding evil deeds,
were not attended to for many years with material success. In proportion
as he preached against the gross idolatry and superstition of his
people, he was subjected to ridicule and scorn, and finally to an
inveterate persecution which ruined his and his follower's fortune. But
he unflinchingly kept his path; no threats and no injuries hindered him
from still preaching to the ungodly people a purer and higher theology
and better morality than had ever been set before them. He claimed no
temporal power, no spiritual domination; he asked but for simple
toleration, for free permission to win men by persuasion into the way of
truth. He declared he was sent neither to compel conviction by
miracles, nor to constrain outward profession by the sword.[131] Does
this leave any doubt of the strong conviction in his mind, as well as in
the truth of his claim, to be a man sent by God to preach the Divine
Perfection, and to teach mankind the ways of righteousness? He honestly
and sincerely conveyed the message which he had received or which he
conscientiously or intuitively believed to have received from his God
and which had all the signs and marks of truth in itself. What is meant
by a True Prophet or a Revelation is not more than what we find in the
case of Mohammad.[132]
The general office and main business of a prophet is to proclaim to
mankind the Divine Perfection, to teach publicly purer theology and
higher morality, to enjoin the people to do what is right and just, and
to forbid what is wrong and bad. It is neither a part of the prophet to
predict future events, nor to show supernatural miracles. And further, a
prophet is neither immaculate nor infallible. The Revelation is a
natural product of human faculties. A prophet feels that his mind is
illumined by God, and the thoughts which are expressed by him and spoken
or written under this influence are to be regarded as the words of God.
This illumination of the mind or the effect of the Divine Influence
differ in any prophet according to the capacity of the recipient, or
according to the circumstances--physical, moral, and religious--in which
he is placed.
[Footnote 130: The early followers of Mohammad bore persecutions and
exile with patience and steadfastness; and never recanted. Look to the
increasing number of these early Moslems, their magnanimous forbearance,
and the spontaneous abandonment of their dear homes and relations, and
their defending their Prophet with their blood. The number of Christian
believers during the whole lifetime of Christ was not more than 120 (Act
I, 15). They had a material view of the Messiah's kingdom, and had fled
at the first sound of danger. Two of the disciples when walking to
Emmaus observed, "We trusted that it had been He who should have
redeemed Israel," and the apostle asked Jesus after the so-called
resurrection, "Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom of
Israel?"
"During the periods thus indicated as possible for comparison,
persecution and rejection were the fate of both. But the thirteen years'
ministry of Mahomet had brought about a far greater change to the
external eye than the whole lifetime of Christ. The apostles fled at the
first sound of danger, and however deep the inner work may have been in
the 500 by whom our Lord was seen, it had produced as yet but little
outward action. There was among them no spontaneous quitting of their
homes, nor emigration by hundreds, such as distinguished the early
Moslems; nor any rapturous resolution by the converts of a foreign city
to defend the Prophet with their blood."--The Life of Mahomet by Sir W.
Muir, Vol. II, page 274.]
[Footnote 131: "Let us for a moment look back to the period when a ban
was proclaimed at Mecca against all the citizens, whether professed
converts or not, who espoused his cause; when they were shut up in the
_Sheb_ or quarter of Abu Tâlib, and there for three years without
prospect of relief endured want and hardship. Those must have been
steadfast and mighty motives which enabled him amidst all this
opposition and apparent hopelessness of success, to maintain his
principles unshaken. No sooner was he relieved from confinement, than,
despairing of his native city, he went forth to Tâyif and summoned its
rulers and inhabitants to repentance; he was solitary and unaided, but
he had a message, he said, from his Lord. On the third day he was driven
out of the town with ignominy, blood trickling from the wounds inflicted
on him by the populace. He retired to a little distance, and there
poured forth his complaint to God: then he returned to Mecca, there to
carry on the same outwardly hopeless cause with the same high confidence
in its ultimate success. We search in vain through the pages of profane
history for a parallel to the struggle in which for thirteen years the
Prophet of Arabia in the face of discouragement and threats, rejection
and persecution retained his faith unwavering, preached repentance, and
denounced God's wrath against his godless fellow-citizens. Surrounded by
a little band of faithful men and women, he met insults, menaces,
dangers, with a high and patient trust in the future. And when at last
the promise of safety came from a distant quarter, he calmly waited
until his followers had all departed, and then disappeared from amongst
his ungrateful and rebellious people."--Muir, Vol. IV, pages 314-15.]
[Footnote 132: "That he was the impostor pictured by some writers is
refuted alike by his unwavering belief in the truth of his own mission,
by the loyalty and unshaken confidence of his companions, who had ample
opportunity of forming a right estimate of his sincerity, and finally,
by the magnitude of the task which he brought to so successful an issue.
No impostor, it may safely be said, could have accomplished so mighty a
work. No one unsupported by a living faith in the reality of his
commission, in the goodness of his cause, could have maintained the same
consistent attitude through long years of adverse fortune, alike in the
day of victory and in the hour of defeat, in the plenitude of his power
and at the moment of death."--Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart,
M.A., page 23.
"Of the sincerity of his belief in his own mission there can be no
doubt. The great merit is his that among a people given up to idolatry
he rose to a vivid perception of the Unity of God, and preached this
great doctrine with firmness and constancy, amid ridicule and
persecution. But there it seems to me that the eulogy of the Prophet
ought to cease."--Islam under the Arabs by R.D. Osborn. London 1876, p.
90.]
[Sidenote: Striking effects of Mohammad's reforms.]
35. Although his mission was only to convey the message and preach
publicly what was revealed to him, and he was not responsible for the
conversion of the ungodly polytheists to the purer theology and higher
morality, or in other words, to the faith of Islam, yet whatever success
and beneficial results in the sphere of theology, morality, and reforms
in social matters he achieved was a strong evidence of his Divine
mission. In the name of God and in the character of His Apostle, he
wrought a great reform according to his light in his own country. "Every
good tree bringeth forth good fruit."--(Matt. VII, 17). Facts are
stubborn things, and facts are conclusive in these points.
The effects produced by his preaching, and the changes wrought by them
in the religious, social, and political sphere of the polytheists, the
idolatrous and grossly superstitious Arabs within a comparatively short
period, mostly consisting of persecutions at Mecca, and struggles at
Medina, were very striking. From an indiscriminate mass of polytheism
and gross superstitious belief in gods, genii, the sons and daughters of
God, he gave them a pure monotheistic belief, recognizing no other
superior power but the Almighty. He raised the moral standard of his
countrymen, ameliorated the condition of women, curtailed and mitigated
polygamy and slavery, and virtually abolished them as well as
infanticide. He most sternly denounced and absolutely forbade many
heinous evils of the Arab society. He united a number of wild and
independent tribes into a nation and abolished their internecine wars.
Sir W. Muir says:--
"Few and simple as the positive precepts of Mahomet up to this time
appear, they had wrought a marvellous and a mighty work. Never,
since the days when primitive Christianity startled the world from
its sleep, and waged a mortal combat with Heathenism, had men seen
the like arousing of spiritual life, the like faith that suffered
sacrifice and took joyfully the spoiling of goods for conscience
sake.
"From time beyond memory, Mecca and the whole Peninsula had been
steeped into spiritual torpor. The slight and transient influence
of Judaism, Christianity, or Philosophy upon the Arab mind, had
been but as the ruffling here and there the surface of a quiet
lake;--all remained still and motionless below. The people were
sunk in superstition, cruelty, and vice. It was a common practice
for the eldest son to marry his father's widows inherited as
property with the rest of the estate. Pride and poverty had
introduced among them, as it has among the Hindus, the crime of
female infanticide. Their religion consisted in gross idolatry, and
their faith was rather the dark superstitious dread of unseen
beings, whose goodwill they sought to propitiate, and to avert
their displeasure, than the belief in an over-ruling Providence.
The Life to come and Retribution of good and evil were, as motives
of action, practically unknown.
"Thirteen years before the Hegira, Mecca lay lifeless in this
debased state. What a change those thirteen years had now produced!
A band of several hundred persons had rejected idolatry, adopted
the worship of one great God, and surrendered themselves implicitly
to the guidance of what they believed a revelation from
Him;--praying to the Almighty with frequency and fervour, looking
for pardon through His mercy, and striving to follow after good
works, almsgiving, chastity and justice. They now lived under a
constant sense of the Omnipotent power of God, and of His
providential care over the minutest of their concerns. In all the
gifts of nature, in every relation of life, at each turn of their
affairs, individual or public, they saw His hand. And, above all,
the new spiritual existence in which they joyed and gloried, was
regarded as the mark of His especial grace, while the unbelief of
their blinded fellow-citizens was the hardening stamp of His
predestined reprobation. Mahomet was the minister of life to
them,--the source under God of their new-born hopes; and to him
they yielded a fitting and implicit submission.
"In so short a period, Mecca had, from this wonderful movement,
been rent into two factions, which, unmindful of the old land-marks
of tribe and family, were arrayed in deadly opposition one against
the other. The believers bore persecution with a patient and
tolerant spirit. And though it was their wisdom so to do, the
credit of a magnanimous forbearance may be freely accorded to
them. One hundred men and women, rather than abjure the precious
faith, had abandoned their homes, and sought refuge, till the storm
should be overpast, in Abyssinian exile. And now even a larger
number, with the Prophet himself, emigrated from their fondly-loved
city, with its sacred temple,--to them the holiest spot on
earth,--and fled to Medîna. There the same wonder-working charm had
within two or three years prepared for them a brotherhood ready to
defend the Prophet and his followers with their blood. Jewish truth
had long sounded in the ears of the men of Medîna, but it was not
till they heard the spirit-stirring strains of the Arabian prophet,
that they too awoke from their slumber, and sprang suddenly into a
new and earnest life."[133]
Further on Sir W. Muir says:--
"And what have been the effects of the system which, established by
such instrumentality, Mahomet has left behind him. We may freely
concede that it banished for ever many of the darker elements of
superstition which had for ages shrouded the Peninsula. Idolatry
vanished before the battle-cry of Islam; the doctrine of the unity
and infinite perfections of God, and of a special all-pervading
Providence, became a living principle in the hearts and lives of
the followers of Mahomet, even as it had in his own. An absolute
surrender and submission to the divine will (the very name of
_Islam_) was demanded as the first requirement of the religion. Nor
are social virtues wanting. Brotherly love is inculcated within the
circle of the faith; orphans are to be protected, and slaves
treated with consideration; intoxicating drinks are prohibited,
and Mahometanism may boast of a degree of temperance unknown to any
other creed."[134]
Dr. Marcus Dods writes:--
"But is Mahommed in no sense a Prophet? Certainly he had two of the
most important characteristics of the prophetic order. He saw truth
about God which his fellowmen did not see, and he had an
irresistible inward impulse to publish this truth. In respect of
this latter qualification Mahommed may stand comparison with the
most courageous of the heroic prophets of Israel. For the truth's
sake he risked his life, he suffered daily persecutions for years,
and eventually banishment, the loss of property, of the goodwill of
his fellow-citizens, and the confidence of his friends--he suffered
in short as much as any man can suffer short of death, which he
only escaped by flight, and yet he unflinchingly proclaimed his
message. No bribe, threat or inducement could silence him. 'Though
they array against me the sun on the right hand, and the moon on
the left, I cannot renounce my purpose.' And it was this
persistency, this belief in his call, to proclaim the Unity of God
which was the making of Islam. Other men have been monotheists in
the midst of idolaters, but no other man has founded a strong and
enduring monotheistic religion. The distinction in his case was his
resolution that other men should believe.... His giving himself out
as a prophet of God was, in the first instance, not only sincere,
but probably correct in the sense in which he himself understood
it. He felt that he had thoughts of God which it deeply concerned
all around him to receive, and he knew that these thoughts were
given him by God, although not, as we shall see, a revelation
strictly so called. His mistake lay by no means in his supposing
himself to be called upon by God to speak for him and introduce a
better religion, but it lay in his gradually coming to insist quite
as much on men's accepting him as a prophet as on their accepting
the great truth he preached. He was a prophet to his countrymen in
so far as he proclaimed the Unity of God, but this was no
sufficient ground for his claiming to be their guide in all matters
of religion, still less for his assuming the lordship over them in
all matters civil as well...."
The learned doctor further on in his book, "Mohammed, Buddha, and
Christ," remarks:--
"But as we endeavour to estimate the good and evil of Islam, it
gradually appears that the chief point we must attend to is to
distinguish between its value to Arabia in the seventh century and
its value to the world at large. No one, I presume, would deny that
to Mohammed's contemporaries his religion was an immense advance on
anything they had previously believed in. It welded together the
disunited tribes, and lifted the nation to the forefront of the
important powers in the world. It effected what Christianity and
Judaism had alike failed to effect--it swept away, once and for
ever, idolatry, and established the idea of one true God. Its
influence on Arabia was justly and pathetically put by the Moslem
refugees in Abyssinia, who when required to say why they should not
be sent back to Mecca, gave the following account of their religion
and what it had done for them: 'O king, we were plunged in
ignorance and barbarism; we worshipped idols; we ate dead bodies;
we committed lewdness; disregarded family ties and the duties of
neighbourhood and hospitality; we knew no law but that of the
strong, when God sent among us a messenger of whose truthfulness,
integrity, and innocence we were aware; and he called us to the
unity of God, and taught us not to associate any god with him; he
forbade us the worship of idols, and enjoined upon us to speak the
truth, to be faithful to our trusts, to be merciful, and to regard
the rights of others; to love our relatives and to protect the
weak; to flee vice and avoid all evil. He taught us to offer
prayers, to give alms, and to fast. And because we believed in him
and obeyed him, therefore are we persecuted and driven from our
country to seek thy protection.'"[135]
But after all we have here seen of the opinions of Dr. Marcus Dods and
Sir W. Muir, let us turn to what the Rev. Stephens thinks of Mohammad:--
"The aim of Mahomet was to revive among his countrymen the Arabs,
as Moses revived among his countrymen the Jews, the pure faith of
their common forefather Abraham. In this he succeeded to a very
great extent. For a confused heap of idolatrous superstitions he
substituted a pure monotheistic faith; he abolished some of the
most vicious practices of his countrymen, modified others; he
generally raised the moral standard, improved the social condition
of the people, and introduced a sober and rational ceremonial in
worship. Finally he welded by this means a number of wild
independent tribes, mere floating atoms, into a compact body
politic, as well prepared and as eager to subdue the kingdoms of
the world to their rule and to their faith, as ever the Israelites
had been to conquer the land of Canaan.
* * * * *
"The Koran also enjoins repeatedly and in very emphatic language
the duty of showing kindness to the stranger and the orphan, and of
treating slaves, if converted to the faith, with the consideration
and respect due to believers. The duty even of mercy to the lower
animals is not forgotten, and it is to be thankfully acknowledged
that Mohammedanism as well as Buddhism shares with Christianity the
honour of having given birth to hospitals and asylums for the
insane and sick.
* * * * *
"The vices most prevalent in Arabia in the time of Mahomet which
are most sternly denounced and absolutely forbidden in the Koran
were drunkenness, unlimited concubinage and polygamy, the
destruction of female infants, reckless gambling, extortionate
usury, superstitious arts of divination and magic. The abolition of
some of these evil customs, and the mitigation of others, was a
great advance in the morality of the Arabs, and is a wonderful and
honourable testimony to the zeal and influence of the reformer. The
total suppression of female infanticide and of drunkenness is the
most signal triumph of his work."[136]
The reverend gentleman quoted above continues:
"First of all, it must be freely granted that to his own people
Mahomet was a great benefactor. He was born in a country where
political organization, and rational faith, and pure morals were
unknown. He introduced all three. By a single stroke of masterly
genius he simultaneously reformed the political condition, the
religious creed, and the moral practice of his countrymen. In the
place of many independent tribes he left a nation; for a
superstitious belief in gods many and lords many he established a
reasonable belief in one Almighty yet beneficent Being; taught men
to live under an abiding sense of this Being's superintending care,
to look to Him as the rewarder, and to fear Him as the punisher of
evil-doers. He vigorously attacked, and modified and suppressed
many gross and revolting customs which had prevailed in Arabia down
to his time. For an abandoned profligacy was substituted a
carefully regulated polygamy, and the practice of destroying female
infants was effectually abolished.
"As Islam gradually extended its conquest beyond the boundaries of
Arabia, many barbarous races whom it absorbed became in like manner
participators in its benefits. The Turk, the Indian, the Negro, and
the Moor were compelled to cast away their idols, to abandon their
licentious rites and customs, to turn to the worship of one God, to
a decent ceremonial and an orderly way of life. The faith even of
the more enlightened Persian was purified: he learned that good and
evil are not co-ordinate powers, but that just and unjust are alike
under the sway of one All-wise and Holy Ruler, who ordereth all
things in heaven and earth.
"For barbarous nations, then, especially--nations which were more
or less in the condition of Arabia itself at the time of
Mahomet--nations in the condition of Africa at the present day,
with little or no civilisation, and without a reasonable
religion--Islam certainly comes as a blessing, as a turning from
darkness to light and from the power of satan unto God."[137]
[Footnote 133: The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, LL.D., Vol. II, pp.
269-71.]
[Footnote 134: The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, pp. 320-21.]
[Footnote 135: Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp.
17-19 & 119.]
[Footnote 136: Christianity and Islam: The Bible and the Koran, by Rev.
W.R.W. Stephens, pp. 94, 104, 112, London, 1877.]
[Footnote 137: Christianity and Islam: The Bible and the Koran, by the
Rev. W.R.W. Stephens, pp. 129-30, London, 1877.]
[Sidenote: Indictment against Mohammad.]
36. What the opponents of Mohammad can possibly say against his mission
is his alleged moral declension at Medina.[138] They accuse him of
cruelty[139] and sensuality[140] during his sojourn in that city after
he had passed without any blame more than fifty-five years of his age,
and had led a pious missionary life for upwards of fifteen years. These
moral stains cannot be inconsistent with his office of being a prophet
or reformer. It is no matter if a prophet morally degrades his character
under certain circumstances, or morally degrades his character at the
end of his age--after leading for upwards of fifty-five years a life of
the highest moral principles, and as a paragon of temperance and
high-toned living--while he has faithfully conveyed the message, and has
sincerely and honestly preached religious reforms, and the sublimity of
his preachings have in themselves the marks of divine truth.
If the said prophet defends his stains or immoral deeds by professed
revelations, and justifies himself in his flagrant breaches of morality
by producing messages from heaven, just and equally as he does when he
teaches the purer theology and higher morality for which he is
commissioned, then and from that time only we will consider him as an
impostor, guilty of high blasphemy in forging the name of God for his
licentious self indulgences.
But in the case of Mohammad, in the first place, the charges of cruelty
and sensuality during a period of six or seven years towards the end of
his life, excepting three years, are utterly false; and secondly, if
proved to have taken place, it is not proved that Mohammad justified
himself by alleging to have received a divine sanction or command to the
alleged cruelties and flagrant breaches of morality. The charges of
assassinations and cruelties to the prisoners of war and others, and of
the alleged perfidy and craftiness enumerated by Sir W. Muir, have been
examined and refuted by me in this book. _Vide_ pp. 60-73 and pp. 76-97.
The cases of Maria, a slave-girl, and Zeinab not coming directly under
the object of this book have been treated separately in Appendix B, pp.
211-220 of this work.
Mohammad, in his alleged cruelties towards his enemies, is not
represented by Sir W. Muir to have justified himself by special
revelation or sanction from on high, yet the Rev. Mr. Hughes, whose work
has been pronounced as having "_the rare merit of being accurate_,"
makes him (Mohammad) to have done them under the sanction of God in the
Koran.
"The best defenders of the Arabian Prophet[141] are obliged to
admit that the matter of Zeinab, the wife of Zeid, and again of
Mary, the Coptic slave, are 'an indelible stain' upon his memory;
that he is untrue once or twice to the kind and forgiving
disposition of his best nature; that he is once or twice
unrelenting in the punishment of his personal enemies, and that he
is guilty even more than once of conniving at the assassination of
inveterate opponents; but they do not give any satisfactory
explanation or apology for all this being done _under the supposed
sanction_ of God in the Qurán."[142]
Such is the rare accuracy of Mr. Hughes' work. It is needless for me to
repeat here that none of these allegations are either true or facts, or
alleged to have been committed under the sanction of God in the Koran.
The Rev. Marcus Dods writes regarding the character of Mohammad:--
"The knot of the matter lies not in his polygamy, nor even in his
occasional licentiousness, but in the fact that he defended his
conduct, when he created scandal, by professed revelations which
are now embodied as parts of the Koran. When his wives murmured,
and with justice, at his irregularities, he silenced them by a
revelation giving him conjugal allowances which he had himself
proscribed as unlawful. When he designed to contract an alliance
with a woman forbidden to him by his own law, an inspired
permission was forthcoming, encouraging him to the
transgression."[143]
Both of these alleged instances given above are mere fabrications. There
was no revelation giving Mohammad conjugal allowances which he had
himself proscribed as unlawful, nor any permission was brought forward
to sanction an alliance forbidden to him by his own law. This subject
has been fully discussed by me in my work "Mohammad, the True Prophet,"
and the reader is referred to that work.[144] A few verses on the
marital subject of Mohammad are greatly misunderstood by European
writers on the subject, and Dr. Dods shares the generally wrong idea
when he says:--
"He rather used his office as a title to license from which
ordinary men were restrained. Restricting his disciples to four
wives, he retained to himself the liberty of taking as many as he
pleased." (Page 23.)
This is altogether a gross misrepresentation of the real state of
things. Mohammad never retained to himself the liberty of taking as many
wives as he pleased. On the contrary, Sura XXXIII, 52, expressly forbade
him all women except those he had already with him, giving him no option
to marry in the case of the demise of some or all of them. This will
show that he rather used his office as a restraint against himself of
what was lawful for the people in general to enjoy. The only so-called
privilege above the rest of the believers (Sura XXXIII, 49) was not "to
retain to himself the liberty of taking as many wives as he pleased,"
but to retain the wives whom he had already married and whose number
exceeded the limit of four under Sura IV, 3. Other believers having more
wives than four as in the case of Kays, Ghailán, and Naofal, were
requested to separate themselves from the number exceeding the limit
prescribed for the first time. This was before polygamy was declared to
have been virtually abolished, _i.e._, between the publication of _vv._
3 and 128 of Sura IV. There was neither any breach of morality, nor
anything licentious in his retaining the marriages lawfully contracted
by him before the promulgation of Sara IV, 3. Even this privilege (Sura
XXXIII, 49) was counterbalanced by _Ibid_, 52, which runs thus:--
"Women are not allowed thee hereafter, nor to change them for other
women, though their beauty charm thee, except those already
possessed by thee."
Mr. Stanley Lane Poole suffers under the same misrepresentation as other
European writers[145] do when he says that:--
"The Prophet allowed his followers only four wives, he took more
than a dozen himself."
He writes:--
"When, however, all has been said, when it has been shown that
Mohammad was not the rapacious voluptuary some have taken him for,
and that his violation of his own marriage-law may be due to
motives reasonable and just from his point of view rather than to
common sensuality."
"Did Mohammad believe he was speaking the words of God equally when
he declared that permission was given him to take unto him more
wives, as when he proclaimed, 'There is no god but God?'"[146]
Mohammad did not violate his own marriage-law, and never pretended that
permission was given to him to take more wives than what was allowed for
other people. All his marriages (which are wrongly considered to have
been about a dozen) were contracted by him before he published the law
unjustly said to have been violated by him. He retained these wives
after the law was promulgated, and their number exceeded four, but he
was interdicted to marry any other women in the place of these in case
of their demise or divorce. Other believers were advised after the
promulgation of the law to reduce the number of their wives exceeding
four, but were at liberty to replace their wives within the limit
assigned in the case of their demise or divorce. Mohammad's case had no
breach of morality or sensual license in it. It was very wise of
Mohammad to retain all the wives he had married before Sura IV, 3, came
into force, for the reason that the wives thus repudiated by him might
have married some of the unbelievers, even some of his enemies, which
would have been derogatory to the Prophet in the eyes of his
contemporaries and a laughing-stock for his enemies.
[Footnote 138: "We may readily admit that at the first Mahomet did
believe, or persuaded himself to believe, that his revelations were
dictated by a divine agency. In the Meccan period of his life there
certainly can be traced no personal ends or unworthy motives to belie
this conclusion. The Prophet was there, what he professed to be, 'a
simple Preacher and a Warner;' he was the despised and rejected teacher
of a gainsaying people; and he had apparently no ulterior object but
their reformation. Mahomet may have mistaken the right means to effect
this end, but there is no sufficient reason for doubting that he used
those means in good faith and with an honest purpose.
"But the scene altogether changes at Medîna. There the acquisition of
temporal power, aggrandisement, and self-glorification mingled with the
grand object of the Prophet's previous life, and they were sought after
and attained by precisely the same instrumentality. Messages from Heaven
were freely brought forward to justify his political conduct, equally
with his religious precepts. Battles were fought, wholesale executions
inflicted, and territories annexed, under pretext of the Almighty's
sanction. Nay, even baser actions were not only excused, but encouraged
by the pretended divine approval or command. A special license was
produced, allowing Mahomet a double number of wives; the discreditable
affair of Mary the Coptic slave was justified in a separate Sura; and
the passion for the wife of his own adopted son and bosom friend was the
subject of an inspired message in which the Prophet's scruples were
rebuked by God; a divorce permitted, and marriage with the object of his
unhallowed desires enjoined."--Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp.
317-8.]
[Footnote 139: "But the darker shades of character as well as the
brighter must be depicted by a faithful historian. Magnanimity or
moderation are nowhere discernible as features in the conduct of Mahomet
towards such of his enemies as failed to tender a timely allegiance.
Over the bodies of the Coreish who fell at Badr he exulted with savage
satisfaction; and several prisoners, accused of no crime but that of
scepticism and political opposition, were deliberately executed at his
command. The prince of Kheibar, after being subjected to inhuman torture
for the purpose of discovering the treasures of his tribe, was, with his
cousin, put to death on the pretext of having treacherously concealed
them; and his wife was led away captive to the tent of the conqueror.
Sentence of exile was enforced by Mahomet with rigorous severity on two
whole Jewish tribes at Medîna; and of a third like his neighbours, the
women and children were sold into distant captivity, while the men
amounting to several hundreds were butchered in cold blood before his
eyes.
"In his youth Mahomet earned among his fellows the honourable title of
'the Faithful.' But in later years, however much sincerity and good
faith may have guided his conduct in respect of his friends, craft and
deception were certainly not wanting towards his foes. The perfidious
attack at Nakhla, where the first blood in the internecine war with the
Coreish was shed, although at first disavowed by Mahomet, for its
scandalous breach of the sacred usages of Arabia, was eventually
justified by a pretended revelation. Abu Basîr, the freebooter, was
countenanced by the Prophet in a manner scarcely consistent with the
letter, and certainly opposed to the spirit, of the truce of Hodeibia.
The surprise which secured the easy conquest of Mecca was designed with
craftiness, if not with duplicity. The pretext on which the Bani Nadhîr
were besieged and expatriated (namely, that Gabriel had revealed their
design against the prophet's life), was feeble and unworthy of an honest
cause. When Medîna was beleaguered by the confederate army, Mahomet
sought the services of Nueim, a traitor, and employed him to sow
distrust among the enemy by false and treacherous reports; 'for,' said
he, 'what else is war but a game at deception?' In his prophetical
career, political and personal ends were frequently compassed by the
flagrant pretence of _Divine_ revelations, which a candid examination
would have shewn him to be nothing more than the counterpart of his own
wishes. The Jewish and Christian systems, at first adopted honestly as
the basis of his own religion, had no sooner served the purpose of
establishing a firm authority, than they were ignored, if not disowned.
And what is perhaps worst of all, the dastardly assassination of
political and religious opponents, countenanced and frequently directed
as they were in all their cruel and perfidious details by Mahomet
himself leaves a dark and indelible blot upon his character."--Muir's
Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 307-9.
"The reader will observe that simultaneously with the anxious desire to
extinguish idolatry, and to promote religion and virtue in the world,
there was nurtured by the Prophet in his own heart a licentious
self-indulgence; till in the end, assuming to be the favourite of
Heaven, he justified himself by 'revelations' from God in the most
flagrant breaches of morality. He will remark that while Mahomet
cherished a kind and tender disposition, 'weeping with them that wept,'
and binding to his person the hearts of his followers by the ready and
self-denying offices of love and friendship, he could yet take pleasure
in cruel and perfidious assassination, could gloat over the massacre of
an entire tribe, and savagely consign the innocent babe to the fires of
hell."--Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 322-3.]
[Footnote 140: "In domestic life the conduct of Mahomet with one grave
exception was exemplary. As a husband his fondness and devotion was
entire, bordering, however, at times upon jealousy. As a father he was
loving and tender. In his youth he is said to have lived a virtuous
life. At the age of twenty-five he married a widow forty years old; and
for five and twenty years he was a faithful husband to her alone. Yet it
is remarkable that during this period was composed most of those
passages of the Coran in which the black-eyed Houris, reserved for
believers in Paradise, are depicted in such glowing colours. Shortly
after the death of Khadija the Prophet married again; but it was not
till the mature age of fifty-four that he made the dangerous trial of
polygamy, by taking Ayesha, yet a child, as the rival of Sauda. Once the
natural limits of restraint were overpassed, Mahomet fell an easy prey
to his strong passion for the sex. In his fifty-sixth year he married
Haphsa; and the following year, in two succeeding months, Zeinab bint
Khozeima and Omm Salma. But his desires were not to be satisfied by the
range of a harem already greater than was permitted to any of his
followers; rather as age advanced, they were stimulated to seek for new
and varied indulgence. A few months after his nuptials with Zeinab and
Omm Salma, the charms of a second Zeinab were by accident discovered too
fully before the Prophet's admiring gaze. She was the wife of Zeid, his
adopted son and bosom friend; but he was unable to smother the flame she
kindled in his breast; and, by _divine_ command, she was taken to his
bed. In the same year he married a seventh wife, and also a concubine.
And at last, when he was full three score years of age, no fewer than
three new wives, besides Mary the Coptic slave, were within the space of
seven months added to his already well-filled harem."--Muir's Life of
Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 309-10.]
[Footnote 141: "_Vide_ Muhammad and Muhammadanism, by Mr. R. Bosworth
Smith, M.A., an Assistant Master of Harrow School."]
[Footnote 142: Notes on Muhammadanism, by the Rev. T.P. Hughes,
Missionary to the Afghans, Peshawar; Second Edition, page 4, London,
1877.]
[Footnote 143: Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp. 24
& 25.]
[Footnote 144: _Vide_ pp. 48-61. This work is being printed at Education
Society's Press, Byculla, Bombay. It appears that Dr. Dods, in the first
instance, had in view Sura XXXIII, 51. This is by no means giving
Mohammad conjugal allowances which he himself had proscribed as
unlawful. As a preliminary measure to abolish polygamy and to accustom
the people to monogamy, Mohammad, when reducing the unlimited polygamy
practised in Arabia, had put a strong condition to treat their wives,
when more than one, equitably in every sense of the word,--_i.e._, in
the matter of social comfort, love and household establishment (Sura IV,
3). When the measure had given a monogamous tendency to the Arab
society, it was declared that it was impossible practically to treat
equitably in all respects the contemporary wives (Sura IV, 128), and
those who had already contracted contemporaneous marriage before the
measure referred to above was introduced were absolved from the
condition laid down in Sura IV, 3, but were advised, regarding their
then existing wives, not to yield wholly to disinclination. Similarly
Mohammad was also relieved from that condition in Sura XXXIII, 51,
without "giving him any conjugal allowance which he had himself
pronounced unlawful." The second instance is of Zeinab's case I suppose.
Zeinab was in no way, when divorced by Zeid, "a woman forbidden to him
by his own laws."]
[Footnote 145: "The Apostle becomes a creature so exalted that even the
easy drapery of Mohammadan morality becomes a garment too tight-fitting
for him. 'A peculiar privilege is granted to him above the rest of the
believers.' He may multiply his wives without stint; he may and he does
marry within the prohibited degrees."--_Islam under the Arabs_, by R.D.
Osborn, London 1876, p. 91.]
[Footnote 146: Studies in a Mosque, by S.L. Poole, pp. 77 and 80,
London, 1880.]
[Sidenote: Finality of the social reforms of Mohammad.]
[Sidenote: Positive precepts.]
[Sidenote: Ceremonial law.]
[Sidenote: Concrete morals of the Koran.]
[Sidenote: Want of adaptibility of the Koran to surrounding
circumstances.]
37. It has been said with much stress regarding the teachings of
Mohammad: (1) That although under the degraded condition of Arabia, they
were a gift of great value, and succeeded in banishing those fierce
vices which naturally accompany ignorance and barbarism, but an
imperfect code of ethics has been made a permanent standard of good and
evil, and a final and irrevocable law, which is an insuperable barrier
to the regeneration and progress of a nation. It has been also urged
that his reforms were good and useful for his own time and place, but
that by making them final he has prevented further progress and
consecrated half measures. What were restrictions to his Arabs would
have been license to other men.[147] (2) That Islam deals with positive
precepts rather than with principles,[148] and the danger of a precise
system of positive precepts regulating the minute detail, the ceremonial
worship, and the moral and social relations of life, is, that it should
retain too tight a grip upon men when the circumstances which justified
it have changed and vanished away, and therefore the imposition of a
system good for barbarians upon people already possessing higher sort of
civilization and the principles of a purer faith is not a blessing but a
curse. Nay more, even the system which was good for people when they
were in a barbarous state may become positively mischievous to those
same people when they begin to emerge from their barbarism under its
influence into a higher condition.[149] (3) That the exact ritual and
formal observations of Islam have carried with them their own Nemesis,
and thus we find that in the worship of the faithful formalism and
indifferences, pedantic scrupulosity and positive disbelief flourish
side by side. The minutest change of posture in prayer, the displacement
of a simple genuflexion, would call for much heavier censure than
outward profligacy or absolute neglect.[150] (4) That morality is viewed
not in the abstract, but in the concrete. That the Koran deals much more
with sin and virtue in fragmentary details than as a whole. It deals
with acts more than principles, with outward practice more than inward
motives, with precepts and commands more than exhortation. It does not
hold up before man the hatefulness and ugliness of _all_ sin _as a
whole_.[151] (5) "That Islam is stationary; swathed in the rigid bands
of the Coran, it is powerless, like the Christian dispensation,[152] to
adapt itself to the varying circumstances of time and place, and to keep
pace with, if not to lead and direct, the progress of society and the
elevation of the race. In the body politic the spiritual and secular are
hopelessly confounded, and we fail of perceiving any approach to free
institutions or any germ whatever of popular government."[153]
[Footnote 147: _Vide_ Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A.,
page 229, London, 1878; and Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods,
D.D., pp. 122-23, London, 1878. Major Osborn writes, "But to the polity
erected on these rude lines was given the attribute of finality. In
order to enforce obedience and eliminate the spirit of opposition,
Mohammad asserted that it was, down to the minutest details, the work of
a Divine Legislature."--_Islam under the Arabs_, pp. 45 and 46.]
[Footnote 148: _Vide_ The Faith of Islam, by the Rev. Edward Sell, page
7, London, 1880.]
[Footnote 149: _Vide_ Christianity and Islam, the Bible, and the Koran,
by the Rev. W.R.W. Stephens, pp. 95 and 131, London, 1877.]
[Footnote 150: _Vide_ Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A.,
page 237; and Stephens' Christianity and Islam, page 121. Major Osborn
writes: "From the hour of his birth the moslem becomes a member of a
system in which every act of his life is governed by a minute ritual. He
is beset on every side with a circle of inflexible formalities."--_Islam
under the Khalifs of Baghdad_, pp. 78-9. He further writes in a
footnote, p. 79: "Thus prayer is absolutely useless if any matter,
legally considered impure, adheres to the person of the worshipper, even
though he be unconscious of its presence. Prayer also is null and void
unless the men and women praying are attired in a certain prescribed
manner."]
[Footnote 151: _Vide_ Christianity and Islam, by W.R.W. Stephens, pp.
122-23. Major Osborn writes: "The Prophet knew of no religious life
where the external rite was not deemed of greater importance than the
inner state, and, in consequence, he gave that character to Islam also.
Hence there are no moral gradations in the Koran. All precepts proceed
from the will of God, and all are enforced with the same threatening
emphasis. A failure of performance in the meanest trivialities of civil
life involves the same tremendous penalties as apostacy and
idolatry."--_Islam under Khalifs_, p. 5. He further says: "In their
religious aspect, these traditions are remarkable for that strange
confusion of thought which caused the Prophet to place on one level of
wickedness serious moral crimes, breaches of sumptuary regulations, and
accidental omissions in ceremonial observations. Sin, throughout, is
regarded as an external pollution, which can, at once, be rectified by
the payment of a fine of some kind." _Ibid_, page 62.]
[Footnote 152: "Occasionally our author would seem to write what he
certainly does not mean; thus, in the middle of an excellent summary of
the causes of Islam's decadence, it is stated,--'Swathed in the rigid
bands of the Koran, _Islam is powerless like the Christian dispensation_
to adapt itself to the varying circumstances of time and place.'"--_The
Saturday Review_, June 23, 1883.]
[Footnote 153: _Vide_ Annals of the Early Caliphate, by Sir W. Muir,
K.C.S.I., LL.D., D.C.L., page 456, London, 1883.]
[Sidenote: The preceding objections not applicable to the Koran.]
38. All these objections more or less apply rather to the teachings of
the Mohammadan Common Law (canon and civil), called _Fiqah_ or _Shara_,
than to the Koran, the Mohammadan Revealed Law. Our Common Law, which
treats both ecclesiastical and the civil law, is by no means considered
to be a divine or unchangeable law. This subject has been treated by me
in a separate work[154] on the Legal, Political and Social Reforms to
which the reader is referred. The space allowed to me in this
Introduction, which has already exceeded its proper limit, does not
admit a full and lengthy discussion of the objections quoted above, but
I will review them here in as few words as possible.
[Footnote 154: Reforms, Political, Social and Legal, under the Moslem
Rule, Bombay Education Society's Press, 1883.]
[Sidenote: Finality of the social reforms of Mohammad.]
39. (1) Mohammad had to deal with barbarous nations around him, to be
gradually reformed, and besides this the subject of social reforms was a
secondary question. Yet it being necessary to transform the character of
the people and to reform the moral and social abuses prevailing among
them, he gradually introduced his social reforms which proved immense
blessings to the Arabs and other nations in the seventh century. Perhaps
some temporary but judicious, reasonable and helpful accommodations had
to be made to the weakness and immaturity of the people, as halting
stages in the march of reforms only to be set aside at their adult
strength, or to be abolished when they were to begin to emerge from
their barbarism under its influence to a higher civilization.
Consequently gradual amelioration of social evils had necessarily to
pass several trials during progress of reform. The intermediate stages
are not to be taken as final and irrevocable standard of morality and an
insuperable barrier to the regeneration of the Arabian nation. Our
adversaries stick indiscriminately to these temporary measures or
concessions only, and call them half measures and partial reforms made
into an unchangeable law which exclude the highest reforms, and form a
formidable obstacle to the dawn of a progressive and enlightened
civilization. I have in view here the precepts of Mohammad for
ameliorating the degraded condition of women for restricting the
unlimited polygamy and the facility of divorce, together with servile
concubinage and slavery.[155] Mohammad's injunctions and precepts,
intermediary and ultimate, temporary and permanent, intended for the
removal of these social evils, are interwoven with each other,
interspersed in different Suras and not chronologically arranged, in
consequence of which it is somewhat difficult for those who have no deep
insight into the promiscuous literature of the Koran to find out which
precept was only a halting stage, and which the latest. It was only from
some oversight on the part of the compilers of the Common Law that, in
the first place, the civil precepts of a transitory nature and as a
mediate step leading to a higher reform were taken as final; and in the
second place, the civil precepts adapted for the dwellers of the Arabian
desert were pressed upon the neck of all ages and countries. A social
system for barbarism ought not to be imposed on a people already
possessing higher forms of civilizations.
[Footnote 155: "The cankerworm of polygamy, divorce, servile concubinage
and veil lay at the root. They are bound up in the character of its
existence. A reformed Islam which should part with the divine ordinances
on which they rest, or attempt in the smallest degree to change them by
a rationalistic selection, abetment or variation would be Islam no
longer." Annals of the Early Caliphate by Sir W. Muir, page 458.]
[Sidenote: Positive precepts.]
[Sidenote: Ceremonial law.]
40. (2) In fact the Koran deals with positive precepts as well as with
principles, but it never teaches a precise system of precepts regulating
in minute details the social relations of life and the ceremonial of
worship. On the contrary, its aim has been to counteract the tendency to
narrowness, formality, and severity which is the consequence of a living
under a rigid system of positive precepts. Mohammad had to transform the
character of the Arab barbarians who had no religious or moral teacher
or a social reformer before his advent. It was therefore necessary to
give them a few positive precepts, moulding and regulating their moral
and social conduct, to make them 'new creatures' with new notions and
new purposes, and to remodel the national life. (3) But lest they should
confuse virtue as identical with obedience to the outward requirements
of the ceremonial law,--the formal ablutions, the sacrifices in
pilgrimages, the prescribed forms of prayers, the fixed amount of alms,
and the strict fasts, the voice of the Koran has ever and anon been
lifted up to declare that a rigid conformity to practical precepts,
whether of conduct or ceremonial, would not extenuate, but rather
increase in the eyes of God the guilt of an unprincipled heart and an
unholy life.
[Sidenote: Pilgrimage.]
Regarding the pilgrimage[156] or the sacrifices (its chief ceremony),
the Koran says:--
"By no means can their flesh reach unto God, neither their blood,
but piety on your part reacheth him. Thus hath he subjected them to
you, that ye might magnify God for his guidance: and announce glad
tidings to the doers of good."--Sura XXII, 38.
[Sidenote: Kibla.]
Regarding the _Kibla_ in prayers it is said in the Koran:--
"The west and the east is God's: therefore whichever way ye turn
there is the face of God."--Sura II, 109.
"All have a quarter of the Heavens to which they turn them; but
wherever ye be, hasten emulously after good."--_Ibid_, 143.
"There is no piety in turning your faces toward the east or west,
but he is pious who believeth in God and the last day, and the
angels and the scripture, and the prophets; who for the love of God
disburseth his wealth to his kindred; and to the orphans, and the
needy, and the wayfarer, and those who ask, and for ransoming; who
observeth the prayer, and payeth alms, and who is of those who are
faithful to their engagements when they have engaged in them, and
patient under ills and hardships, and in time of trouble, these are
they who are just, and these are they who fear the Lord."--_Ibid_,
172.
[Sidenote: Amount of alms.]
In the place of a fixed amount of alms the Koran only says to give what
ye can spare.
"They will ask thee also what shall they bestow in alms:
"Say: What ye can spare."--_Ibid_, 216, 217.
[Sidenote: Fasts.]
Instead of imposing a very strict fast, which in the middle of summer is
extremely mortifying, the Koran makes its observance optional.
"And as for those who are able to keep it and yet observe it not,
the expiation of this shall be the maintenance of a poor man. And
he who of his own accord performeth a good work, shall derive good
from it: and good shall it be for you to fast, if ye knew
it."--_Ibid_, 180.
[Sidenote: No prescribed forms of prayer.]
The Koran does not teach any prescribed forms of worship and other
ritualistic prayers. No attitude is fixed, and no outward observance of
posture is required. There is no scrupulosity and punctiliousness,
neither the change of posture in prayer nor the displacement of a
single genuflexion calls any censure on the devotee in the Koran. Simply
reading the Koran (Suras LXXIII, 20; XXIX, 44), and bearing God in mind,
standing and sitting; reclining (III, 188; IV, 104) or bowing down or
prostrating (XXII, 76) is the only form and ritual, if it may be called
so, of prayer and worship taught in the Koran.
"Recite then as much of the Koran as may be easy to you."--Sura
LXXIII, 20.
"Recite the portions of the Book which have been revealed to thee
and discharge the duty of prayer; verily prayer restraineth from
the filthy and the blameworthy. And assuredly the gravest duty is
the remembrance of God; and God knoweth what ye do."--Sura XXIX,
44.
"And when the Koran is rehearsed, then listen ye to it and keep
silence: haply ye may obtain mercy."
"And think within thine ownself on God, with lowliness and with
fear and without loud-spoken words, at even and at morn; and be not
of the heedless."--Sura VII, 203, 204.
[Sidenote: Pretentious prayers and ostentatious almsgiving condemned.]
The Koran condemns pretentious prayers and ostentatious almsgiving.
"Verily the hypocrites would deceive God; but he will deceive them!
When they stand up for prayer, they stand carelessly to be seen of
men, and they remember God but little"--Sura IV, 141.
"Woe then to those who pray,"
"Who in their prayer are careless;"
"Who make a show of devotion,"
"But refuse help _to the needy_."--Sura CVII, 4-7.
"And they fall down on their faces weeping, and it increaseth the
humility."--Sura XVII, 110.
"O ye who believe! make not your alms void by reproaches and
injury; like him who spendeth his substance to be seen of men, and
believeth not in God and in the latter day. The likeness of such an
one is that of a rock with a thin soil upon it, on which a heavy
rain falleth, but leaveth it hard. No profit from their works shall
they be able to gain; for God guideth not the unbelieving
people."--Sura II, 266.
"We have made ready a shameful chastisement for the unbelievers,
and for those who bestow their substance in alms to be seen of men,
and believe not in God and in the last day. Whoever hath satan for
his companion, an evil companion hath he!"--Sura IV, 42.
[Sidenote: No indispensable hours or places for prayers.]
There are no indispensable hours or places to be observed for prayers.
In Suras XI, 116; and IV, 104, the time of prayer is set down in general
terms without specifying any fixed hour. There are some more times named
in Suras XVII, 81, 82; XX, 130; L, 38, 39; and LII, 48, 49, but they are
special cases for Mohammad himself, and "as an excess in the service."
_Vide_ Sura XVII, 81. On this subject Dr. Marcus Dods observes:--
"There are two features of the devout character which the
Mohammedans have the merit of exhibiting with much greater
distinctness than we do. They show not the smallest hesitation or
fear in confessing God, and they reduce to practice the great
principle that the worship of God is not confined to temples or
any special place:--
"Most honour to the men of prayer,
Whose mosque is in them everywhere!
Who amid revel's wildest din,
In war's severest discipline,
On rolling deck, in thronged bazaar,
In stranger land, however far,
However different in their reach
Of thought, in manners, dress or speech,--
Will quietly their carpet spread.
To Mekkeh turn the humble head,
And, as if blind to all around,
And deaf to each distracting sound,
In ritual language God adore,
In spirit to his presence soar,
And in the pauses of the prayer,
Rest, as if rapt in glory there."
"There are of course formalists and hypocrites in Islam as well as
in religions of which we have more experience. The uniformity and
regularity of their prostrations resemble the movements of a
well-drilled company of soldiers or of machines, but the Koran
denounces "woe upon those who pray, but in their prayers are
careless, who make a show of devotion, but refuse to help the
needy;" while nowhere is formalism more pungently ridiculed than in
the common Arabic proverb, "His head is towards the Kibleh, but his
heels among the weeds." We could almost excuse a touch of formalism
for the sake of securing that absolute stillness and outward
decorum in worship which deceives the stranger as he enters a
crowded mosque into the belief that it is quite empty. Persons who
hold themselves excused from the duty of worship by every slight
obstacle might do worse than get infected with the sublime
formalism of Cais, son of Sad, who would not shift his head an inch
from the place of his prostration, though a huge serpent lifted its
fangs close to his face and finally coiled itself round his neck.
And if some are formal, certainly many are very much in
earnest."[157]
[Sidenote: Ablutions.]
The ablutions have not been imposed as burdens, or as having any
mysterious merit, but merely as a measure of cleanliness.
"God desireth not to lay a burden upon you, but he desireth to
purify you."
[Footnote 156: The institution of pilgrimage is a harmless one, and
conducive to unity in religion for Arabs, and gives moreover an impetus
to trade at large.]
[Footnote 157: Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp.
30-1.]
[Sidenote: Koran both abstract and concrete in morals.]
41. (4) The Koran seems fully aware of the danger of the precise and
fixed system of positive precepts moulding and regulating every
department of life. The danger is that the system of formalism in which
men are tied down to the performance of certain religious functions,
minutely and precisely fixed in respect to time, place and manner, so
that neither less nor more is required of them, retains too tight a grip
upon them, when the circumstances which justified it have changed or
vanished away. The moral growth of those who live under such a system of
minute and punctilious restraint is stunted and retarded. The tendency
of mankind to formalism is so strong that they very commonly, though
often unconsciously, fall into the error of imagining that there is a
peculiar intrinsic merit and virtue in the mere discharge of those
prescribed forms of duties and religious ceremonies. Morality is with
them not in the abstract but in the concrete, as consisting of a mass of
religious observances, rather than of a certain disposition of heart
towards God and man. The Koran deals with vice and virtue as a whole as
well as in fragmentary details. It treats of inward motives as much as
of outward practice, of exhortations equally with precepts and commands.
It holds up before man the hatefulness and ugliness of vice _as a
whole_. It does not enclose the whole of the practical morality and
piety within the narrow compass of a fixed number of precepts. It lays
the foundation of that far-reaching charity which regards all men as
equal in the sight of God, and recognizes no distinction of races and
classes.
120. "And abandon the semblance of wickedness and wickedness
itself. They, verily, whose _only_ acquirement is iniquity shall be
repaid for what they have gained."
152. "Say: Come, I will rehearse what your Lord hath made binding
on you, that ye assign not aught to Him as sharers of his Divine
honour, and that ye be good to your parents; _and_ that ye slay not
your children because of poverty, for them and for you will We
provide; and that ye come not near to pollutions, outward or
inward; and that ye slay not anyone whom God hath forbidden you,
unless for a just cause. This hath He enjoined on you: haply ye
will understand."--Sura VI.
31. "Say: Only hath my Lord forbidden filthy actions, whether open
or secret, and iniquity, and unjust violence, and to associate with
God that for which He hath sent down no warranty, and to speak of
God that of which ye have no knowledge."--Sura VII.
33. "To those who avoid great crimes and scandals, but commit only
lighter faults, verily, thy Lord will be rich in forgiveness. He
well knew you when He produced you out of the earth, and when ye
were embryos in your mothers' womb. Assert not then your own
purity. He best knoweth who feareth him."--Sura LIII.
13. "O men! verily We have created you of a male and a female: and
We have divided you into peoples and tribes that ye might take
knowledge one of another. Truly the most worthy of honour in the
sight of God is he who feareth Him most. Verily God is Knowing,
Cognizant."--Sura XLIX.
143. "And every _nation_ has a quarter _of the Heavens_. It is God
who turneth them _towards it_: hasten then emulously after good:
wheresover ye be, God will one day bring you all together: verily
God is all powerful."--Sura II.
52. "And to thee We have sent down the Book _of the Koran_ with
truth, confirmatory of previous scripture and its safeguard. Judge
therefore between them by what God hath sent down, and follow not
their desires, after the truth which hath come unto thee. To
everyone of you have We given a rule and an open way."
53. "And if God had pleased He had surely made you all one people;
but He would test you by what He hath given to each. Be emulous
then in good deeds. To God do ye _all_ return, and He will tell you
concerning the subjects of your disputes."--Sura V.
127 "And vie in haste for pardon from your Lord, and a Paradise,
vast as the Heavens and the Earth, prepared for the God-fearing."
128. "Who gives alms, _alike_ in prosperity and _in_ distress, and
who master their anger, and forgive others! And God loveth the doer
of good."
129. "And who, after they have done a base deed or committed a
wrong against their own souls, remember God and implore forgiveness
of their sins--and who can forgive sins but God only?--and
persevere not in what they have willingly done amiss."--Sura III.
21. "Vie in hasting after pardon from your Lord, and
Paradise--whose outspread is as the outspread of the Heaven and of
the Earth. Prepared is it for those who believed in God and his
apostles. Such is the bounty of God: to whom He will He giveth it:
and of immense bounty is God!"--Sura LII.
183. "Ye shall assuredly be tried in your possessions and in
yourselves. And many hurtful things shall ye assuredly hear from
those to whom the scriptures were given before you, and from those
who join other gods with God. But if ye be steadfast and fear God,
then this verily is _God's_ decree for the affairs of
_life_."--Sura III.
16. "O my son! observe prayer and enjoin the right and forbid the
wrong, and be patient under whatever shall betide thee: verily this
is a bounden duty."--Sura XXXI.
38. "Yet let the recompense of evil be only a like evil; but he who
forgiveth and maketh peace, shall find his reward for it from God;
verily He loveth not those who act unjustly."
39. "And there shall be no way _open_ against those who, after
being wronged, avenge themselves."
40. "Only shall there be a way _open_ against those who unjustly
wrong others, and act insolently on the earth in disregard of
justice. These! a grievous punishment doth await them."
41. "And whoso beareth _wrongs_ with patience and forgiveth,--this
verily is a bounden duty."--Sura XLII.
[Sidenote: Adaptability of the Koran to surrounding circumstances.]
42. (5) The Koran keeps pace with the most fully and rapidly-developing
civilization, if it is rationally interpreted, not as expounded by the
Ulema in the Common Law Book and enforced by the sentiment of a nation.
It is only the Mohammadan Common Law, with all its traditions or oral
sayings of the Prophet,--very few of which are genuine reports, and the
supposed chimerical concurrence of the learned Moslem Doctors and mostly
their analogical reasonings (called _Hadees_, _Ijma_, and _Kias_),
passed under the name of _Fiqah_ or _Shariat_, that has blended together
the spiritual and the secular, and has become a barrier in some respects
regarding certain social and political innovations for the higher
civilization and progress of the nation. But the Koran is not
responsible for this all.
Mr. Stanley Lane Poole writes:--
"The Koran does not contain, even in outline, the elaborate
ritual and complicated law which now passes under the name of
Islam. It contains merely those decisions which happened to be
called for at Medina. Mohammad himself knew that it did not provide
for every emergency, and recommended a principle of analogical
deduction to guide his followers when they were in doubt. This
analogical deduction has been the ruin of Islam. Commentators and
Jurists have set their nimble wits to work to extract from the
Koran legal decisions which an ordinary mind could never
discover there; and the whole structure of modern Mohammadanism has
been built upon the foundation of sand. The Koran is not
responsible for it."[158]
I can only differ from the above in the allegation that Mohammad
recommended a principle of analogical deduction.
[Footnote 158: The Speeches and Table-talk of the Prophet Mohammad, by
Stanley Lane Poole, pages lii and liii, Introduction, London, 1882.]
[Sidenote: Suitability of the Koran to all classes of humanity.]
43. Thus the system of religious and moral teaching of the Koran
admirably suits the lower and the higher forms of humanity. The precepts
which regulate some department of social life, moral conduct, and
religious ceremonial are blessings to the barbarous; and that portion of
the Koran which inculcates large principles, for the due application of
which much must be left to the individual conscience, suits the same
people when they begin to emerge from their barbarism under its
influence into a higher condition, or to those already possessing the
higher forms of civilization. For instance, the command to give full
measure, to weigh with just balance, to abstain from wine and gambling,
and to treat persons with kindness are intended for men not reaching
the high forms of civilization. The teachings of the Koran regarding the
graces of truth, honesty and temperance and mercy, the virtues of
meekness, and the stress laid upon thoughts and inclinations are fit to
instruct persons who have attained the higher forms of civilization, and
have outgrown the need of positive precepts of minute detail.
C. Ali.
Hyderabad,
Deccan,
_March 1884_.
[Transcriber's Note: Despite the reference to a "Note" on page cv in
the Table of Contents, no such page exists in this edition of the
printed book.]
KAHTAN.
|
.--------------------+-------------------.
| |
Yarab. Hazaramaut.
| *
Yoshjab. *
| Sadif.
Saba.
|
.-----------------------------.
| |
Himyar. Kahlan.
* |
* .-----------------+----------.
Kozaa. | |
| Rabia. Zeid.
Al-Hafi. * |
| * .-----------------------.
| Hamadan. | |
| Abad. *
.-----+-----+----------. * *
| | | * Ghous.
Aslom. Amran. Amr. | |
* * | .------+--+-----+------. |
* * .-----+-----. | | | | |
Zeid. | | | | Murrah. Muzhij. Tay. Ash-ar. |
| .-------+. Bahra. * Bali. | | | |
| | | * .---+---. | .--+-----. |
| Jarm. Taghlib. Mahra. | | | | | |
| | Adi. Khaulan. | Ghous. Kharija. |
| Vabra. | | | |
| | .--------------. | Jadila. |
| .---------. | | | | |
| | | Lakhm. Ofeir. Juzam. | |
| Kalb. Khoshain. | | .------+------. |
| | Dar. Kinda. | | | |
| Taym Allat. | Ans. Illah. | |
| Sukun. | | | |
.---+-------+-----. Morad. | Saad-ul-Ashira |
| | | | | |
Joheina. Saad. Nohd. .------------------. Jufi. |
| | | |
Ozra. Harb. Amr. |
| | |
.----------. Nakha. |
| | |
Raha. Sada. .-----------------------.
|
.----------+----------.
| |
Azd. Anmar.
| |
.---------------+---. .------+-+-------.
| | | | |
Mazin. Shahnvah. Khas-am. Ghous. Ghafiq.
| | | |
.----------+----------. .-------+-------. Bajila. Ahmas.
| | | | | |
Saalba. Harisa. | Samala. Doos. Haddan.
| | Jafna.
.--+----. | (The Ghassinides).
| | |
Aus. Khazraj. |
|
.-----+---+----------.
| | |
Adi. Afsa. Lohay.
| | |
Bariq. Aslam. Khozaa.
| |
Salaman. Mustalik.
MOADD.
*
*
NIZAR.
|
.-----------+---------------------------------.
| |
Mozar (Modhar). Rabia.
| *
.------+----------------------------------. *
| | |
Al-Nás. Al-Yás. .-----.
| * | |
Kays. * Anaza. |
| Khundif. |
Aylan. | Jadila.
| .-------+-----. *
.------+-----------. | | *
| | Tábikha. Modrika. |
Khasafa. Ghatafan. | * |
* | Add. * |
* .----+------. | | |
Mansúr. | | .--------+-----. .+---. |
| Aasir. Reis. | | | | | |
.----+---. | | Tamim. * Mozeina. | Hozeil. |
| | .+-----. | * | | |
Suleim. Hawazan. | | | * * Khozeima. | |
| | Sad Monat | | Darim. | | | |
.--+--. Bakr. Bahila. | | | | Lahyán. |
| | * | | Saliba bin Sád. | |
Makwan. * * Movahib. | Kinana. |
| .+--------. | |
* .+--------+------. | | .----+-----. |
| | | | Asha. Baghiz. | | |
.-----+. Sakeef. Saad. Saasaa. | Abd Monat. Nazar. |
| | | .---+---. | | |
Ussya. Ril. Aamir. | | .---+-. Malik. |
| Zobian. Abs. | | | |
.-------------+-. * * Bakr. Fahr or |
| | * * | Koreish. |
Rabia. Hilal. | | Zamra. | |
| | Mudlij. | Ghalib. |
.----------+--+-------------. | Ghifar. | |
| | | .-+-----+------. Loway. |
Kilab. Kaab. Aamir. | | | | |
* | * Shahm. Murra. Fezára. | |
* .----+-+----. * | |
| | | | | .---------------------+ |
Rivas. Kosheir. * Jaada. Baka. | | |
| Káb Khozeima. |
* | |
| .----------------+-. .--------+-----+
Muntafiq. | | | |
Murrah. * * Abd-ul-Kays.
| * *
.-------+-+-----. | |
| | | .----+-. .-+---+----.
Kilab. Taym. Mukhzum. | | | | |
| Sahm. Jamah. | | Aus Allat.
.--+------. | |
| | Taym Allah. |
Kossay. Zohra. |
| Wail.
.-----------+---------------. |
| | | .-----+---.
* Abd Manaf. Abd-ud-Dár. | |
* | Taghlib. Bakr.
| .-----+----------------------. *
Asad. | | *
Hashim. Abd Shams. |
| | Hanifa.
Abd-ul-Muttálib. Omayya. *
| | *
.-------+----+-----------. Harab. |
| | | (Sakhr). .------.
Abbas. Abdullah. Abu Talib. | | |
| | | Abu Sofian. Taheem *
Ibn Abbas. Mohammad. Ali. | *
Moavia. |
Shaiban.
*
*
|
Sadús.
ALL THE WARS OF MOHAMMAD WERE DEFENSIVE.
_The Persecutions._
[Sidenote: 1. The early persecutions of Moslems by the people of Mecca.]
The severe persecution which Mohammad and his early converts suffered at
Mecca at the hands of their fellow-citizens, the Koreish, is a fact
admitted by all historians.
The Koran, which may be regarded as a contemporary record of the
ill-feeling manifested towards the Prophet and his followers, bears
ample testimony to the fact. Not only were the early Moslems persecuted
for renouncing the pagan religion and obtaining converts to the
monotheistic religion of Mohammad, but they were also tortured and
otherwise ill-treated to induce them to return to the religion which
they had forsaken. The persecution seems to have been so great that
Mohammad was compelled to recognize those of his followers, who by force
and cruelty were compelled to renounce Islam and profess paganism, but
were inwardly steadfast in their belief of the one true God, as true
Moslems.
The Koran says:
"Whoso after he hath believed in God denieth Him, if he were forced to
it, and if his heart remain steadfast in the faith, _shall be
guiltless_; but whoso openeth his breast to infidelity, on them, in that
case, shall be wrath from God, and a severe punishment awaiteth
them."--Sura xvi, 108.
"The incarceration and tortures," says Mr. Stobart, "chiefly by thirst
in the burning rays of the sun, to which these humble converts were
subjected, to induce their recantation and adoration of the national
idols, touched the heart of Mahomet, and by divine authority, he
permitted them, under certain circumstances, to deny their faith so long
as their hearts were steadfast in it."[159]
[Sidenote: 2. Notices of the persecution in the Koran.]
The oppressions, trials, and sufferings which the early Moslems
underwent compelled them to fly from their homes, leaving their families
and property in the hands of their oppressors. They chose this course
rather than revert to paganism. They held steadfastly to the one true
God whom their Prophet had taught them to trust and believe. All these
facts are clearly outlined in the following verses of the Koran:--
"And as to those who when oppressed have fled their country for the sake
of God, We will surely provide them a goodly abode in this world, but
greater the reward of next life, did they but know it."
"They who bear ills with patience, and put their trust in the
Lord!"--xvi, 43, 44.
"To those also who after their trials fled their country, then did their
utmost and endured with patience, verily, thy Lord will afterwards be
forgiving, gracious."--_Ibid_, 111.
"But they who believe, and who fly their country, and do their utmost in
the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy: and God is Gracious,
Merciful."--ii, 215.
"And they who have fled their country and quitted their homes and
suffered in my cause and have fought and fallen--I will blot out their
sins from them and will bring them into gardens beneath which the
streams do flow."--iii, 194.
"And as to those who fled their country for the cause of God, and were
afterwards slain, or died, surely with goodly provision will God provide
for them! for verily, God is the best of providers!"--xxii, 57.
"Those believers who sit at home free from trouble, and those who toil
in the cause of God with their substance and their persons, shall not be
treated alike. God hath assigned to those who strive with their persons
and with their substance, a rank above those who sit at home. Goodly
promises hath He made to all: But God hath assigned to those who make
efforts a rich recompense above those who sit still at home."
"The angels, when they took the souls of those who had been unjust to
their own weal, demanded, 'What hath been your state?' They said, 'We
were the weak ones of the earth.' They replied, 'Was not God's earth
broad enough for you to flee away in?' These! their home shall be Hell,
and evil the passage to it"--
"Except the men and women and children who were not able through their
weakness to find the means _of escape_, and were not guided on their
way. These haply God will forgive: for God is Forgiving,
Pardoning."--iv, 97, 99, 100.
"God doth not forbid you to deal with kindness and fairness towards
those who have not made war upon you on account of your religion, or
driven you forth from your homes: verily, God loveth those who act with
fairness."
"Only doth God forbid you to make friends of those who, on account of
your religion, have warred against you, and have driven you forth from
your homes, and have aided your expulsion: and whoever maketh friends of
them, these therefore are evil-doers."--lx, 8, 9.
[Sidenote: 3. Insults suffered by Mohammad.]
The Prophet himself suffered insults and personal injuries from the
hands of his persecutors. He was prevented from offering his prayers
(xcvi, 10). He allowed himself to be spat upon, to have dust thrown upon
him, and to be dragged out of the Kaaba by his own turban fastened to
his neck. He bore all these indignities with the utmost humility, and he
daily beheld his followers treated oppressively. After his uncle's death
his life was attempted, but he escaped by flying to Medina.
"And _call to mind_ when the unbelievers plotted against thee, to detain
thee prisoner or to kill thee or to banish thee: they plotted--but God
plotted; and of plotters is God the best."--viii, 30.
[Sidenote: 4. Historical summary of the persecutions.]
About 615 of the Christian era, the Koreish of Mecca began to persecute
the faith of Islam. Those who had no protection among the early Moslems
were hard pressed, as related above. A body of eleven men, some with
their families, fled the country, and found refuge, notwithstanding
their pursuit by the Koreish, across the Red Sea at the Court of
Abyssinia. This was the first Hegira, or flight of the persecuted
Moslems. After some time, the persecution being resumed by the Koreish
more hotly than ever, a larger number of Moslems, more than hundred,
emigrated to Abyssinia. This was the second flight of the Moslems. The
Koreish had sent an embassy to the Court of Abyssinia to fetch back the
refugees. The king denied their surrender. About two years later the
Koreish formed a hostile confederacy, by which all intercourse with the
Moslems and their supporters was suspended. The Koreish forced upon the
Moslems, by their threats and menaces, to retire from the city. For
about three years, they, together with the Prophet and the Hashimites
and their families, had to shut themselves up in the _Sheb_ of Abu
Tálib. They remained there, cut off from communication with the outer
world. The ban of separation was put rigorously in force. The terms of
the social and civil ban put upon them were, that they would neither
intermarry with the proscribed, nor sell to or buy from them anything,
and that they would entirely cease from all intercourse with them.
Mohammad, in the interval of the holy months, used to go forth and
mingle with the pilgrims to Mecca, and preached to them the abhorrence
of idolatry and the worship of the One True God. The _Sheb_, or quarter
of Abu Tálib, lies under the rocks of Abu Cobeis. A low gateway cut them
off from the outer world, and within they had to suffer all privations
of a beleaguered garrison. No one would venture forth except in the
sacred months, when all hostile feelings and acts had to be laid aside.
The citizens could hear the voices of the half-famished children inside
the _Sheb_ and this state of endurance on the one side, and persecution
on the other, went on for some three years. Five of the chief
supporters of the adverse faction detached from the league and broke up
the confederacy and released the imprisoned religionists. This was in
the tenth year of Mohammad's ministry. Soon after Mohammad and the early
Moslems suffered a great loss in the death of his venerable uncle and
protector Abu Tálib. Thus, Mohammad and his followers became again
exposed to the unchecked insults and persecutions incited by Abú Sofian,
Abu Jahl, and others; and being a handful in the hostile city, were
unable to cope with its rich and powerful chiefs. At this critical
period, either because he found it unsafe to remain at Mecca, or because
he trusted his message would find more acceptance elsewhere, Mohammad
set off to Tayef of the Bani Thakif,--the town was one of the great
strongholds of idolatry. There was a stone image, called Al-Lât, adorned
with costly vestments and precious stones, was an object of worship, and
esteemed to be one of the daughters of God. Here Mohammad preached to
unwilling ears, and met with nothing but opposition and scorn from the
chief men, which soon spread to the populace. He was driven out of the
town, maltreated, and wounded. He could not return to and enter Mecca
unless protected by Mut-im, a chief of the blood of Abd Shams.
At the yearly pilgrimage, a little group of worshippers from Medina was
attracted and won over by the preaching of Islam; and the following
year it increased to twelve. They met Mohammad and took an oath of
allegiance. A teacher was deputed by Mohammad to Medina, and the new
faith spread there with a marvellous rapidity. Again the time of
pilgrimage arrived, and more than seventy disciples from Medina pledged
themselves to receive and defend him at the risk of their lives and
property. This was all done in secret; but the Koreish, having got
notice of it, renewed such severities and persecutions, including, in
some cases, imprisonment, as hastened the departure of the Moslems to
Medina, their city of refuge.
[Sidenote: 5. The Hegira.]
Mohammad, being much troubled by the intolerance of the people and the
personal safety and security of himself and his followers being
endangered, and mutual intercourse denied, saw that it was hopeless to
expect any forbearance on the part of the Koreish, who would not permit
him to live and preach his religion at home, and looked for assistance
and protection from a strange land. He asked the people of Medina to
receive and protect him. The Medina converts, who had come to Mecca on
pilgrimage, pledged themselves to Mohammad, and promised to defend him
as they would defend their wives and children. The Medina converts,
although not acting on the offensive, became at once objects of
suspicion to the Koreish, who endeavoured to seize those who were in
Mecca. They maltreated one of the Medina converts who fell into their
hands, and the work of persecution was recommenced in right
earnest.[160] Two months elapsed before the believers, except those
detained in confinement or who were unable to escape from slavery, or
women and children, could emigrate. Families after families silently
disappeared, and house after house was abandoned. One or two quarters of
the city were entirely deserted. The Koreish held a council and
proscribed Mohammad, who escaped together with Abu Bakr, leaving Ali in
his house, around whom, to lull the suspicions of his neighbours, he
threw his own mantle, and desired him to occupy his bed. Mohammad and
his follower took refuge in a cave. The Koreish despatched scouts in all
directions to search for Mohammad, but in vain. After hiding for three
days in the cave, Mohammad and Abu Bakr started for Medina, where they
arrived safely.
The foregoing circumstances would have fully justified immediate
hostilities on the part of Mohammad, but he did not take up arms until
compelled to do so by the attacks of the Meccans.
[Sidenote: 6. The persecution of the Moslems by the Koreish after their
flight from Mecca.]
Notwithstanding the flight of the Prophet and of all the early Moslem
converts who were able to effect an escape except their families, women
and children, and those weak Moslems who could not leave Mecca, the
Meccans or the Koreish did not forgive the fugitives and did not abstain
from their aggressions against them. They maltreated the children and
weak Moslems left at Mecca (iv, 77, 99 and 100), expelled the Moslems
from their houses, and would not allow them to come back to Mecca for a
pilgrimage (ii, 214). The Meccans several times invaded the Medina
territory with the avowed intention of making war upon the Moslems (and
actually fought the battles of Bedr, Ohad, Khandak or Ahzáb, at Medina),
consequently the Moslems were forced to resort to arms in pure
self-defence.
These were sufficient grounds for the Moslems to assume the offensive.
They were desirous also of rescuing their families and those who had
been unable to join in the flight from the tyranny and oppression of the
Meccans. Yet they were in no instance the aggressors. Driven from their
homes and families they did not resort to arms until absolutely
compelled to do so in self-defence.
All that Mohammad claimed for himself and his followers was, full
liberty of conscience and actions, and permission to preach and practice
his religion without being molested. This being refused, he advised his
followers to leave the city and seek refuge elsewhere. They emigrated
twice to Abyssinia, and for the third time were expelled to Medina,
where he himself followed, when his own life was attempted.
[Footnote 159: Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., page 76.
But, in fact, there was no such permission. The verse quoted above says,
that the wrath and punishment of God will be on those who deny God,
except those who do so by being forced. The latter were not put on the
same footing as the former; in short, those who denied God under
compulsion were not counted unbelievers.]
[Footnote 160: "The support of the Medina adherents, and the suspicion
of an _intended_ emigration, irritated the Koreish to severity; and this
severity forced the Moslems to petition Mahomet for leave to emigrate.
The two causes might co-exist and re-act one another; the persecution
would hasten the departure of the converts, while each fresh departure
would irritate the Koreish to greater cruelty."--William Muir's Life of
Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 242, 243, foot-note.]
_The Meccans or the Koreish._
[Sidenote: 7. A Koreish chieftain commits a raid near Medina.--A.H., I.]
The attitude of the Koreish towards the Prophet and his followers after
the flight rapidly became more hostile. Kurz-ibn Jábir, one of the
marauding chieftains of the Koreish, fell upon some of the camels and
flocks of Medina, while feeding in a plain a few miles from the city,
and carried them off.
[Sidenote: 8. The Koreish march to attack Medina. Mohammad marches forth
in defence, and gains the battle at Badr.--A.H., II.]
Still there was no hostile response from Medina, till the aggressors
(the Koreish) brought from Medina an army of 950 strong, mounted on 700
camels and 100 horses, to Badr, nine stages from Mecca, advancing
towards Medina. Then the Prophet set out from Medina at the head of his
small army of 305 to check the advance of his aggressors. This was the
first offensive and defensive war between the Koreish and Mohammad
respectively. The aggressors lost the battle.
[Sidenote: 9. Attack by Abu Sofian upon Medína.--A.H., II.]
After this Abu Sofian, the head of the Koreish, accompanied by 200
mounted followers, alarmed Mohammad and the people of Medina by a raid
upon the cornfields and palm gardens two or three miles north-east of
Medina. The nomad tribes of Suliem and Ghatafán, who were descended from
a common stock with the Koreish, being probably incited by them, or at
least by the example of Abu Sofian, had twice assembled and projected a
plundering attack upon Medina--a task in itself congenial with their
predatory habits.
[Sidenote: 10. The battle of Ohad.]
The Koreish made great preparations for a fresh attack upon Medina. One
year after the battle of Badr, they commenced their march,--three
thousand in number, seven hundred were mailed warriors, and two hundred
well mounted cavalry. Reaching Medina they encamped in an extensive and
fertile plain to the west of Ohad.
Mohammad met Abu Sofian at the head of 700 followers and only two
horsemen, but lost the battle and was wounded.
[Sidenote: 11. Mohammad's prestige affected by the defeat.]
Mohammad's prestige being affected by the defeat at Ohad, many of the
Bedouin tribes began to assume an hostile attitude towards him. The Bani
Asad, a powerful tribe connected with the Koreish in Najd and Bani
Lahyan in the vicinity of Mecca, prepared to make a raid upon Medina.
The Mohammadan missionaries were killed at Rají and Bír Maúna. The
marauding bands of Duma also threatened a raid upon the city. Bani
Mustalik also raised forces to join the Koreish in their threatened
attack upon Medina.
[Sidenote: 12. Abu Sofian threatened the Moslems with another attack
next year.]
Abu Sofian, while retiring from the field, victorious as he was,
threatened the Moslem with a fresh attack the next year as he said to
Omar: "We shall meet again, let it be after a year, at Badr." Medina and
the Moslems, however, enjoyed a long exemption from the threatened
attack of the Koreish.
At length the time came when the forces of the Koreish and the Moslems
were again to meet at Badr. But the year was one of great draught, and
the Koreish were desirous that the expedition should be deferred to a
more favorable season. Accordingly the Koreish engaged Naeem, an Arab of
a neutral tribe, to repair to Medina, and there to give forth an
exaggerated account of the preparations of the Koreish, in the hope
that, with the field of Ohad fresh in memory, it might deter the Moslems
from setting out to meet them. But Mohammad, with a force of fifteen
hundred men and only ten horses, set forth for Badr. The Koreish, who
never appeared mortified at the triumph of Mohammad, began to project
another grand attack upon him.
[Sidenote: 13. The Koreish again attack Medina with a large army.
Mohammad defends the city. The enemy retire. (Ditch or Nations.--A.H.,
V.)]
The winter season in the next year was chosen for the renewal of
hostilities by the Koreish. They joined an immense force of the Bedouin
tribes (the entire army was estimated at ten thousand), marched against
Mohammad, and besieged Medina. Mohammad defended the city by digging a
Ditch. The army of Medina was posted within the trench, and that of the
Koreish encamped opposite them. In the meantime Abu Sofian succeeded in
detaching the Jewish tribe of Koreiza from their allegiance to Mohammad.
The danger to Medina from this defection was great. The enemy made a
general attack, which was repulsed. Bad weather set in, and Abu Sofian
ordered the allied force to break up. The enemy retired, and never came
again to attack the Moslems. This, therefore, was the last war of
aggression on the part of the Koreish, and of defence on the part of
Mohammad.
[Sidenote: 14. Mohammad, with his followers, advanced to perform the
lesser pilgrimage of Mecca. The Koreish opposed Mohammad, who returned
disappointed.--A.H. VI.]
Six years had passed since the expulsion of Mohammad and his followers
from Mecca. They had not since visited the Holy house, nor had they
joined the yearly pilgrimage, which was an essential part of their
social and religious life. Mohammad undertook to perform the lesser
pilgrimage to Mecca in the month of Zalkada, in which war was unlawful
throughout Arabia. Mohammad, with his followers, the pious and peaceful
worshippers, fifteen hundred in number, set forth for Mecca. The
pilgrims carried no arms, but such as were allowed by custom to
travellers,--_namely_, each a sheathed sword. The Koreish, with their
allies, the surrounding tribes, hearing of the approach of the
pilgrims, took up arms. They pushed forward to obstruct the pilgrims.
Mohammad encamped at Hodeibia, where a treaty of peace was concluded
between the Koreish and Mohammad. The treaty was to the effect, that war
should be suspended for ten years, neither party attacking the other.
Whosoever wished to join Mohammad and enter into treaty with him, should
have liberty to do so. "If any one goeth over to Mohammad, without the
permission of his guardian, he shall be sent back to his guardian. But
if any one from amongst the followers of Mohammad return to the Koreish,
the same shall not be sent back, provided, on the part of the Koreish,
that Mohammad and his followers retire from us this year without
entering our city. In the coming year he may visit Mecca--he and his
followers--for three days, when we shall retire therefrom. But they may
not enter it with any weapons, save those of the travellers--_namely_,
to each a sheathed sword." Bani Khozaá entered into the alliance of
Mohammad, and Bani Bakr adhered to the Koreish.
[Sidenote: 15. Violation of the treaty by the Koreish, and their
submission.]
The peace remained unbroken until the Koreish violated the treaty of
Hodeibia[161] and treacherously killed several men of the Bani Khozaá.
Mohammad marched against them in the eighth year of the Hegira in
defence of the injured and oppressed Bani Khozaá, and to chastize the
Koreish for violation of the treaty. But the Koreish submitted to the
authority of Mohammad before he arrived at Mecca, and the city was
occupied without resistance.
[Sidenote: 16. Two other tribes assume the offensive.]
Soon after, the great and warlike tribe of Hawazin and Thakeef assumed
the offensive. They assembled at Autas, and advanced upon Honain to
attack Mohammad. He was obliged to leave Mecca and set out to disperse
them, who were beaten back at Honain (S. ix, 26-28). Taif of the Thakeef
was besieged, but in vain.
[Footnote 161: Unfortunately several missionary expeditious sent by
Mohammad were met with unfavorable circumstances. The party sent to Bani
Suleim, demanding their allegiance to the faith of Islam, was slain.
Another party sent to Bani Leith was surprised, and its camels
plundered. A small party sent by Mohammad to Fadak was cut to pieces by
Bani Murra. Another party sent to Zat Atlah to call upon the people to
embrace Islam, of which only one person escaped. Mohammad's messenger
despatched to the Ghassanide Prince at Bostra was murdered by the chief
of Muta. His army sent to avenge the treachery of the chief was
defeated. All these mishaps and reverses dangerously affected the
prestige of Mohammad, and encouraged the Meccans to violate the truce.]
_The defensive character of the wars._
[Sidenote: 17. Verses from the Koran in support of the defensive
character of the wars.]
This brief sketch of the defensive wars of Mohammad with the Koreish
will fully show, that those who assert that Mohammad was aggressive or
revengeful in his wars, or that he made war to force his religion upon
the people, are altogether in the wrong.
I will now quote some verses of the Koran, showing that all the wars of
Mohammad with the Koreish were defensive wars.
39. "Verily, God will ward off[162] _mischief_ from believers: lo, God
loveth not the false, the unbeliever."
40. "A sanction is given to those who have been fought,[163] because
they have suffered outrages, and verily, God is well able to succour
them"--
41. "Those who have been driven forth from their homes wrongfully, only
because they say, 'Our Lord is the God.' And if God had not repelled
some men by others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques
wherein the name of God is ever commemorated, would surely have been
destroyed! And him who helpeth God will God surely help: Verily, God is
Strong, Mighty."
42. "They who, if We established them in _this_ land, will observe
prayer and pay the alms of obligation and enjoin what is recognized _as
right_--and forbid what is unlawful. And the final issue of all things
is unto God."--Sura, xxii.
186. "And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against
you: but commit not the injustice of _attacking them first_: verily, God
loveth not the unjust."
187. "And kill them wherever ye find them, and eject them from whatever
place they have ejected you, for (_fitnah_)[164] persecution is worse
than slaughter: yet attack them not at the sacred mosque, until they
attack you therein; but if they attack you, then slay them--Such is the
recompense of the infidels!"--
188. "But if they desist,[165] then verily God is Gracious, Merciful!"
189. "And do battle against them until there be no more (_fitnah_)
persecution, and the worship be that of God: but if they desist, then
let there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers."
214. "They will ask thee concerning war in the Sacred Month. Say: The
act of fighting therein is a grave crime; but the act of turning others
aside from the path of God, and unbelief in Him, and to prevent access
to the Sacred Mosque, and to drive out his people, is worse in the sight
of God; and persecution[166] (_fitnah_[167]) is worse than bloodshed.
But they will not cease to war against you until they turn you from your
religion, if they be able: but whoever of you shall turn from his
religion, and die an infidel, their works shall be fruitless in this
world and in the next: and they shall be consigned to the fire; therein
to abide for aye."
215. "But they who believe, and who fly their country, and do their
utmost in the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy: and God is
Gracious, Merciful."
245. "And fight in the cause of God; and know that God is He who
Heareth, Knoweth."
247. "Hast thou not considered the assembly of the children of Israel
after _the death of_ Moses, when they said to a prophet of
theirs,--'Raise up for us a king; we will do battle for the cause of
God?' He said, 'May it not be that if to fight were ordained you, ye
would not fight?' They said, 'And why should we not fight in the cause
of God, since we are driven forth from our dwellings and our children?'
But when fighting was commanded them they turned back, save a few of
them: But God knew the offenders!"
252. "And by the will of God they routed them; and (Dâood) David slew
Goliath; and God gave him the kingship and wisdom, and taught him
according to his will: and were it not for the restraint of one by the
means of the other imposed on men by God, verily the earth had assuredly
gone to ruin, but God is bounteous to his creatures."--Sura, ii.
76. "Let those then fight in the cause of God who barter this present
life for that which is to come; for whoever fighteth on God's path,
whether he be slain or conquer, We will in the end give him a great
reward."
77. "But what hath come to you that ye fight not on the path of God, and
_for_ the weak among men, women and children, who say, 'O our Lord!
bring us forth from this City whose inhabitants are oppressors; give us
a champion from thy presence; and give us from thy presence a
defender?'"
78. "They who believe, fight on the path of God; and they who believe
not, fight on the path of Thâgoot: Fight then against the friends of
Satan--Verily, the craft of Satan shall be powerless!"
86. "Fight then on the path of God: lay not burdens on any but thyself;
and stir up the faithful. The prowess of the infidels, God will haply
restrain; for God is the stronger in prowess, and the stronger to
punish."
91. "They desire that ye should be unbelievers as they are unbelievers,
and that ye should be alike. Take therefore none of them for friends,
until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they turn
back, then seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; but take none
of them as friends or helpers."
92. "Except those who seek asylum among your allies, and those who come
over to you--prevented by their own hearts by making war on you, or from
making war on their own people. Had God pleased, He would certainly have
given them power against you, and they would certainly have made war
upon you! But, if they depart from you, and make not war against you
and offer you peace, then God alloweth you no occasion against them."
93. "Ye will find others who seek to gain your confidence as well as
that of their own people: So oft as they return to sedition, they shall
be overthrown in it: But if they leave you not, nor propose terms of
peace to you, nor withhold their hands, then seize them, and slay them
wherever ye find them. Over these have We given you undoubted
power."--Sura, iv.
19. "_O Meccans!_ If ye desired a decision, now hath the decision come
to you. It will be better for you if ye give over _the struggle_ (_or
attacking upon Medina or the Moslem_). If ye return _to it_ we will
return; and your forces, though they may be many, shall by no means
avail you aught, because God is with the faithful."
39. "Say to the infidels: If they desist (_from persecuting,
obstructing, and attacking the Moslems_), what is now past shall be
forgiven them; but if they return _to it_ (commit again the
hostilities), they have already before them the doom of the ancients!"
40. "Fight then against them till civil strife be at an end, and the
religion be all of it God's; and if they desist, verily God beholdeth
what they do."
41. "But if they turn their back, know ye that God is your protector:
Excellent protector! and excellent helper!"
73. "... And they who have believed, but have not fled their homes,
shall have no rights of kindred with you at all, until they too fly
their country. Yet if they seek aid from you on account of the faith,
your part it is to give them aid, except against a people between whom
and yourselves there may be a treaty. And God beholdeth your actions."
74. "And the infidels have the _like_ relationships one with another.
Unless ye do the same (_i.e., aid the oppressed and repel the
oppressor_), there will be discord in the land and great
corruption."--Sura, viii.
(When the Meccans broke the Hodeibia treaty mentioned in the above
paragraph, the Koreish and Bani Bakr attacked Bani Khozaá, who were in
alliance with Mohammad. It became incumbent on him to assist Bani Bakr
and to chastize the aggressors. The following verses were published on
that occasion, but happily, before the expiration of the fixed period,
the Koreish submitted and Mecca was taken without bloodshed, and these
verses were not acted upon:--)
1. "An immunity from God and His Apostle to those with whom ye are in
league (_and they have violated the same--compare verses 4, 8 and 10_)
among the polytheist Meccans."
2. "Go ye therefore at large in the land four months (_i.e., four sacred
months from Shaw-wal. The treaty was violated by the Koreish in Ramzan,
a month immediately previous to the sacred months. It is announced here
that four months' time is given to the aggressors, who violated the
treaty of Hodeibia, to make terms. After the time is over (verse 5) the
Moslems will commence hostilities to defend their allies, the Bani
Khozaá_), but know that ye shall not find God feeble, and that those who
believe not, God will put to shame."
3. "And a proclamation on the part of God and His Apostle to the people
on the day of the greater pilgrimage, that God is free from _any
engagement with_ those who worship other gods with God, as is his
Apostle. If then, ye turn to God, it will be better for you; but if ye
turn back, then know that ye shall not find God feeble: and to those who
believe not, announce thou a grievous punishment."
4. "But this concerneth not those Polytheists with whom ye are in
league, and who have afterwards in no way failed you, and not yet aided
any one against you. Observe, therefore, your engagement with them
through the whole time _of their treaty_. Verily, God loveth those who
fear Him."
5. "And when the sacred months are passed[168] kill those who join other
gods with God[169] wherever ye find them; and seize them, and besiege
them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush; but if they
repent and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go
their way.[170] Verily, God is Gracious, Merciful."
6. "If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum of thee,
grant him an asylum, in order that he hear the Word of God; then let him
reach his place of safety. This, for that they are people devoid of
knowledge."
7. "How can they who add gods to God be in league with God and His
Apostle, save those with whom ye made a league at the sacred temple? So
long as they are true to you,[171] be ye true to them: verily, God
loveth those who fear Him."
8. "How _can they_? since if they prevail against you, they will not
regard in their dealing with you, either ties of blood or good faith:
With their mouths they content you, but their hearts are averse, and
most of them are perverse doers."
9. "They sell the signs of God for a mean price, and turn others aside
from his way; of a truth, evil is it that they do!"
10. "They respect not with a believer either ties of blood or good
faith; and these are the transgressors!"
11. "Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer, and pay the impost,
then are they your brethren in religion: and We make clear the signs for
men of knowledge."[172]
12. "But if, after alliance made, they violate their covenant and revile
your religion, then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity--verily
there is no faith in them! Haply they will desist."
13. "Will ye not do battle with a people (_the Meccans_) who have broken
their covenant and aimed to expel your Apostle and attacked you first?
Will ye dread them? God truly is more worthy of your fear if ye are
believers!"
14. "Make war on them: By your hands will God chastize them and put them
to shame, and give victory over them, and heal the bosom of a people who
believe."
36. "... and attack those who join gods with God one and all, as they
attack you one and all."--Sura, ix.
[Sidenote: 18. What the above-quoted verses show.]
I need not repeat here what these verses and the facts related above
show, that the wars of Mohammad with the Koreish were merely defensive,
and the Koreish were the aggressors, and that Mohammad was quite
justified in taking up arms against them.
"In the state of nature every man has a right to defend," writes Mr.
Edward Gibbon,[173] "by force of arms, his person and his possessions;
to repel, or even to repeat, the violence of his enemies, and to extend
his hostilities to a reasonable measure of satisfaction and retaliation.
In the free society of the Arabs, the duties of subject and citizen
imposed a feeble restraint; and Mahommed, in the exercise of a peaceful
and benevolent mission, had been despoiled and banished by the injustice
of his countrymen." It has been fully shown in the foregoing paragraphs
that the Moslems in Mecca enjoyed neither safety nor security. Religious
freedom was denied to them, though they were harmless and peaceful
members of the community. Besides this they were expelled from their
homes, leaving their families and their property in the hands of their
persecutors, and were prevented from returning to Mecca, and were
refused access to the Sacred Mosque; and, above all, they were attacked
by the Meccans in force at Medina.
[Sidenote: 19. Justification of the Moslems in taking up arms against
their aggressors.]
The persecution of the early Moslems by the Koreish was on religious
grounds. They would not allow the believers to renounce the religion of
their forefathers and profess Islam. Their intolerance was so strong and
harsh that they tortured some of the professors of the new faith to
renounce the same and to rejoin their former idolatry. "Taking away the
lives, the fortune, the liberty, any of the rights of our brethren,
merely for serving their Maker in such manner as they are persuaded they
ought, when by so doing they hurt not human society, or any member of
it, materially, is evidently inconsistent with all justice and humanity:
for it is punishing those who have not injured us, and who, if they
mistake, deserve only pity from us."[174] The early Moslems had had
every international right to resent persecution and intolerance of the
Meccans and to establish themselves by force of arms, to enjoy their
religious liberty and to practise their religion freely.
[Sidenote 20. The first aggression after the Hegira was not on the part
of Mohammad.]
Some of the European biographers of Mohammad say, "that the first
aggressions after the Hegira were solely on the part of Mahomet and his
followers. It was not until several of their caravans had been waylaid
and plundered, and blood had thus been shed, that the people of Mecca
were forced in self-defence to resort to arms."[175]
This is not correct. The aggressors, in the first instance, were the
Koreish, who, as already shown, followed up their persecution of the
Moslems by an attack upon the city in which the Prophet and his
followers had taken refuge. Even taking it for granted that the Moslems
were the first aggressors after the Hegira, was not the Hegira, or
expulsion itself (leaving aside the previous persecutions and
oppressions at Mecca), a sufficient reason for the commencement of
hostilities by the Moslems, who were anxious to secure their moral and
religious freedom, and to protect themselves and their relatives from
further aggressions?
Sir William Muir admits, that "hostilities, indeed, were justified by
the 'expulsion' of the believers from Mecca."[176] "It may be said,"
says Major Vans Kennedy, "that, in these wars, Mohammad was the
aggressor by his having, soon after his flight, attempted to intercept
the caravans of Mecca. But the first aggression was, undoubtedly, the
conspiracy of the Koreish to assassinate Mohammad, and when to save his
life he fled from Mecca, himself and his followers were thus deprived of
their property, and obliged to depend for their subsistence on the
hospitality of the men of Medina, it could not be reasonably expected
that they would allow the caravans of their enemies to pass
unmolested."[177]
[Sidenote: 21. The alleged instances examined.]
There is no proof that Mohammad, after the Hegira, commenced hostilities
against the Koreish by intercepting their caravans. The alleged
instances of the caravans being waylaid by the Moslems at Medina are not
corroborated by authentic and trustworthy traditions. They have also
internal evidences of their improbability. The Medina people had pledged
themselves only to defend the Prophet from attack, and not to join him
in any aggressive steps against the Koreish.[178] Therefore, it seems
impossible that they should have allowed Mohammad to take any aggressive
steps against the Koreish which would have involved them in great
trouble.
[Sidenote: 22. Hamza and Obeida expedition.]
The alleged expeditions against the Koreish caravans by Hamza and the
other by Obeida in pursuit of caravans which escaped, are in themselves
improbable. Mohammad would not send fifty or sixty persons to waylay a
caravan guarded by two or three hundred armed men.
[Sidenote: 23. The Abwa, Bowat, & Osheira expeditions.]
The alleged expeditions of Abwa, Bowat, and Osheira, said to have been
led by Mohammad himself to intercept the Mecca caravans, but in vain,
are altogether without foundation. He might have gone, if he had gone at
all, to Abwa, and Osheira to negotiate friendly terms with Bani
Dhumra[179] and Bani Mudlij, as his biographers say, he did.
[Sidenote: 24. The affair at Nakhla.]
The affair of the _Nakhla_ marauding party, as related in the
traditions, is full of discrepancies, and is altogether inconsistent and
untrustworthy. The very verse (Sura, ii, verse 214) which the
biographers say was revealed on the occasion, and which I have quoted
above (para. 16), contains a reference to the Meccans' fighting against
the Moslems, which runs counter to the assumption of the European
biographers, who make it an aggressive attack on the part of Mohammad.
It is probable that Mohammad might have sent some six or eight scouts to
bring in news of the movements and condition of the Koreish, whose
attitude towards Mohammad had become more hostile since his flight to
Medina. As the Koreish had a regular and uninterrupted route to Syria
for traffic, it was only reasonable on the part of Mohammad to take
precautions, and he was always on his guard. The biographers _Ibn
Is-hak_, _Ibn Hisham_ (p. 424), _Tabri_ (Vol. II, p. 422), _Ibnal Athir_
in _Kamil_ (Vol. II, p. 87), _Halabi_ in _Insanul Oyoon_ (Vol. III, p.
318), say, that Mohammad had given written instructions to
Abdoollah-bin-Jahsh, which was to the effect "bring me intelligence of
their affairs." They also say that Mohammad was displeased with
Abdoollah's affair at Nakhla, and said, "I never commanded thee to fight
in the Sacred Month." The biographers also relate that Mohammad even
paid blood-money for the slain.
[Sidenote: 25. At Badr Mohammad had come only in his defence.]
Some of the European biographers of Mohammad allege, that the battle of
Badr was brought by Mohammad himself. They appear to hesitate to justify
Mohammad in defending himself against the superior numbers of the
Koreish, who had advanced to attack him as far as Badr, three stages
from Medina. It is alleged that Mohammad intended to attack the caravans
returning from Syria, conducted by Abu Sofian, his arch-enemy, therefore
he set out upon his march with eighty refugees and two hundred and
twenty-five people of Medina, and halted at Safra to waylay the caravan.
Abu Sofian, warned of Mohammad's intention, sent some one to Mecca for
succour. The Koreish, with nine hundred and fifty strong, marched forth
to rescue the caravan. In the meantime, the caravan had passed
unmolested, but the Koreish held a council whether to return or go to
war. On the one hand, the biographers say, it was argued that the object
for which they had set out having been secured, the army should at once
retrace its steps. Others demanded that the army should advance. Two
tribes returned to Mecca, the rest marched onwards; but it is not fair
to allege that Mohammad had set forth to attack the caravan. Had he any
such intention, the people of Medina, who had pledged themselves only to
defend him against personal attack, would not have accompanied him. The
presence of a large number of the _Ansárs_, the people of Medina, more
than double that of the _Mohajirins_, the refugees, is a strong proof
that they had come out only in their defence.
Mohammad, on receiving intelligence of the advancing force of the
Koreish, set out from Medina to check the advance of the Meccan force,
and encountered it at Badr, three days' journey from Medina. The Meccan
army had advanced nine days' journey from Mecca towards Medina. The
forces met at Badr on the 17th of Ramzan (13th January 623), the Meccans
had left Mecca on the 8th of Ramzan (4th January), and Mohammad started
only on the 12th of Ramzan (8th January), about four days after the
Meccan army had actually set out to attack him. Supposing Abu Sofian had
some reason for apprehending an attack from Medina, and sent for succour
from Mecca, but the object of the Meccan army of the Koreish for which
they had set out having been secured, the caravan having passed
unmolested, they ought at once to have retraced their steps. The fact
that Mohammad left Medina four days after the Koreish had left Mecca
with a large army advancing towards Medina, is strongly in his favour.
[Sidenote: 26. The first aggressions after the Hegira, if from Mohammad,
might fairly be looked upon as retaliation.]
Even taking it for granted that the first aggressions after the Hegira
were solely on the part of the Moslems, and that several of the caravans
of the Koreish had been waylaid and plundered, and blood had been shed,
it would be unfair to condemn Mohammad. Such attacks, had they been
made, might fairly be looked upon as a retaliation for the ill-treatment
of the Moslems before the flight from Mecca. "Public war is a state of
armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law
and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political
continuous societies, forming organized units called states or nations,
whose constituents bear, enjoy and suffer, advance and retrograde
together, in peace and in war. The citizen or native of hostile country
is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or
nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of war."[180] The
almost universal rule of most remote times was, and continues to be with
barbarous nations, that the private individual of a hostile country is
destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every
description of family ties. But Mohammad protected the inoffensive
citizen or private individual of the hostile country. He even protected
those who had actually come out of Mecca to fight at Badr, but were
reluctant to do so. Mohammad had desired quarters to be given to several
persons in the Koreish army at Badr. Abul Bakhtari, Zamaa, Hárith Ibn
Amir, Abbás and other Bani Háshim were amongst those named.
[Footnote 162: Or defend, '_Yadafeo_' repel.]
[Footnote 163: _Yokâtaloona_, or who fight _Yokateloona_. The former
reading is the authorized and general.]
[Footnote 164: The primary signification of _fitnah_ is burning with
fire. It signifies a _trial_ or _probation_ and affliction, distress or
hardship; and particularly an _affliction whereby one is tried, proved,
or tested_.--_Vide_ Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, p. 2335.]
[Footnote 165: Desist from persecuting you and preventing you to enter
your native city and prohibiting access to the sacred mosque and
attacking you, and from religious intolerance.]
[Footnote 166: _i.e._, the religious persecution and intolerance and
hindrance to visit the sacred mosque being suppressed; you may profess,
preach and practice your religion freely.]
[Footnote 167: _Vide_ note 2 in p. 17.]
[Footnote 168: Shaw-wal, Zulkada, Zulhij, and Moharram, the 10th, 11th,
12th, and 1st months of the Arabian year.
These verses were promulgated in Ramzan, the 9th month of the year.]
[Footnote 169: And have violated the Hodeibia Truce. Compare verses 4,
8, and 12.]
[Footnote 170: It is not meant that they should be forced to observe
prayer or pay obligatory alms, or in other words be converted to Islam;
the context and general scope of the Koran would not allow such a
meaning. The next verse clearly enjoins toleration.]
[Footnote 171: The Bani Kinana and Bani Zamara had not violated the
truce of Hodeibia while the Koreish and Bani Bakr had done so.]
[Footnote 172: This is the same as verse 5. It only means, if meanwhile
they become converts to Islam, they are to be treated as brethren in
religion. But it cannot mean that it was the sole motive of making war
with them to convert them. Such an interpretation is quite contrary to
the general style of the Koran.]
[Footnote 173: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
by Edward Gibbon, Vol. VI, p. 245.]
[Footnote 174: Archbishop Secker's Works, III, p. 271.]
[Footnote 175: Sir W. Muir, II, p. 265.]
[Footnote 176: Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 79.]
[Footnote 177: Remarks on the character of Mohammad (suggested by
Voltaire's Tragedy of Mahomet) by Major Vans Kennedy. _Vide_
Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay for 1821, Vol. III, p.
453, reprint Bombay, 1877.]
[Footnote 178: "Mahomet did not send the Medina converts on any hostile
expedition against the Koreish, until they had warred with him at Badr,
and the reason is, that they had pledged themselves to protect him only
at their homes."--K. Wackidi, 48; Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p.
64, _note_.]
[Footnote 179: "K. Wackidi, 98-1/2. The provisions are noted only
generally, "that neither party would levy war against the other, nor
help their enemies." The version quoted by Weil binding the Bani Dhumra
to fight _for the faith_, &c., is evidently anticipatory and apocryphal.
It is not given by the Secretary of Wackidi in his chapter of
treaties."--Muir's Life of Mahomet, III, p. 67, _note_.]
[Footnote 180: Contributions to Political Science by Francis Lieber,
LL.D., Vol. II of his miscellaneous writings, p. 251, London, 1881.]
_The Jews._
[Sidenote: 27. The Jews broke treaties.]
Mohammad, on his first arrival at Medina, made a treaty of alliance with
the Jews, by which the free exercise of their religion and the
possession of their rights and property were guaranteed. It was
stipulated in the treaty that either party, if attacked, should come to
the assistance of the other. Medina should be sacred and inviolable for
all who joined the treaty. But the Jews broke their treaty and rebelled.
They assisted the enemy during the siege of Medina, and committed
treason against the city.
[Sidenote: 28. Bani Kainúkaá, Bani Nazeer, Koreiza, Khyber, and
Ghatafán.]
The Bani Kainúkaá were the first among the Jews who broke the treaty and
fought against Mohammad between the battles of Badr and Ohad.[181]
The Bani Nazeer broke their compact with Mohammad after his defeat at
Ohad. They had also made a conspiracy to kill Mohammad. They were
banished; some of them went over to Khyber. The Jewish tribe of Koreiza
had defected from their allegiance to Mohammad, and entered into
negotiations with the enemy, when Medina was besieged by the Koreish and
Bedouin tribes at the battle of the Ditch. They were afterwards besieged
by Mohammad. They surrendered at the discretion of Sád, who passed a
bloody judgment against them. The Jews of Khyber (including those of
Nazeer) and Bani Ghatafán, who had lately besieged Medina with the
Koreish in the battle of the Ditch, made alliance against Mohammad,[182]
and were making preparations for an attack on him. They had been
inciting the Bani Fezára and other Bedouin tribes in their depredations,
and had combined with Bani Sád-Ibn Bakr to attack upon Medina. They were
subjected at Khyber, and made tributaries, paying _jizya_ in return of
the protection guaranteed to them.
[Sidenote: 29. Notices of them in the Koran.]
The treachery of the Bani Kainúkaá, Nazeer and Koreiza, and Khyber is
noticed in the Koran in the following verses:--
58. "They with whom thou hadst leagued, but who ever afterwards break
their league, and fear not God!"
59. "And if thou capture them in battle, then (_by the example of their
fate_) put to flight those who are behind them--they will perhaps be
warned:"--
60. "Or, if thou fear treachery from any people, throw back _their
treaty_ to them in like manner: verily, God loveth not the treacherous."
61. "And think not that the infidels shall get the better of Us! Verily,
they shall not find God to be weak."
62. "Make ready then against them what force ye can, and squadrons of
horse whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy,
and into others beside them whom ye know not, _but_ whom God knoweth;
And all that you expend for the cause of God shall be repaid you; and ye
shall not be wronged."
63. "But if they lean to peace, lean thou also to it; and put thy trust
in God: He verily is the Hearing, the Knowing."
64. "But if they seek to betray thee, then verily God will be
all-sufficient for thee. He it is who strengthened thee with his help
and with the faithful and made their heart one. Hadst thou spent all the
riches of the earth, thou wouldst not have united their hearts; but God
hath united them: He verily is Mighty, Wise."
65. "O Prophet! God and such of the faithful as follow thee will be
all-sufficient for thee!"
66. "O Prophet! stir up the faithful to the fight...."--Sura, viii.
26. "And He caused those of the people of the Book (the Jews) who had
aided _the confederates_, to come down out of their fortresses, and cast
dismay into their hearts: a part ye slew, a part ye took
prisoners."--Sura, xxxiii.
29. "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been
given,[183] as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid
not that which God and his apostles have forbidden, and who profess not
the profession of the Truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and
they be humbled."
124. "Believers! wage war against such of the unbelievers as are your
neighbours, and let them assuredly find rigour in you: and know that God
is with those who fear Him."--Sura, ix.
[Sidenote: 30. The judgment of Sâd.]
The Bani Koreiza had surrendered themselves to the judgment of _Sâd_, an
_Awsite_ of their allies, Bani Aws. To this Mohammad agreed. Sâd decreed
that the male captives should be slaughtered. Mohammad, disapproving the
judgment, remarked to Sâd: "Thou hast decided like the decision of a
king," meaning thereby a despotic monarch. The best authentic tradition
in Bokhari (Kitáb-ul-Jihád) has the word '_Malik_,' monarch; but in
other three places of Bokhari, Kitabul Monakib, Maghazi, and Istizan,
the narrator has a doubt whether the word was _Allah_ or _Malik_.
Moslim, in his collection, has also '_Malik_,' and in one place the
sentence is not given at all. It was only to eulogize the memory of Sâd
after his death, that some of the narrators of the story gave out that
Mohammad had said that Sâd had decided like the decision of a _Malak_,
angel; or some narrators interpreted the word _Malik_, king, as meaning
God; and therefore put the word _Allah_ in their traditions. Mohammad
never said _Malak_, meaning angel, or _Malik_, allegorically meaning
_Allah_; he simply said _Malik_, literally meaning a king or monarch.
[Sidenote: 31. Defensive character of the expedition against the Jews
of Khyber.]
The expedition against the Jews of Khyber was purely defensive in its
character. They had, since the Jews of the tribe of Nazeer and Koreiza
being banished from Medina in consequence of their treason against the
Moslem commonwealth, had joined them, been guilty of inciting the
surrounding tribes to attack upon Medina, and had made alliance with the
Bani Ghatafán, who had taken a prominent part among the confederates
who had besieged Medina at the battle of the Ditch, to make a combined
attack upon Medina. They, especially Abul Hukeik, the chief of Bani
Nazeer, had excited the Bani Fezára and other Beduoin tribes to commit
incursions on Medina. They had made a combination with the Bani Sád-Ibn
Bakr to make inroads on the Moslims. Bani Sád, a branch of Hawazin, were
among the confederates who had besieged Medina. Lately, Oseir Ibn Zárim,
the chief of Nazeer at Khyber, maintained the same relations with Bani
Ghatafán, as their former chief had, to make a combined attack on
Medina. The Bani Ghatafán, with their branches of Bani Fezára and Bani
Murra, in league with those of Khyber, were always plotting mischief in
the vicinity of Fadak at Khyber. They (the Ghatafán) had continued for a
long time to alarm Medina with threatened attacks. At the seventh year
of the Hegira timely information was received by Mohammad of the
combined preparation of Khyber and Ghatafán. He rapidly set forth in his
defence, and marched to Khyber at once. He took up a position at Rají,
between Khyber and Ghatafán, to cut off their mutual assistance. So it
was not a sudden and unprovoked invasion, as Sir W. Muir calls it. He
writes: "Mahomet probably waited for some act of aggression on the part
of the Jews of Kheibar (it was the fertile lands and villages of that
tribe which he had destined for his followers), or on the part of their
allies, the Bani Ghatafán, to furnish the excuse for an attack. But no
such opportunity offering, he resolved, in the autumn of this year, on a
sudden and unprovoked invasion of their territory."[184] It will appear
from what I have stated above, that the invasion of Khyber was purely
defensive in its character.
[Footnote 181: Hishamee, p. 545. Gottengen, 1859; or, The Life of
Muhammad, by Abd etl Malik ibn Hishám. London: Trübner and Co., 1867.]
[Footnote 182: Hishamee, p. 757.]
[Footnote 183: The Jews of Khyber, if it does not relate to Tabook. Sir
W. Muir calls this hostile declaration against Jews and Christians, and
says,--"The exclusion and growingly intolerant position of Islam is
sufficiently manifested by the ban issued against the Jews and
Christians, as unfit for the sacred rites and holy precincts of the
Meccan temple; and by the divine commands to war against them until, in
confession of the superiority of Islam, they should consent to the
payment of a tribute."--Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, p. 289. The command
referred to by Sir W. Muir refers to the treatment of those who took up
arms against the Mussalmans, rather than to their ordinary condition. No
ban was issued against the Jews and Christians, as unfit for the sacred
rites and holy precincts of the Meccan temple. On the contrary, the
Christians of Najran, when arrived at Medina, were accommodated by the
Prophet in his Mosque, and they used to say their prayers there.]
[Footnote 184: Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 61.]
_The Christians or Romans._
[Sidenote: 32. Tabúk, the last expedition.]
The last expedition of Mohammad was that of Tabúk, and it was also
purely defensive. The travellers and traders arriving from Syria brought
news of the gathering of a large army on the borders of Syria. A year's
pay, they said, had been advanced by the Greek or Roman Emperor, who was
then at Hims, in order that the soldiers might be well-furnished for a
long campaign; the tribes of the Syrian desert, the Bani Lakhm, Judzam,
Amila, and Ghussan were flocking around the Roman Eagles, and the
vanguard was already at Balcâ. Mohammad at once resolved to meet this
danger. When he arrived in the vicinity of the Syrian border at Tabúk,
he found no troops to oppose him. There were no signs of impending
danger, and he therefore returned with his army to Medina. This was in
the ninth year of the Hegira.
[Sidenote: 33. The conclusion.]
This concludes the description of all the wars of the Prophet. I hope I
have shown, on good and reasonable grounds, and from the surest and most
authentic sources, that the wars were not of an offensive and aggressive
character; but, on the contrary, they were wars of defence and
protection. The early Moslems were wronged, because they believed in the
faith of Mohammad; they were deprived of their civil and religious
rights, were driven forth from their homes and their properties, and
after all were attacked first, by the Koreish and their confederates,
the Jews and other Arabian tribes. They fought neither for revenge, nor
to impose the faith of Mohammad by force of arms, nor for the plunder of
the caravans which passed in proximity to their city. The permission to
fight was only given to the believers because they were fought against
or were attacked first, and had been wronged and driven from their homes
without just cause. They therefore took up arms against those who first
compelled them to fly from their homes, and then attacked them. This was
in full accordance, therefore, with the law of nations and the sacred
law of nature. The people of Medina had only pledged themselves to
protect Mohammad from his enemies. They could not, and would not, have
gone forth or allowed Mohammad and his _ansárs_ to go forth to plunder
the caravan of the Koreish passing by Medina.
_The Intolerance._
[Sidenote: 34. Mohammad never taught intolerance.]
Those people are greatly mistaken who say, that "the one common duty
laid upon the Faithful is to be the agents of God's vengeance on those
who believe not. These are to be slaughtered until they pay tribute,
when they are allowed to go to Hell in their own way without further
molestation."[185] Mohammad did not wage war against the Koreish and the
Jews because they did not believe in his mission, nor because he was to
be the instrument of God's vengeance on them; on the contrary, he said,
"He was no more than a warner."
"The truth is from your Lord, let him then who will, believe; and let
him who will, be an unbeliever."[186]
"Let there be no compulsion in religion."[187] "Verily, they who
believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites, and the Christians, whoever of
them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on
them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief."[188] Even
during active hostilities, those who did not believe were allowed to
come and hear the preaching, and were then conveyed to their place of
safety.[189] Nor were the wars of Mohammad to exact tribute from the
unbelievers. The tribute was only imposed upon those who had sought his
protection, and even then they were exempted from other regular taxes
which the Moslems paid to their Commonwealth.
On the contrary, as has already been shown, Mohammad merely took up
arms in the instances of self-preservation. Had he neglected to defend
himself after his settlement at Medina against the continued attacks of
the Koreish and their allies, he with his followers would, in all
probability, have been exterminated. They fought in defence of their
lives as well as their moral and religious liberties.
[Sidenote: 35. In what sense the wars were religious wars.]
In this sense the contest might be called a religious war, as the
hostilities were commenced on religious grounds. Because the Koreish
persecuted the Moslems, and expelled them for the reason that they had
forsaken the religion of their forefathers, _i.e._, idolatry, and
embraced the faith of Islam, the worship of One True God; but it was
never a religious war in the sense of attacking the unbelievers
aggressively to impose his own religion forcibly on them. How much is
Sir W. Muir in the wrong, who says, that fighting was prescribed on
religious grounds? "Hostilities," he says, "indeed, were justified by
the 'expulsion' of the believers from Mecca. But the main and true issue
of the warfare was not disguised to be the victory of Islam. They were
to fight '_until the religion became the Lord's alone_.'"[190]
[Sidenote: 36. The alleged verses of intolerance explained.]
The verses of the Koran referred to above are as follows:
186. "And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against
you: but commit not the injustice of _attacking them first_: verily God
loveth not the unjust."
187. "And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from
whatever place they have ejected you; for (_fitnah_) persecution or
civil discord is worse than slaughter but attack them not at the sacred
Mosque, until they attack you therein, but if they attack you, then slay
them--Such is the recompense of the infidel!"
188. "But if they desist, then verily God is Gracious, Merciful."
189. "And do battle against them until there be no more (_fitnah_)
persecution or civil discord and the only worship be that of God: but if
they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against
wrong-doers."--Sura, ii.
These verses generally, and the last one especially, show that the
warfare was prescribed on the ground of self-preservation, and to secure
peace, safety and religious liberty, to prevent (_fitnah_) persecution.
By preventing or removing the persecution (_fitnah_), the religion of
the Moslems was to be free and pure from intolerance and compulsion to
revert to idolatry, or in other words, to be the only or wholly of God.
That is, when you are free and unpersecuted in your religion, and not
forced to worship idols and renounce Islam, then your religion will be
pure and free. You shall have no fear of being forced to join other gods
with God.
The same verse is repeated in Chapter VIII.
39. "Say to the unbelievers: If they desist,[191] what is now past shall
be forgiven them, but if they return _to it_,[192] they have already
before them the doom of the former."[193]
40. "Fight then against them till _fitnah_ (civil strife or persecution)
be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's, and if they desist,
verily God beholdeth what they do."
This shows that the fighting prescribed here against the Koreish was
only in the case of their not desisting, and it was only to prevent and
suppress their _fitnah_, and when their intolerance and persecution was
suppressed, or was no more, then the Moslem religion was to become all
of it God's. They were not forced to join any god with the true God.
[Sidenote: 37. Sir W. Muir quoted.]
Sir W. Muir, in his last chapter on the person and character of
Mohammad, observes in reviewing the Medina period: "Intolerance quickly
took the place of freedom; force, of persuasion." ... "Slay the
unbelievers wheresoever ye find them" was now the watchword of
Islam:--"Fight in the ways of God until opposition be crushed, and the
Religion becometh the Lord's alone!"[194] Here, Sir W. Muir plainly
contradicts himself. He has already admitted at the 136th page of the
fourth volume of his work that the course pursued by Mohammad at Medina
was to leave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished
without compulsion, and the same measure he intended to adopt at his
triumphal entry into Mecca. His words are: "This movement obliged
Mahomet to cut short of his stay at Mecca. Although the city had
cheerfully accepted his supremacy, all its inhabitants had not yet
embraced the new religion, or formally acknowledged his prophetic claim.
Perhaps, he intended to follow the course he had pursued at Medina, and
leave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished without
compulsion." This was at the end of the eighth year after the Hegira.
Mohammad died at the beginning of the eleventh year, then the question
naturally comes up, when was that alleged change to intolerance, and
how Sir W. Muir says, this change is traced from the period of
Mohammad's arrival at Medina? In the action taken in the fifth year of
the Hegira against the Jewish tribe of Koreiza, who had treasoned
against the city, Sir W. Muir admits that up to that period Mohammad did
not profess to force men to join Islam, or to punish them for not
embracing it. His words are: "The ostensible grounds upon which Mahomet
proceeded were purely political, for as yet he did not profess _to
force_ men to join Islam, or to punish them for not embracing it."[195]
In a foot-note he remarks: "He still continued to reiterate in his
Revelations the axiom used at Mecca, 'I am only a public preacher,' as
will be shown in the next chapter." Further, Sir W. Muir, in his account
of the first two years after Mohammad's arrival at Medina, admits in a
foot-note (p. 32, Vol. III), that "as yet we have no distinct
development of the intention of Mahomet to impose his religion on others
by force: it would have been dangerous in the present state of parties
to advance this principle."
[Sidenote: 38. Comment on the above quotation.]
It will appear from the foregoing statements that in each of the three
distinct periods of Mohammad's sojourn in Medina, _i.e._, the first two
years, the fifth year, and the eighth year, Sir W. Muir has himself
admitted that Mohammad had no intention to impose his religion by force,
and did not profess to force people to join Islam, or punish them for
not embracing it, and that the conversion of the people at Medina was
gradually accomplished without compulsion, and the same course he
followed at his taking of Mecca. Then there is no room left for the
uncalled for and self-contradictory remark of Sir W. Muir, that at
Medina "Intolerance quickly took place of freedom; force, of
persuasion." Up to the end of the eighth year when Mecca was captured,
there was admittedly no persecution or constraint put in requisition to
enforce religion. Mohammad breathed his last early in the eleventh year.
During the two years that intervened, the din of war had ceased to
sound, deputations continued to reach the Prophet from all quarters of
Arabia, and not a single instance of intolerance or compulsory adoption
of faith is found on record.[196]
Mohammad, neither sooner, nor later, in his stay at Medina, swerved
from the policy of forbearance and persuasion he himself had chalked out
for the success of his mission. At Medina, he always preached his
liberal profession of respect for other creeds, and reiterated
assurances to the people that he was merely a preacher, and expressly
gave out that compulsion in religion was out of question with him.
These are his revelations during the Medina period. "Verily, they who
believe (Moslems), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the
Christians, and the Sabeites,--whoever believeth in God and the last
day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their
Lord: and fear shall not _come_ upon them, neither shall they be
grieved."
_Sura II_, 59.
"And say to those who have been given the Scripture, and to the common
folk, Do you surrender yourselves unto God? Then, if they become
Moslems, are they guided aright; but if they turn away, then thy duty is
only preaching and God's eye is on his servants."
_Sura III_, 19.
"The Apostle is only bound to preach: and God knoweth what ye bring to
light, and what ye conceal."
_Sura V_, 99.
"Say: Obey God and obey the Apostle. But if ye turn back, _still_ the
burden of his duty is on him only, and the burden of your duty rests on
you. And if ye obey him, ye shall have guidance; But plain preaching is
all that devolves upon the Apostle."
_Sura XXIV_, 53.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion. Now is the right way made
distinct from error; whoever therefore denieth Tâghoot,[197] and
believeth in God, hath taken hold on a strong handle that hath no flaw
therein: And God is He who Heareth, Knoweth."
_Sura II_, 237.
"Whoso obeyeth the Apostle, in so doing obeyeth God and _as to those_
who turn back _from thee_, We have not sent thee to be their keeper."
_Sura IV_, 82.
[Sidenote: 39. The object of Mohammad's wars.]
"Slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them" was never the watchword of
Islam. It was only said in self-preservation and war of defence, and
concerned only those who had taken up arms against the Moslems.
The verses--Suras II, 189; and VIII, 40--have been quoted above in
paras. 17 and 37 (pp. 18, 21, 44 and 45), and they fully show by their
context and scope that they only enjoined war against the Meccans, who
used to come to war upon the Moslems. The object of making war is
precisely set forth in these verses, and appears to mean that civil
feuds and persecutions be at an end. But Sir W. Muir wrongly translates
_Fitnah_ as _opposition_. He himself has translated the meaning of the
word in question as _persecution_, in Vol. II, p. 147, foot-note; in
translating the tenth verse of the Sura LXXXV he writes: "Verily, they
who persecute the believers, male and female, and repent themselves
not." The original word there is _Fatanoo_,[198] from _Fitnah_. I do not
know why he should put a twofold version on the same word occurring in
the same book. (Suras II, 187; VIII, 40.)
[Footnote 185: Islam under the Arabs, by Major R.D. Osborne, London,
1876, p. 27.]
[Footnote 186: XVIII, 28.]
[Footnote 187: II, 257.]
[Footnote 188: V, 73.]
[Footnote 189: IX, 6.]
[Footnote 190: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 79.]
[Footnote 191: From attacking and persecuting you and preventing you
from entering your homes and visiting the sacred mosque.]
[Footnote 192: That is, if again attack you and commit aggressions.]
[Footnote 193: Meaning those who were defeated at Badr.]
[Footnote 194: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 319.]
[Footnote 195: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 282.]
[Footnote 196: There is only one instance of intolerance, _i.e._, making
converts at the point of sword, which Sir W. Muir, so zealous in
accusing Mohammad of religious persecution during the Medina period, has
succeeded in finding out during the ten eventful years of Mohammad's
sojourn in Medina. I refer to the story of Khalid's mission in the
beginning of the tenth year A.H., to Bani Haris, a Christian tribe at
Najran, whose people had entered into a covenant of peace with Mohammad,
and to whom an ample pledge had been guaranteed to follow their own
faith. According to Sir W. Muir, Khalid was instructed to call on the
people to embrace Islam, and if they declined, he was, after three days,
to attack and force them to submit (Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p.
224). The version of the story thus given by the Biographers of Mohammad
is too absurd to be believed; because it is a well-established fact that
the Bani Haris, or the Christians of Najran, had sent a deputation to
Mohammad only a year ago, _i.e._, in A.H. 9, and obtained terms of
security from him (Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, p. 299; Ibn Hisham,
p. 401). It is quite an unfounded, though a very ingenious, excuse of
Sir W. Muir to make the Bani Haris consist of two sects,--one of
Christians, and the other of idolators,--and to say that the operations
of Khalid were directed against the portion of Bani Haris still
benighted with paganism; thus reconciling the apocryphal tradition with
the fact of the Bani Haris being at a treaty of security, toleration and
freedom, with Mohammad.
"I conclude," he writes in a note, "the operations of Khâlid were
directed against the portion of Bani Hârith still idolaters:--at all
events not against the Christian portion already under treaty" (The Life
of Mahomet, Vol. IV, foot-note, p. 224). See the account of the
conversion of Bani Hárith to Christianity long before Islam in Hishamee,
pp. 20-22. Gibbon, Chapter XLII, Vol. V, p. 207, foot-note; and Muir's
Vol. I, p. ccxxviii.]
[Footnote 197: A name applied to an idol or idols--especially Allat and
Ozza, the ancient idols of the Meccans.]
[Footnote 198: The past tense, third person plural, of the infinitive
_Fitnah_.]
_The Ninth Chapter, or Sura Barat._
[Sidenote 40. The opening portion of the IXth Sura of the Koran only
relates to the Koreish who had violated the truce.]
[Sidenote: The injunctions contained in it were not carried out
owing to the compromise.]
Sir William Muir, while relating the publication of some verses of the
ninth chapter of the Koran on the occasion of the great pilgrimage A.H.
9, and referring to the opening verses of the Sura (from 1st to 7th
inclusive) writes: "The passages just quoted completed the system of
Mahomet so far as its relations with idolatrous tribes and races were
concerned. The few cases of truce excepted, uncompromising warfare was
declared against them all."[199] This is not correct. The mistake, he as
well as others who follow him commit, lies in their taking the incipient
verses of Chapter IX, as originally published at the end of the ninth
year of the Hegira, after the conquest of Mecca, in order to set aside
every obligation or league with the idolators to wage war with them,
either within or without the sacred territory, and "they were to be
killed, besieged, and laid in wait for _wheresoever found_."[200] In
fact it has no such bearing of generally setting aside the treaties, and
declaring _uncompromising warfare_, and was not published for the first
time on the occasion stated above. The opening verses of the ninth Sura
of the Koran, which I have quoted in full together with necessary notes
in para. 17 (pp. 22-25), revealed for the first time, were before the
conquest of Mecca, when the idolators thereof had broken the truce of
Hodeibia. Their violation of the treaty is expressly mentioned in verses
4, 8, 10 and 13, and the same verses also enjoin to respect and fulfil
the treaties of those idolators who had not broken theirs. Therefore
only those aggressors who had been guilty of a breach of faith, and
instigated others to take up arms against the Moslems in the attack of
Bani Bakr, on Khozáa, were to be waged war against, besieged, and taken
captives after the expiration of four months from the date of the
publication of the verses in question. But fortunately Abu Sofian
compromised before the commencement of the sacred months, and before the
period of the four months had elapsed. The people of Mecca submitted
without bloodshed, and hence it is obvious that the injunctions
contained in the commencement of the ninth chapter of the Koran were
never carried out. They remained as dead letter, and will, I think, so
remain perpetually. Almost all European writers, as far as I know,
labour under the delusion that at the end of the ninth year Mohammad
published the opening verses of the ninth Sura, commonly designated
_Súra Barát_. But the fact is that it was published in the eighth year
of the Hegira before the commencement of the sacred months, probably in
the month of Shabán, while Mohammad marched in Ramzán against Mecca, not
with the intention of prosecuting war, for it was to take place after
the lapse of Zikad, Zelhaj and Moharram, but of taking Mecca by
compromise and preconcerted understanding between himself and Abu
Sofian. If it be admitted that the preliminary verses of Sura IX of the
Koran were revealed or published for the first time in the last month of
the ninth year of the Hegira, then they--the verses--become aimless,
without being pregnant of any object in view. They contain injunctions
for carrying hostile operations against those who had broken certain
treaties, had helped others against the Moslems, and themselves had also
attacked them. They proclaimed war against certain tribes, whose people
did not regard ties of blood and good faith, and had been the first
aggressors against the Moslems. Not many such persons were in the whole
of Arabia at and after the time alleged for the promulgation of these
verses, _i.e._, at the last month of the ninth and the whole tenth year.
By this time, almost all Arabia had tendered voluntary submission to the
authority of Mohammad.
Deputations from each tribe of the Arabs continued to reach Medina
during the whole of this period, and were pledged protection and
friendship by the founder of the Islamic faith. From Medina the sound of
drums and the bray of clarions had now died away. Hereupon we are able
to speak with certainty that these verses could not be, and were not,
revealed at the end of the ninth year as it has been asserted by several
writers, both Mohammadan and European. And for the above reasons the
most suitable occasion for the revelation of these verses is the breach
of the truce of Hodeibia by the Koreish and their allies during the
eighth year of the Hegira which caused the reduction of Mecca by
compromise. Several Mohammadan commentators are unanimous in their
opinion as to this point. Consequently the verses, ordaining the
manifestation of arms against the treaty-breakers and aggressors, as
well as putting them to the sword wherever they were to be found,
_i.e._, within or without the harem, or the precincts of the Sacred
Mosque, were not complied with owing to the compromise by the Koreish.
[Footnote 199: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 211]
[Footnote 200: "Islam and its Founder," by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., p. 179.
London, 1878.]
_The alleged Interception of the Koreishite Caravans._
[Sidenote: 41. The nine alleged interceptions of the Koreish caravans.]
It has been asserted by European biographers of Mohammad that several
caravans of the Koreish going to and from Syria were intercepted and
waylaid by the Moslems soon after the Hegira. The alleged incursions are
as follow:
(1.) Seven months after Mohammad's arrival at Medina, an expedition
headed by Hamza surprised a caravan under the conduct of Abu Jahl.
(2.) A month later a party led by Obeida was dispatched in the pursuit
of another caravan guided by Abu Sofian.
(3.) After the expiration of another month, a third inroad headed by Sad
proceeded to lie in ambush for the Koreish caravan on the way it was
expected to pass.
(4.) Nearly twelve months after the Hegira, a fourth attempt was
undertaken to plunder a caravan of the Koreishites by Mohammad himself
at Abwa.
(5.) In the succeeding month Mohammad again marched to Bowat with the
sole aim of despoiling a caravan composed of precious freight under the
immediate escort of Omeya-bin Khalf.
(6.) After the lapse of two or three months Mohammad set out to Osheira
to make aggression on another rich caravan proceeding to Syria led by
Abu Sofian.
All these expeditions are said to have been not attended by any success
on the part of the Moslems, the vigilance of the caravans in all cases
eluding the pursuit made after them.[201]
(7.) In Rajab A.H. 2, a small band composed of some six persons was
ordered to march to Nakhla to lie in wait there for the caravan of the
Koreish. The party had a scuffle at Nakhla, in which a man of the convoy
was killed; while two prisoners and the pilfered goods were taken to
Medina. Hereupon Mohammad was much displeased, and told Abdallah-bin
Jahsh, "I never commanded thee to fight in the sacred month."
(8.) The caravan of the Koreish, which on its passage had safely escaped
the chase of the Moslems, as already described in No. 6, was on its way
back to Mecca. Mohammad anticipated their return, and prepared an
attack, which terminated in the famous battle of Badr.
(9.) All these predatory inroads to intercept the caravans of Mecca are
said to have happened during the first and the second year of the
Hegira, or before the battle of Badr. It remains for me now to mention
the only remaining instance of Moslem's foray upon the Koreishite
caravan, which took place in the sixth year A.H. at _Al-Is_. The attack
was completely successful.
[Sidenote: 42. The interceptions were impossible under the circumstances
in which Mohammad was placed.]
I have already explained (from paras. 21-24) that these early
expeditions, numbered 1 to 8, are not corroborated by authentic and
trustworthy traditions, and I have also given the probable nature of
those marked 4, 5 and 6.
It was impossible for Mohammad and his adherents, situated as they were,
to make any hostile demonstrations or undertake a pillaging enterprise.
The inhabitants of Medina, where the Prophet with his followers had
sought a safe asylum, and at whose invitation he had entered their city,
had solemnly bound themselves on sacred oaths to defend Mohammad, so
long as he was not himself the aggressor, from his enemies as they would
their wives and their children.[202] Mohammad, on his own part, had
entered into a holy compact with them not to plunder or commit
depredations.[203]
Upon these considerations it was impossible that the people of Medina
would have permitted or overlooked the irruptions so often committed by
Mohammad upon the caravans of the Koreish: much less would they have
joined with their Prophet, had he or any of his colleagues ventured to
do so. But granting that the Medinites allowed Mohammad to manifest
enmity towards the Koreish by a display of arms, or that no restraint
was put by them upon him when he encroached upon the territories of the
neighbouring tribes, and that the caravans were molested without any
grounds of justice, was it possible, I ask, for the people of Medina to
avoid the troubles they would be necessarily involved in by the refuge
they had given to their Prophet? They had long suffered from internal
feuds, and the sanguinary conflict of Boás, a few years ago, which had
paralyzed their country, and humiliated its citizens, was but too fresh
in their memory yet.
[Sidenote: 43. The interceptions, if occurred, were justified by way of
reprisals.]
Let us suppose that these alleged interceptions of the Meccan caravans
by the Moslems did actually take place, as related by the biographers of
Mohammad, were they not all justified by the International Code of the
Arabs, or the ancient usage and military law of nations. It has been
proved beyond all dispute that the Meccans were the first aggressors in
persecuting the Moslems, and expelling them from their dear homes at
Mecca with the unbearable annoyance, they caused the converts of the new
faith in the peaceful prosecution of their religion; taking all these
causes of offence into consideration, as well as the International law
and the law of Nature, the Moslems might be said to have law and justice
both on their sides in waging war with their harassers for the
restoration of their property and homes, and even in retaliating and
making reprisals until they attained the object long sought by them.
When the Meccans, on their own part, had first trumpeted hostility
against the Moslems, the right of self-defence, as well as military
necessity, compelled the latter to destroy their property, and obstruct
the ways and channels of communication by which their traffic was
prospering; for, "from the moment one State is at war with another, it
has, on general principles, a right to seize on all the enemy's
property of whatsoever kind and wheresoever found, and to appropriate
the property thus taken to its own use, or to that of the captors."[204]
[Footnote 201: I have closely followed Sir W. Muir in these expeditions;
_vide_ The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 64-69.]
[Footnote 202: "The people of Medîna were pledged only to defend the
Prophet from attack, not to join him in any aggressive steps against the
Coreish." Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 64.]
[Footnote 203: Bokharee relates from Obada-bin Sámat with the usual
chain of narrators, that "I am one of the _Nakeebs_ who pledged to the
Prophet. We pledged that we will not join any other god with the God,
and will not commit theft, and will not commit fornication, and will not
commit murder, and will not plunder." Saheeh of Bokharee, Book of
Campaigns, chapter on Deputations from Ansárs.]
[Footnote 204: Wheaton's Elements of International Law, p. 419, Boston,
1855; Lieber's Miscellaneous Writings; Political science, Vol. II, p.
250, Philadelphia, 1881.]
_The alleged Assassinations._
[Sidenote: 44. Instances of alleged assassinations cited.]
There were certain executions of culprits who had perpetrated the crime
of high treason against the Moslem Commonwealth. These executions, and
certain other cases of murders not grounded on any credible evidences,
are narrated by European biographers of Mohammad as assassinations
committed through the countenance and connivance which he lent them.
They were about five or six in number, and they are styled
assassinations from there being no trials of the prisoners by a judge
and a jury, nor by any systematic court-martial. The punishment of death
was inflicted upon the persons condemned, either from private enmity or
for the unpardonable offence of high treason against the State, but it
cannot be said, as I will hereafter show, that these so-called cases of
assassinations had received the high sanction of Mohammad, or they were
brought about at his direct instigation and assent for their commission.
The alleged instances are as follows:--
1. Asma-bint Marwán.
2. Abú Afak.
3. Káb-ibn Ashraf.
4. Sofian-ibn Khalid.
5. Abú Ráfe.
6. Oseir-ibu Zárim.
7. The attempted assassination of Abú Sofian.
[Sidenote: 45. Mr. Poole quoted.]
Before reviewing the truth and falsity of evidence in each of these
cases, and showing how far the Prophet was privy to them, I will avail
myself of a quotation from Mr. Stanley Lane Poole, who has remarked with
his usual deep discernment and accurate judgment, in his Introduction to
Mr. E.W. Lane's Selections from the Koran:
"The execution of the half-dozen marked Jews is generally called
assassination, because a Muslim was sent secretly to kill each of the
criminals. The reason is almost too obvious to need explanation. There
were no police or law-courts, or even courts-martial, at Medina; some
one of the followers of Mohammad must therefore be the executer of the
sentence of death, and it was better it should be done quietly, as the
executing of a man openly before his clan would have caused a brawl and
more bloodshed and retaliation, till the whole city had become mixed up
in the quarrel. If secret assassination is the word for such deeds,
secret assassination was a necessary part of the internal government of
Medina. The men must be killed, and best in that way. In saying this I
assume that Mohammad was cognisant of the deed, and that it was not
merely a case of private vengeance; but in several instances the
evidence that traces these executions to Mohammad's order is either
entirely wanting or is too doubtful to claim our credence."[205]
1.--_Asma-bint Marwán._
[Sidenote: 46. Asma-bint Marwán.]
"The first victim was a woman," writes Major Osborn, "Asma, daughter of
Marwan; she had composed some satirical verses on the Prophet and his
followers; and Muhammad, moved to anger, said publicly: 'Who will rid me
of this woman?' Omeir, a blind man, but an ardent Moslem, heard the
speech, and at dead of night crept into the apartment where Asma lay
asleep surrounded by her little ones; he felt about in the darkness till
his hand rested on the sleeping woman, and then, the next instance his
sword was plunged into her breast."[206]
The story of Asma's murder has been variously related by the Arabian
writers, and the testimonies on which it rests are contradictory and
conflicting in themselves. Wákidi, Ibn Sád, and Ibn Hishám relate a very
strange thing about it, that she was killed by Omeir the _blind_ at the
dead of night. A blind person commits murder in a stranger's house
during nocturnal quietness, and is not arrested by any one! Doctor Weil
writes, that Omeir was a former husband of Asma, and the origin of the
murder may be traced to a long-brooding and private malice. Ibn Asákar
in his history (vide _Seerat Shámee_) relates that Asma was a
fruit-seller; some person of her tribe asked her if she had better
fruits. She said 'yes,' and entered her house followed by that man. She
stooped down to take something up, the person turned right and left, and
seeing that nobody was near, gave a violent blow on her head, and thus
dispatched her.
[Sidenote: 47. The story deserves not our belief.]
The historians even relate that Omeir, being offended at the verses
composed by Asma, had volunteered himself of his own free-will to kill
her.[207] She might have been a sacrifice to envy or hatred by the sword
of her assassin, but Mohammad really had no hand in her death. She had
made herself an outlaw by deluding the people of Medina to a breach of
treaty with the Moslems, whereby the rights and jurisdictions of Jews
and Moslems were definitively settled.
Ibn Ishak quietly leaves unnarrated any transaction with regard to Asma.
Wakidi and Ibn Sád do not affirm that Mohammad, being annoyed at her
lampoons, said dejectedly, "Who would rid me of that woman?" On the
contrary, Wakidi writes, that Omeir had voluntarily swore to take her
life. It is only Ibn Hisham who relates without citing his authority,
that Mohammad, hearing Asma's verses, declared: "Is there nobody for me
(i.e., _to rid me_) from Bint Marwán?" This version of the story has no
corroborative proofs from the earliest biographers, and we are not
inclined to put any faith in it.[208]
2.--_Abú Afak._
[Sidenote: 48. Abú Afak.]
It has been related that Abú Afak of Bani Amr had enraged the Moslems by
fomenting enmity and sedition against their Government, when one Háris
was executed for his murdering treacherously his fellow-comrade in the
battle of Ohad during the time they were fighting together side by side.
A convert from amongst the Bani Amr vowed to slay Abú Afak, and falling
unawares upon him killed him with a cruel blow of his sword. From Ibn
Ishak we learn that Mohammad had said with reference to Abú Afak, "Who
would rid me of this pestilent fellow?"[209] The biographers do not give
their authorities whence they derived their information of the words
attributed to Mohammad which he is said to have uttered with relation to
Abú Afak before his followers; while at the same time it is no fair
justice to form a hasty opinion of the fact without a critical
examination and well-balancing of evidences of men like Ibn Ishak and
others who have forgotten to tell us the original sources of their own
assertion. Besides, the words quoted above are not equivalent to a
peremptory order, and even granting this last condition, we are not
justified in construing them to mean _assassination_. Sir W. Muir writes
that, "the Secretary of Wâckidi says distinctly--'Now this was by
command of the Prophet.'" (Vol. III, p. 133, _f.n._) But it is a very
easy thing for the secretary or other biographers to give an ample play
to their fancies, or to fabricate commands, which the Prophet had never
given out, on a very slender basis, or on no reasonable basis at all.
The tendency of the biographers is always to exonerate the companions of
the Prophet at the expense of truth, and to justify their deeds by
casting the whole blame upon him.
3.--_Káb, son of Ashraf._
[Sidenote: 49. Káb, son of Ashraf.]
Káb-ibn Ashraf was an influential Jew connected with the tribe of Bani
Nazeer. Being very much mortified by the defeat of the Meccans at the
battle of Badr, he soon after proceeded to Mecca, where he stirred up
the Koreish to avenge themselves on the Moslems of Medina. On his return
to the latter place he manifested avowed hostility towards the Moslem
Commonwealth. He was a traitor and a turncoat, for he not only violated
his allegiance to the Moslems, but preached rebellion among their
enemies. Under such circumstances, he deserved execution by the military
and international law, and was decapitated at Medina accordingly. The
mode of execution was a sudden violence or deception, but Mohammad never
fulminated any harsh commands against him either for his assassination
or for his murder. He deserved capital punishment for his treachery,
which was duly measured out to him in the absence of any legal tribunals
for trials of criminals by jury, for in that case any man was authorized
to execute the sentence of the law. Even if it be taken for granted that
the Prophet had prayed "O Lord, deliver me from the son of Ashraf, in
whatsoever manner seemeth good unto thee, because of his open sedition
and verses;" or said, "Who can ease me of the son of Ashraf?"[210] This
does not amount to a fiat for murder or execution, much less for
assassination.
[Sidenote: 50. Mohammad could not have any share in his murder.]
The biographers and narrators of the campaigns of Mohammad generally
relate untrustworthy and fabulous details of such events, and are by no
means to be relied upon. Mohammad Ibn Ishak, the earliest biographer,
whose work exists, does not relate that Mohammad the Prophet ever prayed
for, or said to his followers, to be got rid of Káb; whereas the latest
biographers and traditionalists give us to understand that the Prophet
sanctioned the murder of Káb by his own express orders. "I am far from
asserting," says Sir W. Muir, "that every detail in the foregoing
narrative, either of instigation by Mahomet or of deception by the
assassins, is beyond suspicion. The actors in such scenes were not slow
to magnify and embellish their own services at the expense of truth.
There may also have been the desire to justify an act of perfidy, at
which even the loose morality of the day was startled, by casting the
burden of it on the infallible Prophet. But, after allowing all due
weight to both of these considerations, enough remains to prove, in this
case, the worst features of assassination, and the fact that they were
directly countenanced, or rather prompted, by Mahomet himself."[211]
There is no substantial proof in this case which tends to establish the
instigation Mohammad offered for the murder of Káb. The best traditions
for the story of Káb's assassination rest with Jábir-bin Abdullah,[212]
and Ibn Abbás through Ikrama.[213]
None of them can be an authority, for they were neither eye-witnesses,
nor they heard the Prophet countenancing or prompting the assassination,
nor they allude to their own authorities. Jábir-bin Abdullah was a mere
boy at that time. He was not allowed to appear even at the battle of
Ohad, which took place after the alleged execution of Káb, on account of
his tender age.[214] Ibn Abbás was even younger than Jábir, and besides,
was putting up at Mecca at the period in question.[215] Ikrama was a
slave of Ibn Abbás, and was notoriously given to the forging of
fictitious traditions.[216]
4.--_Sofian-bin Khalid._
[Sidenote: 51. Sofian-bin Khalid.]
After the reverse at Medina, in the battle of Ohad, large gatherings
were organized in various quarters of Arabia against the Moslems. The
Bani Lahyán, and other neighbouring tribes, rallied round the standard
of their chief Sofián, the son of Khálid, at Orna with the avowed
purpose of taking this occasion by the forelock when the tables were
turned at Ohad. "Mahomet, knowing that their movements depended solely
upon Sofiân, despatched Abdullah ibn Oneis with instructions to
assassinate him."[217] The accredited envoy volunteered himself for the
service, which he accomplished by destroying Sofian by surprise. Neither
Ibn Ishak, nor Ibn Hisham, nor Ibn Sád have anything to say about
'instructions' for assassination. Abdullah-bin Oneis may have been sent
as a spy to reconnoitre the movements of Sofián and his army, or to
bring advices concerning him, but it cannot be affirmed that he was
tutored by Mohammad to assassinate Sofian, even on the supposition that
his mission was to kill the latter.
[Sidenote: 52. Justifications of Sofian's alleged murder.]
Among the Arabs the international law of estates in their hostile
relations, and the military law and usage of former times, not
forgetting to mention the European international law as late as the last
century, maintained the broad principle that "in war everything done
against an enemy is lawful that he may be destroyed, though unarmed and
defenceless; that fraud or even poison may be employed against him; that
a most unlimited right is acquired to his person and property."[218]
Every sort of fraud except perfidy was allowed to be practised towards
an enemy in war. "I allow of any kind of deceit," writes Bynkershoek, a
writer on international law, the successor of Puffendorf and the
predecessor of Wolff and Vattel, "perfidy alone excepted, not because
anything is unlawful against an enemy, but because when our faith had
been pledged to him, so far as the promise extends, he ceases to be an
enemy."[219]
In the case of Sofián there was no perfidy, treachery, or violation of
faith, nor was there any permission granted by Mohammad for his
assassination. He sent, if it be proved he did (but it is never proved),
Abdullah against Sofián who had made every preparation of arms, and who
had mustered together several Bedouin tribes to attack Mohammad, to
fight and kill him; it was a straightforward course allowed by the
usages of the military law. Mohammad had distinctly and expressly
interdicted _perfidy, deceit and assassination_. "Do not," said he,
charging his commanders and soldiers on the point of marching for a
military expedition, "commit perfidy, and do not mutilate, and do not
kill a child."[220] He also laid down the golden maxim, "_Belief is the
restraint to assassination. No believer should commit
assassination_."[221]
5.--_Abú Rafe._
[Sidenote: 53. Abú Rafe.]
Abú Rafe, called also Sallám Ibn Abul Hokeik, was the chief of Bani
Nazeer, who had warred with the Moslems at Medina, and had been banished
to Khyber. He had taken a prominent part in the assembling of most of
the Bedouin tribes at the war of the confederates when they besieged
Medina. Subsequently, he had excited Bani Fezara and other Bedouin
tribes to carry on their depredations among the Moslems. A band of the
latter was dispatched to inflict condign punishment upon him, and he met
with his death at their hands. But the account of his execution are full
of contradictions and discrepancies. But none of these diverse stories
has, that Mohammad commanded the assassination of Abú Rafe, while Ibn
Ishak gives no account of him at all. Ibn Hisham has--"That Abú Rafe had
brought the confederate army against Mohammad, and some of Khazraj had
asked permission to kill him, and Mohammad permitted them."[222] Sir W.
Muir narrates that Mohammad "gave them command to make away with Abul
Huckeick,"[223] whilst the Secretary of Wákidi, whom he follows, simply
says, "He gave command to kill him." "_Making away with a person_"
creates an idea of secret murder tantamount to 'assassination,' but such
is not the wording of the original. _Sending a party to kill_, or _fight
with an enemy_ are synonymous, and permissible by the international or
military law, the Arab mode of fighting mostly consisting of single
combats.
6.--_Oseir-bin Zárim._[224]
[Sidenote: 54. Oseir-bin Zárim.]
Oseir-ibn Zarim, the chief of Bani Nazeer, had maintained a hostile
animosity against the Moslems of Medina, to war with whom he had
enrolled himself in the adverse tribe of Ghatafán. Preparations were
briskly made by this tribe to make a havoc of Medina, and Oseir had been
made the hero of the enterprise. Hereupon Mohammad delegated the mission
of bringing the insurgent to Medina to Abdullah-bin Rawáha and some
others, with a promise of making him Governor of Khyber,[225] and
treating him with marked distinction, if he yielded to the wishes of the
Prophet. Oseir complied, and set out with his followers to Medina. On a
camel were mounted Abdullah-bin, Oneis, and Oseir. Hardly they had
travelled six miles when Oseir repented of his determination to go to
Medina, and stretched forth his hand towards the sword of Abdullah, who
leaped from the camel and cut off his leg, Oseir in the meantime
wounding Abdullah's head with his camel staff.[226]
Now, whether Oseir was assassinated or murdered perfidiously; whether
he meditated treachery, and Abdullah struck him in his
self-defence,--whatever might be the case, certainly there is nothing in
the narrative of Oseir's death to show that Mohammad had sent him "on a
secret errand with a view of getting rid of the Jewish chief" as Sir W.
Muir explains.[227] The story is not imparted by earliest writers like
Ibn Ishak, and the traditions of a later date are incoherent, one-sided,
and imperfect. Notwithstanding these inaccuracies, no account tells us
that mandates were issued for fighting with or killing Oseir, much less
for his assassination.
7.--_The alleged intended Assassination of Abú Sofian._
[Sidenote: 55. The intended assassination of Abú Sofian.]
A Bedouin Arab was sent by Abú Sofian to Medina to assassinate Mohammad.
The emissary was tracked in his evil attempt, and confessed the purpose
with which he had come. This is related by Ibn Sád Katib Wakidi as the
cause of Mohammad's sending Amr Ibn Omeya to assassinate Abú
Sofian.[228] According to Hishamee, Amr was commissioned by the Prophet
to fight with Abú Sofián, and to kill him in immediate revenge for the
murder of Khobeib and his companions captured at Raji.[229] Now, Ibn
Ishak and Wákidí preserve absolute silence on this head. Ibn Hisham
relates nothing about assassination. It is only Ibn Sád Kátib Wákidí who
hands down to posterity the orders of Mohammad for the assassination of
Abú Sofian. This tradition is neither strengthened by any sterling
witness, nor is it a genuine one; and for this very reason it was not
accepted by Ibn Ishák or even by Wakidi, so prone to the recital of
apocryphal traditions.
[Sidenote: 56. Irving and Muir quoted: concluding remarks.]
Referring to the above attempted assassination Mr. Washington Irving
says: "During this period of his career Mahomet in more than one
instance narrowly escaped falling by the hand of an assassin. He himself
is charged with the use of insidious means to rid himself of an enemy,
for it is said that he sent Amru Ibn Omeya on a secret errand to Mecca,
to assassinate Abu Sofian, but the plot was discovered, and the assassin
only escaped by rapid flight. The charge, however, is not well
substantiated, and is contrary to his general character and
conduct."[230]
Sir W. Muir writes: "There is just a shadow of possibility that the
tradition may have been fabricated by the anti-Omeyad party to throw
odium on the memory of Abu Sofiân, as having been deemed by Mahomet
worthy of death. But this is not to be put against the evidence of
unanimous and apparently independent traditions."[231] But, in fact,
there are no unanimous and apparently independent traditions of the
command of Mohammad to assassinate Abú Sofian; there is only one and but
one, by Ibn Sád, which is wholly unreliable, and that too from the lips
of the would-be assassin himself who before the introduction of Islam
was a professional cutthroat, whose narration, therefore, deserves not
our belief.
Even if it be taken for granted that Mohammad did send some one to
assassinate Abú Sofian, who had already sent some one to assassinate
Mohammad as related by Ibn Sád, it was justified in self-defence. It was
a measure for retaliation, not one of mere revenge, but only a means of
protective retribution, which is lawful under the military law.[232]
[Footnote 205: Selections from the Kur-án by Edward William Lane, with
an Introduction by Stanley Lane Poole. Intro., p. xliv: Trübner & Co.,
London, 1879.]
[Footnote 206: Islam under the Arabs, by R.D. Osborn, p. 60, London,
1876.]
[Footnote 207: Wákidi's Campaigns of Mohammad, pp. 172 & 173: Calcutta
Baptist Mission Press; edited by A. Von Kremer.]
[Footnote 208: Sir W. Muir writes that "Hishami says, that Mahomet,
being vexed by Asma's verses, said _publicly_, 'Who will rid me of this
woman?'" But there is no such word in Ibn Hishám which may be rendered
'_publicly_.']
[Footnote 209: Ibn Hisham, p. 994. Wakidi does not give this sentence.
On the contrary, he says, Sálim had taken a vow to kill Abú Afak or die
himself.]
[Footnote 210: Ibn Sad Kátib Wákidí, pp. 186, 187.]
[Footnote 211: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, pp.
147-148.]
[Footnote 212: In the collections of Bokhári in the Book of Campaigns;
and in the Book of Jihád by Moslim.]
[Footnote 213: Mohammad-bin Sád Kátib Wakidi and Mohammad-bin Ishak. The
latter in Ibn Hisham, p. 551.]
[Footnote 214: Vide _Osaba-fi Tamiz Issahába_; or, Biographical
Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammad, by Ibn Hajr-al-Askalani. Part
I, No. 1021, p. 434.]
[Footnote 215: Ibn Abbás was only five years old at that time, and was
at Mecca. His evidence is consequently inadmissible.]
[Footnote 216: Yahya-bin Saeed al Ansaree, Ali-bin Abdullah-bin Abbás,
Ibnal Mosayyab, Atá Ibrahim-bin Maisura, Mohammad-bin Sireen, Kásim, and
Abdullah-bin Omar say that Ikrama was a liar. Vide _Mizánul Etedal_ of
Zahabi, _Koukabi Durrári Sharah_, _Saheeh Bokhari_, by Shamsuddin
Kirmáni; and _Márafat Anwaá-ilm Hadees_, by Abu Omar-ad-Damishki.]
[Footnote 217: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, p. 200.]
[Footnote 218: Elements of International Law, by Henry Wheaton, LL.D.
Sixth edition, by William Beach Lawrence, Boston, 1855; Part IV, Chapter
I, p. 374, quoting Bynkershoek; in p. 416, quoting Bynkershoek and
Wolff.]
[Footnote 219: _Ibid_, Chapter II, p. 470.]
[Footnote 220: The collections of Moslem _Apud_ Boreida, _vide_ Mishkat,
p. 333.]
[Footnote 221: The collections of Abú Daúd in the Book of Jihád, Vol.
II, p. 26.]
[Footnote 222: The Life of Mohammad based on Mohammad-ibn Ishak, by
Abdel Malik-ibn Hisham, p. 714.]
[Footnote 223: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, p. 14.]
[Footnote 224: Or Yoseir-bin Razim.]
[Footnote 225: As Khyber was not yet conquered, neither Mohammad could
make such a promise, nor the Jews could have been induced to believe it;
therefore the story is a false one.]
[Footnote 226: The Life of Mohammad, by Abdel Malik-bin Hisham, pp.
980-981.]
[Footnote 227: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 16-17.]
[Footnote 228: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV. p. 20.]
[Footnote 229: The Life of Mohammad, by Abdel Malik-bin Hisham, pp.
992-993. The fighting was, according to Arab custom, in single combats.]
[Footnote 230: Mahomet and his Successors, by Washington Irving, p. 118,
London, 1869.]
[Footnote 231: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 20, foot-note.]
[Footnote 232: Compare "Contributions to Political Science," by Francis
Lieber, LL.D., Vol. II, p. 250.]
_The alleged Cruelties in executing the Prisoners of War and others_.
[Sidenote: 57. Treatment of the prisoners of war.]
Some of the war prisoners had received the condign punishment of
execution for their crimes in conformity with the laws of war. It has
been alleged by some European biographers of Mohammad that their (the
war prisoners') execution was cruel, and that they were accused of no
crime except their scepticism and political antagonism.[233]
The persons executed were as follows:--
1. Nadhr-bin-Harith.
2. Okba.
3. Abul Ozza.
4. Moavia-bin-Mughira.
[Sidenote: The law of nations regarding the prisoners of war.]
Before reviewing the case of each prisoner, I must note, by way of
introductory remarks, that, under the international or military law, a
prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army
for active aid, and who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either
fighting or wounded, on the fields or in the hospitals, by individual
surrender or capitulation. All soldiers, of whatever species of arms;
all men who belong to the rising _en masse_ of the hostile country; all
those who are attached to the army for its efficiency and promote
directly the object of the war, except religious persons, officers of
medical staff, hospital nurses and servants, all disabled men or
officers on the field, or elsewhere, if captured, all enemies who have
thrown away their arms and asked for quarters, are prisoners of war, and
as such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled to the
privileges of a prisoner of war. He is subject to no punishment for
being a public enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the
international infliction of any suffering or disgrace, by cruel
imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other
barbarity. But a prisoner of war remains answerable for his crimes
committed against the captor's army or people before he was captured,
and for which he has not been punished by his own authorities. All
prisoners of war are liable to the infliction of retaliatory measures.
1.--_Nadhr-bin-Harith_.
[Sidenote: 59. The execution of Nadhr Ibn Harith.]
Nadhr (Nazr), one of the prisoners of war, was executed after the battle
of Badr for his crime of severely tormenting the Moslems at Mecca.
Musáb had distinctly reminded him of his torturing the companions of
Mohammad,[234] so there was nothing of a cruel and vindictive spirit of
the Prophet displayed towards his enemies in the execution of Nazr as it
is made out by Sir W. Muir.[235] On the other hand, his execution is
denied by some critics, like Ibn Manda and Abú Naeem, who say, that
Nazr-bin-Haris was present at the battle of Honain, A.H. 8, six years
after that of Badr, and was presented with one hundred camels by
Mohammad. Sir W. Muir himself puts down very quietly Nadhir Ibn al
Harith's name in a foot-note (Vol. IV, page 151) as a recipient of one
hundred camels at Honain. The same Nadhr-bin-Harith is shown among the
earliest Moslem refugees who had fled to Abyssinia. These discrepancies
leave no doubt that the story of Nadhr's execution is not a fact. It is
also related by the narrators, who assert Nazr's execution at Badr, that
his daughter or sister came to Mohammad and addressed him several
verses, the hearing of which produced such a tender emotion in him, that
his eyes shed tears and said, he would not have issued orders for his
execution had he heard these verses before. The following are two of the
verses which Mohammad heard:
_"Má kán Zarraka lao mananta va rubba mámannal
fata va ho-al mughizul mohnihoo."_
Thou wouldst no harm have seen to set him free,
Anger how high for pardon has no plea.
But Zobier-bin-Bakár says, he heard some learned men who objected to
these verses on the ground that they were all concocted; and I think
that the whole story of Nazr's execution is a spurious one.
2.--_Okba-bin-Mueit_.
[Sidenote: 60. The execution of Okba.]
Another prisoner, named Okba, was executed after the battle of Badr for
a crime similar to that of Nazr. It is related that while he was going
to be executed, he asked who would take care of his little girl.
Mohammad replied, "Hell-fire!" This is altogether an apocryphal story,
and owes its origin to the relation of Okba to the tribe of Banunnar, or
the "children of fire." Wackidi does not give his authorities for the
story, and Ibn Is-hak gives only one immediately before him, which is
cut short of another intervening link of authorities up to the scene of
occurrence. Abu Daood narrates it from Masrook, who gave it on the
authority of Abdullah-bin-Mas-ood, who does not say he was present at
the scene or he heard it directly or indirectly from Mohammad. Besides
the circumstances under which Masrook gave out this story are very
suspicious, and show that calumny was at work. Masrook was proposed by
Zohak to be entrusted with the administration of a certain district.
Ommara, the son of Okba, objected to this, as Masrook was one of the
murderers of Osman, the third Khalif. Masrook in reply said to Ommara,
on the authority of Ibn Masood, that "when thy father was being
executed, he had asked the Prophet, who will take care of his little
girl." The Prophet replied, "Hell-fire." Therefore, I am satisfied for
thee with what the Prophet had chosen for thy father.[236]
There is a discrepancy in the mode of Okba's execution as well as about
the person who executed him. Ibn Is-hak says, that it was Asim who
killed him, and Ibn Hisham, that it was Ali. Ibrahim is of opinion, that
Okba was executed at Taimee,[237] and Mohammad-bin-Khobeib Hashimi,[238]
that he was crucified, from which others differ and say that he was
beheaded. I have no belief in Okba's execution at all.
[Sidenote: 61. Free liberty granted to Ozza, a prisoner of war.]
Abul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, and who was one of the
persecutors of the Moslems at Mecca, had besought Mohammad to release
him by way of compassion for his five daughters. Mohammad granted him
his life and his liberty.[239] This directly points to the universal
generosity of the Prophet, and from this it will appear that the story
of Okba's execution runs contrary to his general character and conduct.
On these grounds the execution of Okba might be rejected as a fiction.
3.--_Abul Ozza._
[Sidenote: 62. Abul Ozza proved a traitor and was executed.]
Abul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, was allowed his freedom without
any ransom, on the condition that he would never again bear up arms in
any war against the Prophet; but he proved a traitor. He exhorted the
Arabs to make war on Mohammad, and joined himself the invading army of
Mecca. He was doomed to misfortune, he was caught at Hamra, and duly
executed.[240] This was in full accordance with the laws and usages of
war (_vide ante_, para. 58).
4.--_Moavia Ibn Mughira._
[Sidenote: The execution of Moavia Ibn Mughira.]
Moavia Ibn Mughira, also a prisoner of war, was granted three days'
truce, on the condition that if he were found in Medina after the
appointed time, he was to be executed. The period had passed, and he was
still lurking at Medina. At length he was found out and killed by Zeid
and Ammar on their return from Hamra-al-Assad, after five or six days.
It is apparent that Moavia violated his truce, and his lurking in Medina
might be either as a spy[241] or scout secretly seeking information.
[Sidenote: 64. Justification of Mughira's execution.]
Sir W. Muir, who calls him Othmân Ibn Mughîra, makes out a favourable
case in his behalf. He writes: He "incautiously lingered at Medîna till
the last day of his term of grace, when he set out for Mecca."[242] But
Ibn Hisham distinctly writes that he "stayed at Medina after the three
days had passed and was found lurking there." Even according to Wackidi
he was caught on the fourth day. But this is far from truth, for,
according to his own account, Mohammad was absent after the battle of
Ohad for five days at Hamra-al-Assad; then how he (Ibn Mughira) could
have endeavoured to avoid the returning Moslem force from
Hamra-al-Assad, and lose his way, as Sir W. Muir gives it out, only on
the fourth day?
One of the enemies, who had invaded Medina and attacked Mohammad, was,
after being captured, allowed three days' truce on explicit conditions
that he was to be killed there if found after three days, and was also
provided with a camel and provisions for the way, was discovered lurking
thereabout on the fifth or sixth day, in consequence of which he lost
his life. This is called by Sir W. Muir as being "perished by a too
great confidence in the generosity of his enemy,"[243]--_i.e._,
Mohammad.
[Footnote 233: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 307.]
[Footnote 234: Wackidi Campaigns of Mohammad, p. 101, Calcutta, 1855.]
[Footnote 235: "It was at Otheil that the cruel and vindictive spirit of
Mahomet towards his enemies first began to display itself."--Muir's Life
of Mohamet, Vol. III, p. 115. After this, the author narrates the
execution of Nazr. Ibn Is-hak. _Vide_ Ibn Hisham, p. 458; Wackidi, p.
108; Abu Daood, Vol. II, p. 10. This story is not given by Ibn Hisham
and Ibn Sád.]
[Footnote 236: Abu Daood as before.]
[Footnote 237: Zorkánee, Vol. II, p. 541.]
[Footnote 238: Sírat Halabi, Vol. II, p. 371.]
[Footnote 239: Wackidi, 105. Insán-ul Oyoon or Sírat Halabí, Vol. II, p.
464.]
[Footnote 240: Wackidi, p. 105; Hishami, p. 591; Insán-ul-Oyoon or Sírat
Halabí, Vol. II, p. 464.]
[Footnote 241: Ibn Hisham, p. 591; Wackidi, pp. 324 and 325.]
[Footnote 242: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, p. 185.]
[Footnote 243: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, 185.]
_The intended Execution of the Prisoners of Badr._
[Sidenote: 63. The wrong version of Sir W. Muir.]
Sir W. Muir writes: "It would even seem to have been contemplated at the
close of the battle to kill all the prisoners. Mahomet is represented by
tradition as himself directing this course." In a foot-note he says,
"Thus Mahomet said: 'Tell not Saîd of his brother's death'" (Mábad, a
prisoner, see above, page 110 note); "but kill ye every man his
prisoner."--(Wâckidi, 100.) Again: "Take not any man his brother
prisoner, but rather kill him" (page 101). "I would not, however, lay
too much stress on these traditions. I am inclined rather to view them
as called into existence by the passages quoted below from the
Coran."[244] The contemplated execution of the prisoners is not borne
out by the traditions which Sir W. Muir himself looks upon as fabricated
ones. The true translation of the passages in Wackidi referred to above
is as follows:--
_First passage._--"Tell not Said of his brother's killing (_i.e._, being
killed), so he will kill every prisoner in your hands."--(Wackidi, page
100.) This obviously means, that do not let Saeed know that his brother
Wáhid, who was made prisoner and killed by Omar or Abu Barda, was
killed. If you do so, he will, being enraged, kill every prisoner now in
your hands. It is very strange that Sir W. Muir translates the sentence
to mean "kill ye every man his prisoner!"
_Second passage._--"No body must take his brother's prisoner, so that he
may be killed," meaning none of you should seize other person's
prisoner. If you do so, perhaps, the other person may kill the prisoner
in the contest. Sir W. Muir has quite misunderstood the sentence.
[Sidenote: 66. Mohammad never blamed in the Koran for relieving
prisoners.]
There are some fictitious traditions on the subject that Mohammad was
reprimanded in the Koran (Sura, viii, 68, 69) for releasing the
prisoners of Badr, meaning that he ought to have executed them. The
verse is translated thus:--
"It is not for a Prophet to take prisoners until (_hatta_) he hath
slaughtered in the land. Ye wish to have the goods of this world, but
God wishes for the next, for God is Mighty, Wise! Were it not for a book
from God that had gone before, there would have touched you, for which
ye took, a mighty punishment."
The verse 68, if it is rightly translated, will mean that prisoners
should not be executed. The word '_hatta_' means '_until_,' and is also
used as a causative word. I prefer the latter, and translate--
"It is not for any Prophet that prisoners may be brought to him _in
order_ that he may make slaughter in the land," which means, that it is
not proper for a Prophet to take prisoners of war in order to slaughter
them. This meaning is in consonance with the other passage in the Koran
(xlvii, 4), which restricts the treatment of the prisoners of war to
either free dismissal or ransom.
In the first place, the verse rather reprimanded those who wished to
kill the prisoners; and in the second, those who desired to exact ransom
for their liberty. They ought to have set them at liberty without any
pecuniary advantage, if they knew any good in their deserving free
liberty.
[Footnote 244: _Ibid_, p. 117.]
_Kind Treatment of the Prisoners of War by Mohammad._
[Sidenote: 67. The Koran enjoins, the prisoners of war to be either
freely liberated or ransomed, but neither executed nor enslaved.]
The prisoners of war were always treated kindly by Mohammad, and the
ancient practice of killing and enslaving them was much discouraged and
abolished by the Koran.
"And when ye meet those who misbelieve, then strike off heads until ye
have massacred them, and bind fast the bonds!"
"Then either a free grant (of liberty) or a ransom until the war shall
have laid down its burdens."--Sura, xlvii, 4 and 5.
Regarding the prisoners of Badr Sir W. Muir writes: "In pursuance of
Mahomet's commands, the citizens of Medina, and such of the refugees as
possessed houses, received the prisoners and treated them with much
consideration." "Blessing be on the men of Medina!" said these prisoners
in latter days. "They made us ride, while they themselves walked; they
gave us wheatened bread to eat, when there was little of it, contenting
themselves with dates." It is not surprising that when, some time after,
their friends came to ransom them, several of the prisoners who had been
thus received declared themselves adherents of Islam: and to such the
Prophet granted a liberty without the usual payment.[245]
The prisoners of the Bani Mustalik were released without paying any
ransom.[246]
The Bani Hawazin were made prisoners of war at Honain, fought in the
eighth year of the Hegira, but were all set free without any exaction of
ransom from them. Mohammad first released his prisoners, and the men of
Mecca and Medina cheerfully followed his example.[247] The prisoners
were six thousand in number.[248]
A party of eighty, as related by Moslim in his _Saheeh_, or of forty or
fifty Koreish, as narrated by Ibn Hisham (p. 745), went round about
Mohammad's camp while stationed at Hodeibia in A.H. 6, seeking to cut
off any stray followers, and having attacked the camp itself with stones
and arrows, they were caught and taken prisoners to Mohammad, who, with
his usual generosity, pardoned and released them.
Khalid-Ibn-Waleed, in the year of his victory, A.H. 11, when he was
sent to call the Bani Jazima to embrace Islam, had made them prisoners
and ordered their execution. Some of the better-informed of the Moslems
of the injunctions of the Koran, of releasing prisoners either freely or
by exacting ransom, interposed and accused him of committing an act of
the Time of Ignorance. Mohammad, much displeased, grieved at the
intelligence, and said twice, 'O God! I am innocent of what Khalid hath
done.'[249]
[Footnote 245: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 122 and 123.]
[Footnote 246: _Ibid_, Vol. III, p. 243.]
[Footnote 247: _Ibid_, Vol. IV. pp. 148 and 149.]
[Footnote 248: Ibn Hisham, p. 877.]
[Footnote 249: Ibn Hisham, pp. 833 and 835.]
_The Execution of the Bani Koreiza._
[Sidenote: 68. High treason of the Bani Koreiza against Medina, and
their execution.]
The Bani Koreiza, a Jewish tribe living in the vicinity of Mecca had
entered into an alliance with the Moslem Commonwealth to defend the city
of Medina from the attack of the aggressors. While Medina was besieged
by the ten thousand Koreish and other Bedouin tribes in A.H. 6, they
(the Koreiza), instead of co-operating with the Moslems, defected from
their allegiance and entered into negotiations with the besieging foe.
After the cessation of the siege, they were besieged in their turn, and
a fearful example was made of them, not by Mohammad, but by an arbiter
chosen and appointed by themselves. The execution of some of them was
not on account of their being prisoners of war; they were war-traitors
and rebels, and deserved death according to the international law. Their
crime was high treason against Medina while it was blockaded. There had
no actual fighting taken place between the Bani Koreiza and the Moslems,
after the former had thrown off their allegiance to the latter and had
aided and abetted the enemies of the realm. They were besieged by the
Moslems to punish them for their high treason, and consequently they
were not prisoners of war. Even such prisoners of war suffer for high
treason.
"Treating, in the field, the rebellious enemy according to the law and
usages of war, has never prevented the legitimate Government from trying
the leaders of the rebellion, or chief rebels for high treason, and from
treating them accordingly, unless they are included in a general
amnesty."[250]
[Sidenote: 69. The whole of the Bani Koreiza was never executed.]
The whole tribe of the Bani Koreiza was not executed, nor all the male
prisoners were put to the sword.[251] The number slain was comparatively
very small. That they were not executed at the commands of Mohammad, nor
_all_ of them were killed, nor a divine sanction was alleged for it, is
shown by the following verse of the Koran:
"And he caused those of the people of the Book (the Jews) who had aided
the confederates to come down of their fortresses, and cast dismay into
their hearts: some ye slew; others ye took prisoners."--Sura, xxxiii,
26.
The slaying and taking of prisoners is attributed to them to whom the
verse is addressed as their own act.
[Sidenote: 70. The women and children of the Bani Koreiza were not
sold.]
The rest of the Bani Koreiza,--male adults, women, and children,--were
either liberated or got themselves ransomed. We read in Oyoon-al-Asar by
Ibn Sayyad-al-Nas some account of the ransom. Osman-bin-Affan gathered
much money by the transaction. But Sir W. Muir quotes from Hishamee,
that the rest of the women and children were sent to be sold among the
Bedouin tribes of Najd, in exchange of horse and arms.[252] But there is
no authority for this story. Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman, in his Campaigns of
Mohammad, gives another account which is more probable. He writes:--
"Out of what was captured from Bani Koreiza Mohammad took seventeen
horses and distributed them among his people. The rest he divided into
two halves. One-half he sent with Sád bin Obádd to Syria, and the other
half with Ans bin Quízí to the land of Ghatafán, and ordered that they
may be used there for breeding purposes. They did so, and got good
horses."[253]
[Sidenote: 71. The exaggerated number of the persons executed.]
The number of male adults executed has been much exaggerated, though it
is immaterial, when an execution duly authorized by the international
law of a country takes place, to consider the smallness or greatness of
the number. I cannot do better than quote Moulvie Ameer Ali of Calcutta
on the subject, who has very judiciously criticised the same: "Passing
now to the men executed," he says, "one can at once see how it has been
exaggerated. Some say they were 400; others have carried the number even
up to 900. But Christian historians generally give it as varying from
700 to 800. I look upon this as a gross exaggeration. Even 400 would
seem an exaggerated number. The traditions agree in making the warlike
materials of the Bani Koreiza consist of 300 cuirasses, 500 bucklers,
1,500 sabres, &c. In order to magnify the value of the spoil, the
traditions probably exaggerated these numbers.[254] But taking them as
they stand, and remembering that such arms are always kept greatly in
excess of the number of fighting men, I am led to the conclusion that
the warriors could not have been more than 200 or 300. The mistake
probably arose from confounding the whole body of prisoners who fell
into the hands of the Moslems with those executed."[255]
Even 200 seems to be a large number, as all of the prisoners were put
up for the night in the house of Bint-al-Haris,[256] which would have
been insufficient for such a large number.
[Footnote 250: Miscellaneous Writings of Francis Lieber, Vol. II.
Contributions to Political Science, p. 273, Philadelphia, 1881.]
[Footnote 251: Some of the Koreizites were released, among whom we hear
of Zobeir Ibn Batá, and Rifáa. They were pardoned by Mohammad.]
[Footnote 252: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 279.]
[Footnote 253: _History of Mohammad's Campaigns_: Edited by Von Kremer,
p. 374.]
[Footnote 254: "Compare the remarks of Ibn-Khaldún (Prelégoménes d' Ibn
Khaldoun, traduits par M. de Slane, Part I, p. 14)."]
[Footnote 255: A Critical Examination of the Life and Teachings of
Mohammed, by Syed Ameer Ali, Moulvi, M.A., LL.B., of the Inner Temple,
Barrister-at-Law, p. 113: William and Norgate, London, 1873.]
[Footnote 256: Ibn Hisham, p. 689. Others say the males were kept in the
house of Osman-bin-Zaed, and the females and children in the house of
Bint-al-Haris. _Vide_ Insan-al-Oyoon, by Halabi. Vol. III, p. 93.]
_Some Miscellaneous Objections Refuted._
1.--_Omm Kirfa._
[Sidenote: 72. The execution of Omm Kirfa for brigandage.]
The barbarous execution of Omm Kirfa, a female, who was notorious as the
mistress of a nest of robbers, by tying her each leg to a separate camel
and being torn asunder, is not a fact. It is only mentioned by Katib
Wáckidi, and is not to be found in any other earliest account of
Wáckidi, Ibn Is-hak, and Ibn Hisham. Even Katib Wáckidi does not say
that the execution was ordered by Mohammad, and it is not fair on the
part of Sir W. Muir to hold Mohammad an accomplice in the ferocious act,
because he reads of no disapprobation expressed by the Prophet at such
an inhuman treatment.[257] But in the first place the narration is a
mere fiction; and secondly, the traditions are, as a rule, always
incomplete; in one place they are given shorter, and in another longer,
according to the circumstances of the occasion on which they are
originally recited. Ibn Hisham relates, that "Zaid-bin-Harisa ordered
Kays-bin-Mosahhar to execute Omm Kirfa, so he executed her with a
violent execution." ('_Katlan Aneefan_,' p. 980.) He does not relate
that Mohammad was even informed of the execution after the party had
returned from this terrible mission. I think the word '_aneef_'
(_violent_ or _severe_), as used originally by the narrator, might have
been the cause of the growth of the story of executing by tying up to
two camels, by way of a gratuitous explanation or glossary, as another
tradition relates that she was tied to the tails of two horses (_vide
Koostalanee_ in his Commentary on Bokharee, Vol. III, p. 307).
2.--_Urnee Robbers._
[Sidenote: 73. The alleged mutilation of the Urnee robbers.]
Some _Urnee_ robbers, lately converted, had plundered the camels of
Medina and barbarously handled their herdsman, for they cut off his
hands and legs, and struck thorny spikes into his tongue and eyes, till
he died. The bandits were pursued, captured, and executed by
Kurz-bin-Jabir. "They had merited death," says Sir W. Muir, "but the
mode in which he inflicted it was barbarous and inhuman. The arms and
legs of eight men were cut off, and their eyes were put out. The
shapeless, sightless trunks of these wretched Bedouins were then impaled
upon the plain of Al Ghâba, until life was extinct."[258] As the robbers
had mutilated the herdsman, this gave currency to their having been
mutilated in retaliation. But in fact Mohammad never ordered mutilation
in any case. He was so averse to this practice, that several traditions
from various sources emanating from him to the effect, prove that he
prohibited mutilation lest he himself be mutilated by divine
judgment.[259]
[Sidenote: 74. Amputation or banishment substituted temporarily in place
of imprisonment for want of a well-organized system of jails.]
Sir W. Muir continues:--"On reflection, Mahomet appears to have felt
that this punishment exceeded the bounds of humanity. He accordingly
promulgated a Revelation, in which capital punishment is limited to
simple death or crucifixion. Amputation of the hands and feet is,
however, sanctioned as a penal measure; and amputation of the hands is
even enjoined as the proper penalty for theft, whether the criminal be
male or female. This barbarous custom has accordingly been perpetuated
throughout the Mahometan world. But the putting out of the eyes is not
recognized among the legal punishments."[260]
These alternative punishments were prescribed for the heinous crimes of
highway robbery, dacoity, and theft by house-breaking. They were (i)
capital punishment, (ii) amputation, and (iii) banishment (Sura, v, 37,
42), according to the circumstances of the case. The last two were of a
temporary nature substituted for imprisonment for want of an organized
system of jails and prisons. When the Commonwealth was in its infancy,
the troubles of the invasions and wars of the aggressive Koreish and
their allies had left neither peace nor security at Medina to take such
administrative measures as to organize a system of building, guarding,
and maintaining jails, their inmates and their establishments. As soon
as jails were established in the Mohammadan Commonwealth, amputation and
banishment gave way to imprisonment. The prisoners of war, not being
criminals, used to be made over by Mohammad to some citizens of Medina,
as in the case of the prisoners of the battle of Badr, to keep them in
their houses as guests, on account of the want of prisons; but as for
the other criminals--the highway robbers, dacoits, and
house-breakers--they could not be treated and entertained so hospitably.
Thus there was left no alternative for them except either to banish such
criminals, or to award them corporal punishment in the shape of
amputation.[261]
3.--_Torture of Kinana._
[Sidenote: 75. Torture of Kinana.]
It is related by the biographers "that Kinana, chief of the Jews of
Khyber, and his cousin had kept back, in contravention of their compact,
a portion of their riches. On the discovery of this attempt at
imposition, Kinana was subjected to cruel torture--'fire being placed
upon his breast till his breath had almost departed'--in the hope that
he would confess where the rest of his treasures were concealed. Mahomet
then gave command, and the heads of the chief and his cousin were
severed from their bodies."[262]
The story of Kinana's being subjected to extortion and put to death for
hiding some treasure, for which he had contravened his contract, is
altogether a spurious one. Kinana was executed in retaliation for
treacherously killing Mahmud, the brother of Mohammad-bin-Moslama, to
whom he was made over for execution. There is one tradition, without any
authority, to the effect, that Zobeir was producing fire on Kinana's
breast by the friction of flint and steel. This, if it be a fact, does
not show that it was done by Mohammad's direction and approval. On the
contrary, there are several traditions from the Prophet himself in which
he has forbidden to punish any one with fire. It is related by Bokharee
from Ibn Abbás, that Mohammad said, "God only can punish with fire." It
is also related by Abu Daood from Abdullah, that the Prophet said, "No
body ought to punish any one with fire except the Lord of the
fire."[263]
4.--_A Singing-Girl executed._
[Sidenote: 76. The alleged execution of a singing-girl.]
"From general amnesty extended to the citizens of Mecca, Mahomet
excluded ten or twelve persons. Of these, however, only four were
actually put to death.... The two next were renegade Moslems, who having
shed blood at Medina had fled to Mecca, and abjured Islam. They were
both slain, and also a singing-girl belonging to one of them, who had
been in the habit of annoying the Prophet by abusive verses."
"Their names are Abdallah ibn Khalal and Mikyas ibn Subâba. The murder
committed by the former is said to have been wilful, that of the latter
unintentional. Abdallah had two singing-girls. Both were sentenced to
death, but one escaped and afterwards obtained quarter; the execution of
the other appears to have been the worst act committed by Mahomet on the
present occasion."[264]
Abdullah had committed cold-blooded murder, and most probably the
singing-girl belonging to him had taken a share in his crime. Her
execution was owing to her being an accomplice or abettor in the foul
act which was justified by law. Then why should the execution be
considered a worst act? Mohammad felt the deepest respect for the weaker
sex, and had enjoined during the warfares "not to kill women;" but the
law makes no difference amongst the sexes, both sexes being liable to
punishment according to their deserts.
[Sidenote: 77. The charitable spirit of Mohammad towards his enemies.]
The magnanimity, clemency, forbearance, and forgiveness of Mohammad at
the time of his victory at Mecca were very remarkable. Mr. Stanley Lane
Poole with his usual acumen writes:--"But the final keystone was set in
the eighth year of the flight (A.D. 630), when a body of the Kureysh
broke the truce by attacking an ally of the Muslims; and Mohammad
forthwith marched upon Mekka with ten thousand men, and the city,
defence being hopeless, surrendered. Now was the time for the Prophet to
show his bloodthirsty nature. His old persecutors are at his feet. Will
he not trample on them, torture them, revenge himself after his own
cruel manner? Now the man will come forward in his true colours: we may
prepare our horror, and cry shame beforehand.
"But what is this? Is there no blood in the streets? Where are the
bodies of the thousands that have been butchered? Facts are hard things;
and it is a fact that the day of Mohammad's greatest triumph over his
enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely
forgave the Kureysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn they had
inflicted on him: he gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mekka.
Four criminals, whom justice condemned, made up Mohammad's proscription
list when he entered as a conqueror the city of his bitterest enemies.
The army followed the example, and entered quietly and peaceably; no
house was robbed, no woman insulted."[265]
5.--_Abu Basír._
[Sidenote: 78. Abu Basír not countenanced by the Prophet in
contravention of the spirit of the treaty of Hodeibia.]
Sir W. Muir says that "Abu Basír, the free-booter, was countenanced by
the Prophet in a manner scarcely consistent with the letter, and
certainly opposed to the spirit, of the truce of Hodeibia."[266] It was
one of the articles of the treaty of Hodeibia between the Koreish and
Mohammad, that if any one goeth over to Mohammad without the permission
of his guardian, he shall be sent back to him.[267] A short time after,
Abu Basír, a Moslem imprisoned at Mecca, effected his escape and
appeared at Medina. His guardians, Azhar and Akhnas, sent two servants
to Mohammad with a letter and instructions to bring the deserter back to
his house. The obligation of surrender was at once admitted by Mohammad,
though Abu Basír pleaded the persecution which he used to suffer at
Mecca as the cause of refusing to return, but Mohammad argued that it
was not proper for him to break the terms of the peace, and Abu Basír
was compelled to set out for Mecca. But he had travelled only a few
miles when he treacherously seized the sword of one of his escorts and
slew him. The other servant fled back to Medina, whither Abu Basír also
followed him. On the return of the latter, he contended that the Prophet
had already fulfilled the treaty to its very letter in delivering him
up, but the Prophet replied, "Alas for his mother! What a kindler of
war, if he had with him any one!" When he heard this "he knew that the
Prophet was again going to send him back to his guardians,[268] the
Koreish, so he went away to the seashore, where he, with others who had
joined him after their flight from captivity at Mecca, used to waylay
the caravans from Mecca." This story, which is also briefly narrated by
Ibn Is-hak, and more fully by Shamee, Zoorkanee and Ibn-al-Kyyim, does
not show that Mohammad acted against the spirit and letter of the truce
of Hodeibia.
He himself never countenanced Abu Basír; on the contrary, he delivered
him up in conformity with the terms of the treaty of Hodeibia, and when
he had returned, Abu Basír had every reason to believe that Mohammad
would again despatch him to the quarters whence he had come. But it
appears Abu Basír went away to the seashore, out of Mohammad's
jurisdiction, and it was not the duty of the Prophet to effect his
arrest and send him back to Mecca whilst he was not with him, or rather
out of his jurisdiction. Had he even kept him with himself at Medina
after he had once made him over to the party sent forth to take charge
of him, and were no other demands made for his delivery, I do not think
Mohammad could be fairly blamed for it according to the international
law of the Arabs, or even according to the terms of the treaty of
Hodeibia itself.
6.--_Employment of Nueim to break up the confederates who had besieged
Medina._
[Sidenote: 79. Nueim not employed by the Prophet to circulate false
reports in the enemy's camp.]
When Medina was besieged for several days by the Koreish and their
confederates, the army of Medina was harassed and wearied with
increasing watch and duty. Nueim, an Arab of a neutral tribe,
represented himself as a secret believer, and offered his services to
the Prophet, who accepted them, and employed him to hold back the
confederates from the siege, if he could, saying "war verily was a game
of deception." Nueim excited mutual distrust between the Jews and the
Koreish. He told the Jews not to fight against Mohammad until they got
hostages from the Koreish as a guarantee against their being deserted.
And to the Koreish he said that the Jews intended to ask hostages from
them. "Do not give them," he said, "they have promised Mahomet to give
up the hostages to be slain."[269]
This is one tradition, and there is another to the effect that the Jews
had themselves asked for the hostages, but the Koreish had not replied
yet, when Nueim came to the Jews and said, he was there with Abu Sofian
when their messenger had come for the demand of hostages, and that Abu
Sofian is not going to send them any.[270]
A third tradition in Motamid Ibn Solyman's supplement to Wackidi's
_Campaigns of Mohammad_ gives no such story at all. It has altogether a
different narration to the effect, that there was a spy of the Koreish
in the Moslem camp who had overheard Abdullah-bin-Rawaha saying, that
the Jews had asked the Koreish to send them seventy persons, who, on
their arrival, would be killed by them. Nueim went to the Koreish, who
were waiting for his message, and told what he had heard as already
related.[271] This contradicts the story given by Ibn Hisham and Mr.
Muir. But anyhow the story does not prove that Mohammad had given
permission to Nueim to speak falsehood or spread treacherous reports.
[Sidenote: 80. Deception in way allowed by the international law.]
Sir W. Muir is not justified in his remarks when he writes,--"We cannot,
indeed, approve the employment of Nueim to break up the confederacy by
falsehood and deception, but this perhaps would hardly affect his
character in Arab estimation;"[272] and further on he writes,--"When
Medîna was beleagured by the confederate army, Mahomet sought the
services of Nueim, a traitor, and employed him to sow distrust among the
enemy by false and treacherous reports: for," said he, "what else is war
but a game at deception."[273] The utmost that can be made out from the
former tradition quoted by Mr. Muir, and contradicted by another
tradition of equal force, is that Mohammad allowed deception in war by
quoting the proverbial saying, that "war is a game at deception." In
this he had the sanction of the military law or the international law,
as deception in war is a "military necessity," and allowed by the law
and usages of war. A modern author on the international law says:--
"Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of
_armed_ enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally
_unavoidable_ in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the
capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the
hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of
all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of
traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance
or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an
enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the
army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good
faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into
during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist."[274]
[Sidenote: 81. Lecky's Standard of Morality.]
But supposing the modern morality does not approve of Mohammad what
hardly "affected his character in Arab estimation," are there no
diversities in moral judgments? The moral unity to be expected in
different ages is not a unity of standard or of facts, but a unity of
tendency.
"That some savage kill their old parents, that infanticide has been
practised without compunction by even civilized nations, that the best
Romans saw nothing wrong in the gladiatorial shows, that political or
revengeful assassinations have been for centuries admitted, that slavery
has been sometimes honoured and sometimes condemned, are unquestionable
proofs, that the same act may be regarded in one age as innocent, and in
another as criminal. Now it is undoubtedly true, that in many cases an
historical examination will reveal special circumstances explaining or
palliating the apparent anomaly. It has been often shown that the
gladiatorial shows were originally a form of human sacrifice adopted
through religious motives; that the rude nomadic life of savages
rendering impossible the preservation of aged and helpless members of
the tribe, the murder of parents was regarded as an act of mercy both by
the murderer and the victim; that before an effective administration of
justice was organized, private vengeance was the sole preservation
against crime, and political assassination against usurpation; that the
insensibility of some savages to the criminality of theft arises from
the fact that they were accustomed to have all things in common; that
the Spartan law legalizing theft arose partly from a desire to foster
military dexterity among the people, but chiefly from a desire to
discourage wealth; that slavery was introduced through motives of mercy
to prevent conquerors from killing their prisoners. All this is true,
but there is another and a more general answer. It is not to be
expected, and it is not maintained, that men in all ages should have
agreed about the application of their moral principles. All that is
contended for is, that these principles are themselves the same. Some of
what appear to us monstrous acts of cruelty were dictated by that very
feeling of humanity, the universal perception of the merit of which they
are cited to disprove; and even when this is not the case, all that can
be inferred is, that the standard of humanity was very low. But still
humanity was recognized as a virtue, and cruelty as a vice."[275]
_The alleged permission to kill the Jews._
[Sidenote: 82. Murder of Ibn Sanina.]
It is related by some of the biographers of Mohammad, eagerly recited by
others of Europe, that, "on the morning after the murder of Káb, Mahomet
gave a general permission to his followers to slay any Jews whom they
might chance to meet,"[276] and that the murder of Ibn Sanina, a Jewish
merchant, by Muheiasa, a Moslem, was the direct consequence of this
order. "When Huweisa upbraided Muheiasa for killing his confederate the
Jew, and appropriating his wealth,--"By the Lord!" replied Muheiasa, "if
he that commanded me to kill him commanded to kill thee also, I would
have done it." "What!" Huweisa cried, "wouldst thou have slain thine own
brother at Mahomet's bidding?"--"Even so," answered the fanatic.
"Strange indeed!" Huweisa responded. "Hath the new religion reached to
this pitch! Verily it is a wonderful Faith." And Huweisa was converted
from that very hour."[277]
Ibn Is-hak says this story was related to him by a freedman of the Bani
Hárisa tribe from the daughter of Muheiasa, who had heard it from her
father.[278] (1) Now there is nothing known of this mysterious person,
the freedman of the tribe of Háris, therefore no reliance can be put on
his story. (2) We have no knowledge of the daughter of the murderer
Muheiasa, or Moheisa, as he is called by the biographer, Ibn Hisham. (3)
Muheiasa himself has not that respectable character which can lend even
a shadow of veracity to his narration. (4) And lastly, the story that
Mohammad had given general permission to his followers to slay any Jew
whom they might chance to meet, and consequently Muheiasa killed Ibn
Sanina, and Huweisa became a convert to Islam, is contradicted by
another counter-tradition in Ibn Hisham (pp. 554-555), who has related
from Abú Obeida, who relates from Abú Omar-al-Madaní, that, "during the
execution of the Bani Koreiza (_vide_ para. 68), one Káb-bin-Yahooza was
made over to Muheiasa for execution. When the latter executed his
victim, Huweisa, his brother, who was still unbelieving, upbraided
Muheiasa. "If he," responded Muheiasa, "that commanded me to kill him
had commanded me to kill thee also, I would have killed thee." Huweisa
was quite surprised at his brother's reply, and went away astonished.
During the night he used to wake up repeatedly, and wonder at his
brother's staunch devotion to his faith. In the morning, he said, "By
the Lord! This is a wonderful faith," and came to the Prophet to embrace
Islam. These remarks show that the alleged permission to kill the Jews,
and Ibn Sanina's murder, and Huweisa's conversion in consequence
thereof, is all a mere concoction.
[Sidenote: 83. Sir W. Muir quoted.]
Even Sir W. Muir, though very fond of collecting all such apocryphal
traditions reflecting on the character of the Prophet, doubts the
veracity of this one, and declares its improbability and inexpediency.
He writes:--
"But the order itself is a strange one, and must, one would
suppose, have been accompanied by some conditions or reservations
not here apparent. It was surely not expedient for the Prophet's
cause at this time that the streets of Medîna should have flowed
with blood by the strict execution of this command. Yet such is the
distinct tenor of the best traditions.
"The order was not an unlikely one to have issued at a time when
Mahomet was irritated against the Jews by their treachery; and
Hishâmi has a tradition that it was promulgated when Mahomet
directed the massacre of all the males of the Coreitza, which would
have been the more likely version, if the other tradition had not
been so strong and positive."[279]
But the tradition quoted by him is by no means the best or strongest as
I have shown above. Hishamee does not say that the order was promulgated
at the execution of the Bani Koreiza. He simply narrates the story of
Muheiasa and Huweisa to have taken place at that time.
_The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer._
[Sidenote: 84. The Bani Nazeer.]
The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer has been censured by Sir W. Muir, who
says: "The pretext on which the Bani Nadhîr were besieged and
expatriated (namely, that Gabriel had revealed their design against the
Prophet's life), was feeble and unworthy of an honest cause."[280]
A whole Sura in the Koran is devoted to the Bani Nazeer, but it does
not hint at the alleged crime of their attempt on the life of the
Prophet or their expulsion for the same cause. The traditions on the
subject are unsupported, _ex parte_, and legendary. Had such a tradition
been current at the time of Mohammad, or what is called Sadr Av-val (the
first or Apostolic Age), we should certainly have had scores of
narrators on the subject.[281] Their crime was treachery,[282] and they
were a dangerous element to Medina, for a combination, at any period,
between the treacherous Jews and the aggressive Koreish, or other
enemies of Islam, would have proved fatal to the safety of Medina. But
their banishment was too mild a punishment.
[Sidenote: 85. Fruit-trees not cut down.]
It is said that Mohammad cut down the surrounding date trees and burned
the choicest of them during the siege of the Bani Nazeer, and justified
himself by publishing the verses of the LIX Sura of the Koran.[283] But
the date trees cut down were neither bearing fruit, nor did they supply
any staple article of food to the Bani Nazeer, or the public in general.
The _Leena_ mentioned in the verse referred to above is a tree without
fruit. Thus no fruit trees were destroyed. (Zoorkánee Vol. II, page 98.)
Trees not bearing fruits were only cut, which is also justified under
the Law of Moses. (See Deuteronomy XX, 20.)
_Females and the Treaty of Hodeibia._
[Sidenote: 86. Females and the treaty of Hodeibia.]
Females were not included in the truce of Hodeibia. The stipulation for
the surrender of deserters referred only to the male sex. All women who
were to come over to Medina from Mecca during the period of the peace
were, by the dictates of Sura LX, 10, to be tried, and if their
profession was found sincere, they were to be retained. They were
prohibited from marrying the unbelievers. The guardians of such
believing females were to receive from the Moslem commonwealth what they
had spent upon their charges. Sir W. Muir understands from Sura LX,
verse 10, that the women referred to therein were the wives of the
Meccans, and says:--"The unbelief of their husbands dissolved the
previous marriage; they now might legally contract fresh nuptials with
believers, provided only that restitution were made of any sums expended
by their former husbands as dower upon them."[284] But there is nothing
either to show that the women had their husbands at Mecca, or to prove,
that, on account of their husbands' unbelief, their marriages were
annulled. As marriage with women with husbands is forbidden in Sura IV,
verse 28, and the verse LX, 10, under discussion, does not designate
them as married women, I fairly conclude that this verse treats only of
such as were not married. It is not the Law of the Koran that the
unbelief of either party dissolves their previous marriage. It only
enjoins neither to marry idolatresses, nor to wed Moslem daughters with
idolaters until they believe.--(Sura II, 220.)
[Sidenote: 87. Stanley defended.]
Sir William Muir, after quoting Sura LX, 10-12, says, "Stanley on
Corinthians (1 Cor. VII, 1-40) quotes the above passage, and says that
the rule it contains "resembles that of the Apostle," Vol. I, page 145.
But there is really no analogy between them; the Gospel rule differs
_toto coelo_ from that of Mahomet:--"If any brother hath a wife that
believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her
away.--And similarly the case of a believing wife with an unbelieving
husband. (1 Cor. VII, 12-16.) Whereas Mahomet declares the marriage bond
_de facto_ annulled by the unbelief of either party, which indeed was
only to be expected from his loose ideas regarding the marriage
contract."[285] I think Stanley is quite correct, and the Gospel and the
Koranic rule resemble each other in this respect. Because the order,
"they (the believing women) are not lawful for them (unbelievers), nor
are the unbelievers lawful for these (believing women)," does not relate
to the women already married; and the words, "do not retain any right in
the infidel woman ... if any of your wives escape from you to the
infidels ..." are to the same purport as 1 Cor. VII, 15, "But if the
unbelieving depart let them depart. A brother or a sister is not under
bondage in such cases."[286]
[Sidenote 88. Marriage a strict bond of union.]
Mohammad had no loose ideas regarding the marriage tie. He had made the
marriage contract more firm and irrevocable, except under very
exceptional circumstances, than it was under the Arab society; and
called it "a strict bond of union."[287] Mohammad's own daughter,
Zeinab, was the wife of an unbelieving husband and had fled to her
father at Medina under the persecution at Mecca after the Hegira.[288]
Her marriage with her unbelieving partner was not cancelled by Mohammad,
and on the conversion of the son-in-law, when he came after a period of
six years after his wife had come to Medina, Mohammad rejoined them
together under their previous marriage. Theirs was neither a fresh
marriage nor a fresh dowry. (_Vide_ Ibn Abbas' tradition in the
collections of Ahmed, Ibn Abi Daood, Ibn Maja and Trimizee.)
Safwan-bin-Omayya and Ikrama-bin Abi Jahl had believing wives at the
time of the conquest of Mecca, and their marriages were not dissolved by
Mohammad. (_Vide_ Ibn Shahab's tradition in _Movatta_ by Malik, and in
the _Tabakat_ of Ibn Sad Katib Wákidi.) Similarly Ibn Sofian and
Hakeem-bin-Hizam had their unbelieving wives retained by them after they
had themselves been converted to Islam, and their former connubial
connection was not severed by Mohammad. (_Vide_ the several traditions
in Baihakee to the above effect.) It was only the legists and
juris-consults of a later age who wrongly construed the passage in Sura
LX, 10, to mean that the unbelief of either party dissolved the marriage
tie.
[Footnote 257: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV. p. 13.]
[Footnote 258: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 19.
In the collections of Bokharee the story is traced to Ans. But Ans could
not be a witness to Mohammad's command for mutilation, as Ans did not
come until the expedition to Khyber; and the execution of those robbers
took place before that. The story from Jábir in Ibn Mardaveih's
collections to the same effect is not authentic, as Jábir, who says he
was sent by Mohammad in pursuit of the robbers, and committed the act,
was not a convert at that time. Koostalanee, the author of _Mooahib_,
has declared the tradition of Ibn Jarir Tabari on the subject as an
apocryphal, _i.e._, "Zaeef." _Vide_ Zoorkanee on Movahib, Vol. II, p.
211.]
[Footnote 259: Ibn Hisham (p. 463) relates from Ibn Is-hak that Omar
asked permission to mutilate Sohail, but Mohammad replied, "I would not
mutilate him; if I do, God will mutilate me, though I be a Prophet."]
[Footnote 260: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 19.]
[Footnote 261: This subject has been fully and judiciously discussed by
the Honorable Syed Ahmed Khan Bahadur, C.S.I., in his "Commentary of the
Koran;" Sura. iv. pp. 198-204.]
[Footnote 262: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 68.]
[Footnote 263: _Vide_ Mishkát Book of Retaliation, pp. 243-244.]
[Footnote 264: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 131, foot-note.]
[Footnote 265: Introduction to Lane's Selections from the Kur-án, by
Stanley Lane Poole, p. lxvii. London: Trubner and Co., 1879.]
[Footnote 266: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 308.]
[Footnote 267: _Ibid_, p. 35.]
[Footnote 268: _Vide_ Zoorkanee on _Movahib_, Vol. II, page 244; also
_Zád-ul-Maád_, by Ibn-al-Kyyim, Vol. I, page 376, Cawnpore, 1298 A.H.;
and _Seerat-ul-Mohammadiya_, by Mohammad Karámat-ul-Ali of Delhi, in
loco. The Life is compiled from _Seerat Halabi_ and _Seerat Shámee_ and
was lithographed in Bombay.]
[Footnote 269: Hishamee, page 681; Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III,
page 266.]
[Footnote 270: _Seerat Halabi_, or _Insan-al-Oyoon_, Vol II, page 79.]
[Footnote 271: History of _Mohammad's Campaigns_, by Wackidi, pp.
368-369: Edited by Von Kremer, Calcutta, 1856.]
[Footnote 272: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 282.]
[Footnote 273: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pages 308-309.]
[Footnote 274: Lieber's Miscellaneous Writings, Vol. II, page 250.]
[Footnote 275: History of European Morals, from Augustus to Charlemagne.
By William Edward Hartpole Lecky, M.A., Vol. I, pp. 101-102.]
[Footnote 276: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 148.]
[Footnote 277: _Ibid_, p. 149.]
[Footnote 278: Ibn Hisham, p. 554.]
[Footnote 279: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 148 & 149,
_foot-note_.]
[Footnote 280: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 308.]
[Footnote 281: The tradition that Mohammad had gone to Bani Nazeer
asking their aid in defraying a certain price of blood, and they
attempted upon his life (Muir, III, 208-209) as related by Ibn Is-hak
(in Ibn Hisham, page 652) is a _Mursal_ (_vide_ Zoorkánee, Part II, page
95), and consequently was not current in the Apostolic Age.]
[Footnote 282: Ibn Ockba, an earliest biographer of Mohammad, died 140,
says,--the cause of the expedition against the Bani Nazeer was this:
that they had instigated the Koreish to fight against Mohammad, and had
reconnoitred the weak points of Medina. Ibn Mardaveih Abd-bin-Hameed,
and Abdu Razzak have related traditions to the effect that, after the
event of Badr, the Koreish had written to the Jews of Medina to make war
upon Mohammad, and the Bani Nazeer had resolved to break the compact.
_Vide_ Zoorkánee, Part II, pp, 96-97.]
[Footnote 283: Compare Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 213 and
302, _foot-note_.]
[Footnote 284: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 44.]
[Footnote 285: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 46, foot-note.]
[Footnote 286: The verses of the Koran are given below:
10. "O Believers! when believing women come over to you as refugees,
then make trial of them. God best knoweth their faith; but if ye have
also ascertained their faith, let them not go back to the infidels; they
are not lawful for them, nor are the unbelievers lawful for these women.
But give them back what they have spent. No crime shall it be in you to
marry them, provided you give them their dowers. Do not retain a right
in the infidel women, and demand back what you have spent and let them
demand back what they have spent. This is the ordinance of God which He
ordaineth among you: and God is Knowing, Wise."
11. "And if any of your wives escape from you to the infidels from whom
you afterwards take any spoil, then give to those whose wives shall have
fled away, the like of what they shall have spent; and fear God in whom
ye believe."--Sura LX.]
[Footnote 287: Sura IV, 25. Rodwell's translation.
How Mohammad discouraged divorce and took several steps in the Koran to
prohibit the facility of divorce prevailing in the Arab society has been
fully discussed by me in my book "The Proposed Political, Legal, and
Social Reforms under Moslem Rule," pp. 129-143, Bombay Education Society
Press, 1883.]
[Footnote 288: "Some of the baser sort from amongst the Coreish, hearing
of her departure, went in pursuit, determined to bring her back. The
first that appeared was Habbâr, who struck the camel with his spear, and
so affrighted Zeinab as to cause her a miscarriage."--Muir's Life of
Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 7.]
_The Popular Jihád or Crusade; According to the Mohammadan Common Law._
[Sidenote 89. The Koran enjoined only defensive wars.]
Almost all the common Mohammadan and European writers think that a
religious war of aggression is one of the tenets of Islam, and
prescribed by the Koran for the purpose of proselytizing or exacting
tribute. But I do not find any such doctrine enjoined in the Koran, or
taught, or preached by Mohammad. His mission was not to wage wars, or to
make converts at the point of the sword, or to exact tribute or
exterminate those who did not believe his religion. His sole mission was
to enlighten the Arabs to the true worship of the one God, to recommend
virtue and denounce vice, which he truly fulfilled. That he and his
followers were persecuted, that they were expelled from their houses and
were invaded upon and warred against; that to repel incursions and to
gain the liberty of conscience and the security of his followers' lives
and the freedom of their religion, he and they waged defensive wars,
encountered superior numbers, made defensive treaties, securing the main
object of the war, _i.e._, the freedom of their living unmolested at
Mecca and Medina, and of having a free intercourse to the Sacred Mosque,
and a free exercise of their religion: all these are questions quite
separate and irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the subject in
hand, _i.e._, the popular _Jihad_, or the crusade for the purpose of
proselytizing, exacting tribute, and exterminating the idolaters, said
to be one of the tenets of Islam. All the defensive wars, and the verses
of the Koran relating to the same, were strictly temporary and
transitory in their nature. They cannot be made an example of, or be
construed into a tenet or injunction for aggressive wars, nor were they
intended so to be. Even they cannot be an example or instruction for a
defensive war to be waged by the Mohammadan community or commonwealth,
because all the circumstances under which Mohammad waged his defensive
wars were local and temporary. But almost all European writers do not
understand that the Koran does not teach a war of aggression, but had
only, under the adverse circumstances, to enjoin a war of defence,
clearly setting forth the grounds in its justification and strictly
prohibiting offensive measures.
[Sidenote 90. The Common Law and Jihad.]
All the fighting injunctions in the Koran are, in the first place, only
in self-defence, and none of them has any reference to make warfare
offensively. In the second place, it is to be particularly noted that
they were transitory in their nature, and are not to be considered
positive injunctions for future observance or religious precepts for
coming generations.[289] They were only temporary measures to meet the
emergency of the aggressive circumstances. The Mohammadan Common Law is
wrong on this point, where it allows unbelievers to be attacked without
provocation. But this it places under the category of a non-positive
injunction. A positive injunction is that which is incumbent on every
believer. But attacking unbelievers without any provocation, or
offensively, is not incumbent on every believer. The Hedaya has:--"The
sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is
carried on by any one _party_ or _tribe_ of _Mussulmans_; and it is then
no longer of any force with respect to the rest."[290]
[Sidenote 91. Jihad when positive.]
The Mohammadan Common Law makes the fighting only a positive injunction
"where there is a _general summons_, (that is, where the infidels invade
a _Mussulman_ territory, and the _Imâm_ for the time being issues a
general proclamation, requiring all persons to stand forth to fight,)
for in this case war becomes a positive injunction with respect to the
whole of the inhabitants,"[291]--this is sanctioned by the Law of
Nations and the Law of Nature.
[Sidenote: 92. The Hedaya quoted and refuted.]
The Hedaya, or a Commentary of the Mohammadan Common Law by Nuraddin Ali
of Murghinan (died in 593, A.H.) has:--
"The destruction of the sword[292] is incurred by the infidels, although
they be not the first aggressors, as appears from the various passages
in the sacred writings which are generally received to this
effect."[293]
This assertion is not borne out by the sacred injunction of the Koran,
and, on the contrary, is in direct contradiction to the same. There are
several passages in the Koran already quoted in pages 16-25, which
expressly forbid the taking of offensive measures, and enjoin only
defensive wars. There are some other passages which are not so
expressive as the several others referred to above, or in other words,
are not conditional. But the law of interpretation, the general scope
and tenor of the Koran, and the context of the verses and parallel
passages, all show that those few verses which are not conditional
should be construed as conditional in conformity with other passages
more clear, expressive, and conditional, and with the general laws of
scriptural interpretation. Now, the author of the Hedaya and other
writers on the Common Law quote only those few passages from the Koran
which are absolute or unconditional, and shut their eyes against those
many conditional verses, and general scope and tenor of the Koran.
Limited, or _Conditional_. |General, or _Absolute_.
---------------------------------+---------------------------------------
|
Sura XXII, 39-42. |Sura II, 245, (read together with 247.)
Sura II, 186-189. |Sura IX, 124.
" " 212. |
" " 214. |The context, parallel passages
Sura IV, 76, 77, 78, 86. |and their history, show them
" " 91, 92, 93. |to be limited and conditional,
Sura VIII, 39-41, 58-66. |in conformity with the general
" " 73, 74. |scope of the Koran.
Sura IX, 1-15. |
" " 29, 36. |
|
_Quoted in pages_ 16-25, 35. |
|
[Sidenote: 93. Rule of interpretation.]
Now, there are only two verses in the Koran (Sura II, v. 245, and Sura
IX, v. 124) containing an absolute or non-conditional injunction for
making war against the unbelievers. Perhaps you may be able to detach
some more sentences, or dislocate some half verses from amongst those
given under the head of conditional. But these absolute, as well as
those detached and dislocated parts of some other verses will not, by
any rule of interpretation, show absolute injunction to wage war against
the unbelievers without any provocation or limitation. There is a rule
in the exegesis of the Koran, as well as in other Scriptural
interpretations, that when two commandments, one conditional, and the
other general or absolute, are found on the same subject, the
conditional is to be preferred, and the absolute should be construed as
conditional, because the latter is more expressive of the views of the
author than the general which is considered as vague in its expression.
The rule is:--Where a passage which is ambiguous, or which contains any
unusual expression, or in which a doctrine is slightly treated, or is in
general terms, must be interpreted agreeably to what is revealed more
clearly in other parts, or where a subject is more clearly discussed. A
single or general passage is not to be explained in contradiction to
many others restricted, conditional, and limited consistently with them,
and with proper reservations.
[Sidenote: 94. The Common Law and its commentators.]
It is not to be wondered that the Mohammadan legists or the compilers of
the Common Law are wrong in this point. Because, as a rule, or as a
matter of fact, they have compiled the Common Law from different sources
irrespective of the Koran, and the commentators of the Common Law take
the trouble of vindicating its views, principles and casuistries, and
justifying the Moslem conquests under the Khalifs by the authority of
the Koran. Then only they commit the unpardonable blunder of citing
isolated parts of solitary verses of the Koran, which are neither
expressive enough nor are in general terms. In doing so, they avoid the
many other conditional and more explicit verses on the same subject.
[Sidenote: 95. Kifaya quoted.]
The author of Kifaya, a commentary on the Hedaya, who flourished in the
seventh century of the Hegira, remarks on the words of the text, "The
destruction of the sword is incurred by the infidels, although they be
not the first aggressors," already quoted in the 92nd para., and says;
"Fighting against the infidels who do not become converts to Islam, and
do not pay the capitation-tax, is incumbent, though they do not attack
first." The author of the Hedaya has mentioned this aggressive measure
specially, because apparently the words of God, "if they attack you then
slay them,"[294] indicate that the fighting against the unbelievers is
only incumbent when they fight first, but, however, such is not the
case. It is incumbent to fight with them, though they be not the
aggressors.[295]
[Sidenote: 96. Further quotation.]
The same author writes in continuation of the above quotation, and
attempts to reconcile his theory with the numerous precepts of the
Koran, which do not permit the war of aggression:--
"Know, that in the beginning the Prophet was enjoined to forgive, and
withdraw from those who joined other gods with God. God said, 'wherefore
dost thou forgive with kindly forgiveness, and withdraw from those who
join other gods with Me.'"
"Then He enjoined him to summon the people to the faith by kind warning
and kind disputation, saying, 'Summon thou to the way of thy Lord with
wisdom and kindly warning: dispute with them in the kindest manner.'"
"Then He allowed fighting, when they, the unbelievers, were the
aggressors, and said:--'A sanction is given to those who have fought
because they have suffered outrages;' _i.e._, they are allowed to fight
in self-defence. And God said, 'If they attack you, then kill them' (II,
187); and also said, 'If they lean to peace, lean thou also to it.'
(VIII. 63)."
"Then he enjoined to fight aggressively during a certain period. God
said, 'And when the sacred months are passed, kill them who join other
gods with God, wherever ye find them, and seize them' (IX. 5)."
"After this He enjoined for fighting absolutely, at every time and in
every place. God said, 'And do battle against them until there be no
more (_fitnah_) persecution' (II. 189; VII. 40)."[296]
[Sidenote: 97. The Kifaya refuted.]
Here the author of Kifaya has contrived to make out by way of subterfuge
and sophistry five successive periods of the policy of the Koran
regarding warfare against the unbelievers:
| |
First Period |Forgiveness and withdrawal | Sura XV, 85. VI, 106
---------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------
| |
Second Period |Summoning | Sura XVI, 126.
---------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------
| |
Third Period |Fighting in self-defence | Sura XXII, 40. II, 187.
| | VIII, 63.
---------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------
| |
Fourth Period |Fighting aggressively | Sura IX, 5.
|during certain times |
| |
---------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------
| |
Fifth Period |Aggressive fighting absolutely.| Sura II, 189. VIII, 40.
| |
He is wrong in history, chronology as well as in understanding the
general scope of the Koran and the tenor of the Suras. He does not
regard even the context of the verses quoted.
The verses containing injunctions for turning aside, shunning,
forgiving, passing over, and withdrawing are found even in the later
period of the Medinite Suras.--(_Vide_ Sura II, 103; V, 16, 46; Sura IV,
66, 83; and VII, 198.) They have nothing to do either with war or peace.
The summoning of people to the faith of God was the chief duty of the
Prophetical office, and was not confined to any special period, and was
alike during times of war and peace. Even during the actual warfare it
was incumbent on the Prophet to give quarters to the enemy, if he
desired, to listen to his preachings.--(_Vide_ Sura IX, 6.)
[Sidenote: 98. S. IX, v. 5, discussed.]
The fifth verse of the ninth Sura is by no means an injunction to attack
first or wage an aggressive war. This verse is one of the several
published at Medina after the Meccans had violated the treaty of
Hodeibia and attacked the Bani Khozaa, who were in alliance with
Mohammad. The Meccans were given four months' time to submit, in default
of which they were to be attacked for their violation of the treaty and
for their attacking the Bani Khozaa. They submitted beforehand, and
Mecca was conquered by compromise. The verses referred to above (Sura
IX, 1-15, &c.) were not acted upon. So there was no injunction to wage
an aggressive war. This subject has been discussed at pages 51-55 of
this work, and the reader is referred to them for fuller information.
[Sidenote: 99. S. II, v. 189, discussed.]
The 189th verse of the second Sura is not at all an absolute injunction
to wage a war of aggression. The verses 186, 187, 188 and 189, if read
together, will show that the injunction for fighting is only in defence.
The verses are:--
186. And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you:
but commit not the injustice _of attacking them first_; verily God
loveth not the unjust.
187. And kill them wherever ye shall find them; and eject them from
whatever place they have ejected you; for (_fitnah_) persecution is
worse than slaughter; yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque until
they attack you therein, but if they attack you then slay them: such is
the recompense of the infidels!
188. But if they desist, then verily God is Gracious, Merciful--
189. And do battle, against them until there be no more (_fitnah_)
persecution and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist,
then let there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers.
[Sidenote: 100. S. II, 189, VIII, 40, are defensive.]
Besides, this verse as well as the fortieth verse of Sura VIII have
indications in themselves of their relating to a defensive war. As the
torture, aggression, in short, the persecutions suffered by the Moslems
from the Koreish, are very clearly indicated by the word _fitnah_ in
these two verses, the object of fighting or counterfighting by the
Moslems is plainly set forth, which is to suppress the persecutions.
They have clear reference to the persecution, to stop or remove which
they enjoined fighting, and this was fighting in self-defence obviously.
They also show that the Meccans had not desisted from persecuting and
attacking the Moslems, and therefore a provision was made that if they
discontinue their incursions, there will be no more hostility. This is
quite sufficient to show that these verses relate to the defensive wars
of Mohammad.
[Sidenote: 101. All injunctions local and for the time being.]
Lastly, supposing the Koran permitted waging aggressive wars against the
Meccans, who were the first aggressors, this does not corroborate the
theory or principle of the Common Law of making lawful aggressive wars
in future on the authority of these verses, as all of them in the Koran
on the subject of war relate only to Pagan Arabs, who had long
persevered in their hostility to the early Moslems or to the Jews, who,
being in league with the Moslems, went over to their enemies, and aided
them against the Moslems. These verses are not binding on other persons,
who are not under the same circumstance as the Moslems were under, at
Medina. [See para. 90.]
[Sidenote: 102. Ainee quoted and refuted.]
Another commentator of the Hedaya, Ainee[297] (who died in 855) follows
Kifaya already quoted, and mentions some other verses of the Koran on
the war of aggression, which the author of Kifaya has left uncited in
his work. They are as follows:--
"... Then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity,--for no oaths
are binding on them--that they may desist."--(Sura IX, 12.)
"War is prescribed to you, but from this ye are averse."--(Sura II,
212.)
"March ye forth, the light and heavy, and contend with your substance
and your persons on the Way of God."--(Sura IX, 41.)
The first verse when it is complete runs thus:--"But if, after alliance
made, they break their oaths and revile your religion, then do battle
with the ringleaders of infidelity,--for no oaths are binding on
them--that they may desist;" and fully shows by its wording that it
relates to the war of defence, as the breaking of alliances, and
reviling of the Moslem religion were the grounds of making war with the
object in view that the aggressors may desist. This verse is one of
those in the beginning of the ninth Sura, which have already been
discussed.--(_Vide_ pages 51-55.)
The second verse (II, 212) does not allow a war of aggression, as the
next verse (II, 214) expressly mentions the attacks made by the
aggressors on the Moslems. It has been quoted at full length in page 18.
The third verse (IX, 41) was published on the occasion of the expedition
of Tábuk, which was certainly a defensive measure, and has been
discussed in pages 51 to 55.
[Sidenote: 103. Sarakhsee quoted and refuted.]
Sarakhsee generally entitled _Shums-ul-a-imma_ (the Sun of the Leaders),
who died in 671 A.H., as quoted by Ibn Abdeen in his
_Radd-ul-Muhtár_,[298] makes several stages in publishing the
injunctions for fighting. He writes:--
"Know thou, that the command for fighting has descended by degrees.
First the Prophet was enjoined to proclaim and withdraw, 'Profess
publicly then what thou hast been bidden and withdraw from those who
join gods with God' (XV, 94). Then he was ordered to dispute kindly;
'Summon thou to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and with kindly warning:
dispute with them in the kindest warning' (XVI, 126). Then they were
allowed to fight, 'A sanction is given to those who are fought....'
(XXII, 40). Then they were allowed to fight if they (the unbelievers)
attacked them, 'If they attack you, then kill them' (II, 187). After
this they were enjoined to fight on the condition of passing over the
sacred months, 'And when the sacred months are passed, then kill the
polytheists' (IX, 5). After this they were enjoined to fight absolutely,
'And fight for the cause of God....' (II, 186, 245). And thus the matter
was settled."
There was no injunction for fighting absolutely or aggressively in the
Koran. I have already explained the 5th verse of the ninth Sura as not
allowing an offensive war. And the same is the case with the 186th verse
of the second Sura, which has in itself the condition of fighting
against those only who fought against the Moslems. The other verse,
245th, of the same Sura is restricted by the verse 186th, (and is
explained by the verse 245th), which refers to the defensive measures.
This verse is quoted in page 19 of this work.
[Sidenote: 104. Ibn Hajar quoted and refuted.]
Shahábudeen Ahmed-bin-Hajr Makki writes:--
"Fighting was prohibited before the Hegira, as the Prophet was enjoined
only to preach and warn and to be patient in the persecutions of the
unbelievers in order to conciliate them. After this, God gave sanction
to the Moslems for fighting, (after that had been prohibited in seventy
and odd verses), when the unbelievers were the aggressors, and said,
'And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you'
(II, 187). And it is a genuine tradition from Zohri that the first
revealed verse sanctioning it was, 'A sanction is given to those who are
fought, because they have suffered outrages' (XXII, 40): that is a
sanction was given for fighting on the ground of the word 'fought.' Then
the war of aggression was made lawful in other than the sacred months,
'When the sacred months are over....' (IX, 5). After this, in the eighth
year of the Hegira, after the victory of Mecca, the fighting was
enjoined absolutely by the words of God; 'March ye forth, the light and
the heavy' (IX, 41); and 'attack those who join gods with God in all'
(IX, 36). And this is the very verse of the sword, and some say the
preceding verse is the verse of the sword, while others think that both
bear on the same subject, _i.e._, of the sword."[299]
[Sidenote: 105. Ibn Hajar refuted.]
I have already explained the several verses quoted by the author in
preceding paras., but have only to pass remarks on the only verse,
_i.e._ (IX, 36), which the authors cited have not dared to mention,
because it goes contrary to their assertion. Perhaps it is a slip in the
rapidity of Ibn Hajar remarks, for which he may be excused. But I will
not hesitate in saying that generally the Mohammadan legists, while
quoting the Koran in support of their theories, quote some dislocated
portion from a verse without any heed to its context, and thus cause a
great and irreparable mischief by misleading others, especially the
European writers, as it is apparent from the testimony of Mr. Lane
quoted in para. 113 of this work.
The verse referred to by the author mentioned in the last para., Ibn
Hajar Makki, is as follows: "Attack those who join gods with God in all,
as they attack you in all."--(IX, 36.) This speaks evidently of the
defensive war, and has not the slightest or faintest idea of a war of
aggression on the part of the Moslems. This verse refers to the
expedition of Tábuk.
[Sidenote: 106. Halabi quoted.]
Nooruddeen Ali al Halabi (died 1044 A.H.), the author of
_Insan-ul-Oyoon_, a biography of the Prophet, writes:--
"It is not hidden that the Prophet for ten and odd years was warning
and summoning people without fighting, and bearing patiently the severe
persecutions of the Meccan Arabs and the Medinite Jews on himself and on
his followers, because God had enjoined him to warn and to have patience
to bear the injuries by withholding from them, in accordance with His
words, 'Withdraw from them' (V, 46); and 'endure them with patience'
(XVI, 128; XVIII, 27; XXXI, 16; LII, 48; and LXXIII, 10). He also used
to promise them victory. His companions at Mecca used to come to him
beaten and injured, and he used to tell them, 'Endure with patience, I
am not commanded to fight,' because they were but a small party at
Mecca. After this, when he was settled at Medina after the Hegira and
his followers became numerous who preferred him to their fathers,
children, and wives, and the unbelievers persisted in their idolatry,
charging him with falsehoods, then God permitted his followers to fight,
but against those _only_ who used to fight against them (the Moslems),
and were aggressors, as he said, 'If they fight you, then kill them'
(II, 187). This was in the year of Safar A.H. 2.... Then the whole Arab
host marched against the Moslems to fight against them from every
direction. The Moslems passed whole nights in arms, and during the day
they were in the same state, and longed to pass peaceful nights without
fear from anybody except from God. Then it was revealed, 'God hath
promised to those of you who believe and do the things that are right,
that he will cause them to succeed others in the land, as he gave
succession to those who were before them, and that He will establish for
them that religion which they delight in, and after their fears He will
give them security in exchange' (S. XXIV, 54). After this to attack
first was allowed against those who had not fought, but in other than
the sacred months, _viz._, _Rajab_, _Zulkada_, _Zulhijja_, and
_Mohuram_, according to the precept, 'And when the sacred months are
passed, kill those who join gods with God ...' (IX, 5). Then the order
became incumbent after the victory of Mecca, in the next year, to fight
absolutely without any restriction, without any regard to any condition
and time, by the words of God, 'Attack those who join gods with God in
all' at any time (IX, 36). So it is known that the fighting was
forbidden before the Hegira up to the month of Safar in its second year,
as the Prophet was in this period ordered to preach and warn without any
fighting, which was forbidden in seventy and odd verses. Then it was
permitted to fight against _only_ those who fought against them. Then it
was allowed to fight against those who fought aggressively in other than
the sacred months. After this it was enjoined absolutely to wage war
against them whether they did or did not fight, at all times, whether
during the sacred months, or others of the year."[300]
[Sidenote: 107. Halabi refuted.]
Neither the fifth verse of the ninth Sura, nor the thirty-sixth of the
same, allowed war of aggression. Both of them were published on the
occasions of defensive wars, and the party against whom they were
directed were the aggressors. All the verses quoted by Halabi, bearing
on the subject, have been discussed and explained in the foregoing
pages, from 92 to 106.
[Sidenote: 108. Ainee again quoted and refuted.]
Ainee, the author of the commentary on the Hedaya, called _Binayah_, in
justifying the war of aggression against the unbelievers, quotes two
verses from the Koran,[301] and two traditions from the Prophet,[302]
and says,--"If it be objected that these absolute injunctions are
restricted by the word of God, 'if they attack you, then kill them' (II,
187), which shows that the fighting is only incumbent when the
unbelievers are the aggressors in fighting, as it was held by Souri, the
reply is that the verse was abrogated by another, 'So fight against them
until there be no more persecution' (II, 189), and 'fight against those
who do not believe in God.' (IX, 29)."[303] But he is wrong in asserting
that the verse II, 187 was abrogated by II, 189, and IX, 29. There is no
authority for such a gratuitous assumption. And besides, both these
verses (II, 189, and IX, 29) relate to defensive wars as it has been
already explained in paras. 96-99.
[Sidenote: 109. Continuation of the above.]
The verse 189 shows by its very wording the existence of _fitnah_ or
persecution, torture, and fighting on the part of the aggressors. By
suppressing the Meccans' persecution, the Moslems had to regain their
civil and religious liberty, from which they were so unjustly deprived.
And this war of the Moslems to repel the force of their aggressors was
the war of defence and protection enjoined in the verse. The 29th verse
of the ninth Sura appertains to the expedition of Tábuk if not to that
of Khyber. These expeditions were of a defensive character. _Vide_ pages
37 and 41.
[Sidenote: 110. Traditions quoted and refuted.]
The jurists further quote a tradition from the compilation of Abú Daood
that the Prophet had said, "The Jihád will last up to the day of the
Resurrection:" But in the first place, Jihád does not literally and
classically mean warfare or fighting in a war. It means, as used by the
classical poets as well as by the Koran, to do one's utmost; to labour;
to toil; to exert one's-self or his power, efforts, endeavours, or
ability; to employ one's-self vigorously, diligently, studiously,
sedulously, earnestly, or with energy; to be diligent or studious, to
take pains or extraordinary pains. _Vide_ Appendix A.
In the second place, Yezid bin Abi Shaiba, a link in the chain of the
tradition, is a _Mujhool_,[304] _i.e._, his biography is not known,
therefore his tradition can have no authority.
There is also another tradition in Bokháree to the effect that the
Prophet had said, "I have been enjoined to fight the people until they
confess that there is no god but the God." This tradition goes quite
contrary to the verses of the Koran which enjoin to fight in
defence,--that is, until the persecution or civil discord was
removed.--(_Vide_ Sura II, 189; VIII, 40.) Thus it appears that either
the whole tradition is a spurious one, or some of the narrators were
wrong in interpreting the words of the Prophet.
[Sidenote: 111. Early Moslem legists quoted against Jihád.]
That the Koran did not allow war of aggression either when it was
revealed, or in future as the early jurisconsults did infer from it,
will be further shown from the opinions of the early Moslems; legists of
the first and second century of the Hegira, like Ibn (son of) Omar the
second khalif, Sotian Souri, Ibn Shobormah, Atá and Amar-bin-Dinar. All
these early legists held that the fighting was not religiously incumbent
(_wájib_), and that it was only a voluntary act, and that only those
were to be fought against who attacked the Moslems.[305]
[Sidenote: Biographical sketches of the legists.]
I will give here short biographical sketches of the legists named
above--
(1.) "Abû Abd-ur-Rahman Abdullah ibn Omar ibn-al Khattab was one of the
most eminent among the _companions_ of Muhammad by his piety, his
generosity, his contempt of the world, his learning and his virtues.
Though entitled by birth to aspire to the highest places in the empire,
he never hearkened to the dictates of ambition; possessing a vast
influence over the Moslims by his rank, his instruction, and his holy
life, he neither employed nor abused it in favour of any party, and
during the civil wars which raged among the followers of Islamism, he
remained neutral, solely occupied with the duties of religion. For a
period of thirty years persons came from all parts to consult him and
learn from him the Traditions.... He died at Mekka A.H. 73 (A.D. 692-3)
aged 84 years...."--[_Tabakat al Fokaha_, fol. 5.]
(2.) Atá Ibn Abi Rabah.--"He held a high rank at Mekka as a
juris-consult, a _Tâbî_, and a devout ascetic; and he derived (_his
knowledge of the law and the Traditions_) from the lips of Jábir Ibn Abd
Allah al-Ansárí, and Abd Allah Ibn Abbas, Abd Allah Ibn Zubair, and many
others of Muhammad's companions. His own authority as a traditionist was
cited by Amr ibn Dinár, Al-Aamash, Al-Auzái, and a great number of
others who had heard him teach. The office of _Mufti_ at Mekka devolved
on him and on Mujáhid, and was filled by them whilst they lived.... He
died A.H. 115 (A.D. 733-4); some say 114 at the age of eighty-eight
years."--[_Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary, translated from the
Arabic by Baron MacGuckin De Slane; Vol. II, pp. 203-204. London,
MDCCCXLIII._]
(3.) Amr Ibn Dinár.--"He is counted among the most eminent of the Tábis
and considered as a traditionist of very highest authority. He was only
one of the Mujatahid Imáms. Died A.H. 126, (A.D. 743-4), aged eighty
years."--[_Tab-al-Fokaha_].
(4.) "Abd Allah Ibn Shuburma ibn Tufail ad Dubbi, a celebrated Imám, and
Tábi was an eminent jurisconsult of Kufa. He learned the Traditions from
Ans, As-Shabi, and Ibn Sírín, and his own authority was cited for
Traditions by Soffian Ath-Thauri, Sofyan ibn Oyaina, and others. His
veracity and his eminence as a doctor of the law was universally
acknowledged. He was an abstemious, intelligent, devout, generous, of a
handsome countenance, and possessing a talent for poetry. He acted under
the Khalif Al-Mamun, as kadí of the cultivated country (Sawád) around
Kufa. Born A.H. 92, (A.D. 710-11); died A.H. 144 (A.D.
761-2)."--[_Tabal-Fak. Al-Yáfi._]
(5.) "Sofyan Ath-Thauri (As-Sauri) was native of Kúfa and a master of
the highest authority in the Traditions and other sciences; his piety,
devotion, veracity, and contempt for worldly goods were universally
acknowledged, and as an Imám, he is counted among the _Mujtahids_....
Sofyan ibn Oyaina declared that he did not know a man better informed
than Soyfan Ath-Thauri respecting what was permitted and what was
forbidden by the law.... Sofyan was born A.H. 95 (A.D. 713-4). Other
accounts place his birth in 96 or 97. He died A.H. 161 (A.D. 713-4) at
Basra.... It has been stated by some that Sofyan died A.H. 162, but the
first is the true date."--[_Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary,
translated from the Arabic by Baron MacGuckin De Slane, Vol. I, pp.
576-8. London, MDCCCXLIII._]
[Sidenote: 113. European writers' mistake.]
That it is a mistake on the part of the European writers to assert that
the Koran allows wars of aggression, or in other words, to wage war
against the unbelievers without any provocation, is shown by the
testimony of Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Edward William Lane. The latter
writes: "Misled by the decision of those doctors, and an opinion
prevalent in Europe, I represented the laws of 'holy war' as more severe
than I found them to be according to the letter and spirit of the
Kur-án, when carefully examined, and according to the Hanafee code. I am
indebted to Mr. Urquhart for suggesting to me the necessity of revising
my former statement on the subject; and must express my conviction that
no precept is to be found in the Kur-án, which, taken with the context,
can justify unprovoked war."[306]
[Sidenote: 114. Sir William Muir quoted.]
I will quote several remarks of European writers, including clergymen
and Indian missionaries, to show how astray they go in attributing to
the Koran and Mohammad the wars of aggressions and compulsory
proselytizing. Sir William Muir represents the principles of Islam as
requiring constant prosecutions of war, and writes--
"It was essential to the permanence of Islam that its aggressive course
should be continuously pursued, and that its claim to an universal
acceptance, or at the least to an universal supremacy, should be
enforced at the point of the sword. Within the limits of Arabia the work
appeared now to be accomplished. It remained to gain over the Christian
and idolatrous tribes of the Syrian desert, and then in the name of the
Lord to throw down the gauntlet of war before the empires of Rome and
Persia, which, having treated with contempt the summons of the Prophet
addressed to them in solemn warning four years ago, were now rife for
chastisement."[307]
The occasion to which Sir W. Muir refers here was to wipe out the memory
of the reverse at Muta. The expedition to Muta was occasioned by the
murder of a messenger or envoy dispatched by Mohammad to the Ghassànide
prince at Bostra. A party was sent to punish the offending chief,
Sharahbil. This could, by no means, be maintained as a warlike spirit or
an aggressive course for the prosecution of war, or for enforcing the
claim of universal supremacy at the point of the sword.
[Sidenote: 115. Islam not aggressive.]
That Islam as preached by Mohammad was never aggressive has been fully
shown in several places of the Koran. During the whole time of his
ministry, Mohammad was persecuted, rejected, despised and at last made
an outlaw by the Koreish at Mecca, and a fugitive seeking protection in
a distant city; exiled, attacked upon, besieged, defeated, and prevented
from returning to Mecca or visiting the Holy Kaaba by the same enemies
at Mecca and other surrounding tribes who had joined them, and even from
within Medina plotted against by the Jews who were not less aggressive
towards him than their confederates of Mecca, the Koreish, whom they had
instigated to make war on him and had brought an overwhelming army, had
proved traitors, and, even more injurious than the Koreish themselves.
Consequently, he was constantly in dangers and troubles, and under such
circumstances it was impossible for him to be aggressive, to get time or
opportunity to pursue any aggressive course, or enforce, at the point of
the sword, any attempt of his for universal acceptance, or universal
supremacy even if he had designed so. But it was far from his principles
to have cherished the object of universal conquest. "That Islam ever
stepped beyond the limits of Arabia and its border lands," admits Sir.
W. Muir in his Rede Lecture for 1881, just twenty years after he had
written the passage I am dealing with, "was due to circumstances rather
than design. The faith was meant originally for the Arabs. From first to
last, the call was addressed primarily to them." He writes in a footnote
of the same lecture (page 5):
"It is true that three or four years before, Mahomet had addressed
dispatches to the Kaiser, and the Chosroes, and other neighbouring
potentates, summoning them to embrace the true faith. But the step
had never been followed up in any way."[308]
[Sidenote: 116. Mr. Freeman quoted.]
Mr. Freeman writes regarding Mohammad:--
"Mahomet had before him the example of Mosaic Law, which preached a far
more rigorous mandate of extermination against the guilty nations of
Canaan. He had before him the practice of all surrounding powers,
Christian, Jewish, and Heathen; though, from the disaffection of Syria
and Egypt to the orthodox throne of Constantinople, he might have
learned how easily persecution defeats its own end.... Under his
circumstances, it is really no very great ground to condemnation that he
did appeal to the sword. He did no more than follow the precedents of
his own and every surrounding nation. Yet one might say that a man of
such mighty genius as Mahomet must have been, might have been, fairly
expected to rise superior to the trammels of prejudice and
precedent."[309]
Mohammad never professed to have followed the footsteps of Moses and
Joshua in waging war of extermination and proselytism. He only appealed
to the sword in his and his followers' defence. Never he seems to have
been anxious to copy the practice of the surrounding nations,
Christians, Jews, and Egyptians. His wars of defence, as they certainly
all were, were very mild, specially with regard to the treatment of
children, women, and old men who were never to be attacked; and above
all, in the mildness shown towards the captives of war who were either
to be set free or ransomed,--but were never to be enslaved,--contrary to
the practice of all the surrounding nations. This virtual abolition of
slavery (_vide_ Sura XLVII, 5, and Appendix B) has been a great boon to
mankind in general as a beneficial result of Mohmamad's wars of defence.
[Sidenote: 117. The Revd. Stephens quoted.]
The Reverend Mr. Stephens writes:--
"In the Koran, the Mussulman is absolutely and positively commanded to
make war upon all those who decline to acknowledge the Prophet until
they submit, or, in the case of Jews and Christians, purchase exemption
from the conformity by the payment of tribute. The mission of the
Mussulman, as declared in the Koran, is distinctly aggressive. We might
say that Mahomet bequeathed to his disciples a roving commission to
propagate his faith by the employment of force where persuasion failed.
'O Prophet, fight for the religion of God'--'Stir up the faithful to
war,' such are commands which Mahomet believed to be given him by God.
'Fight against them who believe not a God, nor the last day,' 'attack
the idolatrous in all the months,' such are his own exhortations to his
disciples."[310]
The Reverend gentleman is very much mistaken in his assertions against
the Koran. There is no absolute or positive command in the Koran for a
war of aggression or compulsory proselytism. The sentences quoted by Mr.
Stephens are but mutilated verses forcibly dislocated from their
context. A disjointed portion of a verse, or a single sentence of it
cannot be brought forth to prove any doctrine or theory. Due regard must
be made for the context, the general scope, and parallel passages. The
verses referred to by Mr. Stephens are Sura IV, 86, and Sura IX, 29, 36.
All these have been quoted in full and discussed elsewhere.[311] They
relate only to defensive wars.
[Sidenote: 118. Mr. Bosworth Smith quoted.]
Mr. Bosworth Smith says:--
"The free toleration of the purer among the creeds around him, which the
Prophet had at first enjoined, gradually changes into intolerance.
Persecuted no longer, Mohammed becomes a persecutor himself; with the
Koran in one hand, the scymitar in the other, he goes forth to offer to
the nations the threefold alternative of conversion, tribute,
death."[312]
Mohammad never changed his practice of toleration nor his own teachings
into intolerance; he was always persecuted at Mecca and Medina, but, for
all we know, he himself never turned a persecutor. The three-fold
alternative so much talked of, and so little proved, is nowhere to be
found in the Koran. This subject has been fully discussed in paras.
34-39.
[Sidenote: 119. Mr. G. Sale quoted.]
Mr. George Sale, in his celebrated preliminary discourse to the
translation of the Koran, writes, referring to the thirteenth year of
Mohammad's mission:--
"Hitherto Mohammed had propagated his religion by fair means, so that
the whole success of his enterprise, before his flight to Medina, must
be attributed to persuasion only, and not to compulsion. For before this
second oath of fealty or inauguration at al Akaba, he had no permission
to use any force at all; and in several places of the Korân, which he
pretended were revealed during his stay at Mecca, he declares his
business was only to preach and admonish; that he had no authority to
compel any person to embrace his religion; and that whether people
believed or not, was none of his concern, but belonged solely to God.
And he was so far from allowing his followers to use force, that he
exhorted them to bear patiently those injuries which were offered them
on account of their faith; and when persecuted himself chose rather to
quit the place of his birth and retire to Medina, than to make any
resistance. But this great passiveness and moderation seems entirely
owing to his want of power and the great superiority of his oppressors
for the first twelve years of his mission; for no sooner was he enabled
by the assistance of those of Medina to make head against his enemies,
than he gave out, that God had allowed him and his followers to defend
themselves against the infidels; and at length, as his forces increased,
he pretended to have the divine leave even to attack them, and to
destroy idolatry, and set up the true faith by the sword; finding by
experience that his designs would otherwise proceed very slowly, if they
were not utterly overthrown, and knowing on the other hand that
innovators, when they depend solely on their own strength, and can
compel, seldom run any risk; from whence, the politician observes, it
follows, that all the armed prophets have succeeded, and the unarmed
ones have failed. Moses, Cyrus, Theseus and Romulus would not have been
able to establish the observance of their institutions for any length of
time had they not been armed. The first passage of the Korân, which gave
Mohammed the permission of defending himself by arms, is said to have
been that in the twenty-second chapter: after which a great number to
the same purpose were revealed.
"That Mohammed had a right to take up arms for his own defence against
his unjust persecutors, may perhaps be allowed; but whether he ought
afterwards to have made use of that means for the establishing of his
religion, is a question which I will not here determine. How far the
secular power may or ought to interpose in affairs of this nature,
mankind are not agreed. The method of converting by the sword gives no
very favourable idea of the faith which is so propagated, and is
disallowed by every body in those of another religion, though the same
persons are willing to admit of it for the advancement of their own;
supposing that though a false religion ought not to be established by
authority, yet a true one may; and accordingly force is as constantly
employed in these cases by those who have the power in their hands as it
is constantly complained of by those who suffer the violence."[313]
I do not agree with these words of Mr. George Sale regarding Mohammad,
"and at length, as his forces increased, he pretended to have the divine
leave even to attack them, and to destroy idolatry, and set up the true
faith by the sword;" he never attacked the Koreish or others except in
his own defence. The destruction of idolatry was the chief mission of
Mohammad, and that even was not resorted to by force of arms. There were
neither compulsory conversions nor his history points to any extirpation
of the idolaters at the point of sword from their native countries, as
the chief objects of his mission. The persecutions and civil discord
were to be removed or put a stop to, and force was used to repel force,
but nothing more. Conversion by the sword was not enforced on any
proselyte by Mohammad.
[Sidenote: 120. Major Osborn quoted.]
Major Osborn has drawn a very dark picture of what he calls "The
Doctrine of Jehad," in his _Islam under the Arabs_.[314] The defensive
wars of Mohammad are explained by him as "means of livelihood congenial
to the Arab mind, and carrying with it no stain of disgrace or
immorality. This was robbery. Why should not the faithful eke out their
scanty means by adopting this lucrative and honourable profession, which
was open to everyone who had a sword and knew how to use it?... Surely,
to despoil these infidels and employ their property to feed the hungry
and clothe the naked among the people of God, would be a work well
pleasing in His sight.... And thus was the first advance made in the
conversion of the religion of Islam with the religion of the sword"
(pages 46-47). After this the Major writes again: "The ninth Sura is
that which contains the Prophet's proclamation of war against the
votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam" (page 52). Then he
quotes several verses, some of them half sentences, violently distorted,
from the eighth and ninth Suras, in a consecutive form, without giving
the numbers. These are Sura IX, 20, 34, 35, 82, 121; Sura VIII, 67; Sura
IX, 36, 5, 29, 19; Sura XLVII, 4; Sura IX, 5; and Sura VIII, 42. Lastly,
the learned Major concludes by saying,--"Such was the character of the
Sacred War enjoined upon the Faithful. It is Muhammad's greatest
achievement and his worst. When subjected himself to the pains of
persecution he had learned to perceive how powerless were torments
applied to the body to work a change of conviction in the mind. 'Let
there be no violence in religion' had then been one of the maxims he had
laid down. 'Unto every one of you,' he had said in former days, speaking
of Jews and Christians, 'have we given a law, and an open path; and if
God had pleased He had surely made you one people; but He hath thought
fit to give you different laws, that he might try you in that which He
hath given you respectively. Therefore, strive to excel each other in
good works; unto God shall ye all return, and then will He declare unto
you that concerning which ye have disagreed.' But the intoxication of
success had long ago stilled the voice of his better self. The aged
Prophet standing on the brink of the grave, and leaving as his last
legacy a mandate of universal war, irresistibly recalls, by force of
contrast, the parting words to his disciples of another religious
teacher that they should go forth and preach a gospel of peace to all
nations. Nor less striking in their contrast is the response to either
mandate;--the Arab, with the Koran in one hand and the sword in the
other, spreading his creed amid the glare of burning cities, and the
shrieks of violated homes, and the Apostles of Christ working in the
moral darkness of the Roman world with the gentle but irresistible power
of light, laying anew the foundations of society, and cleansing at their
source the polluted springs of domestic and national life."
[Sidenote: 121. Major Osborn refuted.]
The learned author quoted above has either misunderstood the character
of the wars of the Prophet of Islam, or has grossly misrepresented it.
He errs in two points: First, he makes the wars as wars of conquest,
compulsion, and aggression, whereas they were all undertaken in the
defence of the civil and religious rights of the early Moslems, who
were, as I have said before, persecuted, harassed, and tormented at
Mecca for their religion, and after a long period of persecution with
occasional fresh and vigorous measures, were condemned to severer and
harder sufferings, were expelled from their homes, leaving their dear
relations, and religious brethren to endure the calamities of the
persecution, and while taking refuge at Medina were attacked upon by
superior numbers, several of the surrounding tribes of Arabs and Jews
joining the aggressive Koreish, making ruinous inroads and threatening
the Moslems with still greater and heavier miseries. From this statement
it will appear that these wars were neither of conquest nor of
compulsory conversion. The second great mistake under which Major Osborn
seems to labour is that he takes the injunctions of war against the
Meccans or other aggressors as a general obligation to wage war against
all unbelievers in the Moslem faith. In fact, these injunctions were
only against those aggressors who had actually committed great
encroachments on the rights and liberties of the early Moslems, and had
inflicted very disastrous injuries on them. These injunctions had and
have nothing to do with the future guidance of the Moslem world.
[Sidenote: 122. The IXth Sura of the Koran.]
It is a great misrepresentation on the part of Major Osborn to assert
that "the ninth Sura is that which contains the Prophet's proclamation
of war against the votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam." No
statement could be farther from truth than this of his. The ninth Sura,
or, more correctly, the beginning or opening verses of it, contain the
Prophet's proclamation of war against those of the Meccan idolaters,
who, in violation of the treaty of Hodeibia, had attacked the
Moslems.--(Sura IX, 4, 8, 10, 12 & 13, _vide_ pages 23-25.) They were
allowed four months' time (IX, 2, 5) to make terms. They submitted, and
Mecca was taken by compromise, in consequence of which the threatened
war was never waged. Those who had not broken their treaties were
especially mentioned, with whom the proclamation or the period allowed
for peace had no connection.--(_Vide_ Sura IX, 4, 7, quoted above, pages
23-24.) Thus it is quite clear that the proclamation of war was only
against the violators and aggressors, and not against the votaries of
all creeds other than that of Islam. I have further discussed the ninth
Sura in para. 40 of this work. The other verses of this Sura refer to
the expedition of Tabúk, which was purely defensive in its nature as has
been described in para. 33 of this book. (See also para. 42.)
[Sidenote: 123. The Reverend Wherry quoted.]
The Reverend E.M. Wherry, M.A., in his note on Sale's Preliminary
Discourse, says:--
"Though Muhammad undoubtedly took Moses as his pattern, and supposed
himself following in his footsteps when he gave the command to fight
against the infidels, yet there is no comparison between them whatever
so far as warring against infidels is concerned. The Israelites were
commanded to slay the Canaanites as divinely ordained instruments of
_destruction_; but Muhammad inaugurated war as a means of proselytism.
The Israelite was not permitted to proselytize from among the
Canaanites, (Exod. XXIII. 27-33), but Muslims are required to
proselytize by sword-power."[315]
Mohammad never had said that he did follow the footsteps of Moses in
giving the command of fighting in self-defence, and in repelling force
by force. There could be no comparison whatsoever between the wars of
Moses, which were merely wars of conquest, aggression, extermination,
and expatriation, and those of Mohammad waged only in self-defence.
Mohammad did not inaugurate his career by prosecuting war as a means of
proselytism, and never did proselytized any one by the sheer strength of
the sword. Mr. T.H. Horne, M.A., writes regarding the extirpation of the
Canaanites:--
"After the time of God's forbearance was expired, they had still the
alternative, either to flee elsewhere, as in fact, many of them did, or
to surrender themselves, renounce their idolatries, and serve the God of
Israel. Compare Deut. XX. 10-17."[316] This was certainly compulsory
conversion and proselytizing at the point of the sword.
[Sidenote: 124. Example cited from the Jewish history.]
There is only one instance in the Koran in which an example is cited for
the war of defence by Mohammad, from the Jewish History. It is the
asking of the children of Israel their prophet Samuel to raise up a king
for them to fight in their defence against the Philistines, who had very
much oppressed the Israelites. Saul was appointed king over the
Israelites, and David killed Goliath, called _Jálut_ in the Koran, which
was in defence of the Israelites. I have quoted the verses relating to
the above subject from the Koran (Sura II, 247 and 252) in page 19th of
this work.
"Hast thou not considered the assembly of the children of Israel after
_the death_ of Moses, when they said to a prophet of theirs,--'Raise up
for us a king; we will do battle for the cause of God?' He said, 'May it
not be that when fighting is ordained you, ye would not fight?' They
said, 'And why should we not fight in the cause of God, since we are
driven forth from our dwellings and our children?'....
This shows that what the Koran or Mohammad took as an example from the
history of the Jews was only their defensive war.
[Sidenote: 125. Mosaic injunctions.]
It is very unfair of the Christians to make too much of the wars of
Mohammad, which were purely of a defensive nature, and offer apologies
for the most cruel wars of conquest and extermination by Moses, Joshua
and other Jewish worthies under the express commands of God.--(_Vide_
Numbers XXXI; Deut. XXI, &c.) But see what Mr. Wherry says. He writes in
his comments on the 191 verse of the second Sura of the Koran.
"(191). _Kill them, &c._ Much is made of expressions like this, by some
Christian apologists, to show the cruel character of the Arabian
prophet, and the inference is thence drawn that he was an impostor and
his Qurán a fraud. Without denying that Muhammad was cruel, we think
this mode of assault to be very unsatisfactory to say the least, as it
is capable of being turned against the Old Testament Scriptures. If the
claim of Muhammad to have received a divine command to exterminate
idolatry by the slaughter of all impenitent idolaters be admitted, I can
see no objection to his practice. The question at issue is this. Did God
command such slaughter of idolaters, as he commanded the destruction of
the Canaanites or of the Amalekites? Taking the stand of the Muslim,
that God did so command Muhammad and his followers, his morality in this
respect may be defended on precisely the same ground that the morality
of Moses and Joshua is defended by the Christian."[317]
[Sidenote: 126. The Revd. T.P. Hughes quoted.]
The Revd. T.P. Hughes in his Notes on Muhammadanism writes:--
"Jihád (lit. 'an effort') is a religious war against the infidels,
as enjoined by Muhammad in the Qurán."
Súrat-un-Nisa (VI.)
"Fight therefore for the religion of God."
* * * * *
"God hath indeed promised Paradise to every one. But God hath
preferred those who _fight for the faith_." (IV, 97.)
Súrat-ul-Muhammad (XLVII).
"Those who _fight in the defence of God's true religion_, God will
not suffer their works to perish." (XLVII, 5.)[318]
The first verse quoted by Mr. Hughes appertains to the war of defence.
The verse in itself has express indications of its relating to the war
of defence, but Mr. Hughes was not inclined, perhaps, to copy it in
full. He merely quotes half a sentence, and shuts his eyes from other
words and phrases of the same verse. The verse has been quoted in page
20. It is as follows:--
"Fight then on the path of God: lay not burdens on any but thyself; and
stir up the faithful. The powers of the infidels, God will haply
restrain; for God is stronger in prowess, and stronger to
punish."--(Sura IV, 86.)
The severe persecution, the intense torture and mighty aggression of
the Meccans and their allies is referred to in the original word _Báss_,
rendered _prowess_ into English and referred to in the previous verse
77, which shows that the war herein enjoined was to restrain the
aggressions of the enemy and to repel force by force.
It is very unfair on the part of the Revd. T.P. Hughes to twist or
dislocate half a sentence from a verse and put it forth to demonstrate
and prove a certain object of his.
[Sidenote: 127. Meaning of Jihad.]
The second verse quoted by the same author is a mere mistranslation.
There is no such word in the original which admits of being rendered as
"fighting." The true translation of the sentence quoted above from Sura
IV, verse 97, is as follows:--
"Good promises hath he made to all. But God hath assigned to the
_strenuous_ a rich recompense above those who sit still at home."
The word rendered "_strenuous_" is originally "mojahid" (plural
"Mojahidin," from Jihád), which in classical Arabic and throughout the
Koran means to do one's utmost, to make effort, to strive, to exert, to
employ one's-self diligently, studiously, sedulously, earnestly,
zealously, or with energy, and does not mean fighting or warfare. It was
subsequently applied to religious war, but was never used in the Koran
in such a sense. (_Vide_ Appendix A.)
[Sidenote: 128. Sura XLVII, v. 5.]
The third instance quoted by Mr. Hughes is also a mistranslation of a
sentence in verse 5, Sura XLVII. The original word is "_kotelú_," which
means "those who are _killed_," and not "those who _fight_," as
explained and translated by the author. The correct rendering of the
sentence is this: "And those who are killed, their work God will not
suffer to miscarry."
Some read the word "_kátalú_," which means "those who fought," but the
general and authorized reading is "_kotelú_," _i.e._, "those who are
killed." Even if it be taken for granted that the former is the correct
reading, it will be explained by several other verses which mean
fighting in defence, and not fighting aggressively, which not only has
been never taught in the Koran but is always prohibited (II, 186). The
verse to that effect runs thus:--
"And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you; but
commit not the injustice of attacking them first. Verily God loveth not
the unjust."--(II, 186.)
This verse permitted only defensive war and prohibited every aggressive
measure. All other verses mentioned in connection with fighting on the
part of the Moslems must be interpreted in conformity with this.
[Sidenote: 129. The Rev. Mr. Malcolm MacColl quoted.]
The Rev. Malcolm MacColl writes:--
"The Koran divides the earth into parts: Dar-ul-Islam, or the House of
Islam; and Dar-ul-Harb, or the House of the enemy. All who are not of
Islam are thus against it, and it is accordingly the duty of the True
Believers to fight against the infidels till they accept Islam, or are
destroyed. This is called the Djihad or Holy War, which can only end
with the conversion or death of the last infidel on earth. It is thus
the sacred duty of the Commander of the Faithful to make war on the
non-Mussulman world as occasion may offer. But Dar-ul-Harb or the
non-Mussulman world, is subdivided into Idolaters and Ketabi, or 'People
of the Book,'--_i.e._, people who possess divinely inspired Scriptures,
namely, Jews, Samaritans, and Christians. All the inhabitants of
Dar-ul-Harb are infidels, and consequently outside the pale of
Salvation. But the Ketabi are entitled to certain privileges in this
world, if they submit to the conditions which Islam imposes. Other
infidels must make their choice between one of two alternatives--Islam
or the sword. The Ketabi are allowed a third alternative, namely,
submission and the payment of tribute. But if they refuse to submit, and
presume to fight against the True Believers, they lapse at once into the
condition of the rest of Dar-ul-Harb and may be summarily put to death
or sold as slaves."[319]
I am very sorry the Rev. gentleman is altogether wrong in his assertions
against the Koran. There is neither such a division of the world in the
Koran, nor such words as "Dar-ul-Islam" and "Dar-ul-Harb" are to be
found anywhere in it. There is no injunction in the Koran to the True
Believers to fight against the infidels till they accept Islam, failing
which they are to be put to death. The words "Dar-ul-Islam" and
"Dar-ul-Harb" are only to be found in the Mohammadan Common Law, and are
only used in the question of jurisdiction. No Moslem magistrate will
pass a sentence in a criminal case against a criminal who had committed
an offence in a foreign country. The same is the case in civil
courts[320]. All the inhabitants of Dar-ul-Harb are not necessarily
infidels. Mohammadans, either permanently or temporarily by obtaining
permission from the sovereign of the foreign land, can be the
inhabitants of a Dar-ul-Harb, a country out of the Moslem jurisdiction,
or at war with it.
[Sidenote: 130. The untenable theories of the Common Law and
conclusion.]
It is only a theory of our Common Law, in its military and political
chapters, which allow waging unprovoked war with non-Moslems, exacting
tribute from "the people of the Book," and other idolaters, except those
of Arabia, for which the Hanafi Code of the Common Law has nothing short
of conversion to Islam or destruction by the sword. As a rule, our
canonical legists support their theories by quotations from the
Mohammadan Revealed Law, _i.e._, the Koran, as well as from the Sonnah,
or the traditions from the Prophet, however absurd and untenable may be
their process of reasoning and argumentative deductions. In this theory
of waging war with, and exacting tribute or the capitation-tax from, the
non-Moslem world, they quote the 9th and other Suras. These verses have
been copied and explained elsewhere in this book. The casuistic
sophistry of the canonical legists in deducing these war theories from
the Koran is altogether futile. These verses relate only to the wars
waged by the Prophet and his followers purely in their self-defence.
Neither these verses had anything to do with waging unprovoked war and
exacting tributes during Mohammad's time, nor could they be made a law
for future military conquest. These were only temporary in their
operations and purely defensive in their nature. The Mohammadan Common
Law is by no means divine or superhuman. It mostly consists of uncertain
traditions, Arabian usages and customs, some frivolous and fortuitous
analogical deductions from the Koran, and a multitudinous array of
casuistical sophistry of the canonical legists. It has not been held
sacred or unchangeable by enlightened Mohammadans of any Moslem country
and in any age since its compilation in the fourth century of the
Hejira. All the _Mujtahids_, _Ahl Hadis_, and other non-Mokallids had
had no regard for the four schools of Mohammadan religious
jurisprudence, or the Common Law.
[Sidenote: Sura XLVII, 16, and Sura XLVII, 4 and 5.]
Sura XLVIII, 16, is not generally quoted by the canonical legists in
support of their theory of Jehád, but by some few. It is not in the
shape of a command or injunction; it is in a prophetical tone:--
"Say to those Arabs of the desert who stayed behind, Ye shall be called
forth against a people of mighty valour; Ye shall do battle with them,
or they shall submit (_Yoslemoon_)[321]...."
The verses 4 and 5 of Sura XLVII, like all other verses on the subject,
appertain to the wars of defence, and no one has ever quoted them for
wars of aggression. These verses have already been quoted at page 85.
The abolition of the future slavery as enjoined in the 5th verse has
been treated separately in Appendix B. The Arabs, like other barbarous
nations round them, used either to kill the prisoners of war or to
enslave them; but this injunction of the Koran abolished both of these
barbarous practices. The prisoners henceforward were neither to be
killed nor enslaved, but were to be set at liberty with or without
ransom.
[Footnote 289: Ata, a learned legist of Mecca, who flourished at the end
of the first century of the Hegira, and held a high rank there as a
juris-consult, (_vide_ para. 112) held, that Jihad was only incumbent on
the Companions of the Prophet, and was not binding on any one else after
them. See para. 112, and _Tafsír Majma-ul-Bayán_ by Tabrasee under Sura
II. 212.]
[Footnote 290: The _Hedaya_ or Guide; or, A Commentary on the Mussulman
Laws, translated by Charles Hamilton; Vol. II, Book IX, Ch. I, page 140
London, MDCCXCI.]
[Footnote 291: The _Hedaya_ or Guide; or, A Commentary on the Mussulman
Laws, translated by Charles Hamilton; Vol. II, Book IX, Ch. I, page
141.]
[Footnote 292: "Arab _Kattâl_; meaning war in its _operation_, such as
_fighting_, _slaying_," &c.]
[Footnote 293: The _Hedaya_, Vol. II, 141.]
[Footnote 294: Sura II, 187.]
[Footnote 295: The Hedaya, with its commentary called Kifaya, Vol. II,
p. 708. Calcutta Medical Press, 1834.
As a general rule the Mohammadan authors do not refer to the verses of
the Koran by their number. They generally quote the first sentence, or
even a portion of it. The No. of verses are mine. I have followed
Fluegel and Rodwell's numbers of verses in their editions and
translations of the Koran.]
[Footnote 296: Kifaya as before.]
[Footnote 297: _Binayah_, a commentary of the _Hedaya_, by Ainee. Vol.
II, Part II, page 789.]
[Footnote 298: Part. III, page 219.]
[Footnote 299: _Tuhfatul Muhtáj fi Sharah-al-Minhaj_, Part IV, page
137.]
[Footnote 300: _Insan-ul-Oyoon_, Part II, pp. 289, 291. Chapter on
"Campaign."]
[Footnote 301: Sura IX, 5 and 12. These verses have been discussed at
pages 51-55.]
[Footnote 302: "The Jihád will last till the day of the Resurrection."
"I have been enjoined to fight the people until they confess there is no
god but the God." For these traditions see the next para.]
[Footnote 303: _Vide_ Ainee's Commentary of the _Hedaya_, Vol. II, Part
II, p. 790.]
[Footnote 304: _Vide_ Ainee's Commentary of the _Hedaya_, Vol. II, Part
II, p. 798.]
[Footnote 305: _Vide_ Kázee Budrudeen Mahmood bin Ahmed Ainee's (who
died in 855 A.H.) Commentary on the _Hedaya_ called _Binayah_, and
generally known by the name of Ainee, Vol. II, pp. 789-90, "Book of
Institute."]
[Footnote 306: The Modern Egyptians, by Edward William Lane; Vol. I, p.
117, _note_: fifth edition, London, 1871.]
[Footnote 307: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 251-252.]
[Footnote 308: The Early Caliphate and Rise of Islam, being the Rede
Lecture for 1881, delivered before the University of Cambridge by Sir
William Muir, K.C.S.I., LL.D., page 5, London, 1881.]
[Footnote 309: The History and Conquests of the Saracens, by Edward. A.
Freeman, D.C.L., LL.D., pp. 41-42; London, 1877.]
[Footnote 310: Christianity and Islam; The Bible and the Koran; by the
Rev. W.R.W. Stephens, London, 1877, pp. 98-99.]
[Footnote 311: _Vide_ paras. 17, 29, 126.]
[Footnote 312: Mohammed and Mohammedanism. Lectures delivered at the
Royal Institution of Great Britain in February and March 1874, by R.
Bosworth Smith, M.A., Second Edition, page 137; London, 1876.]
[Footnote 313: The Koran, by George Sale. The "_Chandos Classics_." The
Preliminary Discourse, Section II, pp. 37-38.]
[Footnote 314: London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1876, pp. 46-54.]
[Footnote 315: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qurán; comprising
Sale's Translation and Preliminary Discourse, with additional Notes and
Emendations, by the Revd. E.M. Wherry, M.A., page 220; London: Trübner &
Co., 1882.]
[Footnote 316: An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of
the Holy Scripture, by Thomas Hartwell Horne, Esq., M.A. Vol. II, page
524; London. 1828.]
[Footnote 317: Commentary on the Qurán by the Revd. Wherry, page 358.]
[Footnote 318: Notes on Muhammadanism; being outlines of the Religious
System of Islam, by the Revd. T.P. Hughes, M.R.A.S., C.M.S., Missionary
to the Afghans, page 206; Second Edition, 1877.]
[Footnote 319: The Nineteenth Century; London, December 1877, page 832.]
[Footnote 320: This subject has been fully treated in my "The Proposed
Political, Legal, and Social Reforms in Moslem States," pp. 22-25:
Bombay Education Society Press, 1883.]
[Footnote 321: Sir W. Muir, with other European translators of the
Koran, translates the word "they shall profess Islam" (The Life of
Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 39, _footnote_). It ought to be translated "they
shall submit." There is a difference of opinion among the commentators
and canonical legists in this word. Some translate the word _Yoslemoon_
"shall profess Islam," and others "shall submit." This difference in the
interpretation of the same word is merely of a sectarian nature, each
party wishing to serve their own purpose. Those legists who held that
the polytheists and idolaters may either be fought against or be
submitted to the authority of Islam by being tributaries, took the word
in its proper sense of submission. Those who held that "the people of
the Book" ought only to be made tributaries, while all other idolaters
and polytheists should be compelled either to perish or to embrace
Islam, interpret the word technically to mean the religion of Islam. But
as the verse is not a legal command, we condemn at once the casuistic
sophistry of the legists.]
Appendix A
ON THE WORD "JIHAD" AS OCCURRING IN THE KORAN AND WRONGLY TRANSLATED
"WARFARE."
[Sidenote: Jihád or Jihd does not mean war or crusade.]
1. The popular word _Jihád_ or _Jihd_, occurring in several passages of
the Koran, and generally construed by Christians and Moslems alike as
meaning hostility or the waging of war against infidels, does not
classically or literally signify war, warfare, hostility or fighting,
and is never used in such a sense in the Koran. The Arabic terms for
warfare or fighting are _Harab_ and _Kitál_.
[Sidenote: Classical meaning of Jihád, &c.]
2. The words _Jahada_, and _Jáhada_ signify that a person strove,
laboured or toiled; exerted himself or his power, or efforts, or
endeavours, or ability employed himself vigorously, diligently,
studiously, sedulously, earnestly or with energy; was diligent or
studious, took pains or extraordinary pains[322]; for example, the term
_Jáhada fil-amr_ signifies that a person did his utmost or used his
utmost powers, or efforts, or endeavours, or ability in prosecuting an
affair.[323] The infinitive noun _Jihádan_ also means difficulty or
embarrassment, distress, affliction, trouble, inconvenience, fatigue, or
weariness.[324] Jauharce, a lexicologist of great repute, whose work is
confined to classical terms and their significations, says in his Siháh
that _Jáhada fi Sabeelillah_ or _Mojáhadatan_ and _Jihádan_ and also
_Ajtahada_ and _Tajáhada_ mean expending power and effort. Fayoomee,
author of _Misbahel Moneer_, which contains a very large collection of
classical words and phrases of frequent occurrence, also says that
_Jáhada fi Sabeelillah Jihádan_ and _Ajtahada fil Amr_ mean he expended
his utmost efforts and power in seeking to attain an object.
[Sidenote: Post-classical or technical meaning of Jihád.]
3. It is only a post-classical and technical meaning of _Jihád_ to use
the word as signifying fighting against an enemy. Mr. Lane says,
"_Jahada_ came to be used by the Moslems to signify generally _he
fought_, _warred_ or waged war against _unbelievers_ and _the like_."
This signification is now given by those lexicologists who do not
restrict themselves to the definition of classical terms or
significations, like the author of Kámoos. Mr. Lane, the celebrated
author of _Maddool Kámoos_ an Arabic-English lexicologist, clearly shows
that the definition of _Jihád_, as the act of waging war, is only of
Moslem origin and is not classical. And I will show in sequence that the
Moslem usage of _Jihád_, as signifying the waging of war, is a
post-Koranic usage, and that in the Koran it is used classically and
literally in its natural sense.
[Sidenote: The Classical tongue and Arabian poets.]
4. What is called the classical language of Arabia or the _loghat_, and
is an authority for the genuineness of the Arabic terms and their
significations, is the language which was spoken throughout the whole of
the Peninsula previous to the appearance of Mohammad. After the death of
Mohammad the language was rapidly corrupted by the introduction of
foreign words. This was doubtless owing to the great extension of the
Mohammadan power at this period. The classical poets are those who died
before these great conquests were effected, and are the most reliable
authorities for Arabic words and their significations, and they are
called _Jáhilí_. Next to the classical poets are the post-classical, or
_Mokhadrams_, _Islámi_ and _Mowallads_. Mokhadram is a poet who lived
partly before and partly after Mohammad, and who did not embrace
Islámism during the life of the Prophet. The Islámi poets are the
Mohammadan poets of the first and second centuries of the Hejira, and
Mowallads, the poets of the fourth rank, followed the Islámis. The
earliest classical poets date only a century before the birth of
Mohammad, and the latest, about a century after his death. The period of
the Islámi poets is the first and second centuries,--_i.e._, those who
lived after the first corruption of the Arabic language, but before the
corruption had become extensive.
The Mowallads co-existed with the general and rapid corruption of the
language from the beginning or middle of the second century.
[Sidenote: The conjugation and declension of _Jahd_ and _Jihád_]
5. The words _Jahd_ and _Jihád_ and their derivations, amounting to
fourteen in number, occur in the following passages in the Koran:--
1. "Jâhada" Chapter xxix, 5; ix, 19.
2. "Jáhadáka" Do. xxxi, 14, xxix, 7.
3. "Jáhadoo" Do. ii, 215; viii, 73, 75,
76; ix, 16, 20, 89;
xlix, 15; iii, 136;
xvi, 111; xxix, 69.
4. "Yojáhido" Do. xxix, 5.
5. "Yojáhidoona" Do. v, 59.
6. "Yojáhidoo" Do. ix, 44, 82.
7. "Tojáhidoona" Do. lxi, 11.
8. "Jihád" Do. xxv, 54; xxii, 77;
ix, 24; lx, 1.
8.* "Jahd" Do. v, 58; vi, 109;
xvi, 40; xxiv, 52;
xxxv, 40.
9.* "Johd" Do ix, 80.
10. "Jáhid" Do. ix, 74; lxvi, 9.
11. "Jâhidhoom" Do. xxv, 54.
12. "Mojáhidína" Do. iv, 97; bis. xlvii, 33.
13. "Mojáhidoona" Do. iv, 97.
14. "Jáhidoo" Do. v, 39; ix, 41, 87; xxii, 77.
[Sidenote: The number of instances in which they occur in the Koran.]
6. There are altogether 36 verses in the Koran containing the words
noted above, in the following chapters and verses:--
Chapter ii, 215.
Do. iii, 136.
Do. iv, 97.
Do. v, 39, 58, 59.
Do. vi, 109.
Do. viii, 73, 75, 76.
Do. ix, 16, 19, 20, 24, 41, 44, 74, 80, 82, 87, 89.
Do. xvi, 40, 111.
Do. xxii, 77.
Do. xxiv, 52.
Do. xxv, 54.
Do. xxix, 5, 7, 69.
Do. xxxi, 14.
Do. xxxv, 40.
Do. xlvii, 33.
Do. xlix, 15.
Do. xl, 1.
Do. xli, 11.
Do. xlvi, 9.
[Sidenote: In what sense they are used in the Koran.]
7. Out of the above, the verses containing the words "Jahd" and
"Johd,"--_i.e._, v, 58; vi, 109; xvi, 40; xxiv, 52; xxxv, 40; and ix,
80, marked *, are altogether out of dispute, as in all the former
passages, except the last one, its obvious meaning is _most_ or _utmost_
solemn oaths,[325] or most _energetic_ oaths or _strongest_ or most
forcible oaths,[326] and the latter signifies small provisions upon
which a man possessing a little property can live with difficulty. The
rest are of two kinds--_first_, the verses occurring in the Meccan
Suras. As then the Moslems had not resorted to arms in their defence,
though suffering from persecutions, Mohammadan commentators and jurists
and Christian writers are unanimous in construing _Jihád_ in its natural
sense of exertion, effort, energy, and painstaking. Secondly, the verses
containing the same words occurring in the Medina Suras, which were
revealed or published when the Moslems had taken arms in their defence.
As regards this period, the words are considered to have an entirely new
and an altogether fortuitous meaning, _viz._, a religious war of
aggression. Even some verses of this period are rendered by Mohammadans
and Christians in the literal sense of the word.
[Sidenote: Conventional significations of _Jihád_.]
8. I fully admit that in the post-classical language of the
Arabs,--_i.e._, that in use subsequent to the time of Mohammad, when the
language was rapidly corrupted, the word "Jihád" was used to signify
"warfare" or fighting, but this was in a military sense. Since that
period the word has come to be used as meaning the waging of a war or a
crusade only in military tactics, and more recently it found its way in
the same sense into the Mohammadan law-books and lexicons of later
dates. But the subsequent corrupt or post-classical language cannot be
accepted as a final or even a satisfactory authority upon the point.
"It was decided by common consent," says Mr. Edward William Lane,
in his Arabic-English Lexicon (Preface, pp. viii and ix), "that no
poet, nor any other person, should be taken as an absolute and
unquestionable authority with respect to the words or their
significations, the grammar, or the prosody of the classical
language, unless he were one who had died before the promulgation
of El-Islám, or who had lived partly before and partly after that
event; or, as they term it, unless he were a 'Jáhilee' or a
'Mukhadram,' or (as some pronounce it) 'Mukhadrim,' or 'Muhadram'
or 'Muhadrim.' A poet of the class next after the Mukhadrams is
termed an 'Islámee:' and as the corruption of the language had
become considerable in his time, even among those who aimed at
chasteness of speech, he is not cited as an authority absolutely
and unquestionably like the two preceding classes. A poet of the
next class, which is the last, is termed 'Muwelled;' he is
absolutely post-classical; and is cited as an unquestionable
authority with respect only to the rhetorical sciences. The
commencement of the period of the Muwelleds is not distinctly
stated: but it must have preceded the middle of the second century
of the Flight; for the classical age may be correctly defined as
having nearly ended with the first century, when very few persons
born before the establishment of El-Islám through Arabia were
living. Thus the best of the Islámi poets may be regarded, and are
generally regarded, as holding classical rank, though not as being
absolute authorities with respect to the words and the
significations, the grammar, and the prosody of the classical
language."
Mr. Thomas Chenry, M.A., writes:[327]--
"Within a century of Mohammad's flight from Mecca, the Moslem
empire stretched from Kashgar and Mooltan to Morocco and the
Pyrenees, and the Arab man of letters was exposed to the corrupting
propinquity of men of very different races. Only a poet of
Ignorance, that is, one who died before the preaching of Islam, or
a Mokhadram, that is, who was contemporary with it, was looked upon
as of paramount and unquestionable authority. An Islámi, that is,
one who was born after the rise of Islam, was of least
consideration, and after the first century, the poets are called
Muwalladún and are only quoted for their literary beauties, and not
as authorities for the Arab tongue."
[Sidenote: Mohammadan commentators, &c., quoted.]
9. All commentators, paraphrasts, and jurisconsults admit that the
primary and original signification of the words "_Jahad_" and "_Jihád_"
is power, ability, and toil, and that its use, as making wars or
crusades, is conventional and figurative. Ibn Attiah says regarding
verse 69, Chapter XXIX, that it is Meccan, and was revealed before the
enjoining of the _Orfee_ or conventional _Jihád_ (_vide_ Fat-hul bayan
fi maquasidil Koran, Vol. II, page 517, by Siddik Hussan). Khateeb
Koostlane, in his _Irshadussari_, a paraphrase of Bokhari, says that
"_Jihád_ is derived from _Jahd_, which means toil and labour, or from
_Johd_, which means power. And in technical language it means fighting
with infidels to assist Islam" (Vol. V, page 26). Mohammad Allauddin Al
Haskafi (died 1088 A.H.), the author of Dur-ral-Mukhtár, a commentary on
Tanviral Absár, by Sheikh Mohammad Al Tamartáshi (died 1004), says in
the chapter on _Jihád_, that "in the classical language it is the
infinitive noun of _Jáhada fi Sabil-Allah_, and in the language of the
law it means inviting the infidels to the true faith and fighting with
him who does not accept it." And Ibn Ábidin Shámi, in his annotation on
the above work, says:
"The infinitive noun of _Jáhada_ means to do one's utmost, and that
it is general, and includes any person who supports all that is
reasonable and forbids what is wrong."
[Sidenote: When the word Jihád was diverted from its original
signification to its figurative meaning of waging religious war?]
10. It is admitted by all lexicologists, commentators, and jurisconsults
that _Jihád_ in classical Arabic means to labour, strive earnestly, and
that the change of its meaning or the technical signification occurred
only in the post-classical period, _i.e._, long after the publication
of the Koran. It is obviously improper, therefore, to apply the
post-classical meaning of the word where it occurs in the Koran. This
fact is further admitted by all the Mohammadan commentators and English
translators of the Koran, who render the word in its original and
literal meaning in all the Meccan and in the early Medinite Suras or
Chapters of the Koran.[328]
It is only in a few of the latest chapters of the Koran published at
later dates at Medina, that they (the commentators and translators)
deviate from the original meaning, and prefer the subsequent unclassical
and technical signification of waging war or crusade.
[Sidenote: All verses of the Koran containing the word Jihád and its
derivation quoted and explained.]
11. I herein place in juxtaposition the several English translations of
the word "_Jihád_," together with its etymological derivation and
several grammatical forms, to show, in the first place, that Mr. George
Sale and the Rev. J.M. Rodwell and other European authors generally give
the literal, original, and classical meaning; and in the second place,
to show how they differ in giving various meanings, literal and
technical, in some passages to the same word in the same verses.
It will be observed from a perusal of the statement, that the Rev. Mr.
Rodwell, M.A., is more correct than the earliest English translator of
the Koran, Mr. George Sale, and the latest, Mr. W.H. Palmer. The latter
is the most unsatisfactory of all in this respect, as everywhere, except
in six places--XXIX, 7; V, 39, 59; IV, 97; and IX, 74, 89--he translates
_Jihád_ as meaning fighting--a circumstance which not unnaturally leads
to the supposition that he had paid but slight heed to the context.
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
|Serial No.
| | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.
| | | Original Words. ----------------------------
| | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH
| | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }
| | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
| 1 |
| | XXXI. 14
| | | "Jáhadáka"
| | | | "Strive"
| | | | | "Endeavour to prevail"
| | | | | | "Strive."
| 2 |
| | XXV. 54
| | | "Jáhid," "Jihádan."
| | | | "Oppose them herewith with strong opposition."
| | | | | "By means of the Koran strive against them with
| | | | | a mighty strife."
| | | | | | "Fight strenuously; strenuous fight."
| 3 |
| | XXII. 77
| | | "Jáhidoo"
| | | | "Fight in the defence of God's religion."
| | | | | "Do valiantly"
| | | | | | "Fight strenuously."
| 4 |
| | XVI. 111
| | | "Jáhadoo"
| | | | "Have since sought _in the_ defence of the true religion."
| | | | | "Fought"
| | | | | | "Fought strenuously."
| 5 |
| | XXIX. 5
| | | "Jáhada"
| | | | "Striveth"
| | | | | "Maketh efforts"
| | | | | | "Fight strenuously; fight strenuously."
| 6 |
| | XXIX. 7
| | | "Jáhadáka"
| | | | "Endeavour"
| | | | | "Strive"
| | | | | | "Strive."
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
|Serial No.
| | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.
| | | Original Words. ----------------------------
| | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH
| | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }
| | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
| 7 |
| | XXIX. 69
| | | "Jáhadoo"
| | | | "Utmost endeavour"
| | | | | "Made efforts"
| | | | | | "Fight strenuously."
| 8 |
| | XVI. 40
| | | "Jahd"
| | | | "Most solemnly"
| | | | | "Most sacred"
| | | | | | "Most strenuous."
| 9 |
| | XXXV. 40
| | | "Jahd"
| | | | "Most solemn"
| | | | | "Mightiest"
| | | | | | "Most strenuous."
| 10 |
| | II. 215
| | | "Jáhadoo"
| | | | "Fight in God's cause"
| | | | | "Fight"
| | | | | | "Wage war."
| 11 |
| | III. 136
| | | "Jáhadoo"
| | | | "Those who fought strenuously."
| | | | | "Did valiantly"
| | | | | | "Fought well."
| 12 |
| | VIII. 73
| | | "Jáhadoo be-am-walhim-w-anfosa-him."
| | | | "Employed their substance and their persons in fight for
| | | | the religion of God."
| | | | | "Spent their substance and themselves for the cause
| | | | | of God."
| | | | | | "Fought strenuously with their wealth and
| | | | | | person."
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
|Serial No.
| | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.
| | | Original Words. ----------------------------
| | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH
| | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }
| | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
| 13 |
| | VIII. 75
| | | "Jáhadoo"
| | | | "Have fought for God's true religion."
| | | | | "Fought"
| | | | | | "Fought strenuously."
| 14 |
| | VIII. 76
| | | "Jáhadoo"
| | | | "Have fought with you."
| | | | | "Fought"
| | | | | | "Fought strenuously."
| 15 |
| | VI. 109
| | | "Jahd"
| | | | "Most solemn"
| | | | | "Most binding"
| | | | | | "Most strenuous"
| 16 |
| | XLVII. 33
| | | "Mojáhidína"
| | | | "Who fight valiantly"
| | | | | "Valiant"
| | | | | | "Fought strenuously."
| 17 |
| | LXI. 11
| | | "Jáhidoo"
| | | | "Defend God's true religion with your substance and in
| | | | your person."
| | | | | "Do valiantly"
| | | | | | "To fight strenuously."
| 18 |
| | IV. 97
| | | 1st. "Mojáhidína"
| | | | 1st. "Those who employ their fortune and their persons
| | | | for the religion of God."
| | | | | 1. "Defend God's true religion valiantly."
| | | | | | 1. "Strenuous."
| | | 2nd. "Mojáhidina."
| | | | 2nd. "Those who employ their fortune and persons."
| | | | | 2. "Contend earnestly."
| | | | | | 2. "Strenuous."
| | | 3rd. "Mojáhidina."
| | | | 3rd. "Those who fight"
| | | | | 3. "Strenuous"
| | | | | | 3. "Strenuous."
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
|Serial No.
| | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.
| | | Original Words. ----------------------------
| | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH
| | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }
| | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
| 19 |
| | XXIV. 52
| | | "Jahd"
| | | | "Most solemn"
| | | | | "Most solemn"
| | | | | | "Most strenuous."
| 20 |
| | LXVI. 9
| | | "Jáhid"
| | | | "Attack the hypocrites with arguments."
| | | | | "Make war"
| | | | | | "Fight strenuously."
| 21 |
| | IX. 74
| | | "Jáhid"
| | | | "Wage war"
| | | | | "Contend"
| | | | | | "Strive strenuously."
| 22 |
| | LXI. 1
| | | "Jihadan"
| | | | "To fight in the defence of my religion."
| | | | | "To fight"
| | | | | | "Fighting strenuously."
| 23 |
| | XLIX. 5
| | | "Jáhadoo"
| | | | "Who employ their substance and their person in the
| | | | defence of God's true religion."
| | | | | "Contend with their substance and their person."
| | | | | | "Fight strenuously with their wealth and their
| | | | | | persons."
| 24 |
| | IX. 16
| | | "Jáhadoo"
| | | | "Those among you who sought for his religion."
| | | | | "Valiantly"
| | | | | | "Fought strenuously."
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
|Serial No.
| | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.
| | | Original Words. ----------------------------
| | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH
| | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }
| | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
| 25 |
| | IX. 19
| | | "Jáhada"
| | | | "Fighteth"
| | | | | "Fighteth"
| | | | | | "Strenuous."
| 26 |
| | IX. 20
| | | "Jáhadoo"
| | | | "Fought for his religion."
| | | | | "Do valiantly"
| | | | | | "Fought strenuously."
| 27 |
| | IX. 24
| | | "Jihádan"
| | | | "Advancement"
| | | | | "Efforts"
| | | | | | "Fighting strenuously."
| 28 |
| | IX. 41
| | | "Jáhidoo"
| | | | "Employ your substance and your person for the advancement
| | | | of God's religion."
| | | | | "Contend with your substance and with your person."
| | | | | | "Fight strenuously with your wealth and your
| | | | | | persons."
| 29 |
| | IX. 44
| | | "Yojáhidoo"
| | | | "Employing their substance and their persons for the
| | | | advancement of God's true religion."
| | | | | "Contending with your substance and your person."
| | | | | | "Fighting strenuously."
| 30 |
| | IX. 82
| | | "Yojáhidoo"
| | | | "Employ their substance and their persons for the
| | | | advancement of God's true religion."
| | | | | "Contending with their riches and their persons."
| | | | | | "Fighting strenuously with their wealth and
| | | | | | their persons."
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
|Serial No.
| | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.
| | | Original Words. ----------------------------
| | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH
| | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }
| | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
| 31 |
| | IX. 87
| | | "Jáhidoo"
| | | | "Go forth to war"
| | | | | "Contend"
| | | | | | "Fight strenuously."
| 32 |
| | IX. 89
| | | "Jáhidoo"
| | | | "Expose their fortunes and their lives."
| | | | | "Contend with purse and persons."
| | | | | | "Strenuous with their wealth and with their
| | | | | | person."
| 33 |
| | V. 39
| | | "Jáhidoo"
| | | | "Fight for his religion."
| | | | | "Contend earnestly"
| | | | | | "Be strenuous."
| 34 |
| | V. 58
| | | "Jáhd"
| | | | "Most firm"
| | | | | "Most solemn"
| | | | | | "Most strenuous."
| 35 |
| | V. 59
| | | "Yojahidoona"
| | | | "They shall fight for the religion of God."
| | | | | "Will they contend"
| | | | | | "Strenuous."
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
|Serial No.
| | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.
| | | Original Words. ----------------------------
| | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH
| | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }
| | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.
|----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------
12. The above verses quoted with remarks. I will now proceed to give a
correct translation of all the verses of the Koran referred to above, in
the chronological order of the chapters of the Koran as far as it is
ascertained together with my observations and remarks on them, and
quotations from Mohammadan commentators when necessary.
I.--THE MECCAN SURAS.
[Sidenote: (1) Lokman, XXXI, 14.]
13. "But if they exert their utmost (Jáhadáka) to make thee to join
that with Me of which thou hadst no knowledge, obey them not."
Chapter XXXI is one of the oldest of the Meccan Suras, having been
revealed between the sixth and tenth year of the Prophet's mission. The
admonition relates to a man's behaviour to his parents. He is enjoined
to treat them with kindness, but not to obey them if they lead him to
polytheism.
Here "_Jáhadá_" means "if they two (parents) task or toil thee, or make
efforts and endeavour (that thou shouldst associate any god with God),"
and none of the translators and commentators take the word to mean the
making of war or hostilities or fighting.
[Sidenote: (2) Furkan, XXV, 53, 54.]
14. "Moreover had We pleasured We had certainly raised up a warner
in every city."
"Do not then obey the unbelievers, but by means of this (_Jáhid_)
exert with them with a (_Jihadan kabirá_) strenuous exertion (or
labour with great labour)."
This evidently relates to the Koran, or the warning mentioned in the
preceding verse, and it is wrong to translate "_Jihád_" as meaning to
fight strenuously with them, or as inciting to strenuous fighting as
translated by Henry Palmer (Vol. II, p. 88). Mr. Sale and the Rev. Mr.
Rodwell do not translate it fighting, and so Mohammadan commentators.
Fakhr-ud-din Razi (died 606 A.H.), the Imam, in his great commentary
says:
"Some say _Jáhid hoom bihí Jihádán Kabirá_ means to make efforts in
preaching, but some say it meant fighting, and others say it meant
both; but the former is nearer the truth, as the chapter was
revealed at Mecca, and the command for fighting was issued after
the Flight, some time afterwards" (Vol. VI, p. 490).
[Sidenote: (3) The Pilgrimage,[329] XXII, 76, 78.]
15. "Believers! bow down with worship your Lord and work
righteousness, haply ye may prosper."
"And ('_Jáhidoo_') make efforts in God, as (_Jihádehi_) your making
efforts is His due, He hath elected you, and hath not laid on you
any hardship in religion, the Faith of your father Abraham. He hath
named you the Muslims."
Messrs. Sale and Palmer translate the word here as meaning fighting,
which is wrong, as it is unclassical and not literal. Rodwell translates
it "do valiantly," and Sir William Muir says it is used in the more
general sense (Vol. III, p. 32).
This verse is a brief and concise version of the great maxim in Deut.
VI. 5; Mark XII. 30; and Luke X. 27,--
"Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."
See also Luke XIII. 24: "Strive to enter in at the straight gate."
[Sidenote: (4) The Bee, XVI, 108, 111.]
16. "Whoso after he hath believed in God denieth Him if he were
forced to it, and if his heart remain steadfast in the faith, shall
be guiltless; but whoso openeth his heart to infidelity--on them,
in that case, shall be wrath from God, and a severe punishment
awaiteth them."
"To those also who after their trials fled their country, then
(_Jáhadoo_) toiled and endured with patience. Verily, thy Lord will
afterwards be forgiving, gracious."
Dr. Sprenger (Life of Mohammad, p. 159) explains this verse of the seven
slaves purchased and manumitted by Abu Bekr. They had been tortured for
professing Islam, shortly after Mohammad assumed the prophetic office.
The flight referred to in verse 111th is the early Abyssinian flight.
These verses relate to the persecutions endured by humble and needy
Moslems from their townspeople of Mecca. These Moslems, after being
persecuted and forced as far as denying God, while their remaining
steadfast in the faith, had to flee elsewhere, and then suffered much in
their wanderings; but they endured their labours and fatigues, losses,
disadvantages both in body and mind, patiently. There is no allusion to
fighting or waging war. The Rev. Mr. Rodwell and Mr. Palmer are both
wrong in translating '_Jáhadoo_' as fighting. Sale is right in not
translating it as fighting, but he is too paraphrastic when he
translates, "and who have since fought _in defence of the true
religion_," as their "Jihád" was only their great exertion and toil in
suffering from persecutions.
[Sidenote: (5) The Spider, XXIX, 5.]
17. "And whoso ('_Jáhada_') labours ('_Yojáhido_') toils for his
own good only. Verily God is independent of all the worlds."
Mr. Palmer is wrong in making _Jáhada_ and _Yojáhido_ to mean fighting
strenuously. Mr. Sale and the Rev. W. Rodwell are right in translating
by "striveth" and "efforts" respectively, and so is Sir W. Muir in
taking it into, what he styles, the general sense of the verse (The Life
of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 32).
[Sidenote: (6) The Spider, XXIX, 7.]
18. "Moreover We have enjoined on man to show kindness to parents,
but if they (_Jáhadá_) strive with thee in order that thou join
that with Me of which thou hast no knowledge, then obey them not.
To Me do ye return, and I will tell you of your doings."
None of the commentators take the word _Jâhadâ_ in this passage to mean
fighting or crusade, and it is difficult, therefore, to understand why
the word should have been distorted from its proper literal and
classical meaning in other places of the same book.
[Sidenote: (7) The Spider, XXIX, 69.]
19. "And those who (_Jâhadoo_) made efforts for Us, in our path
will we surely guide; for verily God is with those who do righteous
deeds."
Mr. Palmer translates the word here as meaning "fought," contrary to Mr.
Sale, the Rev. Mr. Rodwell, and Sir William Muir, who translate it
"endeavour," "effort," and "strive." The conventional term Jihád,
meaning crusade or warfare, was not in use in the time of the revelation
of the Koran.
[Sidenote: (8) The Bee, XVI, 40.]
20. "And they swear by God with their (_Jahd_) utmost oaths that
'God will never raise him who once is dead.' Nay; but on Him is a
promise binding though most men know it not."
Sale renders the word "most solemnly;" Rodwell, "most sacred oath;"
Palmer, "most strenuous oath."
[Sidenote: (9) Creator, XXXV, 40.]
21. "They swore by God with their (_Jahd_) utmost oath that should
a preacher come to them they would yield to guidance more than any
people: but when the preacher came to them, it only increased in
them their estrangement."
Sale's rendering is "most solemn oath," Rodwell's, "mightiest oath," and
Palmer's, "most strenuous oath."
II.--THE MEDINITE SURAS.
[Sidenote: (10) The Cow or Heifer, II, 215.]
22. "But they who believe, and who fly their country, and
(_Jahadoo_) exert their utmost in the way of God, may hope for
God's mercy, and God is Gracious and Merciful."
Mr. Sale and the Rev. Mr. Rodwell translate _Jahadoo_ as those who
_fight_, and Mr. Palmer as those who _wage war_; but there is no reason
to change the proper meaning of the word. Sir William Muir translates
the verse thus:--
"But they that believe and they who emigrate for the sake of their
faith and strive earnestly in the way of God, let them hope in the
mercy of God, for God is forgiving, merciful."[330]
In a footnote he says:--"The word Jihâd is the same as that subsequently
used for a religious war; but it had not yet probably acquired its fixed
application. It was employed in its _general_ sense before the Hejira,
and probably up to the battle of Badr."[331] I have only to add that the
word never acquired its fixed application during the lifetime of the
Prophet, nor is it used as such in any chapter of the Koran either
before or after the Hejira.
The connection of flight mentioned in the verse as put together with
Jihád, shows that it means the labour, toil, and distress which befel
the fugitives in leaving their families unprotected in the hands of
their persecutors on their expulsion from their country.
[Sidenote: (11) A'l Amràn, III, 136.]
23. "Do ye think that ye could enter Paradise without God taking
knowledge of those among you who (_Jáhadoo_) have toiled and of
those who steadfastly endured."
The Rev. Mr. Rodwell translates _Jáhadoo_, "did valiantly," and does not
agree with Sale and Palmer, who translate it, "fought strenuously," or
"fought well."
By the connection of enduring patiently, the word _Jáhadoo_ probably
means those who toiled and suffered in their exile from Mecca.
[Sidenote: (12) The Spoils, VIII, 73.]
24. "Verily, they who believe and have fled their homes and
(_Jáhadoo_) toiled with their substance and themselves in the way
of God, and they who have taken in and have helped, shall be near
of kin the one to the other. And they who have believed, but have
not fled their homes, shall have no rights of kindred with you at
all, _until_ they too fly their country. Yet if they seek aid from
you, on account of the faith, your part is to give them aid, except
against a people between whom and yourself there may be a treaty.
And God beholdeth your actions."
Sale renders the word _Jihád_ (or _Jáhadoo_) in this passage as
meaning "employed their substance and their persons in
fighting."
Rodwell ... "Spent their substance and themselves."
Palmer ... "Fought strenuously with their wealth and person."
As the word _Jihád_ has been applied here to both one's-self and his
substance or wealth, it cannot mean "fighting," even if taken in the
technical signification.
[Sidenote: (13) The Spoil, VIII, 75.]
25. "But as for those who have believed and fled their country and
(_Jáhadoo_) took pains in the way of God, and have been a refuge or
help, these are the faithful, mercy is their due and a noble
provision."
Sale ... "Fought."
Rodwell ... "Fought."
Palmer ... "Fought strenuously."
There is nothing in this passage to warrant a departure from the literal
and proper signification of the word _Jáhadoo_, and using it in a
post-Koranic sense.
[Sidenote: (14) The Spoil, VIII, 76.]
26. "And they who have believed and have since fled their country,
(_Jáhadoo_) toiled with you, these also are of you. Those who are
united by the ties of blood are the nearest of kin to each other.
This is in the Book of God. Verily God knoweth all things."
Sale ... "Fought."
Rodwell ... "Fought."
Palmer ... "Fought strenuously."
There is no valid excuse here for changing the signification of the word
_Jáhadoo_ into that which is never used in the Koran or in the classical
Arabic.
[Sidenote: (15) The Cattle, VI, 109.]
27. "With their (_Jahd_) most binding oath have they sworn by
God...."
Sale ... "Most solemn oath."
Rodwell ... "Most binding oath."
Palmer ... "Most strenuous oath."
[Sidenote: (16) Mohammad, XLVII, 33]
28. "And We will surely test you until We know (_Mojáhideena_) who
did their utmost, and who were the steadfast among you; and We will
test the reports."
Sale ... "Who fight valiantly."
Rodwell ... "Valiant."
Palmer ... "Fought valiantly."
"_Mojáhid_" is not synonymous with "_Mokátil_"
[Sidenote: (17) Battle Array, LXI, 11.]
29. "Believe in God and His Apostle and (_Jáhidoo_) do strive in
the way of God with your wealth and your persons!"
Sale ... "Who fought valiantly."
Rodwell ... "Who fought valiantly."
Palmer ... "Fight strenuously."
Devotion or worship has been divided into two kinds,--bodily, which also
includes mental; and pecuniary or monetary, and the believers are
exhorted here to worship God both bodily and mentally.
[Sidenote: (18) Women, IV, 97.]
30. "Those believers who sit at home free from trouble and those
who (1, _Mojáhidoona_) toil in the way of God with their substance
and their persons shall not be treated alike. God has assigned to
those who (2, _Majáhadoona_) strive with their persons and with
their substance a rank above those who sit at home. Goodly promises
hath He made to all; but God hath assigned to those (3,
_Mojáhadína_) who make efforts a rich recompense above those who
sit at home."
Sale: _1st_ ... "Those who employ their fortune and their
substance for the religion of God."
_2nd_ ... "Those who employ their fortune and their
substance."
_3rd_ ... "Those who fight."
Rodwell: _1st_ ... "Those who fight valiantly."
_2nd_ ... "Contend earnestly."
_3rd_ ... "Strenuous."
Palmer: _1st_ ... "Strenuous."
_2nd_ ... "Strenuous."
_3rd_ ... "Strenuous."
I have already explained the two sorts of worship or service of
God--bodily and mental. The same applies here too.
[Sidenote: (19) Light, XXIV, 52.]
31. "And they swore by God with their utmost oath...."
Sale ... "Most solemn oath."
Rodwell ... "Most solemn oath."
Palmer ... "Most strenuous oath."
[Sidenote: (20) The Forbidding, LXVI, 9.]
32. "O Prophet, (_Jáhid_) do thy utmost with the unbelievers and
hypocrites, and be strict towards them."
Sale ... "Attack the infidels with arms and the
hypocrites with arguments."
Rodwell ... "Make war."
Palmer ... "Fight strenuously."
[Sidenote: (21) The Immunity, IX, 74.]
33. The same verse, word for word.
Sale ... "Wage war."
Rodwell ... "Contend against."
Palmer ... "Strive strenuously."
The word _Jáhid_ is the same in both the passages, yet the translators
differ in their interpretation of it. As there had been no war against
the hypocrites, the word cannot be held to bear the construction they
put on it, even if we deprived it of its proper signification. In one
place Sale takes _Jáhid_ to mean "attacking with arms," and in another
he takes it in the sense of attacking with arguments.
There is no signification of "attacking" in _Jihád_, but only that of
"exerting," and the verse simply means, "exert thyself in preaching to,
and remonstrating with, the unbelievers and hypocrites, and also be
strict towards them,"--_i.e._, not to be smooth with them, nor to be
beguiled by them.[332]
[Sidenote: (22) The tried, LXI.]
34. "O Ye believers! take not my foe and your foe for friends: ye
show them kindness although they believe not that truth which hath
come to you: they drive forth the Apostle and yourself because ye
believe in God your Lord! If ye have come forth[333] (_Jihádan_)
labouring in my cause, and from a desire to please Me, ye show them
kindness in private, then I well know what ye conceal and what ye
discover! And whoso of you doth this hath verily, therefore, gone
astray from the even way."
Sale translates _Jihádan_ as meaning "to fight in the
defence of my religion."
Rodwell ... "To fight on my path."
Palmer ... "Fighting strenuously."
The translators quoted above say that Hátib had informed the Meccans of
an intended surprise of Mecca on the part of Mohammad with the view of
making terms for his own family, which had been left there. On this
occasion the passage was revealed. This shows that the campaign of Mecca
is termed _Jihád_. But Sir William Muir does not agree with them. He
says in a footnote:--"The opening verses of the sixtieth Sura are said
to refer to Hâtib; but they appear to have a general bearing against too
great intimacy with the Coreish during the truce and to be, therefore,
of a prior date."[334]
35. Hátib's story. The story regarding Hátib's revelation of the
intended attack upon Mecca by Mohammad, is not supported by authentic
and trustworthy traditions. The authentic tradition of Bokhari[335] only
states that the occasion of the verse being revealed was in the case of
Hátib, but does not say that it was during the campaign of Mecca, nor
that the information contained anything about the intended campaign. The
authentic tradition only says that the report contained information
regarding some of the affairs of the Prophet.
Besides this, it is wrong to translate _in kun tum kharajtum Jihadan fi
Sabili_, as "if ye go forth to fight in defence of my religion," or "if
ye go forth to fight on my path," or "if ye go forth fighting
strenuously in my cause." It simply means, "if you have come out
striving in my cause," and the sentence is a complement or correlative
of the verse, meaning, if you have come out of Mecca, striving, or to
strive, in my cause, suffering from exile and undergoing the afflictions
and distresses of living homeless, leaving your family and property
unprotected, and all these pains (_Jihád_) you have taken to please me,
then you should not make friends with my foes and your foes, who do not
believe in the truth which has come to you, and have driven out the
Prophet and yourselves (from Mecca, your home) only for the reason that
you believe in God your Lord.
[Sidenote: (23) The Apartment, XLIX, 15.]
36. "The true believers are those only who believe in God and his
Apostle and afterwards doubt not; and who (_Jáhadoo_) strive with
their substance and their persons on the path of God. These are the
sincere."
Sale here translates _Jáhadoo_ those "who employ their substance
and their persons in the defence of God's true religions."
Rodwell ... "Contend with their substance and their persons."
Palmer ... "Fight strenuously with their wealth and persons."
See my observations under No. 17, para. 28.
[Sidenote: (24) The Immunity, IX, 16.]
37. "Think not that ye shall be forsaken and that God doth not yet
know those among you who (_Jáhadoo_) do their utmost and take none
for their intimate friends besides God and His Apostles and the
faithful. But God is well apprised of your doings."
Sale ... "Fought for his religion."
Rodwell ... "Fought valiantly."
Palmer ... "Fought strenuously."
[Sidenote: (25) _Ibid_, 19.]
38. "Do ye place the giving drink to the pilgrims and the
visitation of the sacred temple on the same level with him who
believeth in God and the last day, and (_Jáhada_) taketh pains in
the way of God. They are not held equal by God, and God guideth not
the unrighteous."
Sale ... "Fighteth."
Rodwell ... "Fighteth."
Palmer ... "Is strenuous."
[Sidenote: (26) The Immunity, IX, 20.]
39. "They who have believed and fled their homes and (_Jáhadoo_)
toiled with their substance and with their persons on the path of
God are of the highest degree with God, and these are they who
shall enjoy felicity!"
Sale ... "Employ their substance and their
persons in the defence of God's true
religion."
Rodwell ... "And striven with their substance and
with their persons in the path of
God."
Palmer ... "Been strenuous in the way of God
with their wealth and their persons."
[Sidenote: (27) _Ibid_, 24.]
40. "Say, if your father and your sons and your brethren and your
wives, and your kindred and wealth which ye have gained, and
merchandise which ye fear may be unsold, and dwellings wherein ye
may delight be dearer to you than God and His Apostle and
(_Jihádan_) toiling in My cause, then wait until God shall Himself
enter on His work; God guideth not the impious."
Sale ... "Advancement of his religion."
Rodwell ... "Efforts on his path."
Palmer ... "Fighting strenuously."
[Sidenote: (28) _Ibid_, 41.]
41. "March ye forth light and heavy and (_Jáhidoo_) toil with your
substance and persons on the way of God. This, if ye knew it, will
be best for you."
Sale ... "Employ your substance and your persons
for the advancement of God's
true religion."
Rodwell ... "Contend with your...."
Palmer ... "Fight strenuously with your wealth
and persons."
[Sidenote: (29) The Immunity, IX, 44.]
42. "They who believe in God and in the last day will not ask leave
to be exempt from (_Yojáhadoo_) toiling with their substance and
their persons. But God knoweth them that fear Him."
Sale ... "Employ their substance and their persons
for the advancement of God's
true religion."
Rodwell ... "Contending with their substance and
persons."
Palmer ... "Fighting strenuously."
[Sidenote: (30) _Ibid_, 82.]
43. "They who were left in their homes were delighted behind God's
Apostle and were averse from (_Yojáhidoo_) exerting with their
riches and their persons for the cause of God, and said, 'March not
out in the heat.' Say, a fiercer heat will be the fire of hell!
Would that they understood this."
Sale ... "Employ their substance and their persons
for the advancement of God's
true religion."
Rodwell ... "Contending with their riches and their
persons."
Palmer ... "Fighting strenuously with their wealth
and their person."
[Sidenote: (31) _Ibid_, 87.]
44. "Moreover when a Sura was sent down with 'Believe in God, and
(_Jáhidoo_) toil in company with his Apostle,' those of them who
are possessed of riches demanded exemption, and said, 'Allow us to
be with those who sit _at home_.'"
Sale ... "Go forth to war."
Rodwell ... "Contend."
Palmer ... "Fight strenuously."
[Sidenote: (32) The Immunity, IX, 89.]
45. "But the Apostle, and those who share his faith (_Jáhadoo_)
exerted with their substance and their persons, and these ! good
things await them and these are they who shall be happy."
Sale ... "Expose their fortune and their lives."
Rodwell ... "Contend with purse and person."
Palmer ... "Are strenuous with their wealth and
with their persons."
[Sidenote: (33) The Table, V, 39.]
46. "O ye who believe! fear God and desire union with Him and
(_Jáhidoo_) toil on His path. It may be that you will obtain
happiness."
Sale ... "Fight."
Rodwell ... "Contend earnestly."
Palmer ... "Be strenuous."
[Sidenote: (34) _Ibid_, 58.]
47. "And the faithful will say, 'Are these they who swore by God
their (_Jahda_) utmost oath that they were surely on your side?'
Vain their works; and they themselves shall come to ruin."
Sale ... "Most firm."
Rodwell ... "Most solemn."
Palmer ... "Most strenuous."
[Sidenote: (35) _Ibid_, 59.]
48. "O ye who believe! should any of you desert his religion, God
will then raise up a people whom He loveth, and who love Him, lowly
towards the faithful, lofty to the unbelievers (_Yojáhidoona_)
striving in the path of God, and not fearing the blame of the
blamer. This is the Grace of God; on whom He will He bestoweth it,
and God is all-embracing, Omniscient!"
Sale ... "They shall fight for the religion of God."
Rodwell ... "For the cause of God will they contend."
Palmer ... "Strenuous in the way of God."
[Sidenote: _Jihád_ does not mean the waging of war.]
49. These are all the verses of the Koran which contain the word
"_Jahd_" or "_Jihád_," or any derivations from them. I believe that I
have clearly shown by means of a careful comparison between the
translators and commentators and the original passages in the Koran,
that the word _Jahd_ or _Jihád_ in the classical Arabic and as used in
the Koran does not mean waging war or fighting, but only to do one's
utmost and to exert, labour or toil. The meaning which has come to be
ascribed to the word is undoubtedly a conventional one, and is one that
has been applied to it at a period much less recent than the revelation
of the various chapters of the Koran.
[Sidenote: _Katal_ and _Kitál_.]
50. I do not mean to contend that the Koran does not contain injunctions
to fight or wage war. There are many verses enjoining the Prophet's
followers to prosecute a defensive war, but not one of aggression. The
words "_katal_" and "_kitál_" distinctly indicate this.
[Sidenote: Conclusion.]
51. I have already analysed all the verses containing these words
(_katal_ and _kitál_) in this book. What I have aimed at in the Appendix
is to show that those authors and translators who cite certain verses of
the Koran containing the word _Jahd_ or _Jihád_ and its derivations in
support of their assertion, and that the Mohammadan religion sanctions
the waging of war and the shedding of blood, are altogether in the
wrong.
[Footnote 322: The Siháh of Jouhari (who died 397 or 398), the Asás of
Zamakhshire (born 467, died 538 A.H.), Lisanul-Arab of Ibn Mokarram
(born 630, died 711), and Kamoos of Fyrozabadee (born 729, died 816),
_vide_ Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, Book I, Part II, page 473.]
[Footnote 323: The Misbáh by Fayoomee (finished 734 A.H.), _vide_ Lane's
Arabic-English Lexicon, Book I, Part II, page 473.]
[Footnote 324: Siháh, Asás, Ibnel Atheer Jezree, author of Nihayeh (died
606), the Mughrib of Almotarrazi (born 536, died 610), the Misbáh and
Kámoos, _vide_ Lane, _ibid_, page 474.]
[Footnote 325: _Vide_ Rodwell's Translation of the Koran _in loco_.]
[Footnote 326: _Vide_ Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon _in loco_.]
[Footnote 327: The Assemblies of Al Hariri, translated from the Arabic
by Thomas Chenry, M.A., Vol. I, Introduction, p. 67. William and
Norgate, 1867.]
[Footnote 328: In the treaty of Medina, which was made as early as the
second year of the Hejira, the word Jihád is used, regarding which Sir
W. Muir says:--"This word came subsequently to have exclusively the
technical signification of Jihád or _crusade_ or _fighting_ for the
Faith. If we give it this signification here, it would involve the
clause in the suspicion of being a later addition; for as yet we have no
distinct development of the intention of Mahomet to impose his religion
on others by force: it would have been dangerous, in the present state
of parties, to advance this principle. The word is sometimes used in the
more general sense in the Coran; Sura XXIX, 5, 69; XX, 77, and a few
other places."--Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 32. Again he says
with reference to Sura II, v. 215, which also contains the same word:
"The word (_Jihád_) is the same as that subsequently used for a
religious war, but it had not yet probably acquired its fixed
application. It was applied in its _general_ sense before the Hejira,
and probably up to the battle of Badr."--_Ibid_, p. 74, footnote.]
[Footnote 329: This Sura is generally said to have been revealed at
Mecca, but this is probably only the case as regards verses 1, 24, 43,
56, 60, 65, 67, 75. Mr. Muir places it at the close of the Meccan Suras
of the fifth period. See Nold, p. 158; Rev. Rodwell, p. 500.]
[Footnote 330: _Vide_ Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, 74.]
[Footnote 331: _Ibid, footnote._]
[Footnote 332: _Vide_ Sura LXXII, 9; XVII, 69.]
[Footnote 333: _i.e._, from Mecca when driven out of it by the Meccans
in your persecution.]
[Footnote 334: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 114.]
[Footnote 335: _Kitabul Jihád_, _Magházi_ and _Tafseer_.]
APPENDIX B.
SLAVERY AND CONCUBINE-SLAVES AS CONCOMITANT EVILS OF WAR.
[Sidenote: Slavery and concubinage not allowed by the Koran.]
1. It is a false accusation against the Koran, that it allows
enslavement of the captives of war, and sanctions female captives to the
conquerors' embrace, or, in other words, female captives are made
concubines on the field of battle. There is not a single sentence in the
Koran allowing either of the above allegations. Sir W. Muir, in his
"Life of Mahomet," could neither quote any verse of the Koran
sanctioning the enslavement of the captives of war or servile
concubinage, nor was he able to relate any instance of them during the
several battles described therein. Yet, in a recent work,[336] he refers
boldly, but vaguely, to the Koran; and regarding the battle of Walaja
fought by Khálid against the Persians in A.H. 12 writes, after quoting
Khálid's oration on gaining the victory:--
"Now, also, the cunning device of the Corân, with respect to the
other sex, began to tell. Persian ladies, both maids and matrons,
'taken captive by the right hand,' were forthwith, without stint of
number, lawful to the conquerors' embrace; and, in the enjoyment of
this privilege, they were nothing loth to execute upon the heathen
'the judgment written.'"
I do not understand why, if such was the case, Khálid did not refer the
believers to the so-called "cunning device" of the Koran? By referring
to this imaginary device of the Koran to the lawfulness of female
captives "to the conquerors' embrace," he might have struck a chord, at
which every Bedouin heart would have leapt with joy, instead of
referring, as he did, merely to the riches of the land and fair fields.
In fact there is no such inducement in the Koran.
[Sidenote: Measures taken by the Koran to abolish slavery.]
2. Slaves are mentioned in the Koran _defacto_, but not _dejure_. The
Koran took several measures to abolish future slavery. Its steps for its
abolition were taken in every moral, legal, religious, and political
departments. The liberation of slaves was morally declared to be a work
of piety and righteousness--(Sura XC, 13; II, 172).[337] Legally the
slaves were to be emancipated on their agreeing to pay a ransom--(Sura
XXIV, 33).[338] They were to be set at liberty as a penalty for culpable
homicide--(Sura IV, 94);[339] or in expiation for using an objectionable
form of divorce--(Sura LVIII, 4);[340] and also they were to be
manumitted from the Public Funds out of the poor-taxes--(Sura IX,
60).[341] They were religiously to be freed in expiation of a false oath
taken in mistake--(Sura V, 91).[342] These were the measures for the
abolition of existing slavery. The future slavery was abolished by the
Koran by putting hammer deep unto its root and by annihilating its real
source. The captives of war were, according to the clear injunctions of
the Koran contained in the 5th verse of the 47th Sura, to be dismissed
either by a free grant or by exacting a ransom. They were neither to be
enslaved nor killed.
4. "When ye encounter the unbelievers strike off their heads, till
ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of _the rest_ make
fast the fetters."
5. "And afterwards let there either be free dismissals or
ransoming, till the war hath laid down its burdens. Thus do...."
_Sura_ XLVII.
These verses convey very clearly the decree of the abolition of future
slavery, and do not require any further remarks. Moreover they were
acted upon accordingly even in the lifetime of the Prophet.
[Sidenote: None of the prisoners of war were enslaved.]
3. None of the prisoners of Badr A.H. 2, of Karkart-al-Kadr A.H. 3, of
Katan in Najd A.H. 4, of Zat-al Riqa[343] A.H. 5, of Bani Mustalik A.H.
5, of Koreiza A.H. 5, of Batan Makka A.H. 6,[344] or of Honain (Hawázin)
A.H. 8,[345] was enslaved. All, without an exception, were set free
either by way of free dismissal, or by exacting ransom (in cash or in
exchange of Moslem prisoners) in strict conformity with the dictates of
Sura XLVII, 5. There were no prisoners in the battles of Ohad A.H. 3,
Ahzab A.H. 5, and Khyber A.H. 7.[346]
[Sidenote: Bani Koreiza not enslaved.]
4. Some will contend regarding the Bani Koreiza that their women and
children were made slaves, and as such sold in Najd. Sir W. Muir quotes
the judgment of Sád in the case of the Bani Koreiza,--"That the female
captives and the children shall be sold into slavery," and that it was
approved of by Mohammad. He writes further:--
"A fifth of the booty was, as usual, reserved for the Prophet, and
the rest divided. From the fifth Mahomet made certain presents to
his friends of female slaves and servants; and then sent the rest
of the women and children to be sold among the Bedouin tribes of
Najd in exchange for horses and arms."[347]
I have shown in para. 30 of this book (pages 37 and 38) that Mohammad
never appreciated the judgment of Sád. And I have further to add that
the said judgment, according to true reports, did not contain the
illegal verdict of enslaving the women and children of the Bani Koreiza,
as this might have gone directly against the Koran and the precedents of
the Prophet. In the collections of Bokhari, Book of Campaigns, Chapter
on Bani Koreiza, there are two traditions cited on the subject. Both of
them quote the words of Sád to the effect that "the women and children
be imprisoned." The same is the case in Bokhari's other chapters (Book
of _Jihád_, Chapter on the Surrender of Enemy, Book of _Manákib_,
Chapter on the Merits of Sád).
It is not a fact that Mohammad made certain presents to his friends of
the female slaves out of the captives of Bani Koreiza. The captives were
not made slaves, therefore it is wrong to confound captives with slaves.
There is no proof to the effect that they were enslaved. The Koran
distinctly says that they were prisoners (Sura XXXIII, 26).
In fact, the women and children were not guilty of treason, and
deserved no punishment. Sád's judgment must be either wrong regarding
them, or applied only to those who were guilty. "One woman alone,"
according to Sir W. Muir, "was put to death; it was she who threw the
millstone from the battlements" (Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 277). I
conclude, therefore, that all the women and children were released
afterwards; some ransomed themselves, others went off with their
freedom. But nobody was ever sold in slavery. The assertion of Hishamee,
quoted by Sir W. Muir, that the women and children were sent to be sold
among the Bedouin tribes of Najd in exchange for horses and arms (Vol.
III, page 279), is void of all authority, and is in direct contradiction
of what Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman bin Tarkhan (died 143 A.H. and was prior
to Hishamee) says, and whose account seems to be more probable. His
version is that the horses of Bani Koreiza were sent by Mohammad to
Syria and Najd for the purpose of breeding, and that they got big
horses. _Vide_ Wákidi Campaigns of Mohammad, page 374, Calcutta, 1855.
This shows that only horses, and not women and children, were sent to
Najd. The words of Hishamee (page 693) are "_sabáya min sabáya Bani
Koreiza_." _Sabáya_, plural of _sabi_, applies to both person and
property, as they say _sabal adúvva vaghairohu_, he made captive,
captured or took prisoner the enemy, and other than an enemy. (_Vide_
Lane's Arabic Dictionary, page 1303, col. 1.) So probably Hishamee had
in view only the horses captured of the Bani Koreiza and sent to Najd,
but not the women and children of the captives of Koreiza.
[Sidenote: Rihána.]
5. Rihána, a woman of the captives of Koreiza, is said by Sir W. Muir to
have been taken by Mohammad "for his concubine." He always confounds
prisoners with slaves, and female captives as well as slaves with
concubines. There are several conflicting and contradictory traditions
regarding Rihána. Mohammad bin Sád Kátib Wakidi has related various
traditions from Omar-bin-al Hakam, Mohammad bin Káb, and from other
various sources that Mohammad had married Rihána. The Kátib says "this
tradition is held by learned men. But he has also heard some one
relating that she was his concubine."[348] But Sir W. Muir chooses the
latter uncertain and unauthentic traditions. He writes in a footnote:--
"She is represented as saying, when he offered her marriage and the
same privileges as his other wives: 'Nay, O Prophet! But let me
remain as thy slave; this will be easier both for me and for
thee.'"[349]
Even if this tradition be a genuine one, he is not authorized in his
remarks in the text, where he says--
"He invited her to be his wife, but she declined; and chose to
remain (as indeed, having refused marriage, she had no alternative)
his slave or concubine."
She was neither enslaved, nor made a concubine. It is to be regretted
that the writer of the "Life of Mahomet" most absurdly confounds slavery
and concubinage.
[Sidenote: Omar, the second Khalif, liberated all the Arab slaves.]
6. During the sovereignty of Omar, the second Khalif, in accordance with
the injunctions of Mohammad to abolish slavery, all the existing Arab
slaves were set free. It will appear that the wishes of Mohammad to that
effect were but partially carried out. In ages that succeeded the death
of Mohammad, they were altogether lost sight of, and even Arabs were
allowed to be enslaved by the later jurists. Sir W. Muir, in his latest
work, entitled "The Annals of the Early Caliphate," says:--
"Yet great numbers of the Arabs themselves were slaves, taken
prisoner during the apostasy, or in the previous intertribal
warfare, and held in captivity by their fellow-countrymen. Omar
felt the inconsistency. It was not fit that any of the noble race
should remain in bondage. When, therefore, he succeeded to the
Caliphate, he decreed: 'The Lord,' he said, 'hath given to us of
Arab blood the victory, and great conquests without. It is not meet
that any one of us, taken in the days of Ignorance,[350] or in the
wars against the apostate tribes, should be holden in slavery.' All
slaves of the Arab descent were accordingly ransomed, excepting
only such bondmaids as had borne their masters' children. Men who
had lost wives or children now set out in search, if haply they
might find and claim them. Strange tales are told of some of the
disconsolate journeys. Ashàth recovered two of his wives taken
captive in Nojeir. But some of the women who had been carried
prisoners to Medîna preferred remaining with their captors."[351]
Even this speech of Omar shows that no one was enslaved during the wars
of Mohammad, as he only refers to the captives of the days of Ignorance
before the Prophet, and those taken in wars against the apostate tribes
after him having been enslaved.
[Sidenote: Concubinage.]
7. The Koran has never allowed concubinage with female captives. And
after the abolition of future slavery enjoined in the Koran, there is no
good in discussing the subject of concubinage, which depends on the
legality or otherwise of slavery. The Koran had taken early measures for
preventing the evil directly and indirectly, positively and negatively.
In the first place, it recognizes marriage as the only legal condition
of the union of both sexes. Marriage was also enjoined with the existing
female slaves. (_Vide_ Sura IV, 3, 29; and XXIV, 32, 33.) The prevention
of concubinage is set forth in plain terms in Sura V, 7. The verses run
thus:--
3. "And if ye are apprehensive that ye shall not deal fairly with
orphans, then of _other_ women who seem good in your eyes marry,
_but_ two or three or four, and if ye _still_ fear that ye shall
not act equitably, then (marry) one only; or (marry) the slaves
whom ye have acquired. This will be more proper that ye may not
have numerous families or households. And give women their dowry as
a free gift; but if of their own free will they kindly give up
aught thereof to you, then enjoy it as convenient _and_
profitable."
29. "And whoever of you is not rich enough to marry free-believing
women, then let him marry such of your believing maidens as have
fallen into your hands as slaves. God well knoweth your faith. Ye
are sprung, the one from the other. Marry them then with the leave
of their masters, and give them a fair dower; but let them be
chaste and free from fornication, and not entertainers of
lovers."--Sura IV.
32. "And marry those among you who are single, and your good
servants and your handmaidens. If they are poor, God of his bounty
will enrich them. And God is all-bounteous, knowing. And let those
who cannot find a match live in continence till God of his bounty
shall enrich them."
33. "And to those of your slaves who desire a deed of
_manumission_, execute it for them, if ye know good in them, and
give them a portion of the wealth of God which He hath given
you."--Sura XXIV. "And _you are permitted to marry_ virtuous women,
who are believers, and virtuous women of those who have been given
the Scriptures before you, when you have provided them their
portions, living _chastely with them_ without fornication, and not
taking concubines."--Sura V.
The 28th verse of the fourth Sura does by no means sanction concubinage.
It has nothing to do with it. It only treats of marriage. It, together
with its preceding verse, points out whom we can marry and whom not. Its
next verse interdicts concubinage when it enjoins marriage with the then
existing slaves.
[Sidenote: Maria the Coptic.]
8. I will here take the opportunity of noticing Maria the Coptic, who is
alleged to have been a concubine-slave of Mohammad, although she does
not come under the category of prisoners made slaves. According to Sir
W. Muir, the Roman Governor of Egypt had written to Mohammad:--"I send
for thine acceptance two damsels, highly esteemed among the Copts."[352]
The writer converts them at once into "two slave-girls," and remarks, "a
strange present, however, for a Christian Governor to make."[353] She
was neither a captive, nor a slave, nor was she described as such in the
Governor's letter. I am at a loss to know why or how she has been
treated by the biographers of the Prophet as a slave or a concubine.
(1) I have great doubts regarding the truth of the story that Mokowkas
the Governor had sent two maids to Mohammad, and taking it for granted
they were so sent, that one of them was the alleged Maria; (2) it is not
a fact that she was a slave; (3) nor a concubine-slave of the Prophet;
(4) nor she as such bore a son to him; (5) and lastly, the notorious
scandal about her much talked of by European writers is a mere calumny
and a false story.
It will be a very tedious and irksome task to copy the various
traditions bearing on the above subjects and to discuss their
authenticity, and criticise their genuineness, on the principles of the
technicalities peculiar to the Science of Traditions, as well as on the
basis of scientific and rational criticism. Therefore I will notice only
briefly each of the above subjects.
[Sidenote: Dispatch to Mokowkas.]
9. (1) That Mohammad had sent a dispatch to Mokowkas, the Roman Governor
of Egypt, and that in reply he had sent Maria the Coptic maid, together
with other presents, to Mohammad, is not to be found in the traditions
collected by the best critics of Mohammadan traditions like Bokhari and
Muslim, who had sifted the whole incoherent mass of genuine and
apocryphal traditions regarding the Prophet, and had picked up but a
very small portion of them which they thought to be relatively genuine.
We can fairly conclude that such a tradition, which is related by other
non-critics and story-tellers, who have indiscriminately narrated every
tradition--whether genuine or apocryphal--like Wákidi and Ibn Sád, was
surely rejected by these Imams (Doctors in the Science of Tradition) as
having not the least possibility of its genuineness. Even Ibn Ishak
(died 150),[354] Hisham-bin-Abdul Malik (died 213 A.H.),[355] and Abul
Mo'tamar Soleiman (died 143 A.H.[356])[357] have not inserted the
portion of the tradition of Maria the Coptic maid being sent by the
Egyptian Governor to Mohammad. The tradition narrated by Ibn Sád--(1)
through Wákidi and Abd-ul-Hamíd from Jáfar, (2) and Abdullah bin Abdur
Rahmán bin Abi Sásáta--is undoubtedly apocryphal, Wákidi and
Abd-ul-Hamíd are of impeached integrity, or no authority at all. Ibn
Khallikan, in his Biographical Dictionary, translated by Slane, writes
regarding Wákidi:--"The Traditions received from him are considered of
feeble authority, and doubts have been expressed on the subject of his
(_veracity_.)"[358] Ibn Hajar Askalání writes regarding Wákidi in his
_Takrib_, that "he has been struck off as an authority (literally left
out), notwithstanding his vast knowledge." Zahabi's opinion of Wákidi
in Mizán-al-Etedal is that Ahmed bin Hanbal said "he was the greatest
liar." Bokhari and Abú Hátim say he is struck off (or left out as an
authority).
Regarding Abd-ul-Hamíd, Zahabi writes that Abu Hátim said he is not
quoted as an authority, and Sofián said he was a weak authority.
Jáfar and Abdullah bin Abdur Rahmán bin Abi Sásáta are of the middle
period in the Tabaeen's class, and do not quote their authority on the
subject.
[Sidenote: Maria neither a slave;]
10. (2) Supposing that the Governor of Egypt had sent two Coptic maids,
with other presents, to Mohammad, it does not follow necessarily that
they were slave-girls. It is never stated in history that they were
captives of war, or, if they were so, that they were enslaved
subsequently. There is no authority for a haphazard conjecture that they
were slave-girls.
[Sidenote: nor a concubine-slave.]
11. (3) Even if it be admitted that Maria the Coptic was a slave-girl,
there is no proof that she was a concubine-slave. It is a stereotyped
fabrication of traditionists, and the unpardonable blunder on the part
of European writers, that they almost always confound female-slaves, and
even sometimes captives, with concubine-slaves. None of the six standard
collectors of traditions--Imams Bokhari (died 256 A.H.), Muslim (died
261 A.H.), Aboo Daood (died 275 A.H.), Tirmizee (died 279 A.H.), Nasáee
(died 303 A.H.), and Ibn Mája (died 273 A.H.)--has narrated that Maria
the Coptic was a concubine-slave of the Prophet. Even the early
biographers--Ibn Ishak (died 150 A.H.) and Ibn Hisham (died 213 A.H.)
have not made any mention to this effect. It is only Mohammad bin Sád,
the Secretary to Wákidi, who narrates the tradition,--firstly through
Wákidi, Abd-ul-Hamíd, and Jáfar, and secondly through Wákidi, Yakoob bin
Mohammad, and Abdullah bin Abdur Rahmán bin Abi Sásáta. These both
ascriptions are apocryphal. I have already quoted my authorities against
Wákidi and Abd-ul-Hamíd. Yakoob bin Mohammad has been impeached by Abu
Zaraá, a critic in the Science of Traditions.[359] Jáfar and Abdullah
both flourished after the first century. Their evidence to the supposed
fact about a century ago is inadmissible.
In the Biographical Dictionaries of the contemporaries of the Prophet,
there are three persons named Maria.[360] One is said to have been a
housemaid of the Prophet; the second was a housemaid whose _kunniat_
(patronymic) is given as Omm Rabab (mother of Rabab). The third is
called Maria the Coptic. It appears there was only one Maria; she may
have been a female servant in the household of the Prophet. The
narrators have, by citing different circumstances regarding them, made
them three different persons, and one of them a concubine-slave, as they
could not think a house or family complete without a slave-girl or a
concubine-slave. The biographers often commit such blunders. In giving
different anecdotes of really the same persons, they make as many
persons as they have anecdotes. That anyone of the Marias was a
concubine-slave is a mere conjecture, or a stereotyped form of
traditional confusion in mixing up maidservants with slaves or
concubine-slaves.
[Sidenote: Maria had no son.]
12. (4) Those who have converted Maria into a slave or a concubine-slave
have furnished her--the creature of their own imagination--with a son.
There are various traditions as to the number and names of the Prophet's
sons, all of whom died in infancy. Some traditions give different names
to one, and others give as many sons as the names are reported. There
might have been a son of Mohammad by the name of Ibrahim, but that he
was born of Maria the Coptic is a perfect myth. This piece of the story
is the continuation of the traditions of Ibn Sád, which I have already
criticized in paras. 9 and 11. Ibn Sád has related another tradition
through Omar bin Asim and Katáda to the effect that Mohammad's son
Ibrahim was born of a captive woman. Asim has been condemned by Abu
Hatim, a doctor and critic in the Mohammadan traditional
literature;[361] and Katáda (died 117 A.H.) was not a contemporary
witness of what he relates. Thus he fails in giving any authority to his
narration. There are two more traditions in Ibn Sád from similar
authorities like Katáda, namely, Zohri (died 124 A.H.) and Mak-hool
(died 118 A.H.)--not contemporaries of Mohammad, but of the class of
Tabaeen--to the effect that Mohammad had said, "Had Ibrahim lived, the
capitation-tax would have been remitted to every Copt!" and that "Had
Ibrahim lived, his maternal uncles would never have been enslaved!" They
do not say who was Ibrahim!
Another and the last tradition in Ibn Sád through Yahia bin Hammád, Abu
Avána, Soleiman-al-Aamash, Muslim, and Bara is to the effect that
Ibrahim was born from a Coptic maid of the Prophet. The narrator
Soleiman-al-Aamash was a _modallis_ (_Takrib_ in loco), or in other
words, a liar. Besides the whole chain of the narration is _Mo-an-an_.
In none of the canonical collections of traditions like those of
Bokhari, Muslim, and others Ibrahim is said to have been born of Maria.
Therefore any of their traditions regarding Ibrahim is not against us.
It is also related in some genuine traditions that an eclipse of the sun
took place on the day of Ibrahim's death.[362] The historians have
related only one eclipse, which occurred in the sixth year of the
Hejira, when Mohammad was at Hodeibia. This shows that Ibrahim could not
be Maria's son. She only could come to Arabia a year later, as the
dispatches to several princes were sent only in the seventh year.
Yáfaee, in his history _Mirát-uz-Zamán_, has noted that the sun was
eclipsed in the sixth year of the Hejira. In the tenth year, he
says,--"A genuine tradition has that the sun was eclipsed on the day of
Ibrahim's death, and it has been stated above that it was eclipsed in
the sixth year. There is some difficulty. It was noted once only during
the time of the Prophet. If it occurred twice, there is no difficulty;
and if not, one of these two events must be wrong, either the eclipse
took place in the tenth year, or the Prophet's son died in the sixth
year." But historically the eclipse was noticed only in the sixth year.
There are different dates of Ibrahim's death reported by the
biographers--the fourth, tenth, and fourteenth of lunar months, but in
none of them can an eclipse take place.
[Sidenote: The story of Haphsa and Maria a spurious one.]
13. (5) Lastly, I have to notice the infamous calumny against Mohammad
concocted up by his enemies, that Haphsa surprized the Prophet in her
own private room with Maria. "She reproached her lord bitterly, and
threatened to make the occurrence known to all his wives. Afraid of the
exposure and anxious to appease his offended wife, he begged of her to
keep the matter quiet, and promised to forego the society of Maria
altogether." But he afterwards released himself from it by a special
revelation--(Sura LXVI, 1). Sir W. Muir remarks:--
"As in the case of Zeinab, Mahomet produced a message from Heaven,
which disallowed his promise of separation from Mary...."
The passage in the Koran relating to the affair is as follows:--
"O Prophet! Why hast thou forbidden thyself that which God hath
made lawful unto thee,[363] out of desire to please thy wives; for
God is forgiving and merciful?"[364]
[Sidenote: The affair not noticed in the early biographies.]
14. Now this is perfectly a fictitious story. Neither there was any such
affair, nor is there anything on this head mentioned in the Koran. It is
very strange that Sir W. Muir has abruptly left aside, in this instance,
all his principal authorities, the Arabian biographers, Ibn Ishak,
Wákidi (his secretary), and Tabari. The story is not to be found in any
of these biographies, nor in the canonical collections of Bokhari,
Muslim, and Tirmizee. Sir W. Muir had himself laid down the rule that
only these original authorities are to be depended upon, and the later
authors are to be rejected. He writes:--
"To the three biographies by Ibn Hishám, by Wackidi his secretary,
and Tabari, the judicious historian of Mahomet will, as his
original authorities, confine himself. He will also receive with a
similar respect such traditions in the general collections of the
earliest traditionists--Bokhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, &c.--as may bear
upon his subject. But he will reject as _evidence_ all later
authors, to whose so-called traditions he will not allow any
historical weight whatever."[365]
[Sidenote: Sir W. Muir's authorities not valid.]
15. But in this instance, Sir W. Muir, being anxious to quote his
fictitious story to calumniate Mohammad, has ceased to be a judicious
historian, and deviates from his self-imposed rule. He does not reject
the story as he ought judiciously and conscientiously to have done, as
it is not to be found in any of the earliest and original authorities
mentioned by him; on the contrary, he compromises himself by
condescending to quote from secondary and later authors. He writes in a
footnote without quoting his original authority:--
"The version given in the text is accredited by Jelálood-deen,
Yahia, Beizawi, and Zamakshari, &c." (Vol. III, page 163.)
These authors were neither biographers nor historians, and are therefore
no authorities at all. Zamakshari and Beizawi were commentators in the
sixth and seventh centuries respectively. They give two stories, one
regarding Maria and another to the effect that the oath or promise of
Mohammad had been to the effect that he would not again partake of a
species of strong-scented honey disliked by his wives. Jelal-ud-deen
Mahalli was a commentator of the ninth century of the Hejira. Yahia is
not known among the commentators. He may be one of the latest authors.
The commentators are generally no authority in the matter of traditional
literature. "To illustrate allusions in the Coran, they are always ready
with a story in point, but unfortunately there are almost always
different tales, all equally opposite to the same allusion. The
allusion, in fact, was often the father of the story. What was
originally, perhaps, a mere conjecture of supposed events that might
have given rise to an expression in the Coran, or was a single surmise
in explanation of some passage, by degrees assume the garb of fact. The
tradition and the facts which it professes to attest thus, no doubt,
often rest on no better authority than that of the verse or passage
itself."[366]
[Sidenote: The best commentators and traditionists refute the story.]
16. Those commentators who are well versed in the Science of Traditions,
as well as doctors in the traditional literature, have rejected the
story of Maria as the subject-matter of Sura LXVI, as apocryphal.
Baghvi, the author of _Misbah_ (the text of Mishkat), says that the Sura
was revealed on the subject of honey, and not in the case of Maria. The
latter story is neither in the _Sahihain_ (Bokhari and Muslim), nor has
it been narrated in any authentic way.
Háfiz Ishmael Ibn Kaseeral Qarashi, as quoted by Kustlánee (notes on
Bokhari, Vol. VII, page 313), says that the Sura was certainly in the
case of honey.
Imam Noávee, in his notes on Muslim, (Vol. I, page 463,) says:--"In fact
it was revealed in the case of the honey, and not in the case of Maria."
[Sidenote: The story not accredited by the Koran.]
17. Sir W. Muir himself admits that the earliest biographers do not
relate the story, but gives a false excuse for his not following their
example. He writes:--
"The biographers pass over the scene in decent silence, and I
should gladly have followed their example, if the Coran itself had
not accredited the facts, and stamped them with unavoidable
notoriety."[367]
The allegation is absurdly false, as everybody can satisfy himself by
referring to the Koran, which does not contain the fictitious and
spurious story.
[Sidenote: The story when fabricated.]
18. The currency of the story did neither take place during the time of
Mohammad, its proper age, nor during the lifetime of the companions. It
was fabricated and imposed on some of the _Tabaee_ of weak authority in
the second century.[368] There is no doubt that the whole story is a
sheer fabrication from beginning to end.
[Sidenote: Zeinab's case.]
19. In conclusion, I will offer a few remarks in passing regarding Sir
W. Muir's reference here to Zeinab's case. He writes:--
"The charms of a second Zeinab were by accident discovered too
fully before the Prophet's admiring gaze. She was the wife of Zeid,
his adopted son and bosom friend; but he was unable to smother the
flame she had kindled in his breast, and by _divine_ command she
was taken to his bed."[369]
The story is from the beginning to end all untrue. Mohammad knew Zeinab
from her infancy, she was his cousin; and he had himself arranged her
marriage with Zeid. When Zeid divorced her, she was thirty-five years
old, and possibly could have no charms to fascinate even a stranger. Had
she been charming or fair to look upon, Zeid should not have separated
himself from her. There is no historical authority for this, or for any
other version of the story. The Koran, while treating the subject, has
not the slightest reference to any of the stories afterwards made out to
the effect that Mohammad had been to Zeid's house, and, having
accidentally seen the beauty of Zeinab's figure through the half-opened
door; or that the wind blew aside the curtain of Zeinab's chamber, and
disclosed her in a scanty undress, was smitten by the sight.[370]
[Sidenote: The story a spurious one.]
20. These stories, and I believe a few more varied accounts of the same,
like those of the story of Maria the Coptic, were originally mere
conjectures of supposed events that might have given rise to an
expression in the Koran (Sura XXXIII, verse 37)--if not wilful
misrepresentations of story-tellers and enemies of Islam--which the
European writers represent in the garb of facts. The words of the Koran
which have been the father of the story are:--
"And when thou saidst to him unto whom God had shewn favour, and
unto whom thou also hadst shewn favour, 'keep thy wife to thyself,
and fear God,' and thou didst hide in thy mind what God would bring
to light, and thou didst fear men; but more right it had been to
fear God."
This shows Mohammad dissuaded Zeid from divorcing his wife,
notwithstanding the great facility of divorce common at that time in
Arabia.
Sir W. Muir is not justified in copying these stories from Tabari. They
are not related by earliest biographers from any authentic and reliable
source. He ought to have rejected them as spurious fabrications under
historical criticism, as he rejects other traditions which are on a
better footing of truth than these false and maliciously forged stories.
[Sidenote: Sir W. Muir's conjectures not justified.]
21. Sir W. Muir has exceeded the limit he himself had marked out for a
judicious historian of Mohammad when he abounds in his wild fancies, and
observes--
"Zeid went straightway to Mahomet, and declared his readiness to
divorce Zeinab for him. This Mahomet declined: 'Keep thy wife to
thyself,' he said, 'and fear God.' _But Zeid could plainly see that
these words proceeded from unwilling lips, and that the Prophet had
still a longing eye for Zeinab._"[371]
Now this is a mere libellous surmise. He goes on still with his
defamatory conjectures, and writes:--
"Still the passion for Zeinab could not be smothered; it continued
to burn within the heart of Mahomet, and at last bursting forth,
scattered other considerations to the wind."[372]
Mohammad never professed to have received a divine command to marry
Zeinab. It was not necessary for him to have done so. The outcry raised
by the Pagan Arabs was not because they suspected an intrigue on the
Prophet's part to secure a divorce, but because they looked upon an
adopted son in the light of a true son, and considered, therefore, the
marriage with Zeinab, after her divorce from Zeid, as falling within the
prohibited degrees. This adoptive affinity was already abolished in the
Koran (Sura XXXIII, 4): "God hath not made your adopted sons as your own
sons."
Sir W. Muir gravely mistakes in his remarks when he says:--
"The marriage caused much obloquy, and to save his reputation,
Mahomet had the impious effrontery to sanction it by special
Revelation from on high, in which the Almighty is represented as
formally recording a divine warrant for the union."[373]
He quotes verse 36, Sura XXXIII. But he has himself admitted (Vol. III,
page 229 footnote) "that this verse is rather in a recitative style of a
past event," and not a divine command to marry Zeinab. The words "we
joined thee in marriage unto her" in the verse do not mean a command for
marriage. They simply mean that the marriage had taken place. The phrase
"we joined thee in marriage unto her" is a mere form of expression.
Almost all human actions are attributed to God in the Koran, and
whatever occurs in the world by the ordinary course of nature, and by
the free agency of men, is referred in the Koran to the immediate agency
of God.
[Sidenote: A wrong translation of Sir W. Muir.]
22. In the next verse--"There is no offence chargeable to the Prophet in
that which God hath enjoined upon him"--he wrongly translates _Faraza_
as enjoined, and thus conveys an idea of a divine command. _Faraza_
means he made (a thing) lawful or allowable. [See Lane's Arabic
Dictionary, Bk. I, Pt. VI, page 2373.] In giving the above meaning Mr.
Lane quotes this very verse.[374] Such unions were made lawful not only
to Mohammad, but for all the Moslems, and there was nothing partaking of
a special prerogative for him. No special sanction is conveyed by these
verses. No special revelation from on high was brought forward to secure
his own object or to give him an exceptional privilege. It was merely
said that no blame attached to the Prophet for doing what was lawful.
The word "_Amr_," translated "command" and "behest," in XXXIII, 37 and
38, by Sir W. Muir and others, in fact means here and in other similar
passage (XIX, 21; IV, 50; XI, 76; and VIII, 43, 46),--God's
foreknowledge of future contingencies and not a legal command. The same
is the case with the word "_Qadr_" in XXXIII, 38, as well as in XV, 60,
and LXXIII, 20, which means God's prescience and not a predestinated
decree.
[Sidenote: In Zeinab's case no exceptional privilege was secured.]
23. In conclusion, Sir W. Muir remarks:--
"Our only matter of wonder is that the Revelations of Mahomet
continued after this to be regarded by his people as inspired
communications from the Almighty, when they were so palpably formed
to secure his own objects, and pander even to his evil desires. We
hear of no doubts or questionings, and we can only attribute the
confiding and credulous spirit of his followers to the absolute
ascendency of his powerful mind over all who came within its
influence."[375]
The verses 37 and 38 of the thirty-third Sura had not in any way
"secured the objects of Mohammad, much less pandered to his evil
desire." As his marriage with Zeinab had taken place long before they
were published, they could not be said to confer any exceptional
privilege upon him.
[Sidenote: The false story traced to Mukátil.]
24. The story copied by commentators that Mohammad had accidentally seen
Zeinab and admired her is traced to Mukátil,[376] a commentator of the
Koran in the second century, who died at Basra 150 A.H. "The doctors
(_in traditions_)," writes Ibn Khallikan in his Biographical Dictionary,
translated by Slane, "differ in opinion respecting Mukátil: some declare
that, as a traditionist, he was worthy of confidence, and others accused
him of falsehood."
... Ahmed bin Saiyár says:--
"Mukátil Ibn Suláimán, a native of Balkh, went to Marw, whence he
proceeded to Irák. His veracity is suspected; his Traditions should be
left aside and declarations should be rejected. Speaking of the divine
attributes, he said things which it would be sinful to repeat." Ibráhím
Ibn Yákúb-al-Juz-Jáni called Mukátil an audacious liar. Abu Abd
ar-Rahmán an Nasái said:--"Liars notorious for forging Traditions and
passing them off as coming from the Prophet were four in number: Ibn Abi
Yahya, at Medína; Al-Wákidi, at Baghdad; Mukátil Ibn Suláimán, in
Khorásán; and Muhammad Ibn Saíd, surnamed _Al-Maslúb_, in Syria." Wakí
Ibn al-Jarráh said of Mukátil that he was a confirmed liar. Abu Bakr
al-Ajurri said: "I asked Abú Dáwúd Suláimán Ibn al Asháth concerning
Mukátil, and he answered:--'All Traditions given by him should be
rejected.' According to Omar Ibn al-Ghallás, Mukátil Ibn Suláimán was a
liar, and his traditions were to be rejected." "As for Mukátil Ibn
Suláimán," said Al-Bukhári, "pass him over in silence." In another
place, he says of him: "He is just nothing at all." Yahya Ibn Moín
declared that Mukátil's traditions were of no value; and Ahmad Ibn
Hanbal said: "As for Mukátil Ibn Suláimán, the author of the Commentary,
I should not like to cite anything on his authority." "His Traditions
are to be rejected," said Abú Hátim ar-Rázi. According to Zakariya Ibn
Yahya as-Sáji, people said of Mukátil Ibn Suláimán, the native of
Khorásán, "that he was a liar, and that his traditions should be
rejected."[377]
[Sidenote: Ikrama.]
Ikrama (died 107 A.H.), another liar, had only surmised before Mukátil
that Mohammad might have admired Zeinab. His words, as related by the
traditionists, Abd bin Hamíd and Ibn-al-Munzar, are "as if she had
fallen deep in his mind."[378] But Mukátil has converted this hazardous
conjecture into a fact.
Abd Allah Ibn al-Harith relates as follows:--
"I went to visit Ali, the son of Abd Alláh Ibu Abbás, and I saw
Ikrama tied up at the door of a privy, on which I said: 'Is it thus
that you treat your slave?' To which he replied. 'Know that that
fellow has told lies of my father.'"[379]
[Sidenote: Mohammad bin Yahya.]
Mohammad bin Yahya bin Habbán[380] (died 121 A.H.) has also given the
tradition of Mohammad's admiring Zeinab at Zeid's house, but does not
give his authority. He was not a contemporary narrator, therefore his
narration is apocryphal and technically _Mursal_.
[Sidenote: Katádá's conjectural interpretation not warranted.]
25. All these silly fables, wild romances, and scandalous conjectures
have their origin in Katáda's improper interpretation of these words,
"and thou didst hide in thy mind what God would bring to light" (Sura
XXXIII, 37). Katáda (died 117 A.H.) conjectured that the Prophet
concealed his desire that Zeid should divorce Zeinab. But all other
authors[381] have found fault with Katáda in his surmise, which is not
supported by any word in the text or by any contemporary evidence. This
interpretation of Katáda is contradicted by the very words of Mohammad
to Zeid in the same verse: "Keep thy wife to thyself and fear God."
[Sidenote: Other conjectures.]
26. Many have been the conjectures as to what did Mohammad hide in his
mind. There is one by Katáda already explained. Another is this, that he
knew Zeid would divorce her, but concealing this in his mind, he
interdicted Zeid from doing so. A third conjecture is this, that he
concealed in his mind that if Zeid, contrary to his (Mohammad's) advice,
were to divorce her (Zeinab), he (Mohammad) would marry her. These
conjectures are all far-fetched and arbitrary, but it appears more
probable that the social inharmony and domestic disturbances between
Zeid and Zeinab, and their resolve of separation, were withheld from the
public by Mohammad, fearing the scandal it might give rise to among his
enemies. This is the only secret referred to in the verse so often
cited.
[Footnote 336: _Annals of the Early Caliphate_. By Sir W. Muir,
K.C.S.I., LL.D., D.C.L., page 75, London, 1883.]
[Footnote 337: "It is to ransom the captive."--XC, 13.
"There is no piety in turning your faces towards the east or the west,
but he is pious who believeth in God and the Last Day, and the Angels
and the Scriptures and the Prophets; who for the love of God disburseth
his wealth to his kindred and to the orphans and the needy, and the
wayfarer and those who ask; and for ransoming," &c.--II, 172.]
[Footnote 338: "And to those of your slaves who desire a deed of
_manumission_, execute it for them, if ye know good in them, and give
them a portion of the wealth of God which He hath given you. Force not
your female slaves into sin, in order that ye may gain he casual
fruitions of this world, if they wish to preserve their modesty. Yet if
any one compel them, then verily, after their compulsion, will God be
Forgiving, Merciful."--XXIV, 33.]
[Footnote 339: "A believer killeth not a believer but by mischance: and
whoso killeth a believer by mischance shall be bound to free a believer
from slavery," &c.--IV, 94.]
[Footnote 340: "And those who _thus_ put away their wives, and
afterwards would recall their words, must free a captive before they can
come together _again_," &c.--LVIII, 4.]
[Footnote 341: "But alms are only _to be given_ to the poor and the
needy, and those who collect them, and to those whose hearts are won _to
Islam_, and for ransoming and for debtors, and for the cause of God, and
the wayfarer," &c.--IX, 60.]
[Footnote 342: "God will not punish you for a mistaken word in your
oaths; but He will punish you in regard to an oath taken seriously. Its
expiation shall be to feed ten poor persons with such middling _food_ as
ye feed your families with, or to clothe them; or to set free a captive:
but he who cannot find the means shall fast three days. This is the
expiation of your oaths when ye have sworn. Keep then your oaths. Thus
God maketh his signs clear to you. Haply ye will be thankful."--V, 91.]
[Footnote 343: _Vide_ Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 223.]
[Footnote 344: According to Hishámi, p. 745, a party of fifty or forty
Koreish went round about Mohammad's camp at Hodeibia, seeking to cut off
any stray followers; and having attacked the camp itself with stones and
arrows, they were caught and taken to Mohammad, who pardoned and
released them.--_Vide_ Muir's Life of Mahomet, IV, p. 31, _f.n._; and
Moslim's collection of genuine traditions _Kitab-ul Jihad vas-Siyar_,
chapter on _Tanfeel_ and _Ransom_.]
[Footnote 345: All the prisoners of Hawázin at Honain were released
without taking any ransom and were not made slaves. See Muir's Life of
Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 148-149. That Mohammad had presented three female
slaves to Ali, Othman, and Omar from the captives of Bard Hawázin, as
stated by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, p. 149, is void of all truth. The
captives were not enslaved. They were mere prisoners, as Sir W. Muir
himself calls them so (_ibid_, pp. 148-149); yet he styles these three
of them "female slaves." The captives together with the captured camp
were removed to the valley of Jierána, pending negotiations (_ibid_, p.
142). At the end of the negotiations the prisoners were released. Thus
there could be no distribution of prisoners to anyone.]
[Footnote 346: Sir W. Muir writes:--"Hishámee says that from the time of
Kheibar _slaves_ became very plentiful among the Moslems, p. 333. I do
not find that, excepting the family of Kinâna, any mention is made of
slaves taken at Kheibar. But money, which the victors obtained
plentifully at Kheibar, could purchase them cheaply in any part of
Arabia." (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 73-74, and _footnote_.) But
the word originally used by Hishamee, "_sabaya_," means captives and
property captured, and not slaves, though captives, if not ransomed,
were used to be made slaves under the Arab International Law. Besides
this even the family of Kinána was never enslaved. Kinána was taken
captive and executed, because he had killed Mahamúd bin Muslama. _Vide_
para. 75 of this book. The story that Mohammad immediately on Kinána's
execution sent for her and cast his mantle over her, signifying that she
was to be his own, and consummated his marriage with her, and that her
dower was her freedom (_vide_ Muir, _ibid_, pp. 68-69), is not genuine
and authentic. His family, by which is meant Sofia and her cousin, was
not enslaved, and there is no tradition, genuine or apocryphal, to
corroborate it. I here take the opportunity of quoting a speech ascribed
to Mohammad while addressing Sofia, the widow of Kinána, copied by Abul
Mo'tamar Soleiman (died A.H. 143) in his "Campaigns of Mohammad."
Mohammad addressed her thus:--"I give thee choice either of Islam, or of
Judaism. If thou acceptest Islam, perhaps I may keep thee for myself.
But if thou preferest Judaism, I may perhaps liberate thee, and join
thee to thy family." _Vide_ Wákidi's "Campaigns of Mohammad," page 393,
Calcutta, 1856. This speech shows amply that Mohammad had no intention
of enslaving Sofia.
The story of Mohammad's marriage with Sofia after her being given to and
purchased from Dihya, emanates from Anas, who cannot be relied upon.
Anas had very recently been associated with Mohammad. He entered
Mohammad's service only the other day when he started for the expedition
of Khyber, and was but a boy only a dozen-years old at that time. It is
related by Bokhari from Anas himself, who said that the Prophet had
asked Abu Tulhah to get him a boy to serve him during the Khyber
expedition. So he took me to him, and I was a boy close to maturity
(_Bokhari-Kitabul Jihad_). Anas has given two contradictory accounts
about Sofia; in one he says, "Dihya asked Mohammad's permission for a
captive girl, and took Sofia. When Mohammad heard about Sofia, he asked
Dihya to take another one; and having liberated Sofia married her, and
her freedom was her dower." In another tradition, Anas relates that
"Sofia fell to the lot of Dihya, and Mohammad purchased her from him for
seven camels." He says:--"The people did not know whether he had married
her, or had made her a concubine-slave, but when she rode on a camel,
and Mohammad put veil round her, the people knew from this that she was
his wife." Both these traditions are narrated from Anas by Moslem in his
_Saheeh_ (Book on Marriage).
The idea that Mohammad married Sofia under the circumstances noted above
is not satisfactorily established. It was only the fancy of the people,
or was a conjecture of Anas. Yet Sir W. Muir has the effrontery to
remark against Mohammad that: "Indeed, he is not free from the suspicion
of being influenced in the destruction of Kinána by the desire of
obtaining his wife." (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 68,
_footnote_.) Kinána was executed for killing Mahmood bin Muslama, and
Sofia was neither enslaved nor married by Mohammad. Even if it be shown
that Mohammad married her afterwards under some other circumstances, it
(Sir W. Muir's presumption) is an idle guess unwarranted by any
reasonable argument.
The traditionists, Anas and others, have probably confounded Sofia, the
aunt of Mohammad, who was with him during the expedition of Khyber
(_vide_ Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 66, _footnote_), with
Kinána's widow of the same name, whom they fancied Mohammad might have
married and carried with him on the same camel. The lady for whom
Mohammad lowered his knee to help her to ascend the camel (_ibid_, page
70) was most probably Sofia, his aunt.]
[Footnote 347: Vol. III, pp. 278-279.]
[Footnote 348: _Vide_ The Biographical Dictionary of Persons who knew
Mohammad, by Ibn Hajar. In _Biblotheca Indica_. A collection of oriental
Series, published by the Asiatic Society, Bengal, No. 215, Vol. IV.
Fasciculus 7, Calcutta, 1866; Art. Rehana, No. 444.]
[Footnote 349: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 278.]
[Footnote 350: "The days of Ignorance, that is, the period preceding
Islam."]
[Footnote 351: "Two such are named by Tabari, I, page 248."
"A light ransom was fixed for each Arab slave--seven camels and six
young ones. In the case of some tribes which had suffered most severely
(as the Beni Hanifa, the Beni Kinda, and the people of Omán discomfited
at Dabá) even this was remitted."
Annals of Early Caliphate. By Sir W. Muir, K.C.S.I., LL.D., D.C.L.,
London, 1883, pp. 63, 64.]
[Footnote 352: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 56.]
[Footnote 353: _Ibid_, page 57, footnote.]
[Footnote 354: _Vide_ Hishamee, page 972.]
[Footnote 355: _Ibid_, page 971.]
[Footnote 356: _Vide Takrib_ by Ibn Hajar.]
[Footnote 357: _Vide_ History of Muhammad's Campaigns by Wákidi; edited
by Von Kremer, Calcutta, 1856, from p. 360 to the end.]
[Footnote 358: Vol. III, page 62.]
[Footnote 359: _Vide_ Mizán-ul-Etedál by Zahabí.]
[Footnote 360: _Vide_ Nos. 976, 977, and 978 in the Biographical
Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammad, by Ibn Hajar, published by the
Asiatic Society, Bengal, Calcutta, 1870, Vol. IV, pp. 779, 780, and
781.]
[Footnote 361: _Vide_ Mizán, by Zahabí.]
[Footnote 362: "An eclipse of the sun occurred on the same day, and the
people spoke of it as a tribute to the death of the Prophet's son. A
vulgar impostor would have accepted and confirmed the delusion; but
Mahomet rejected the idea."--"The Life of Mahomet" by Sir W. Muir, Vol.
IV, page 166.]
[Footnote 363: "Meaning the company of his female slave."]
[Footnote 364: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 161 and 162.
Taking concubine-slaves was an established and recognized institution of
the Arab society, until Mohammad abolished it. Practically the custom
has prevailed up to the present time. No blame attached to such
alliances in the social system of the Arabs. "The Caliphs of the House
of Abbas were all of them the children of concubines except as--Saffah,
Al-Mahdi, and Al-Amin" (History of Caliphs. By Sayúte. Translated by
Major Jarret, page 20, Calcutta, 1880). If the story regarding Mohammad
be true, there was no fear of exposure or offending the wives.]
[Footnote 365: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, Introduction, page ciii.]
[Footnote 366: "The Calcutta Review," Feby. 1868, page 374.]
[Footnote 367: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 160.]
[Footnote 368: Zeid bin Aslam (in _Tabrani_), who narrates the story,
though he does not mention Maria, is a Tábaee (died A.H. 136), and does
not quote his authority. Besides, his authority itself is impeached;
_vide_ Ibn Adi in his Kámal.
Masrook (in Saeed bin Mansoor) only came to Medina long after Mohammad's
death; therefore his narration, even if it be genuine, is not reliable.
Zohak Ibn Muzahim (in _Tabrani_), also a Tábaee and of impeached
authority, narrates it from Ibn Abbás, but he never heard any tradition
from him, nor had he even seen him (_vide Mzàn-ul-Etedal_, by Zahabi,
and _Ansáb_, by Sam-áni). His narration must be hence considered as
apocryphal.
The ascription of Ibn Omar's (died 73 A.H.) story, not strictly to the
point, is untrustworthy.
Abu Hurera's narration is also admitted as apocryphal; _vide
Dur-rul-mansoor_, by Soyutí.
All these traditions are noted by Soyutí in his _Dur-rul-mansoor_.
The tradition by Nasáee (died 303 A.H.) from Anas (died 90 A.H.)
regarding the affair of a slave is equally contradicted by the tradition
from Ayesha, the widow of the Prophet, narrated by the traditionist
Nasáee in the same place of his collection of traditions. This is the
story of the honey. _Vide_ para. 16, _ubi supra_. Ayesha's tradition is
more trustworthy than that of Anas. Hammád bin Salma, a narrator in the
ascription of Anas, has been impeached owing to the confusion of his
memory in the later days of his life (_vide Tekreeb_). Sabit, another
link in the same chain, was a story-teller by profession (_vide Zahabi's
Tabakát_,) and cannot be depended upon. And Nasáee himself has rejected
the tradition ascribed to Anas, and is reported to have said that
Ayesha's tradition has good ascription, while there is nothing valid in
that regarding Maria; _vide_ Kamálain's Annotations on _Jelálain in
loco_.]
[Footnote 369: The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 310.]
[Footnote 370: _Ibid_, Vol. III, page 228, and _footnote_ at pp. 229 and
230.]
[Footnote 371: The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, page 228. The
_italics_ are mine.]
[Footnote 372: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 229. The tradition
quoted by Sir W. Muir in this page is apocryphal and technically
_Mursal_.]
[Footnote 373: _Ibid_, p. 230.]
[Footnote 374: "(T.A.) _he made_ [a thing] _lawful_, or _allowable_, to
him (Jel in XXXIII, 38, and Kull in page 275 and T.A.*) relating to a
case into which a man has brought himself (Kull): this is said to be the
meaning when the phrase occurs in the Kur:" An Arabic-English Lexicon,
by Edward William Lane, page 2375.]
[Footnote 375: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 231.]
[Footnote 376: Vide _Seerat Halabi_; or, _Insan-ul-Oyoon_, Vol. II, page
402.]
[Footnote 377: Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary, Vol. III, pp.
409-410.]
[Footnote 378: Vide _Dur-rul-mansoor_, by Sayútí, _in loco_.]
[Footnote 379: Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary, Vol. II, page
207.]
[Footnote 380: Narrated by Ibn Sád and Hákim.]
[Footnote 381: _Vide_ Abdur Razzák. Abd bin Hamíd, Ibn Jarír,
Ibn-al-Monzar, Ibn Abi Hátim, and Tabráni's Collections of Traditions.]
Appendix C.
The references to the particular events and circumstances relating to
the defensive wars mentioned in the Koran, quoted and referred by me in
this work, may be classified as follows:--
I.--The Persecutions of the Koreish at Mecca (B.H. 10-1).
Sura xvi, 43, 44, 111.
Sura ii, 210, 214, 215.
Sura iii, 194.
Sura iv, 97, 99, 100.
Sura xxii, 57.
Sura lx, 8, 9.
Sura xlvii, 14.
Sura xlviii, 25.
Sura ix, 40, 48, 95.
II.--The Aggressions of the Koreish at Medina, as well as those of the
Inhabitants thereof (A.H. 10).
Sura ii, 214; Sura viii, 72; Sura ix, 13, 48, 72.
III. The Wars of Defence against the Koreish and the Arabs, &c., with
several References to their Aggressions (A.H. 1-8).
Sura xxii, 39-42.
Sura ii, 186-189, 214, 215, 245, 247, 252.
Sura iv, 76-78, 86, 91, 93.
Sura viii, 19, 39-41, 58-66, 73, 74.
Sura ix, 10, 13.
IV.--The Various Battles, &c.
(1) _The Battle of Badr_ (A.H. 2).
Sura iii, 11, 119;
Sura viii, 5-19, 39-52, 66-72;
Sura xlvii, 4, 15.
(2) _The Battle of Ohad_ (A.H. 3).
Sura iii, 117-122;
134-154;
159-162.
(3) _The Second Battle of Badr_ (A.H. 4), and _The Expulsion
of the Bani Nazeer_ (A.H. 4).
Sura iii, 167; and
Sura lix, 2-14.
(4) _The Battle of Ahzáb_ (A.H. 5).
Sura xxxiii, 9-25.
(5) _The Jews, Bani Koreiza, &c._ (A.H. 5).
Sura viii, 58-66;
Sura xxxiii, 26-27.
(6) _The pilgrimic Expedition to Hodeibia_ (A.H. 6).
Sura xlviii, 1-3, 10, 11, 24, 25;
Sura lx.
(7) _The Expedition to Khyber_ (A.H. 7).
Sura xlviii, 17, 20-22.
(8) _The breach of the truce of Hodeibia by the Koreish_
(A.H. 8).
(_a_) Before the Conquest of Mecca.
Sura ix, 1-15.
(_b_) After the Conquest of Mecca,
Sura ix, 16-24.
(9) _The Battle of Honain_ (A.H. 8).
Sura ix, 25-27.
(10) _After the Battle of Honain_ (A.H. 9).
Sura ix, 28.
(11) _The Expedition to Tabuk against the Christians
(Romans) and their Jewish Allies_ (A.H. 9).
(_a_) Exhortation to go to war in defence.
Sura ix, 29-41, 124.
(_b_) Backwardness reproached.
42-52, 56-57, 82-90.
(_c_) Exhortations for contribution.
53-55, 58-60, 81.
(_d_) The disaffected chided.
65-76, 121, 122, 125-130.
(_e_) The Bedouins reprobated.
91-102.
(_f_) The penitents forgiven.
103-107, 118.
_THE END._
INDEX.
A.
Aámir, lii.
Aamir bin Tofeil, chief of Bani Aamir, xlvi.
Abbas, 34.
Abd-bin Hamid, 109 _f.n._, 222.
Abd bin Kosayy, xxxiii.
Abd Monat, xvii _f.n._
Abd Shams, xxviii, 7.
Abdel Malik ibn Hisham, 72 _f.n._, 73 _f.n._
Abd-ud-Dar, xxxiii.
Abd-ul-Kays, xlvi, lii.
Abdul Hamid, 206, 208.
Abdul Rahman, Mohammad's instruction to him, xxvii.
Abdullah, 96, 97.
Abdullah bin Abdur Rahaman bin Abi Sasta, 206, 208.
Abdullah bin al Harith, 222.
Abdullah bin Jahsh, 31, 56.
Abdullah bin Khalal, 96.
Abdullah bin Omar, 68 _f.n._
Abdullah ibn Abbas, 135.
Abdullah ibn Masood, 79, 80.
Abdullah ibn Oneis, 69, 73.
Abdullah ibn Rawáha, 72, 102.
Abdullah ibn Shuburma, ibn Tufail ad Dubbi, 136.
Abdullah ibn Zubair, 135.
Abdur Razzak, 110 _f.n._
Abs, xxxiv, xli, xlii, xlvi.
Abû Abd-ur-Rahman Abdullah ibn Omar ibn-al Khattab, 135.
Abu Abd-ur Rahman an Nasai, 221.
Abu Afak, 61, 64, 65.
Abu Avana, 210.
Abu Bakr, vi, lix, 9, 179.
Abu Bakr al Ajurri, 221.
Abu Barda, 83.
Abu Basir, 98, 99, 101.
Abu Bera Amr ibn Malik, a chief of Bani Aamir, xlvi.
Abu Cobeis, 6.
Abu Daood, his book of Jihad, 71 _f.n._, 78 _f.n._, 79, 80 _f.n._,
96, 133, 207.
Abu Hattim, 207, 209.
Abu Hurera, 215.
Abu Jahl, 7, 55.
Abu Naeem, 78.
Abu Obeida, 107.
Abu Omar-ad-Damishki, 68 _f.n._
Abu Omar-al-Madni, 107.
Abu Rafe, chief of the Bani Nazeer, 61, 71-72.
Abu Sofian, viii, 7, 11, 14, 31, 32, 34, 53, 55, 56, 74, 75, 76;
attempted assassination of, 61.
Abu Talib, 6;
his death, 7.
Abu Yola, xxii.
Abu Zara, 208.
Abul Bakhtari, 34.
Abul Hukeik, the chief of Bani Nazeer, 39.
Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman, 89, 197, 200, 206.
Abul Ozza, 76, 80, 81.
Abwa, Expedition of, 29, 56.
Abyssinia, The emigration of the Moslems to, v, xxxiii, 5;
the two emigrations of, 11;
Nadhir ibn Hareth's flight to, 78, 179.
Age, The Apostolic, 109.
Ahl Hadis, 160.
Ahmas, liii.
Ahmed bin Hanbal, 221.
Ahmed ibn Abi Daood, 113.
Ahmed Khan, Syed;
his Commentary of the Koran, 95 _f.n._
Ahzab, vii, xxii, xxiii, 10, 197.
Ainee, a Commentary of the Hedaya, 125, 132, 134 _f.n._
Ajtahada, 164.
Ajtahada fil Amr, 164.
Akhnas, 99.
Al-Aamash, 135.
Al-Amaran, 182.
Al-Amin, 212 _f.n._
Al-Auzai, 135.
Ali, 9, 80, 196.
Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas, 68.
Al-Is, 57.
Al-Lat, 7.
Allah, 38.
Allauddin Al Haskafi, 170
Almotarrazi, 164.
Al-Mamun, Khalif, 136.
Al Yafi, 136.
Amalekites, 153.
Amar, commissioned to fight with Abu Sofian, 74, 81, 219.
Amar-bin-Dinar, 134, 135, 136.
Ameer Ali, Moulvie, quoted, 90.
Amr, 64.
Amr bin Saasaa, xxxiv, xli.
Amru ibn Omerga, 75.
Anaza, lii.
Annajmus Saqib (star of piercing radiance), xxxvi.
Annals of the Eastern Caliphate quoted, 193, 202.
Ans, 93 _f.n._, 136, 197-198, 215.
Ans bin Qizi, 89.
Ansab, 215.
Ansars, people of Medina, 32, 41.
Apartment, The (Sura), 188.
Arabs, their society, ii, 26;
pagan, 125.
Arafat, xlviii.
Arqam, Mohammad sought refuge in the house of, xxxiii.
Asad, xii, xiii, xxxiii, xlvi, lii.
Asas of Zamakhshire, 163 _f.n._, 164.
Ashar, xvi.
Ashja, xii, xiii, xlii, xliii, xlv.
Ashraf, 66.
Asim, 80.
Aslam, xliii.
Asma bint Marwán, 61, 62-64.
Assemblies of Ali Hariri, translated by Thomas Chenry, 169.
As Sauri, 137.
As Shabi, 136.
Astromancy of the Jinns, xxxvi.
Ata, 68, 116 _f.n._, 134.
Ata ibn Abi Rabah, 135.
Autas, xxiii, 16.
Aws Allah, xxxix.
Aws Tribes (The), xxxix, xlii, xliv.
Ayesha, 215, 216.
Ayla, the Christian chief, xix.
Azd, xlv, lii.
Azdite Tribes (The), xxxix, xlv.
Azhar, 99.
Azruh, The Jews of, xix.
B.
Badr, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xxii, xli, xlii, 10;
the battle of, 11, 32, 34;
Nadhir executed at, 78, 110 _f.n._, 170, 181, 196.
Baghdad, 221.
Baghvi, 214.
Bahrein, li.
Baihakee, his traditions, 114.
Balca, 40.
Balkh, 22.
Bahila, lii.
Bahra, lii.
Bajila, lii.
Bakka, xxxiv, lii.
Bakr, xvii, xxviii, xli, xlii, lii, 15, 22, 53.
Bali, xlvi, liv.
Bariq, liv.
Baus, Meaning of, xxi.
Bir Mauna, xii.
Boas, Battle of, xlii.
Bokharee, xxii, 96, 134, 199, 207.
C.
Calcutta Review (The) quoted, 213.
Campaigns of Mohammad by Wackidi, 78 _f.n._, 102, 197, 198.
Canaan, 140.
Canaanites, 153.
Capitation-tax, 120, 159.
Cattle, The (Sura), 183.
Caussin de Perceval, xxvii.
Cazenove, Dr., xxvii.
Chaldean, xxxv.
Chenry, Thomas, quoted, 169.
Chosroes, 140.
Christians, 141, 142, 147, 157.
Code, The Hanafee, 137, 159.
Commentary of the Koran, 154.
Commentary on International Law, xxx.
Concubinage not allowed by the Koran, 193;
of Rihana with the Prophet not proved, 201;
of Maria the Coptic, 204-211;
of Haphsa and Maria, 211.
Coppée's (Henry) History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arabs quoted, xxix.
Corinthians, 1, vii, 12-16; vii, 15, 112.
Cow, The (Sura), 181.
Creator, The (Sura), 181.
Cushite Tribes (The), xxxv.
Cyrus, 145.
D.
Dahis, The war of, xli.
Daniel, The Book of, xxxv.
Daree, liv.
Dar-ul-Harb, 157, 158.
Dar-ul-Islam, 157, 158.
David, 152.
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, xxiv.
Descriptive Astronomy by Chambers quoted, xxxvi.
Deutronomy, xx, 20, 110.
Ditto, xx, 10-17, 152.
Ditto, xxi, 153.
Ditto, vi, 5, 178.
Dhumra, 30.
Dictionary, Biographical, by Ibn Khallikan quoted, 135-137, 206, 230.
Dictionary, Biographical, of persons who knew Mohammad, 208.
Dihya sent by Mohammad to the Roman Emperor, xiii, 197.
Ditch, Battle of the, 13, 35.
Dods, Dr., quoted, lx, lxxiii, lxxxiii.
Dous, xlv.
Duma, The Christian chief of, xix, 12.
Dumatal Jandal, xii.
Dur-rul-Mansoor, 215.
Dur-rul-Mukhtár, 170.
Dzu Nowâs, xxxix.
E.
Early Caliphate and rise of Islam, by Sir W. Muir, 140.
Egypt, 140;
Governor of, 205, 206.
Exodus, xxiii, 27-33, 151.
Extraordinary Popular Delusions, by Charles Mackay, quoted, xxxviii.
F.
Fadak, 15 _f.n._, 39.
Fakhr-ud-deen Razi, 178.
Faraza, 219.
Farwa, liv.
Fasád, The war of, xliii.
Fayoomee, Author of Misbahel Moneer, 164.
Females in connection with the treaty of Hodeibia, 110-112.
Fezara, xiii, xxxiv, xlii, xlv, xlvi, liv, 35, 39;
executed by Abu Rafe, 71.
Fitnah (Persecutions), ii, xvii, 17, 18, 44, 45, 122, 133.
Fluegel, Translation of the Koran by, 120.
Forbidding, The (Sura), 185.
Freeman, Dr., quoted, 140, 141.
Fruit-trees, 109-110.
Furkan, 177.
Fyrozabadee, 163 _f.n._
G.
Ghaba, Al, 93.
Ghafiq, liv.
Ghanim, liv.
Ghassan, The tribes of, xxxiv, xlii, xlvi, liv.
Ghassanide, Prince at Bostra (The), xxxix, 16, 139.
Ghatafan, xii, xiii, xli, 12, 35, 39;
tribes of, 72, 89.
Ghaus, xliii.
Ghazavat, Meaning of the word, xxi.
Ghifar, xliii.
Ghussan, 40.
Gibbon quoted, xxiv, 26, 49 _f.n._
Green, The Revd. Samuel, quoted, xxiii-xxiv.
H.
Habbar, 113 _f.n._
Hafasa, xxxiv.
Hafiz Ishmael ibn Kaseer-al-Qarashi, 214.
Hakeem-bin-Hizam, 114.
Halabi, 30;
Insan-al-Oyoon of, 91;
quoted and refuted, 129-132.
Hall's (William Edward) International Law, xxix.
Hallam, lxiii, lxv.
Hamadan, liv.
Hammad bin Salma, 215.
Hamra, Abul Ozza caught at, 81, 82.
Hamza, 29, 55.
Hanafee Code (The), 137, 159.
Hanifa, xxxiv, xxxix, liv, lv, 203.
Haphsa, 211.
Harb (Warfare), 163.
Harb-fijar, Battle of, xli.
Haris, xxxiii, xxxiv, xlii, lv, 48 _f.n._, 64, 106.
Harith of Najrân, xxxix.
Harith ibn Amir, 34.
Hashim, xxxiv, 34.
Hashimites (The), xxxiii, 6.
Hatib's story, 187.
Hawazin, xlii, xliii, xlvi, xlviii, 16, 39, 86, 196.
Hazaramaut, li.
Hedaya (The), 116;
quoted, 117, 118, 120, 125.
Hegira (The), 8.
Hilal bin Amr, bin Saasaa, lv.
Hims, 40.
Himyar, xliii, xlvi, lv.
Himyarite stock, xlv.
Hinzala Tribe (The), xxxiv.
Hira, The Kingdom of, xli.
Hisham, 34.
Hishami, xxxiii, 74, 81 _f.n._, 89, 196, 197, 200.
Hisham-bin-Abdul Malik, 206.
History and Conquest of the Saracens quoted, 140, 141.
History of European Morals quoted, 105.
History of Mohammadanism (The), quoted, xxviii.
History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arabs, xxix.
History, The Jewish, 152.
Hodeibia, Truce of, xi, xiv;
violation of the truce, xvi, xxvi, xliii, xlix, 15, 22, 86;
one of the articles of the treaty of Hodeibia, 99;
females in connection with it, 110, 196.
Honain, xviii, xxii, xlvii, 16;
Nadhir ibn Harith present at the Battle of, 78, 86, 196.
Horne, T.H., 151.
Hughes, The Revd. T.P., quoted, 154.
Huweisa, 106, 107.
I.
Ibn Abbas;
his evidence, 68, 96, 113, 215.
Ibn Abdeen, 127.
Ibn Abi Yahya, 221.
Ibn Adi, 215.
Ibn Al Athir, 30, 164 _f.n._
Ibn Ky-yim, 100.
Ibn al Mosayyib, 68.
Ibn Attiah, 170.
Ibn Hajr al Askalani, 63, 206, 208;
quoted and refuted, 128, 129.
Ibn Hisham, xv, xxii, xxxvi, xlvii, 30, 63, 64, 68 _f.n._, 69, 71, 74,
78, 80, 82, 86, 91, 92, 93 _f.n._, 102, 106, 107, 109 _f.n._,
207, 214.
Ibn Ishak, xxii, 30, 64, 69, 71, 73, 74, 79, 80, 91, 93 _f.n._, 100,
106, 109 _f.n._, 206, 207.
Ibn Jarir Tabari, 93 _f.n._
Ibn Khaldun, 90.
Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary quoted, 136 _f.n._, 137, 206,
220.
Ibn Maja, 113, 207.
Ibn Manda, 78.
Ibn Mardaveih, 93 _f.n._, 109 _f.n._
Ibn Mas-ood, 79, 80.
Ibn Mokrram, 163 _f.n._
Ibn Ockba, 109 _f.n._
Ibn Omar, 215.
Ibn Omeya, 74.
Ibn Sad Katib Wakidi, xxii, 63, 69, 74, 75, 78, 114, 206, 208, 210.
Ibn Saniua, 106, 107.
Ibn Sayyad al Nas, 89.
Ibn Shahab, 113.
Ibn Shobormah, 134.
Ibn Sirni, 136.
Ibn Sofian, 114.
Ibrahim, 80.
Ibrahim, the son of Mohammad, 209, 210.
Ibrahim bin Maisura, 68 _f.n._
Ibrahim ibn Yakub al Juz Jani, 221.
Idolatry, Mohammad's abhorence of, 6.
Ignorance, Time of, 87, 169, 202.
Ikrama bin Abi Jahl, his lying character, 68, 113, 222.
Imam (The), 117;
the Mujtahid, 136, 206.
Immunity, The (Sura), 185, 188, 189, 190, 191.
Insan-ul-Oyoon, 30, 80 _f.n._, 81 _f.n._, 91 _f.n._, 102,
129, 131 _f.n._
International Law, by W.E. Hall, quoted, xxix.
Intolerance of the Koreish, 8;
allegation on Mohammad, xxxi, 42, 51.
Introduction of the Book, p. i.
Introduction of the critical study and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, by
T.H. Horne, quoted, 151, 152.
Irak, 221.
Irshadussari, 170.
Irving, W., quoted, 74.
Islam, the first propagation at Mecca, xxxii-xli;
the impediments it received on account of internecine wars, xl.
Islam under the Arabs, by Major R.D. Osborn, quoted, 146, 148.
Islami poets, 165, 169.
Israel, 152.
Israelites commanded to slay the Canaanites, 151.
Istizan, 38.
J.
Jaad, lv.
Jaafir bin Kelab ibn Rabia, lv.
Jabir, xxii.
Jabir ibn Abdullah, 68, 135.
Jabra, The Jews of, xix.
Jadila, xliii.
Jafar, 206, 208.
Jahad, 170, 192.
Jahada, 163, 166, 170, 191.
Jahada fil Amr, 163.
Jahada fi Sabeel Allah, 164, 170.
Jahadaka, 166, 173.
Jahadoo, 166, 173, 179, 180, 181, 182, 188, 189, 191.
Jahd, 166, 167, 170, 181, 183.
Jahid, 166, 173, 185.
Jahid-hom, 166.
Jahidoo, 166, 173, 175, 176, 180.
Jahili, 165, 168.
Jálút (Goliath), 152.
Jarret's (Major) Translation of History of Caliphs by Sayúte, 212.
Jazima, 87.
Jedda, The abode of Bani Ashar, xlv.
Jeifer bin al Jalandi, lvi.
Jelalud-Deen Mahalli, 213.
Jews (The) of Medina, iv, 34-40, 73;
excited to take up arms by Nueim, 107, 125, 139, 141, 142, 147, 157.
Jierana, The valley of, 196.
Jihad, The popular, 114-161;
meaning defined, 155;
does not mean war or crusade, 163;
classical meaning of Jihad, &c., 163;
post-classical or technical meaning of Jihad, 164;
the classical tongue and Arabian poets, 165;
the conjugation and declination of Jahd and Jihad, 166;
the number of instances in which they occur in the Koran, 166;
in what sense they are used in the Koran, 167;
conventional significations of, 168;
Mohammadan commentators quoted, 170;
when the word 'Jihad' was diverted from its original signification to its
figurative meaning, of waging religious war, 170;
all the verses of the Koran containing the word Jihad and its derivatives
quoted and explained, 171-192.
Jihádan, 164, 170, 175, 186.
Jinn, Tribe of, xxxiv-xxxviii.
Jizya, 35.
Johd, 167, 169.
Joheina, xlii, xliii, xlvi, lvi.
Jomahites (The), xxxiii.
Joshua, 141, 153.
Jouhari, 163 _f.n._, 164.
Judzam, xiii, xlvi, 40.
Jufi, lvi.
Juzam, _see_ Judzam.
K.
Kaaba, viii;
Moslems prevented from, xlv, 5, 139;
stripped of its idols, xlix, l.
Kab, xxxiv, lvi.
Kab bin Yahooza, 107.
Kab ibn Ashraf, 61, 66-68, 106.
Kahins, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxviii;
Kahinite stock (The), xlv.
Kahlanite stock, xxxix, xlv, xlvi.
Kainuka, xlii, 34, 35.
Kalb, xxxiv, lvi.
Katib Wakidi, xlvi.
Kent's Commentary on International Law, xxx.
Khalid ibn Waleed, 87, 193.
Khasafa, xlvi.
Khas-am bin Ammar, lvi.
Khaulan, lvi.
Khazraj tribes, xxxix, xlii, xliv.
Khozaá, xii, xvi, xvii, xliii, 123.
Khozeimah, xxxiv.
Khushain, xlv.
Khyber, xiii, xviii, xxii, xxiii, 37 _f.n._
Kifaya, 122, 125.
Kiláb, lii.
Kinana, Tortures of, lvi, 95;
Bani, lii.
Kinda, xxxiv, xlii, lvi.
Kitab-ul-Maghazi, xxii.
Kital (Warfare), 163, 192, 193.
Koostlánee, his Commentary of Bokharee, xxii, 92, 93, 170.
Koran does not enjoin compulsory conversion, xxxi.
everywhere preaches tolerance of every religion, xxxii.
Koreish, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xxiv, xxxiii, xxxix;
the heavy persecutions of, l;
their embassy to the Court of Abyssinia, 5;
send scouts to search for Mohammad, 9;
their severity to fugitives, _id._;
their maltreatment of children and women, _id._;
become more and more hostile, 11;
joined by the Bani Mustalik, 12;
their anxiety to postpone hostilities, 13;
besiege Medina once more, 14;
violate the treaty of Hodeibia, xvi, 15;
their intolerance, 27;
excited to take up arms by Nueim, an Arab, 101, 139, 187.
Koreishite persecution, xxxiv;
caravans alleged to be intercepted, 55, 56, 57.
Koreiza, The Jewish tribes of, xiii, xix, xxii, xlii, 14, 34;
execution of, 87-94, 196-200.
Kotelu, 156.
Koukabi Durrari Sharah, 68.
Kozaáite Tribe (The), xliii, xlvi.
Kufa, 136;
the abode of Bani Shaitan, xxxiv.
Kulab, xlii.
Kunniat (patronymic), 208.
Kurz-bin-Jabir, a Koreish, commits a raid upon Medina, xi, 11, 92.
Kustalani, _vide_ Koostalanee.
L.
La-Arjomonnaka (I will assuredly say of thee), xxxviii.
Lahyan, xii, 12, 69.
Lakhm, 40.
Lane, E.W., quoted, 137-138 _f.n._, 168-169.
Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, xxxviii, 163 _f.n._, 164, 167, 200, 219.
La-taatadú (do not attack first), xxvii.
Law, The common, in connection with Jihad, 116-117;
its commentators, 119-120, 158.
Law of Moses (The), 110, 140.
Law of Scriptural interpretations;
limited or conditional, general or absolute, 118.
Law of the Koran with regard to unbelievers, 111.
Law, The Mohammadan Revealed, or the Koran, 159.
Lecky, his standard of Morality, 104-105.
Lecture, The Rede, quoted, 140.
Leena, 110.
Legists, The early Moslem, against Jihad, 134;
their biographical sketches, 135-137.
Leith, 15 _f.n._
Lieber Francis quoted, 33, 76, 88;
on Military necessity, 104.
Life of Mahomet, founder of the Religion of Islamism, by the Revd. S. Green,
xxiv.
Life of Mohammad by Dr. Sprenger quoted, xxiv.
Light, The (Sura), 185.
Lisanul-Arab of Ibn Mokarram, 163.
Loghat, or The Classical Tongue of Arabia, 165.
Lokman, 177.
Luke, x, 27;
and xiii, 124, 178.
M.
MacColl, The Revd. Malcolm, quoted, 157.
Macna, The Jews of, xix.
Maddool Kamoos, by Mr. Lane, 164.
Maghazi, 38, 187 (accounts of the Campaigns of Mohammad), xliv.
Mahmud, killed by Kinana, 95.
Mahmud bin Muslama, brother of Mohammad bin Muslama, 95, 197.
Mahrah, lvi.
Mak-hool, 209.
Malak, 38.
Malik, 38.
Manakib, 199.
Marafat, Anwáa ilm Hadees, 68.
Maria the Coptic, 204;
sent by the Roman Governor to Mohammad, 205;
neither a slave nor a concubine, 206-208;
had no son, 209;
the spurious character about her story, 211, 214, 216.
Mark, XII, 30, p. 178.
Marr-al Zahran, xlviii.
Marriage, a strict bond of union in the Koran, 113.
Marw, 221.
Marwan, 62.
Masrook, 79, 215.
Mecca, xvi, xxii, 7.
Meccans, iii, 9;
their invasion of Medina, 10, 32.
Medina, 100;
Koreish march upon, vi, vii, xiii;
the flight of Mohammad to, 5.
Mesopotamia, xxxv, xlviii.
Mikyas ibn Subaba, 96.
Mill's (Charles) History of Mohammadanism quoted, xxviii.
Mirat-uz-Zaman, 210.
Misbah-ul-Moneer of Fayoomee, 164, 214.
Mishkat (Book of Retaliation), 71 _f.n._, 96 _f.n._
Mizan-ul-Etedal, 68, 208, 210, 215.
Moadd, xlvi.
Moaddite stock (The), xxxiv, xliii, xlvii.
Mo-an-an, 210.
Moavia ibn Mughira, 76, 81-83.
Modallis, 210.
Modern Egyptians of Lane, 137, 138.
Mohajirin (Refugees), 32.
Moharib, xxxiv, lvi.
Moharram, 23 _f.n._, 53.
Mojahadatan, 164.
Mojahadina, 184.
Mojahadoona, 184.
Mojahid, 155, 184.
Mojahiddin, 155.
Mojahidina, 166, 174, 184.
Mojahidoona, 166, 174, 184.
Moleil bin Zamra, xliii.
Mohammad, his incapacity to undertake offensive wars against his enemies,
the Koreish, pp. ii, iv, v;
had no intention to waylay the caravans at Badr, viii-x;
his singular toleration and his wars of self-defence, xiv;
the number of his wars, xx, xxiii;
considered a sanguinary tyrant by the Revd. M. Green, xxix;
defence of his allegation, xxiv-xxv;
a second view of the wars of Mohammad, xxviii-xxx.
His imprisonment, his preaching at Tayif, xxxiv;
his followers persecuted, 1;
insults offered him, 5;
prevented from offering his prayers, _id._;
his preaching against idolatry, 6;
his insecurity at Mecca, 7;
sets off to Tayif, _id._;
proscribed by the Koreish, 9;
hides himself for three days in a cave, _id._;
gains the battle of Badr, 10;
defeated and wounded at Ohad, 12;
fights the battle of the Ditch, 14;
undertakes the lesser pilgrimage of Mecca, _id._;
encamps at Hodeibia, 15;
marches to defend the Bani Khozaá, 16;
his wars purely defensive, 17-26;
was justified in taking up arms, 27;
his attacks mere acts of retaliation, 33;
gives quarters to his enemies, and enters into a treaty with the Jews,
34-40;
his last war with the Romans, 41;
never taught intolerance, 43;
the object of his wars, 50-51;
his alleged interceptions of the Koreish caravans, 55-57;
the alleged interceptions proved impossible, 58;
the assassinations said to have taken place at his own instructions,
60-76;
his alleged cruelty in executing the prisoners of war, 76-83;
represented as directing the execution of the prisoners of Badr, 83-85;
his kind treatment of the prisoners of war, 85-87;
had no share in the execution of a singing girl as alleged by his
biographers, 96-97;
never refused Abu Basir from going back to his guardian, 99;
his adherence to the treaty of Hodeibia, 100;
never gave any permission for the murder of Sanina, 106-107;
his Koran never teaches aggressive wars, 125;
Freeman Stephens, Bosworth Smith, George Sale, Major Osborn, the Revd.
Wherry, the Revd. Hughes, and the Revd. MacColl, on the wars of
Mohammad, 146-161.
Mohammad (Sura), 184.
Mohammad bin Ishak, 68.
Mohammad bin Kobeib Hashimi, 80.
Mohammad bin Muslama, 95.
Mohammad bin Sad Kalib Wakidi, 68, 201, 207.
Mohammad bin Sireen, 68.
Mohammad bin Yahya bin Habban, 222.
Mohammad, Buddha and Christ, by Dr. Dods, quoted, lxxiv.
Mohammad Karamat-ul Ali of Delhi, 100 _f.n._
Mohammad and Mohammadanism, by B. Smith, quoted, 143.
Mokatil, 184, 220-221.
Mokhadrams, poets, 165, 169.
Mokowkas, the Roman Governor, 205.
Moleil-bin-Zamra, xliii.
Mooahib of Koostlanee, 93 _f.n._
Mooltan, 169.
Morad, lvi.
Morocco, 169.
Mosaic injunctions, 153.
Moses, The law of, 110, 140, 141, 145, 150, 152, 153.
Mosheim, Dr., quoted, lxi, lxiii, lxv.
Moslems forced to resort to arms in pure self-defence, 10;
threatened by Abu Sofian with an attack, 7, 13.
Moslim, his collections, 71 _f.n._, 86, 196, 198, 210, 214.
Movatta, by Malik, 114.
Mowallads, poets, 165.
Mozar, xlvi.
Mozeina, xlii, xliii.
Muallafa Qolubohum (those whose hearts are to be won over), xlviii.
Mudlij, lv;
a tribe of Kinana, iv, 30.
Mufti, 136.
Mughrib of Almotarrazi (The), 164 _f.n._
Muheiasa, the murderer of Ibn Sanina, 106, 107.
Muir's (Sir W.) Life of Mahomet quoted, i, vi, viii, ix _f.n._, xxvii,
xxviii, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiv, xxxix, xliii, xlvi, xlviii, xlix, l, lxvi,
lxvii, lxx, lxxii, lxxviii, lxxx, 9 _f.n._, 27, 29 _f.n._, 30
_f.n._, 39, 43, 46, 47, 49 _f.n._, 51, 52, 56, 58 _f.n._, 64
_f.n._, 65, 67, 68 _f.n._, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 82, 83, 85, 89,
91, 93, 97, 98, 99, 102, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113 _f.n._, 138,
140, 160 _f.n._, 170, 178, 180, 181, 187, 188, 193, 196, 197, 198, 200,
201, 205, 210, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219.
Mujanna, xlviii.
Mujhool, 134.
Mujtahid, 137, 160.
Mukwhumites (The), xxxiii.
Muntafiq, lvi.
Muraisia, xviii.
Murra, xiii, xlv, xlvi, lvi, 15, 39.
Mursul, 109 _f.n._
Musa-bin-Akba, xxii.
Musab, 78.
Mustalik, xii, xviii;
a branch of Khozaá, xxiii, 12;
released without ransom, 86, 196.
Muta, Expedition to, 138.
Mut-im, 7.
N.
Nadhirbin Harith, 76, 77-78.
Naeem, 13.
Najashee, xxxiii.
Najd, xii, 12;
the Bedouin tribes of, xli, xlii, xliii, 89, 196, 199, 200;
celebrated for Bani Tamim, xlvii.
Najran, The Christians of, xxxiii, 37, 48.
Nakha, lvi.
Nakhla, the Jinns converted at, xxxv, xxxvi, 30, 56.
Nasaee, 207, 215, 216.
Nations, The battle of, 13.
Nazeer treasoned against Medina, xii, xlii, 34, 66, 71;
its chief, 72;
the expulsion of, 108-110.
Nazr, xxxiv, 78.
Nihayeh of Ibn-al-Atheer, 164 _f.n._
Nineteenth century (The) quoted, 158.
Nineveh, xxxv.
Nisibin, xxxv.
Noavee, 214.
Nohd, lvi.
Notes on Muhammadanism, by Revd. T.P. Hughes, 154.
Nueim, his alleged employment to break up the confederates who had besieged
Medina, 101-105.
Numbers, xxxi, 153.
Nuraddin Ali-al-Halabi quoted and refuted, 129-132.
O.
Obada-bin-Samat, 58 _f.n._
Obeida, 29, 55.
Ohad, Battle of, vii, xii, xviii, xxii, xlii, xlvii, 10, 11, 34, 69, 197.
Okaz, xlviii.
Okba bin Mueit, 76, 79-81.
Oman, li.
Omar, 83, 196, 202.
Omar bin Asim, 209.
Omar ibn al Ghallas, 209.
Omar ibn al Hakam, 201.
Omeir, 62, 63.
Omeya bin Khalf, 56.
Omiyyiads, xxxiii.
Omm Kirfa, 91.
Omm Rabab, 208.
Ommara, 80.
Oneis, 73.
Orfee, 170.
Orna, 69.
Osaba-fi-Tamiz Issahába, 68 _f.n._
Osborn, R.D., Major, quoted, 42, 62;
refuted, lxviii, lxxxv, lxxxvii, lxxxviii, lxxxix, 146-149.
Oseir ibn Zarim, the chief of Nazeer of Khyber, 39, 61, 72-73.
Osheira, Expedition of, 29, 56.
Osman, the Moslem envoy to Mecca, xv.
Osman, 80, 196.
Osman bin Affan, 89.
Osman bin Zaed, 91 _f.n._
Otheil, 78 _f.n._
Oyoon-al Asar, 89.
Ozra, xxxiv, lvi, lvii.
P.
Palmer's (H.) Translation of the Koran quoted, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,
178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191.
Patriarchal form of Government at Mecca, iii.
Pargod (Veil), xxxviii.
People of the Book (Kitabi), 157.
Persia, The Empire of, 138.
Persecution of the early Moslems, 1;
noticed in the Koran, 2-4;
their historical summary, 5;
of the Medina converts, 9;
of the Moslems by the Koreish after their flight from Mecca, 9;
of the Koreish at Mecca, 225.
Philistines, 152.
Pilgrimage, 14, 178.
Pilgrims, 8.
Poets Jahili, Mokhadrams, Islami, and Mowallads, 165.
Poole, S.L., quoted, lxxxv, 61, 97-98.
Prisoners of war defined, 76.
Puffendorf, 70.
Punishment, Forms of primitive, 94-95.
Pyrenees, 169.
Q.
Qadr, 220.
Qalqashandi's Dictionary of Arab tribes, xxxiv.
Qarashi, 214.
R.
Rabia, The Bani Abd-ul-Kays, the descendants of, xlvii.
Radd-ul Muhtar of Ibn Abdeen, 127.
Raha, lvii.
Rahrahan, Battle of, xli.
Raid of a Koreish chief upon Medina, 11.
of Bani Asad and Bani Lahyan, 12.
of Bani Duma, 12.
Rajab, 56.
Raji, xii, 12, 39, 74.
Rajm, Meaning of, xxxviii.
Ramzan, 23 _f.n._, 32, 53.
Rawasa, lvii.
Red Sea, 5.
Reforms, The proposed, political, social, and legal, 113 _f.n._, 158
_f.n._
Resurrection, The day of, and Jihad, 133.
Rifáa, a Koreishite, 88 _f.n._
Rihana, 201.
Ril, a clan of Bani Aamir, xlvi.
Robbers, The Urnee, 92-95.
Rodwell's Translation of the Koran quoted, 120 _f.n._, 167, 172, 173,
174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189,
190, 191.
Rojúm (conjecture), xxxviii.
Romans, The expedition against them, 40-41.
Rome, The Empire of, 138.
Romulus, 145.
S.
Saad, xiii, xlii.
Saad Hozeim, lvii.
Saad ibn Bakr, xiii, xl, xliii, xlv.
Sabaya, 197-200.
Sabit, 215.
Sad, 35;
his judgment, 37-38, 55, 198, 199.
Sad bin Obadah, 89.
Sadif, lvii.
Sadoos, lvii.
Sadr Av-val (the Apostolic Age), 109.
Saeed, 83.
Saeed bin Mansoor, 215.
Saffah-al-Mahdi, 212.
Safra, 31.
Safwan bin Omayya, 113.
Saheeh, 198.
Saheeh Bokharee, 68.
Saheeh of Moslim, 86.
Sahim, lvii.
Sahm, xxxiii _f.n._
Sakeef, lvii.
Sakifites (The), xviii, xxxvi.
Salaba, xlvi.
Salámáni, lviii.
Sale, G., his Translation of the Koran, xxix;
quoted, 143-146, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184,
185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191.
Saleim, xii, xiii, 15 _f.n._
Salim, 65 _f.n._
Sallam ibn Abul Hokeik, Abu Rafe, 71.
Sam-áin, 215 _f.n._
Samaritan, 157.
Samuel, 152.
Saraya, Meaning of, xxi.
Sawad, 136.
Sayúte's History of Caliphs, 212 _f.n._, 215 _f.n._
Schedim (Demons), xxxviii.
Secker, Archbishop, quoted, 27.
Seerat Halabi, 80 _f.n._, 81 _f.n._, 100 _f.n._, 102 _f.n._
Seerat Shamee, 63, 100 _f.n._
Seerat-ul-Mohammadiya, 100.
Seleucas, xxxv.
Self-defence, Right of, xxv.
Shaban, 53.
Shahbudeen Ahmed bin Hajr Makki, quoted and refuted, 128-129.
Shaiban, lviii.
Shaitain, Battle of, xxviii, xlii.
Shamee, 100.
Shamsuddin Karmani, 68 _f.n._
Sarakhsee Sums-ul-Aimma (the sun of leaders), 126-128.
Shaw-wal, 23.
Sheb, the quarter of Abu Táleb, 6.
Sheb Jabala, Battle of, xli.
Sheikh Mohammad Al Tamartashi, 170.
Sihab of Jouhari, 163, 164.
Slane, De, Baron MacGuckin, 135-137.
Slavery and concubine-slaves as concomitant evils of war, 193-224;
slavery and concubinage not allowed in the Koran, 193;
Sir W. Muir quoted, 193;
measures taken by Mohammad in the Koran to abolish slavery, 194-196;
none of the prisoners of war was enslaved, 197-198;
the Bani Koreiza not enslaved, 198-200;
Omar the second Khalif liberated all Arab slaves, 202-203.
Smith, Bosworth, quoted, i, xxvii, 143.
Smith's (W.) Dictionary of the Bible, xxxvi.
Sodaa, lviii.
Soffian Ath-Thauri, 136-137.
Sofia, 197, 198.
Sofian ibn Khalid, 61, 69-71.
Sofian ibn Oyaina, 136, 137.
Sofian Sowri, 134.
Sohail, 93 _f.n._
Soleiman-al-Aamash, 210.
Spider, The (Sura), 180.
Spoils, The (Sura), 182, 183.
Sprenger, Dr., Life of Mahomet quoted, xxix, xxxiii, 179.
Stanley defended, 112.
Stephens, The Revd., quoted, lxxv, 141-142.
Stobart quoted, lxviii, 2, 52.
Strabo, xxxv.
Suleim, xii, xiii, xlii, xlv, xlvi, 12.
Sura II, xvi, xxvi, xxvii, 3, 10, 18-19, 42 _f.n._, 44, 49, 50, 51,
111, 116 _f.n._, 118, 120 _f.n._, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126,
127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 134, 152, 156, 166, 171 _f.n._, 173 _f.n._,
181, 194, 225.
Sura III, xii, 3, 50, 166, 174, 182, 225, 226.
Sura IV, xv, xl, 4, 10, 19-21, 50, 95, 111, 113, 118, 122, 142, 154, 155,
166-167, 172, 174, 184, 195, 203, 204, 219, 225.
Sura V, xxvi, xxxiii, 42 _f.n._, 50, 122, 130, 166, 167, 191, 195, 203,
204.
Sura VI, 122, 154, 166, 167, 174, 176, 183.
Sura VII, 122.
Sura VIII, viii, ix, x, xv, xvi, xxvi, 5, 21, 22, 35-36, 45, 51, 118, 121,
122, 124, 134, 147, 166, 167, 174, 182, 183, 219, 225, 226.
Sura IX (Sura Barát), xi, xvii, xix, xx, 1, 4, 16, 22, 25, 36-37, 42
_f.n._, 51-55, 118, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131,
132, 133, 143, 147, 149-150, 159, 166-167, 172, 173, 175, 176, 185, 188,
189, 190, 191, 195, 225, 226, 227.
Sura XI, 219.
Sura XV, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, 122, 127, 220.
Sura XVI, 2, 3, 122, 127, 130, 166, 167, 173, 180, 225.
Sura XVIII, xxxviii, 42 _f.n._, 130.
Sura XIX, xxxviii, 219.
Sura XX, 171 _f.n._
Sura XXII, vi, 1, 3, 17, 118, 122, 127, 128, 166, 167, 173, 178, 225.
Sura XXIV, iv, xviii, 50, 131, 166, 167, 185, 194, 203, 204.
Sura XXV, 166, 167, 173, 175, 177.
Sura XXVI, xxxvii, xxxviii.
Sura XXIX, 166, 167, 170, 171 _f.n._, 172, 173, 179, 180.
Sura XXXI, 130, 166, 167, 173, 177.
Sura XXXII, xxxvii, xxxviii.
Sura XXXIII, 37, 89, 199, 216, 218, 219, 220, 222, 226.
Sura XXXV, 166, 167, 173, 181.
Sura XL, 167.
Sura XLI, xxxviii, 167.
Sura XLVI, xxxv, 167.
Sura XLVII, xxvii, 85, 141, 147, 154, 156, 160, 161, 166, 167, 174, 184,
195, 196, 197, 225, 226.
Sura XLVIII, xv, xvi, xl, 160, 225, 226.
Sura XLIX, 166, 167, 173, 175, 188.
Sura LII, 130.
Sura LVIII, 195.
Sura LIX, 110, 226.
Sura LX, 4, 110, 111, 112 _f.n._, 166, 225, 226.
Sura LXI, 166, 173, 175, 184, 186.
Sura LXVI, 166, 185, 211, 214.
Sura LXVII, xxxvii.
Sura LXXII, xxxvi, xxxvii, 186 _f.n._
Sura LXXIII, 130, 220.
Sura LXXXV, 50.
Sura LXXXVI, xxxvi.
Sura XC, 194.
Sura XCVI, 5.
Suras, Meccan, 177-181.
Suras, Medinite, 181-191.
Surat-al-Mohammad, 154.
Surat-un-Nisa, 154.
Syed Ameer Ali Moulvie, M.A., LLB., 91 _f.n._
Syria, viii, 30, 40, 89, 140, 200.
T.
Tabaeen, 209, 215-216.
Tabakát al Fokaha, 135-136.
Tabakát of Ibn Sád Kátib Wakidi, 114.
Tabari 30, 212.
Tabi, 135, 136.
Tabikha, The ancestors of Bani Tamim, xlvii.
Table, The (Sura), 191.
Tabuk, xix, 37 _f.n._;
the last expedition of Mohammad against, 40.
Tafseer Majma-ul-Bayan Tabarásee, 116 _f.n._, 187.
Taghlib, lviii.
Taimee, Okba executed at, 80.
Tajahada, 164.
Tajeeb, lviii.
Takreeb, 210, 215.
Tamim (The), xxvii, xxxiv, xli, xlvi, lviii.
Tanfeel, 7, 196.
Tanvir-al Absár, 170.
Tariq (Comet or night comer), xxxvi.
Tay, xxxix, xliii, lviii.
Tayif, xxii;
Mohammad preaches at, xxxiv;
sacrilegious war at, xli.
Taym bin Morra, xxxiii.
Testament, The Old, 153.
Thakeef, lvii, 16.
Theseus, 145.
Tirmizee, 113, 207.
Tojahidoona, 166.
Tradition (a mursal), 109 _f.n._
Traditions quoted and refuted, 133.
Tried, The (Sura), 186.
Tuhfat-ul-Muhtaj fi Sharah-al-Minhaj, 129 _f.n._
Tuleiba, chief of Bani Asad bin Khozeima, xlvii.
U.
Urnee Robbers, 92-95.
Urquhart, 137.
Us Tayif, xxxvi.
Usseya, a clan of Bani Aamir, xlvi.
Uyeina, the chief of the Bani Fezara, xiii, xlvi.
V.
Vans Kennedy, Major, quoted, 28.
Von Kemer's History of Mohammad's Campaigns, 90 _f.n._, 102.
W.
Wady-al-Koraá, The Jews of, xiii, xliii.
Wahid, 83.
Wajib (Legal), Jihad not, 134.
Waki ibn al-Jarrah, 221.
Wakidi, 29 _f.n._, 30, 63, 64, 74, 78 _f.n._, 80 _f.n._,
31 _f.n._, 91;
Campaigns of Mohammad, xliii, 102, 197, 200, 201, 205, 206, 208, 212,
221.
Wars of Mohammad, their defensive nature, ii.
Weil, Dr., 63.
Wheaton's International Law, 70 _f.n._
Wherry, The Revd. E.M., quoted, 150-152, 154 _f.n._
Wolff, 70 _f.n._
Woman, The (Sura), 184.
Y.
Yafa-ee, 210.
Yahya, 213.
Yahya bin Hammad, 210.
Yahya bin Moin, 221.
Yahya bin Saeed al Ansaree, 68.
Yakoob bin Mohammad, 208.
Yemama, li.
Yenbo, the abode of Bani Joheina, xliii.
Yemen, xxxix, li.
Yezid bin Abi Shaiba, 133.
Yojahido, 166, 179.
Yojahidoo, 166, 176, 190.
Yojahidoona, 166, 176, 191.
Yoseir bin Razim (Oseir bin Zarim), 72 _f.n._
Yoslemoon, 160.
Z.
Zád-al-maád of Ibn al Kyyim, 100 _f.n._
Zahabi, 215.
Zakawán, a clan of Bani Aamir, xlvi.
Zalkada, 14, 23 _f.n._, 53.
Zamaá, 34.
Zamra, iv.
Zamakhshire, 163, 213.
Zat-al-Rikaa, xii, 196.
Zat Atlah, 15 _f.n._
Zeid killed Moavia, 81.
Zeid, the adopted son of Mohammad, and his connection with Zeinab, 215,
216, 217, 218, 222.
Zeid bin Arqam, xxii.
Zeid bin Aslam, 215.
Zeid bin Haris, seized and plundered by the Bani Fezara, xiii.
Zeid Monat, xxxiv.
Zeinab, 113, 211;
her story, 215-216;
the story of Mohammad's amour, a spurious one, 216;
Sir W. Muir's conjectures about her, not justified, 218;
in her case no exceptional privilege was secured to Mohammad, 220;
the false story traced to Mukátil, 222.
Zu Towa, the Koreish encamped at, xv.
Zil Kassa, a party of Moslems slain at, xiii.
Zobeid, lviii.
Zobeir, a Koreishite, 88, 96.
Zobian, xli, xlii, xlvi.
Zohak, 80.
Zohak ibn Muzahim, 215.
Zohra, xxxiii.
Zohri, 128, 209.
Zorkanee, 80 _f.n._;
on Mooahib, 93, 100, 109 _f.n._, 110 _f.n._
Zu-kar, Battle of, xli.
Zulhij, 23 _f.n._, 53.
Zul-Kada, xiii, 23 _f.n._
Zul-Majáz xlviii.
_Calcutta; December, 1887._
THACKER, SPINK & CO.'S
LAW PUBLICATIONS.
_THIRD EDITION IN PREPARATION._
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
ACT XIV OF 1882,
_WITH NOTES, APPENDICES, &c._
By the Hon'ble J. O'KINEALY,
_One of the Judges of Her Majesty's High Court of Judicature, Bengal._
* * * * *
_Third Edition. Royal 8vo., cloth. Rs. 12; Post-free, Rs. 12-6._
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
And other Laws and Acts of Parliament relating to the Criminal
Courts of India. With Notes, &c.
Third Edition.
By the Hon'ble J. O'KINEALY,
_One of the Judges of Her Majesty's High Court of Judicature, Bengal._
* * * * *
_Second Edition. Just Published. Royal Octavo, cloth. Rs. 18._
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
ACT X OF 1882,
TOGETHER WITH
Rulings, Circular Orders, Notifications, etc., of all the High
Courts in India; and Notifications and Orders of the
Government of India and the Local Governments.
_EDITED WITH COPIOUS NOTES AND FULL INDEX._
By WILLIAM FISCHER AGNEW, Esq,.
_Barrister-at-Law_,
and GILBERT S. HENDERSON, Esq. M.A.,
_Barrister-at-Law,_
_Author of "A Treatise on the Law of Succession in India."_
Second Edition,
By GILBERT S. HENDERSON
"To judge from the style in which their present work is edited, the
number of cases cited bearing upon the various sections, the ample notes
appended where any explanation is necessary, and the full and complete
indexes to the cases cited, we have little hesitation in saying that,
while undoubtedly it is at present the best work on the subject, it need
fear no competition in the future."--_Englishman._
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád' - Showing that all the Wars of Mohammad Were Defensive; and - that Aggressive War, or Compulsory Conversion, is not - Allowed in The Koran - 1885" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.