{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_20927/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_20927","id":"gutenberg_20927","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20927","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Islam","Islam -- Apologetic works","Islam -- Relations","Jihad","War -- Religious aspects -- Islam"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness, Aaron Reed and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nCRITICAL EXPOSITION\n\nOF THE\n\nPOPULAR \"JIHAD.\"\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nCRITICAL EXPOSITION\n\nOF THE\n\nPOPULAR \"JIHAD.\"\n\nSHOWING THAT\n\nALL THE WARS OF MOHAMMAD WERE DEFENSIVE; AND THAT\nAGGRESSIVE WAR, OR COMPULSORY CONVERSION,\nIS NOT ALLOWED IN THE KORAN.\n\nWITH APPENDICES\nPROVING THAT THE WORD \"JIHAD\" DOES NOT EXEGETICALLY MEAN\n'WARFARE,' AND THAT SLAVERY IS NOT SANCTIONED\nBY THE PROPHET OF ISLAM.\n\nBY MOULAVI GHERAGH ALI,\n\n_Author of_\n\n\"REFORMS UNDER MOSLEM RULE,\"\n\"HYDERABAD (DECCAN) UNDER SIR SALAR JUNG.\"\n\nCALCUTTA:\nTHACKER, SPINK AND CO.\n\n1885.\n\nCALCUTTA:\nPRINTED BY THACKER, SPINK AND CO.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE.\n\n\nI here take the opportunity of removing a wrong idea of the alleged\ninjunction of the Prophet against our countrymen the Hindus. The Hon'ble\nRaja Siva Prasad, in his speech at the Legislative Council, on the 9th\nMarch, 1883, while discussing the Ilbert Bill, quoted from Amir Khusro's\n_Tarikh Alai_ that, \"Ala-ud-din Khiliji once sent for a Kazi, and asked\nhim what was written in the Code of Mehammadan law regarding the Hindus.\nThe Kazi answered that, the Hindus were _Zimmis_ (condemned to pay the\nJizya tax); if asked silver, they ought to pay gold with deep respect\nand humility; and if the collector of taxes were to fling dirt in their\nfaces, they should gladly open their mouths wide. God's order is to keep\nthem in subjection, and the Prophet enjoins on the faithful to kill,\nplunder and imprison them, to make Mussulmans, or to put them to the\nsword, to enslave them, and confiscate their property....'\" [_Vide_\nSupplement to the _Gazette of India_, April 21, 1883, page 807.]\n\nThese alleged injunctions, I need not say here, after what I have stated\nin various places of this book regarding intolerance, and compulsory\nconversion, are merely false imputations. There are no such injunctions\nof the Prophet against either _Zimmis_, (_i.e._, protected or\nguaranteed) or the Hindus.\n\n\n\n TO\n THE HONORABLE\n SYED AHMED KHAN BAHADUR, C.S.I.,\n THIS BOOK\n IS, WITHOUT EVEN ASKING PERMISSION.\n AND WHOLLY WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE.\n DEDICATED\n AS A SLIGHT BUT SINCERE TESTIMONY OF ADMIRATION FOR HIS LONG\n AND VARIOUS SERVICES IN THE CAUSE OF ISLAM\n AND\n IN RESPECT OF HIS RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL REFORMS IN THE\n MOSLIMS OF INDIA,\n AND\n OF GRATITUDE FOR MUCH PERSONAL KINDNESS AND FRIENDSHIP,\n BY\n THE AUTHOR.\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's Note: All errata listed below have been corrected in the\ne-text. Mistakes not listed below have been left as they appeared in\nthe printed book, although missing or misplaced punctuation marks have\nbeen corrected.]\n\n\nERRATA.\n\n\n _Page_ _Line_ _For_ _Read_\n\n v 21 them _Omit_\n \" 22 them it\n xvii _f.n._ Maaddite Moaddite\n xxxiv 21 Morra Murra\n \" 22 Soleim Suleim\n xlii 9 Kauuka Kainuka\n xliii 22 _f.n._ Mozeima Mozeina\n xlv 25 Khusain Khushain\n liv 1 Ban Bani\n \" 10 Ghassianide Ghassanide\n lxxxviii 30 Khalips Khalifs\n xci 30 Caliphater Caliphate\n 11 10 Kurzibn Kurz-ibn\n 18 9 God[2] God:\n \" \" desist[3] desist\n \" 16 persecution persecution[2]\n \" 17 (fitnah (fitnah[3])\n 27 5 liberty and liberty, any of\n \" 6 brethern merely brethren, merely\n \" 6-7 such a manner such manner\n \" 8 Society or Society, or\n \" 9 of it materially of it, materially\n \" 12 deserve pity deserve only pity\n 34 6 Ibu Ibn\n 61 6 Rafi Rafe\n 72 24 ibu ibn\n \" 25 ibu ibn\n 73 4 bil bin\n 90 1 as stallions for breeding\n purposes\n 135 28 Durar Dinar\n 136 16 Sirni Sirin\n 192 1 Jihad does not mean {Read this as a\n the waging of war marginal gloss\n \" 3 _Jahad_ _Jahd._\n \" 14 Katal and Kital Read this as a\n marginal gloss.\n \" 20 Conclusion Ditto, ditto.\n\n\n\n\nSUMMARY OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n Introduction i-civ\n Note cv\n Genealogical Table of the Arabs cvi-cvii\n\n I. The persecutions suffered by the early Moslems 1-11\n II. The Meccans or the Koreish 11-16\n III. The defensive character of the wars of Mohammad 16-34\n IV. The Jews 34-40\n V. The Christians or Romans 40-41\n VI. The intolerance 42-51\n VII. The ninth chapter of _Sura Barat_ 51-55\n VIII. The alleged interception of the Koreish caravans\n by the Moslems 55-60\n IX. The alleged assassinations by the command or\n connivance of Mohammad 60-76\n X. The alleged cruelty in executing the prisoners of war 76-91\n XI. Some miscellaneous objections refuted 91-114\n XII. The popular Jihad or Crusade 114-161\n\n Appendix A. The word Jihad in the Koran does not mean warfare 163-192\n Appendix B. Slavery and concubinage not allowed by the Koran 193-223\n Appendix C. Koranic references 225-227\n\n Index 229-249\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nIntroduction--\n\nParas. Page.\n1. Object of the book i\n\n2. Early wrongs of the Moslem; justification in taking up\n arms, if taken ii\n\n3. Commencement of the war; the Koreish being public\n enemy were liable to be treated as such _ib._\n\n4. But the Moslems could not take up arms to redress their\n wrongs under certain circumstances iii\n\n5. Moslems otherwise engaged at Medina had no intention\n of suffering the horrors of war by taking the initiative,\n but were in imminent danger from the enemy iv\n\n6. The Koreish first attacked the Moslems at Medina. They\n could not forbear the escape of the Moslems v\n\n7. Three battles waged by the Koreish against Mohammad--Badr,\n Ohad, and Ahzab: these wars on the Moslem side\n were purely in defence, not waged even to redress their\n wrongs or re-establish their rights vii\n\n8. The battle of Badr was defensive on the part of Mohammad.\n Reasons for the same viii\n\n9. Mohammad at Medina, owing to the attacks, inroads, and\n threatening gatherings of the Koreish and other tribes,\n had hardly time to think of offensive measures xi\n\n10. Armed opposition of the Koreish to the Moslem pilgrims\n from Medina in the vicinity of Mecca. The truce of\n Hodeibia xv\n\n11. The Koreish again commit hostilities and violate their\n pledge. War declared against those who had violated\n the truce. War not carried out xvi\n\n12. War with foes other than Koreish xviii\n\n13. Expedition to Tabuk to check the advancing enemy. No\n war took place xix\n\n14. Number of the wars of Mohammad much exaggerated:\n _Ghazava_ defined; number of actual wars xx\n\n15. The Revd. Mr. Green's remarks on the wars of Mohammad\n criticised xxiii\n\n16. Another view of the wars of Mohammad xxviii\n\n17. Caravans if waylaid were waylaid by way of reprisal xxx\n\n18. Intolerance; no compulsory conversion enjoined or took\n place during Mohammad's lifetime:\n Sir W. Muir quoted and refuted xxxi\n\n19. A brief sketch of the propagation of Islam at Mecca:\n Islam at Mecca;\n Islam at Abyssinia;\n Conversions at Nakhla xxxii\n\n20. Rapid stride of Islam at Medina xxxvii\n\n21. The increasing number of Moslem converts at Mecca\n after the Hegira xxxix\n\n22. Disturbed state of the public peace among the tribes\n surrounding Medina. Internicine wars, an obstacle to\n the propagation of Islam xl\n\n23. Sketch of the intertribal wars in Arabia during the lifetime\n of Mohammad xli\n\n24. Spread of Islam in the surrounding tribes at Medina\n after the Hegira I--VI xliii\n\n25. Mecca a barrier against the conversion of the Southern\n tribes xliv\n\n26. Tribal conversions in the sixth year. Conversion among\n several other tribes of the North and North-east in\n A.H. VIII xlv\n\n27. Surrender of Mecca, A.H. VIII xlvii\n\n28. Mecca not compelled to believe _ib._\n\n29. The wholesale conversion of the remaining tribes,\n A.H. IX and X xlviii\n\n30. The various deputations in the 9th and 10th year of the\n Hegira li\n\n31. A list of the deputations of conversion received by\n Mohammad at Medina during A.H. IX and X li--lviii\n\n32. All conversions, individual and tribal, were without any\n compulsion lix\n\n33. Mohammad was not favoured with circumstances round\n him. The difficulty Mohammad encountered in his\n work. Marcus Dods quoted:\n Dr. Mohseim's causes of the spread of Islam and Hallam\n quoted lx--lxv\n\n34. Mohammad's unwavering belief in his own mission and\n his success show him to be a true prophet. Mohammad's\n efforts established monotheism in Arabia. His\n manly exertions, and his single handed perseverance.\n The business and office of a prophet described. Sir W.\n Muir and Stobart quoted lxv--lxix\n\n35. The reforms of Mohammad, his iconoclastic policy. The\n redemption of Arabia from venal debauchery and infatuated\n superstition. Muir, Marcus Dods, Stephens\n quoted lxix--lxxvii\n\n36. Indictment against Mohammad. His alleged cruelty and\n sensuality. Muir, Rev. Hughes, Marcus Dods, and\n Stanley Poole refuted lxxviii--lxxxvii\n\n37. Objections to the (1) Finality of the social reforms of\n Mohammad, (2) positive precepts, (3) ceremonial law,\n (4) morality, (5) want of adaptability to the varying\n circumstances lxxxvii--lxxxix\n\n38. All these objections apply rather to the teaching of the\n Mohammadan Common Law than to the Koran xc\n\n39. (1) Finality of social reforms of Mohammad discussed.\n Intermediary not to be considered final xc--xcii\n\n40. (2) Positive precepts and (3) ceremonial law, pilgrimage,\n _Kibla_, amount of alms, fasts, forms and attitude of\n prayer, &c.: pretentious prayers and ostentatious\n almsgiving xcii--xcvii\n\n41. (4) The Koran, both abstract and concrete in morals xcvii--cii\n\n42. (5) Adaptability of the Koran to surrounding\n circumstances cii--ciii\n\n43. Suitability of the Koran to all classes of humanity ciii--civ\n\n Note cv\n\n Genealogical tables of the tribes mentioned in para. 31 of\n the Introduction cvi--cvii\n\n\nALL THE WARS OF MOHAMMAD WERE DEFENSIVE.\n\n_I.--The Persecution._\n\n1. The early persecution of Moslems by the people of Mecca 2\n\n2. Notices of the persecutions in the Koran 4\n\n3. Insults suffered by Mohammad 5\n\n4. Historical summary of the persecutions 8\n\n5. The Hegira, or the expulsion of the Moslems from Mecca 9\n\n6. The persecution of the Moslems by the Koreish after their\n flight from Mecca 11\n\n_II.--The Meccans or the Koreish._\n\n7. A Koreish chieftain commits a raid near Medina, A.H. 1 _ib._\n\n8. The Koreish march to attack Medina. Battle of Badr _ib._\n\n9. Attack by Abu Sofian upon Medina, A.H. 2 12\n\n10. Battle of Ohad 12\n\n11. Mohammad's prestige affected by the defeat _ib._\n\n12. Abu Sofian threatened the Moslems with another attack next\n year 13\n\n13. The Koreish again attack Medina with a large army.\n Mohammad defends the city. The enemy retire. A.H. 5 14\n\n14. Mohammad with his followers advanced to perform the\n lesser pilgrimage of Mecca. The Koreish oppose Mohammad,\n who return disappointed. The treaty of Hodeibia 15\n\n15. Violation of the treaty by the Koreish and their submission 16\n\n16. Two other tribes assume the offensive _ib._\n\n_III.--The Defensive Character of the Wars._\n\n17. Verses from the Koran in support of the defensive character\n of the wars 25\n\n18. What the above quoted verses show 26\n\n19. Justification of the Moslems in taking up arms against their\n aggressors 27\n\n20. The first aggression after the Hegira was not on the part\n of Mohammad 28\n\n21. The alleged instances examined 29\n\n22. Hamza and Obeida's expeditions _ib._\n\n23. Abwa, Bowat, and Osheira expeditions 30\n\n24. The affair at Nakhla 31\n\n25. At Badr Mohammad came only in his defence 33\n\n26. The first aggression after the Hegira if from Mohammad,\n might fairly be looked upon as retaliation 34\n\n_IV.--The Jews._\n\n27. The Jews broke treaties _ib._\n\n28. Bani Kainukaa, Bani Nazeer, Khyber, and Ghatafan 35\n\n29. Notice of them in Koran 37\n\n30. The judgment of Sad 38\n\n31. Defensive character of the expedition against the Jews of\n Khyber 40\n\n_V.--The Christians or Romans._\n\n32. Tabuk, the last expedition _ib._\n\n33. Description of the wars concluded 41\n\n_VI.--The Intolerance._\n\n34. Mohammad never taught intolerance 43\n\n35. In what sense the wars were religious wars 44\n\n36. The alleged verses of intolerance explained 45\n\n37. Sir William Muir quoted 47\n\n38. Comment on the above quotation 50\n\n39. Object of Mohammad's wars 51\n\n_VII.--The Ninth Chapter or Sura Barat._\n\n40. The opening portion of the IX Sura of the Koran only\n relates to the Koreish who had violated the truce 55\n\n_VIII.--The alleged Interceptions of the Koreish Caravans._\n\n41. The nine alleged interceptions of the Koreish caravans 57\n\n42. The interceptions were impossible under the circumstances\n in which Mohammad was placed 59\n\n43. The interceptions, if occurred, were justified by way of\n reprisal 60\n\n_IX.--The alleged Assassinations._\n\n44. Instances of the alleged assassinations cited 61\n\n45. Mr. Stanley Poole quoted 62\n\n46. Asma-bint Marwan 63\n\n47. The story deserves not our belief 64\n\n48. Abu Afak 65\n\n49. Kab, son of Ashraf 66\n\n50. Mohammad could never have had any share in Kab's murder 68\n\n51. Sofian bin Khalid 69\n\n52. Justification of Sofian's alleged murder 70\n\n53. Abu Rafe 72\n\n54. Oseir bin Zarim 73\n\n55. The intended assassination of Abu Sofian 74\n\n56. Irving and Muir quoted; concluding remarks 76\n\n_X.--The alleged Cruelties in executing Prisoners of War\n and others._\n\n57. Treatment of the prisoners of war _ib._\n\n58. Law of nations regarding the prisoners of war 77\n\n59. The execution of Nadher Ibn Harith 79\n\n60. The execution of Okba 80\n\n61. Free liberty granted to Ozza, a prisoner of war 81\n\n62. Abul Ozza proved a traitor and was executed _ib._\n\n63. The execution of Moavia Ibn Mughira _ib._\n\n64. Justification of Mughira's execution 82\n\n65. The intended execution of the prisoners of Badr and the\n wrong version of Sir W. Muir 83\n\n66. Mohammad was never blamed in the Koran for releasing\n prisoners 84\n\n67. The Koran enjoins the prisoners of war to be either freely\n liberated or ransomed, but neither executed nor enslaved 87\n\n68. High treason of the Bani Koreiza against Medina and their\n execution 88\n\n69. The whole of the Bani Koreiza were never executed _ib._\n\n70. The women and children of Bani Koreiza were never sold 89\n\n71. The exaggerated number of persons executed 91\n\n_XI.--Some Miscellaneous Objections refuted._\n\n72. The execution of Omm Kirfa for brigandage 92\n\n73. The alleged mutilation of the Urnee robbers 93\n\n74. Amputation or banishment substituted temporarily in place of\n imprisonment for want of a well organized system of jails 95\n\n75. Torture of Kinana 96\n\n76. The alleged execution of a singing girl 97\n\n77. The charitable spirit of Mohammad towards his enemies 98\n\n78. Abu Basir not countenanced by the Prophet in contravention\n to the spirit of the treaty of Hodeibia 101\n\n79. Nueim not employed by the Prophet to circulate false reports\n in the enemy's camp 102\n\n80. Deception in war allowed by the International Law _ib._\n\n81. Lecky's standard of morality 104\n\n82. The alleged permission to kill the Jews 106\n\n83. Sir W. Muir quoted 108\n\n84. The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer _ib._\n\n85. Their fruit-trees were not cut down 109\n\n86. Females and the treaty of Hodeibia 110\n\n87. Stanley defended 111\n\n88. Marriage a strict bond of union 113\n\n_The Popular Jihad._\n\n89. The Koran enjoins only defensive wars 114\n\n90. The Mohammadan Common Law and the Jihad 116\n\n91. When is Jihad a positive injunction _ib._\n\n92. The Hedaya quoted and refuted 117\n\n93. Rule of interpretation 118\n\n94. The Common Law and its commentators 119\n\n95. Kifaya quoted 120\n\n96. Further quotations 121\n\n97. The _Kifaya_ refuted 122\n\n98. S. IX, 5, discussed 123\n\n99. S. II, 189, discussed _ib._\n\n100. S. II, 189, and VIII, 40, are defensive 124\n\n101. All injunctions were local and for the time being 125\n\n102. _Ainee_ quoted and refuted _ib._\n\n103. _Sarakhsee_ quoted and refuted 126\n\n104. _Ibn Hajar_ quoted 128\n\n105. _Ibn Hajar_ refuted 129\n\n106. _Halabi_ quoted _ib._\n\n107. _Halabi_ refuted 132\n\n108. _Ainee_ again quoted and refuted _ib._\n\n109. Continuation of the above 133\n\n110. Traditions quoted and refuted _ib._\n\n111. Early Moslem legists against the Jihad 134\n\n112. Biographical sketches of the legists 135\n\n113. European writers' mistakes 137\n\n114. Sir W. Muir quoted and refuted 138\n\n115. Islam not aggressive 139\n\n116. Mr. Freeman quoted and refuted 140\n\n117. The Revd. Mr. Stephens quoted and refuted 141\n\n118. Mr. Bosworth Smith quoted and refuted 143\n\n119. Mr. George Sale quoted and refuted _ib._\n\n120. Major Osborn quoted 146\n\n121. Major Osborn refuted 149\n\n122. The IX Sura of the Koran _ib._\n\n123. The Revd. Mr. Wherry quoted 150\n\n124. Example cited from Jewish history explained 152\n\n125. Mosaic injunctions 153\n\n126. The Revd. Mr. Hughes quoted and refuted 154\n\n127. Meaning of the word Jihad 155\n\n128. Sura XLVIII, 5, explained 156\n\n129. The Revd. Malcolm MacColl quoted 157\n\n130. The untenable theories of the Mohammadan Common Law 158-161\n\n\nAPPENDIX A.\n\n1. Jihad or Jihd in the Koran does not mean war or crusade 163\n\n2. Classical meaning of Jihad, &c. 164\n\n3. Post-classical or technical meaning of Jihad 165\n\n4. The classical logic and Arabian poets _ib._\n\n5. The conjugation and declination of Jahd or Jihad in\n the Koran 166\n\n6. The number of instances in which they occur in the Koran 167\n\n7. In what sense they are used in the Koran 168\n\n8. Conventional significations of Jihad 169\n\n9. Mohammadan commentators, &c., quoted 170\n\n10. When the word Jihad was diverted from its original\n signification to its figurative meaning of waging\n religious wars 171\n\n11. All verses of the Koran containing the word Jihad and its\n derivations quoted and explained 176\n\n12. The above verses quoted with remarks 177\n\n_The Meccan Suras._\n\n13. _Lokman_, XXXI, 14 _ib._\n\n14. _Furkan_, XXV, 53, 521 178\n\n15. _The Pilgrimage_, XXII, 76, 78 _ib._\n\n16. _The Bee_, XVI, 108, 111 179\n\n17. _The Spider_, XXIX, 5 180\n\n18. _Ibid_, 7 _ib._\n\n19. _Ibid_, 69 _ib._\n\n20. _The Bee_, XVI, 40 181\n\n21. _Creator_, XXXV, 40 _ib._\n\n_The Medinite Suras._\n\n22. _The Cow or Heifer_, II, 215 182\n\n23. _Al Amran_, III, 136 _ib._\n\n24. _The Spoils_, VIII, 73 183\n\n25. _Ibid._ 75 _ib._\n\n26. _Ibid._ 76 _ib._\n\n27. _The Cattle_, VI, 109 _ib._\n\n28. _Mohammad_, XLVII, 33 184\n\n29. _Battle Array_, LXI, 11 _ib._\n\n30. _Woman._ IV. 97 185\n\n31. _Light._ XXIV, 52 _ib._\n\n32. _The Forbidding._ LXVI, 9 _ib._\n\n33. _The Immunity._ IX, 74 186\n\n36. _The Tried_, LX, 1 187\n\n35. Hatib's _Story_ 188\n\n36. _The Apartment_, XLIX, 15 _ib._\n\n37. _The Immunity_, IX, 16 _ib._\n\n38. _Ibid_. 19 _ib._\n\n39. _Ibid_, 20 189\n\n40. _Ibid_, 24 _ib._\n\n41. _Ibid_, 41 _ib._\n\n42. _Ibid_, 44 190\n\n43. _Ibid_, 82 _ib._\n\n44. _Ibid_, 87 _ib._\n\n45. _Ibid_, 89 191\n\n46. _The Table_, V, 39 _ib._\n\n47. _Ibid_, 58 _ib._\n\n48. _Ibid_, 59 _ib._\n\n49. Jihad does not mean the waging of war 192\n\n50. _Katal_ and _Kital_ _ib._\n\n51. Conclusion _ib._\n\n\nAPPENDIX B.\n\n1. Slavery and concubinage not allowed by the Koran 193\n\n2. Measures taken by the Koran to abolish future slavery 194\n\n3. None of the prisoners of war was enslaved 196\n\n4. _Bani Koreiza_ not enslaved 198\n\n5. _Rihana_ 201\n\n6. Omar, the second Khalif, liberated all the Arab slaves 202\n\n7. Concubinage 203\n\n8. Maria the Coptic 204\n\n9. Despatch of _Mokowkas_ 205\n\n10 & 11. Maria neither a slave nor a concubine 207\n\n12. Maria had no son 209\n\n13. The story of Maria and Haphsa a spurious one 211\n\n14. The affair not noticed in the early biographies 212\n\n15. Sir W. Muir's authority not valid _ib._\n\n16. The best commentators and traditionalists refute the story 214\n\n17. The story not accredited by the Koran _ib._\n\n18. The story when fabricated _ib._\n\n19. Zeinab's case 215\n\n20. The story a spurious one 216\n\n21. Sir W. Muir's conjectures not justified 217\n\n22. A wrong translation of Sir W. Muir 219\n\n23. In Zeinab's case no exceptional privilege was secured 220\n\n24. The false story traced to _Mukatil_ _ib._\n\n25. _Katadas_ conjectural interpretation not warranted 222\n\n26. Other conjectures 223\n\n\nAPPENDIX C.\n\n I.--The verses of the Koran referring to the persecution of\n the Koreish at Mecca 225\n\n II.--The verses of the Koran referring to the aggressions of\n the Koreish at Medina as well as those of the inhabitants\n thereof _ib._\n\nIII.--The verses of the Koran alluding to the wars of defence\n against the Koreish and Arabs, &c., with several references\n to their aggressions _ib._\n\n IV.--The verses of the Koran alluding to the various battles 226\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Object of the book.]\n\n1. In publishing this work, my chief object is to remove the general and\nerroneous impression from the minds of European and Christian writers\nregarding Islam, that Mohammad waged wars of conquest, extirpation, as\nwell as of proselytizing against the Koreish, other Arab tribes, the\nJews, and Christians;[1] that he held the Koran in one hand and the\nscimitar in the other, and compelled people to believe in his mission. I\nhave endeavoured in this book, I believe on sufficient grounds, to show\nthat neither the wars of Mohammad were offensive, nor did he in any way\nuse force or compulsion in the matter of belief.\n\n[Footnote 1: \"He now occupied a position where he might become the agent\nfor executing the divine sentence, and at the same time triumphantly\nimpose the true religion on those who had rejected it.\" The Life of\nMahomet, by Sir W. Muir, page 211. London, 1877. (New Edition.)\n\n\"The free toleration of the purer among the creeds around him, which the\nProphet had at first enjoined, gradually changes into intolerance.\nPersecuted no longer, Mohammad becomes a persecutor himself; with the\nKoran in one hand, and scymitar in the other, he goes forth to offer to\nthe nations the three-fold alternative of conversion, tribute,\ndeath.\"--Mohammed and Mohammedanism, by Mr. R. Bosworth Smith, page 137.\nSecond Edition.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Early wrongs of the Moslems.]\n\n[Sidenote: Justification in taking up arms, if taken.]\n\n2. All the wars of Mohammad were defensive. He and those who took\ninterest in his cause were severely oppressed at intervals, and were in\na sort of general persecution at Mecca at the hands of the ungodly and\nfierce Koreish. Those who were weak and without protection had to leave\ntheir city, and twice fly to the Christian land of Abyssinia, pursued by\nthe wrathful Koreish, but in vain. Those who remained at Mecca were\nsubject to all sorts of indignities, malignity and a deprivation of all\nreligious and social liberty, because they had forsaken the inferior\ndeities of the Koreish, and believed in the only ONE GOD of Mohammad, in\nwhose mission they had full belief. Mohammad and his followers had every\nsanction, under the natural and international law, then and there to\nwage war against their persecutors with the object of removing the\n(_fitnah_) persecution and obtaining their civil rights of freedom and\nreligious liberty in their native city.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Commencement of the state of war.]\n\n[Sidenote: The Koreish being public enemies were liable to be\ntreated as such.]\n\n3. The fierce persecutions renewed by the Koreish at the time of the\nexpulsion of the Moslems from Mecca were acts of hostility tantamount to\na declaration of war. From that time commenced the state of war between\nthe parties. In the Arab society at Mecca there was neither an organized\nGovernment, nor any distinction between a public and private person and\nproperty. There was no regular army in the State, and what existed was\nnot a permanently organized body, so provided with external marks that\nit could be readily identified. The form of Government at Mecca was\npatriarchal, and the chiefs of the Koreish and the citizens of Medina\nthemselves constituted an army when occasion arose. Therefore, since the\ncommencement of hostilities or the state of war, every individual of the\nKoreish or the Meccans was a public enemy of the Moslems, and liable to\nbe treated as such in his person and property, except those who were\nunable to take part in the hostilities, or, as a matter of fact,\nabstained from engaging in them. Therefore it was lawful for the Moslems\nto threaten or to waylay the caravans of the enemy, which passed to and\nfrom Mecca close to Medina, and also to attack the Koreish at Mecca, if\nthey could possibly do so.\n\n\n[Sidenote: But the Moslems could not take up arms to redress their\nwrongs under certain circumstances.]\n\n4. But as the people amongst whom the Prophet and his fugitive Moslems\nnow sojourned had only pledged to defend them at Medina, the flying\nMohammadans could not take up arms against their aggressors, the\nKoreish, to defend their rights of religious liberty and citizenship,\nmuch less of taking arms to compel the non-believers to believe in\nMoslem faith, and so they preferred to live in peace at Medina, and\nenjoy the blessings of their new religion without any disturbance from\nwithout, if possible.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Moslems otherwise engaged at Medina had no intention of\nsuffering the horrors of war by taking the initiative.]\n\n[Sidenote: But were in imminent danger from the enemy.]\n\n5. In fact, the Moslems, after suffering so long such heavy persecutions\nat Mecca, had at length got an asylum of peace at Medina, where they had\nvery little desire left to entertain any idea of commencing hostilities\nor undergoing once more the horrors of war, and were too glad to live in\npeace after their last escape. The people of Medina had only agreed to\ndefend the Prophet from attack, not to join him in any aggressive steps\ntowards the Koreish. The attention of Mohammad and his followers who had\nfled with him was mainly occupied in preaching and teaching the tenets\nof Islam, in establishing a fraternity between the refugees and the\ncitizens, in building a house for prayer, in providing houses for\nrefugees, in contracting treaties of neutrality with the Jews of Medina\nand other surrounding tribes, Bani Zamra (a tribe connected with Mecca)\nand also with Bani Mudlij (a tribe of Kinana related to the Koreish), in\nanticipation of the impending danger[2] from the Koreish, who had\npursued them on the similar occasions before, and in organizing, above\nall these, some of the religious and civil institutions for the\nMoslems, who were now fast assuming the position of an independent\nsociety or commonwealth. Under such circumstances, it was next to\nimpossible for Mohammad or his adherents to think of anything like an\noffensive war with their inveterate foes, or to take up arms for\nproselytizing purposes.\n\n[Footnote 2: See Sura XXIV, verse 54.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: The Koreish first attacked the Moslems at Medina. They could\nnot forbear the escape of the Moslems.]\n\n6. The Koreish, seeing the persecuted had left almost all their native\nlands for a distant city out of their approach, except by a military\nexpedition, and losing Mohammad, for whose arrest they had tried their\nutmost, as well as upon hearing the reception, treatment, religious\nfreedom and brotherly help the Moslems received and enjoyed at Medina,\ncould not subdue their ferocious animosity against the exiles. The\nhostility of the Koreish had already been aroused. The severity and\ninjustice of the Koreish was so great, that when, in 615 A.D., a party\nof 11 Moslems had emigrated to Abyssinia, they had pursued them to\novertake them. And again, in 616 A.D., when the persecution by the\nKoreish was hotter than before, a party of about 100 Moslems had fled\nfrom Mecca to Abyssinia, the Koreish sent an embassy to Abyssinia to\nobtain the surrender of the emigrants. There is every reason to believe\nthat the Koreish, enraged as they were on the escape of the Moslems in\ntheir third and great emigration in 622 A.D., would naturally have\ntaken every strong and hostile measure to persecute the fugitives.[3]\n\nIt was in the second year from the general expulsion of the Moslems from\nMecca that the Koreish, with a large army of one thousand strong,\nmarched upon the Moslems at Medina. Medina being 250 miles or 12 stages\nfrom Mecca, the aggressive army, after marching 8 stages, arrived at\nBadr, which is 3 or 4 stages from Medina. Mahommad--with only 300\nMoslems, more being from among the people of Medina than the\nrefugees--came out of Medina in self-defence to encounter the Koreish,\nand the famous battle of Badr was fought only at thirty miles from\nMedina. There could be no doubt that the affair was purely and\nadmittedly a defensive one.\n\nSura XXII, verses 39-42, copied at page 17 of this book, was first\npublished in the matter of taking up arms in self-defence after the\nbattle of Badr.\n\n[Footnote 3: The idea of forbearance on the part of the Koreish, as\nentertained by Sir W. Muir, is not borne out by their former conduct of\npersecuting the believers and pursuing the fugitives among them. He\nsays: \"Mahomet and Abu Bakr trusted their respective clans to protect\ntheir families from insult. But no insult or annoyance of any kind was\noffered by the Coreish. Nor was the slightest attempt made to detain\nthem; although it was not unreasonable that they should have been\ndetained as hostages against any hostile incursion from Medina\"[A]. They\nwere contemplating a grand pursuit and attack on the Moslems, and had no\nreason to detain the families of Mahomet and Abu Bakr as hostages whilst\nthey could not think that the Moslems will take the initiative, as they\nwere too glad to escape and live unmolested.]\n\n[Footnote A: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol II, page 265.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: The three battles waged by the Koreish against Mohammad.]\n\n7. The Koreish carried on three aggressive battles against the Moslems\nat Medina. The first, called the Battle of Badr, took place at thirty\nmiles from Medina, the Koreish having come down 250 miles from Mecca.\nThe second, called the Battle of Ohad, was fought at a distance of one\nmile from Medina, the enemy having advanced 250 miles from Mecca. The\nthird was the battle of confederates, in which they had mustered an army\nof ten thousand strong. The city was besieged for several days, and the\nMoslems defended themselves within the walls of Medina which they had\nentrenched. These were the only battles between the Koreish and\nMohammad, in each the latter always acted on the defensive. Neither he\nattacked the Koreish offensively to take revenge, nor to compel them by\nforce of arms to accept his religion.\n\n[Sidenote: These wars were purely in defence, not to redress their\nwrongs or to establish their rights.]\n\nEven these three battles were not waged by Mohammad to redress wrong or\nestablish imperilled rights. They were only to repel force by right of\nself-defence. Had Mohammad and his Moslems invaded Mecca and fought\nbattles against the Koreish there, he would have been justified for\nwaging war to redress the injuries of person and property inflicted by\nthe Meccans on the Moslems whom they were tormenting for their religion\nand had expelled them from their homes, and had even barred their\nyearly visitation to the shrine of Kaaba. A war which is undertaken for\njust causes, to repel or avert wrongful force, or to establish a right,\nis sanctioned by every law, religious, moral or political.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The battle of Badr was defensive.]\n\n8. Sir W. Muir, the great advocate for the aggressive Koreish, holds\nthat the war of Badr was \"brought on by Mahomet himself,\"[4] and that he\nintended to surprise the caravan of the Koreish returning from Syria\nunder the charge of Abu Sofian, and had come out to Medina to waylay it.\nAbu Sofian sent for an army of the Koreish for his aid, and thus\ncommenced the battle of Badr. I have given my reasons at pages 74-76 of\nthe book to show that this is a false account. I will point out from\ncontemporary records, _i.e._, the Koran, that Mohammad neither meant,\nnor had he come out of Medina, to attack the caravan.\n\n[Sidenote: Reasons for the same.]\n\nI. The verses 5 and 6 of Sura VIII[5] show that a part of the believers\nwere quite averse to Mohammad's coming out of Medina on the occasion of\nthe battle of Badr. Had their mission been one of plundering rich\ncaravans, as it is generally alleged, there could be no reason for that\naversion of a party of believers who are accused so often of a hostile\nattitude towards the Koreish, and possessed of that great love of booty\nand adventure so prominent among the Arabs. The fact is, a party of\nbelievers had disputed with Mohammad the necessity of the combat and its\nprobable result outside Medina. They preferred to defend themselves\nwithin its walls. This argument is against the allegation that Mohammad\nwith his followers had started to waylay the caravan, and the Koreish\nhad come only to rescue it.\n\nII. The 43rd[6] verse of the same Sura shows that it was by a mere\naccident or coincidence that all the three parties of the Moslems, the\nKoreshite army and the caravan had arrived, and encamped close to Badr\nin front of each other. This is an argument against those who say that\nMohammad had intentionally come to Badr to waylay the caravan there.[7]\nThere was, in fact, no predetermination on the part of Mohammad either\nto waylay the caravan, or encounter the Koreish army at Badr. Mohammad\nwith his followers had come out only to check the advancing enemy in his\nself-defence.\n\nIII. The seventh[8] verse of the same Sura shows that while the parties\nhad so accidentally encamped close to each other, the Moslems had\ndesired then and there only to attack the caravan, as a reprisal or by\nway of retaliation, instead of combating with the Koreish army. This is\nan argument in support of my contention that there was no previous\narrangement to attack the caravan.\n\nIV. The same verse also shows that Mohammad had no intention of\nattacking the caravan either before his coming out of Medina, as it is\nalleged by ignorant people, or after coming at Badr in front of the\nenemy's army.\n\nV. Sura VIII, verse 72,[9] which treats of the prisoners of the war\ntaken at Badr, expressly notes the treachery of the Meccans before their\nbeing taken prisoner, and refers obviously to their aggressively setting\nout of Mecca to attack the Moslems at Medina.\n\nVI. Sura IX, verse 13,[10] at a subsequent event of the violation of\nthe truce of Hodeibia by the Koreish, very distinctly charges them with\nattacking first and waging offensive war and being aggressive. As there\nwas no war or attack from the Koreish on the Moslems before Badr, I\nconclude that in the war of Badr the Koreish were aggressive.\n\n[Footnote 4: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 255, _foot-note_. This\nnote has been expunged in the New Edition of \"The Life\": _Vide_ page\n317.]\n\n[Footnote 5: 5. \"_Remember_ how thy Lord caused thee to go forth from\nthy home on _a mission_ of truth, and verily a part of the believers\nwere quite averse to it.\"\n\n6. \"They disputed with thee about the truth after it had been made\nclear, as if they were being led forth to death and saw it before them.\"\nSura VIII.]\n\n[Footnote 6: 43. \"When ye were encamped on the near side of the valley,\nand they were on the further side, and the caravan was below you, if ye\nhave made an engagement to _attack_, ye would assuredly have failed the\nengagement; but _ye were led into action notwithstanding_, that God\nmight accomplish the thing _destined_ to be done.\" Sura VIII.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Muir's Life of Mahomet. New Edition, page 226.]\n\n[Footnote 8: \"And _remember_ when God promised you that one of the two\ntroops should fall to you, and ye desired that they who had no arms\nshould fall to you: but God purposed to prove true the truth of his\nwords, and to cut off the uttermost part of the infidels.\"]\n\n[Footnote 9: \"But if they seek to deal treacherously with thee--they\nhave already dealt treacherously with God before! Therefore hath He\ngiven you power over them.\"]\n\n[Footnote 10: \"Will ye not do battle with a people who have broken their\ncovenant and aimed to expel your Apostle and attacked you first? Will\nyou dread them?\"]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Mohammad, owing to the attacks, inroads and threatening\ngatherings from the Koreish and other Arab tribes, had hardly time to\nthink of offensive measures.]\n\n9. But Mohammad, harassed and attacked every year by the Koreish and\nother hostile Arab tribes, had hardly any time to wage an aggressive war\nagainst his Koreshite foes, to establish his imperilled rights, or to\nredress the injuries of the Moslems or his own wrong; much less of\ntaking up arms to compel them to renounce idolatry and believe in his\nDivine mission. During the first year after their expulsion from Mecca,\nthe Moslems were in constant danger from the ferocity of the Koreish,\nand when Mohammad was contracting treaties of neutrality with the\nneighbouring tribes, Kurz-bin-Jabir, a Koreish of the desert, committed\na raid upon Medina. In the course of the second year the Koreish fought\nthe battle of Badr, followed by a petty inroad of theirs upon Medina at\nthe end of the year. The Bani Nazeer treasoned against Medina by giving\nintelligence to, and entertaining, the enemy. In the beginning of the\nthird year, the nomad tribes of Suleim and Ghatafan, inhabitants of the\nplains of Najd, and descendants of a stock common with the Koreish,\ntwice projected a plundering attack upon Medina. At the same time the\nMoslems were defeated at the battle of Ohad, near Medina, by the\nKoreish, which circumstance greatly affected the prestige of the\nProphet, who was threatened with a similar fate the next year by his\nvictorious enemies. With the opening of the fourth year, the inimical\nspirit of many of the Bedouins, as well as that of the Jews of Bani\nNazeer, was perceptible, and in various quarters large masses were\norganized to act against Mohammad and to take advantage of the defeat at\nMedina. The tribes of Bani Asad and Bani Lahyan were brought together to\nfollow the victory of the Koreish at Ohad. And last, not least, the\nMoslem missionaries were cut to pieces at Raji and Bir Mauna. At the\nclose of the year, the people of Medina were alarmed by an exaggerated\naccount of the preparations at Mecca to attack Medina as promised last\nyear (Sura III, v. 176). During the fifth year certain tribes of\nGhatafan were assembling with suspicious purposes at Zat-al-Rikaa and\nthe marauding bands near Dumatal Jandal threatened a raid upon Medina.\nThe Bani Mustalik, a branch of Khozaa, hitherto friendly to Mohammad's\ncause, took up arms with a view of joining the Koreish in the intended\nattack upon Medina. At the end of the year, the Koreish, joined by an\nimmense force of the Bedouin tribes,[11] marched against Medina, and\nlaid siege to it for many days. The Bani Koreiza, having defected from\nMohammad, joined the Koreish army when Medina was besieged.\n\nIn the beginning of the sixth year Uyeina, the chief of the Bani\nFezara, had committed an inroad upon Medina.[12] A Medinite caravan,\nunder the charge of Zeid-bin-Haris, was seized and plundered by the Bani\nFezara.[13] In the month of Zul-Kada, (the eleventh month of the Arab\nlunar year), when war was unlawful throughout Arabia, but much more so\nwithin the sacred precincts of Mecca, Mohammad and his followers,\nlonging to visit the house of their Lord and the sacred places around\nit, and to join the yearly pilgrimage which they had grown from their\nchildhood to regard as an essential part of their social and religious\nlife, not to mention their intense desire of seeing their houses and\nfamilies from which they were unjustly expelled, started from Medina for\nperforming the lesser pilgrimage. They were under the impression that,\nin the peaceful habits of pilgrims, the Koreish would be morally bound\nby every pledge of national faith to leave them unmolested, and Mohammad\nhad promised them a peaceful entry. But the Koreish armed themselves and\nopposed the progress of the Moslems towards Mecca, notwithstanding the\npious object and unwarlike attitude of the pilgrims. At length a treaty,\nin terms unfavourable to the Moslems, but in fact a victory won by\nIslam, was concluded by Mohammad and the Koreish at Hodeibia. By this\npeace war was suspended for ten years.\n\nFrom my brief sketch of Mohammad's first six years' sojourn in Medina,\nit is evident that during this time Medina was constantly in a sort of\nmilitary defence. The Moslems were every moment in the danger of an\ninvasion, attack, or inroad from without, and treachery, conspiracy and\ntreason from within. They either had to encounter superior numbers or to\ndisperse hostile gathering or to chastise sometimes marauding tribes. So\nMohammad could scarcely breathe freely at Medina, but much less could he\nfind time and opportunity to mature a scheme of attacking the Koreish at\nMecca in order to revenge himself and his refugees for the persecutions\nwhich the Koreish had inflicted on the Moslems, to redress their wrongs,\nand to re-establish their rights of civil and religious liberty, or to\nmake converts of them or any other tribes at the point of sword.\n\n[Footnote 11: Bani Ashja, Murra Fezara, Suleim, Sad, Asad, and several\nclans of Ghatafan, the Jews of Wady-al-Koraa and Khyber.]\n\n[Footnote 12: A party of Moslems at Zil Kassa was slain, and Dihya, sent\nby Mohammad to the Roman Emperor, on his return, was robbed of every\nthing by the Bani Juzam beyond Wady-al-Kora.]\n\n[Footnote 13: The Jews at Khyber were enticing the Bani Fezara and Bani\nSad-bin-Bakr and other Bedouin tribes to make depredations upon Medina.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Armed opposition of the Koreish to the Moslem pilgrims in the\nvicinity of Mecca.]\n\n[Sidenote: Mohammad proclaimed war against the opposing Koreish to\nobtain the right of civil and religious liberty at Mecca.]\n\n10. It was only when the Moslems, unarmed as they were in pilgrim's\ngarb, were opposed by the armed Koreish, who had encamped at Zu Towa,\nclothed in panther's skin, or, in other words, with a firm resolution to\nfight to the last, and when Osman, the Moslem envoy to Mecca, was\nactually placed in confinement,[14] of whom the rumour was constantly\nrife that he was murdered at Mecca, and when a party of the Koreish had\nactually attacked the camp of Mohammad,[15] that excitement, alarm and\nanxiety prevailed in the Moslem camp, and Mohammad took a solemn oath\nfrom the Faithful to stand by their cause even unto death. (Sura\nXLVIII.[16]) In the meantime appeals were received from the Moslems\ndetained in confinement at Mecca, and otherwise oppressed for\ndeliverance. _Vide_ Sura IV, verses 77, 99, 100; Sura VIII, verses 72,\n73. He, on this occasion, proclaimed a war with the Koreish in the event\nof their attacking first, and enjoining the believers to redress their\nearlier and later wrongs, to establish their civil and religious\nliberty, to have free access to their native city, to have the free\nexercise of their religion, and to make away with the oppressions of\nKoreish once for all.\n\nThe following verses were published on the occasion:--Sura II, verses\n186-190, 212-215. The Sura XLVIII afterwards had reference to the\noccasion, specially verses 10, 22-27. They are quoted in pp. 17-19.\n\n[Sidenote: The war thus proclaimed did not take place.]\n\nBut happily a truce was agreed upon, and not a drop of blood was shed on\neither side. Thus the injunctions contained in the verses referred to\nabove were never carried out. Mohammad, in proclaiming this war, had all\nthe laws and justice on his side. Even this war, had it been waged,\nwould have been defensive, undertaken for the purpose of establishing\nthe civil rights of the Moslems and their religious liberty, hitherto\nunjustly denied them.\n\n[Footnote 14: Ibn Hisham, p. 746.]\n\n[Footnote 15: _Ibid._ 745, see Sura XLVIII.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Mohammad had gained over some of the Bedouin tribes in the\ndirection of Mecca, and were on friendly terms with him. At this time\nthey were summoned by Mohammad to join him if there be a war. They did\nnot join him except a very few.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: The Koreish again commit hostilities and violate their\npledges.]\n\n[Sidenote: War declared against those who had violated the truce.]\n\n11. This truce did not last long. The last act of hostility on the part\nof the aggressive Koreish was the violation of the truce within two\nyears of its being concluded. This resulted in the submission of Mecca.\nThe tribe of Bani Khozaa,[17] who were now converts to Islam since the\ntruce, and who had entered into an open alliance with Mohammad at the\ntreaty, were attacked by the Koreish and their allies, the Bani\nBakr.[18] The aggressed Moslems appealed for aid to Mohammad through a\ndeputation, that displayed their wrongs to Mohammad and his followers in\nvery touching terms, urging in a plaintive tone to avenge them upon the\ntreacherous murderers. War was declared by Mohammad against the\naggressors, who had violated the truce, and attacked the Bani Khozaa, to\nredress their wrongs. A proclamation was issued declaring immunity from\nGod and his Apostle to those who had broken the league and aided the\nBani Bakr against the Khozaa. Four months' time was allowed them to make\nterms, in default of which they were to be warred against, seized, and\nbesieged, in short, to suffer all the hardships of war. Sura IX, verses\n1-15, was published declaring the war. It has been copied at pages 22-25\nof the book.\n\n[Sidenote: War not carried out.]\n\nBut the threatened war did not actually take place, and Mecca\nsurrendered by a compromise. Thus Mohammad obtained his object of civil\nand religious liberty of the Moslems at Mecca and Medina, and averted\nthe (_fitnah_) persecutions and oppressions of the Koreish without\nactual war or bloodshed, and also secured peace for his followers in\nexchange of the constant fear and agitation impending over them. This\nwas promised some years ago in Sura XXIV, verse 54, which runs as\nfollows:--\n\n \"God hath promised to those of you who believe and do the things\n that are right, that He will cause them to succeed other in the\n land, as He gave succession to those who went before them, and that\n He will establish for them their religion in which they delight,\n and that after their fears He will give them security in exchange.\n They shall worship Me: nought shall they join with Me: And whoso\n after this believe not, they will be the impious.\"\n\n[Footnote 17: The Bani Khozaa are also taken notice of in Sura VIII,\nverses 73-74.]\n\n[Footnote 18: The Bani Bakr, son of Abd Monat, were a branch of Kinana\nof the Moaddite stock.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: War with foes other than the Koreish.]\n\n12. Now I shall dispense with the Koreish and refer to the wars of other\nenemies of the early Moslems. There is only one war of the Arab tribes\nother than the Koreish noticed in the Koran, and that is the battle of\nHonain. In this war the Sakifites were the aggressors. The battle of\nMuraisia is not noticed in the Koran, but it is stated by biographers\nthat information of a new project against him after the defeat at Ohad\nin the direction of Mecca, and the Bani Mustalik's raising fresh forces\nwith a view of joining the Koreish in the threatened attack of Medina\nhaving reached Mohammad, he resolved by a bold attempt to prevent their\ndesign. I have shown in the book that the expedition of Mohammad against\nKhyber was purely in self-defence. A war undertaken to protect ourselves\nfrom the impending danger of an attack from the enemy and with the\npurpose of checking its advance, is a defensive war under the Law. I am\nnot going to treat of expedition of the Bani Koreiza separately, but\nthis much is necessary to say here, that they had treacherously defected\nfrom the Moslem with whom they had entered into a defensive alliance,\nand had joined the confederate army against the Moslems. For a detail\naccount of them, the reader is referred to pages 87-91 of this book.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Expedition to Tabuk to check the advancing enemy. No war took\nplace.]\n\n13. The expedition of Mecca, already described, ended in a submission\nand compromise without any resort to arms; that against Tabuk was\nundertaken, as it is admitted by all writers, Moslem and European, for\npurely defensive purposes. Mohammad was much alarmed on this occasion\nowing to the threatening news of a foreign invasion against the Moslem\ncommonwealth. The following verses of the Ninth Sura are most probably\ndirected towards the Romans and their Jewish and Christian allies,[19]\nif not towards the Jews of Khyber:--\n\n 29. \"Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been\n given as believe not in God or in the last day, and who forbid not\n that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not\n the profession of the Truth, until they pay tribute out of hand,\n and they be humbled.\"\n\n 124. \"Believers wage war against such of the unbelievers as are\n your neighbours, and let them assuredly find rigour in you, and\n know that God is with those who fear him.\"--_Sura IX._\n\nMohammad returned without any war, and there was no occasion to carry\nout the injunctions contained in these verses.\n\nMohammad had taken great pains, according to the severity of the\nimpending danger, to induce the Moslems to go to war in their own\ndefence. But as the season was hot, and the journey a long one, some of\nthem were very backward in doing so.\n\nThere is a very violent denunciation against those who on various false\npretences held back on the occasion.\n\n[Footnote 19: The Jews of Macna Azruh and Jabra, and the Christian\nChiefs of Ayla and Duma.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Number of the wars of Mohammad.]\n\n14. The above sketch of the hostilities will show that there were only\nfive battles in which actual fighting took place. The biographers of\nMohammad and the narrators of his campaigns are too lax in enumerating\nthe expeditions led by Mohammad. They have noted down the names and\naccounts of various expeditions without having due regard to a rational\ncriticism, or without being bound by the stringent laws of the technical\nrequirements of traditionary evidence. Consequently, they give us\nromances of the expeditions without specifying which of them are true\nand which fictitious. There are many expeditions enumerated by the\nbiographers[20] which have, in fact, no trustworthy evidence for their\nsupport; some are altogether without foundation, and some of them are\nwrongly termed as expeditions for warring purposes. _Ghazavat_ is\nwrongly understood by European writers as meaning \"plundering\nexpeditions.\" Deputations to conclude friendly treaties, missions to\nteach Islam, embassies to foreign chiefs, mercantile expeditions,\npilgrims' processions, parties sent to disperse or chastise a band of\nrobbers, or to watch the movements of an enemy, spies sent to bring\ninformation, and forces dispatched or led to fight with or check an\nenemy are all called \"_Ghazavat_\" (expeditions,) \"_Saraya_\" and \"_Baus_\"\n(enterprises and despatches). Thus the number of Mohammad's expeditions\nhas been unduly exaggerated, first by biographers, who noted down every\nexpedition or warlike enterprise reported in the several authentic and\nunauthentic traditions long after their occurrences, and did not at all\ntrouble their heads by criticising them; and secondly by giving all\nmissions, deputations, embassies, pilgrims' journies, and mercantile\nenterprises under the category of \"_Ghazavat_\" and \"_Saraya_,\" lately\nconstrued by European writers as \"plundering expeditions,\" or \"a\ndespatch of body of men with hostile intents.\" The biographers, both\nArabian and European, have gone so far as to assert that there were 27\nexpeditions led by Mohammad in person, and 74 others headed by persons\nnominated by himself, making in all 101. This number is given by Ibn Sad\nKatib Wakidi (vide _Kustalani_, Vol. VI, page 386). Ibn Is-hak also\ngives the number of Mohammad's expeditions to be 27, while others led at\nhis order are put down at 38 only (vide _Ibn Hisham_, pp. 972 and 973).\nAbu Yola has a tradition from Jabir, a contemporary of Mohammad, who\nmentions only 21 expeditions. But the best authority, Zeid-bin-Arqam, in\nthe earliest traditions collected by Bokhari, _Kitabul Maghazi_, in two\nplaces in his book, reduces the number to 19, including all sorts of\nexpeditions and the number in which he was with Mohammad. Out of these\nalleged 27, 21, 19 and 17 expeditions, there were only 8[21] or 9,[22]\nin which an actual fighting took place. Even the latter minimized\nnumbers are not deserving of confidence. The actual expeditions are as\nfollow:--\n\n 1. Badr.\n 2. Ohad.\n * Muraisi.\n 3. Ahazab.\n * Koreiza.\n 4. Khyber.\n * Mecca.\n 5. Honain.\n * Tayif.\n\nThere are no good authorities for the war at Muraisi with the Bani\nMustalik. There were no fightings with the Koreiza, as their affair was\nbut a continuation of the war of Ahzab, and therefore does not require a\nseparate number. At Mecca there was no action, and it surrendered by a\ncompromise. As for Tayif it was a part of the battle of Honain like\nAutas. It was besieged to lay hold of the fugitives who had sought there\na shelter, and subsequently the siege was raised. Thus, there remain\nonly five expeditions, which I have numbered out of nine, in which\nMohammad fought against his enemies in his and his followers' defence.\nEven these five scarcely deserve the name of battle. From a military\npoint of view, they were but petty skirmishes in their results. The\nenemy's loss at Badr was 49, at Ohad 20, at Ahzab 3, at Khyber 93, and\nat Honain 93; but the last two numbers are open to doubt, and seem to be\nexaggerated. The loss on the Moslem side was 14, 74, 5, 19, and 17\nrespectively. The whole casualties in these wars on the side of the\nMoslems were 129, and on that of the enemies 258, which is exactly\ndouble those of the Moslems, and looks suspicious; hence it must be\naccepted with caution.\n\n[Footnote 20: The biographers have only compiled or arranged the mass of\npopular romances and favourite tales of campaigns, which had become\nstereotyped in their time, but were for the most part the inventions of\na playful fantasy.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Musa-bin-Akba (died 141 A.H.)]\n\n[Footnote 22: Ibn Sad and Ibn Is-hak as already alluded to.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Mr. Green quoted.]\n\n15. The Rev. Samuel Green writes:--\n\n \"It has been insinuated that Mahomet first took up arms in his own\n defence, and by more than one historian he has been justified in\n seeking to repel or prevent the hostilities of his enemies, and to\n exact a reasonable measure of retaliation. 'The choice of an\n independent people,' says Gibbon, 'had exalted the fugitive of\n Mecca to the rank of a sovereign, and he was invested with the just\n prerogative of forming alliances, and of waging offensive or\n defensive war.'[23] That such a sentiment was entertained by a\n Mahometan does not at all surprise us, nor is it marvellous that it\n should be justified by an infidel; if it be true, war needs nothing\n to render laudable but the pretext of former injuries and the\n possession of power. The defence set up for Mahomet is equally\n availing for every sanguinary and revengeful tyrant; and men,\n instead of being bound together by the ties of clemency and mutual\n forgiveness of injuries, are transformed into fiends, watching for\n the opportunity of destroying each other.\"[24]\n\nThere was no pretence of former injuries on the part of the Moslems to\nmake war on the Koreish. They were actually attacked by the Koreish and\nwere several times threatened with inroads by them and their allies. So\nit was not until they were attacked by the enemy that they took up arms\nin their own defence, and sought to repel and prevent hostilities of\ntheir enemies. The defence set up for Mohammad is not equally availing\nof every sanguinary and revengeful tyrant. It was not only that Mohammad\nwas wronged or attacked, but all the Moslems suffered injuries and\noutrages at Mecca, and when expelled therefrom, they were attacked upon,\nwere not allowed to return to their homes, and to perform the pilgrimage\nthere. The social and religious liberty, a natural right of every\nindividual and nation, was denied them. A cruel or revengeful tyrant may\nnot be justified in taking up arms in his own defence, or in seeking to\nredress his personal wrongs and private injuries; but the whole Moslem\ncommunity at Mecca was outraged, persecuted and expelled,--and the\nentire Mohammadan commonwealth at Medina was attacked, injured and\nwronged,--their natural rights and privileges were disregarded--after\nsuch miseries the Moslems took up arms to protect themselves from the\nhostilities of their enemies and to repel force by force; and were\njustified by every law and justice.\n\nThe right of self-defence is a part of the law of nature, and it is the\nindispensable duty of civil society to protect its members. Even if a\nsanguinary and revengeful tyrant were to do so in his own behalf, he\nwould be quite justified in this particular act. A just war, that is one\nundertaken for just causes to repel or revert wrongful force, or to\nestablish a right, cannot be impeached on any ground, religious, moral,\nor political. But the Moslems had tried every possible means of\nobtaining a pacific solution of the difficulty which had arisen between\nthem and their enemies, the Koreish and the Jews, to avert war and its\nhorrors. Mohammad had repeatedly informed the Koreish that if they\ndesist they will be forgiven.\n\n 88. \"But if they desist, then verily God is gracious, merciful.\"\n\n 189. \"But if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save\n against wrong-doers.\"--_Sura II._\n\n 19. \"_O Meccans!_ if ye desired a decision, now hath the decision\n come to you. It will be better for you to give over _the struggle_.\n If ye return _to it_, we will return; and your forces, though they\n be many, shall by no means avail you aught, because God is with the\n faithful.\"\n\n 39. \"Say to the infidels: If they desist what is now past shall be\n forgiven them; but if they turn _to it_, they have already before\n them the doom of the former.\"--_Sura VIII._\n\nAnd the same was the case regarding the Jews.\n\n 104. \"Many of those who have Scripture would like to bring you back\n to unbelief after you have believed, out of selfish envy, even\n after the truth hath been shown to them. Forgive them then, and\n shun them till God shall come with his decree. Truly God hath power\n over all things.\"--_Sura II._\n\n 63. \"But if they lean to peace, lean thou also to it; and put thy\n trust in God. He verily is the hearing, the knowing.\"--_Sura VIII._\n\n 16. ... \"Thou wilt not cease to discover the treacherous ones among\n them, except a few of them. But forgive them and pass it over.\n Verily God loveth those who act generously.\"--_Sura V._\n\nBut there could be no peace or mutual agreement on the part of the enemy\nuntil the truce of Hodeibia, which was also violated by them in a short\ntime.\n\nEven in the wars which were waged for self-preservation, the Prophet had\nvery much mitigated the evils which are necessarily inflicted in the\nprogress of wars. Fraud, perfidy, cruelty, killing women, children and\naged persons were forbidden by Mohammad;[25] and a kind treatment of the\nprisoners of war enjoined. But foremost of these all--slavery, and\ndomestication of concubinary slaves, the concomitant evils of war--were\nabolished by him, ordering at the same time that prisoners of war should\nbe either liberated gratis or ransomed. Neither they were to be enslaved\nnor killed. (_Vide_ Sura XLVII, verses 4 and 5; and Appendix B of this\nwork.) Attacking offensively was forbidden by the Koran (II, 186 _La\nTaatadu_, _i.e._ 'Do not attack first'). Mohammad had taken oaths from\nthe Moslems to refrain from plundering (_vide_ page 58 of this book).\n\n \"All hostilities and plundering excursions between neighbouring\n tribes that had become Musalman he forbade on pain of death; and\n this among those who had hitherto lived by plunder or by war, and\n who he knew might be deterred by such prohibition from joining him.\n 'Let us make one more expedition against the Temim,' said a tribe\n that was almost, but not altogether, persuaded to embrace the\n faith, 'and then we will become Musalmans.'\"[26]\n\n \"In avenging my injuries,\" said he (Mohammad), \"molest not the\n harmless votaries of domestic seclusion; spare the weakness of the\n softer sex, the infant at the breast, and those who in the course\n of nature are hastening from this scene of mortality. Abstain from\n demolishing the dwellings of the unresisting inhabitants; destroy\n not their means of subsistence, respect their fruit trees, and\n touch not the palm, so useful to the Syrians for its shade, and\n delightful for its verdure.\"[27]\n\n \"The Bani Bakr,\" writes Sir W. Muir, \"meanwhile, foreseeing from\n the practice of the Prophet that, under the new faith, their mutual\n enmities would be stifled, resolved upon a last passage of arms\n with their foes. The battle of _Shaitain_ fought at the close of\n 630 A.D. was a bloody and fatal one to the Bani Tamim.\"[28]\n\n[Footnote 23: \"Decline and Fall, Chap. 1.\"]\n\n[Footnote 24: The Life of Mahomet, founder of the religion of Islamism\nand of the Empire of the Saracens, by the Rev. Samuel Green, page 126:\nLondon, 1877.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Mohammad's instruction to Abdal-Rahman was--\"In no case\nshalt thou use deceit or perfidy, nor shalt thou kill any child.\"--Muir,\nVol. IV, p. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 26: 'Quoted by Dr. Cazenove,' \"Christian Remembrancer,\"\nJanuary, 1855, page 71, from Caussin de Perceval. Mohammed &\nMohammedanism. By R. Bosworth Smith, Second Edn., pp. 257 & 258. London,\n1876.]\n\n[Footnote 27: An History of Mohammedanism; comprising the Life and\nCharacter of the Arabian Prophet; by Charles Mills, page 27. London\n1818.]\n\n[Footnote 28: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, Intro., p. ccxxvii. London,\n1861.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Another view of the wars of Mohammad.]\n\n16. There is another view of the wars of Mohammad held by some of the\nEuropean and American writers that he commenced hostilities on the\ncaravans of the Koreish which passed from Medina by way of reprisal and\nretaliation,[29] and that he at first took up arms in his self-defence,\nbut at last he proclaimed, and waged, offensive wars against the\nKoreish.[30] I have already shown how improbable the line of action was\non the part of Mohammad under the circumstances at Medina; and this line\nof policy is quite contrary to the several verses of the Koran on the\nsubject, all enjoining the waging of wars in self-defence. But supposing\nthat hostilities were first commenced by Mohammad after the Hegira, the\nstate of war having commenced at the expulsion of the Moslems from\nMecca, it was lawful for him to take up arms to redress the wrongs of\nthe Moslems and to establish their lawful right by force of arms. A war\ncommenced on these grounds is a defensive war, though from a military\npoint of view it may be an offensive one.[31]\n\n \"The right of self-defence,\" writes Kent, a great authority on the\n International Law, \"is part of the law of our nature, and it is the\n indispensable duty of civil society to protect its members in the\n enjoyment of their rights, both of person and property. This is the\n fundamental principle of the social compact.... The injury may\n consist, not only in the direct violation of personal or political\n rights, but in wrongfully withholding what is due, or in the\n refusal of a reasonable reparation for injuries committed, or of\n adequate explanation or security in respect to manifest and\n impending danger.\"[32]\n\n[Footnote 29: Sir W. Muir doubts the intense hatred and bitter cruelty\nattributed by tradition to the Koreish, and says: \"In accordance with\nthis view is the fact that the first aggressions, after the Hegira, were\nsolely on the part of Mahomet and his followers. It was not until\nseveral of their caravans had been waylaid and plundered and blood had\nthus been shed that the people of Mecca were forced in self-defence to\nresort to arms.\" The Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, page 265, foot-note.\nLondon, 1861. This note disappears in the new edition of 1877. In his\nwork \"The Coran,\" page 24, London, 1878, Sir W. Muir says: \"The caravans\nof Mecca offered a tempting opportunity for reprisals, and several\nexpeditions were organized against them.\"]\n\n[Footnote 30: Mr. G. Sale writes: \"He gave out that God had allowed him\nand his followers to defend themselves against the infidels; and at\nlength, as his forces increased, he pretended to have the divine leave\neven to attack them.\" _The Prelim. Dis. Sect. 11._ Mr. Henry Coppee\nwrites regarding Mohammad: \"But he soon found that he must take up arms\nin self defence, and in the thirteenth year of his mission, he announced\nthat God permitted him not only to fight in his self-defence, but to\npropagate his religion by the sword.\" History of the Conquest of Spain\nby the Arab-Moors, by Henry Coppee. Vol. I, page 39. Boston, 1881. But\nDr. A. Sprenger makes the object of the wars of Mohammad purely\ndefensive. He writes:--\"The Prophet now promulgated, in the name of God,\nthe law to fight their enemies, in order to put a stop to persecutions;\nand this became henceforth the watchword of his bloody religion.\" The\nLife of Mohammad, p. 207: Allahabad, 1851.]\n\n[Footnote 31: M. Bluntschili, a modern authority on the International\nLaw, holds: \"A war undertaken for defensive motives is a defensive war,\nnotwithstanding that it may be militarily offensive.\" The International\nLaw, by William Edward Hall, M.A., Oxford, 1880, page 320.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Kent's Commentary on International Law. Edited by J.T.\nAbdy, LL.D., Second Edition, page 144.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Caravans, if waylaid, were by reprisal.]\n\n17. As regards the threatened attack on the caravans or capturing of it,\nthere are not any satisfactory grounds of proof; but if they were\nattacked and captured, I do not see any reason why they should be\nobjected to. When hostilities commence, the first objects that naturally\npresent themselves for detection and seizure are the person and property\nof the enemy. Even under the International Law of most civilized\ncountries, the legitimacy of appropriating the enemy's property rests on\nthe commencement of the state of war. Under the old customs of war a\nbelligerent possessed the right to seize and appropriate all the\nproperty belonging to an enemy's state or its subjects, of whatever kind\nthey be or in whatsoever place where the acts of war are permissible. So\nthose who object to the early Moslems' threatening, or capturing, or\nappropriating the person or property of the enemy, and call them\nrobbery, rapine or brigandage, show their complete ignorance of the\nInternational Law, ancient or modern.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Intolerance--no compulsory conversion enjoined, or took\nplace during Mohammad's life-time.]\n\n18. The subject of the alleged intolerance on the part of Mohammad, the\nProphet, towards the unbelievers has been fully discussed in paragraphs\n34-39 (pp. 41-51). It is altogether a wrong assumption of European\nwriters that the Koran enjoins compulsory conversion of the unbeliever,\nor that Mohammad proselytized at the point of the sword. Sir W. Muir\nwrites:--\n\n[Sidenote: Sir W. Muir quoted.]\n\n \"Persecution, though it may sometimes have deterred the timid from\n joining his ranks, was eventually of unquestionable service to\n Mahomet. It furnished a plausible excuse for casting aside the garb\n of toleration; for opposing force to force against those who\n obstructed the ways of the Lord; and last of all for the compulsory\n conversion of unbelievers.\"[33]\n\nOpposing force to force and even redressing our wrongs and\nre-establishing our imperilled rights is not 'intolerance.' Mohammad did\nrepel the force of his enemies when it was quite necessary for the\nMoslem self-preservation and protection, but he never compelled any of\nhis enemies or unbelievers, whether a single individual, or a body of\nmen, or a whole tribe, to believe in him. The Koran and history\ncontradict such an allegation. The Koran everywhere in the Meccan and\nMedinite Suras preaches complete toleration of every religion. History\nnowhere authentically records any instance of Mohammad's enforcing\nconversion by means of the sword.\n\n[Footnote 33: The Life of Mahomet from original sources, by Sir W. Muir,\nLL.D. New Edition, page 68, London, 1877. See also page 57 of the\nsame.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: A brief sketch of the propagation of Islam at Mecca.]\n\n[Sidenote: Conversion at Nakhla.]\n\n19. Mohammad propagated his religion both at Mecca and Medina before, as\nwell as after, the Hegira, by persuasion and preaching sustained by\nreasonable evidence. It prevailed against all persecution and opposition\nof the Koreish and Jews. In fact, it flourished and prospered under the\nsevere persecutions and crushing oppositions by the mere dint of its own\ntruth.[34] Sometimes the persecution of the Koreish itself was the cause\nof conversion to the Moslem faith.[35] The number of converts during the\nfirst three years after the assumption by Mohammad of his prophetical\noffice is estimated at fifty. Then commenced the general persecution and\nthe overwhelming opposition. Mohammad had, in order to prosecute his\nendeavours peaceably and without interruption, occupied the house of\nArqam, one of his early converts, and there preached and recited the\nKoran to those who used to be conducted to him. A great multitude\nbelieved therein; but the brunt of the jealousy and enmity of the\nKoreish fell upon the converted slaves, as well as upon strangers and\nbelievers among the lower classes, who had no patron nor protector. Some\nbelievers, sixteen in number, had already left for Abyssinia. Some came\nback and brought tidings of their kind reception there. At this time\nabout a hundred Moslems emigrated to Abyssinia.[36] This shows the\nincreasing number of the converts, who represented for the most part\nfugitives of Mecca. There were some Christian converts to Islam at\nAbyssinia also.[37] The Koreish being disquieted by the hospitable\nreception of the refugees at Abyssinia, and enraged by the refusal of\nNajashee to surrender them, sought to stay the progress of secession\nfrom their ranks by utterly severing the party of the Prophet from\nsocial and friendly communication with them. In the seventh year of the\nProphet's mission the ban commenced, and lasted for full three years.\nThere could be very few conversions during the period of this weary\nseclusion. The efforts of the Prophet were chiefly confined to the\nconversions of the members of his own noble clan, the Bani Hashim, who,\nthough unbelievers in his mission, had resolved to defend his person,\nand were with him in their confinement. The time of pilgrimage alone\nafforded Mohammad a wider field. He preached against idolatry at the\nfairs and assemblages of the pilgrims[38]. After his release from\nimprisonment in the tenth year of his mission, he went to preach at\nTayif, but was ignominiously expelled the city[39]. On his return to\nMecca he converted a party of the tribe of Jinn[40] (not Genii according\nto the vulgar notion)[41] at Nakhla. After his return from Tayif he\npreached to an audience of six or seven persons from Medina, who\nbelieved and spread Islam there.\n\n[Footnote 34: I do not mean to say that flourishing under persecution is\na convincing proof of the divine origin of a religion. Not that a\nreligion established by force is altogether of human invention. Almost\nall religions are divine however they may have been established, but\nflourishing under opposition and persecution is a natural course.\nChristianity suffered from persecutions and other harrowing evils for\n300 years, after which time it was established, and paganism abolished\nby public authority, which has had great influence in the propagation of\nthe one and destruction of the other ever since.]\n\n[Footnote 35: \"The severity and injustice of the Cureish, overshooting\nthe mark, aroused personal and family sympathies; unbelievers sought to\navert or to mitigate the sufferings of the followers of the Prophet; and\nin so doing they were sometimes themselves gained over to his side.\" The\nLife of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Second Edition, page 68.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Among them were the representatives of the following\ntribes or clans of the Koreish, the Hashimites, Omiyyiads, Bani Abd\nShams, Bani Asad, Bani Abd bin Kosayy, Bani Abd-ud-Dar, Bani Zohra, Bani\nTaym bin Morra, the Mukwhumites, the Jomahites, and the Bani Sahm.\n_Vide_ Sprenger, page 190, Allahabad, 1851.]\n\n[Footnote 37: _Vide_ Hishamee, page 259. An allusion to these converts\nmay be found in Sura V, verses 85 and 86, if it does not refer to those\nof Najran.]\n\n[Footnote 38: He preached to the following tribes among others:--Bani\nAamr bin Sasaa, Bani Moharib, Bani Hafasa (or Khafasa), Bani Fezara,\nBani Ghassan, Bani Kalb, Bani Haris, Bani Kab, Bani Ozra, Bani Murra,\nBani Hanifa, Bani Suleim, Bani Abs, Bani Nazr, Bani Bakka, Bani Kinda,\nand Bani Khozaimah.]\n\n[Footnote 39: \"There is something lofty and heroic in this journey of\nMahomet to Tayif; a solitary man, despised and rejected by his own\npeople, going boldly forth in the name of God,--like Jonah to\nNineveh--and summoning an idolatrous city to repentance and to the\nsupport of his mission. It sheds a strong light on the intensity of his\nown belief in the divine origin of his calling.\"--The Life of Mahomet,\nby Sir W. Muir, Vol. II, page 207.]\n\n[Footnote 40: The Arabs also had a similar clan named Bani Shaitan, a\nclan of the Hinzala tribe, the descendants of Tamim, through Zeid Monat\nof the Moaddite stock. The Bani Shaitan (the children of Satan) dwelt\nnear Kufa.--_Vide_ Qalqashandi's Dictionary of Arab Tribes.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Sura XLVI, verses 28, 29. These people were from Nisibin\nand Nineveh in Mesopotamia. They were Chaldeans, soothsayers, and\ncabalists. In the book of Daniel the Chaldeans are classed with\nmagicians and astronomers, and evidently form a sort of the priest class\nwho have a peculiar \"tongue\" and \"learning\" (Dan. I. 4). In Arabic,\npersons of similar professions were called _Kahins_. Some of this class\nof people pretended to receive intelligence of what was to come to pass\nfrom certain satans or demons, whom they alleged to hear what passed in\nthe heavens. Others pretended to control the stars by enchanting them.\nThey produced eclipses of the sun and moon by their alleged efficiency\nin their own enchantments. They practised astrology as well as astronomy\nand fortune-telling.\n\nIt appears that the Chaldeans (Kaldai or Kaldi) were in the earliest\ntimes merely one out of the many Cushite tribes inhabiting the great\nalluvial plain known afterwards as Chaldea or Babylonia. In process of\ntime as the Kaldi grew in power, their name prevailed over that of the\nother tribes inhabiting the country; and by the era of the Jewish\ncaptivity it had begun to be used generally for all the inhabitants of\nBabylonia. It had thus come by this time to have two senses, both\nethnic: in the one, it was the special appellative of a particular race\nto whom it had belonged from the remotest times; in the other, it\ndesignated the nation at large in which the race was predominant.\nAfterwards it was transferred from an ethnic to a mere restricted sense,\nfrom the name of a people to that of a priest caste or sect of\nphilosophers. The Kaldi proper belonged to the Cushite race. While both\nin Assyria and in Babylonia, the sernitic type of speech prevailed for\nspecial purposes, the ancient Cushite dialect was purely reserved for\nscientific and religious literature. This is no doubt the \"learning\" and\nthe \"tongue\" to which reference is made in the Bible (Dan. I. 4). It\nbecame gradually inaccessible to the great mass of people who had\nemigrated by means, chiefly, of Assyrian influence. But it was the\nChaldean learning in the old Chaldean or Cushite language. Hence all who\nstudied it, whatever their origin or race, were, on account of their\nknowledge, termed Chaldeans. In this sense Daniel himself, \"the master\nof Chaldeans\" (Dan. V. 11.), would, no doubt, have been reckoned among\nthem, and so we find Seleucas, a Greek, called a Chaldean by Strabo\n(XVI. 1, Sec. 6). The Chaldeans were really a learned class, who by their\nacquaintance with the language of science became its depositaries. They\nwere priests, magicians or astronomers, as their preference for one or\nother of those occupations inclined them; and in the last of these three\ncapacities they probably effected discoveries of great importance. The\nChaldeans, it would appear, congregated into bodies forming what we may\nperhaps call universities, and they all engaged together in it for their\nprogress. They probably mixed up to some extent astrology with their\nastronomy, even in the earlier times, but they certainly made great\nadvance in astronomical science to which their serene sky and\ntransparent atmosphere specially invited them. In later times they seem\ncertainly to have degenerated into mere fortune-tellers (_vide_ Smith's\nDict. of the Bible, Art. _Chaldeans_).\n\nIn their practice of astromancy or enchanting the stars, and in\npretending to overhear what passed in the heavens, they, the Jinns, used\nto sit on the tops of lofty mansions at night-time for hours offering\nsacrifices to the stars and enchanting them. In their peculiar tongue\nand learning they called this practice \"stealing a hearing\" and \"sitting\nfor listening\" (Suras XV, verse 17, and LXXII, verses 8, 9).\n\nNow at the time of Mohammad's assuming the Prophet's office there had\nbeen an unusually grand display of numerous falling stars, which at\ncertain periods are known to be specially abundant. At the same time\nthere were good many comets visible in different parts of heavens, which\ncertainly might have smitten with terror these Jinns, _i.e._, the\nastromancers and soothsayers. There was one comet visible in 602 A.D.,\nand other two appeared in 605 A.D. In 607 A.D. two more comets were\nvisible; another one appeared in 608 A.D. Each of the years 614 and 615\nhad one comet. There were also comets visible in 617 A.D. (_vide_\nChambers's Descriptive Astronomy). These comets are most probably\nnoticed in the contemporary record (_i.e._ the Koran). A comet is called\n_Tariq_, or \"night comer,\" in Sura LXXXVI, verse 1; and described as the\nstar of piercing radiance. (_Annajmus Saqib. Ibid_ 3.)\n\nThe _Kahins_ were very much alarmed at the stupendous phenomena of the\nfalling stars and the comets; and had stopped their soothsaying and\ndivinations. Whenever they used to sit on their places of listening,\nenchanting, and divination during night-time, looking at the heavens,\ntheir eyes met with showers of shooting stars and brilliant comets which\nbewildered them very much. It is said that the first whose attention was\nattracted to the unusual shooting stars was a clan of the Sakeefites of\nUs-Tayif (Ibn Hisham, page 131). These Jinns, when they were converted\nto Islam at Nakhla near Tayif, expressed their bewilderment from the\nunusual shower of falling stars and the appearance of numerous comets in\ntheir peculiar language:--\n\n\"The heaven did we essay but found it filled with mighty garrison and of\ndarting flames.\"\n\n\"We sat on some of the seats to listen, but whoever now listeneth\nfindeth a darting flame in ambush for him.\"\n\n\"We know not whether evil be meant for them that are on earth, or\nwhether their Lord meaneth true guidance for them.\"--Sura LXXII, verses\n8-10.\n\nSo the pretenders of hearing the discourses of heavenly bodies being\nquite harassed by the extraordinary showers of the falling stars, and\nthe appearances of numerous comets, had stopped their divination. This\nwas taken notice of in the Koran:--\n\n\"They overhear not exalted chiefs, and they are darted from every side.\"\n\n\"Driven off and consigned to a lasting torment; while if one steal by\nstealth then a glistering flame pursueth him.\"--Sura XXXVII, verses\n8-10.\n\n\"Save such as steal a hearing, and him do visible flames pursue.\"--Sura\nXV, verse 18.\n\n\"The satans were not sent down with this _Koran_. It beseemed them not,\nand they had not the power. For they are far removed from the\nhearing.\"--Sura XXVI, verses 210-212.\n\nAs an instance of terror and bewilderment caused by meteors and shooting\nstars among credulous people, I will quote the following anecdote:\n\nAbout the middle of the tenth century an epidemic terror of the end of\nthe world had spread over Christendom. The scene of the last judgment\nwas expected to be in Jerusalem.\n\nIn the year 999 the number of pilgrims proceeding eastwards, to await\nthe coming of the Lord in that city, was so great that they were\ncompared to a desolating army. During the thousandth year the number of\npilgrims increased. Every phenomenon of nature filled them with terror.\nA thunderstorm sent them all upon their knees. Every meteor in the sky\nseen at Jerusalem brought the whole Christian population into the\nstreets to weep and pray. The pilgrims on the road were in the same\nalarm. Every shooting star furnished occasion for a sermon, in which the\nsublimity of the approaching judgment was the principal topic (_vide_\nExtraordinary Popular Delusions by Charles Mackay, LL.D., London, pp.\n222 and 223).\n\nIt was a conceit or imposture of the _Kahins_ to pretend that their\ndemons had access to the outskirts of the heavens, and by assiduous\neavesdropping secured some of the secrets of the upper world and\ncommunicated the same to the soothsayers or diviners upon earth. The\nJews had a similar notion of the demons (schedim), learning the secrets\nof the future by listening behind the veil (pargod). The Koran falsified\nthem in their assertions. It says that the heavens (or the stars) are\nsafe and protected against the eavesdropping (or enchantments) of the\nsoothsayers.\n\n\"We have set the signs of Zodiac in the heavens, and we have decked them\nforth for the bewilders.\"\n\n\"And we guard them from every stoned satan.\"--Sura XV, verses 16, 17.\n\n\"Verily we have adorned the lower heaven with the adornment of the\nstars;\"\n\n\"And we have guarded them against every rebellious satan.\"--Sura XXXVII,\nverses 6, 7.\n\n\"... And we have furnished the lower heaven with lights and have\nprotected it....\"--Sura XLI, verse 11.\n\nThe Koran further says that the soothsayers impart to their votaries or\nto those who go to consult them what they have heard from other people\nand are liars:--\n\n\"They impart what they have heard, but most of them are liars.\"--Sura\nXXVI, verse 223.\n\nIt is nowhere said in the Koran that the stars are darted or hurled at\nthe Satans. Sura LXVII, verse 5, literally means, \"of a surety we have\ndecked the lower heaven with lights and have made them to be (means of)\n'_Rojum_' conjectures to the (or for the) devils, _i.e._ the\nastrologer.\" The primary meaning of _Rajm_ is a thing that is thrown or\ncast like a stone: pl. '_Rojum_,' but it generally means speaking of\nthat which is hidden, or conjecturing or speaking by conjecture, as in\nSura XVIII, verse 21. In Sura XIX, verse 47, the word \"_La-arjomannaka_\"\nhas been explained both ways, meaning (1) \"I will assuredly cast stones\nat thee,\" and (2) \"I will assuredly say of thee, (though) speaking of\nthat which is hidden (from me) or unknown (by me), what thou dislikest\nor hatest.\" _Vide_ Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, page 1048.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Rapid stride of Islam at Medina.]\n\n20. Next year twelve new converts were made from persons who had come to\nsee the Prophet from Medina. They returned as missionaries of Islam, and\nIslam spread rapidly in Medina from house to house and from tribe to\ntribe. The Jews looked on in amazement at the people whom they had in\nvain endeavoured from generations to convince of the errors of\npolytheism, and to dissuade from the abominations of their idolatry,\nsuddenly of their own accord casting away idols and professing belief in\nthe one True God.[42] Thus speedily without let or hindrance, force or\ncompulsion, did Islam take firm root at Medina and attain to a full and\nmature growth. There remained not a single house among the Aws and\nKhazraj tribes[43] of Medina in which there were not believing men and\nwomen, excepting the branch of the Aws Allah, who were not converts till\nafter the siege of Medina. At this time there were many Moslems in\nMecca, Medina, and Abyssinia, and not a single one of them could be said\nto have been converted to Islam by compulsion: on the contrary, they\nwere used to be forced to renounce Islam.\n\n[Footnote 42: \"After five centuries of Christian evangelization, we can\npoint to but a sprinkling here and there of Christian converts;--the\nBani Harith of Najran: the Bani Hanifa of Yemama; some of the Bani Tay\nat Tayma, and hardly any more. Judaism, vastly more powerful, had\nexhibited a spasmodic effort of proselytizm under Dzu Nowas; but, as an\nactive and converting agent the Jewish faith was no longer\noperative.\"--Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, page ccxxxix.]\n\n[Footnote 43: The Aws or Khazraj were two branches of the Azdite tribes\nof Yemen from the Kahlanite stock. After their emigration to the North\nthey separated themselves from the Ghassinides and returned to Medina,\nwhere they settled.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: The increasing number of Moslem converts at Mecca after the\nHegira.]\n\n21. When the Moslems were obliged to emigrate from Mecca under the\nsevere Koreishite persecutions, all the followers of the Prophet with\nthe exception of those detained in confinement or unable to escape from\nslavery had emigrated with their families to Medina. But there were many\nnew converts at Mecca since the expulsion of the Moslems. Those unable\nto fly from Mecca in the teeth of the oppressions of the wrathful\nKoreish (Sura IV., 77, 79, 100) were increasing. They appealed for\ndeliverance and aid, while the Moslem pilgrims were near Mecca at\nHodeibia, six years after the Hegira, and an allusion is made to the\ngreat number of the Meccan converts, living at Mecca during that time in\nSura XLVIII, 25.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Disturbed state of the public peace among the tribes\nsurrounding Medina. Internecine wars an obstacle to the propagation of\nIslam.]\n\n22. Irrespective of the wars prosecuted by the Koreish from the South\nagainst Mohammad at Medina, and the constant danger of inroad and attack\nupon Medina from the neighbouring tribes--a great obstacle in the\npropagation of Islam which could only be successfully accomplished in a\nstate of peace and tranquility of both parties,--the most important and\ngreat tribes in the North and Centre of Arabia were at war against each\nother during the life of Mohammad, either before his mission from 570 to\n610 A.D. or during his public mission from 610 to 632 A.D. The\ndisastrous internecine wars were kept up for scores of years and the\nevils necessarily inflicted in their progress were not confined to the\nbelligerents only. It required years to remove the evils of war and to\nefface the traces of misery and sorrow the wars had brought.[44]\n\n[Footnote 44: The same remarks apply to the wars fought during\nMohammad's lifetime but before his public mission.]\n\n\n23. Here I will give a brief sketch of the internecine wars which took\nplace among the various Arab tribes during the time of Mohammad.\n\n*Wars during Mohammad's Lifetime, between the Arabian Tribes in the North\nand Centre of Arabia.*\n\n_Before his mission_, 570-610, A.D.\n\n(1.) The battle of Rahrahan between Bani Aamir bin Saasaa and Bani Tamim\nin Najd, 578, A.D.\n\n(2.) The Bani Abs on the side of Bani Aamir and Bani Zobian on the side\nof Tamim, 579, A.D., at _Sheb Jabala_.\n\n(3.) Sacrilegious war at Tayif called Harb fi-jar, 580-590, A.D.\n\n(4.) Several battles between Bani Bakr and Tamim in 604, A.D. and the\nfollowing years.\n\n_During his mission._\n\n(A)--_While at Mecca, 610-622, A.D._\n\n(1.) The war of Dahis between Bani Abs and Zobian, the branches of\nGhatafan in Central Arabia; lasted forty years, 568 to 609, A.D.\n\n(2.) The battle of Zu-kar between the Bani Bakr and the Persians in the\nKingdom of Hira, 611, A.D.\n\n(3.) The Bani Kinda and Bani Haris attacked Bath Tamim when they had\nretired to Kulab in the confines of Yemen and repulsed them.\n\n(4.) The Bani Aws and Khazraj of Medina were at war. The battle of Boas\nwas fought in 615, A.D. The Bani Aws were assisted by two tribes of\nGhassan, by Mozeima and the Jewish tribes Nazeer and Koreiza. The Bani\nKhazraj were supported by Joheina, Ashja and the Jews of Kainuka.\n\n(B)--_While at Medina_, 622 to 632, _A.D._\n\n(1.) The standing warfare between the Bani Hawazin and the Bani Abs,\nZobian, and Ashja of Ghatafan was kept up by assassinations and petty\nengagements till they become converts to Islam.\n\n(2.) The Koreish fought two battles of Badr and Ohad against the Moslems\nat Medina in 624 and 625, A.D., respectively.\n\n(3.) Several clans of the great Ghatafan family (the Bani Murra, Ashja\nand Fezara) the Bani Suleim and Sad, a branch of Hawazin, and Bani Asad\nfrom Najd Bedouin tribes, and Bani Koreiza the Jews, had besieged Medina\nin 627, A.D., in confederation with the Koreish.\n\n(4.) Bani Tamim and Bani Bakr renewed their hostilities, and from 615 to\n630, A.D., several battles occurred between them. The last battle was\nthat of Shaitain in 630, A.D.\n\nIn this year, after the battle, both the tribes were converted to\nIslam.\n\n(5.) The Bani Ghaus and Jadila branches of Bani Tay in the north of\nMedina warred against each other. The war of Fasad continued twenty-five\nyears till they embraced Islam in 632, A.D.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Spread of Islam in the surrounding tribes at Medina after the\nHegira I-VI.]\n\n24. During the six eventful years of Mohammad's sojourn at Medina, from\nthe Hegira to the truce of Hodeibia, where he was every year attacked or\nthreatened by other hostile Arab tribes, acting always in self-defence,\nhe had converted several members or almost entire tribes residing round\nMedina.\n\nAmong them were the following:--\n\n 1. The Bani Aslam.[45]\n 2. Joheina.[46]\n 3. Mozeina.[47]\n 4. Ghifar.[48]\n 5. Saad-bin-Bakr.[49]\n 6. Bani Ashja.[50]\n\nWe never find a single instance even in the _Maghazis_ (accounts of the\ncampaigns of Mohammad, however untrustworthy they be) of Mohammad's\nconverting any person, families, or branches of tribes by the scimitar\nin one hand and the Koran in the other.\n\n[Footnote 45: The Bani Aslam tribe settled north of Medina in the valley\nof Wady-al-Koraa. They were a branch of the Kozaaite tribes descended\nfrom Himyar.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Joheina were a branch of Kozaa, the descendants of Himyar.\nThis tribe inhabited in the vicinity of Yenbo, north of Medina.]\n\n[Footnote 47: Mozeina were a tribe of the Moaddite stock of Mecca. They\ninhabited in Najd, north-east of Medina.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Ghifar were sons of Moleil-bin-Zamra, the descendants of\nKinana, one of the Moaddite tribes.]\n\n[Footnote 49: Saad-bin-Bakr were a branch of Hawazin. Mohammad had been\nnursed among them.]\n\n[Footnote 50: The Bani Ashja were a branch of the Ghatafan of the Meccan\nstock of the Moaddites. The Bani Ashja appear all to have been hostile\nto Mohammad. They fought against the Prophet at the siege of Medina with\nfour hundred warriors in their contingent. Sir W. Muir says, \"The Bani\nAshja, who had joined in the siege of Medina, gave in their adhesion\nshortly after the massacre of the Coreitza; they told Mahomet that they\nwere so pressed by his warring against them, that they could stand out\nno longer.--K. Wackidi, page 60.\" Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, 107,\n_footnote_. This story is altogether false. We never hear of Mohammad\nwarring against Bani Ashja; on the contrary, they had themselves invaded\nMedina.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Mecca a barrier against the conversion of the southern\ntribes.]\n\n25. Up to this time, notwithstanding the persecutions, exiles and wars\nagainst Islam, it had spread by the mere force of persuasion among the\nMeccans, some of whom had emigrated to Abyssinia and most to Medina, the\nwhole of the influential tribes of Aws and Khazraj at Medina, as well as\namong the Jews there, and among some of the tribes in the north, and\neast of Medina and the centre of Arabia. But as Mecca in the south had\ndeclared war against Islam, most of the Arab tribes connected somehow\nwith the Meccans, and those inhabiting the southern and south-eastern\nparts of Arabia, to whom Mecca served geographically as a barrier,\nwatched the proceedings of the war and the fate of Islam, and had no\nopportunity of coming to Medina to embrace Islam, nor of having friendly\nintercourse with the Moslems, nor of receiving Mohammadan missionaries\nin the face of the wars waged by the Koreish who were looked upon as the\nguardians of the Kaaba, the spiritual or religious centre of the\nidolatrous Arabs. At the end of the last or the fifth year many Bedouin\ntribes, among whom might be counted the Bani Ashja, Murra, Fezara,\nSuleim, Sad-bin-Bakr and Bani Asad, had furnished several thousand Arabs\nto the Koreish for the siege of Medina. Only when the aggressions of the\nKoreish against the Moslems were suspended that the warring tribes and\nthose of the Central, Southern and Eastern Arabia could think of what\nthey had heard of the reasonable preaching of Islam against their\nidolatry and superstitions.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Tribal conversions in the sixth year.]\n\n26. Since the truce of Hodeibia at the end of the sixth year after the\nHegira Mecca was opened for intercourse, where there were some more and\nfresh conversions. The Bani Khozaa, descendants of Azd, were converted\nto Islam at the truce of Hodeibia. At the pilgrimage in the following\nyear some influential men of Mecca adopted Islam. The movement was not\nconfined to these leading men, but was wide and general. In the seventh\nyear the following tribes were converted to Islam and their deputations\njoined Mohammad at Khyber:\n\n 1. Bani Ashar.[51]\n 2. Khushain.[52]\n 3. Dous.[53]\n\n[Sidenote: Conversions among several other tribes of the North and\nNorth-east in A.H., 8.]\n\nDuring the same year Mohammad converted several other tribes in the\nnorth and north-east of Arabia. Among them were--\n\n 1. Bani Abs.\n 2. Zobian.\n 3. Murra.\n 4. Fezara.[54]\n 5. Suleim.[55]\n 6. Ozra.\n 7. Bali.\n 8. Juzam.[56]\n 9. Salaba.[57]\n 10. Abdul Kays.[58]\n 11. Bani Tamim.[59]\n 12. Bani Asad.[60]\n\n[Footnote 51: The Bani Ash-ar inhabited Jedda. They were of the\nKahlanite stock, the descendants of Al-Azd.]\n\n[Footnote 52: The Bani Khushain were a clan of Kozaa, of Himiarite\nstock.]\n\n[Footnote 53: The Bani Dous belong to the Azdite tribe of the stock of\nKahtan. They lived at some distance south of Mecca. They had joined\nMohammad at Khyber.]\n\n[Footnote 54: These were the sub-tribes of Ghatafan of the Meccan stock.\nThe chief families of Ghatafan were the Bani Ashja, Zobian, and the Bani\nAbs. Murra and Fezara were the branches of Zobian. They all inhabited\nNajd. Uyenia, the chief of the Bani Fezara, had committed an inroad upon\nMedina in A.H. 6. In the same year the Bani Fezara had waylaid a Medina\ncaravan and plundered it.]\n\n[Footnote 55: The Bani Suleim, a branch of the Bani Khasafa and a sister\ntribe to Hawazin, who lived near Mecca, and in whose charge, Mohammad,\nwhen but an infant, was placed, were also a tribe of the Meccan stock\ndescended through Khasafa from Mozar and Moadd. Bani Suleim, like Bani\nMurra and Fezara, branches of Ghatafan, had long continued to threaten\nMohammad with attacks. The Bani Suleim having joined Aamir bin Tofeil,\nchief of Bani Aamir, a branch of the tribe of Hawazin with their clans\nUsseya, Ril, and Zakawan, had cut to pieces a party of Moslem\nmissionaries at Bir Mauna, invited by Abu Bera Amr ibn Malik, a chief of\nthe Bani Aamir, who had pledged for their security. The Bani Suleim had\njoined also the Koreish army at the siege of Medina. In the seventh\nyear, they had slain another body of Moslem missionaries sent to them.]\n\n[Footnote 56: The Bani Ozra were a tribe of Kozaa, like Joheina. They,\ntogether with the Bani Bali and Juzam, inhabited the north of Arabia in\nthe part of the territory belonging to Ghassan. The family of Himyar,\ndescendants from Kahtan in Yemen, had flourished through the line of\nKozaa, the Bani Ozza, Joheina and other important tribes to the north of\nthe Peninsula on the border of Syria. It has been quoted by Sir W. Muir\nfrom Katib Wakidi that the chief of the Bani Juzam carried back to them\na letter from Mohammad to this tenor: \"Whoever accepteth the call of\nIslam, he is among the confederates of the Lord; whoever refuseth the\nsame, a truce of two months is allowed for him for consideration.\"\n(Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 107, _foot-note_). The words \"for\nconsideration\" are not in the original Arabic.--_Vide_ Ibn Hisham, p.\n963. It is not clear what was meant by the two months' truce he was\nadvised to give them, to make terms before he could commence\nhostilities, if the tradition for which there is no authority be true.\nThis has nothing to do with their compulsory conversions.]\n\n[Footnote 57: Salaba was a branch of the Zobian.]\n\n[Footnote 58: The Bani Abd-ul-Kays are a Moaddite tribe, the descendants\nof Rabia. They inhabited Bahrein on the Persian Gulf.]\n\n[Footnote 59: The Bani Tamim were branch of Tabikha, a tribe of the\nMoaddite stock of Mecca and a sister tribe of Mozeina. They are famous\nin the history of Najd, a province north-east of Medina, from the\nconfines of Syria to Yemen. Some of these branches were with Mohammad at\nthe expeditions to Mecca and Honain. All the branches of the tribes that\nhad not yet embraced Islam were now converted.]\n\n[Footnote 60: The Bani Asad ibn Khozeima were a powerful tribe residing\nnear the hill of Katan in Najd. They were of the Moaddite tribe of the\nMeccan stock. Tuleiba, their chief, had assembled a force of cavalry and\nrapid camel-drivers to make a raid upon Medina in A.H. 4. They were\ndispersed by the Moslems. In the next year they joined the Koreish in\nthe siege of Medina.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Surrender of Mecca. A.H., 8.]\n\n27. The position of Islam at Mecca was greatly strengthened since the\ntruce in A.H. 6, by increase in the number of Moslems, influential and\nleading, as well as of persons of minor note and importance there,\nconsequently the advocates of Islam, peace and compromise were growing\nin number and confidence. Among the idolatrous Koreish there were no\nchiefs of marked ability or commanding influence left at Mecca; almost\nall of them had gone over to the cause of Islam. In the meantime the\ninfraction of the terms of the truce by the Bani Bakr and Koreish caused\nthe surrender of Mecca without bloodshed.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The Meccans not compelled to believe.]\n\n28. Though Mecca had surrendered, all its inhabitants had not already\nbecome converts to Islam. Mohammad did not take any compulsory means to\nconvert the people: \"Although the city had cheerfully accepted his\nsupremacy,\" writes Sir W. Muir, \"all its inhabitants had not yet\nembraced the new religion, or formally acknowledged his prophetical\nclaim. Perhaps he intended to follow the course he had pursued at Medina\nand leave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished\nwithout compulsion.\"[61]\n\n[Footnote 61: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 136.\nThose who had newly joined the Moslem Camp at Mecca to repel the\nthreatening gathering of Hawazin, and those of them who preferred\nsubmission to the authority of Mohammad, are called by Sir W. Muir \"his\nnew converts.\" (IV., 149). But in fact they were not called believers.\nThey are called simply _Muallafa Qolubohum_ in the Koran (IX., 60) which\nmeans whose hearts are to be won over.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: The wholesale conversion of the remaining tribes in A.H., 9\n& 10.]\n\n29. Now it was more than twenty years that the Koran had been constantly\npreached to the surrounding tribes of Arabs at Mecca at the time of\nfairs[62] and at the annual pilgrimage gatherings,[63] by Mohammad, and\nby special missionaries of Islam from Medina, and through the reports of\nthe travellers and merchants coming and going from Mecca and Medina to\nall parts of Arabia. The numbers of different distant tribes, clans and\nbranches had spread the tidings of Islam. There were individual converts\nin most of the tribes. Those tribes already not brought over to Islam\nwere ready to embrace it under the foregoing circumstances. Idolatry,\nsimple and loathsome, had no power against the attacks of reason\ndisplayed in the doctrines of the Koran. But the idolatrous Koreish\nopposed and attacked Islam with persecution and the sword, and\nstrengthened idolatry with earthly weapons. The distant pagan tribes on\nthe side of the Koreish, geographically or genealogically, were\nprevented by them from embracing the new faith. As soon as the\nhostilities of the Koreish were suspended at the truce of Hodeibia, the\nArabs commenced to embrace Islam as already described, and no sooner\nthey surrendered and Kaaba[64] stripped of its idols--and the struggle\nof spiritual supremacy between idolatry and Islam was practically\ndecided--all the remaining tribes on the south and east who had not\nhitherto adhered to Islam hastened to embrace it hosts after hosts\nduring the 9th and 10th year of the Hegira.\n\n[Footnote 62: Okaz between Tayif and Nakhla. Mujanna in the vicinity of\nMarr-al Zahran, and Zul-Majaz behind Arafat, both near Mecca.]\n\n[Footnote 63: \"From time immemorial, tradition represents Mecca as the\nscene of a yearly pilgrimage from _all_ quarters of Arabia:--from Yemen,\nHadhramaut and the shores of the Persian Gulph, from the deserts of\nSyria, and from the distant environs of Hira and Mesopotamia.\"--Muir, I,\nccxi.]\n\n[Footnote 64: Sir W. Muir thinks: \"The possession of Mecca now imparted\na colour of right to his pretensions; for Mecca was the spiritual centre\nof the country, to which the tribes from every quarter yielded a\nreverential homage. The conduct of the annual pilgrimage, the custody of\nthe holy house, the intercalation of the year, the commutation at will\nof the sacred months,--institutions which affected all Arabia,--belonged\nby ancient privilege to the Coreish and were now in the hands of\nMahomet.... Moreover, it had been the special care of Mahomet artfully\nto interweave with the reformed faith all essential parts of the ancient\nceremonial. The one was made an inseparable portion of the other.\"--The\nLife of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 169. But the remaining tribes who had not\nhitherto embraced Islam, and the chiefs of the Southern and Eastern\nArabia, did not adopt Islam, because Mohammad possessed Mecca, a\nposition of no political supremacy. No paramount authority throughout\nthe Peninsula had ever been vested in the chief who possessed Mecca.\nMohammad on the surrender of Mecca had abolished all the idolatrous\ninstitutions which might have served as political or social inducements\nto the Pagan Arabs to embrace Islam. The intercalation of the year and\ncommutation of the sacred months were cancelled for ever in the plain\nwords of the Koran: \"Verily, twelve months is the number of months with\nGod, according to God's book, _since_ the day when He created the\nHeavens and the earth, of these, four are sacred; this is the right\nusage.\" ... \"To carry over _a sacred month to another_ is an increase of\nunbelief only. They who do not believe are led into error by it. They\nallow it one year and forbid it another, that they may make good the\nnumber of _months_ which God hath hallowed, and they allow that which\nGod hath prohibited. The evil of their deeds hath been prepared for them\n_by Satan_; for God guideth not the people who do not believe.\"--Sura\nIX, verses 36, 37. The custody of the house was no more an office of\nhonour or privilege. The ancient ceremonial of pilgrimage was not\ninterwoven with the reformed faith. The rites of Kaaba were stripped of\nevery idolatrous tendency. And the remaining and essential part of the\npilgrimage was depreciated. \"By no means can their flesh reach unto God,\nneither their blood; but piety on your part reacheth Him.\"--Sura XXII,\nverse 38. And after all the idolaters were not allowed to enter it. \"It\nis not for the votaries of other gods with God, witnesses against\nthemselves of infidelity, to visit the temples of God.\"--Sura IX, verse\n28. Sir W. Muir himself says regarding Mohammad: \"The rites of Kaaba\nwere retained, but stripped by him of every idolatrous tendency; and\nthey still hang, a strange unmeaning shroud, around the living theism of\nIslam.\"--Vol. I, Intro., p. ccxviii.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: The various deputations and embassies in the 9th and 10th\nyear of the Hegira.]\n\n30. During these two years deputations of conversion to Islam were\nreceived by Mohammad at Medina from the most distant parts of the\nPeninsula, from Yemen and Hazaramaut from Mahra Oman and Bahrein in the\nsouth, and from the borders of Syria and the outskirts of Persia. Many\nof the chiefs and princes of Yemen and Mahra, of Oman, Bahrein and\nYemama--christians and pagans--intimated by letter or by embassy their\nconversion to Islam. The Prophet used to send teachers with deputations\nand embassies, where they were not already sent, to instruct the newly\nconverted people the duties of Islam and to see that every remnant of\nidolatry was obliterated.\n\n\n[Sidenote: List of the deputations of conversion received by Mohammad at\nMedina during A.H. 9 and 10.]\n\n31. Here is a list of the important deputations and embassies as well as\nthe conversion of notable personages during these two years arranged in\nalphabetical order with geographical and genealogical notes.[65] Sir W.\nMuir thinks it \"tedious and unprofitable\" to enumerate them all,[66]\nwhile he takes notice of every apocryphal tradition and devours with\neagerness all fictions unfavourable to the cause of Islam.\n\n Bani Aamir.[67]\n Bani Abd-ul-Kays.[68]\n Bani Ahmas.[69]\n Bani Anaza.[70]\n Bani Asad.[71]\n Bani Azd (Shanovah).[72]\n Bani Azd (Oman).[73]\n Bani Bahila.[74]\n Bani Bahra.[75]\n Bani Bajila.[76]\n Bani Baka.[77]\n Bani Bakr bin Wail.[78]\n Bani Bali.[79]\n Bani Bariq.[80]\n Bani Daree.[81]\n Farwa.[82]\n Bani Fezara.[83]\n Bani Ghafiq.[84]\n Bani Ghanim.[85]\n Bani Ghassan.[86]\n Bani Hamadan.[87]\n Bani Hanifa.[88]\n Bani Haris of Najran.[89]\n Bani Hilal bin Aamir bin Saasaa.[90]\n Bani Himyar.[91]\n Bani Jaad.[92]\n Bani Jaafir bin Kelab bin Rabia.[93]\n Jeifer bin al Jalandi.[94]\n Bani Joheina.[95]\n Bani Jufi.[96]\n Bani Kalb.[97]\n Bani Khas-am bin Anmar.[98]\n Bani Khaulan.[99]\n Bani Kilab.[100]\n Bani Kinana.[101]\n Bani Kinda.[102]\n Bani Mahrah.[103]\n Bani Moharib.[104]\n Bani Morad.[105]\n Bani Muntafiq.[106]\n Bani Murrah.[107]\n Bani Nakha.[108]\n Bani Nohd.[109]\n Bani Ozra.[110]\n Bani Raha.[111]\n Bani Rawasa.[112]\n Bani Saad Hozeim.[113]\n Bani Sadif.[114]\n Bani Sadoos.[115]\n Bani Sahim.[116]\n Bani Sakeef.[117]\n Bani Salamani.[118]\n Bani Shaiban.[119]\n Bani Sodaa.[120]\n Bani Taghlib.[121]\n Bani Tajeeb.[122]\n Bani Tamim.[123]\n Bath Tay.[124]\n Bani Zobeid.[125]\n\n[Footnote 65: For these deputations see Ibn Is-hak (died 151), Hishamee\n(died 213), Ibn Sad (died 213), Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, Chap.\n30th, Seerat Shami (died 942), and Halabi (died 1044). For the\ngenealogies of these tribes consult Qalqashandi's Dictionary of Tribes,\nand Ibn Khaldun's History. Regarding the geographical positions of these\ntribes the reader is referred to the most valuable map of Arabia in Sir\nW. Muir's Annals of Early Caliphate, London 1882.]\n\n[Footnote 66: The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, pp. 181 and\n226.]\n\n[Footnote 67: A branch of Hawazin and sister tribe of the Sakeef\ninhabited the province of Najd and were of the Moaddite stock. The tribe\nhad taken little share with the rest of the Bani Hawazin at the battle\nof Honain against the Moslems A.H. 8. The famous poet Lebid, author of\none of the Moallakas, belonged to that tribe. [See the Life of Lebid\nfrom Ketab-ul-Aghani, in an article on the Moallaqah by Lebid, by C.J.\nLyall, C.S., in the Journals of the Asiatic Society, Bengal, No. 1,\n1877, pp. 62-76: Calcutta.]]\n\n[Footnote 68: Bani Abd-ul-Kays from Bahrein. The tribe has been\ndescribed at page 47. There were many persons in the embassy. They were\nChristians before they embraced Islam.]\n\n[Footnote 69: Descended from Anmar of the Kahtanite stock of Yemen.]\n\n[Footnote 70: A sub-tribe of Asad, descendants of Rabia of the Moaddite\nstock. These are the Aneze of Burkhardt.]\n\n[Footnote 71: Already described at p. 47. The rest of them now embraced\nIslam. It is said that Sura xlix, 17, refers to them.]\n\n[Footnote 72: Bani Azd (Shanovah) from Yemen. This tribe was a portion\nof the Azdite tribe left at Yemen at the time of the northern emigration\nof Azd. They were a branch of Kahtan of the Kahtanite stock. In their\nemigration northward from Yemen they resided a long time in Hijaz at\nBatn Murr near Mecca. In their journey further on to the north of Syria,\nleaving Kozaa, they changed their name to Ghassan from their long\nresidence, by the way, near a fountain of that name. The tribes Aus and\nKhazraj had separated afterwards from these Ghassanides, and settled at\nYathrib, afterwards known as Medina. One Surad was the chief of the\nembassy of Azd from Yemen to Mohammad at Medina. Sir W. Muir says: \"This\nperson was recognized by Mahomet as the ruler of his clan, and\ncommission was given to him to war against the heathen tribes in his\nneighbourhood.\" (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 219.) The Arabic\nword \"_yojahid_,\" in the original biographies, only means \"to strive,\"\nand does not mean \"to make war,\" as understood by Sir W. Muir. He has\nhimself translated the same word as \"striving\" in Vol. III, page 32. At\npage 265 of the same volume he translates it by \"to do utmost.\" I have\ndiscussed the subject in full in Appendix A. of this work.]\n\n[Footnote 73: Another branch of the Azd described above.]\n\n[Footnote 74: Bani Bahila, otherwise called Saad Manat, descendants of\nGhatafan of the Moaddite stock.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Bani Bahra (bin Amr bin Al-Haf bin Kozaa), who were a\nbranch of the Kozaa of the Himyarite stock, had emigrated to the north,\nand settled in the Ghassanide territory.]\n\n[Footnote 76: Bani Bajila, a sister of Khas-am and descendants of Anmar\nbin Nizar of the Kahtanite stock. They inhabited Yemen. The Bajila after\nprofessing Islam had destroyed the famous image of Kholasa.]\n\n[Footnote 77: A branch of Bani Aamir bin Saasaa in the centre of\nArabia.]\n\n[Footnote 78: They lived about Yemama and the shores of the Persian\nGulf. They were one of the Moaddite tribes. The war of Basus between\nBani Bakr and their sister tribe Bani Taghlib had lasted for forty\nyears. There have been famous poets in the Bani Bakr tribe, among whom\nare Tarafa, Haris bin Hiliza, and Maimun Al-Asha. The Bani Bakr and Bani\nTamim were constantly at war, which was abandoned under the influence of\nIslam, when both the parties were converted to it during the lifetime of\nMohammad.]\n\n[Footnote 79: They were a branch of the Kozaa from the Himyarite stock,\nthe descendants of Kahtan, and had settled in the north of Arabia in the\nGhassanide territory on the borders of Syria.]\n\n[Footnote 80: A sub-tribe of Kozaa.]\n\n[Footnote 81: A clan of the tribe of Lakhm.]\n\n[Footnote 82: An Arab of the Bani Juzam in the north of Arabia and\nGovernor of Amman in the Ghassanide territory announced his conversion\nto Mohammad by a despatch in A.H. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 83: They have already been described at page 46. Their\ndeputation waited upon Mohammad on his return from Tabuk.]\n\n[Footnote 84: Descendants of Anmar of the Kahtanite stock.]\n\n[Footnote 85: A sub-tribe of Azd at Yemen.]\n\n[Footnote 86: Already described under Bani Azd.]\n\n[Footnote 87: Bani Hamadan of the Kahtanite descent. An important tribe\nin the east of Yemen.]\n\n[Footnote 88: A Christian branch of the Bani Bakr who inhabited Yemama.\n\n\"The account of the embassy of the Bani Hanifa is more decidedly\nunfavourable to Christianity, but its details appear of doubtful\nauthority. Moseilama, the false Prophet, was among the number, and there\nare some unlikely anticipations of his sacrilegious claims.\n\n\"As the embassy were departing, Mahomet gave them a vessel in which were\nthe leavings of the water with which he had performed his lustration;\nand he said,--'_When you reach your country, break down your church, and\nsprinkle its sight with this water, and make in its place a mosque_'....\n\n\"The story appears to me improbable, because nowhere else is Mahomet\nrepresented as exhibiting such antagonism to Christians and their\nchurches when they submitted themselves to him.\"--Muir's Life of\nMahomet, Vol. II, pp. 303-4, _footnote_. The author changes his opinion\nin the fourth volume of his work and says: \"I have there stated (in Vol.\nII) the story to be improbable. But I am now inclined to think that\nduring the last year or two of Mahomet's life, there was quite enough of\nantagonistic feeling against Christianity as it presented itself in the\nprofession of the Arab and Syrian tribes to support the\nnarrative.\"--Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 218,\n_footnote_.\n\nThis is a mere presumption on the part of the writer, and there is no\nproof of Mohammad's antagonism towards Christianity at any period of his\nlife except against those who waged war with him. The following verse of\nthe Koran will show how far I am true:--\n\n\"Verily they who believe (Moslems), and they who follow the Jewish\nreligion, and the Christians and Sabeites, whoever of those believeth in\nGod and the Last Day, and doth that which is right shall have their\nreward with their Lord: Fear shall not come upon them, neither shall\nthey be grieved.\"]\n\n[Footnote 89: Also a Christian tribe in Yemen descended from the\nKahtanite stock of the Bani Madhij, and collateral therefore with Bani\nKinda. Two of the embassy, one of them being Akil or Abd-ul-Masih, the\nchief of the deputation, adopted Islam. The rest returned with a full\nguarantee from Mohammad for the preservation of their social and\nreligious liberty. Further information regarding the Bani Haris of\nNajran will be found at pp. 48 and 106 of this book.\n\n\"_Katib al Wackidi_, p. 69. The subsequent history of the Najran\nChristians is there traced. They continued in possession of their lands\nand rights under the treaty during the rest of Mohammad's life and the\nwhole of Abu Bakr's Caliphate. Then they were accused of taking usury,\nand Omar expelled them from the land, and wrote as follows:--\n\n\"The despatch of Omar, the Commander of the Faithful, to the people of\nNajran. Whoever of them emigrates is under the guarantee of God. No\nMoslem shall injure them;--to fulfil that which Mahomet and Abu Bakr\nwrote unto them.\n\n\"Now to whomsoever of the chiefs of Syria and Irac they may repair, let\nsuch chiefs allot them lands, and whatever they cultivate therefrom\nshall be theirs; it is an exchange for their own lands. None shall\ninjure or maltreat them; Moslems shall assist them against oppressors.\nTheir tribute is remitted for two years. They will not be troubled\nexcept for evil deeds.\n\n\"Some of them alighted in Irac, and settled in Najrania near to Cufa.\n\n\"That the offence of usury is alleged in justification of this measure\nappears to me to disprove the common tradition that a command was said\nto have been given by Mahomet on his deathbed for the Peninsula to be\nswept clear of all other religions but Islam.\"--Muir's Life of Mahomet,\nVol. II, pp. 301-2.]\n\n[Footnote 90: Descendants of the great Ghatafan tribe already\ndescribed.]\n\n[Footnote 91: Bani Himyar from Yemen. The Himyarites are too well-known\nto be described. The Himyarite princes of Ro-en, Mu-afir, Hamadan and\nBazan, all of the Christian faith in Yemen, embraced Islam and announced\ntheir conversion by letter sent to Mohammad through their emissaries\nwhich reached him after his return from Tabuk.]\n\n[Footnote 92: Either a clan of Lakhm, or a branch of Bani Aamir.]\n\n[Footnote 93: A sub-tribe of the Bani Aamir bin Saasaa already\ndescribed.]\n\n[Footnote 94: The King of Oman, together with the people of Oman,\nembraced Islam during A.H. 8 and 9. The people of Oman were of the\nAzdite stock.]\n\n[Footnote 95: Already described at page 43.]\n\n[Footnote 96: A branch of Saad-al-Ashira from the Kahtanite stock. This\ntribe inhabited Yemen. They had some peculiar prejudice against eating\nthe heart of an animal. Mohammad had caused their chief to break his\nsuperstition, which he did by making him eat the roasted heart of an\nanimal.\n\nBut they returned disgusted when told that his (the chief's) mother who\nhad committed infanticide was in hell. However they sent another\ndeputation a second time and finally embraced Islam.]\n\n[Footnote 97: They settled in Dumat-ul-Jundal, now Jal-al-Jowf, north of\nArabia. They were a tribe of the Bani Kozaa descended from Himyar.]\n\n[Footnote 98: A tribe of the Kahtanite stock at Yemen. They lived in a\nhilly country of that name in Yemen.]\n\n[Footnote 99: They were a tribe of the Kahtanite stock on the coast of\nYemen.]\n\n[Footnote 100: A clan of the Bani Aamir bin Saasaa of the Hawazin tribe\nalready described.]\n\n[Footnote 101: Descendants of Khazima of the Moaddite stock.]\n\n[Footnote 102: The Bani Kinda princes, Vail bin Hijar and Al-Ash-as bin\nKays; the former, the chief of the coast, and the latter, the chief of\nthe Hazaramaut in the south of Arabia. They with their whole clans\nembraced Islam. Bani Kinda were a powerful tribe of the Kahalanite\nstock.]\n\n[Footnote 103: A clan of Ozra from Kozaa described at page 46.]\n\n[Footnote 104: Descendants of Ghatafan of the Moaddite stock.]\n\n[Footnote 105: They inhabited the sea-coast of Yemen, and were a tribe\nof Muzhie of the Kahtanite stock.]\n\n[Footnote 106: A branch of the tribe of Aamir bin Saasaa.]\n\n[Footnote 107: A branch of Zobian.]\n\n[Footnote 108: They were a tribe of the Kahtanite stock, residing in\nYemen. Their deputation consisted of two hundred persons. It is said\nthis was the last deputation received by Mohammad. Some time before this\nAli was sent to the Bani Nakh-a and other tribes of the Mudhij stock in\nYemen.]\n\n[Footnote 109: A tribe of Kozaa of the Himyarite stock at Yemen.]\n\n[Footnote 110: A sub-tribe of Kozaa inhabiting Syria described at page\n46.]\n\n[Footnote 111: A tribe of Muzhij of the Kahtanite stock at Yemen.]\n\n[Footnote 112: They were a clan of the Bani Aamir bin Saasaa already\ndescribed.]\n\n[Footnote 113: A tribe of the Kozaa of the Moaddite stock, and according\nto some from Yemen.]\n\n[Footnote 114: Descendants of Hazaramaut of the Kahtanite stock at\nYemen.]\n\n[Footnote 115: A clan of the Bani Hanifa, descendants of Bakr bin Wail\nalready described.]\n\n[Footnote 116: A clan of the Bani Shaiban, the descendants of Bakr bin\nWail already mentioned.]\n\n[Footnote 117: The Bani Sakeef (Thackif) were a branch of the Mazar\ntribes of the Moaddite stock. They were a sub-tribe of the Hawazin and\nsister tribe to the Bani Adwan, Ghatafan, and Suleim. They (the Bani\nSakeef) lived at Tayif and worshipped the idol _Lat_ or _Taqhia_. Orwa,\na chief of Tayif, had gone to Medina to embrace Islam. His first\ngenerous impulse was to return to Tayif and invite his fellow-citizens\nto share in the blessings imparted by the new faith. Upon his making\npublic his conversion, he was wounded by a mob and suffered martyrdom.\nBut he left a favourable impression of Islam at Tayif. Their deputation\nconsisted of six chiefs with fifteen or twenty followers. The Prophet\nreceived them gladly and pitched a tent for their accommodation in the\ncourt of his mosque. Every evening after supper he paid them there a\nvisit and instructed them in the faith till it was dark. Sir W. Muir\nwrites:--\"The martyrdom of Orwa compromised the inhabitants of Tayif,\nand forced to continue the hostile course they had previously been\npursuing. But they began to suffer severely from the marauding attacks\nof Bani Hawazin under Malik. That chief, according to his engagement,\nmaintained the increasing predatory warfare against them.\"--Life of\nMahomet, Vol. IV, page 204. At page 155 he says regarding Malik,--\"being\nconfirmed in his chiefship he engaged to maintain a constant warfare\nwith the citizens of Tayif.\" But there was no such engagement with\nMalik. The authority (Hishamee) referred to by Sir W. Muir does not\nspeak anything of the alleged engagement. _Vide_ Hishamee, page 879.\nHishamee has only so much that Mohammad made Malik chief of those who\nwere converted from the tribe. These were the clans of Somala, Salma,\nand Fahm, and that he used to fight with them against the Sakifites. Sir\nW. Muir further writes that the inhabitants of Tayif said among\nthemselves: \"We have not strength to fight against the Arab tribe all\naround that have plighted their faith to Mahomet, _and bound themselves\nto fight in his cause_\" (Vol. IV, p. 205). The italics are mine and\nthese words are not to be found in the original authorities. Hishamee\n(page 914) has _Bayaoo va Aslamoo_, _i.e._, they have plighted and\nsubmitted (or converted to Islam).]\n\n[Footnote 118: Descendants of the Kozaa inhabited the hills of that name\n(Salaman).]\n\n[Footnote 119: Descendants and branch of Bakr bin Wail.]\n\n[Footnote 120: A tribe of the Kahtanite stock from Yemen.]\n\n[Footnote 121: The Bani Taghlib bin Wail were a tribe of the Moaddite\nstock of Meccan origin and a sister tribe to the Bani Bakr bin Wail.\nTheir wars are famous in the annals of Arabia. The war of Basus has been\nalready alluded to under Bani Bakr. These tribes, the Bani Bakr and\nTaghlib, were located in Yemama, Bahrein, Najd, and Tihama, but lastly\nthe Bani Taghlib had emigrated to Mesopotamia and professed the\nChristian faith. The members of their deputation to Mohammad wore golden\ncrosses. When invited to Islam, they did not embrace it, but promised to\nallow their children to become Moslems. Mohammad allowed them to\nmaintain unchanged their profession of Christianity. Their Christianity\nwas of a notoriously superficial character. \"The Taghlib,\" said Ali, the\nfourth Khalif, \"are not Christians; they have borrowed from Christianity\nonly the custom of drinking wine.\"--Dozy _Historie_, i, 20.]\n\n[Footnote 122: A clan of Kinda from the sub-tribe of Sakun at Yemen.]\n\n[Footnote 123: The Bani Tamim were descendants of Tabikha bin Elyas of\nthe Moaddite stock. They are famous in the history of Najd, the\nnortheastern desert of which from the confines of Syria to Yemama they\ninhabited. They were at constant warfare with the Bani Bakr bin Abd\nMonat, descendants of Kinana of the Moaddite stock, from 615 to 630 A.D.\nAll the branches of the tribe which had not yet converted to Islam were\nnow converted in A.H. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 124: The Bani Tay was a great tribe of the Kahtanite stock of\nYemen, had moved northwards, and settled in the mountains of Aja and\nSalma to the north of Najd and Hijaz and the town of Tyma. They had\nadopted Christianity, but some of them were Jews and Pagans. Their\nintertribal war has been alluded to in para. 26. The whole tribe now\nembraced Islam. \"A deputation from the Bani Tay, headed by their chief,\nZeid-al-Khail, came to Medina to ransom the prisoners, soon after Ali's\nexpedition. Mahomet was charmed with Zeid, of whose fame both as a\nwarrior and a poet he had long heard. He changed his name to Zeid _al\nKheir_ (_the beneficent_), granted him a large tract of country, and\nsent him away laden with presents.\"\n\nMuir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 178.]\n\n[Footnote 125: They were a branch of Sad-al-Ashira of the Mazhij tribe\nof the Kahtanite stock. They inhabited the sea-coast of Yemen.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: All the conversions, individual and tribal, without any\ncompulsion.]\n\n32. Thus all these tribal conversions and the speedy spread of Islam in\nthe whole of Arabia was accomplished without any resort to arms,\ncompulsion, threat, or \"the scymitar in one hand and the Koran in the\nother.\" The Pagan Arabs, the Christians and the Jews, those who embraced\nIslam, adopted it joyfully and voluntarily. Islam had been much\npersecuted for many years from the third year of its Prophet's mission\nto the sixth year after the Hegira--a period of about sixteen years, but\nit flourished alike during persecutions and oppositions as well as\nduring periods of peace and security of the Moslems. It was the result\nof Mohammad's staunch adherence to the uncompromising severity of his\ninflexible principles of preaching the divine Truth and his sincere\nbelief in his own mission that he bore steadfastly all the hardships of\npersecutions at Mecca and the horrors of the aggressive wars of the\nKoreish and others at Medina, and persuaded the whole of Arabia, Pagan,\nJewish and Christian, to adopt Islam voluntarily.[126]\n\n[Footnote 126: The rebellion of almost the whole of Arabia--wrongly\ncalled apostasy--after the death of Mohammad was chiefly against the\nGovernment of Abu Bakr, the first Khalifa of the Republic of Islam. No\nsuch paramount power over the whole of Arabia was ever vested in the\nchiefs of Mecca, and the Arabs were unaccustomed to this new form of\nGovernment. They had neither rebelled against Islam, nor apostatized\nfrom their religion, except a very few of them who had attached\nthemselves to Moseilama for a short time.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Mohammad was not favoured with circumstances round him.]\n\n33. It was not an easy task for Mohammad to have converted the Arabs\nfrom their national idolatry to a religion of pure and strict\nmonotheism. The aspect of Arabia was strictly conservative, and there\nwere no prospects of hopeful changes. The indigenous idolatry and\ndeep-rooted superstition, the worship of visible and material objects of\ndevotion,--idols and unshaped stones,--something that the eyes can see\nand the hands can handle,--and the dread of invisible genii and other\nevil spirits, held the Arab mind in a rigorous and undisputed thraldom.\nArabia was obstinately fixed in the profession of idolatry which the\nPeninsula being thickly overspread, widely diffused and thoroughly\norganized, was supported by national pride and latterly by the sword.\n\n \"It was,\" writes Dr. Marcus Dods, \"certainly no hopeful task which\n Mohammed undertook when he proposed by the influence of religion to\n combine into one nation tribes so incapable of being deeply\n influenced by any religion, and so irreconcilably opposed to one\n another; to abolish customs which had the sanction of immemorial\n usage; and to root out an idolatry, which, if it had no profound\n hold upon the spiritual nature, was at least bound up with old\n family traditions and well-understood tribal interests.\"[127]\n\nThe sacrifices made to, and the requirements essential to Islam, its\nnumerous positive prohibitions, the immediate repudiation of old\nprejudices, the renunciation of all sorts of idolatry and superstition,\nthe throwing aside of favourite idols and the abandoning of licentious\nrites and customs, the total abstinence from much-relished vices, the\ndemand for producing practical effect on the will and character, and the\nreaping of material fruits from holy and religious life--were barriers\ninsurmountable for the speedy progress of Islam.\n\nNotwithstanding these impediments Mohammad succeeded, by the influence\nof his religion, in combining into one nation the wild and independent\ntribes, and putting a stop to their internecine wars; in abolishing the\ncustom which had the sanction of immemorial usage; and in rooting out\nthe national idolatry of indigenous growth, without compromising his\ninflexible principles of truth and sincerity and honesty; and without\nadopting the superstitions and vices of the people.\n\n Dr. Mosheim thinks that, \"the causes of this new religion's rapid\n progress are not difficult to be discovered: Mahomet's law itself\n was admirably fitted to the natural disposition of man, but\n especially to the manners, opinions and vices prevalent among the\n people of the East; for it was extremely simple proposing few\n things to be believed; nor did it enjoin many and difficult duties\n to be performed, or such as laid severe restraints on the\n propensities.\"[128]\n\nIt is manifest from the history of religions that the people generally\ntry their best to obtain religion's sanction for the vices prevalent\namong them. But there is no doubt in this that Mohammad never sanctioned\nthe idolatries and superstitions of the Arabs, nor he framed his\ndoctrines according to the opinions and fancies of the people. He\npreached vehemently against everything he found blamable in the people;\nhe spared not their dear idols and beloved gods and the dreaded genii,\nnor accommodated his preaching and reform to indulge them in their evil\npractices; nor did he adopt any of the vices current among the people\ninto his system.\n\nMohammad certainly did lay stress on the propensities of the mind and\nmade the actions of the heart answerable to God, and preferred inward\nholiness to outside form.\n\n 53. \"The heart is prone to evils.\"--Sura XII.\n\n 38. \"The hearing and the sight and the heart, each of these shall\n be inquired of.\"--Sura XVI.\n\n 225. \"God will not punish you for a mistake in your oaths; but He\n will punish you for that which your hearts have assented to. God is\n gracious, merciful.\"\n\n 284. \"Whatever is in the Heavens and in the Earth is God's, and\n whether ye disclose what is in your minds or conceal it, God will\n reckon with you for it; and whom He pleaseth will He forgive, and\n whom he pleaseth will He punish; for God is All-powerful.\"--Sura\n II.\n\n 5. \"And unless made with intent of heart, mistakes in this matter\n shall be no crimes in you.\"--Sura XXXIII.\n\nThe teachings of the Koran make our natural inclination subject to\nregulation. It lays stress upon the heart of men. Note the following\ninjunctions regarding internal purity:\n\n 120. \"Abandon the outside iniquity and its inside.\"--Sura VI.\n\n 152. \"Come not near the pollutions outside or inward.\"--_Ibid._\n\n 31. \"Say: Truly my Lord hath forbidden filthy actions whether open\n or secret, and iniquity and unjust violence.\"--Sura VIII.\n\nReferring to Dr. Mosheim's cause of the spread of Islam, I will quote\nHenry Hallam's opinion regarding the causes of the success of Islam.\n\nHenry Hallam, after enumerating the three important causes of the\nsuccess of Islam, the first of which is \"those just and elevated notions\nof the divine nature and of moral duties, the gold-ore that pervades the\ndross of the Koran, which were calculated to strike a serious and\nreflecting people,\" and explaining the two others which are not against\nus, he says:--\n\n \"It may be expected that I should add to this what is commonly\n considered as a distinguishing mark of Mohammedanism,--its\n indulgence to voluptuousness. But this appears to be greatly\n exaggerated. Although the character of its founder may have been\n tainted by sensuality as ferociousness, I do not think that he\n relied upon inducements of the former kind for the diffusion of his\n system. We are not to judge of this by rules of Christian purity,\n or of European practice. If polygamy was a prevailing usage in\n Arabia, as is not questioned, its permission gave no additional\n license to the proselytes of Mohammed, who will be found rather to\n have narrowed the unbounded liberty of oriental manners in this\n respect; while his decided condemnation of adultery and of\n incestuous connections, so frequent among barbarous nations, does\n not argue a very lax and accommodating morality. A devout Mussulman\n exhibits much more of the stoical than the epicurean character. Nor\n can any one read the Koran without being sensible that it breathes\n an austere and scrupulous spirit. And in fact, the founder of a new\n religion or sect is little likely to obtain permanent success by\n indulging the vices or luxuries of mankind. I should rather be\n disposed to reckon the severity of Mohammed's discipline among the\n causes of its influence. Precepts of ritual observance, being\n always definite and unequivocal, are less likely to be neglected,\n after their obligation has been acknowledged than those of moral\n virtue. Thus the long fasting, the pilgrimages, and regular prayers\n and ablutions, the constant almsgiving, the abstinence from\n stimulating liquors, enjoined by the Koran, created a visible\n standard of practice among its followers, and preserved a continual\n recollection of their law.\n\n \"But the prevalence of Islam in the lifetime of its Prophet, and\n during the first ages of its existence, was chiefly owing to the\n spirit of martial energy that he infused into it. The religion of\n Mohammed is as essentially a military system as the institution of\n chivalry in the west of Europe. The people of Arabia, a race of\n strong passions and sanguinary temper, inured to habits of pillage\n and murder, found in the law of their native prophet not a license,\n but a command, to desolate the world, and the promise of all that\n their glowing imaginations could anticipate of Paradise annexed to\n all in which they most delighted upon earth.\"[129]\n\nThis is sufficient to refute the opinion of Dr. Mosheim. But what\nHallam says regarding the prevalence of Islam in the lifetime of the\nProphet, and during the first ages of its existence, that \"the people of\nArabia, a race of strong passions and sanguinary temper, inured to\nhabits of pillage and murder, found in the law of their native prophet\nnot a license, but a command, to desolate the world,\" is untenable.\nThere was neither a command nor a license to desolate the world, nor was\nany person or tribe converted to Islam with that object in view. All the\nteachings of the Koran and the history of the early spread of Islam\nfalsify such an idea.\n\n[Footnote 127: Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., page\n83.]\n\n[Footnote 128: Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chap. III,\npage 73.]\n\n[Footnote 129: Hallam's Middle Ages, Vol. II, pp. 118-9.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Mohammad's unwavering belief in his own mission and his\nsuccess show him to be a true prophet.]\n\n34. I will pause here for a while, and ask the indulgence of the reader\nto reflect upon the circumstances of the persecutions, insults and\ninjuries, expulsion and attack suffered by Mohammad and his early\nfollowers,[130] and his unwavering adherence to preach against the\ngross idolatry and immorality of his people, which all show his sincere\nbelief in his own mission, and his possession of an irresistible inward\nimpulse to publish the Divine Truth of his Revelations regarding the\nunity in the Godhead and other moral reforms. His preachings of\nmonotheism, and his enjoining righteousness, and forbidding evil deeds,\nwere not attended to for many years with material success. In proportion\nas he preached against the gross idolatry and superstition of his\npeople, he was subjected to ridicule and scorn, and finally to an\ninveterate persecution which ruined his and his follower's fortune. But\nhe unflinchingly kept his path; no threats and no injuries hindered him\nfrom still preaching to the ungodly people a purer and higher theology\nand better morality than had ever been set before them. He claimed no\ntemporal power, no spiritual domination; he asked but for simple\ntoleration, for free permission to win men by persuasion into the way of\ntruth. He declared he was sent neither to compel conviction by\nmiracles, nor to constrain outward profession by the sword.[131] Does\nthis leave any doubt of the strong conviction in his mind, as well as in\nthe truth of his claim, to be a man sent by God to preach the Divine\nPerfection, and to teach mankind the ways of righteousness? He honestly\nand sincerely conveyed the message which he had received or which he\nconscientiously or intuitively believed to have received from his God\nand which had all the signs and marks of truth in itself. What is meant\nby a True Prophet or a Revelation is not more than what we find in the\ncase of Mohammad.[132]\n\nThe general office and main business of a prophet is to proclaim to\nmankind the Divine Perfection, to teach publicly purer theology and\nhigher morality, to enjoin the people to do what is right and just, and\nto forbid what is wrong and bad. It is neither a part of the prophet to\npredict future events, nor to show supernatural miracles. And further, a\nprophet is neither immaculate nor infallible. The Revelation is a\nnatural product of human faculties. A prophet feels that his mind is\nillumined by God, and the thoughts which are expressed by him and spoken\nor written under this influence are to be regarded as the words of God.\nThis illumination of the mind or the effect of the Divine Influence\ndiffer in any prophet according to the capacity of the recipient, or\naccording to the circumstances--physical, moral, and religious--in which\nhe is placed.\n\n[Footnote 130: The early followers of Mohammad bore persecutions and\nexile with patience and steadfastness; and never recanted. Look to the\nincreasing number of these early Moslems, their magnanimous forbearance,\nand the spontaneous abandonment of their dear homes and relations, and\ntheir defending their Prophet with their blood. The number of Christian\nbelievers during the whole lifetime of Christ was not more than 120 (Act\nI, 15). They had a material view of the Messiah's kingdom, and had fled\nat the first sound of danger. Two of the disciples when walking to\nEmmaus observed, \"We trusted that it had been He who should have\nredeemed Israel,\" and the apostle asked Jesus after the so-called\nresurrection, \"Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom of\nIsrael?\"\n\n\"During the periods thus indicated as possible for comparison,\npersecution and rejection were the fate of both. But the thirteen years'\nministry of Mahomet had brought about a far greater change to the\nexternal eye than the whole lifetime of Christ. The apostles fled at the\nfirst sound of danger, and however deep the inner work may have been in\nthe 500 by whom our Lord was seen, it had produced as yet but little\noutward action. There was among them no spontaneous quitting of their\nhomes, nor emigration by hundreds, such as distinguished the early\nMoslems; nor any rapturous resolution by the converts of a foreign city\nto defend the Prophet with their blood.\"--The Life of Mahomet by Sir W.\nMuir, Vol. II, page 274.]\n\n[Footnote 131: \"Let us for a moment look back to the period when a ban\nwas proclaimed at Mecca against all the citizens, whether professed\nconverts or not, who espoused his cause; when they were shut up in the\n_Sheb_ or quarter of Abu Talib, and there for three years without\nprospect of relief endured want and hardship. Those must have been\nsteadfast and mighty motives which enabled him amidst all this\nopposition and apparent hopelessness of success, to maintain his\nprinciples unshaken. No sooner was he relieved from confinement, than,\ndespairing of his native city, he went forth to Tayif and summoned its\nrulers and inhabitants to repentance; he was solitary and unaided, but\nhe had a message, he said, from his Lord. On the third day he was driven\nout of the town with ignominy, blood trickling from the wounds inflicted\non him by the populace. He retired to a little distance, and there\npoured forth his complaint to God: then he returned to Mecca, there to\ncarry on the same outwardly hopeless cause with the same high confidence\nin its ultimate success. We search in vain through the pages of profane\nhistory for a parallel to the struggle in which for thirteen years the\nProphet of Arabia in the face of discouragement and threats, rejection\nand persecution retained his faith unwavering, preached repentance, and\ndenounced God's wrath against his godless fellow-citizens. Surrounded by\na little band of faithful men and women, he met insults, menaces,\ndangers, with a high and patient trust in the future. And when at last\nthe promise of safety came from a distant quarter, he calmly waited\nuntil his followers had all departed, and then disappeared from amongst\nhis ungrateful and rebellious people.\"--Muir, Vol. IV, pages 314-15.]\n\n[Footnote 132: \"That he was the impostor pictured by some writers is\nrefuted alike by his unwavering belief in the truth of his own mission,\nby the loyalty and unshaken confidence of his companions, who had ample\nopportunity of forming a right estimate of his sincerity, and finally,\nby the magnitude of the task which he brought to so successful an issue.\nNo impostor, it may safely be said, could have accomplished so mighty a\nwork. No one unsupported by a living faith in the reality of his\ncommission, in the goodness of his cause, could have maintained the same\nconsistent attitude through long years of adverse fortune, alike in the\nday of victory and in the hour of defeat, in the plenitude of his power\nand at the moment of death.\"--Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart,\nM.A., page 23.\n\n\"Of the sincerity of his belief in his own mission there can be no\ndoubt. The great merit is his that among a people given up to idolatry\nhe rose to a vivid perception of the Unity of God, and preached this\ngreat doctrine with firmness and constancy, amid ridicule and\npersecution. But there it seems to me that the eulogy of the Prophet\nought to cease.\"--Islam under the Arabs by R.D. Osborn. London 1876, p.\n90.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Striking effects of Mohammad's reforms.]\n\n35. Although his mission was only to convey the message and preach\npublicly what was revealed to him, and he was not responsible for the\nconversion of the ungodly polytheists to the purer theology and higher\nmorality, or in other words, to the faith of Islam, yet whatever success\nand beneficial results in the sphere of theology, morality, and reforms\nin social matters he achieved was a strong evidence of his Divine\nmission. In the name of God and in the character of His Apostle, he\nwrought a great reform according to his light in his own country. \"Every\ngood tree bringeth forth good fruit.\"--(Matt. VII, 17). Facts are\nstubborn things, and facts are conclusive in these points.\n\nThe effects produced by his preaching, and the changes wrought by them\nin the religious, social, and political sphere of the polytheists, the\nidolatrous and grossly superstitious Arabs within a comparatively short\nperiod, mostly consisting of persecutions at Mecca, and struggles at\nMedina, were very striking. From an indiscriminate mass of polytheism\nand gross superstitious belief in gods, genii, the sons and daughters of\nGod, he gave them a pure monotheistic belief, recognizing no other\nsuperior power but the Almighty. He raised the moral standard of his\ncountrymen, ameliorated the condition of women, curtailed and mitigated\npolygamy and slavery, and virtually abolished them as well as\ninfanticide. He most sternly denounced and absolutely forbade many\nheinous evils of the Arab society. He united a number of wild and\nindependent tribes into a nation and abolished their internecine wars.\n\nSir W. Muir says:--\n\n \"Few and simple as the positive precepts of Mahomet up to this time\n appear, they had wrought a marvellous and a mighty work. Never,\n since the days when primitive Christianity startled the world from\n its sleep, and waged a mortal combat with Heathenism, had men seen\n the like arousing of spiritual life, the like faith that suffered\n sacrifice and took joyfully the spoiling of goods for conscience\n sake.\n\n \"From time beyond memory, Mecca and the whole Peninsula had been\n steeped into spiritual torpor. The slight and transient influence\n of Judaism, Christianity, or Philosophy upon the Arab mind, had\n been but as the ruffling here and there the surface of a quiet\n lake;--all remained still and motionless below. The people were\n sunk in superstition, cruelty, and vice. It was a common practice\n for the eldest son to marry his father's widows inherited as\n property with the rest of the estate. Pride and poverty had\n introduced among them, as it has among the Hindus, the crime of\n female infanticide. Their religion consisted in gross idolatry, and\n their faith was rather the dark superstitious dread of unseen\n beings, whose goodwill they sought to propitiate, and to avert\n their displeasure, than the belief in an over-ruling Providence.\n The Life to come and Retribution of good and evil were, as motives\n of action, practically unknown.\n\n \"Thirteen years before the Hegira, Mecca lay lifeless in this\n debased state. What a change those thirteen years had now produced!\n A band of several hundred persons had rejected idolatry, adopted\n the worship of one great God, and surrendered themselves implicitly\n to the guidance of what they believed a revelation from\n Him;--praying to the Almighty with frequency and fervour, looking\n for pardon through His mercy, and striving to follow after good\n works, almsgiving, chastity and justice. They now lived under a\n constant sense of the Omnipotent power of God, and of His\n providential care over the minutest of their concerns. In all the\n gifts of nature, in every relation of life, at each turn of their\n affairs, individual or public, they saw His hand. And, above all,\n the new spiritual existence in which they joyed and gloried, was\n regarded as the mark of His especial grace, while the unbelief of\n their blinded fellow-citizens was the hardening stamp of His\n predestined reprobation. Mahomet was the minister of life to\n them,--the source under God of their new-born hopes; and to him\n they yielded a fitting and implicit submission.\n\n \"In so short a period, Mecca had, from this wonderful movement,\n been rent into two factions, which, unmindful of the old land-marks\n of tribe and family, were arrayed in deadly opposition one against\n the other. The believers bore persecution with a patient and\n tolerant spirit. And though it was their wisdom so to do, the\n credit of a magnanimous forbearance may be freely accorded to\n them. One hundred men and women, rather than abjure the precious\n faith, had abandoned their homes, and sought refuge, till the storm\n should be overpast, in Abyssinian exile. And now even a larger\n number, with the Prophet himself, emigrated from their fondly-loved\n city, with its sacred temple,--to them the holiest spot on\n earth,--and fled to Medina. There the same wonder-working charm had\n within two or three years prepared for them a brotherhood ready to\n defend the Prophet and his followers with their blood. Jewish truth\n had long sounded in the ears of the men of Medina, but it was not\n till they heard the spirit-stirring strains of the Arabian prophet,\n that they too awoke from their slumber, and sprang suddenly into a\n new and earnest life.\"[133]\n\nFurther on Sir W. Muir says:--\n\n \"And what have been the effects of the system which, established by\n such instrumentality, Mahomet has left behind him. We may freely\n concede that it banished for ever many of the darker elements of\n superstition which had for ages shrouded the Peninsula. Idolatry\n vanished before the battle-cry of Islam; the doctrine of the unity\n and infinite perfections of God, and of a special all-pervading\n Providence, became a living principle in the hearts and lives of\n the followers of Mahomet, even as it had in his own. An absolute\n surrender and submission to the divine will (the very name of\n _Islam_) was demanded as the first requirement of the religion. Nor\n are social virtues wanting. Brotherly love is inculcated within the\n circle of the faith; orphans are to be protected, and slaves\n treated with consideration; intoxicating drinks are prohibited,\n and Mahometanism may boast of a degree of temperance unknown to any\n other creed.\"[134]\n\nDr. Marcus Dods writes:--\n\n \"But is Mahommed in no sense a Prophet? Certainly he had two of the\n most important characteristics of the prophetic order. He saw truth\n about God which his fellowmen did not see, and he had an\n irresistible inward impulse to publish this truth. In respect of\n this latter qualification Mahommed may stand comparison with the\n most courageous of the heroic prophets of Israel. For the truth's\n sake he risked his life, he suffered daily persecutions for years,\n and eventually banishment, the loss of property, of the goodwill of\n his fellow-citizens, and the confidence of his friends--he suffered\n in short as much as any man can suffer short of death, which he\n only escaped by flight, and yet he unflinchingly proclaimed his\n message. No bribe, threat or inducement could silence him. 'Though\n they array against me the sun on the right hand, and the moon on\n the left, I cannot renounce my purpose.' And it was this\n persistency, this belief in his call, to proclaim the Unity of God\n which was the making of Islam. Other men have been monotheists in\n the midst of idolaters, but no other man has founded a strong and\n enduring monotheistic religion. The distinction in his case was his\n resolution that other men should believe.... His giving himself out\n as a prophet of God was, in the first instance, not only sincere,\n but probably correct in the sense in which he himself understood\n it. He felt that he had thoughts of God which it deeply concerned\n all around him to receive, and he knew that these thoughts were\n given him by God, although not, as we shall see, a revelation\n strictly so called. His mistake lay by no means in his supposing\n himself to be called upon by God to speak for him and introduce a\n better religion, but it lay in his gradually coming to insist quite\n as much on men's accepting him as a prophet as on their accepting\n the great truth he preached. He was a prophet to his countrymen in\n so far as he proclaimed the Unity of God, but this was no\n sufficient ground for his claiming to be their guide in all matters\n of religion, still less for his assuming the lordship over them in\n all matters civil as well....\"\n\nThe learned doctor further on in his book, \"Mohammed, Buddha, and\nChrist,\" remarks:--\n\n \"But as we endeavour to estimate the good and evil of Islam, it\n gradually appears that the chief point we must attend to is to\n distinguish between its value to Arabia in the seventh century and\n its value to the world at large. No one, I presume, would deny that\n to Mohammed's contemporaries his religion was an immense advance on\n anything they had previously believed in. It welded together the\n disunited tribes, and lifted the nation to the forefront of the\n important powers in the world. It effected what Christianity and\n Judaism had alike failed to effect--it swept away, once and for\n ever, idolatry, and established the idea of one true God. Its\n influence on Arabia was justly and pathetically put by the Moslem\n refugees in Abyssinia, who when required to say why they should not\n be sent back to Mecca, gave the following account of their religion\n and what it had done for them: 'O king, we were plunged in\n ignorance and barbarism; we worshipped idols; we ate dead bodies;\n we committed lewdness; disregarded family ties and the duties of\n neighbourhood and hospitality; we knew no law but that of the\n strong, when God sent among us a messenger of whose truthfulness,\n integrity, and innocence we were aware; and he called us to the\n unity of God, and taught us not to associate any god with him; he\n forbade us the worship of idols, and enjoined upon us to speak the\n truth, to be faithful to our trusts, to be merciful, and to regard\n the rights of others; to love our relatives and to protect the\n weak; to flee vice and avoid all evil. He taught us to offer\n prayers, to give alms, and to fast. And because we believed in him\n and obeyed him, therefore are we persecuted and driven from our\n country to seek thy protection.'\"[135]\n\nBut after all we have here seen of the opinions of Dr. Marcus Dods and\nSir W. Muir, let us turn to what the Rev. Stephens thinks of Mohammad:--\n\n \"The aim of Mahomet was to revive among his countrymen the Arabs,\n as Moses revived among his countrymen the Jews, the pure faith of\n their common forefather Abraham. In this he succeeded to a very\n great extent. For a confused heap of idolatrous superstitions he\n substituted a pure monotheistic faith; he abolished some of the\n most vicious practices of his countrymen, modified others; he\n generally raised the moral standard, improved the social condition\n of the people, and introduced a sober and rational ceremonial in\n worship. Finally he welded by this means a number of wild\n independent tribes, mere floating atoms, into a compact body\n politic, as well prepared and as eager to subdue the kingdoms of\n the world to their rule and to their faith, as ever the Israelites\n had been to conquer the land of Canaan.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \"The Koran also enjoins repeatedly and in very emphatic language\n the duty of showing kindness to the stranger and the orphan, and of\n treating slaves, if converted to the faith, with the consideration\n and respect due to believers. The duty even of mercy to the lower\n animals is not forgotten, and it is to be thankfully acknowledged\n that Mohammedanism as well as Buddhism shares with Christianity the\n honour of having given birth to hospitals and asylums for the\n insane and sick.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \"The vices most prevalent in Arabia in the time of Mahomet which\n are most sternly denounced and absolutely forbidden in the Koran\n were drunkenness, unlimited concubinage and polygamy, the\n destruction of female infants, reckless gambling, extortionate\n usury, superstitious arts of divination and magic. The abolition of\n some of these evil customs, and the mitigation of others, was a\n great advance in the morality of the Arabs, and is a wonderful and\n honourable testimony to the zeal and influence of the reformer. The\n total suppression of female infanticide and of drunkenness is the\n most signal triumph of his work.\"[136]\n\nThe reverend gentleman quoted above continues:\n\n \"First of all, it must be freely granted that to his own people\n Mahomet was a great benefactor. He was born in a country where\n political organization, and rational faith, and pure morals were\n unknown. He introduced all three. By a single stroke of masterly\n genius he simultaneously reformed the political condition, the\n religious creed, and the moral practice of his countrymen. In the\n place of many independent tribes he left a nation; for a\n superstitious belief in gods many and lords many he established a\n reasonable belief in one Almighty yet beneficent Being; taught men\n to live under an abiding sense of this Being's superintending care,\n to look to Him as the rewarder, and to fear Him as the punisher of\n evil-doers. He vigorously attacked, and modified and suppressed\n many gross and revolting customs which had prevailed in Arabia down\n to his time. For an abandoned profligacy was substituted a\n carefully regulated polygamy, and the practice of destroying female\n infants was effectually abolished.\n\n \"As Islam gradually extended its conquest beyond the boundaries of\n Arabia, many barbarous races whom it absorbed became in like manner\n participators in its benefits. The Turk, the Indian, the Negro, and\n the Moor were compelled to cast away their idols, to abandon their\n licentious rites and customs, to turn to the worship of one God, to\n a decent ceremonial and an orderly way of life. The faith even of\n the more enlightened Persian was purified: he learned that good and\n evil are not co-ordinate powers, but that just and unjust are alike\n under the sway of one All-wise and Holy Ruler, who ordereth all\n things in heaven and earth.\n\n \"For barbarous nations, then, especially--nations which were more\n or less in the condition of Arabia itself at the time of\n Mahomet--nations in the condition of Africa at the present day,\n with little or no civilisation, and without a reasonable\n religion--Islam certainly comes as a blessing, as a turning from\n darkness to light and from the power of satan unto God.\"[137]\n\n[Footnote 133: The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, LL.D., Vol. II, pp.\n269-71.]\n\n[Footnote 134: The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, pp. 320-21.]\n\n[Footnote 135: Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp.\n17-19 & 119.]\n\n[Footnote 136: Christianity and Islam: The Bible and the Koran, by Rev.\nW.R.W. Stephens, pp. 94, 104, 112, London, 1877.]\n\n[Footnote 137: Christianity and Islam: The Bible and the Koran, by the\nRev. W.R.W. Stephens, pp. 129-30, London, 1877.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Indictment against Mohammad.]\n\n36. What the opponents of Mohammad can possibly say against his mission\nis his alleged moral declension at Medina.[138] They accuse him of\ncruelty[139] and sensuality[140] during his sojourn in that city after\nhe had passed without any blame more than fifty-five years of his age,\nand had led a pious missionary life for upwards of fifteen years. These\nmoral stains cannot be inconsistent with his office of being a prophet\nor reformer. It is no matter if a prophet morally degrades his character\nunder certain circumstances, or morally degrades his character at the\nend of his age--after leading for upwards of fifty-five years a life of\nthe highest moral principles, and as a paragon of temperance and\nhigh-toned living--while he has faithfully conveyed the message, and has\nsincerely and honestly preached religious reforms, and the sublimity of\nhis preachings have in themselves the marks of divine truth.\n\nIf the said prophet defends his stains or immoral deeds by professed\nrevelations, and justifies himself in his flagrant breaches of morality\nby producing messages from heaven, just and equally as he does when he\nteaches the purer theology and higher morality for which he is\ncommissioned, then and from that time only we will consider him as an\nimpostor, guilty of high blasphemy in forging the name of God for his\nlicentious self indulgences.\n\nBut in the case of Mohammad, in the first place, the charges of cruelty\nand sensuality during a period of six or seven years towards the end of\nhis life, excepting three years, are utterly false; and secondly, if\nproved to have taken place, it is not proved that Mohammad justified\nhimself by alleging to have received a divine sanction or command to the\nalleged cruelties and flagrant breaches of morality. The charges of\nassassinations and cruelties to the prisoners of war and others, and of\nthe alleged perfidy and craftiness enumerated by Sir W. Muir, have been\nexamined and refuted by me in this book. _Vide_ pp. 60-73 and pp. 76-97.\nThe cases of Maria, a slave-girl, and Zeinab not coming directly under\nthe object of this book have been treated separately in Appendix B, pp.\n211-220 of this work.\n\nMohammad, in his alleged cruelties towards his enemies, is not\nrepresented by Sir W. Muir to have justified himself by special\nrevelation or sanction from on high, yet the Rev. Mr. Hughes, whose work\nhas been pronounced as having \"_the rare merit of being accurate_,\"\nmakes him (Mohammad) to have done them under the sanction of God in the\nKoran.\n\n \"The best defenders of the Arabian Prophet[141] are obliged to\n admit that the matter of Zeinab, the wife of Zeid, and again of\n Mary, the Coptic slave, are 'an indelible stain' upon his memory;\n that he is untrue once or twice to the kind and forgiving\n disposition of his best nature; that he is once or twice\n unrelenting in the punishment of his personal enemies, and that he\n is guilty even more than once of conniving at the assassination of\n inveterate opponents; but they do not give any satisfactory\n explanation or apology for all this being done _under the supposed\n sanction_ of God in the Quran.\"[142]\n\nSuch is the rare accuracy of Mr. Hughes' work. It is needless for me to\nrepeat here that none of these allegations are either true or facts, or\nalleged to have been committed under the sanction of God in the Koran.\n\nThe Rev. Marcus Dods writes regarding the character of Mohammad:--\n\n \"The knot of the matter lies not in his polygamy, nor even in his\n occasional licentiousness, but in the fact that he defended his\n conduct, when he created scandal, by professed revelations which\n are now embodied as parts of the Koran. When his wives murmured,\n and with justice, at his irregularities, he silenced them by a\n revelation giving him conjugal allowances which he had himself\n proscribed as unlawful. When he designed to contract an alliance\n with a woman forbidden to him by his own law, an inspired\n permission was forthcoming, encouraging him to the\n transgression.\"[143]\n\nBoth of these alleged instances given above are mere fabrications. There\nwas no revelation giving Mohammad conjugal allowances which he had\nhimself proscribed as unlawful, nor any permission was brought forward\nto sanction an alliance forbidden to him by his own law. This subject\nhas been fully discussed by me in my work \"Mohammad, the True Prophet,\"\nand the reader is referred to that work.[144] A few verses on the\nmarital subject of Mohammad are greatly misunderstood by European\nwriters on the subject, and Dr. Dods shares the generally wrong idea\nwhen he says:--\n\n \"He rather used his office as a title to license from which\n ordinary men were restrained. Restricting his disciples to four\n wives, he retained to himself the liberty of taking as many as he\n pleased.\" (Page 23.)\n\nThis is altogether a gross misrepresentation of the real state of\nthings. Mohammad never retained to himself the liberty of taking as many\nwives as he pleased. On the contrary, Sura XXXIII, 52, expressly forbade\nhim all women except those he had already with him, giving him no option\nto marry in the case of the demise of some or all of them. This will\nshow that he rather used his office as a restraint against himself of\nwhat was lawful for the people in general to enjoy. The only so-called\nprivilege above the rest of the believers (Sura XXXIII, 49) was not \"to\nretain to himself the liberty of taking as many wives as he pleased,\"\nbut to retain the wives whom he had already married and whose number\nexceeded the limit of four under Sura IV, 3. Other believers having more\nwives than four as in the case of Kays, Ghailan, and Naofal, were\nrequested to separate themselves from the number exceeding the limit\nprescribed for the first time. This was before polygamy was declared to\nhave been virtually abolished, _i.e._, between the publication of _vv._\n3 and 128 of Sura IV. There was neither any breach of morality, nor\nanything licentious in his retaining the marriages lawfully contracted\nby him before the promulgation of Sara IV, 3. Even this privilege (Sura\nXXXIII, 49) was counterbalanced by _Ibid_, 52, which runs thus:--\n\n \"Women are not allowed thee hereafter, nor to change them for other\n women, though their beauty charm thee, except those already\n possessed by thee.\"\n\nMr. Stanley Lane Poole suffers under the same misrepresentation as other\nEuropean writers[145] do when he says that:--\n\n \"The Prophet allowed his followers only four wives, he took more\n than a dozen himself.\"\n\nHe writes:--\n\n \"When, however, all has been said, when it has been shown that\n Mohammad was not the rapacious voluptuary some have taken him for,\n and that his violation of his own marriage-law may be due to\n motives reasonable and just from his point of view rather than to\n common sensuality.\"\n\n \"Did Mohammad believe he was speaking the words of God equally when\n he declared that permission was given him to take unto him more\n wives, as when he proclaimed, 'There is no god but God?'\"[146]\n\nMohammad did not violate his own marriage-law, and never pretended that\npermission was given to him to take more wives than what was allowed for\nother people. All his marriages (which are wrongly considered to have\nbeen about a dozen) were contracted by him before he published the law\nunjustly said to have been violated by him. He retained these wives\nafter the law was promulgated, and their number exceeded four, but he\nwas interdicted to marry any other women in the place of these in case\nof their demise or divorce. Other believers were advised after the\npromulgation of the law to reduce the number of their wives exceeding\nfour, but were at liberty to replace their wives within the limit\nassigned in the case of their demise or divorce. Mohammad's case had no\nbreach of morality or sensual license in it. It was very wise of\nMohammad to retain all the wives he had married before Sura IV, 3, came\ninto force, for the reason that the wives thus repudiated by him might\nhave married some of the unbelievers, even some of his enemies, which\nwould have been derogatory to the Prophet in the eyes of his\ncontemporaries and a laughing-stock for his enemies.\n\n[Footnote 138: \"We may readily admit that at the first Mahomet did\nbelieve, or persuaded himself to believe, that his revelations were\ndictated by a divine agency. In the Meccan period of his life there\ncertainly can be traced no personal ends or unworthy motives to belie\nthis conclusion. The Prophet was there, what he professed to be, 'a\nsimple Preacher and a Warner;' he was the despised and rejected teacher\nof a gainsaying people; and he had apparently no ulterior object but\ntheir reformation. Mahomet may have mistaken the right means to effect\nthis end, but there is no sufficient reason for doubting that he used\nthose means in good faith and with an honest purpose.\n\n\"But the scene altogether changes at Medina. There the acquisition of\ntemporal power, aggrandisement, and self-glorification mingled with the\ngrand object of the Prophet's previous life, and they were sought after\nand attained by precisely the same instrumentality. Messages from Heaven\nwere freely brought forward to justify his political conduct, equally\nwith his religious precepts. Battles were fought, wholesale executions\ninflicted, and territories annexed, under pretext of the Almighty's\nsanction. Nay, even baser actions were not only excused, but encouraged\nby the pretended divine approval or command. A special license was\nproduced, allowing Mahomet a double number of wives; the discreditable\naffair of Mary the Coptic slave was justified in a separate Sura; and\nthe passion for the wife of his own adopted son and bosom friend was the\nsubject of an inspired message in which the Prophet's scruples were\nrebuked by God; a divorce permitted, and marriage with the object of his\nunhallowed desires enjoined.\"--Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp.\n317-8.]\n\n[Footnote 139: \"But the darker shades of character as well as the\nbrighter must be depicted by a faithful historian. Magnanimity or\nmoderation are nowhere discernible as features in the conduct of Mahomet\ntowards such of his enemies as failed to tender a timely allegiance.\nOver the bodies of the Coreish who fell at Badr he exulted with savage\nsatisfaction; and several prisoners, accused of no crime but that of\nscepticism and political opposition, were deliberately executed at his\ncommand. The prince of Kheibar, after being subjected to inhuman torture\nfor the purpose of discovering the treasures of his tribe, was, with his\ncousin, put to death on the pretext of having treacherously concealed\nthem; and his wife was led away captive to the tent of the conqueror.\nSentence of exile was enforced by Mahomet with rigorous severity on two\nwhole Jewish tribes at Medina; and of a third like his neighbours, the\nwomen and children were sold into distant captivity, while the men\namounting to several hundreds were butchered in cold blood before his\neyes.\n\n\"In his youth Mahomet earned among his fellows the honourable title of\n'the Faithful.' But in later years, however much sincerity and good\nfaith may have guided his conduct in respect of his friends, craft and\ndeception were certainly not wanting towards his foes. The perfidious\nattack at Nakhla, where the first blood in the internecine war with the\nCoreish was shed, although at first disavowed by Mahomet, for its\nscandalous breach of the sacred usages of Arabia, was eventually\njustified by a pretended revelation. Abu Basir, the freebooter, was\ncountenanced by the Prophet in a manner scarcely consistent with the\nletter, and certainly opposed to the spirit, of the truce of Hodeibia.\nThe surprise which secured the easy conquest of Mecca was designed with\ncraftiness, if not with duplicity. The pretext on which the Bani Nadhir\nwere besieged and expatriated (namely, that Gabriel had revealed their\ndesign against the prophet's life), was feeble and unworthy of an honest\ncause. When Medina was beleaguered by the confederate army, Mahomet\nsought the services of Nueim, a traitor, and employed him to sow\ndistrust among the enemy by false and treacherous reports; 'for,' said\nhe, 'what else is war but a game at deception?' In his prophetical\ncareer, political and personal ends were frequently compassed by the\nflagrant pretence of _Divine_ revelations, which a candid examination\nwould have shewn him to be nothing more than the counterpart of his own\nwishes. The Jewish and Christian systems, at first adopted honestly as\nthe basis of his own religion, had no sooner served the purpose of\nestablishing a firm authority, than they were ignored, if not disowned.\nAnd what is perhaps worst of all, the dastardly assassination of\npolitical and religious opponents, countenanced and frequently directed\nas they were in all their cruel and perfidious details by Mahomet\nhimself leaves a dark and indelible blot upon his character.\"--Muir's\nLife of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 307-9.\n\n\"The reader will observe that simultaneously with the anxious desire to\nextinguish idolatry, and to promote religion and virtue in the world,\nthere was nurtured by the Prophet in his own heart a licentious\nself-indulgence; till in the end, assuming to be the favourite of\nHeaven, he justified himself by 'revelations' from God in the most\nflagrant breaches of morality. He will remark that while Mahomet\ncherished a kind and tender disposition, 'weeping with them that wept,'\nand binding to his person the hearts of his followers by the ready and\nself-denying offices of love and friendship, he could yet take pleasure\nin cruel and perfidious assassination, could gloat over the massacre of\nan entire tribe, and savagely consign the innocent babe to the fires of\nhell.\"--Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 322-3.]\n\n[Footnote 140: \"In domestic life the conduct of Mahomet with one grave\nexception was exemplary. As a husband his fondness and devotion was\nentire, bordering, however, at times upon jealousy. As a father he was\nloving and tender. In his youth he is said to have lived a virtuous\nlife. At the age of twenty-five he married a widow forty years old; and\nfor five and twenty years he was a faithful husband to her alone. Yet it\nis remarkable that during this period was composed most of those\npassages of the Coran in which the black-eyed Houris, reserved for\nbelievers in Paradise, are depicted in such glowing colours. Shortly\nafter the death of Khadija the Prophet married again; but it was not\ntill the mature age of fifty-four that he made the dangerous trial of\npolygamy, by taking Ayesha, yet a child, as the rival of Sauda. Once the\nnatural limits of restraint were overpassed, Mahomet fell an easy prey\nto his strong passion for the sex. In his fifty-sixth year he married\nHaphsa; and the following year, in two succeeding months, Zeinab bint\nKhozeima and Omm Salma. But his desires were not to be satisfied by the\nrange of a harem already greater than was permitted to any of his\nfollowers; rather as age advanced, they were stimulated to seek for new\nand varied indulgence. A few months after his nuptials with Zeinab and\nOmm Salma, the charms of a second Zeinab were by accident discovered too\nfully before the Prophet's admiring gaze. She was the wife of Zeid, his\nadopted son and bosom friend; but he was unable to smother the flame she\nkindled in his breast; and, by _divine_ command, she was taken to his\nbed. In the same year he married a seventh wife, and also a concubine.\nAnd at last, when he was full three score years of age, no fewer than\nthree new wives, besides Mary the Coptic slave, were within the space of\nseven months added to his already well-filled harem.\"--Muir's Life of\nMahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 309-10.]\n\n[Footnote 141: \"_Vide_ Muhammad and Muhammadanism, by Mr. R. Bosworth\nSmith, M.A., an Assistant Master of Harrow School.\"]\n\n[Footnote 142: Notes on Muhammadanism, by the Rev. T.P. Hughes,\nMissionary to the Afghans, Peshawar; Second Edition, page 4, London,\n1877.]\n\n[Footnote 143: Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp. 24\n& 25.]\n\n[Footnote 144: _Vide_ pp. 48-61. This work is being printed at Education\nSociety's Press, Byculla, Bombay. It appears that Dr. Dods, in the first\ninstance, had in view Sura XXXIII, 51. This is by no means giving\nMohammad conjugal allowances which he himself had proscribed as\nunlawful. As a preliminary measure to abolish polygamy and to accustom\nthe people to monogamy, Mohammad, when reducing the unlimited polygamy\npractised in Arabia, had put a strong condition to treat their wives,\nwhen more than one, equitably in every sense of the word,--_i.e._, in\nthe matter of social comfort, love and household establishment (Sura IV,\n3). When the measure had given a monogamous tendency to the Arab\nsociety, it was declared that it was impossible practically to treat\nequitably in all respects the contemporary wives (Sura IV, 128), and\nthose who had already contracted contemporaneous marriage before the\nmeasure referred to above was introduced were absolved from the\ncondition laid down in Sura IV, 3, but were advised, regarding their\nthen existing wives, not to yield wholly to disinclination. Similarly\nMohammad was also relieved from that condition in Sura XXXIII, 51,\nwithout \"giving him any conjugal allowance which he had himself\npronounced unlawful.\" The second instance is of Zeinab's case I suppose.\nZeinab was in no way, when divorced by Zeid, \"a woman forbidden to him\nby his own laws.\"]\n\n[Footnote 145: \"The Apostle becomes a creature so exalted that even the\neasy drapery of Mohammadan morality becomes a garment too tight-fitting\nfor him. 'A peculiar privilege is granted to him above the rest of the\nbelievers.' He may multiply his wives without stint; he may and he does\nmarry within the prohibited degrees.\"--_Islam under the Arabs_, by R.D.\nOsborn, London 1876, p. 91.]\n\n[Footnote 146: Studies in a Mosque, by S.L. Poole, pp. 77 and 80,\nLondon, 1880.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Finality of the social reforms of Mohammad.]\n\n[Sidenote: Positive precepts.]\n\n[Sidenote: Ceremonial law.]\n\n[Sidenote: Concrete morals of the Koran.]\n\n[Sidenote: Want of adaptibility of the Koran to surrounding\ncircumstances.]\n\n37. It has been said with much stress regarding the teachings of\nMohammad: (1) That although under the degraded condition of Arabia, they\nwere a gift of great value, and succeeded in banishing those fierce\nvices which naturally accompany ignorance and barbarism, but an\nimperfect code of ethics has been made a permanent standard of good and\nevil, and a final and irrevocable law, which is an insuperable barrier\nto the regeneration and progress of a nation. It has been also urged\nthat his reforms were good and useful for his own time and place, but\nthat by making them final he has prevented further progress and\nconsecrated half measures. What were restrictions to his Arabs would\nhave been license to other men.[147] (2) That Islam deals with positive\nprecepts rather than with principles,[148] and the danger of a precise\nsystem of positive precepts regulating the minute detail, the ceremonial\nworship, and the moral and social relations of life, is, that it should\nretain too tight a grip upon men when the circumstances which justified\nit have changed and vanished away, and therefore the imposition of a\nsystem good for barbarians upon people already possessing higher sort of\ncivilization and the principles of a purer faith is not a blessing but a\ncurse. Nay more, even the system which was good for people when they\nwere in a barbarous state may become positively mischievous to those\nsame people when they begin to emerge from their barbarism under its\ninfluence into a higher condition.[149] (3) That the exact ritual and\nformal observations of Islam have carried with them their own Nemesis,\nand thus we find that in the worship of the faithful formalism and\nindifferences, pedantic scrupulosity and positive disbelief flourish\nside by side. The minutest change of posture in prayer, the displacement\nof a simple genuflexion, would call for much heavier censure than\noutward profligacy or absolute neglect.[150] (4) That morality is viewed\nnot in the abstract, but in the concrete. That the Koran deals much more\nwith sin and virtue in fragmentary details than as a whole. It deals\nwith acts more than principles, with outward practice more than inward\nmotives, with precepts and commands more than exhortation. It does not\nhold up before man the hatefulness and ugliness of _all_ sin _as a\nwhole_.[151] (5) \"That Islam is stationary; swathed in the rigid bands\nof the Coran, it is powerless, like the Christian dispensation,[152] to\nadapt itself to the varying circumstances of time and place, and to keep\npace with, if not to lead and direct, the progress of society and the\nelevation of the race. In the body politic the spiritual and secular are\nhopelessly confounded, and we fail of perceiving any approach to free\ninstitutions or any germ whatever of popular government.\"[153]\n\n[Footnote 147: _Vide_ Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A.,\npage 229, London, 1878; and Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods,\nD.D., pp. 122-23, London, 1878. Major Osborn writes, \"But to the polity\nerected on these rude lines was given the attribute of finality. In\norder to enforce obedience and eliminate the spirit of opposition,\nMohammad asserted that it was, down to the minutest details, the work of\na Divine Legislature.\"--_Islam under the Arabs_, pp. 45 and 46.]\n\n[Footnote 148: _Vide_ The Faith of Islam, by the Rev. Edward Sell, page\n7, London, 1880.]\n\n[Footnote 149: _Vide_ Christianity and Islam, the Bible, and the Koran,\nby the Rev. W.R.W. Stephens, pp. 95 and 131, London, 1877.]\n\n[Footnote 150: _Vide_ Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A.,\npage 237; and Stephens' Christianity and Islam, page 121. Major Osborn\nwrites: \"From the hour of his birth the moslem becomes a member of a\nsystem in which every act of his life is governed by a minute ritual. He\nis beset on every side with a circle of inflexible formalities.\"--_Islam\nunder the Khalifs of Baghdad_, pp. 78-9. He further writes in a\nfootnote, p. 79: \"Thus prayer is absolutely useless if any matter,\nlegally considered impure, adheres to the person of the worshipper, even\nthough he be unconscious of its presence. Prayer also is null and void\nunless the men and women praying are attired in a certain prescribed\nmanner.\"]\n\n[Footnote 151: _Vide_ Christianity and Islam, by W.R.W. Stephens, pp.\n122-23. Major Osborn writes: \"The Prophet knew of no religious life\nwhere the external rite was not deemed of greater importance than the\ninner state, and, in consequence, he gave that character to Islam also.\nHence there are no moral gradations in the Koran. All precepts proceed\nfrom the will of God, and all are enforced with the same threatening\nemphasis. A failure of performance in the meanest trivialities of civil\nlife involves the same tremendous penalties as apostacy and\nidolatry.\"--_Islam under Khalifs_, p. 5. He further says: \"In their\nreligious aspect, these traditions are remarkable for that strange\nconfusion of thought which caused the Prophet to place on one level of\nwickedness serious moral crimes, breaches of sumptuary regulations, and\naccidental omissions in ceremonial observations. Sin, throughout, is\nregarded as an external pollution, which can, at once, be rectified by\nthe payment of a fine of some kind.\" _Ibid_, page 62.]\n\n[Footnote 152: \"Occasionally our author would seem to write what he\ncertainly does not mean; thus, in the middle of an excellent summary of\nthe causes of Islam's decadence, it is stated,--'Swathed in the rigid\nbands of the Koran, _Islam is powerless like the Christian dispensation_\nto adapt itself to the varying circumstances of time and place.'\"--_The\nSaturday Review_, June 23, 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 153: _Vide_ Annals of the Early Caliphate, by Sir W. Muir,\nK.C.S.I., LL.D., D.C.L., page 456, London, 1883.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: The preceding objections not applicable to the Koran.]\n\n38. All these objections more or less apply rather to the teachings of\nthe Mohammadan Common Law (canon and civil), called _Fiqah_ or _Shara_,\nthan to the Koran, the Mohammadan Revealed Law. Our Common Law, which\ntreats both ecclesiastical and the civil law, is by no means considered\nto be a divine or unchangeable law. This subject has been treated by me\nin a separate work[154] on the Legal, Political and Social Reforms to\nwhich the reader is referred. The space allowed to me in this\nIntroduction, which has already exceeded its proper limit, does not\nadmit a full and lengthy discussion of the objections quoted above, but\nI will review them here in as few words as possible.\n\n[Footnote 154: Reforms, Political, Social and Legal, under the Moslem\nRule, Bombay Education Society's Press, 1883.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Finality of the social reforms of Mohammad.]\n\n39. (1) Mohammad had to deal with barbarous nations around him, to be\ngradually reformed, and besides this the subject of social reforms was a\nsecondary question. Yet it being necessary to transform the character of\nthe people and to reform the moral and social abuses prevailing among\nthem, he gradually introduced his social reforms which proved immense\nblessings to the Arabs and other nations in the seventh century. Perhaps\nsome temporary but judicious, reasonable and helpful accommodations had\nto be made to the weakness and immaturity of the people, as halting\nstages in the march of reforms only to be set aside at their adult\nstrength, or to be abolished when they were to begin to emerge from\ntheir barbarism under its influence to a higher civilization.\nConsequently gradual amelioration of social evils had necessarily to\npass several trials during progress of reform. The intermediate stages\nare not to be taken as final and irrevocable standard of morality and an\ninsuperable barrier to the regeneration of the Arabian nation. Our\nadversaries stick indiscriminately to these temporary measures or\nconcessions only, and call them half measures and partial reforms made\ninto an unchangeable law which exclude the highest reforms, and form a\nformidable obstacle to the dawn of a progressive and enlightened\ncivilization. I have in view here the precepts of Mohammad for\nameliorating the degraded condition of women for restricting the\nunlimited polygamy and the facility of divorce, together with servile\nconcubinage and slavery.[155] Mohammad's injunctions and precepts,\nintermediary and ultimate, temporary and permanent, intended for the\nremoval of these social evils, are interwoven with each other,\ninterspersed in different Suras and not chronologically arranged, in\nconsequence of which it is somewhat difficult for those who have no deep\ninsight into the promiscuous literature of the Koran to find out which\nprecept was only a halting stage, and which the latest. It was only from\nsome oversight on the part of the compilers of the Common Law that, in\nthe first place, the civil precepts of a transitory nature and as a\nmediate step leading to a higher reform were taken as final; and in the\nsecond place, the civil precepts adapted for the dwellers of the Arabian\ndesert were pressed upon the neck of all ages and countries. A social\nsystem for barbarism ought not to be imposed on a people already\npossessing higher forms of civilizations.\n\n[Footnote 155: \"The cankerworm of polygamy, divorce, servile concubinage\nand veil lay at the root. They are bound up in the character of its\nexistence. A reformed Islam which should part with the divine ordinances\non which they rest, or attempt in the smallest degree to change them by\na rationalistic selection, abetment or variation would be Islam no\nlonger.\" Annals of the Early Caliphate by Sir W. Muir, page 458.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Positive precepts.]\n\n[Sidenote: Ceremonial law.]\n\n40. (2) In fact the Koran deals with positive precepts as well as with\nprinciples, but it never teaches a precise system of precepts regulating\nin minute details the social relations of life and the ceremonial of\nworship. On the contrary, its aim has been to counteract the tendency to\nnarrowness, formality, and severity which is the consequence of a living\nunder a rigid system of positive precepts. Mohammad had to transform the\ncharacter of the Arab barbarians who had no religious or moral teacher\nor a social reformer before his advent. It was therefore necessary to\ngive them a few positive precepts, moulding and regulating their moral\nand social conduct, to make them 'new creatures' with new notions and\nnew purposes, and to remodel the national life. (3) But lest they should\nconfuse virtue as identical with obedience to the outward requirements\nof the ceremonial law,--the formal ablutions, the sacrifices in\npilgrimages, the prescribed forms of prayers, the fixed amount of alms,\nand the strict fasts, the voice of the Koran has ever and anon been\nlifted up to declare that a rigid conformity to practical precepts,\nwhether of conduct or ceremonial, would not extenuate, but rather\nincrease in the eyes of God the guilt of an unprincipled heart and an\nunholy life.\n\n[Sidenote: Pilgrimage.]\n\nRegarding the pilgrimage[156] or the sacrifices (its chief ceremony),\nthe Koran says:--\n\n \"By no means can their flesh reach unto God, neither their blood,\n but piety on your part reacheth him. Thus hath he subjected them to\n you, that ye might magnify God for his guidance: and announce glad\n tidings to the doers of good.\"--Sura XXII, 38.\n\n[Sidenote: Kibla.]\n\nRegarding the _Kibla_ in prayers it is said in the Koran:--\n\n \"The west and the east is God's: therefore whichever way ye turn\n there is the face of God.\"--Sura II, 109.\n\n \"All have a quarter of the Heavens to which they turn them; but\n wherever ye be, hasten emulously after good.\"--_Ibid_, 143.\n\n \"There is no piety in turning your faces toward the east or west,\n but he is pious who believeth in God and the last day, and the\n angels and the scripture, and the prophets; who for the love of God\n disburseth his wealth to his kindred; and to the orphans, and the\n needy, and the wayfarer, and those who ask, and for ransoming; who\n observeth the prayer, and payeth alms, and who is of those who are\n faithful to their engagements when they have engaged in them, and\n patient under ills and hardships, and in time of trouble, these are\n they who are just, and these are they who fear the Lord.\"--_Ibid_,\n 172.\n\n[Sidenote: Amount of alms.]\n\nIn the place of a fixed amount of alms the Koran only says to give what\nye can spare.\n\n \"They will ask thee also what shall they bestow in alms:\n\n \"Say: What ye can spare.\"--_Ibid_, 216, 217.\n\n[Sidenote: Fasts.]\n\nInstead of imposing a very strict fast, which in the middle of summer is\nextremely mortifying, the Koran makes its observance optional.\n\n \"And as for those who are able to keep it and yet observe it not,\n the expiation of this shall be the maintenance of a poor man. And\n he who of his own accord performeth a good work, shall derive good\n from it: and good shall it be for you to fast, if ye knew\n it.\"--_Ibid_, 180.\n\n[Sidenote: No prescribed forms of prayer.]\n\nThe Koran does not teach any prescribed forms of worship and other\nritualistic prayers. No attitude is fixed, and no outward observance of\nposture is required. There is no scrupulosity and punctiliousness,\nneither the change of posture in prayer nor the displacement of a\nsingle genuflexion calls any censure on the devotee in the Koran. Simply\nreading the Koran (Suras LXXIII, 20; XXIX, 44), and bearing God in mind,\nstanding and sitting; reclining (III, 188; IV, 104) or bowing down or\nprostrating (XXII, 76) is the only form and ritual, if it may be called\nso, of prayer and worship taught in the Koran.\n\n \"Recite then as much of the Koran as may be easy to you.\"--Sura\n LXXIII, 20.\n\n \"Recite the portions of the Book which have been revealed to thee\n and discharge the duty of prayer; verily prayer restraineth from\n the filthy and the blameworthy. And assuredly the gravest duty is\n the remembrance of God; and God knoweth what ye do.\"--Sura XXIX,\n 44.\n\n \"And when the Koran is rehearsed, then listen ye to it and keep\n silence: haply ye may obtain mercy.\"\n\n \"And think within thine ownself on God, with lowliness and with\n fear and without loud-spoken words, at even and at morn; and be not\n of the heedless.\"--Sura VII, 203, 204.\n\n[Sidenote: Pretentious prayers and ostentatious almsgiving condemned.]\n\nThe Koran condemns pretentious prayers and ostentatious almsgiving.\n\n \"Verily the hypocrites would deceive God; but he will deceive them!\n When they stand up for prayer, they stand carelessly to be seen of\n men, and they remember God but little\"--Sura IV, 141.\n\n \"Woe then to those who pray,\"\n\n \"Who in their prayer are careless;\"\n\n \"Who make a show of devotion,\"\n\n \"But refuse help _to the needy_.\"--Sura CVII, 4-7.\n\n \"And they fall down on their faces weeping, and it increaseth the\n humility.\"--Sura XVII, 110.\n\n \"O ye who believe! make not your alms void by reproaches and\n injury; like him who spendeth his substance to be seen of men, and\n believeth not in God and in the latter day. The likeness of such an\n one is that of a rock with a thin soil upon it, on which a heavy\n rain falleth, but leaveth it hard. No profit from their works shall\n they be able to gain; for God guideth not the unbelieving\n people.\"--Sura II, 266.\n\n \"We have made ready a shameful chastisement for the unbelievers,\n and for those who bestow their substance in alms to be seen of men,\n and believe not in God and in the last day. Whoever hath satan for\n his companion, an evil companion hath he!\"--Sura IV, 42.\n\n[Sidenote: No indispensable hours or places for prayers.]\n\nThere are no indispensable hours or places to be observed for prayers.\nIn Suras XI, 116; and IV, 104, the time of prayer is set down in general\nterms without specifying any fixed hour. There are some more times named\nin Suras XVII, 81, 82; XX, 130; L, 38, 39; and LII, 48, 49, but they are\nspecial cases for Mohammad himself, and \"as an excess in the service.\"\n_Vide_ Sura XVII, 81. On this subject Dr. Marcus Dods observes:--\n\n \"There are two features of the devout character which the\n Mohammedans have the merit of exhibiting with much greater\n distinctness than we do. They show not the smallest hesitation or\n fear in confessing God, and they reduce to practice the great\n principle that the worship of God is not confined to temples or\n any special place:--\n\n \"Most honour to the men of prayer,\n Whose mosque is in them everywhere!\n Who amid revel's wildest din,\n In war's severest discipline,\n On rolling deck, in thronged bazaar,\n In stranger land, however far,\n However different in their reach\n Of thought, in manners, dress or speech,--\n Will quietly their carpet spread.\n To Mekkeh turn the humble head,\n And, as if blind to all around,\n And deaf to each distracting sound,\n In ritual language God adore,\n In spirit to his presence soar,\n And in the pauses of the prayer,\n Rest, as if rapt in glory there.\"\n\n \"There are of course formalists and hypocrites in Islam as well as\n in religions of which we have more experience. The uniformity and\n regularity of their prostrations resemble the movements of a\n well-drilled company of soldiers or of machines, but the Koran\n denounces \"woe upon those who pray, but in their prayers are\n careless, who make a show of devotion, but refuse to help the\n needy;\" while nowhere is formalism more pungently ridiculed than in\n the common Arabic proverb, \"His head is towards the Kibleh, but his\n heels among the weeds.\" We could almost excuse a touch of formalism\n for the sake of securing that absolute stillness and outward\n decorum in worship which deceives the stranger as he enters a\n crowded mosque into the belief that it is quite empty. Persons who\n hold themselves excused from the duty of worship by every slight\n obstacle might do worse than get infected with the sublime\n formalism of Cais, son of Sad, who would not shift his head an inch\n from the place of his prostration, though a huge serpent lifted its\n fangs close to his face and finally coiled itself round his neck.\n And if some are formal, certainly many are very much in\n earnest.\"[157]\n\n[Sidenote: Ablutions.]\n\nThe ablutions have not been imposed as burdens, or as having any\nmysterious merit, but merely as a measure of cleanliness.\n\n \"God desireth not to lay a burden upon you, but he desireth to\n purify you.\"\n\n[Footnote 156: The institution of pilgrimage is a harmless one, and\nconducive to unity in religion for Arabs, and gives moreover an impetus\nto trade at large.]\n\n[Footnote 157: Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp.\n30-1.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Koran both abstract and concrete in morals.]\n\n41. (4) The Koran seems fully aware of the danger of the precise and\nfixed system of positive precepts moulding and regulating every\ndepartment of life. The danger is that the system of formalism in which\nmen are tied down to the performance of certain religious functions,\nminutely and precisely fixed in respect to time, place and manner, so\nthat neither less nor more is required of them, retains too tight a grip\nupon them, when the circumstances which justified it have changed or\nvanished away. The moral growth of those who live under such a system of\nminute and punctilious restraint is stunted and retarded. The tendency\nof mankind to formalism is so strong that they very commonly, though\noften unconsciously, fall into the error of imagining that there is a\npeculiar intrinsic merit and virtue in the mere discharge of those\nprescribed forms of duties and religious ceremonies. Morality is with\nthem not in the abstract but in the concrete, as consisting of a mass of\nreligious observances, rather than of a certain disposition of heart\ntowards God and man. The Koran deals with vice and virtue as a whole as\nwell as in fragmentary details. It treats of inward motives as much as\nof outward practice, of exhortations equally with precepts and commands.\nIt holds up before man the hatefulness and ugliness of vice _as a\nwhole_. It does not enclose the whole of the practical morality and\npiety within the narrow compass of a fixed number of precepts. It lays\nthe foundation of that far-reaching charity which regards all men as\nequal in the sight of God, and recognizes no distinction of races and\nclasses.\n\n 120. \"And abandon the semblance of wickedness and wickedness\n itself. They, verily, whose _only_ acquirement is iniquity shall be\n repaid for what they have gained.\"\n\n 152. \"Say: Come, I will rehearse what your Lord hath made binding\n on you, that ye assign not aught to Him as sharers of his Divine\n honour, and that ye be good to your parents; _and_ that ye slay not\n your children because of poverty, for them and for you will We\n provide; and that ye come not near to pollutions, outward or\n inward; and that ye slay not anyone whom God hath forbidden you,\n unless for a just cause. This hath He enjoined on you: haply ye\n will understand.\"--Sura VI.\n\n 31. \"Say: Only hath my Lord forbidden filthy actions, whether open\n or secret, and iniquity, and unjust violence, and to associate with\n God that for which He hath sent down no warranty, and to speak of\n God that of which ye have no knowledge.\"--Sura VII.\n\n 33. \"To those who avoid great crimes and scandals, but commit only\n lighter faults, verily, thy Lord will be rich in forgiveness. He\n well knew you when He produced you out of the earth, and when ye\n were embryos in your mothers' womb. Assert not then your own\n purity. He best knoweth who feareth him.\"--Sura LIII.\n\n 13. \"O men! verily We have created you of a male and a female: and\n We have divided you into peoples and tribes that ye might take\n knowledge one of another. Truly the most worthy of honour in the\n sight of God is he who feareth Him most. Verily God is Knowing,\n Cognizant.\"--Sura XLIX.\n\n 143. \"And every _nation_ has a quarter _of the Heavens_. It is God\n who turneth them _towards it_: hasten then emulously after good:\n wheresover ye be, God will one day bring you all together: verily\n God is all powerful.\"--Sura II.\n\n 52. \"And to thee We have sent down the Book _of the Koran_ with\n truth, confirmatory of previous scripture and its safeguard. Judge\n therefore between them by what God hath sent down, and follow not\n their desires, after the truth which hath come unto thee. To\n everyone of you have We given a rule and an open way.\"\n\n 53. \"And if God had pleased He had surely made you all one people;\n but He would test you by what He hath given to each. Be emulous\n then in good deeds. To God do ye _all_ return, and He will tell you\n concerning the subjects of your disputes.\"--Sura V.\n\n 127 \"And vie in haste for pardon from your Lord, and a Paradise,\n vast as the Heavens and the Earth, prepared for the God-fearing.\"\n\n 128. \"Who gives alms, _alike_ in prosperity and _in_ distress, and\n who master their anger, and forgive others! And God loveth the doer\n of good.\"\n\n 129. \"And who, after they have done a base deed or committed a\n wrong against their own souls, remember God and implore forgiveness\n of their sins--and who can forgive sins but God only?--and\n persevere not in what they have willingly done amiss.\"--Sura III.\n\n 21. \"Vie in hasting after pardon from your Lord, and\n Paradise--whose outspread is as the outspread of the Heaven and of\n the Earth. Prepared is it for those who believed in God and his\n apostles. Such is the bounty of God: to whom He will He giveth it:\n and of immense bounty is God!\"--Sura LII.\n\n 183. \"Ye shall assuredly be tried in your possessions and in\n yourselves. And many hurtful things shall ye assuredly hear from\n those to whom the scriptures were given before you, and from those\n who join other gods with God. But if ye be steadfast and fear God,\n then this verily is _God's_ decree for the affairs of\n _life_.\"--Sura III.\n\n 16. \"O my son! observe prayer and enjoin the right and forbid the\n wrong, and be patient under whatever shall betide thee: verily this\n is a bounden duty.\"--Sura XXXI.\n\n 38. \"Yet let the recompense of evil be only a like evil; but he who\n forgiveth and maketh peace, shall find his reward for it from God;\n verily He loveth not those who act unjustly.\"\n\n 39. \"And there shall be no way _open_ against those who, after\n being wronged, avenge themselves.\"\n\n 40. \"Only shall there be a way _open_ against those who unjustly\n wrong others, and act insolently on the earth in disregard of\n justice. These! a grievous punishment doth await them.\"\n\n 41. \"And whoso beareth _wrongs_ with patience and forgiveth,--this\n verily is a bounden duty.\"--Sura XLII.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Adaptability of the Koran to surrounding circumstances.]\n\n42. (5) The Koran keeps pace with the most fully and rapidly-developing\ncivilization, if it is rationally interpreted, not as expounded by the\nUlema in the Common Law Book and enforced by the sentiment of a nation.\nIt is only the Mohammadan Common Law, with all its traditions or oral\nsayings of the Prophet,--very few of which are genuine reports, and the\nsupposed chimerical concurrence of the learned Moslem Doctors and mostly\ntheir analogical reasonings (called _Hadees_, _Ijma_, and _Kias_),\npassed under the name of _Fiqah_ or _Shariat_, that has blended together\nthe spiritual and the secular, and has become a barrier in some respects\nregarding certain social and political innovations for the higher\ncivilization and progress of the nation. But the Koran is not\nresponsible for this all.\n\nMr. Stanley Lane Poole writes:--\n\n \"The Koran does not contain, even in outline, the elaborate\n ritual and complicated law which now passes under the name of\n Islam. It contains merely those decisions which happened to be\n called for at Medina. Mohammad himself knew that it did not provide\n for every emergency, and recommended a principle of analogical\n deduction to guide his followers when they were in doubt. This\n analogical deduction has been the ruin of Islam. Commentators and\n Jurists have set their nimble wits to work to extract from the\n Koran legal decisions which an ordinary mind could never\n discover there; and the whole structure of modern Mohammadanism has\n been built upon the foundation of sand. The Koran is not\n responsible for it.\"[158]\n\nI can only differ from the above in the allegation that Mohammad\nrecommended a principle of analogical deduction.\n\n[Footnote 158: The Speeches and Table-talk of the Prophet Mohammad, by\nStanley Lane Poole, pages lii and liii, Introduction, London, 1882.]\n\n\n[Sidenote: Suitability of the Koran to all classes of humanity.]\n\n43. Thus the system of religious and moral teaching of the Koran\nadmirably suits the lower and the higher forms of humanity. The precepts\nwhich regulate some department of social life, moral conduct, and\nreligious ceremonial are blessings to the barbarous; and that portion of\nthe Koran which inculcates large principles, for the due application of\nwhich much must be left to the individual conscience, suits the same\npeople when they begin to emerge from their barbarism under its\ninfluence into a higher condition, or to those already possessing the\nhigher forms of civilization. For instance, the command to give full\nmeasure, to weigh with just balance, to abstain from wine and gambling,\nand to treat persons with kindness are intended for men not reaching\nthe high forms of civilization. The teachings of the Koran regarding the\ngraces of truth, honesty and temperance and mercy, the virtues of\nmeekness, and the stress laid upon thoughts and inclinations are fit to\ninstruct persons who have attained the higher forms of civilization, and\nhave outgrown the need of positive precepts of minute detail.\n\n C. Ali.\n\n Hyderabad,\n Deccan,\n _March 1884_.\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's Note: Despite the reference to a \"Note\" on page cv in\nthe Table of Contents, no such page exists in this edition of the\nprinted book.]\n\n\n\n\n KAHTAN.\n |\n .--------------------+-------------------.\n | |\n Yarab. Hazaramaut.\n | *\n Yoshjab. *\n | Sadif.\n Saba.\n |\n .-----------------------------.\n | |\n Himyar. Kahlan.\n * |\n * .-----------------+----------.\n Kozaa. | |\n | Rabia. Zeid.\n Al-Hafi. * |\n | * .-----------------------.\n | Hamadan. | |\n | Abad. *\n .-----+-----+----------. * *\n | | | * Ghous.\n Aslom. Amran. Amr. | |\n * * | .------+--+-----+------. |\n * * .-----+-----. | | | | |\n Zeid. | | | | Murrah. Muzhij. Tay. Ash-ar. |\n | .-------+. Bahra. * Bali. | | | |\n | | | * .---+---. | .--+-----. |\n | Jarm. Taghlib. Mahra. | | | | | |\n | | Adi. Khaulan. | Ghous. Kharija. |\n | Vabra. | | | |\n | | .--------------. | Jadila. |\n | .---------. | | | | |\n | | | Lakhm. Ofeir. Juzam. | |\n | Kalb. Khoshain. | | .------+------. |\n | | Dar. Kinda. | | | |\n | Taym Allat. | Ans. Illah. | |\n | Sukun. | | | |\n .---+-------+-----. Morad. | Saad-ul-Ashira |\n | | | | | |\n Joheina. Saad. Nohd. .------------------. Jufi. |\n | | | |\n Ozra. Harb. Amr. |\n | | |\n .----------. Nakha. |\n | | |\n Raha. Sada. .-----------------------.\n |\n .----------+----------.\n | |\n Azd. Anmar.\n | |\n .---------------+---. .------+-+-------.\n | | | | |\n Mazin. Shahnvah. Khas-am. Ghous. Ghafiq.\n | | | |\n .----------+----------. .-------+-------. Bajila. Ahmas.\n | | | | | |\n Saalba. Harisa. | Samala. Doos. Haddan.\n | | Jafna.\n .--+----. | (The Ghassinides).\n | | |\n Aus. Khazraj. |\n |\n .-----+---+----------.\n | | |\n Adi. Afsa. Lohay.\n | | |\n Bariq. Aslam. Khozaa.\n | |\n Salaman. Mustalik.\n\n\n\n\n MOADD.\n *\n *\n NIZAR.\n |\n .-----------+---------------------------------.\n | |\n Mozar (Modhar). Rabia.\n | *\n .------+----------------------------------. *\n | | |\n Al-Nas. Al-Yas. .-----.\n | * | |\n Kays. * Anaza. |\n | Khundif. |\n Aylan. | Jadila.\n | .-------+-----. *\n .------+-----------. | | *\n | | Tabikha. Modrika. |\n Khasafa. Ghatafan. | * |\n * | Add. * |\n * .----+------. | | |\n Mansur. | | .--------+-----. .+---. |\n | Aasir. Reis. | | | | | |\n .----+---. | | Tamim. * Mozeina. | Hozeil. |\n | | .+-----. | * | | |\n Suleim. Hawazan. | | | * * Khozeima. | |\n | | Sad Monat | | Darim. | | | |\n .--+--. Bakr. Bahila. | | | | Lahyan. |\n | | * | | Saliba bin Sad. | |\n Makwan. * * Movahib. | Kinana. |\n | .+--------. | |\n * .+--------+------. | | .----+-----. |\n | | | | Asha. Baghiz. | | |\n .-----+. Sakeef. Saad. Saasaa. | Abd Monat. Nazar. |\n | | | .---+---. | | |\n Ussya. Ril. Aamir. | | .---+-. Malik. |\n | Zobian. Abs. | | | |\n .-------------+-. * * Bakr. Fahr or |\n | | * * | Koreish. |\n Rabia. Hilal. | | Zamra. | |\n | | Mudlij. | Ghalib. |\n .----------+--+-------------. | Ghifar. | |\n | | | .-+-----+------. Loway. |\n Kilab. Kaab. Aamir. | | | | |\n * | * Shahm. Murra. Fezara. | |\n * .----+-+----. * | |\n | | | | | .---------------------+ |\n Rivas. Kosheir. * Jaada. Baka. | | |\n | Kab Khozeima. |\n * | |\n | .----------------+-. .--------+-----+\n Muntafiq. | | | |\n Murrah. * * Abd-ul-Kays.\n | * *\n .-------+-+-----. | |\n | | | .----+-. .-+---+----.\n Kilab. Taym. Mukhzum. | | | | |\n | Sahm. Jamah. | | Aus Allat.\n .--+------. | |\n | | Taym Allah. |\n Kossay. Zohra. |\n | Wail.\n .-----------+---------------. |\n | | | .-----+---.\n * Abd Manaf. Abd-ud-Dar. | |\n * | Taghlib. Bakr.\n | .-----+----------------------. *\n Asad. | | *\n Hashim. Abd Shams. |\n | | Hanifa.\n Abd-ul-Muttalib. Omayya. *\n | | *\n .-------+----+-----------. Harab. |\n | | | (Sakhr). .------.\n Abbas. Abdullah. Abu Talib. | | |\n | | | Abu Sofian. Taheem *\n Ibn Abbas. Mohammad. Ali. | *\n Moavia. |\n Shaiban.\n *\n *\n |\n Sadus.\n\n\n\n\nALL THE WARS OF MOHAMMAD WERE DEFENSIVE.\n\n\n_The Persecutions._\n\n[Sidenote: 1. The early persecutions of Moslems by the people of Mecca.]\n\nThe severe persecution which Mohammad and his early converts suffered at\nMecca at the hands of their fellow-citizens, the Koreish, is a fact\nadmitted by all historians.\n\nThe Koran, which may be regarded as a contemporary record of the\nill-feeling manifested towards the Prophet and his followers, bears\nample testimony to the fact. Not only were the early Moslems persecuted\nfor renouncing the pagan religion and obtaining converts to the\nmonotheistic religion of Mohammad, but they were also tortured and\notherwise ill-treated to induce them to return to the religion which\nthey had forsaken. The persecution seems to have been so great that\nMohammad was compelled to recognize those of his followers, who by force\nand cruelty were compelled to renounce Islam and profess paganism, but\nwere inwardly steadfast in their belief of the one true God, as true\nMoslems.\n\nThe Koran says:\n\n\"Whoso after he hath believed in God denieth Him, if he were forced to\nit, and if his heart remain steadfast in the faith, _shall be\nguiltless_; but whoso openeth his breast to infidelity, on them, in that\ncase, shall be wrath from God, and a severe punishment awaiteth\nthem.\"--Sura xvi, 108.\n\n\"The incarceration and tortures,\" says Mr. Stobart, \"chiefly by thirst\nin the burning rays of the sun, to which these humble converts were\nsubjected, to induce their recantation and adoration of the national\nidols, touched the heart of Mahomet, and by divine authority, he\npermitted them, under certain circumstances, to deny their faith so long\nas their hearts were steadfast in it.\"[159]\n\n[Sidenote: 2. Notices of the persecution in the Koran.]\n\nThe oppressions, trials, and sufferings which the early Moslems\nunderwent compelled them to fly from their homes, leaving their families\nand property in the hands of their oppressors. They chose this course\nrather than revert to paganism. They held steadfastly to the one true\nGod whom their Prophet had taught them to trust and believe. All these\nfacts are clearly outlined in the following verses of the Koran:--\n\n\"And as to those who when oppressed have fled their country for the sake\nof God, We will surely provide them a goodly abode in this world, but\ngreater the reward of next life, did they but know it.\"\n\n\"They who bear ills with patience, and put their trust in the\nLord!\"--xvi, 43, 44.\n\n\"To those also who after their trials fled their country, then did their\nutmost and endured with patience, verily, thy Lord will afterwards be\nforgiving, gracious.\"--_Ibid_, 111.\n\n\"But they who believe, and who fly their country, and do their utmost in\nthe cause of God, may hope for God's mercy: and God is Gracious,\nMerciful.\"--ii, 215.\n\n\"And they who have fled their country and quitted their homes and\nsuffered in my cause and have fought and fallen--I will blot out their\nsins from them and will bring them into gardens beneath which the\nstreams do flow.\"--iii, 194.\n\n\"And as to those who fled their country for the cause of God, and were\nafterwards slain, or died, surely with goodly provision will God provide\nfor them! for verily, God is the best of providers!\"--xxii, 57.\n\n\"Those believers who sit at home free from trouble, and those who toil\nin the cause of God with their substance and their persons, shall not be\ntreated alike. God hath assigned to those who strive with their persons\nand with their substance, a rank above those who sit at home. Goodly\npromises hath He made to all: But God hath assigned to those who make\nefforts a rich recompense above those who sit still at home.\"\n\n\"The angels, when they took the souls of those who had been unjust to\ntheir own weal, demanded, 'What hath been your state?' They said, 'We\nwere the weak ones of the earth.' They replied, 'Was not God's earth\nbroad enough for you to flee away in?' These! their home shall be Hell,\nand evil the passage to it\"--\n\n\"Except the men and women and children who were not able through their\nweakness to find the means _of escape_, and were not guided on their\nway. These haply God will forgive: for God is Forgiving,\nPardoning.\"--iv, 97, 99, 100.\n\n\"God doth not forbid you to deal with kindness and fairness towards\nthose who have not made war upon you on account of your religion, or\ndriven you forth from your homes: verily, God loveth those who act with\nfairness.\"\n\n\"Only doth God forbid you to make friends of those who, on account of\nyour religion, have warred against you, and have driven you forth from\nyour homes, and have aided your expulsion: and whoever maketh friends of\nthem, these therefore are evil-doers.\"--lx, 8, 9.\n\n[Sidenote: 3. Insults suffered by Mohammad.]\n\nThe Prophet himself suffered insults and personal injuries from the\nhands of his persecutors. He was prevented from offering his prayers\n(xcvi, 10). He allowed himself to be spat upon, to have dust thrown upon\nhim, and to be dragged out of the Kaaba by his own turban fastened to\nhis neck. He bore all these indignities with the utmost humility, and he\ndaily beheld his followers treated oppressively. After his uncle's death\nhis life was attempted, but he escaped by flying to Medina.\n\n\"And _call to mind_ when the unbelievers plotted against thee, to detain\nthee prisoner or to kill thee or to banish thee: they plotted--but God\nplotted; and of plotters is God the best.\"--viii, 30.\n\n[Sidenote: 4. Historical summary of the persecutions.]\n\nAbout 615 of the Christian era, the Koreish of Mecca began to persecute\nthe faith of Islam. Those who had no protection among the early Moslems\nwere hard pressed, as related above. A body of eleven men, some with\ntheir families, fled the country, and found refuge, notwithstanding\ntheir pursuit by the Koreish, across the Red Sea at the Court of\nAbyssinia. This was the first Hegira, or flight of the persecuted\nMoslems. After some time, the persecution being resumed by the Koreish\nmore hotly than ever, a larger number of Moslems, more than hundred,\nemigrated to Abyssinia. This was the second flight of the Moslems. The\nKoreish had sent an embassy to the Court of Abyssinia to fetch back the\nrefugees. The king denied their surrender. About two years later the\nKoreish formed a hostile confederacy, by which all intercourse with the\nMoslems and their supporters was suspended. The Koreish forced upon the\nMoslems, by their threats and menaces, to retire from the city. For\nabout three years, they, together with the Prophet and the Hashimites\nand their families, had to shut themselves up in the _Sheb_ of Abu\nTalib. They remained there, cut off from communication with the outer\nworld. The ban of separation was put rigorously in force. The terms of\nthe social and civil ban put upon them were, that they would neither\nintermarry with the proscribed, nor sell to or buy from them anything,\nand that they would entirely cease from all intercourse with them.\nMohammad, in the interval of the holy months, used to go forth and\nmingle with the pilgrims to Mecca, and preached to them the abhorrence\nof idolatry and the worship of the One True God. The _Sheb_, or quarter\nof Abu Talib, lies under the rocks of Abu Cobeis. A low gateway cut them\noff from the outer world, and within they had to suffer all privations\nof a beleaguered garrison. No one would venture forth except in the\nsacred months, when all hostile feelings and acts had to be laid aside.\nThe citizens could hear the voices of the half-famished children inside\nthe _Sheb_ and this state of endurance on the one side, and persecution\non the other, went on for some three years. Five of the chief\nsupporters of the adverse faction detached from the league and broke up\nthe confederacy and released the imprisoned religionists. This was in\nthe tenth year of Mohammad's ministry. Soon after Mohammad and the early\nMoslems suffered a great loss in the death of his venerable uncle and\nprotector Abu Talib. Thus, Mohammad and his followers became again\nexposed to the unchecked insults and persecutions incited by Abu Sofian,\nAbu Jahl, and others; and being a handful in the hostile city, were\nunable to cope with its rich and powerful chiefs. At this critical\nperiod, either because he found it unsafe to remain at Mecca, or because\nhe trusted his message would find more acceptance elsewhere, Mohammad\nset off to Tayef of the Bani Thakif,--the town was one of the great\nstrongholds of idolatry. There was a stone image, called Al-Lat, adorned\nwith costly vestments and precious stones, was an object of worship, and\nesteemed to be one of the daughters of God. Here Mohammad preached to\nunwilling ears, and met with nothing but opposition and scorn from the\nchief men, which soon spread to the populace. He was driven out of the\ntown, maltreated, and wounded. He could not return to and enter Mecca\nunless protected by Mut-im, a chief of the blood of Abd Shams.\n\nAt the yearly pilgrimage, a little group of worshippers from Medina was\nattracted and won over by the preaching of Islam; and the following\nyear it increased to twelve. They met Mohammad and took an oath of\nallegiance. A teacher was deputed by Mohammad to Medina, and the new\nfaith spread there with a marvellous rapidity. Again the time of\npilgrimage arrived, and more than seventy disciples from Medina pledged\nthemselves to receive and defend him at the risk of their lives and\nproperty. This was all done in secret; but the Koreish, having got\nnotice of it, renewed such severities and persecutions, including, in\nsome cases, imprisonment, as hastened the departure of the Moslems to\nMedina, their city of refuge.\n\n[Sidenote: 5. The Hegira.]\n\nMohammad, being much troubled by the intolerance of the people and the\npersonal safety and security of himself and his followers being\nendangered, and mutual intercourse denied, saw that it was hopeless to\nexpect any forbearance on the part of the Koreish, who would not permit\nhim to live and preach his religion at home, and looked for assistance\nand protection from a strange land. He asked the people of Medina to\nreceive and protect him. The Medina converts, who had come to Mecca on\npilgrimage, pledged themselves to Mohammad, and promised to defend him\nas they would defend their wives and children. The Medina converts,\nalthough not acting on the offensive, became at once objects of\nsuspicion to the Koreish, who endeavoured to seize those who were in\nMecca. They maltreated one of the Medina converts who fell into their\nhands, and the work of persecution was recommenced in right\nearnest.[160] Two months elapsed before the believers, except those\ndetained in confinement or who were unable to escape from slavery, or\nwomen and children, could emigrate. Families after families silently\ndisappeared, and house after house was abandoned. One or two quarters of\nthe city were entirely deserted. The Koreish held a council and\nproscribed Mohammad, who escaped together with Abu Bakr, leaving Ali in\nhis house, around whom, to lull the suspicions of his neighbours, he\nthrew his own mantle, and desired him to occupy his bed. Mohammad and\nhis follower took refuge in a cave. The Koreish despatched scouts in all\ndirections to search for Mohammad, but in vain. After hiding for three\ndays in the cave, Mohammad and Abu Bakr started for Medina, where they\narrived safely.\n\nThe foregoing circumstances would have fully justified immediate\nhostilities on the part of Mohammad, but he did not take up arms until\ncompelled to do so by the attacks of the Meccans.\n\n[Sidenote: 6. The persecution of the Moslems by the Koreish after their\nflight from Mecca.]\n\nNotwithstanding the flight of the Prophet and of all the early Moslem\nconverts who were able to effect an escape except their families, women\nand children, and those weak Moslems who could not leave Mecca, the\nMeccans or the Koreish did not forgive the fugitives and did not abstain\nfrom their aggressions against them. They maltreated the children and\nweak Moslems left at Mecca (iv, 77, 99 and 100), expelled the Moslems\nfrom their houses, and would not allow them to come back to Mecca for a\npilgrimage (ii, 214). The Meccans several times invaded the Medina\nterritory with the avowed intention of making war upon the Moslems (and\nactually fought the battles of Bedr, Ohad, Khandak or Ahzab, at Medina),\nconsequently the Moslems were forced to resort to arms in pure\nself-defence.\n\nThese were sufficient grounds for the Moslems to assume the offensive.\nThey were desirous also of rescuing their families and those who had\nbeen unable to join in the flight from the tyranny and oppression of the\nMeccans. Yet they were in no instance the aggressors. Driven from their\nhomes and families they did not resort to arms until absolutely\ncompelled to do so in self-defence.\n\nAll that Mohammad claimed for himself and his followers was, full\nliberty of conscience and actions, and permission to preach and practice\nhis religion without being molested. This being refused, he advised his\nfollowers to leave the city and seek refuge elsewhere. They emigrated\ntwice to Abyssinia, and for the third time were expelled to Medina,\nwhere he himself followed, when his own life was attempted.\n\n[Footnote 159: Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., page 76.\n\nBut, in fact, there was no such permission. The verse quoted above says,\nthat the wrath and punishment of God will be on those who deny God,\nexcept those who do so by being forced. The latter were not put on the\nsame footing as the former; in short, those who denied God under\ncompulsion were not counted unbelievers.]\n\n[Footnote 160: \"The support of the Medina adherents, and the suspicion\nof an _intended_ emigration, irritated the Koreish to severity; and this\nseverity forced the Moslems to petition Mahomet for leave to emigrate.\nThe two causes might co-exist and re-act one another; the persecution\nwould hasten the departure of the converts, while each fresh departure\nwould irritate the Koreish to greater cruelty.\"--William Muir's Life of\nMahomet, Vol. II, pp. 242, 243, foot-note.]\n\n\n_The Meccans or the Koreish._\n\n[Sidenote: 7. A Koreish chieftain commits a raid near Medina.--A.H., I.]\n\nThe attitude of the Koreish towards the Prophet and his followers after\nthe flight rapidly became more hostile. Kurz-ibn Jabir, one of the\nmarauding chieftains of the Koreish, fell upon some of the camels and\nflocks of Medina, while feeding in a plain a few miles from the city,\nand carried them off.\n\n[Sidenote: 8. The Koreish march to attack Medina. Mohammad marches forth\nin defence, and gains the battle at Badr.--A.H., II.]\n\nStill there was no hostile response from Medina, till the aggressors\n(the Koreish) brought from Medina an army of 950 strong, mounted on 700\ncamels and 100 horses, to Badr, nine stages from Mecca, advancing\ntowards Medina. Then the Prophet set out from Medina at the head of his\nsmall army of 305 to check the advance of his aggressors. This was the\nfirst offensive and defensive war between the Koreish and Mohammad\nrespectively. The aggressors lost the battle.\n\n[Sidenote: 9. Attack by Abu Sofian upon Medina.--A.H., II.]\n\nAfter this Abu Sofian, the head of the Koreish, accompanied by 200\nmounted followers, alarmed Mohammad and the people of Medina by a raid\nupon the cornfields and palm gardens two or three miles north-east of\nMedina. The nomad tribes of Suliem and Ghatafan, who were descended from\na common stock with the Koreish, being probably incited by them, or at\nleast by the example of Abu Sofian, had twice assembled and projected a\nplundering attack upon Medina--a task in itself congenial with their\npredatory habits.\n\n[Sidenote: 10. The battle of Ohad.]\n\nThe Koreish made great preparations for a fresh attack upon Medina. One\nyear after the battle of Badr, they commenced their march,--three\nthousand in number, seven hundred were mailed warriors, and two hundred\nwell mounted cavalry. Reaching Medina they encamped in an extensive and\nfertile plain to the west of Ohad.\n\nMohammad met Abu Sofian at the head of 700 followers and only two\nhorsemen, but lost the battle and was wounded.\n\n[Sidenote: 11. Mohammad's prestige affected by the defeat.]\n\nMohammad's prestige being affected by the defeat at Ohad, many of the\nBedouin tribes began to assume an hostile attitude towards him. The Bani\nAsad, a powerful tribe connected with the Koreish in Najd and Bani\nLahyan in the vicinity of Mecca, prepared to make a raid upon Medina.\nThe Mohammadan missionaries were killed at Raji and Bir Mauna. The\nmarauding bands of Duma also threatened a raid upon the city. Bani\nMustalik also raised forces to join the Koreish in their threatened\nattack upon Medina.\n\n[Sidenote: 12. Abu Sofian threatened the Moslems with another attack\nnext year.]\n\nAbu Sofian, while retiring from the field, victorious as he was,\nthreatened the Moslem with a fresh attack the next year as he said to\nOmar: \"We shall meet again, let it be after a year, at Badr.\" Medina and\nthe Moslems, however, enjoyed a long exemption from the threatened\nattack of the Koreish.\n\nAt length the time came when the forces of the Koreish and the Moslems\nwere again to meet at Badr. But the year was one of great draught, and\nthe Koreish were desirous that the expedition should be deferred to a\nmore favorable season. Accordingly the Koreish engaged Naeem, an Arab of\na neutral tribe, to repair to Medina, and there to give forth an\nexaggerated account of the preparations of the Koreish, in the hope\nthat, with the field of Ohad fresh in memory, it might deter the Moslems\nfrom setting out to meet them. But Mohammad, with a force of fifteen\nhundred men and only ten horses, set forth for Badr. The Koreish, who\nnever appeared mortified at the triumph of Mohammad, began to project\nanother grand attack upon him.\n\n[Sidenote: 13. The Koreish again attack Medina with a large army.\nMohammad defends the city. The enemy retire. (Ditch or Nations.--A.H.,\nV.)]\n\nThe winter season in the next year was chosen for the renewal of\nhostilities by the Koreish. They joined an immense force of the Bedouin\ntribes (the entire army was estimated at ten thousand), marched against\nMohammad, and besieged Medina. Mohammad defended the city by digging a\nDitch. The army of Medina was posted within the trench, and that of the\nKoreish encamped opposite them. In the meantime Abu Sofian succeeded in\ndetaching the Jewish tribe of Koreiza from their allegiance to Mohammad.\nThe danger to Medina from this defection was great. The enemy made a\ngeneral attack, which was repulsed. Bad weather set in, and Abu Sofian\nordered the allied force to break up. The enemy retired, and never came\nagain to attack the Moslems. This, therefore, was the last war of\naggression on the part of the Koreish, and of defence on the part of\nMohammad.\n\n[Sidenote: 14. Mohammad, with his followers, advanced to perform the\nlesser pilgrimage of Mecca. The Koreish opposed Mohammad, who returned\ndisappointed.--A.H. VI.]\n\nSix years had passed since the expulsion of Mohammad and his followers\nfrom Mecca. They had not since visited the Holy house, nor had they\njoined the yearly pilgrimage, which was an essential part of their\nsocial and religious life. Mohammad undertook to perform the lesser\npilgrimage to Mecca in the month of Zalkada, in which war was unlawful\nthroughout Arabia. Mohammad, with his followers, the pious and peaceful\nworshippers, fifteen hundred in number, set forth for Mecca. The\npilgrims carried no arms, but such as were allowed by custom to\ntravellers,--_namely_, each a sheathed sword. The Koreish, with their\nallies, the surrounding tribes, hearing of the approach of the\npilgrims, took up arms. They pushed forward to obstruct the pilgrims.\nMohammad encamped at Hodeibia, where a treaty of peace was concluded\nbetween the Koreish and Mohammad. The treaty was to the effect, that war\nshould be suspended for ten years, neither party attacking the other.\nWhosoever wished to join Mohammad and enter into treaty with him, should\nhave liberty to do so. \"If any one goeth over to Mohammad, without the\npermission of his guardian, he shall be sent back to his guardian. But\nif any one from amongst the followers of Mohammad return to the Koreish,\nthe same shall not be sent back, provided, on the part of the Koreish,\nthat Mohammad and his followers retire from us this year without\nentering our city. In the coming year he may visit Mecca--he and his\nfollowers--for three days, when we shall retire therefrom. But they may\nnot enter it with any weapons, save those of the travellers--_namely_,\nto each a sheathed sword.\" Bani Khozaa entered into the alliance of\nMohammad, and Bani Bakr adhered to the Koreish.\n\n[Sidenote: 15. Violation of the treaty by the Koreish, and their\nsubmission.]\n\nThe peace remained unbroken until the Koreish violated the treaty of\nHodeibia[161] and treacherously killed several men of the Bani Khozaa.\nMohammad marched against them in the eighth year of the Hegira in\ndefence of the injured and oppressed Bani Khozaa, and to chastize the\nKoreish for violation of the treaty. But the Koreish submitted to the\nauthority of Mohammad before he arrived at Mecca, and the city was\noccupied without resistance.\n\n[Sidenote: 16. Two other tribes assume the offensive.]\n\nSoon after, the great and warlike tribe of Hawazin and Thakeef assumed\nthe offensive. They assembled at Autas, and advanced upon Honain to\nattack Mohammad. He was obliged to leave Mecca and set out to disperse\nthem, who were beaten back at Honain (S. ix, 26-28). Taif of the Thakeef\nwas besieged, but in vain.\n\n[Footnote 161: Unfortunately several missionary expeditious sent by\nMohammad were met with unfavorable circumstances. The party sent to Bani\nSuleim, demanding their allegiance to the faith of Islam, was slain.\nAnother party sent to Bani Leith was surprised, and its camels\nplundered. A small party sent by Mohammad to Fadak was cut to pieces by\nBani Murra. Another party sent to Zat Atlah to call upon the people to\nembrace Islam, of which only one person escaped. Mohammad's messenger\ndespatched to the Ghassanide Prince at Bostra was murdered by the chief\nof Muta. His army sent to avenge the treachery of the chief was\ndefeated. All these mishaps and reverses dangerously affected the\nprestige of Mohammad, and encouraged the Meccans to violate the truce.]\n\n\n_The defensive character of the wars._\n\n[Sidenote: 17. Verses from the Koran in support of the defensive\ncharacter of the wars.]\n\nThis brief sketch of the defensive wars of Mohammad with the Koreish\nwill fully show, that those who assert that Mohammad was aggressive or\nrevengeful in his wars, or that he made war to force his religion upon\nthe people, are altogether in the wrong.\n\nI will now quote some verses of the Koran, showing that all the wars of\nMohammad with the Koreish were defensive wars.\n\n39. \"Verily, God will ward off[162] _mischief_ from believers: lo, God\nloveth not the false, the unbeliever.\"\n\n40. \"A sanction is given to those who have been fought,[163] because\nthey have suffered outrages, and verily, God is well able to succour\nthem\"--\n\n41. \"Those who have been driven forth from their homes wrongfully, only\nbecause they say, 'Our Lord is the God.' And if God had not repelled\nsome men by others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques\nwherein the name of God is ever commemorated, would surely have been\ndestroyed! And him who helpeth God will God surely help: Verily, God is\nStrong, Mighty.\"\n\n42. \"They who, if We established them in _this_ land, will observe\nprayer and pay the alms of obligation and enjoin what is recognized _as\nright_--and forbid what is unlawful. And the final issue of all things\nis unto God.\"--Sura, xxii.\n\n186. \"And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against\nyou: but commit not the injustice of _attacking them first_: verily, God\nloveth not the unjust.\"\n\n187. \"And kill them wherever ye find them, and eject them from whatever\nplace they have ejected you, for (_fitnah_)[164] persecution is worse\nthan slaughter: yet attack them not at the sacred mosque, until they\nattack you therein; but if they attack you, then slay them--Such is the\nrecompense of the infidels!\"--\n\n188. \"But if they desist,[165] then verily God is Gracious, Merciful!\"\n\n189. \"And do battle against them until there be no more (_fitnah_)\npersecution, and the worship be that of God: but if they desist, then\nlet there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers.\"\n\n214. \"They will ask thee concerning war in the Sacred Month. Say: The\nact of fighting therein is a grave crime; but the act of turning others\naside from the path of God, and unbelief in Him, and to prevent access\nto the Sacred Mosque, and to drive out his people, is worse in the sight\nof God; and persecution[166] (_fitnah_[167]) is worse than bloodshed.\nBut they will not cease to war against you until they turn you from your\nreligion, if they be able: but whoever of you shall turn from his\nreligion, and die an infidel, their works shall be fruitless in this\nworld and in the next: and they shall be consigned to the fire; therein\nto abide for aye.\"\n\n215. \"But they who believe, and who fly their country, and do their\nutmost in the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy: and God is\nGracious, Merciful.\"\n\n245. \"And fight in the cause of God; and know that God is He who\nHeareth, Knoweth.\"\n\n247. \"Hast thou not considered the assembly of the children of Israel\nafter _the death of_ Moses, when they said to a prophet of\ntheirs,--'Raise up for us a king; we will do battle for the cause of\nGod?' He said, 'May it not be that if to fight were ordained you, ye\nwould not fight?' They said, 'And why should we not fight in the cause\nof God, since we are driven forth from our dwellings and our children?'\nBut when fighting was commanded them they turned back, save a few of\nthem: But God knew the offenders!\"\n\n252. \"And by the will of God they routed them; and (Daood) David slew\nGoliath; and God gave him the kingship and wisdom, and taught him\naccording to his will: and were it not for the restraint of one by the\nmeans of the other imposed on men by God, verily the earth had assuredly\ngone to ruin, but God is bounteous to his creatures.\"--Sura, ii.\n\n76. \"Let those then fight in the cause of God who barter this present\nlife for that which is to come; for whoever fighteth on God's path,\nwhether he be slain or conquer, We will in the end give him a great\nreward.\"\n\n77. \"But what hath come to you that ye fight not on the path of God, and\n_for_ the weak among men, women and children, who say, 'O our Lord!\nbring us forth from this City whose inhabitants are oppressors; give us\na champion from thy presence; and give us from thy presence a\ndefender?'\"\n\n78. \"They who believe, fight on the path of God; and they who believe\nnot, fight on the path of Thagoot: Fight then against the friends of\nSatan--Verily, the craft of Satan shall be powerless!\"\n\n86. \"Fight then on the path of God: lay not burdens on any but thyself;\nand stir up the faithful. The prowess of the infidels, God will haply\nrestrain; for God is the stronger in prowess, and the stronger to\npunish.\"\n\n91. \"They desire that ye should be unbelievers as they are unbelievers,\nand that ye should be alike. Take therefore none of them for friends,\nuntil they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they turn\nback, then seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; but take none\nof them as friends or helpers.\"\n\n92. \"Except those who seek asylum among your allies, and those who come\nover to you--prevented by their own hearts by making war on you, or from\nmaking war on their own people. Had God pleased, He would certainly have\ngiven them power against you, and they would certainly have made war\nupon you! But, if they depart from you, and make not war against you\nand offer you peace, then God alloweth you no occasion against them.\"\n\n93. \"Ye will find others who seek to gain your confidence as well as\nthat of their own people: So oft as they return to sedition, they shall\nbe overthrown in it: But if they leave you not, nor propose terms of\npeace to you, nor withhold their hands, then seize them, and slay them\nwherever ye find them. Over these have We given you undoubted\npower.\"--Sura, iv.\n\n19. \"_O Meccans!_ If ye desired a decision, now hath the decision come\nto you. It will be better for you if ye give over _the struggle_ (_or\nattacking upon Medina or the Moslem_). If ye return _to it_ we will\nreturn; and your forces, though they may be many, shall by no means\navail you aught, because God is with the faithful.\"\n\n39. \"Say to the infidels: If they desist (_from persecuting,\nobstructing, and attacking the Moslems_), what is now past shall be\nforgiven them; but if they return _to it_ (commit again the\nhostilities), they have already before them the doom of the ancients!\"\n\n40. \"Fight then against them till civil strife be at an end, and the\nreligion be all of it God's; and if they desist, verily God beholdeth\nwhat they do.\"\n\n41. \"But if they turn their back, know ye that God is your protector:\nExcellent protector! and excellent helper!\"\n\n73. \"... And they who have believed, but have not fled their homes,\nshall have no rights of kindred with you at all, until they too fly\ntheir country. Yet if they seek aid from you on account of the faith,\nyour part it is to give them aid, except against a people between whom\nand yourselves there may be a treaty. And God beholdeth your actions.\"\n\n74. \"And the infidels have the _like_ relationships one with another.\nUnless ye do the same (_i.e., aid the oppressed and repel the\noppressor_), there will be discord in the land and great\ncorruption.\"--Sura, viii.\n\n(When the Meccans broke the Hodeibia treaty mentioned in the above\nparagraph, the Koreish and Bani Bakr attacked Bani Khozaa, who were in\nalliance with Mohammad. It became incumbent on him to assist Bani Bakr\nand to chastize the aggressors. The following verses were published on\nthat occasion, but happily, before the expiration of the fixed period,\nthe Koreish submitted and Mecca was taken without bloodshed, and these\nverses were not acted upon:--)\n\n1. \"An immunity from God and His Apostle to those with whom ye are in\nleague (_and they have violated the same--compare verses 4, 8 and 10_)\namong the polytheist Meccans.\"\n\n2. \"Go ye therefore at large in the land four months (_i.e., four sacred\nmonths from Shaw-wal. The treaty was violated by the Koreish in Ramzan,\na month immediately previous to the sacred months. It is announced here\nthat four months' time is given to the aggressors, who violated the\ntreaty of Hodeibia, to make terms. After the time is over (verse 5) the\nMoslems will commence hostilities to defend their allies, the Bani\nKhozaa_), but know that ye shall not find God feeble, and that those who\nbelieve not, God will put to shame.\"\n\n3. \"And a proclamation on the part of God and His Apostle to the people\non the day of the greater pilgrimage, that God is free from _any\nengagement with_ those who worship other gods with God, as is his\nApostle. If then, ye turn to God, it will be better for you; but if ye\nturn back, then know that ye shall not find God feeble: and to those who\nbelieve not, announce thou a grievous punishment.\"\n\n4. \"But this concerneth not those Polytheists with whom ye are in\nleague, and who have afterwards in no way failed you, and not yet aided\nany one against you. Observe, therefore, your engagement with them\nthrough the whole time _of their treaty_. Verily, God loveth those who\nfear Him.\"\n\n5. \"And when the sacred months are passed[168] kill those who join other\ngods with God[169] wherever ye find them; and seize them, and besiege\nthem, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush; but if they\nrepent and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go\ntheir way.[170] Verily, God is Gracious, Merciful.\"\n\n6. \"If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum of thee,\ngrant him an asylum, in order that he hear the Word of God; then let him\nreach his place of safety. This, for that they are people devoid of\nknowledge.\"\n\n7. \"How can they who add gods to God be in league with God and His\nApostle, save those with whom ye made a league at the sacred temple? So\nlong as they are true to you,[171] be ye true to them: verily, God\nloveth those who fear Him.\"\n\n8. \"How _can they_? since if they prevail against you, they will not\nregard in their dealing with you, either ties of blood or good faith:\nWith their mouths they content you, but their hearts are averse, and\nmost of them are perverse doers.\"\n\n9. \"They sell the signs of God for a mean price, and turn others aside\nfrom his way; of a truth, evil is it that they do!\"\n\n10. \"They respect not with a believer either ties of blood or good\nfaith; and these are the transgressors!\"\n\n11. \"Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer, and pay the impost,\nthen are they your brethren in religion: and We make clear the signs for\nmen of knowledge.\"[172]\n\n12. \"But if, after alliance made, they violate their covenant and revile\nyour religion, then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity--verily\nthere is no faith in them! Haply they will desist.\"\n\n13. \"Will ye not do battle with a people (_the Meccans_) who have broken\ntheir covenant and aimed to expel your Apostle and attacked you first?\nWill ye dread them? God truly is more worthy of your fear if ye are\nbelievers!\"\n\n14. \"Make war on them: By your hands will God chastize them and put them\nto shame, and give victory over them, and heal the bosom of a people who\nbelieve.\"\n\n36. \"... and attack those who join gods with God one and all, as they\nattack you one and all.\"--Sura, ix.\n\n[Sidenote: 18. What the above-quoted verses show.]\n\nI need not repeat here what these verses and the facts related above\nshow, that the wars of Mohammad with the Koreish were merely defensive,\nand the Koreish were the aggressors, and that Mohammad was quite\njustified in taking up arms against them.\n\n\"In the state of nature every man has a right to defend,\" writes Mr.\nEdward Gibbon,[173] \"by force of arms, his person and his possessions;\nto repel, or even to repeat, the violence of his enemies, and to extend\nhis hostilities to a reasonable measure of satisfaction and retaliation.\nIn the free society of the Arabs, the duties of subject and citizen\nimposed a feeble restraint; and Mahommed, in the exercise of a peaceful\nand benevolent mission, had been despoiled and banished by the injustice\nof his countrymen.\" It has been fully shown in the foregoing paragraphs\nthat the Moslems in Mecca enjoyed neither safety nor security. Religious\nfreedom was denied to them, though they were harmless and peaceful\nmembers of the community. Besides this they were expelled from their\nhomes, leaving their families and their property in the hands of their\npersecutors, and were prevented from returning to Mecca, and were\nrefused access to the Sacred Mosque; and, above all, they were attacked\nby the Meccans in force at Medina.\n\n[Sidenote: 19. Justification of the Moslems in taking up arms against\ntheir aggressors.]\n\nThe persecution of the early Moslems by the Koreish was on religious\ngrounds. They would not allow the believers to renounce the religion of\ntheir forefathers and profess Islam. Their intolerance was so strong and\nharsh that they tortured some of the professors of the new faith to\nrenounce the same and to rejoin their former idolatry. \"Taking away the\nlives, the fortune, the liberty, any of the rights of our brethren,\nmerely for serving their Maker in such manner as they are persuaded they\nought, when by so doing they hurt not human society, or any member of\nit, materially, is evidently inconsistent with all justice and humanity:\nfor it is punishing those who have not injured us, and who, if they\nmistake, deserve only pity from us.\"[174] The early Moslems had had\nevery international right to resent persecution and intolerance of the\nMeccans and to establish themselves by force of arms, to enjoy their\nreligious liberty and to practise their religion freely.\n\n[Sidenote 20. The first aggression after the Hegira was not on the part\nof Mohammad.]\n\nSome of the European biographers of Mohammad say, \"that the first\naggressions after the Hegira were solely on the part of Mahomet and his\nfollowers. It was not until several of their caravans had been waylaid\nand plundered, and blood had thus been shed, that the people of Mecca\nwere forced in self-defence to resort to arms.\"[175]\n\nThis is not correct. The aggressors, in the first instance, were the\nKoreish, who, as already shown, followed up their persecution of the\nMoslems by an attack upon the city in which the Prophet and his\nfollowers had taken refuge. Even taking it for granted that the Moslems\nwere the first aggressors after the Hegira, was not the Hegira, or\nexpulsion itself (leaving aside the previous persecutions and\noppressions at Mecca), a sufficient reason for the commencement of\nhostilities by the Moslems, who were anxious to secure their moral and\nreligious freedom, and to protect themselves and their relatives from\nfurther aggressions?\n\nSir William Muir admits, that \"hostilities, indeed, were justified by\nthe 'expulsion' of the believers from Mecca.\"[176] \"It may be said,\"\nsays Major Vans Kennedy, \"that, in these wars, Mohammad was the\naggressor by his having, soon after his flight, attempted to intercept\nthe caravans of Mecca. But the first aggression was, undoubtedly, the\nconspiracy of the Koreish to assassinate Mohammad, and when to save his\nlife he fled from Mecca, himself and his followers were thus deprived of\ntheir property, and obliged to depend for their subsistence on the\nhospitality of the men of Medina, it could not be reasonably expected\nthat they would allow the caravans of their enemies to pass\nunmolested.\"[177]\n\n[Sidenote: 21. The alleged instances examined.]\n\nThere is no proof that Mohammad, after the Hegira, commenced hostilities\nagainst the Koreish by intercepting their caravans. The alleged\ninstances of the caravans being waylaid by the Moslems at Medina are not\ncorroborated by authentic and trustworthy traditions. They have also\ninternal evidences of their improbability. The Medina people had pledged\nthemselves only to defend the Prophet from attack, and not to join him\nin any aggressive steps against the Koreish.[178] Therefore, it seems\nimpossible that they should have allowed Mohammad to take any aggressive\nsteps against the Koreish which would have involved them in great\ntrouble.\n\n[Sidenote: 22. Hamza and Obeida expedition.]\n\nThe alleged expeditions against the Koreish caravans by Hamza and the\nother by Obeida in pursuit of caravans which escaped, are in themselves\nimprobable. Mohammad would not send fifty or sixty persons to waylay a\ncaravan guarded by two or three hundred armed men.\n\n[Sidenote: 23. The Abwa, Bowat, & Osheira expeditions.]\n\nThe alleged expeditions of Abwa, Bowat, and Osheira, said to have been\nled by Mohammad himself to intercept the Mecca caravans, but in vain,\nare altogether without foundation. He might have gone, if he had gone at\nall, to Abwa, and Osheira to negotiate friendly terms with Bani\nDhumra[179] and Bani Mudlij, as his biographers say, he did.\n\n[Sidenote: 24. The affair at Nakhla.]\n\nThe affair of the _Nakhla_ marauding party, as related in the\ntraditions, is full of discrepancies, and is altogether inconsistent and\nuntrustworthy. The very verse (Sura, ii, verse 214) which the\nbiographers say was revealed on the occasion, and which I have quoted\nabove (para. 16), contains a reference to the Meccans' fighting against\nthe Moslems, which runs counter to the assumption of the European\nbiographers, who make it an aggressive attack on the part of Mohammad.\nIt is probable that Mohammad might have sent some six or eight scouts to\nbring in news of the movements and condition of the Koreish, whose\nattitude towards Mohammad had become more hostile since his flight to\nMedina. As the Koreish had a regular and uninterrupted route to Syria\nfor traffic, it was only reasonable on the part of Mohammad to take\nprecautions, and he was always on his guard. The biographers _Ibn\nIs-hak_, _Ibn Hisham_ (p. 424), _Tabri_ (Vol. II, p. 422), _Ibnal Athir_\nin _Kamil_ (Vol. II, p. 87), _Halabi_ in _Insanul Oyoon_ (Vol. III, p.\n318), say, that Mohammad had given written instructions to\nAbdoollah-bin-Jahsh, which was to the effect \"bring me intelligence of\ntheir affairs.\" They also say that Mohammad was displeased with\nAbdoollah's affair at Nakhla, and said, \"I never commanded thee to fight\nin the Sacred Month.\" The biographers also relate that Mohammad even\npaid blood-money for the slain.\n\n[Sidenote: 25. At Badr Mohammad had come only in his defence.]\n\nSome of the European biographers of Mohammad allege, that the battle of\nBadr was brought by Mohammad himself. They appear to hesitate to justify\nMohammad in defending himself against the superior numbers of the\nKoreish, who had advanced to attack him as far as Badr, three stages\nfrom Medina. It is alleged that Mohammad intended to attack the caravans\nreturning from Syria, conducted by Abu Sofian, his arch-enemy, therefore\nhe set out upon his march with eighty refugees and two hundred and\ntwenty-five people of Medina, and halted at Safra to waylay the caravan.\nAbu Sofian, warned of Mohammad's intention, sent some one to Mecca for\nsuccour. The Koreish, with nine hundred and fifty strong, marched forth\nto rescue the caravan. In the meantime, the caravan had passed\nunmolested, but the Koreish held a council whether to return or go to\nwar. On the one hand, the biographers say, it was argued that the object\nfor which they had set out having been secured, the army should at once\nretrace its steps. Others demanded that the army should advance. Two\ntribes returned to Mecca, the rest marched onwards; but it is not fair\nto allege that Mohammad had set forth to attack the caravan. Had he any\nsuch intention, the people of Medina, who had pledged themselves only to\ndefend him against personal attack, would not have accompanied him. The\npresence of a large number of the _Ansars_, the people of Medina, more\nthan double that of the _Mohajirins_, the refugees, is a strong proof\nthat they had come out only in their defence.\n\nMohammad, on receiving intelligence of the advancing force of the\nKoreish, set out from Medina to check the advance of the Meccan force,\nand encountered it at Badr, three days' journey from Medina. The Meccan\narmy had advanced nine days' journey from Mecca towards Medina. The\nforces met at Badr on the 17th of Ramzan (13th January 623), the Meccans\nhad left Mecca on the 8th of Ramzan (4th January), and Mohammad started\nonly on the 12th of Ramzan (8th January), about four days after the\nMeccan army had actually set out to attack him. Supposing Abu Sofian had\nsome reason for apprehending an attack from Medina, and sent for succour\nfrom Mecca, but the object of the Meccan army of the Koreish for which\nthey had set out having been secured, the caravan having passed\nunmolested, they ought at once to have retraced their steps. The fact\nthat Mohammad left Medina four days after the Koreish had left Mecca\nwith a large army advancing towards Medina, is strongly in his favour.\n\n[Sidenote: 26. The first aggressions after the Hegira, if from Mohammad,\nmight fairly be looked upon as retaliation.]\n\nEven taking it for granted that the first aggressions after the Hegira\nwere solely on the part of the Moslems, and that several of the caravans\nof the Koreish had been waylaid and plundered, and blood had been shed,\nit would be unfair to condemn Mohammad. Such attacks, had they been\nmade, might fairly be looked upon as a retaliation for the ill-treatment\nof the Moslems before the flight from Mecca. \"Public war is a state of\narmed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law\nand requisite of civilized existence that men live in political\ncontinuous societies, forming organized units called states or nations,\nwhose constituents bear, enjoy and suffer, advance and retrograde\ntogether, in peace and in war. The citizen or native of hostile country\nis thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or\nnation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of war.\"[180] The\nalmost universal rule of most remote times was, and continues to be with\nbarbarous nations, that the private individual of a hostile country is\ndestined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every\ndescription of family ties. But Mohammad protected the inoffensive\ncitizen or private individual of the hostile country. He even protected\nthose who had actually come out of Mecca to fight at Badr, but were\nreluctant to do so. Mohammad had desired quarters to be given to several\npersons in the Koreish army at Badr. Abul Bakhtari, Zamaa, Harith Ibn\nAmir, Abbas and other Bani Hashim were amongst those named.\n\n[Footnote 162: Or defend, '_Yadafeo_' repel.]\n\n[Footnote 163: _Yokataloona_, or who fight _Yokateloona_. The former\nreading is the authorized and general.]\n\n[Footnote 164: The primary signification of _fitnah_ is burning with\nfire. It signifies a _trial_ or _probation_ and affliction, distress or\nhardship; and particularly an _affliction whereby one is tried, proved,\nor tested_.--_Vide_ Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, p. 2335.]\n\n[Footnote 165: Desist from persecuting you and preventing you to enter\nyour native city and prohibiting access to the sacred mosque and\nattacking you, and from religious intolerance.]\n\n[Footnote 166: _i.e._, the religious persecution and intolerance and\nhindrance to visit the sacred mosque being suppressed; you may profess,\npreach and practice your religion freely.]\n\n[Footnote 167: _Vide_ note 2 in p. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 168: Shaw-wal, Zulkada, Zulhij, and Moharram, the 10th, 11th,\n12th, and 1st months of the Arabian year.\n\nThese verses were promulgated in Ramzan, the 9th month of the year.]\n\n[Footnote 169: And have violated the Hodeibia Truce. Compare verses 4,\n8, and 12.]\n\n[Footnote 170: It is not meant that they should be forced to observe\nprayer or pay obligatory alms, or in other words be converted to Islam;\nthe context and general scope of the Koran would not allow such a\nmeaning. The next verse clearly enjoins toleration.]\n\n[Footnote 171: The Bani Kinana and Bani Zamara had not violated the\ntruce of Hodeibia while the Koreish and Bani Bakr had done so.]\n\n[Footnote 172: This is the same as verse 5. It only means, if meanwhile\nthey become converts to Islam, they are to be treated as brethren in\nreligion. But it cannot mean that it was the sole motive of making war\nwith them to convert them. Such an interpretation is quite contrary to\nthe general style of the Koran.]\n\n[Footnote 173: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,\nby Edward Gibbon, Vol. VI, p. 245.]\n\n[Footnote 174: Archbishop Secker's Works, III, p. 271.]\n\n[Footnote 175: Sir W. Muir, II, p. 265.]\n\n[Footnote 176: Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 79.]\n\n[Footnote 177: Remarks on the character of Mohammad (suggested by\nVoltaire's Tragedy of Mahomet) by Major Vans Kennedy. _Vide_\nTransactions of the Literary Society of Bombay for 1821, Vol. III, p.\n453, reprint Bombay, 1877.]\n\n[Footnote 178: \"Mahomet did not send the Medina converts on any hostile\nexpedition against the Koreish, until they had warred with him at Badr,\nand the reason is, that they had pledged themselves to protect him only\nat their homes.\"--K. Wackidi, 48; Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p.\n64, _note_.]\n\n[Footnote 179: \"K. Wackidi, 98-1/2. The provisions are noted only\ngenerally, \"that neither party would levy war against the other, nor\nhelp their enemies.\" The version quoted by Weil binding the Bani Dhumra\nto fight _for the faith_, &c., is evidently anticipatory and apocryphal.\nIt is not given by the Secretary of Wackidi in his chapter of\ntreaties.\"--Muir's Life of Mahomet, III, p. 67, _note_.]\n\n[Footnote 180: Contributions to Political Science by Francis Lieber,\nLL.D., Vol. II of his miscellaneous writings, p. 251, London, 1881.]\n\n\n_The Jews._\n\n[Sidenote: 27. The Jews broke treaties.]\n\nMohammad, on his first arrival at Medina, made a treaty of alliance with\nthe Jews, by which the free exercise of their religion and the\npossession of their rights and property were guaranteed. It was\nstipulated in the treaty that either party, if attacked, should come to\nthe assistance of the other. Medina should be sacred and inviolable for\nall who joined the treaty. But the Jews broke their treaty and rebelled.\nThey assisted the enemy during the siege of Medina, and committed\ntreason against the city.\n\n[Sidenote: 28. Bani Kainukaa, Bani Nazeer, Koreiza, Khyber, and\nGhatafan.]\n\nThe Bani Kainukaa were the first among the Jews who broke the treaty and\nfought against Mohammad between the battles of Badr and Ohad.[181]\n\nThe Bani Nazeer broke their compact with Mohammad after his defeat at\nOhad. They had also made a conspiracy to kill Mohammad. They were\nbanished; some of them went over to Khyber. The Jewish tribe of Koreiza\nhad defected from their allegiance to Mohammad, and entered into\nnegotiations with the enemy, when Medina was besieged by the Koreish and\nBedouin tribes at the battle of the Ditch. They were afterwards besieged\nby Mohammad. They surrendered at the discretion of Sad, who passed a\nbloody judgment against them. The Jews of Khyber (including those of\nNazeer) and Bani Ghatafan, who had lately besieged Medina with the\nKoreish in the battle of the Ditch, made alliance against Mohammad,[182]\nand were making preparations for an attack on him. They had been\ninciting the Bani Fezara and other Bedouin tribes in their depredations,\nand had combined with Bani Sad-Ibn Bakr to attack upon Medina. They were\nsubjected at Khyber, and made tributaries, paying _jizya_ in return of\nthe protection guaranteed to them.\n\n[Sidenote: 29. Notices of them in the Koran.]\n\nThe treachery of the Bani Kainukaa, Nazeer and Koreiza, and Khyber is\nnoticed in the Koran in the following verses:--\n\n58. \"They with whom thou hadst leagued, but who ever afterwards break\ntheir league, and fear not God!\"\n\n59. \"And if thou capture them in battle, then (_by the example of their\nfate_) put to flight those who are behind them--they will perhaps be\nwarned:\"--\n\n60. \"Or, if thou fear treachery from any people, throw back _their\ntreaty_ to them in like manner: verily, God loveth not the treacherous.\"\n\n61. \"And think not that the infidels shall get the better of Us! Verily,\nthey shall not find God to be weak.\"\n\n62. \"Make ready then against them what force ye can, and squadrons of\nhorse whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy,\nand into others beside them whom ye know not, _but_ whom God knoweth;\nAnd all that you expend for the cause of God shall be repaid you; and ye\nshall not be wronged.\"\n\n63. \"But if they lean to peace, lean thou also to it; and put thy trust\nin God: He verily is the Hearing, the Knowing.\"\n\n64. \"But if they seek to betray thee, then verily God will be\nall-sufficient for thee. He it is who strengthened thee with his help\nand with the faithful and made their heart one. Hadst thou spent all the\nriches of the earth, thou wouldst not have united their hearts; but God\nhath united them: He verily is Mighty, Wise.\"\n\n65. \"O Prophet! God and such of the faithful as follow thee will be\nall-sufficient for thee!\"\n\n66. \"O Prophet! stir up the faithful to the fight....\"--Sura, viii.\n\n26. \"And He caused those of the people of the Book (the Jews) who had\naided _the confederates_, to come down out of their fortresses, and cast\ndismay into their hearts: a part ye slew, a part ye took\nprisoners.\"--Sura, xxxiii.\n\n29. \"Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been\ngiven,[183] as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid\nnot that which God and his apostles have forbidden, and who profess not\nthe profession of the Truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and\nthey be humbled.\"\n\n124. \"Believers! wage war against such of the unbelievers as are your\nneighbours, and let them assuredly find rigour in you: and know that God\nis with those who fear Him.\"--Sura, ix.\n\n[Sidenote: 30. The judgment of Sad.]\n\nThe Bani Koreiza had surrendered themselves to the judgment of _Sad_, an\n_Awsite_ of their allies, Bani Aws. To this Mohammad agreed. Sad decreed\nthat the male captives should be slaughtered. Mohammad, disapproving the\njudgment, remarked to Sad: \"Thou hast decided like the decision of a\nking,\" meaning thereby a despotic monarch. The best authentic tradition\nin Bokhari (Kitab-ul-Jihad) has the word '_Malik_,' monarch; but in\nother three places of Bokhari, Kitabul Monakib, Maghazi, and Istizan,\nthe narrator has a doubt whether the word was _Allah_ or _Malik_.\nMoslim, in his collection, has also '_Malik_,' and in one place the\nsentence is not given at all. It was only to eulogize the memory of Sad\nafter his death, that some of the narrators of the story gave out that\nMohammad had said that Sad had decided like the decision of a _Malak_,\nangel; or some narrators interpreted the word _Malik_, king, as meaning\nGod; and therefore put the word _Allah_ in their traditions. Mohammad\nnever said _Malak_, meaning angel, or _Malik_, allegorically meaning\n_Allah_; he simply said _Malik_, literally meaning a king or monarch.\n\n[Sidenote: 31. Defensive character of the expedition against the Jews\nof Khyber.]\n\nThe expedition against the Jews of Khyber was purely defensive in its\ncharacter. They had, since the Jews of the tribe of Nazeer and Koreiza\nbeing banished from Medina in consequence of their treason against the\nMoslem commonwealth, had joined them, been guilty of inciting the\nsurrounding tribes to attack upon Medina, and had made alliance with the\nBani Ghatafan, who had taken a prominent part among the confederates\nwho had besieged Medina at the battle of the Ditch, to make a combined\nattack upon Medina. They, especially Abul Hukeik, the chief of Bani\nNazeer, had excited the Bani Fezara and other Beduoin tribes to commit\nincursions on Medina. They had made a combination with the Bani Sad-Ibn\nBakr to make inroads on the Moslims. Bani Sad, a branch of Hawazin, were\namong the confederates who had besieged Medina. Lately, Oseir Ibn Zarim,\nthe chief of Nazeer at Khyber, maintained the same relations with Bani\nGhatafan, as their former chief had, to make a combined attack on\nMedina. The Bani Ghatafan, with their branches of Bani Fezara and Bani\nMurra, in league with those of Khyber, were always plotting mischief in\nthe vicinity of Fadak at Khyber. They (the Ghatafan) had continued for a\nlong time to alarm Medina with threatened attacks. At the seventh year\nof the Hegira timely information was received by Mohammad of the\ncombined preparation of Khyber and Ghatafan. He rapidly set forth in his\ndefence, and marched to Khyber at once. He took up a position at Raji,\nbetween Khyber and Ghatafan, to cut off their mutual assistance. So it\nwas not a sudden and unprovoked invasion, as Sir W. Muir calls it. He\nwrites: \"Mahomet probably waited for some act of aggression on the part\nof the Jews of Kheibar (it was the fertile lands and villages of that\ntribe which he had destined for his followers), or on the part of their\nallies, the Bani Ghatafan, to furnish the excuse for an attack. But no\nsuch opportunity offering, he resolved, in the autumn of this year, on a\nsudden and unprovoked invasion of their territory.\"[184] It will appear\nfrom what I have stated above, that the invasion of Khyber was purely\ndefensive in its character.\n\n[Footnote 181: Hishamee, p. 545. Gottengen, 1859; or, The Life of\nMuhammad, by Abd etl Malik ibn Hisham. London: Truebner and Co., 1867.]\n\n[Footnote 182: Hishamee, p. 757.]\n\n[Footnote 183: The Jews of Khyber, if it does not relate to Tabook. Sir\nW. Muir calls this hostile declaration against Jews and Christians, and\nsays,--\"The exclusion and growingly intolerant position of Islam is\nsufficiently manifested by the ban issued against the Jews and\nChristians, as unfit for the sacred rites and holy precincts of the\nMeccan temple; and by the divine commands to war against them until, in\nconfession of the superiority of Islam, they should consent to the\npayment of a tribute.\"--Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, p. 289. The command\nreferred to by Sir W. Muir refers to the treatment of those who took up\narms against the Mussalmans, rather than to their ordinary condition. No\nban was issued against the Jews and Christians, as unfit for the sacred\nrites and holy precincts of the Meccan temple. On the contrary, the\nChristians of Najran, when arrived at Medina, were accommodated by the\nProphet in his Mosque, and they used to say their prayers there.]\n\n[Footnote 184: Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 61.]\n\n\n_The Christians or Romans._\n\n[Sidenote: 32. Tabuk, the last expedition.]\n\nThe last expedition of Mohammad was that of Tabuk, and it was also\npurely defensive. The travellers and traders arriving from Syria brought\nnews of the gathering of a large army on the borders of Syria. A year's\npay, they said, had been advanced by the Greek or Roman Emperor, who was\nthen at Hims, in order that the soldiers might be well-furnished for a\nlong campaign; the tribes of the Syrian desert, the Bani Lakhm, Judzam,\nAmila, and Ghussan were flocking around the Roman Eagles, and the\nvanguard was already at Balca. Mohammad at once resolved to meet this\ndanger. When he arrived in the vicinity of the Syrian border at Tabuk,\nhe found no troops to oppose him. There were no signs of impending\ndanger, and he therefore returned with his army to Medina. This was in\nthe ninth year of the Hegira.\n\n[Sidenote: 33. The conclusion.]\n\nThis concludes the description of all the wars of the Prophet. I hope I\nhave shown, on good and reasonable grounds, and from the surest and most\nauthentic sources, that the wars were not of an offensive and aggressive\ncharacter; but, on the contrary, they were wars of defence and\nprotection. The early Moslems were wronged, because they believed in the\nfaith of Mohammad; they were deprived of their civil and religious\nrights, were driven forth from their homes and their properties, and\nafter all were attacked first, by the Koreish and their confederates,\nthe Jews and other Arabian tribes. They fought neither for revenge, nor\nto impose the faith of Mohammad by force of arms, nor for the plunder of\nthe caravans which passed in proximity to their city. The permission to\nfight was only given to the believers because they were fought against\nor were attacked first, and had been wronged and driven from their homes\nwithout just cause. They therefore took up arms against those who first\ncompelled them to fly from their homes, and then attacked them. This was\nin full accordance, therefore, with the law of nations and the sacred\nlaw of nature. The people of Medina had only pledged themselves to\nprotect Mohammad from his enemies. They could not, and would not, have\ngone forth or allowed Mohammad and his _ansars_ to go forth to plunder\nthe caravan of the Koreish passing by Medina.\n\n\n_The Intolerance._\n\n[Sidenote: 34. Mohammad never taught intolerance.]\n\nThose people are greatly mistaken who say, that \"the one common duty\nlaid upon the Faithful is to be the agents of God's vengeance on those\nwho believe not. These are to be slaughtered until they pay tribute,\nwhen they are allowed to go to Hell in their own way without further\nmolestation.\"[185] Mohammad did not wage war against the Koreish and the\nJews because they did not believe in his mission, nor because he was to\nbe the instrument of God's vengeance on them; on the contrary, he said,\n\"He was no more than a warner.\"\n\n\"The truth is from your Lord, let him then who will, believe; and let\nhim who will, be an unbeliever.\"[186]\n\n\"Let there be no compulsion in religion.\"[187] \"Verily, they who\nbelieve, and the Jews, and the Sabeites, and the Christians, whoever of\nthem believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on\nthem shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief.\"[188] Even\nduring active hostilities, those who did not believe were allowed to\ncome and hear the preaching, and were then conveyed to their place of\nsafety.[189] Nor were the wars of Mohammad to exact tribute from the\nunbelievers. The tribute was only imposed upon those who had sought his\nprotection, and even then they were exempted from other regular taxes\nwhich the Moslems paid to their Commonwealth.\n\nOn the contrary, as has already been shown, Mohammad merely took up\narms in the instances of self-preservation. Had he neglected to defend\nhimself after his settlement at Medina against the continued attacks of\nthe Koreish and their allies, he with his followers would, in all\nprobability, have been exterminated. They fought in defence of their\nlives as well as their moral and religious liberties.\n\n[Sidenote: 35. In what sense the wars were religious wars.]\n\nIn this sense the contest might be called a religious war, as the\nhostilities were commenced on religious grounds. Because the Koreish\npersecuted the Moslems, and expelled them for the reason that they had\nforsaken the religion of their forefathers, _i.e._, idolatry, and\nembraced the faith of Islam, the worship of One True God; but it was\nnever a religious war in the sense of attacking the unbelievers\naggressively to impose his own religion forcibly on them. How much is\nSir W. Muir in the wrong, who says, that fighting was prescribed on\nreligious grounds? \"Hostilities,\" he says, \"indeed, were justified by\nthe 'expulsion' of the believers from Mecca. But the main and true issue\nof the warfare was not disguised to be the victory of Islam. They were\nto fight '_until the religion became the Lord's alone_.'\"[190]\n\n[Sidenote: 36. The alleged verses of intolerance explained.]\n\nThe verses of the Koran referred to above are as follows:\n\n186. \"And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against\nyou: but commit not the injustice of _attacking them first_: verily God\nloveth not the unjust.\"\n\n187. \"And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from\nwhatever place they have ejected you; for (_fitnah_) persecution or\ncivil discord is worse than slaughter but attack them not at the sacred\nMosque, until they attack you therein, but if they attack you, then slay\nthem--Such is the recompense of the infidel!\"\n\n188. \"But if they desist, then verily God is Gracious, Merciful.\"\n\n189. \"And do battle against them until there be no more (_fitnah_)\npersecution or civil discord and the only worship be that of God: but if\nthey desist, then let there be no hostility, save against\nwrong-doers.\"--Sura, ii.\n\nThese verses generally, and the last one especially, show that the\nwarfare was prescribed on the ground of self-preservation, and to secure\npeace, safety and religious liberty, to prevent (_fitnah_) persecution.\n\nBy preventing or removing the persecution (_fitnah_), the religion of\nthe Moslems was to be free and pure from intolerance and compulsion to\nrevert to idolatry, or in other words, to be the only or wholly of God.\nThat is, when you are free and unpersecuted in your religion, and not\nforced to worship idols and renounce Islam, then your religion will be\npure and free. You shall have no fear of being forced to join other gods\nwith God.\n\nThe same verse is repeated in Chapter VIII.\n\n39. \"Say to the unbelievers: If they desist,[191] what is now past shall\nbe forgiven them, but if they return _to it_,[192] they have already\nbefore them the doom of the former.\"[193]\n\n40. \"Fight then against them till _fitnah_ (civil strife or persecution)\nbe at an end, and the religion be all of it God's, and if they desist,\nverily God beholdeth what they do.\"\n\nThis shows that the fighting prescribed here against the Koreish was\nonly in the case of their not desisting, and it was only to prevent and\nsuppress their _fitnah_, and when their intolerance and persecution was\nsuppressed, or was no more, then the Moslem religion was to become all\nof it God's. They were not forced to join any god with the true God.\n\n[Sidenote: 37. Sir W. Muir quoted.]\n\nSir W. Muir, in his last chapter on the person and character of\nMohammad, observes in reviewing the Medina period: \"Intolerance quickly\ntook the place of freedom; force, of persuasion.\" ... \"Slay the\nunbelievers wheresoever ye find them\" was now the watchword of\nIslam:--\"Fight in the ways of God until opposition be crushed, and the\nReligion becometh the Lord's alone!\"[194] Here, Sir W. Muir plainly\ncontradicts himself. He has already admitted at the 136th page of the\nfourth volume of his work that the course pursued by Mohammad at Medina\nwas to leave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished\nwithout compulsion, and the same measure he intended to adopt at his\ntriumphal entry into Mecca. His words are: \"This movement obliged\nMahomet to cut short of his stay at Mecca. Although the city had\ncheerfully accepted his supremacy, all its inhabitants had not yet\nembraced the new religion, or formally acknowledged his prophetic claim.\nPerhaps, he intended to follow the course he had pursued at Medina, and\nleave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished without\ncompulsion.\" This was at the end of the eighth year after the Hegira.\n\nMohammad died at the beginning of the eleventh year, then the question\nnaturally comes up, when was that alleged change to intolerance, and\nhow Sir W. Muir says, this change is traced from the period of\nMohammad's arrival at Medina? In the action taken in the fifth year of\nthe Hegira against the Jewish tribe of Koreiza, who had treasoned\nagainst the city, Sir W. Muir admits that up to that period Mohammad did\nnot profess to force men to join Islam, or to punish them for not\nembracing it. His words are: \"The ostensible grounds upon which Mahomet\nproceeded were purely political, for as yet he did not profess _to\nforce_ men to join Islam, or to punish them for not embracing it.\"[195]\nIn a foot-note he remarks: \"He still continued to reiterate in his\nRevelations the axiom used at Mecca, 'I am only a public preacher,' as\nwill be shown in the next chapter.\" Further, Sir W. Muir, in his account\nof the first two years after Mohammad's arrival at Medina, admits in a\nfoot-note (p. 32, Vol. III), that \"as yet we have no distinct\ndevelopment of the intention of Mahomet to impose his religion on others\nby force: it would have been dangerous in the present state of parties\nto advance this principle.\"\n\n[Sidenote: 38. Comment on the above quotation.]\n\nIt will appear from the foregoing statements that in each of the three\ndistinct periods of Mohammad's sojourn in Medina, _i.e._, the first two\nyears, the fifth year, and the eighth year, Sir W. Muir has himself\nadmitted that Mohammad had no intention to impose his religion by force,\nand did not profess to force people to join Islam, or punish them for\nnot embracing it, and that the conversion of the people at Medina was\ngradually accomplished without compulsion, and the same course he\nfollowed at his taking of Mecca. Then there is no room left for the\nuncalled for and self-contradictory remark of Sir W. Muir, that at\nMedina \"Intolerance quickly took place of freedom; force, of\npersuasion.\" Up to the end of the eighth year when Mecca was captured,\nthere was admittedly no persecution or constraint put in requisition to\nenforce religion. Mohammad breathed his last early in the eleventh year.\nDuring the two years that intervened, the din of war had ceased to\nsound, deputations continued to reach the Prophet from all quarters of\nArabia, and not a single instance of intolerance or compulsory adoption\nof faith is found on record.[196]\n\nMohammad, neither sooner, nor later, in his stay at Medina, swerved\nfrom the policy of forbearance and persuasion he himself had chalked out\nfor the success of his mission. At Medina, he always preached his\nliberal profession of respect for other creeds, and reiterated\nassurances to the people that he was merely a preacher, and expressly\ngave out that compulsion in religion was out of question with him.\n\nThese are his revelations during the Medina period. \"Verily, they who\nbelieve (Moslems), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the\nChristians, and the Sabeites,--whoever believeth in God and the last\nday, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their\nLord: and fear shall not _come_ upon them, neither shall they be\ngrieved.\"\n\n _Sura II_, 59.\n\n\"And say to those who have been given the Scripture, and to the common\nfolk, Do you surrender yourselves unto God? Then, if they become\nMoslems, are they guided aright; but if they turn away, then thy duty is\nonly preaching and God's eye is on his servants.\"\n\n _Sura III_, 19.\n\n\"The Apostle is only bound to preach: and God knoweth what ye bring to\nlight, and what ye conceal.\"\n\n _Sura V_, 99.\n\n\"Say: Obey God and obey the Apostle. But if ye turn back, _still_ the\nburden of his duty is on him only, and the burden of your duty rests on\nyou. And if ye obey him, ye shall have guidance; But plain preaching is\nall that devolves upon the Apostle.\"\n\n _Sura XXIV_, 53.\n\n\"Let there be no compulsion in religion. Now is the right way made\ndistinct from error; whoever therefore denieth Taghoot,[197] and\nbelieveth in God, hath taken hold on a strong handle that hath no flaw\ntherein: And God is He who Heareth, Knoweth.\"\n\n _Sura II_, 237.\n\n\"Whoso obeyeth the Apostle, in so doing obeyeth God and _as to those_\nwho turn back _from thee_, We have not sent thee to be their keeper.\"\n\n _Sura IV_, 82.\n\n[Sidenote: 39. The object of Mohammad's wars.]\n\n\"Slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them\" was never the watchword of\nIslam. It was only said in self-preservation and war of defence, and\nconcerned only those who had taken up arms against the Moslems.\n\nThe verses--Suras II, 189; and VIII, 40--have been quoted above in\nparas. 17 and 37 (pp. 18, 21, 44 and 45), and they fully show by their\ncontext and scope that they only enjoined war against the Meccans, who\nused to come to war upon the Moslems. The object of making war is\nprecisely set forth in these verses, and appears to mean that civil\nfeuds and persecutions be at an end. But Sir W. Muir wrongly translates\n_Fitnah_ as _opposition_. He himself has translated the meaning of the\nword in question as _persecution_, in Vol. II, p. 147, foot-note; in\ntranslating the tenth verse of the Sura LXXXV he writes: \"Verily, they\nwho persecute the believers, male and female, and repent themselves\nnot.\" The original word there is _Fatanoo_,[198] from _Fitnah_. I do not\nknow why he should put a twofold version on the same word occurring in\nthe same book. (Suras II, 187; VIII, 40.)\n\n[Footnote 185: Islam under the Arabs, by Major R.D. Osborne, London,\n1876, p. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 186: XVIII, 28.]\n\n[Footnote 187: II, 257.]\n\n[Footnote 188: V, 73.]\n\n[Footnote 189: IX, 6.]\n\n[Footnote 190: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 79.]\n\n[Footnote 191: From attacking and persecuting you and preventing you\nfrom entering your homes and visiting the sacred mosque.]\n\n[Footnote 192: That is, if again attack you and commit aggressions.]\n\n[Footnote 193: Meaning those who were defeated at Badr.]\n\n[Footnote 194: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 319.]\n\n[Footnote 195: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 282.]\n\n[Footnote 196: There is only one instance of intolerance, _i.e._, making\nconverts at the point of sword, which Sir W. Muir, so zealous in\naccusing Mohammad of religious persecution during the Medina period, has\nsucceeded in finding out during the ten eventful years of Mohammad's\nsojourn in Medina. I refer to the story of Khalid's mission in the\nbeginning of the tenth year A.H., to Bani Haris, a Christian tribe at\nNajran, whose people had entered into a covenant of peace with Mohammad,\nand to whom an ample pledge had been guaranteed to follow their own\nfaith. According to Sir W. Muir, Khalid was instructed to call on the\npeople to embrace Islam, and if they declined, he was, after three days,\nto attack and force them to submit (Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p.\n224). The version of the story thus given by the Biographers of Mohammad\nis too absurd to be believed; because it is a well-established fact that\nthe Bani Haris, or the Christians of Najran, had sent a deputation to\nMohammad only a year ago, _i.e._, in A.H. 9, and obtained terms of\nsecurity from him (Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, p. 299; Ibn Hisham,\np. 401). It is quite an unfounded, though a very ingenious, excuse of\nSir W. Muir to make the Bani Haris consist of two sects,--one of\nChristians, and the other of idolators,--and to say that the operations\nof Khalid were directed against the portion of Bani Haris still\nbenighted with paganism; thus reconciling the apocryphal tradition with\nthe fact of the Bani Haris being at a treaty of security, toleration and\nfreedom, with Mohammad.\n\n\"I conclude,\" he writes in a note, \"the operations of Khalid were\ndirected against the portion of Bani Harith still idolaters:--at all\nevents not against the Christian portion already under treaty\" (The Life\nof Mahomet, Vol. IV, foot-note, p. 224). See the account of the\nconversion of Bani Harith to Christianity long before Islam in Hishamee,\npp. 20-22. Gibbon, Chapter XLII, Vol. V, p. 207, foot-note; and Muir's\nVol. I, p. ccxxviii.]\n\n[Footnote 197: A name applied to an idol or idols--especially Allat and\nOzza, the ancient idols of the Meccans.]\n\n[Footnote 198: The past tense, third person plural, of the infinitive\n_Fitnah_.]\n\n\n_The Ninth Chapter, or Sura Barat._\n\n[Sidenote 40. The opening portion of the IXth Sura of the Koran only\nrelates to the Koreish who had violated the truce.]\n\n[Sidenote: The injunctions contained in it were not carried out\nowing to the compromise.]\n\nSir William Muir, while relating the publication of some verses of the\nninth chapter of the Koran on the occasion of the great pilgrimage A.H.\n9, and referring to the opening verses of the Sura (from 1st to 7th\ninclusive) writes: \"The passages just quoted completed the system of\nMahomet so far as its relations with idolatrous tribes and races were\nconcerned. The few cases of truce excepted, uncompromising warfare was\ndeclared against them all.\"[199] This is not correct. The mistake, he as\nwell as others who follow him commit, lies in their taking the incipient\nverses of Chapter IX, as originally published at the end of the ninth\nyear of the Hegira, after the conquest of Mecca, in order to set aside\nevery obligation or league with the idolators to wage war with them,\neither within or without the sacred territory, and \"they were to be\nkilled, besieged, and laid in wait for _wheresoever found_.\"[200] In\nfact it has no such bearing of generally setting aside the treaties, and\ndeclaring _uncompromising warfare_, and was not published for the first\ntime on the occasion stated above. The opening verses of the ninth Sura\nof the Koran, which I have quoted in full together with necessary notes\nin para. 17 (pp. 22-25), revealed for the first time, were before the\nconquest of Mecca, when the idolators thereof had broken the truce of\nHodeibia. Their violation of the treaty is expressly mentioned in verses\n4, 8, 10 and 13, and the same verses also enjoin to respect and fulfil\nthe treaties of those idolators who had not broken theirs. Therefore\nonly those aggressors who had been guilty of a breach of faith, and\ninstigated others to take up arms against the Moslems in the attack of\nBani Bakr, on Khozaa, were to be waged war against, besieged, and taken\ncaptives after the expiration of four months from the date of the\npublication of the verses in question. But fortunately Abu Sofian\ncompromised before the commencement of the sacred months, and before the\nperiod of the four months had elapsed. The people of Mecca submitted\nwithout bloodshed, and hence it is obvious that the injunctions\ncontained in the commencement of the ninth chapter of the Koran were\nnever carried out. They remained as dead letter, and will, I think, so\nremain perpetually. Almost all European writers, as far as I know,\nlabour under the delusion that at the end of the ninth year Mohammad\npublished the opening verses of the ninth Sura, commonly designated\n_Sura Barat_. But the fact is that it was published in the eighth year\nof the Hegira before the commencement of the sacred months, probably in\nthe month of Shaban, while Mohammad marched in Ramzan against Mecca, not\nwith the intention of prosecuting war, for it was to take place after\nthe lapse of Zikad, Zelhaj and Moharram, but of taking Mecca by\ncompromise and preconcerted understanding between himself and Abu\nSofian. If it be admitted that the preliminary verses of Sura IX of the\nKoran were revealed or published for the first time in the last month of\nthe ninth year of the Hegira, then they--the verses--become aimless,\nwithout being pregnant of any object in view. They contain injunctions\nfor carrying hostile operations against those who had broken certain\ntreaties, had helped others against the Moslems, and themselves had also\nattacked them. They proclaimed war against certain tribes, whose people\ndid not regard ties of blood and good faith, and had been the first\naggressors against the Moslems. Not many such persons were in the whole\nof Arabia at and after the time alleged for the promulgation of these\nverses, _i.e._, at the last month of the ninth and the whole tenth year.\nBy this time, almost all Arabia had tendered voluntary submission to the\nauthority of Mohammad.\n\nDeputations from each tribe of the Arabs continued to reach Medina\nduring the whole of this period, and were pledged protection and\nfriendship by the founder of the Islamic faith. From Medina the sound of\ndrums and the bray of clarions had now died away. Hereupon we are able\nto speak with certainty that these verses could not be, and were not,\nrevealed at the end of the ninth year as it has been asserted by several\nwriters, both Mohammadan and European. And for the above reasons the\nmost suitable occasion for the revelation of these verses is the breach\nof the truce of Hodeibia by the Koreish and their allies during the\neighth year of the Hegira which caused the reduction of Mecca by\ncompromise. Several Mohammadan commentators are unanimous in their\nopinion as to this point. Consequently the verses, ordaining the\nmanifestation of arms against the treaty-breakers and aggressors, as\nwell as putting them to the sword wherever they were to be found,\n_i.e._, within or without the harem, or the precincts of the Sacred\nMosque, were not complied with owing to the compromise by the Koreish.\n\n[Footnote 199: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 211]\n\n[Footnote 200: \"Islam and its Founder,\" by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., p. 179.\nLondon, 1878.]\n\n\n_The alleged Interception of the Koreishite Caravans._\n\n[Sidenote: 41. The nine alleged interceptions of the Koreish caravans.]\n\nIt has been asserted by European biographers of Mohammad that several\ncaravans of the Koreish going to and from Syria were intercepted and\nwaylaid by the Moslems soon after the Hegira. The alleged incursions are\nas follow:\n\n(1.) Seven months after Mohammad's arrival at Medina, an expedition\nheaded by Hamza surprised a caravan under the conduct of Abu Jahl.\n\n(2.) A month later a party led by Obeida was dispatched in the pursuit\nof another caravan guided by Abu Sofian.\n\n(3.) After the expiration of another month, a third inroad headed by Sad\nproceeded to lie in ambush for the Koreish caravan on the way it was\nexpected to pass.\n\n(4.) Nearly twelve months after the Hegira, a fourth attempt was\nundertaken to plunder a caravan of the Koreishites by Mohammad himself\nat Abwa.\n\n(5.) In the succeeding month Mohammad again marched to Bowat with the\nsole aim of despoiling a caravan composed of precious freight under the\nimmediate escort of Omeya-bin Khalf.\n\n(6.) After the lapse of two or three months Mohammad set out to Osheira\nto make aggression on another rich caravan proceeding to Syria led by\nAbu Sofian.\n\nAll these expeditions are said to have been not attended by any success\non the part of the Moslems, the vigilance of the caravans in all cases\neluding the pursuit made after them.[201]\n\n(7.) In Rajab A.H. 2, a small band composed of some six persons was\nordered to march to Nakhla to lie in wait there for the caravan of the\nKoreish. The party had a scuffle at Nakhla, in which a man of the convoy\nwas killed; while two prisoners and the pilfered goods were taken to\nMedina. Hereupon Mohammad was much displeased, and told Abdallah-bin\nJahsh, \"I never commanded thee to fight in the sacred month.\"\n\n(8.) The caravan of the Koreish, which on its passage had safely escaped\nthe chase of the Moslems, as already described in No. 6, was on its way\nback to Mecca. Mohammad anticipated their return, and prepared an\nattack, which terminated in the famous battle of Badr.\n\n(9.) All these predatory inroads to intercept the caravans of Mecca are\nsaid to have happened during the first and the second year of the\nHegira, or before the battle of Badr. It remains for me now to mention\nthe only remaining instance of Moslem's foray upon the Koreishite\ncaravan, which took place in the sixth year A.H. at _Al-Is_. The attack\nwas completely successful.\n\n[Sidenote: 42. The interceptions were impossible under the circumstances\nin which Mohammad was placed.]\n\nI have already explained (from paras. 21-24) that these early\nexpeditions, numbered 1 to 8, are not corroborated by authentic and\ntrustworthy traditions, and I have also given the probable nature of\nthose marked 4, 5 and 6.\n\nIt was impossible for Mohammad and his adherents, situated as they were,\nto make any hostile demonstrations or undertake a pillaging enterprise.\nThe inhabitants of Medina, where the Prophet with his followers had\nsought a safe asylum, and at whose invitation he had entered their city,\nhad solemnly bound themselves on sacred oaths to defend Mohammad, so\nlong as he was not himself the aggressor, from his enemies as they would\ntheir wives and their children.[202] Mohammad, on his own part, had\nentered into a holy compact with them not to plunder or commit\ndepredations.[203]\n\nUpon these considerations it was impossible that the people of Medina\nwould have permitted or overlooked the irruptions so often committed by\nMohammad upon the caravans of the Koreish: much less would they have\njoined with their Prophet, had he or any of his colleagues ventured to\ndo so. But granting that the Medinites allowed Mohammad to manifest\nenmity towards the Koreish by a display of arms, or that no restraint\nwas put by them upon him when he encroached upon the territories of the\nneighbouring tribes, and that the caravans were molested without any\ngrounds of justice, was it possible, I ask, for the people of Medina to\navoid the troubles they would be necessarily involved in by the refuge\nthey had given to their Prophet? They had long suffered from internal\nfeuds, and the sanguinary conflict of Boas, a few years ago, which had\nparalyzed their country, and humiliated its citizens, was but too fresh\nin their memory yet.\n\n[Sidenote: 43. The interceptions, if occurred, were justified by way of\nreprisals.]\n\nLet us suppose that these alleged interceptions of the Meccan caravans\nby the Moslems did actually take place, as related by the biographers of\nMohammad, were they not all justified by the International Code of the\nArabs, or the ancient usage and military law of nations. It has been\nproved beyond all dispute that the Meccans were the first aggressors in\npersecuting the Moslems, and expelling them from their dear homes at\nMecca with the unbearable annoyance, they caused the converts of the new\nfaith in the peaceful prosecution of their religion; taking all these\ncauses of offence into consideration, as well as the International law\nand the law of Nature, the Moslems might be said to have law and justice\nboth on their sides in waging war with their harassers for the\nrestoration of their property and homes, and even in retaliating and\nmaking reprisals until they attained the object long sought by them.\nWhen the Meccans, on their own part, had first trumpeted hostility\nagainst the Moslems, the right of self-defence, as well as military\nnecessity, compelled the latter to destroy their property, and obstruct\nthe ways and channels of communication by which their traffic was\nprospering; for, \"from the moment one State is at war with another, it\nhas, on general principles, a right to seize on all the enemy's\nproperty of whatsoever kind and wheresoever found, and to appropriate\nthe property thus taken to its own use, or to that of the captors.\"[204]\n\n[Footnote 201: I have closely followed Sir W. Muir in these expeditions;\n_vide_ The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 64-69.]\n\n[Footnote 202: \"The people of Medina were pledged only to defend the\nProphet from attack, not to join him in any aggressive steps against the\nCoreish.\" Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 64.]\n\n[Footnote 203: Bokharee relates from Obada-bin Samat with the usual\nchain of narrators, that \"I am one of the _Nakeebs_ who pledged to the\nProphet. We pledged that we will not join any other god with the God,\nand will not commit theft, and will not commit fornication, and will not\ncommit murder, and will not plunder.\" Saheeh of Bokharee, Book of\nCampaigns, chapter on Deputations from Ansars.]\n\n[Footnote 204: Wheaton's Elements of International Law, p. 419, Boston,\n1855; Lieber's Miscellaneous Writings; Political science, Vol. II, p.\n250, Philadelphia, 1881.]\n\n\n_The alleged Assassinations._\n\n[Sidenote: 44. Instances of alleged assassinations cited.]\n\nThere were certain executions of culprits who had perpetrated the crime\nof high treason against the Moslem Commonwealth. These executions, and\ncertain other cases of murders not grounded on any credible evidences,\nare narrated by European biographers of Mohammad as assassinations\ncommitted through the countenance and connivance which he lent them.\nThey were about five or six in number, and they are styled\nassassinations from there being no trials of the prisoners by a judge\nand a jury, nor by any systematic court-martial. The punishment of death\nwas inflicted upon the persons condemned, either from private enmity or\nfor the unpardonable offence of high treason against the State, but it\ncannot be said, as I will hereafter show, that these so-called cases of\nassassinations had received the high sanction of Mohammad, or they were\nbrought about at his direct instigation and assent for their commission.\nThe alleged instances are as follows:--\n\n 1. Asma-bint Marwan.\n 2. Abu Afak.\n 3. Kab-ibn Ashraf.\n 4. Sofian-ibn Khalid.\n 5. Abu Rafe.\n 6. Oseir-ibu Zarim.\n 7. The attempted assassination of Abu Sofian.\n\n[Sidenote: 45. Mr. Poole quoted.]\n\nBefore reviewing the truth and falsity of evidence in each of these\ncases, and showing how far the Prophet was privy to them, I will avail\nmyself of a quotation from Mr. Stanley Lane Poole, who has remarked with\nhis usual deep discernment and accurate judgment, in his Introduction to\nMr. E.W. Lane's Selections from the Koran:\n\n\"The execution of the half-dozen marked Jews is generally called\nassassination, because a Muslim was sent secretly to kill each of the\ncriminals. The reason is almost too obvious to need explanation. There\nwere no police or law-courts, or even courts-martial, at Medina; some\none of the followers of Mohammad must therefore be the executer of the\nsentence of death, and it was better it should be done quietly, as the\nexecuting of a man openly before his clan would have caused a brawl and\nmore bloodshed and retaliation, till the whole city had become mixed up\nin the quarrel. If secret assassination is the word for such deeds,\nsecret assassination was a necessary part of the internal government of\nMedina. The men must be killed, and best in that way. In saying this I\nassume that Mohammad was cognisant of the deed, and that it was not\nmerely a case of private vengeance; but in several instances the\nevidence that traces these executions to Mohammad's order is either\nentirely wanting or is too doubtful to claim our credence.\"[205]\n\n1.--_Asma-bint Marwan._\n\n[Sidenote: 46. Asma-bint Marwan.]\n\n\"The first victim was a woman,\" writes Major Osborn, \"Asma, daughter of\nMarwan; she had composed some satirical verses on the Prophet and his\nfollowers; and Muhammad, moved to anger, said publicly: 'Who will rid me\nof this woman?' Omeir, a blind man, but an ardent Moslem, heard the\nspeech, and at dead of night crept into the apartment where Asma lay\nasleep surrounded by her little ones; he felt about in the darkness till\nhis hand rested on the sleeping woman, and then, the next instance his\nsword was plunged into her breast.\"[206]\n\nThe story of Asma's murder has been variously related by the Arabian\nwriters, and the testimonies on which it rests are contradictory and\nconflicting in themselves. Wakidi, Ibn Sad, and Ibn Hisham relate a very\nstrange thing about it, that she was killed by Omeir the _blind_ at the\ndead of night. A blind person commits murder in a stranger's house\nduring nocturnal quietness, and is not arrested by any one! Doctor Weil\nwrites, that Omeir was a former husband of Asma, and the origin of the\nmurder may be traced to a long-brooding and private malice. Ibn Asakar\nin his history (vide _Seerat Shamee_) relates that Asma was a\nfruit-seller; some person of her tribe asked her if she had better\nfruits. She said 'yes,' and entered her house followed by that man. She\nstooped down to take something up, the person turned right and left, and\nseeing that nobody was near, gave a violent blow on her head, and thus\ndispatched her.\n\n[Sidenote: 47. The story deserves not our belief.]\n\nThe historians even relate that Omeir, being offended at the verses\ncomposed by Asma, had volunteered himself of his own free-will to kill\nher.[207] She might have been a sacrifice to envy or hatred by the sword\nof her assassin, but Mohammad really had no hand in her death. She had\nmade herself an outlaw by deluding the people of Medina to a breach of\ntreaty with the Moslems, whereby the rights and jurisdictions of Jews\nand Moslems were definitively settled.\n\nIbn Ishak quietly leaves unnarrated any transaction with regard to Asma.\nWakidi and Ibn Sad do not affirm that Mohammad, being annoyed at her\nlampoons, said dejectedly, \"Who would rid me of that woman?\" On the\ncontrary, Wakidi writes, that Omeir had voluntarily swore to take her\nlife. It is only Ibn Hisham who relates without citing his authority,\nthat Mohammad, hearing Asma's verses, declared: \"Is there nobody for me\n(i.e., _to rid me_) from Bint Marwan?\" This version of the story has no\ncorroborative proofs from the earliest biographers, and we are not\ninclined to put any faith in it.[208]\n\n2.--_Abu Afak._\n\n[Sidenote: 48. Abu Afak.]\n\nIt has been related that Abu Afak of Bani Amr had enraged the Moslems by\nfomenting enmity and sedition against their Government, when one Haris\nwas executed for his murdering treacherously his fellow-comrade in the\nbattle of Ohad during the time they were fighting together side by side.\nA convert from amongst the Bani Amr vowed to slay Abu Afak, and falling\nunawares upon him killed him with a cruel blow of his sword. From Ibn\nIshak we learn that Mohammad had said with reference to Abu Afak, \"Who\nwould rid me of this pestilent fellow?\"[209] The biographers do not give\ntheir authorities whence they derived their information of the words\nattributed to Mohammad which he is said to have uttered with relation to\nAbu Afak before his followers; while at the same time it is no fair\njustice to form a hasty opinion of the fact without a critical\nexamination and well-balancing of evidences of men like Ibn Ishak and\nothers who have forgotten to tell us the original sources of their own\nassertion. Besides, the words quoted above are not equivalent to a\nperemptory order, and even granting this last condition, we are not\njustified in construing them to mean _assassination_. Sir W. Muir writes\nthat, \"the Secretary of Wackidi says distinctly--'Now this was by\ncommand of the Prophet.'\" (Vol. III, p. 133, _f.n._) But it is a very\neasy thing for the secretary or other biographers to give an ample play\nto their fancies, or to fabricate commands, which the Prophet had never\ngiven out, on a very slender basis, or on no reasonable basis at all.\nThe tendency of the biographers is always to exonerate the companions of\nthe Prophet at the expense of truth, and to justify their deeds by\ncasting the whole blame upon him.\n\n3.--_Kab, son of Ashraf._\n\n[Sidenote: 49. Kab, son of Ashraf.]\n\nKab-ibn Ashraf was an influential Jew connected with the tribe of Bani\nNazeer. Being very much mortified by the defeat of the Meccans at the\nbattle of Badr, he soon after proceeded to Mecca, where he stirred up\nthe Koreish to avenge themselves on the Moslems of Medina. On his return\nto the latter place he manifested avowed hostility towards the Moslem\nCommonwealth. He was a traitor and a turncoat, for he not only violated\nhis allegiance to the Moslems, but preached rebellion among their\nenemies. Under such circumstances, he deserved execution by the military\nand international law, and was decapitated at Medina accordingly. The\nmode of execution was a sudden violence or deception, but Mohammad never\nfulminated any harsh commands against him either for his assassination\nor for his murder. He deserved capital punishment for his treachery,\nwhich was duly measured out to him in the absence of any legal tribunals\nfor trials of criminals by jury, for in that case any man was authorized\nto execute the sentence of the law. Even if it be taken for granted that\nthe Prophet had prayed \"O Lord, deliver me from the son of Ashraf, in\nwhatsoever manner seemeth good unto thee, because of his open sedition\nand verses;\" or said, \"Who can ease me of the son of Ashraf?\"[210] This\ndoes not amount to a fiat for murder or execution, much less for\nassassination.\n\n[Sidenote: 50. Mohammad could not have any share in his murder.]\n\nThe biographers and narrators of the campaigns of Mohammad generally\nrelate untrustworthy and fabulous details of such events, and are by no\nmeans to be relied upon. Mohammad Ibn Ishak, the earliest biographer,\nwhose work exists, does not relate that Mohammad the Prophet ever prayed\nfor, or said to his followers, to be got rid of Kab; whereas the latest\nbiographers and traditionalists give us to understand that the Prophet\nsanctioned the murder of Kab by his own express orders. \"I am far from\nasserting,\" says Sir W. Muir, \"that every detail in the foregoing\nnarrative, either of instigation by Mahomet or of deception by the\nassassins, is beyond suspicion. The actors in such scenes were not slow\nto magnify and embellish their own services at the expense of truth.\nThere may also have been the desire to justify an act of perfidy, at\nwhich even the loose morality of the day was startled, by casting the\nburden of it on the infallible Prophet. But, after allowing all due\nweight to both of these considerations, enough remains to prove, in this\ncase, the worst features of assassination, and the fact that they were\ndirectly countenanced, or rather prompted, by Mahomet himself.\"[211]\nThere is no substantial proof in this case which tends to establish the\ninstigation Mohammad offered for the murder of Kab. The best traditions\nfor the story of Kab's assassination rest with Jabir-bin Abdullah,[212]\nand Ibn Abbas through Ikrama.[213]\n\nNone of them can be an authority, for they were neither eye-witnesses,\nnor they heard the Prophet countenancing or prompting the assassination,\nnor they allude to their own authorities. Jabir-bin Abdullah was a mere\nboy at that time. He was not allowed to appear even at the battle of\nOhad, which took place after the alleged execution of Kab, on account of\nhis tender age.[214] Ibn Abbas was even younger than Jabir, and besides,\nwas putting up at Mecca at the period in question.[215] Ikrama was a\nslave of Ibn Abbas, and was notoriously given to the forging of\nfictitious traditions.[216]\n\n4.--_Sofian-bin Khalid._\n\n[Sidenote: 51. Sofian-bin Khalid.]\n\nAfter the reverse at Medina, in the battle of Ohad, large gatherings\nwere organized in various quarters of Arabia against the Moslems. The\nBani Lahyan, and other neighbouring tribes, rallied round the standard\nof their chief Sofian, the son of Khalid, at Orna with the avowed\npurpose of taking this occasion by the forelock when the tables were\nturned at Ohad. \"Mahomet, knowing that their movements depended solely\nupon Sofian, despatched Abdullah ibn Oneis with instructions to\nassassinate him.\"[217] The accredited envoy volunteered himself for the\nservice, which he accomplished by destroying Sofian by surprise. Neither\nIbn Ishak, nor Ibn Hisham, nor Ibn Sad have anything to say about\n'instructions' for assassination. Abdullah-bin Oneis may have been sent\nas a spy to reconnoitre the movements of Sofian and his army, or to\nbring advices concerning him, but it cannot be affirmed that he was\ntutored by Mohammad to assassinate Sofian, even on the supposition that\nhis mission was to kill the latter.\n\n[Sidenote: 52. Justifications of Sofian's alleged murder.]\n\nAmong the Arabs the international law of estates in their hostile\nrelations, and the military law and usage of former times, not\nforgetting to mention the European international law as late as the last\ncentury, maintained the broad principle that \"in war everything done\nagainst an enemy is lawful that he may be destroyed, though unarmed and\ndefenceless; that fraud or even poison may be employed against him; that\na most unlimited right is acquired to his person and property.\"[218]\nEvery sort of fraud except perfidy was allowed to be practised towards\nan enemy in war. \"I allow of any kind of deceit,\" writes Bynkershoek, a\nwriter on international law, the successor of Puffendorf and the\npredecessor of Wolff and Vattel, \"perfidy alone excepted, not because\nanything is unlawful against an enemy, but because when our faith had\nbeen pledged to him, so far as the promise extends, he ceases to be an\nenemy.\"[219]\n\nIn the case of Sofian there was no perfidy, treachery, or violation of\nfaith, nor was there any permission granted by Mohammad for his\nassassination. He sent, if it be proved he did (but it is never proved),\nAbdullah against Sofian who had made every preparation of arms, and who\nhad mustered together several Bedouin tribes to attack Mohammad, to\nfight and kill him; it was a straightforward course allowed by the\nusages of the military law. Mohammad had distinctly and expressly\ninterdicted _perfidy, deceit and assassination_. \"Do not,\" said he,\ncharging his commanders and soldiers on the point of marching for a\nmilitary expedition, \"commit perfidy, and do not mutilate, and do not\nkill a child.\"[220] He also laid down the golden maxim, \"_Belief is the\nrestraint to assassination. No believer should commit\nassassination_.\"[221]\n\n5.--_Abu Rafe._\n\n[Sidenote: 53. Abu Rafe.]\n\nAbu Rafe, called also Sallam Ibn Abul Hokeik, was the chief of Bani\nNazeer, who had warred with the Moslems at Medina, and had been banished\nto Khyber. He had taken a prominent part in the assembling of most of\nthe Bedouin tribes at the war of the confederates when they besieged\nMedina. Subsequently, he had excited Bani Fezara and other Bedouin\ntribes to carry on their depredations among the Moslems. A band of the\nlatter was dispatched to inflict condign punishment upon him, and he met\nwith his death at their hands. But the account of his execution are full\nof contradictions and discrepancies. But none of these diverse stories\nhas, that Mohammad commanded the assassination of Abu Rafe, while Ibn\nIshak gives no account of him at all. Ibn Hisham has--\"That Abu Rafe had\nbrought the confederate army against Mohammad, and some of Khazraj had\nasked permission to kill him, and Mohammad permitted them.\"[222] Sir W.\nMuir narrates that Mohammad \"gave them command to make away with Abul\nHuckeick,\"[223] whilst the Secretary of Wakidi, whom he follows, simply\nsays, \"He gave command to kill him.\" \"_Making away with a person_\"\ncreates an idea of secret murder tantamount to 'assassination,' but such\nis not the wording of the original. _Sending a party to kill_, or _fight\nwith an enemy_ are synonymous, and permissible by the international or\nmilitary law, the Arab mode of fighting mostly consisting of single\ncombats.\n\n6.--_Oseir-bin Zarim._[224]\n\n[Sidenote: 54. Oseir-bin Zarim.]\n\nOseir-ibn Zarim, the chief of Bani Nazeer, had maintained a hostile\nanimosity against the Moslems of Medina, to war with whom he had\nenrolled himself in the adverse tribe of Ghatafan. Preparations were\nbriskly made by this tribe to make a havoc of Medina, and Oseir had been\nmade the hero of the enterprise. Hereupon Mohammad delegated the mission\nof bringing the insurgent to Medina to Abdullah-bin Rawaha and some\nothers, with a promise of making him Governor of Khyber,[225] and\ntreating him with marked distinction, if he yielded to the wishes of the\nProphet. Oseir complied, and set out with his followers to Medina. On a\ncamel were mounted Abdullah-bin, Oneis, and Oseir. Hardly they had\ntravelled six miles when Oseir repented of his determination to go to\nMedina, and stretched forth his hand towards the sword of Abdullah, who\nleaped from the camel and cut off his leg, Oseir in the meantime\nwounding Abdullah's head with his camel staff.[226]\n\nNow, whether Oseir was assassinated or murdered perfidiously; whether\nhe meditated treachery, and Abdullah struck him in his\nself-defence,--whatever might be the case, certainly there is nothing in\nthe narrative of Oseir's death to show that Mohammad had sent him \"on a\nsecret errand with a view of getting rid of the Jewish chief\" as Sir W.\nMuir explains.[227] The story is not imparted by earliest writers like\nIbn Ishak, and the traditions of a later date are incoherent, one-sided,\nand imperfect. Notwithstanding these inaccuracies, no account tells us\nthat mandates were issued for fighting with or killing Oseir, much less\nfor his assassination.\n\n7.--_The alleged intended Assassination of Abu Sofian._\n\n[Sidenote: 55. The intended assassination of Abu Sofian.]\n\nA Bedouin Arab was sent by Abu Sofian to Medina to assassinate Mohammad.\nThe emissary was tracked in his evil attempt, and confessed the purpose\nwith which he had come. This is related by Ibn Sad Katib Wakidi as the\ncause of Mohammad's sending Amr Ibn Omeya to assassinate Abu\nSofian.[228] According to Hishamee, Amr was commissioned by the Prophet\nto fight with Abu Sofian, and to kill him in immediate revenge for the\nmurder of Khobeib and his companions captured at Raji.[229] Now, Ibn\nIshak and Wakidi preserve absolute silence on this head. Ibn Hisham\nrelates nothing about assassination. It is only Ibn Sad Katib Wakidi who\nhands down to posterity the orders of Mohammad for the assassination of\nAbu Sofian. This tradition is neither strengthened by any sterling\nwitness, nor is it a genuine one; and for this very reason it was not\naccepted by Ibn Ishak or even by Wakidi, so prone to the recital of\napocryphal traditions.\n\n[Sidenote: 56. Irving and Muir quoted: concluding remarks.]\n\nReferring to the above attempted assassination Mr. Washington Irving\nsays: \"During this period of his career Mahomet in more than one\ninstance narrowly escaped falling by the hand of an assassin. He himself\nis charged with the use of insidious means to rid himself of an enemy,\nfor it is said that he sent Amru Ibn Omeya on a secret errand to Mecca,\nto assassinate Abu Sofian, but the plot was discovered, and the assassin\nonly escaped by rapid flight. The charge, however, is not well\nsubstantiated, and is contrary to his general character and\nconduct.\"[230]\n\nSir W. Muir writes: \"There is just a shadow of possibility that the\ntradition may have been fabricated by the anti-Omeyad party to throw\nodium on the memory of Abu Sofian, as having been deemed by Mahomet\nworthy of death. But this is not to be put against the evidence of\nunanimous and apparently independent traditions.\"[231] But, in fact,\nthere are no unanimous and apparently independent traditions of the\ncommand of Mohammad to assassinate Abu Sofian; there is only one and but\none, by Ibn Sad, which is wholly unreliable, and that too from the lips\nof the would-be assassin himself who before the introduction of Islam\nwas a professional cutthroat, whose narration, therefore, deserves not\nour belief.\n\nEven if it be taken for granted that Mohammad did send some one to\nassassinate Abu Sofian, who had already sent some one to assassinate\nMohammad as related by Ibn Sad, it was justified in self-defence. It was\na measure for retaliation, not one of mere revenge, but only a means of\nprotective retribution, which is lawful under the military law.[232]\n\n[Footnote 205: Selections from the Kur-an by Edward William Lane, with\nan Introduction by Stanley Lane Poole. Intro., p. xliv: Truebner & Co.,\nLondon, 1879.]\n\n[Footnote 206: Islam under the Arabs, by R.D. Osborn, p. 60, London,\n1876.]\n\n[Footnote 207: Wakidi's Campaigns of Mohammad, pp. 172 & 173: Calcutta\nBaptist Mission Press; edited by A. Von Kremer.]\n\n[Footnote 208: Sir W. Muir writes that \"Hishami says, that Mahomet,\nbeing vexed by Asma's verses, said _publicly_, 'Who will rid me of this\nwoman?'\" But there is no such word in Ibn Hisham which may be rendered\n'_publicly_.']\n\n[Footnote 209: Ibn Hisham, p. 994. Wakidi does not give this sentence.\nOn the contrary, he says, Salim had taken a vow to kill Abu Afak or die\nhimself.]\n\n[Footnote 210: Ibn Sad Katib Wakidi, pp. 186, 187.]\n\n[Footnote 211: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, pp.\n147-148.]\n\n[Footnote 212: In the collections of Bokhari in the Book of Campaigns;\nand in the Book of Jihad by Moslim.]\n\n[Footnote 213: Mohammad-bin Sad Katib Wakidi and Mohammad-bin Ishak. The\nlatter in Ibn Hisham, p. 551.]\n\n[Footnote 214: Vide _Osaba-fi Tamiz Issahaba_; or, Biographical\nDictionary of Persons who knew Mohammad, by Ibn Hajr-al-Askalani. Part\nI, No. 1021, p. 434.]\n\n[Footnote 215: Ibn Abbas was only five years old at that time, and was\nat Mecca. His evidence is consequently inadmissible.]\n\n[Footnote 216: Yahya-bin Saeed al Ansaree, Ali-bin Abdullah-bin Abbas,\nIbnal Mosayyab, Ata Ibrahim-bin Maisura, Mohammad-bin Sireen, Kasim, and\nAbdullah-bin Omar say that Ikrama was a liar. Vide _Mizanul Etedal_ of\nZahabi, _Koukabi Durrari Sharah_, _Saheeh Bokhari_, by Shamsuddin\nKirmani; and _Marafat Anwaa-ilm Hadees_, by Abu Omar-ad-Damishki.]\n\n[Footnote 217: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, p. 200.]\n\n[Footnote 218: Elements of International Law, by Henry Wheaton, LL.D.\nSixth edition, by William Beach Lawrence, Boston, 1855; Part IV, Chapter\nI, p. 374, quoting Bynkershoek; in p. 416, quoting Bynkershoek and\nWolff.]\n\n[Footnote 219: _Ibid_, Chapter II, p. 470.]\n\n[Footnote 220: The collections of Moslem _Apud_ Boreida, _vide_ Mishkat,\np. 333.]\n\n[Footnote 221: The collections of Abu Daud in the Book of Jihad, Vol.\nII, p. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 222: The Life of Mohammad based on Mohammad-ibn Ishak, by\nAbdel Malik-ibn Hisham, p. 714.]\n\n[Footnote 223: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, p. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 224: Or Yoseir-bin Razim.]\n\n[Footnote 225: As Khyber was not yet conquered, neither Mohammad could\nmake such a promise, nor the Jews could have been induced to believe it;\ntherefore the story is a false one.]\n\n[Footnote 226: The Life of Mohammad, by Abdel Malik-bin Hisham, pp.\n980-981.]\n\n[Footnote 227: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 16-17.]\n\n[Footnote 228: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV. p. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 229: The Life of Mohammad, by Abdel Malik-bin Hisham, pp.\n992-993. The fighting was, according to Arab custom, in single combats.]\n\n[Footnote 230: Mahomet and his Successors, by Washington Irving, p. 118,\nLondon, 1869.]\n\n[Footnote 231: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 20, foot-note.]\n\n[Footnote 232: Compare \"Contributions to Political Science,\" by Francis\nLieber, LL.D., Vol. II, p. 250.]\n\n\n_The alleged Cruelties in executing the Prisoners of War and others_.\n\n[Sidenote: 57. Treatment of the prisoners of war.]\n\nSome of the war prisoners had received the condign punishment of\nexecution for their crimes in conformity with the laws of war. It has\nbeen alleged by some European biographers of Mohammad that their (the\nwar prisoners') execution was cruel, and that they were accused of no\ncrime except their scepticism and political antagonism.[233]\n\nThe persons executed were as follows:--\n\n 1. Nadhr-bin-Harith.\n 2. Okba.\n 3. Abul Ozza.\n 4. Moavia-bin-Mughira.\n\n[Sidenote: The law of nations regarding the prisoners of war.]\n\nBefore reviewing the case of each prisoner, I must note, by way of\nintroductory remarks, that, under the international or military law, a\nprisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army\nfor active aid, and who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either\nfighting or wounded, on the fields or in the hospitals, by individual\nsurrender or capitulation. All soldiers, of whatever species of arms;\nall men who belong to the rising _en masse_ of the hostile country; all\nthose who are attached to the army for its efficiency and promote\ndirectly the object of the war, except religious persons, officers of\nmedical staff, hospital nurses and servants, all disabled men or\nofficers on the field, or elsewhere, if captured, all enemies who have\nthrown away their arms and asked for quarters, are prisoners of war, and\nas such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled to the\nprivileges of a prisoner of war. He is subject to no punishment for\nbeing a public enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the\ninternational infliction of any suffering or disgrace, by cruel\nimprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other\nbarbarity. But a prisoner of war remains answerable for his crimes\ncommitted against the captor's army or people before he was captured,\nand for which he has not been punished by his own authorities. All\nprisoners of war are liable to the infliction of retaliatory measures.\n\n1.--_Nadhr-bin-Harith_.\n\n[Sidenote: 59. The execution of Nadhr Ibn Harith.]\n\nNadhr (Nazr), one of the prisoners of war, was executed after the battle\nof Badr for his crime of severely tormenting the Moslems at Mecca.\nMusab had distinctly reminded him of his torturing the companions of\nMohammad,[234] so there was nothing of a cruel and vindictive spirit of\nthe Prophet displayed towards his enemies in the execution of Nazr as it\nis made out by Sir W. Muir.[235] On the other hand, his execution is\ndenied by some critics, like Ibn Manda and Abu Naeem, who say, that\nNazr-bin-Haris was present at the battle of Honain, A.H. 8, six years\nafter that of Badr, and was presented with one hundred camels by\nMohammad. Sir W. Muir himself puts down very quietly Nadhir Ibn al\nHarith's name in a foot-note (Vol. IV, page 151) as a recipient of one\nhundred camels at Honain. The same Nadhr-bin-Harith is shown among the\nearliest Moslem refugees who had fled to Abyssinia. These discrepancies\nleave no doubt that the story of Nadhr's execution is not a fact. It is\nalso related by the narrators, who assert Nazr's execution at Badr, that\nhis daughter or sister came to Mohammad and addressed him several\nverses, the hearing of which produced such a tender emotion in him, that\nhis eyes shed tears and said, he would not have issued orders for his\nexecution had he heard these verses before. The following are two of the\nverses which Mohammad heard:\n\n _\"Ma kan Zarraka lao mananta va rubba mamannal\n fata va ho-al mughizul mohnihoo.\"_\n Thou wouldst no harm have seen to set him free,\n Anger how high for pardon has no plea.\n\nBut Zobier-bin-Bakar says, he heard some learned men who objected to\nthese verses on the ground that they were all concocted; and I think\nthat the whole story of Nazr's execution is a spurious one.\n\n2.--_Okba-bin-Mueit_.\n\n[Sidenote: 60. The execution of Okba.]\n\nAnother prisoner, named Okba, was executed after the battle of Badr for\na crime similar to that of Nazr. It is related that while he was going\nto be executed, he asked who would take care of his little girl.\nMohammad replied, \"Hell-fire!\" This is altogether an apocryphal story,\nand owes its origin to the relation of Okba to the tribe of Banunnar, or\nthe \"children of fire.\" Wackidi does not give his authorities for the\nstory, and Ibn Is-hak gives only one immediately before him, which is\ncut short of another intervening link of authorities up to the scene of\noccurrence. Abu Daood narrates it from Masrook, who gave it on the\nauthority of Abdullah-bin-Mas-ood, who does not say he was present at\nthe scene or he heard it directly or indirectly from Mohammad. Besides\nthe circumstances under which Masrook gave out this story are very\nsuspicious, and show that calumny was at work. Masrook was proposed by\nZohak to be entrusted with the administration of a certain district.\nOmmara, the son of Okba, objected to this, as Masrook was one of the\nmurderers of Osman, the third Khalif. Masrook in reply said to Ommara,\non the authority of Ibn Masood, that \"when thy father was being\nexecuted, he had asked the Prophet, who will take care of his little\ngirl.\" The Prophet replied, \"Hell-fire.\" Therefore, I am satisfied for\nthee with what the Prophet had chosen for thy father.[236]\n\nThere is a discrepancy in the mode of Okba's execution as well as about\nthe person who executed him. Ibn Is-hak says, that it was Asim who\nkilled him, and Ibn Hisham, that it was Ali. Ibrahim is of opinion, that\nOkba was executed at Taimee,[237] and Mohammad-bin-Khobeib Hashimi,[238]\nthat he was crucified, from which others differ and say that he was\nbeheaded. I have no belief in Okba's execution at all.\n\n[Sidenote: 61. Free liberty granted to Ozza, a prisoner of war.]\n\nAbul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, and who was one of the\npersecutors of the Moslems at Mecca, had besought Mohammad to release\nhim by way of compassion for his five daughters. Mohammad granted him\nhis life and his liberty.[239] This directly points to the universal\ngenerosity of the Prophet, and from this it will appear that the story\nof Okba's execution runs contrary to his general character and conduct.\nOn these grounds the execution of Okba might be rejected as a fiction.\n\n3.--_Abul Ozza._\n\n[Sidenote: 62. Abul Ozza proved a traitor and was executed.]\n\nAbul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, was allowed his freedom without\nany ransom, on the condition that he would never again bear up arms in\nany war against the Prophet; but he proved a traitor. He exhorted the\nArabs to make war on Mohammad, and joined himself the invading army of\nMecca. He was doomed to misfortune, he was caught at Hamra, and duly\nexecuted.[240] This was in full accordance with the laws and usages of\nwar (_vide ante_, para. 58).\n\n4.--_Moavia Ibn Mughira._\n\n[Sidenote: The execution of Moavia Ibn Mughira.]\n\nMoavia Ibn Mughira, also a prisoner of war, was granted three days'\ntruce, on the condition that if he were found in Medina after the\nappointed time, he was to be executed. The period had passed, and he was\nstill lurking at Medina. At length he was found out and killed by Zeid\nand Ammar on their return from Hamra-al-Assad, after five or six days.\nIt is apparent that Moavia violated his truce, and his lurking in Medina\nmight be either as a spy[241] or scout secretly seeking information.\n\n[Sidenote: 64. Justification of Mughira's execution.]\n\nSir W. Muir, who calls him Othman Ibn Mughira, makes out a favourable\ncase in his behalf. He writes: He \"incautiously lingered at Medina till\nthe last day of his term of grace, when he set out for Mecca.\"[242] But\nIbn Hisham distinctly writes that he \"stayed at Medina after the three\ndays had passed and was found lurking there.\" Even according to Wackidi\nhe was caught on the fourth day. But this is far from truth, for,\naccording to his own account, Mohammad was absent after the battle of\nOhad for five days at Hamra-al-Assad; then how he (Ibn Mughira) could\nhave endeavoured to avoid the returning Moslem force from\nHamra-al-Assad, and lose his way, as Sir W. Muir gives it out, only on\nthe fourth day?\n\nOne of the enemies, who had invaded Medina and attacked Mohammad, was,\nafter being captured, allowed three days' truce on explicit conditions\nthat he was to be killed there if found after three days, and was also\nprovided with a camel and provisions for the way, was discovered lurking\nthereabout on the fifth or sixth day, in consequence of which he lost\nhis life. This is called by Sir W. Muir as being \"perished by a too\ngreat confidence in the generosity of his enemy,\"[243]--_i.e._,\nMohammad.\n\n[Footnote 233: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 307.]\n\n[Footnote 234: Wackidi Campaigns of Mohammad, p. 101, Calcutta, 1855.]\n\n[Footnote 235: \"It was at Otheil that the cruel and vindictive spirit of\nMahomet towards his enemies first began to display itself.\"--Muir's Life\nof Mohamet, Vol. III, p. 115. After this, the author narrates the\nexecution of Nazr. Ibn Is-hak. _Vide_ Ibn Hisham, p. 458; Wackidi, p.\n108; Abu Daood, Vol. II, p. 10. This story is not given by Ibn Hisham\nand Ibn Sad.]\n\n[Footnote 236: Abu Daood as before.]\n\n[Footnote 237: Zorkanee, Vol. II, p. 541.]\n\n[Footnote 238: Sirat Halabi, Vol. II, p. 371.]\n\n[Footnote 239: Wackidi, 105. Insan-ul Oyoon or Sirat Halabi, Vol. II, p.\n464.]\n\n[Footnote 240: Wackidi, p. 105; Hishami, p. 591; Insan-ul-Oyoon or Sirat\nHalabi, Vol. II, p. 464.]\n\n[Footnote 241: Ibn Hisham, p. 591; Wackidi, pp. 324 and 325.]\n\n[Footnote 242: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, p. 185.]\n\n[Footnote 243: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, 185.]\n\n\n_The intended Execution of the Prisoners of Badr._\n\n[Sidenote: 63. The wrong version of Sir W. Muir.]\n\nSir W. Muir writes: \"It would even seem to have been contemplated at the\nclose of the battle to kill all the prisoners. Mahomet is represented by\ntradition as himself directing this course.\" In a foot-note he says,\n\"Thus Mahomet said: 'Tell not Said of his brother's death'\" (Mabad, a\nprisoner, see above, page 110 note); \"but kill ye every man his\nprisoner.\"--(Wackidi, 100.) Again: \"Take not any man his brother\nprisoner, but rather kill him\" (page 101). \"I would not, however, lay\ntoo much stress on these traditions. I am inclined rather to view them\nas called into existence by the passages quoted below from the\nCoran.\"[244] The contemplated execution of the prisoners is not borne\nout by the traditions which Sir W. Muir himself looks upon as fabricated\nones. The true translation of the passages in Wackidi referred to above\nis as follows:--\n\n_First passage._--\"Tell not Said of his brother's killing (_i.e._, being\nkilled), so he will kill every prisoner in your hands.\"--(Wackidi, page\n100.) This obviously means, that do not let Saeed know that his brother\nWahid, who was made prisoner and killed by Omar or Abu Barda, was\nkilled. If you do so, he will, being enraged, kill every prisoner now in\nyour hands. It is very strange that Sir W. Muir translates the sentence\nto mean \"kill ye every man his prisoner!\"\n\n_Second passage._--\"No body must take his brother's prisoner, so that he\nmay be killed,\" meaning none of you should seize other person's\nprisoner. If you do so, perhaps, the other person may kill the prisoner\nin the contest. Sir W. Muir has quite misunderstood the sentence.\n\n[Sidenote: 66. Mohammad never blamed in the Koran for relieving\nprisoners.]\n\nThere are some fictitious traditions on the subject that Mohammad was\nreprimanded in the Koran (Sura, viii, 68, 69) for releasing the\nprisoners of Badr, meaning that he ought to have executed them. The\nverse is translated thus:--\n\n\"It is not for a Prophet to take prisoners until (_hatta_) he hath\nslaughtered in the land. Ye wish to have the goods of this world, but\nGod wishes for the next, for God is Mighty, Wise! Were it not for a book\nfrom God that had gone before, there would have touched you, for which\nye took, a mighty punishment.\"\n\nThe verse 68, if it is rightly translated, will mean that prisoners\nshould not be executed. The word '_hatta_' means '_until_,' and is also\nused as a causative word. I prefer the latter, and translate--\n\n\"It is not for any Prophet that prisoners may be brought to him _in\norder_ that he may make slaughter in the land,\" which means, that it is\nnot proper for a Prophet to take prisoners of war in order to slaughter\nthem. This meaning is in consonance with the other passage in the Koran\n(xlvii, 4), which restricts the treatment of the prisoners of war to\neither free dismissal or ransom.\n\nIn the first place, the verse rather reprimanded those who wished to\nkill the prisoners; and in the second, those who desired to exact ransom\nfor their liberty. They ought to have set them at liberty without any\npecuniary advantage, if they knew any good in their deserving free\nliberty.\n\n[Footnote 244: _Ibid_, p. 117.]\n\n\n_Kind Treatment of the Prisoners of War by Mohammad._\n\n[Sidenote: 67. The Koran enjoins, the prisoners of war to be either\nfreely liberated or ransomed, but neither executed nor enslaved.]\n\nThe prisoners of war were always treated kindly by Mohammad, and the\nancient practice of killing and enslaving them was much discouraged and\nabolished by the Koran.\n\n\"And when ye meet those who misbelieve, then strike off heads until ye\nhave massacred them, and bind fast the bonds!\"\n\n\"Then either a free grant (of liberty) or a ransom until the war shall\nhave laid down its burdens.\"--Sura, xlvii, 4 and 5.\n\nRegarding the prisoners of Badr Sir W. Muir writes: \"In pursuance of\nMahomet's commands, the citizens of Medina, and such of the refugees as\npossessed houses, received the prisoners and treated them with much\nconsideration.\" \"Blessing be on the men of Medina!\" said these prisoners\nin latter days. \"They made us ride, while they themselves walked; they\ngave us wheatened bread to eat, when there was little of it, contenting\nthemselves with dates.\" It is not surprising that when, some time after,\ntheir friends came to ransom them, several of the prisoners who had been\nthus received declared themselves adherents of Islam: and to such the\nProphet granted a liberty without the usual payment.[245]\n\nThe prisoners of the Bani Mustalik were released without paying any\nransom.[246]\n\nThe Bani Hawazin were made prisoners of war at Honain, fought in the\neighth year of the Hegira, but were all set free without any exaction of\nransom from them. Mohammad first released his prisoners, and the men of\nMecca and Medina cheerfully followed his example.[247] The prisoners\nwere six thousand in number.[248]\n\nA party of eighty, as related by Moslim in his _Saheeh_, or of forty or\nfifty Koreish, as narrated by Ibn Hisham (p. 745), went round about\nMohammad's camp while stationed at Hodeibia in A.H. 6, seeking to cut\noff any stray followers, and having attacked the camp itself with stones\nand arrows, they were caught and taken prisoners to Mohammad, who, with\nhis usual generosity, pardoned and released them.\n\nKhalid-Ibn-Waleed, in the year of his victory, A.H. 11, when he was\nsent to call the Bani Jazima to embrace Islam, had made them prisoners\nand ordered their execution. Some of the better-informed of the Moslems\nof the injunctions of the Koran, of releasing prisoners either freely or\nby exacting ransom, interposed and accused him of committing an act of\nthe Time of Ignorance. Mohammad, much displeased, grieved at the\nintelligence, and said twice, 'O God! I am innocent of what Khalid hath\ndone.'[249]\n\n[Footnote 245: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 122 and 123.]\n\n[Footnote 246: _Ibid_, Vol. III, p. 243.]\n\n[Footnote 247: _Ibid_, Vol. IV. pp. 148 and 149.]\n\n[Footnote 248: Ibn Hisham, p. 877.]\n\n[Footnote 249: Ibn Hisham, pp. 833 and 835.]\n\n\n_The Execution of the Bani Koreiza._\n\n[Sidenote: 68. High treason of the Bani Koreiza against Medina, and\ntheir execution.]\n\nThe Bani Koreiza, a Jewish tribe living in the vicinity of Mecca had\nentered into an alliance with the Moslem Commonwealth to defend the city\nof Medina from the attack of the aggressors. While Medina was besieged\nby the ten thousand Koreish and other Bedouin tribes in A.H. 6, they\n(the Koreiza), instead of co-operating with the Moslems, defected from\ntheir allegiance and entered into negotiations with the besieging foe.\nAfter the cessation of the siege, they were besieged in their turn, and\na fearful example was made of them, not by Mohammad, but by an arbiter\nchosen and appointed by themselves. The execution of some of them was\nnot on account of their being prisoners of war; they were war-traitors\nand rebels, and deserved death according to the international law. Their\ncrime was high treason against Medina while it was blockaded. There had\nno actual fighting taken place between the Bani Koreiza and the Moslems,\nafter the former had thrown off their allegiance to the latter and had\naided and abetted the enemies of the realm. They were besieged by the\nMoslems to punish them for their high treason, and consequently they\nwere not prisoners of war. Even such prisoners of war suffer for high\ntreason.\n\n\"Treating, in the field, the rebellious enemy according to the law and\nusages of war, has never prevented the legitimate Government from trying\nthe leaders of the rebellion, or chief rebels for high treason, and from\ntreating them accordingly, unless they are included in a general\namnesty.\"[250]\n\n[Sidenote: 69. The whole of the Bani Koreiza was never executed.]\n\nThe whole tribe of the Bani Koreiza was not executed, nor all the male\nprisoners were put to the sword.[251] The number slain was comparatively\nvery small. That they were not executed at the commands of Mohammad, nor\n_all_ of them were killed, nor a divine sanction was alleged for it, is\nshown by the following verse of the Koran:\n\n\"And he caused those of the people of the Book (the Jews) who had aided\nthe confederates to come down of their fortresses, and cast dismay into\ntheir hearts: some ye slew; others ye took prisoners.\"--Sura, xxxiii,\n26.\n\nThe slaying and taking of prisoners is attributed to them to whom the\nverse is addressed as their own act.\n\n[Sidenote: 70. The women and children of the Bani Koreiza were not\nsold.]\n\nThe rest of the Bani Koreiza,--male adults, women, and children,--were\neither liberated or got themselves ransomed. We read in Oyoon-al-Asar by\nIbn Sayyad-al-Nas some account of the ransom. Osman-bin-Affan gathered\nmuch money by the transaction. But Sir W. Muir quotes from Hishamee,\nthat the rest of the women and children were sent to be sold among the\nBedouin tribes of Najd, in exchange of horse and arms.[252] But there is\nno authority for this story. Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman, in his Campaigns of\nMohammad, gives another account which is more probable. He writes:--\n\n\"Out of what was captured from Bani Koreiza Mohammad took seventeen\nhorses and distributed them among his people. The rest he divided into\ntwo halves. One-half he sent with Sad bin Obadd to Syria, and the other\nhalf with Ans bin Quizi to the land of Ghatafan, and ordered that they\nmay be used there for breeding purposes. They did so, and got good\nhorses.\"[253]\n\n[Sidenote: 71. The exaggerated number of the persons executed.]\n\nThe number of male adults executed has been much exaggerated, though it\nis immaterial, when an execution duly authorized by the international\nlaw of a country takes place, to consider the smallness or greatness of\nthe number. I cannot do better than quote Moulvie Ameer Ali of Calcutta\non the subject, who has very judiciously criticised the same: \"Passing\nnow to the men executed,\" he says, \"one can at once see how it has been\nexaggerated. Some say they were 400; others have carried the number even\nup to 900. But Christian historians generally give it as varying from\n700 to 800. I look upon this as a gross exaggeration. Even 400 would\nseem an exaggerated number. The traditions agree in making the warlike\nmaterials of the Bani Koreiza consist of 300 cuirasses, 500 bucklers,\n1,500 sabres, &c. In order to magnify the value of the spoil, the\ntraditions probably exaggerated these numbers.[254] But taking them as\nthey stand, and remembering that such arms are always kept greatly in\nexcess of the number of fighting men, I am led to the conclusion that\nthe warriors could not have been more than 200 or 300. The mistake\nprobably arose from confounding the whole body of prisoners who fell\ninto the hands of the Moslems with those executed.\"[255]\n\nEven 200 seems to be a large number, as all of the prisoners were put\nup for the night in the house of Bint-al-Haris,[256] which would have\nbeen insufficient for such a large number.\n\n[Footnote 250: Miscellaneous Writings of Francis Lieber, Vol. II.\nContributions to Political Science, p. 273, Philadelphia, 1881.]\n\n[Footnote 251: Some of the Koreizites were released, among whom we hear\nof Zobeir Ibn Bata, and Rifaa. They were pardoned by Mohammad.]\n\n[Footnote 252: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 279.]\n\n[Footnote 253: _History of Mohammad's Campaigns_: Edited by Von Kremer,\np. 374.]\n\n[Footnote 254: \"Compare the remarks of Ibn-Khaldun (Prelegomenes d' Ibn\nKhaldoun, traduits par M. de Slane, Part I, p. 14).\"]\n\n[Footnote 255: A Critical Examination of the Life and Teachings of\nMohammed, by Syed Ameer Ali, Moulvi, M.A., LL.B., of the Inner Temple,\nBarrister-at-Law, p. 113: William and Norgate, London, 1873.]\n\n[Footnote 256: Ibn Hisham, p. 689. Others say the males were kept in the\nhouse of Osman-bin-Zaed, and the females and children in the house of\nBint-al-Haris. _Vide_ Insan-al-Oyoon, by Halabi. Vol. III, p. 93.]\n\n\n_Some Miscellaneous Objections Refuted._\n\n1.--_Omm Kirfa._\n\n[Sidenote: 72. The execution of Omm Kirfa for brigandage.]\n\nThe barbarous execution of Omm Kirfa, a female, who was notorious as the\nmistress of a nest of robbers, by tying her each leg to a separate camel\nand being torn asunder, is not a fact. It is only mentioned by Katib\nWackidi, and is not to be found in any other earliest account of\nWackidi, Ibn Is-hak, and Ibn Hisham. Even Katib Wackidi does not say\nthat the execution was ordered by Mohammad, and it is not fair on the\npart of Sir W. Muir to hold Mohammad an accomplice in the ferocious act,\nbecause he reads of no disapprobation expressed by the Prophet at such\nan inhuman treatment.[257] But in the first place the narration is a\nmere fiction; and secondly, the traditions are, as a rule, always\nincomplete; in one place they are given shorter, and in another longer,\naccording to the circumstances of the occasion on which they are\noriginally recited. Ibn Hisham relates, that \"Zaid-bin-Harisa ordered\nKays-bin-Mosahhar to execute Omm Kirfa, so he executed her with a\nviolent execution.\" ('_Katlan Aneefan_,' p. 980.) He does not relate\nthat Mohammad was even informed of the execution after the party had\nreturned from this terrible mission. I think the word '_aneef_'\n(_violent_ or _severe_), as used originally by the narrator, might have\nbeen the cause of the growth of the story of executing by tying up to\ntwo camels, by way of a gratuitous explanation or glossary, as another\ntradition relates that she was tied to the tails of two horses (_vide\nKoostalanee_ in his Commentary on Bokharee, Vol. III, p. 307).\n\n2.--_Urnee Robbers._\n\n[Sidenote: 73. The alleged mutilation of the Urnee robbers.]\n\nSome _Urnee_ robbers, lately converted, had plundered the camels of\nMedina and barbarously handled their herdsman, for they cut off his\nhands and legs, and struck thorny spikes into his tongue and eyes, till\nhe died. The bandits were pursued, captured, and executed by\nKurz-bin-Jabir. \"They had merited death,\" says Sir W. Muir, \"but the\nmode in which he inflicted it was barbarous and inhuman. The arms and\nlegs of eight men were cut off, and their eyes were put out. The\nshapeless, sightless trunks of these wretched Bedouins were then impaled\nupon the plain of Al Ghaba, until life was extinct.\"[258] As the robbers\nhad mutilated the herdsman, this gave currency to their having been\nmutilated in retaliation. But in fact Mohammad never ordered mutilation\nin any case. He was so averse to this practice, that several traditions\nfrom various sources emanating from him to the effect, prove that he\nprohibited mutilation lest he himself be mutilated by divine\njudgment.[259]\n\n[Sidenote: 74. Amputation or banishment substituted temporarily in place\nof imprisonment for want of a well-organized system of jails.]\n\nSir W. Muir continues:--\"On reflection, Mahomet appears to have felt\nthat this punishment exceeded the bounds of humanity. He accordingly\npromulgated a Revelation, in which capital punishment is limited to\nsimple death or crucifixion. Amputation of the hands and feet is,\nhowever, sanctioned as a penal measure; and amputation of the hands is\neven enjoined as the proper penalty for theft, whether the criminal be\nmale or female. This barbarous custom has accordingly been perpetuated\nthroughout the Mahometan world. But the putting out of the eyes is not\nrecognized among the legal punishments.\"[260]\n\nThese alternative punishments were prescribed for the heinous crimes of\nhighway robbery, dacoity, and theft by house-breaking. They were (i)\ncapital punishment, (ii) amputation, and (iii) banishment (Sura, v, 37,\n42), according to the circumstances of the case. The last two were of a\ntemporary nature substituted for imprisonment for want of an organized\nsystem of jails and prisons. When the Commonwealth was in its infancy,\nthe troubles of the invasions and wars of the aggressive Koreish and\ntheir allies had left neither peace nor security at Medina to take such\nadministrative measures as to organize a system of building, guarding,\nand maintaining jails, their inmates and their establishments. As soon\nas jails were established in the Mohammadan Commonwealth, amputation and\nbanishment gave way to imprisonment. The prisoners of war, not being\ncriminals, used to be made over by Mohammad to some citizens of Medina,\nas in the case of the prisoners of the battle of Badr, to keep them in\ntheir houses as guests, on account of the want of prisons; but as for\nthe other criminals--the highway robbers, dacoits, and\nhouse-breakers--they could not be treated and entertained so hospitably.\nThus there was left no alternative for them except either to banish such\ncriminals, or to award them corporal punishment in the shape of\namputation.[261]\n\n3.--_Torture of Kinana._\n\n[Sidenote: 75. Torture of Kinana.]\n\nIt is related by the biographers \"that Kinana, chief of the Jews of\nKhyber, and his cousin had kept back, in contravention of their compact,\na portion of their riches. On the discovery of this attempt at\nimposition, Kinana was subjected to cruel torture--'fire being placed\nupon his breast till his breath had almost departed'--in the hope that\nhe would confess where the rest of his treasures were concealed. Mahomet\nthen gave command, and the heads of the chief and his cousin were\nsevered from their bodies.\"[262]\n\nThe story of Kinana's being subjected to extortion and put to death for\nhiding some treasure, for which he had contravened his contract, is\naltogether a spurious one. Kinana was executed in retaliation for\ntreacherously killing Mahmud, the brother of Mohammad-bin-Moslama, to\nwhom he was made over for execution. There is one tradition, without any\nauthority, to the effect, that Zobeir was producing fire on Kinana's\nbreast by the friction of flint and steel. This, if it be a fact, does\nnot show that it was done by Mohammad's direction and approval. On the\ncontrary, there are several traditions from the Prophet himself in which\nhe has forbidden to punish any one with fire. It is related by Bokharee\nfrom Ibn Abbas, that Mohammad said, \"God only can punish with fire.\" It\nis also related by Abu Daood from Abdullah, that the Prophet said, \"No\nbody ought to punish any one with fire except the Lord of the\nfire.\"[263]\n\n4.--_A Singing-Girl executed._\n\n[Sidenote: 76. The alleged execution of a singing-girl.]\n\n\"From general amnesty extended to the citizens of Mecca, Mahomet\nexcluded ten or twelve persons. Of these, however, only four were\nactually put to death.... The two next were renegade Moslems, who having\nshed blood at Medina had fled to Mecca, and abjured Islam. They were\nboth slain, and also a singing-girl belonging to one of them, who had\nbeen in the habit of annoying the Prophet by abusive verses.\"\n\n\"Their names are Abdallah ibn Khalal and Mikyas ibn Subaba. The murder\ncommitted by the former is said to have been wilful, that of the latter\nunintentional. Abdallah had two singing-girls. Both were sentenced to\ndeath, but one escaped and afterwards obtained quarter; the execution of\nthe other appears to have been the worst act committed by Mahomet on the\npresent occasion.\"[264]\n\nAbdullah had committed cold-blooded murder, and most probably the\nsinging-girl belonging to him had taken a share in his crime. Her\nexecution was owing to her being an accomplice or abettor in the foul\nact which was justified by law. Then why should the execution be\nconsidered a worst act? Mohammad felt the deepest respect for the weaker\nsex, and had enjoined during the warfares \"not to kill women;\" but the\nlaw makes no difference amongst the sexes, both sexes being liable to\npunishment according to their deserts.\n\n[Sidenote: 77. The charitable spirit of Mohammad towards his enemies.]\n\nThe magnanimity, clemency, forbearance, and forgiveness of Mohammad at\nthe time of his victory at Mecca were very remarkable. Mr. Stanley Lane\nPoole with his usual acumen writes:--\"But the final keystone was set in\nthe eighth year of the flight (A.D. 630), when a body of the Kureysh\nbroke the truce by attacking an ally of the Muslims; and Mohammad\nforthwith marched upon Mekka with ten thousand men, and the city,\ndefence being hopeless, surrendered. Now was the time for the Prophet to\nshow his bloodthirsty nature. His old persecutors are at his feet. Will\nhe not trample on them, torture them, revenge himself after his own\ncruel manner? Now the man will come forward in his true colours: we may\nprepare our horror, and cry shame beforehand.\n\n\"But what is this? Is there no blood in the streets? Where are the\nbodies of the thousands that have been butchered? Facts are hard things;\nand it is a fact that the day of Mohammad's greatest triumph over his\nenemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely\nforgave the Kureysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn they had\ninflicted on him: he gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mekka.\nFour criminals, whom justice condemned, made up Mohammad's proscription\nlist when he entered as a conqueror the city of his bitterest enemies.\nThe army followed the example, and entered quietly and peaceably; no\nhouse was robbed, no woman insulted.\"[265]\n\n5.--_Abu Basir._\n\n[Sidenote: 78. Abu Basir not countenanced by the Prophet in\ncontravention of the spirit of the treaty of Hodeibia.]\n\nSir W. Muir says that \"Abu Basir, the free-booter, was countenanced by\nthe Prophet in a manner scarcely consistent with the letter, and\ncertainly opposed to the spirit, of the truce of Hodeibia.\"[266] It was\none of the articles of the treaty of Hodeibia between the Koreish and\nMohammad, that if any one goeth over to Mohammad without the permission\nof his guardian, he shall be sent back to him.[267] A short time after,\nAbu Basir, a Moslem imprisoned at Mecca, effected his escape and\nappeared at Medina. His guardians, Azhar and Akhnas, sent two servants\nto Mohammad with a letter and instructions to bring the deserter back to\nhis house. The obligation of surrender was at once admitted by Mohammad,\nthough Abu Basir pleaded the persecution which he used to suffer at\nMecca as the cause of refusing to return, but Mohammad argued that it\nwas not proper for him to break the terms of the peace, and Abu Basir\nwas compelled to set out for Mecca. But he had travelled only a few\nmiles when he treacherously seized the sword of one of his escorts and\nslew him. The other servant fled back to Medina, whither Abu Basir also\nfollowed him. On the return of the latter, he contended that the Prophet\nhad already fulfilled the treaty to its very letter in delivering him\nup, but the Prophet replied, \"Alas for his mother! What a kindler of\nwar, if he had with him any one!\" When he heard this \"he knew that the\nProphet was again going to send him back to his guardians,[268] the\nKoreish, so he went away to the seashore, where he, with others who had\njoined him after their flight from captivity at Mecca, used to waylay\nthe caravans from Mecca.\" This story, which is also briefly narrated by\nIbn Is-hak, and more fully by Shamee, Zoorkanee and Ibn-al-Kyyim, does\nnot show that Mohammad acted against the spirit and letter of the truce\nof Hodeibia.\n\nHe himself never countenanced Abu Basir; on the contrary, he delivered\nhim up in conformity with the terms of the treaty of Hodeibia, and when\nhe had returned, Abu Basir had every reason to believe that Mohammad\nwould again despatch him to the quarters whence he had come. But it\nappears Abu Basir went away to the seashore, out of Mohammad's\njurisdiction, and it was not the duty of the Prophet to effect his\narrest and send him back to Mecca whilst he was not with him, or rather\nout of his jurisdiction. Had he even kept him with himself at Medina\nafter he had once made him over to the party sent forth to take charge\nof him, and were no other demands made for his delivery, I do not think\nMohammad could be fairly blamed for it according to the international\nlaw of the Arabs, or even according to the terms of the treaty of\nHodeibia itself.\n\n6.--_Employment of Nueim to break up the confederates who had besieged\nMedina._\n\n[Sidenote: 79. Nueim not employed by the Prophet to circulate false\nreports in the enemy's camp.]\n\nWhen Medina was besieged for several days by the Koreish and their\nconfederates, the army of Medina was harassed and wearied with\nincreasing watch and duty. Nueim, an Arab of a neutral tribe,\nrepresented himself as a secret believer, and offered his services to\nthe Prophet, who accepted them, and employed him to hold back the\nconfederates from the siege, if he could, saying \"war verily was a game\nof deception.\" Nueim excited mutual distrust between the Jews and the\nKoreish. He told the Jews not to fight against Mohammad until they got\nhostages from the Koreish as a guarantee against their being deserted.\nAnd to the Koreish he said that the Jews intended to ask hostages from\nthem. \"Do not give them,\" he said, \"they have promised Mahomet to give\nup the hostages to be slain.\"[269]\n\nThis is one tradition, and there is another to the effect that the Jews\nhad themselves asked for the hostages, but the Koreish had not replied\nyet, when Nueim came to the Jews and said, he was there with Abu Sofian\nwhen their messenger had come for the demand of hostages, and that Abu\nSofian is not going to send them any.[270]\n\nA third tradition in Motamid Ibn Solyman's supplement to Wackidi's\n_Campaigns of Mohammad_ gives no such story at all. It has altogether a\ndifferent narration to the effect, that there was a spy of the Koreish\nin the Moslem camp who had overheard Abdullah-bin-Rawaha saying, that\nthe Jews had asked the Koreish to send them seventy persons, who, on\ntheir arrival, would be killed by them. Nueim went to the Koreish, who\nwere waiting for his message, and told what he had heard as already\nrelated.[271] This contradicts the story given by Ibn Hisham and Mr.\nMuir. But anyhow the story does not prove that Mohammad had given\npermission to Nueim to speak falsehood or spread treacherous reports.\n\n[Sidenote: 80. Deception in way allowed by the international law.]\n\nSir W. Muir is not justified in his remarks when he writes,--\"We cannot,\nindeed, approve the employment of Nueim to break up the confederacy by\nfalsehood and deception, but this perhaps would hardly affect his\ncharacter in Arab estimation;\"[272] and further on he writes,--\"When\nMedina was beleagured by the confederate army, Mahomet sought the\nservices of Nueim, a traitor, and employed him to sow distrust among the\nenemy by false and treacherous reports: for,\" said he, \"what else is war\nbut a game at deception.\"[273] The utmost that can be made out from the\nformer tradition quoted by Mr. Muir, and contradicted by another\ntradition of equal force, is that Mohammad allowed deception in war by\nquoting the proverbial saying, that \"war is a game at deception.\" In\nthis he had the sanction of the military law or the international law,\nas deception in war is a \"military necessity,\" and allowed by the law\nand usages of war. A modern author on the international law says:--\n\n\"Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of\n_armed_ enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally\n_unavoidable_ in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the\ncapturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the\nhostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of\nall destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of\ntraffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance\nor means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an\nenemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the\narmy, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good\nfaith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into\nduring the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist.\"[274]\n\n[Sidenote: 81. Lecky's Standard of Morality.]\n\nBut supposing the modern morality does not approve of Mohammad what\nhardly \"affected his character in Arab estimation,\" are there no\ndiversities in moral judgments? The moral unity to be expected in\ndifferent ages is not a unity of standard or of facts, but a unity of\ntendency.\n\n\"That some savage kill their old parents, that infanticide has been\npractised without compunction by even civilized nations, that the best\nRomans saw nothing wrong in the gladiatorial shows, that political or\nrevengeful assassinations have been for centuries admitted, that slavery\nhas been sometimes honoured and sometimes condemned, are unquestionable\nproofs, that the same act may be regarded in one age as innocent, and in\nanother as criminal. Now it is undoubtedly true, that in many cases an\nhistorical examination will reveal special circumstances explaining or\npalliating the apparent anomaly. It has been often shown that the\ngladiatorial shows were originally a form of human sacrifice adopted\nthrough religious motives; that the rude nomadic life of savages\nrendering impossible the preservation of aged and helpless members of\nthe tribe, the murder of parents was regarded as an act of mercy both by\nthe murderer and the victim; that before an effective administration of\njustice was organized, private vengeance was the sole preservation\nagainst crime, and political assassination against usurpation; that the\ninsensibility of some savages to the criminality of theft arises from\nthe fact that they were accustomed to have all things in common; that\nthe Spartan law legalizing theft arose partly from a desire to foster\nmilitary dexterity among the people, but chiefly from a desire to\ndiscourage wealth; that slavery was introduced through motives of mercy\nto prevent conquerors from killing their prisoners. All this is true,\nbut there is another and a more general answer. It is not to be\nexpected, and it is not maintained, that men in all ages should have\nagreed about the application of their moral principles. All that is\ncontended for is, that these principles are themselves the same. Some of\nwhat appear to us monstrous acts of cruelty were dictated by that very\nfeeling of humanity, the universal perception of the merit of which they\nare cited to disprove; and even when this is not the case, all that can\nbe inferred is, that the standard of humanity was very low. But still\nhumanity was recognized as a virtue, and cruelty as a vice.\"[275]\n\n_The alleged permission to kill the Jews._\n\n[Sidenote: 82. Murder of Ibn Sanina.]\n\nIt is related by some of the biographers of Mohammad, eagerly recited by\nothers of Europe, that, \"on the morning after the murder of Kab, Mahomet\ngave a general permission to his followers to slay any Jews whom they\nmight chance to meet,\"[276] and that the murder of Ibn Sanina, a Jewish\nmerchant, by Muheiasa, a Moslem, was the direct consequence of this\norder. \"When Huweisa upbraided Muheiasa for killing his confederate the\nJew, and appropriating his wealth,--\"By the Lord!\" replied Muheiasa, \"if\nhe that commanded me to kill him commanded to kill thee also, I would\nhave done it.\" \"What!\" Huweisa cried, \"wouldst thou have slain thine own\nbrother at Mahomet's bidding?\"--\"Even so,\" answered the fanatic.\n\"Strange indeed!\" Huweisa responded. \"Hath the new religion reached to\nthis pitch! Verily it is a wonderful Faith.\" And Huweisa was converted\nfrom that very hour.\"[277]\n\nIbn Is-hak says this story was related to him by a freedman of the Bani\nHarisa tribe from the daughter of Muheiasa, who had heard it from her\nfather.[278] (1) Now there is nothing known of this mysterious person,\nthe freedman of the tribe of Haris, therefore no reliance can be put on\nhis story. (2) We have no knowledge of the daughter of the murderer\nMuheiasa, or Moheisa, as he is called by the biographer, Ibn Hisham. (3)\nMuheiasa himself has not that respectable character which can lend even\na shadow of veracity to his narration. (4) And lastly, the story that\nMohammad had given general permission to his followers to slay any Jew\nwhom they might chance to meet, and consequently Muheiasa killed Ibn\nSanina, and Huweisa became a convert to Islam, is contradicted by\nanother counter-tradition in Ibn Hisham (pp. 554-555), who has related\nfrom Abu Obeida, who relates from Abu Omar-al-Madani, that, \"during the\nexecution of the Bani Koreiza (_vide_ para. 68), one Kab-bin-Yahooza was\nmade over to Muheiasa for execution. When the latter executed his\nvictim, Huweisa, his brother, who was still unbelieving, upbraided\nMuheiasa. \"If he,\" responded Muheiasa, \"that commanded me to kill him\nhad commanded me to kill thee also, I would have killed thee.\" Huweisa\nwas quite surprised at his brother's reply, and went away astonished.\nDuring the night he used to wake up repeatedly, and wonder at his\nbrother's staunch devotion to his faith. In the morning, he said, \"By\nthe Lord! This is a wonderful faith,\" and came to the Prophet to embrace\nIslam. These remarks show that the alleged permission to kill the Jews,\nand Ibn Sanina's murder, and Huweisa's conversion in consequence\nthereof, is all a mere concoction.\n\n[Sidenote: 83. Sir W. Muir quoted.]\n\nEven Sir W. Muir, though very fond of collecting all such apocryphal\ntraditions reflecting on the character of the Prophet, doubts the\nveracity of this one, and declares its improbability and inexpediency.\nHe writes:--\n\n \"But the order itself is a strange one, and must, one would\n suppose, have been accompanied by some conditions or reservations\n not here apparent. It was surely not expedient for the Prophet's\n cause at this time that the streets of Medina should have flowed\n with blood by the strict execution of this command. Yet such is the\n distinct tenor of the best traditions.\n\n \"The order was not an unlikely one to have issued at a time when\n Mahomet was irritated against the Jews by their treachery; and\n Hishami has a tradition that it was promulgated when Mahomet\n directed the massacre of all the males of the Coreitza, which would\n have been the more likely version, if the other tradition had not\n been so strong and positive.\"[279]\n\nBut the tradition quoted by him is by no means the best or strongest as\nI have shown above. Hishamee does not say that the order was promulgated\nat the execution of the Bani Koreiza. He simply narrates the story of\nMuheiasa and Huweisa to have taken place at that time.\n\n_The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer._\n\n[Sidenote: 84. The Bani Nazeer.]\n\nThe expulsion of the Bani Nazeer has been censured by Sir W. Muir, who\nsays: \"The pretext on which the Bani Nadhir were besieged and\nexpatriated (namely, that Gabriel had revealed their design against the\nProphet's life), was feeble and unworthy of an honest cause.\"[280]\n\nA whole Sura in the Koran is devoted to the Bani Nazeer, but it does\nnot hint at the alleged crime of their attempt on the life of the\nProphet or their expulsion for the same cause. The traditions on the\nsubject are unsupported, _ex parte_, and legendary. Had such a tradition\nbeen current at the time of Mohammad, or what is called Sadr Av-val (the\nfirst or Apostolic Age), we should certainly have had scores of\nnarrators on the subject.[281] Their crime was treachery,[282] and they\nwere a dangerous element to Medina, for a combination, at any period,\nbetween the treacherous Jews and the aggressive Koreish, or other\nenemies of Islam, would have proved fatal to the safety of Medina. But\ntheir banishment was too mild a punishment.\n\n[Sidenote: 85. Fruit-trees not cut down.]\n\nIt is said that Mohammad cut down the surrounding date trees and burned\nthe choicest of them during the siege of the Bani Nazeer, and justified\nhimself by publishing the verses of the LIX Sura of the Koran.[283] But\nthe date trees cut down were neither bearing fruit, nor did they supply\nany staple article of food to the Bani Nazeer, or the public in general.\nThe _Leena_ mentioned in the verse referred to above is a tree without\nfruit. Thus no fruit trees were destroyed. (Zoorkanee Vol. II, page 98.)\nTrees not bearing fruits were only cut, which is also justified under\nthe Law of Moses. (See Deuteronomy XX, 20.)\n\n_Females and the Treaty of Hodeibia._\n\n[Sidenote: 86. Females and the treaty of Hodeibia.]\n\nFemales were not included in the truce of Hodeibia. The stipulation for\nthe surrender of deserters referred only to the male sex. All women who\nwere to come over to Medina from Mecca during the period of the peace\nwere, by the dictates of Sura LX, 10, to be tried, and if their\nprofession was found sincere, they were to be retained. They were\nprohibited from marrying the unbelievers. The guardians of such\nbelieving females were to receive from the Moslem commonwealth what they\nhad spent upon their charges. Sir W. Muir understands from Sura LX,\nverse 10, that the women referred to therein were the wives of the\nMeccans, and says:--\"The unbelief of their husbands dissolved the\nprevious marriage; they now might legally contract fresh nuptials with\nbelievers, provided only that restitution were made of any sums expended\nby their former husbands as dower upon them.\"[284] But there is nothing\neither to show that the women had their husbands at Mecca, or to prove,\nthat, on account of their husbands' unbelief, their marriages were\nannulled. As marriage with women with husbands is forbidden in Sura IV,\nverse 28, and the verse LX, 10, under discussion, does not designate\nthem as married women, I fairly conclude that this verse treats only of\nsuch as were not married. It is not the Law of the Koran that the\nunbelief of either party dissolves their previous marriage. It only\nenjoins neither to marry idolatresses, nor to wed Moslem daughters with\nidolaters until they believe.--(Sura II, 220.)\n\n[Sidenote: 87. Stanley defended.]\n\nSir William Muir, after quoting Sura LX, 10-12, says, \"Stanley on\nCorinthians (1 Cor. VII, 1-40) quotes the above passage, and says that\nthe rule it contains \"resembles that of the Apostle,\" Vol. I, page 145.\nBut there is really no analogy between them; the Gospel rule differs\n_toto coelo_ from that of Mahomet:--\"If any brother hath a wife that\nbelieveth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her\naway.--And similarly the case of a believing wife with an unbelieving\nhusband. (1 Cor. VII, 12-16.) Whereas Mahomet declares the marriage bond\n_de facto_ annulled by the unbelief of either party, which indeed was\nonly to be expected from his loose ideas regarding the marriage\ncontract.\"[285] I think Stanley is quite correct, and the Gospel and the\nKoranic rule resemble each other in this respect. Because the order,\n\"they (the believing women) are not lawful for them (unbelievers), nor\nare the unbelievers lawful for these (believing women),\" does not relate\nto the women already married; and the words, \"do not retain any right in\nthe infidel woman ... if any of your wives escape from you to the\ninfidels ...\" are to the same purport as 1 Cor. VII, 15, \"But if the\nunbelieving depart let them depart. A brother or a sister is not under\nbondage in such cases.\"[286]\n\n[Sidenote 88. Marriage a strict bond of union.]\n\nMohammad had no loose ideas regarding the marriage tie. He had made the\nmarriage contract more firm and irrevocable, except under very\nexceptional circumstances, than it was under the Arab society; and\ncalled it \"a strict bond of union.\"[287] Mohammad's own daughter,\nZeinab, was the wife of an unbelieving husband and had fled to her\nfather at Medina under the persecution at Mecca after the Hegira.[288]\nHer marriage with her unbelieving partner was not cancelled by Mohammad,\nand on the conversion of the son-in-law, when he came after a period of\nsix years after his wife had come to Medina, Mohammad rejoined them\ntogether under their previous marriage. Theirs was neither a fresh\nmarriage nor a fresh dowry. (_Vide_ Ibn Abbas' tradition in the\ncollections of Ahmed, Ibn Abi Daood, Ibn Maja and Trimizee.)\nSafwan-bin-Omayya and Ikrama-bin Abi Jahl had believing wives at the\ntime of the conquest of Mecca, and their marriages were not dissolved by\nMohammad. (_Vide_ Ibn Shahab's tradition in _Movatta_ by Malik, and in\nthe _Tabakat_ of Ibn Sad Katib Wakidi.) Similarly Ibn Sofian and\nHakeem-bin-Hizam had their unbelieving wives retained by them after they\nhad themselves been converted to Islam, and their former connubial\nconnection was not severed by Mohammad. (_Vide_ the several traditions\nin Baihakee to the above effect.) It was only the legists and\njuris-consults of a later age who wrongly construed the passage in Sura\nLX, 10, to mean that the unbelief of either party dissolved the marriage\ntie.\n\n[Footnote 257: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV. p. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 258: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 19.\n\nIn the collections of Bokharee the story is traced to Ans. But Ans could\nnot be a witness to Mohammad's command for mutilation, as Ans did not\ncome until the expedition to Khyber; and the execution of those robbers\ntook place before that. The story from Jabir in Ibn Mardaveih's\ncollections to the same effect is not authentic, as Jabir, who says he\nwas sent by Mohammad in pursuit of the robbers, and committed the act,\nwas not a convert at that time. Koostalanee, the author of _Mooahib_,\nhas declared the tradition of Ibn Jarir Tabari on the subject as an\napocryphal, _i.e._, \"Zaeef.\" _Vide_ Zoorkanee on Movahib, Vol. II, p.\n211.]\n\n[Footnote 259: Ibn Hisham (p. 463) relates from Ibn Is-hak that Omar\nasked permission to mutilate Sohail, but Mohammad replied, \"I would not\nmutilate him; if I do, God will mutilate me, though I be a Prophet.\"]\n\n[Footnote 260: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 261: This subject has been fully and judiciously discussed by\nthe Honorable Syed Ahmed Khan Bahadur, C.S.I., in his \"Commentary of the\nKoran;\" Sura. iv. pp. 198-204.]\n\n[Footnote 262: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 68.]\n\n[Footnote 263: _Vide_ Mishkat Book of Retaliation, pp. 243-244.]\n\n[Footnote 264: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 131, foot-note.]\n\n[Footnote 265: Introduction to Lane's Selections from the Kur-an, by\nStanley Lane Poole, p. lxvii. London: Trubner and Co., 1879.]\n\n[Footnote 266: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 308.]\n\n[Footnote 267: _Ibid_, p. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 268: _Vide_ Zoorkanee on _Movahib_, Vol. II, page 244; also\n_Zad-ul-Maad_, by Ibn-al-Kyyim, Vol. I, page 376, Cawnpore, 1298 A.H.;\nand _Seerat-ul-Mohammadiya_, by Mohammad Karamat-ul-Ali of Delhi, in\nloco. The Life is compiled from _Seerat Halabi_ and _Seerat Shamee_ and\nwas lithographed in Bombay.]\n\n[Footnote 269: Hishamee, page 681; Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III,\npage 266.]\n\n[Footnote 270: _Seerat Halabi_, or _Insan-al-Oyoon_, Vol II, page 79.]\n\n[Footnote 271: History of _Mohammad's Campaigns_, by Wackidi, pp.\n368-369: Edited by Von Kremer, Calcutta, 1856.]\n\n[Footnote 272: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 282.]\n\n[Footnote 273: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pages 308-309.]\n\n[Footnote 274: Lieber's Miscellaneous Writings, Vol. II, page 250.]\n\n[Footnote 275: History of European Morals, from Augustus to Charlemagne.\nBy William Edward Hartpole Lecky, M.A., Vol. I, pp. 101-102.]\n\n[Footnote 276: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 148.]\n\n[Footnote 277: _Ibid_, p. 149.]\n\n[Footnote 278: Ibn Hisham, p. 554.]\n\n[Footnote 279: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 148 & 149,\n_foot-note_.]\n\n[Footnote 280: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 308.]\n\n[Footnote 281: The tradition that Mohammad had gone to Bani Nazeer\nasking their aid in defraying a certain price of blood, and they\nattempted upon his life (Muir, III, 208-209) as related by Ibn Is-hak\n(in Ibn Hisham, page 652) is a _Mursal_ (_vide_ Zoorkanee, Part II, page\n95), and consequently was not current in the Apostolic Age.]\n\n[Footnote 282: Ibn Ockba, an earliest biographer of Mohammad, died 140,\nsays,--the cause of the expedition against the Bani Nazeer was this:\nthat they had instigated the Koreish to fight against Mohammad, and had\nreconnoitred the weak points of Medina. Ibn Mardaveih Abd-bin-Hameed,\nand Abdu Razzak have related traditions to the effect that, after the\nevent of Badr, the Koreish had written to the Jews of Medina to make war\nupon Mohammad, and the Bani Nazeer had resolved to break the compact.\n_Vide_ Zoorkanee, Part II, pp, 96-97.]\n\n[Footnote 283: Compare Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 213 and\n302, _foot-note_.]\n\n[Footnote 284: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 44.]\n\n[Footnote 285: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 46, foot-note.]\n\n[Footnote 286: The verses of the Koran are given below:\n\n10. \"O Believers! when believing women come over to you as refugees,\nthen make trial of them. God best knoweth their faith; but if ye have\nalso ascertained their faith, let them not go back to the infidels; they\nare not lawful for them, nor are the unbelievers lawful for these women.\nBut give them back what they have spent. No crime shall it be in you to\nmarry them, provided you give them their dowers. Do not retain a right\nin the infidel women, and demand back what you have spent and let them\ndemand back what they have spent. This is the ordinance of God which He\nordaineth among you: and God is Knowing, Wise.\"\n\n11. \"And if any of your wives escape from you to the infidels from whom\nyou afterwards take any spoil, then give to those whose wives shall have\nfled away, the like of what they shall have spent; and fear God in whom\nye believe.\"--Sura LX.]\n\n[Footnote 287: Sura IV, 25. Rodwell's translation.\n\nHow Mohammad discouraged divorce and took several steps in the Koran to\nprohibit the facility of divorce prevailing in the Arab society has been\nfully discussed by me in my book \"The Proposed Political, Legal, and\nSocial Reforms under Moslem Rule,\" pp. 129-143, Bombay Education Society\nPress, 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 288: \"Some of the baser sort from amongst the Coreish, hearing\nof her departure, went in pursuit, determined to bring her back. The\nfirst that appeared was Habbar, who struck the camel with his spear, and\nso affrighted Zeinab as to cause her a miscarriage.\"--Muir's Life of\nMahomet, Vol. IV, page 7.]\n\n\n_The Popular Jihad or Crusade; According to the Mohammadan Common Law._\n\n[Sidenote 89. The Koran enjoined only defensive wars.]\n\nAlmost all the common Mohammadan and European writers think that a\nreligious war of aggression is one of the tenets of Islam, and\nprescribed by the Koran for the purpose of proselytizing or exacting\ntribute. But I do not find any such doctrine enjoined in the Koran, or\ntaught, or preached by Mohammad. His mission was not to wage wars, or to\nmake converts at the point of the sword, or to exact tribute or\nexterminate those who did not believe his religion. His sole mission was\nto enlighten the Arabs to the true worship of the one God, to recommend\nvirtue and denounce vice, which he truly fulfilled. That he and his\nfollowers were persecuted, that they were expelled from their houses and\nwere invaded upon and warred against; that to repel incursions and to\ngain the liberty of conscience and the security of his followers' lives\nand the freedom of their religion, he and they waged defensive wars,\nencountered superior numbers, made defensive treaties, securing the main\nobject of the war, _i.e._, the freedom of their living unmolested at\nMecca and Medina, and of having a free intercourse to the Sacred Mosque,\nand a free exercise of their religion: all these are questions quite\nseparate and irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the subject in\nhand, _i.e._, the popular _Jihad_, or the crusade for the purpose of\nproselytizing, exacting tribute, and exterminating the idolaters, said\nto be one of the tenets of Islam. All the defensive wars, and the verses\nof the Koran relating to the same, were strictly temporary and\ntransitory in their nature. They cannot be made an example of, or be\nconstrued into a tenet or injunction for aggressive wars, nor were they\nintended so to be. Even they cannot be an example or instruction for a\ndefensive war to be waged by the Mohammadan community or commonwealth,\nbecause all the circumstances under which Mohammad waged his defensive\nwars were local and temporary. But almost all European writers do not\nunderstand that the Koran does not teach a war of aggression, but had\nonly, under the adverse circumstances, to enjoin a war of defence,\nclearly setting forth the grounds in its justification and strictly\nprohibiting offensive measures.\n\n[Sidenote 90. The Common Law and Jihad.]\n\nAll the fighting injunctions in the Koran are, in the first place, only\nin self-defence, and none of them has any reference to make warfare\noffensively. In the second place, it is to be particularly noted that\nthey were transitory in their nature, and are not to be considered\npositive injunctions for future observance or religious precepts for\ncoming generations.[289] They were only temporary measures to meet the\nemergency of the aggressive circumstances. The Mohammadan Common Law is\nwrong on this point, where it allows unbelievers to be attacked without\nprovocation. But this it places under the category of a non-positive\ninjunction. A positive injunction is that which is incumbent on every\nbeliever. But attacking unbelievers without any provocation, or\noffensively, is not incumbent on every believer. The Hedaya has:--\"The\nsacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is\ncarried on by any one _party_ or _tribe_ of _Mussulmans_; and it is then\nno longer of any force with respect to the rest.\"[290]\n\n[Sidenote 91. Jihad when positive.]\n\nThe Mohammadan Common Law makes the fighting only a positive injunction\n\"where there is a _general summons_, (that is, where the infidels invade\na _Mussulman_ territory, and the _Imam_ for the time being issues a\ngeneral proclamation, requiring all persons to stand forth to fight,)\nfor in this case war becomes a positive injunction with respect to the\nwhole of the inhabitants,\"[291]--this is sanctioned by the Law of\nNations and the Law of Nature.\n\n[Sidenote: 92. The Hedaya quoted and refuted.]\n\nThe Hedaya, or a Commentary of the Mohammadan Common Law by Nuraddin Ali\nof Murghinan (died in 593, A.H.) has:--\n\n\"The destruction of the sword[292] is incurred by the infidels, although\nthey be not the first aggressors, as appears from the various passages\nin the sacred writings which are generally received to this\neffect.\"[293]\n\nThis assertion is not borne out by the sacred injunction of the Koran,\nand, on the contrary, is in direct contradiction to the same. There are\nseveral passages in the Koran already quoted in pages 16-25, which\nexpressly forbid the taking of offensive measures, and enjoin only\ndefensive wars. There are some other passages which are not so\nexpressive as the several others referred to above, or in other words,\nare not conditional. But the law of interpretation, the general scope\nand tenor of the Koran, and the context of the verses and parallel\npassages, all show that those few verses which are not conditional\nshould be construed as conditional in conformity with other passages\nmore clear, expressive, and conditional, and with the general laws of\nscriptural interpretation. Now, the author of the Hedaya and other\nwriters on the Common Law quote only those few passages from the Koran\nwhich are absolute or unconditional, and shut their eyes against those\nmany conditional verses, and general scope and tenor of the Koran.\n\n Limited, or _Conditional_. |General, or _Absolute_.\n ---------------------------------+---------------------------------------\n |\n Sura XXII, 39-42. |Sura II, 245, (read together with 247.)\n Sura II, 186-189. |Sura IX, 124.\n \" \" 212. |\n \" \" 214. |The context, parallel passages\n Sura IV, 76, 77, 78, 86. |and their history, show them\n \" \" 91, 92, 93. |to be limited and conditional,\n Sura VIII, 39-41, 58-66. |in conformity with the general\n \" \" 73, 74. |scope of the Koran.\n Sura IX, 1-15. |\n \" \" 29, 36. |\n |\n _Quoted in pages_ 16-25, 35. |\n |\n\n[Sidenote: 93. Rule of interpretation.]\n\nNow, there are only two verses in the Koran (Sura II, v. 245, and Sura\nIX, v. 124) containing an absolute or non-conditional injunction for\nmaking war against the unbelievers. Perhaps you may be able to detach\nsome more sentences, or dislocate some half verses from amongst those\ngiven under the head of conditional. But these absolute, as well as\nthose detached and dislocated parts of some other verses will not, by\nany rule of interpretation, show absolute injunction to wage war against\nthe unbelievers without any provocation or limitation. There is a rule\nin the exegesis of the Koran, as well as in other Scriptural\ninterpretations, that when two commandments, one conditional, and the\nother general or absolute, are found on the same subject, the\nconditional is to be preferred, and the absolute should be construed as\nconditional, because the latter is more expressive of the views of the\nauthor than the general which is considered as vague in its expression.\n\nThe rule is:--Where a passage which is ambiguous, or which contains any\nunusual expression, or in which a doctrine is slightly treated, or is in\ngeneral terms, must be interpreted agreeably to what is revealed more\nclearly in other parts, or where a subject is more clearly discussed. A\nsingle or general passage is not to be explained in contradiction to\nmany others restricted, conditional, and limited consistently with them,\nand with proper reservations.\n\n[Sidenote: 94. The Common Law and its commentators.]\n\nIt is not to be wondered that the Mohammadan legists or the compilers of\nthe Common Law are wrong in this point. Because, as a rule, or as a\nmatter of fact, they have compiled the Common Law from different sources\nirrespective of the Koran, and the commentators of the Common Law take\nthe trouble of vindicating its views, principles and casuistries, and\njustifying the Moslem conquests under the Khalifs by the authority of\nthe Koran. Then only they commit the unpardonable blunder of citing\nisolated parts of solitary verses of the Koran, which are neither\nexpressive enough nor are in general terms. In doing so, they avoid the\nmany other conditional and more explicit verses on the same subject.\n\n[Sidenote: 95. Kifaya quoted.]\n\nThe author of Kifaya, a commentary on the Hedaya, who flourished in the\nseventh century of the Hegira, remarks on the words of the text, \"The\ndestruction of the sword is incurred by the infidels, although they be\nnot the first aggressors,\" already quoted in the 92nd para., and says;\n\"Fighting against the infidels who do not become converts to Islam, and\ndo not pay the capitation-tax, is incumbent, though they do not attack\nfirst.\" The author of the Hedaya has mentioned this aggressive measure\nspecially, because apparently the words of God, \"if they attack you then\nslay them,\"[294] indicate that the fighting against the unbelievers is\nonly incumbent when they fight first, but, however, such is not the\ncase. It is incumbent to fight with them, though they be not the\naggressors.[295]\n\n[Sidenote: 96. Further quotation.]\n\nThe same author writes in continuation of the above quotation, and\nattempts to reconcile his theory with the numerous precepts of the\nKoran, which do not permit the war of aggression:--\n\n\"Know, that in the beginning the Prophet was enjoined to forgive, and\nwithdraw from those who joined other gods with God. God said, 'wherefore\ndost thou forgive with kindly forgiveness, and withdraw from those who\njoin other gods with Me.'\"\n\n\"Then He enjoined him to summon the people to the faith by kind warning\nand kind disputation, saying, 'Summon thou to the way of thy Lord with\nwisdom and kindly warning: dispute with them in the kindest manner.'\"\n\n\"Then He allowed fighting, when they, the unbelievers, were the\naggressors, and said:--'A sanction is given to those who have fought\nbecause they have suffered outrages;' _i.e._, they are allowed to fight\nin self-defence. And God said, 'If they attack you, then kill them' (II,\n187); and also said, 'If they lean to peace, lean thou also to it.'\n(VIII. 63).\"\n\n\"Then he enjoined to fight aggressively during a certain period. God\nsaid, 'And when the sacred months are passed, kill them who join other\ngods with God, wherever ye find them, and seize them' (IX. 5).\"\n\n\"After this He enjoined for fighting absolutely, at every time and in\nevery place. God said, 'And do battle against them until there be no\nmore (_fitnah_) persecution' (II. 189; VII. 40).\"[296]\n\n[Sidenote: 97. The Kifaya refuted.]\n\nHere the author of Kifaya has contrived to make out by way of subterfuge\nand sophistry five successive periods of the policy of the Koran\nregarding warfare against the unbelievers:\n\n | |\n First Period |Forgiveness and withdrawal | Sura XV, 85. VI, 106\n ---------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------\n | |\n Second Period |Summoning | Sura XVI, 126.\n ---------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------\n | |\n Third Period |Fighting in self-defence | Sura XXII, 40. II, 187.\n | | VIII, 63.\n ---------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------\n | |\n Fourth Period |Fighting aggressively | Sura IX, 5.\n |during certain times |\n | |\n ---------------+-------------------------------+-------------------------\n | |\n Fifth Period |Aggressive fighting absolutely.| Sura II, 189. VIII, 40.\n | |\n\n\nHe is wrong in history, chronology as well as in understanding the\ngeneral scope of the Koran and the tenor of the Suras. He does not\nregard even the context of the verses quoted.\n\nThe verses containing injunctions for turning aside, shunning,\nforgiving, passing over, and withdrawing are found even in the later\nperiod of the Medinite Suras.--(_Vide_ Sura II, 103; V, 16, 46; Sura IV,\n66, 83; and VII, 198.) They have nothing to do either with war or peace.\n\nThe summoning of people to the faith of God was the chief duty of the\nProphetical office, and was not confined to any special period, and was\nalike during times of war and peace. Even during the actual warfare it\nwas incumbent on the Prophet to give quarters to the enemy, if he\ndesired, to listen to his preachings.--(_Vide_ Sura IX, 6.)\n\n[Sidenote: 98. S. IX, v. 5, discussed.]\n\nThe fifth verse of the ninth Sura is by no means an injunction to attack\nfirst or wage an aggressive war. This verse is one of the several\npublished at Medina after the Meccans had violated the treaty of\nHodeibia and attacked the Bani Khozaa, who were in alliance with\nMohammad. The Meccans were given four months' time to submit, in default\nof which they were to be attacked for their violation of the treaty and\nfor their attacking the Bani Khozaa. They submitted beforehand, and\nMecca was conquered by compromise. The verses referred to above (Sura\nIX, 1-15, &c.) were not acted upon. So there was no injunction to wage\nan aggressive war. This subject has been discussed at pages 51-55 of\nthis work, and the reader is referred to them for fuller information.\n\n[Sidenote: 99. S. II, v. 189, discussed.]\n\nThe 189th verse of the second Sura is not at all an absolute injunction\nto wage a war of aggression. The verses 186, 187, 188 and 189, if read\ntogether, will show that the injunction for fighting is only in defence.\nThe verses are:--\n\n186. And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you:\nbut commit not the injustice _of attacking them first_; verily God\nloveth not the unjust.\n\n187. And kill them wherever ye shall find them; and eject them from\nwhatever place they have ejected you; for (_fitnah_) persecution is\nworse than slaughter; yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque until\nthey attack you therein, but if they attack you then slay them: such is\nthe recompense of the infidels!\n\n188. But if they desist, then verily God is Gracious, Merciful--\n\n189. And do battle, against them until there be no more (_fitnah_)\npersecution and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist,\nthen let there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers.\n\n[Sidenote: 100. S. II, 189, VIII, 40, are defensive.]\n\nBesides, this verse as well as the fortieth verse of Sura VIII have\nindications in themselves of their relating to a defensive war. As the\ntorture, aggression, in short, the persecutions suffered by the Moslems\nfrom the Koreish, are very clearly indicated by the word _fitnah_ in\nthese two verses, the object of fighting or counterfighting by the\nMoslems is plainly set forth, which is to suppress the persecutions.\n\nThey have clear reference to the persecution, to stop or remove which\nthey enjoined fighting, and this was fighting in self-defence obviously.\n\nThey also show that the Meccans had not desisted from persecuting and\nattacking the Moslems, and therefore a provision was made that if they\ndiscontinue their incursions, there will be no more hostility. This is\nquite sufficient to show that these verses relate to the defensive wars\nof Mohammad.\n\n[Sidenote: 101. All injunctions local and for the time being.]\n\nLastly, supposing the Koran permitted waging aggressive wars against the\nMeccans, who were the first aggressors, this does not corroborate the\ntheory or principle of the Common Law of making lawful aggressive wars\nin future on the authority of these verses, as all of them in the Koran\non the subject of war relate only to Pagan Arabs, who had long\npersevered in their hostility to the early Moslems or to the Jews, who,\nbeing in league with the Moslems, went over to their enemies, and aided\nthem against the Moslems. These verses are not binding on other persons,\nwho are not under the same circumstance as the Moslems were under, at\nMedina. [See para. 90.]\n\n[Sidenote: 102. Ainee quoted and refuted.]\n\nAnother commentator of the Hedaya, Ainee[297] (who died in 855) follows\nKifaya already quoted, and mentions some other verses of the Koran on\nthe war of aggression, which the author of Kifaya has left uncited in\nhis work. They are as follows:--\n\n\"... Then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity,--for no oaths\nare binding on them--that they may desist.\"--(Sura IX, 12.)\n\n\"War is prescribed to you, but from this ye are averse.\"--(Sura II,\n212.)\n\n\"March ye forth, the light and heavy, and contend with your substance\nand your persons on the Way of God.\"--(Sura IX, 41.)\n\nThe first verse when it is complete runs thus:--\"But if, after alliance\nmade, they break their oaths and revile your religion, then do battle\nwith the ringleaders of infidelity,--for no oaths are binding on\nthem--that they may desist;\" and fully shows by its wording that it\nrelates to the war of defence, as the breaking of alliances, and\nreviling of the Moslem religion were the grounds of making war with the\nobject in view that the aggressors may desist. This verse is one of\nthose in the beginning of the ninth Sura, which have already been\ndiscussed.--(_Vide_ pages 51-55.)\n\nThe second verse (II, 212) does not allow a war of aggression, as the\nnext verse (II, 214) expressly mentions the attacks made by the\naggressors on the Moslems. It has been quoted at full length in page 18.\n\nThe third verse (IX, 41) was published on the occasion of the expedition\nof Tabuk, which was certainly a defensive measure, and has been\ndiscussed in pages 51 to 55.\n\n[Sidenote: 103. Sarakhsee quoted and refuted.]\n\nSarakhsee generally entitled _Shums-ul-a-imma_ (the Sun of the Leaders),\nwho died in 671 A.H., as quoted by Ibn Abdeen in his\n_Radd-ul-Muhtar_,[298] makes several stages in publishing the\ninjunctions for fighting. He writes:--\n\n\"Know thou, that the command for fighting has descended by degrees.\nFirst the Prophet was enjoined to proclaim and withdraw, 'Profess\npublicly then what thou hast been bidden and withdraw from those who\njoin gods with God' (XV, 94). Then he was ordered to dispute kindly;\n'Summon thou to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and with kindly warning:\ndispute with them in the kindest warning' (XVI, 126). Then they were\nallowed to fight, 'A sanction is given to those who are fought....'\n(XXII, 40). Then they were allowed to fight if they (the unbelievers)\nattacked them, 'If they attack you, then kill them' (II, 187). After\nthis they were enjoined to fight on the condition of passing over the\nsacred months, 'And when the sacred months are passed, then kill the\npolytheists' (IX, 5). After this they were enjoined to fight absolutely,\n'And fight for the cause of God....' (II, 186, 245). And thus the matter\nwas settled.\"\n\nThere was no injunction for fighting absolutely or aggressively in the\nKoran. I have already explained the 5th verse of the ninth Sura as not\nallowing an offensive war. And the same is the case with the 186th verse\nof the second Sura, which has in itself the condition of fighting\nagainst those only who fought against the Moslems. The other verse,\n245th, of the same Sura is restricted by the verse 186th, (and is\nexplained by the verse 245th), which refers to the defensive measures.\nThis verse is quoted in page 19 of this work.\n\n[Sidenote: 104. Ibn Hajar quoted and refuted.]\n\nShahabudeen Ahmed-bin-Hajr Makki writes:--\n\n\"Fighting was prohibited before the Hegira, as the Prophet was enjoined\nonly to preach and warn and to be patient in the persecutions of the\nunbelievers in order to conciliate them. After this, God gave sanction\nto the Moslems for fighting, (after that had been prohibited in seventy\nand odd verses), when the unbelievers were the aggressors, and said,\n'And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you'\n(II, 187). And it is a genuine tradition from Zohri that the first\nrevealed verse sanctioning it was, 'A sanction is given to those who are\nfought, because they have suffered outrages' (XXII, 40): that is a\nsanction was given for fighting on the ground of the word 'fought.' Then\nthe war of aggression was made lawful in other than the sacred months,\n'When the sacred months are over....' (IX, 5). After this, in the eighth\nyear of the Hegira, after the victory of Mecca, the fighting was\nenjoined absolutely by the words of God; 'March ye forth, the light and\nthe heavy' (IX, 41); and 'attack those who join gods with God in all'\n(IX, 36). And this is the very verse of the sword, and some say the\npreceding verse is the verse of the sword, while others think that both\nbear on the same subject, _i.e._, of the sword.\"[299]\n\n[Sidenote: 105. Ibn Hajar refuted.]\n\nI have already explained the several verses quoted by the author in\npreceding paras., but have only to pass remarks on the only verse,\n_i.e._ (IX, 36), which the authors cited have not dared to mention,\nbecause it goes contrary to their assertion. Perhaps it is a slip in the\nrapidity of Ibn Hajar remarks, for which he may be excused. But I will\nnot hesitate in saying that generally the Mohammadan legists, while\nquoting the Koran in support of their theories, quote some dislocated\nportion from a verse without any heed to its context, and thus cause a\ngreat and irreparable mischief by misleading others, especially the\nEuropean writers, as it is apparent from the testimony of Mr. Lane\nquoted in para. 113 of this work.\n\nThe verse referred to by the author mentioned in the last para., Ibn\nHajar Makki, is as follows: \"Attack those who join gods with God in all,\nas they attack you in all.\"--(IX, 36.) This speaks evidently of the\ndefensive war, and has not the slightest or faintest idea of a war of\naggression on the part of the Moslems. This verse refers to the\nexpedition of Tabuk.\n\n[Sidenote: 106. Halabi quoted.]\n\nNooruddeen Ali al Halabi (died 1044 A.H.), the author of\n_Insan-ul-Oyoon_, a biography of the Prophet, writes:--\n\n\"It is not hidden that the Prophet for ten and odd years was warning\nand summoning people without fighting, and bearing patiently the severe\npersecutions of the Meccan Arabs and the Medinite Jews on himself and on\nhis followers, because God had enjoined him to warn and to have patience\nto bear the injuries by withholding from them, in accordance with His\nwords, 'Withdraw from them' (V, 46); and 'endure them with patience'\n(XVI, 128; XVIII, 27; XXXI, 16; LII, 48; and LXXIII, 10). He also used\nto promise them victory. His companions at Mecca used to come to him\nbeaten and injured, and he used to tell them, 'Endure with patience, I\nam not commanded to fight,' because they were but a small party at\nMecca. After this, when he was settled at Medina after the Hegira and\nhis followers became numerous who preferred him to their fathers,\nchildren, and wives, and the unbelievers persisted in their idolatry,\ncharging him with falsehoods, then God permitted his followers to fight,\nbut against those _only_ who used to fight against them (the Moslems),\nand were aggressors, as he said, 'If they fight you, then kill them'\n(II, 187). This was in the year of Safar A.H. 2.... Then the whole Arab\nhost marched against the Moslems to fight against them from every\ndirection. The Moslems passed whole nights in arms, and during the day\nthey were in the same state, and longed to pass peaceful nights without\nfear from anybody except from God. Then it was revealed, 'God hath\npromised to those of you who believe and do the things that are right,\nthat he will cause them to succeed others in the land, as he gave\nsuccession to those who were before them, and that He will establish for\nthem that religion which they delight in, and after their fears He will\ngive them security in exchange' (S. XXIV, 54). After this to attack\nfirst was allowed against those who had not fought, but in other than\nthe sacred months, _viz._, _Rajab_, _Zulkada_, _Zulhijja_, and\n_Mohuram_, according to the precept, 'And when the sacred months are\npassed, kill those who join gods with God ...' (IX, 5). Then the order\nbecame incumbent after the victory of Mecca, in the next year, to fight\nabsolutely without any restriction, without any regard to any condition\nand time, by the words of God, 'Attack those who join gods with God in\nall' at any time (IX, 36). So it is known that the fighting was\nforbidden before the Hegira up to the month of Safar in its second year,\nas the Prophet was in this period ordered to preach and warn without any\nfighting, which was forbidden in seventy and odd verses. Then it was\npermitted to fight against _only_ those who fought against them. Then it\nwas allowed to fight against those who fought aggressively in other than\nthe sacred months. After this it was enjoined absolutely to wage war\nagainst them whether they did or did not fight, at all times, whether\nduring the sacred months, or others of the year.\"[300]\n\n[Sidenote: 107. Halabi refuted.]\n\nNeither the fifth verse of the ninth Sura, nor the thirty-sixth of the\nsame, allowed war of aggression. Both of them were published on the\noccasions of defensive wars, and the party against whom they were\ndirected were the aggressors. All the verses quoted by Halabi, bearing\non the subject, have been discussed and explained in the foregoing\npages, from 92 to 106.\n\n[Sidenote: 108. Ainee again quoted and refuted.]\n\nAinee, the author of the commentary on the Hedaya, called _Binayah_, in\njustifying the war of aggression against the unbelievers, quotes two\nverses from the Koran,[301] and two traditions from the Prophet,[302]\nand says,--\"If it be objected that these absolute injunctions are\nrestricted by the word of God, 'if they attack you, then kill them' (II,\n187), which shows that the fighting is only incumbent when the\nunbelievers are the aggressors in fighting, as it was held by Souri, the\nreply is that the verse was abrogated by another, 'So fight against them\nuntil there be no more persecution' (II, 189), and 'fight against those\nwho do not believe in God.' (IX, 29).\"[303] But he is wrong in asserting\nthat the verse II, 187 was abrogated by II, 189, and IX, 29. There is no\nauthority for such a gratuitous assumption. And besides, both these\nverses (II, 189, and IX, 29) relate to defensive wars as it has been\nalready explained in paras. 96-99.\n\n[Sidenote: 109. Continuation of the above.]\n\nThe verse 189 shows by its very wording the existence of _fitnah_ or\npersecution, torture, and fighting on the part of the aggressors. By\nsuppressing the Meccans' persecution, the Moslems had to regain their\ncivil and religious liberty, from which they were so unjustly deprived.\nAnd this war of the Moslems to repel the force of their aggressors was\nthe war of defence and protection enjoined in the verse. The 29th verse\nof the ninth Sura appertains to the expedition of Tabuk if not to that\nof Khyber. These expeditions were of a defensive character. _Vide_ pages\n37 and 41.\n\n[Sidenote: 110. Traditions quoted and refuted.]\n\nThe jurists further quote a tradition from the compilation of Abu Daood\nthat the Prophet had said, \"The Jihad will last up to the day of the\nResurrection:\" But in the first place, Jihad does not literally and\nclassically mean warfare or fighting in a war. It means, as used by the\nclassical poets as well as by the Koran, to do one's utmost; to labour;\nto toil; to exert one's-self or his power, efforts, endeavours, or\nability; to employ one's-self vigorously, diligently, studiously,\nsedulously, earnestly, or with energy; to be diligent or studious, to\ntake pains or extraordinary pains. _Vide_ Appendix A.\n\nIn the second place, Yezid bin Abi Shaiba, a link in the chain of the\ntradition, is a _Mujhool_,[304] _i.e._, his biography is not known,\ntherefore his tradition can have no authority.\n\nThere is also another tradition in Bokharee to the effect that the\nProphet had said, \"I have been enjoined to fight the people until they\nconfess that there is no god but the God.\" This tradition goes quite\ncontrary to the verses of the Koran which enjoin to fight in\ndefence,--that is, until the persecution or civil discord was\nremoved.--(_Vide_ Sura II, 189; VIII, 40.) Thus it appears that either\nthe whole tradition is a spurious one, or some of the narrators were\nwrong in interpreting the words of the Prophet.\n\n[Sidenote: 111. Early Moslem legists quoted against Jihad.]\n\nThat the Koran did not allow war of aggression either when it was\nrevealed, or in future as the early jurisconsults did infer from it,\nwill be further shown from the opinions of the early Moslems; legists of\nthe first and second century of the Hegira, like Ibn (son of) Omar the\nsecond khalif, Sotian Souri, Ibn Shobormah, Ata and Amar-bin-Dinar. All\nthese early legists held that the fighting was not religiously incumbent\n(_wajib_), and that it was only a voluntary act, and that only those\nwere to be fought against who attacked the Moslems.[305]\n\n[Sidenote: Biographical sketches of the legists.]\n\nI will give here short biographical sketches of the legists named\nabove--\n\n(1.) \"Abu Abd-ur-Rahman Abdullah ibn Omar ibn-al Khattab was one of the\nmost eminent among the _companions_ of Muhammad by his piety, his\ngenerosity, his contempt of the world, his learning and his virtues.\nThough entitled by birth to aspire to the highest places in the empire,\nhe never hearkened to the dictates of ambition; possessing a vast\ninfluence over the Moslims by his rank, his instruction, and his holy\nlife, he neither employed nor abused it in favour of any party, and\nduring the civil wars which raged among the followers of Islamism, he\nremained neutral, solely occupied with the duties of religion. For a\nperiod of thirty years persons came from all parts to consult him and\nlearn from him the Traditions.... He died at Mekka A.H. 73 (A.D. 692-3)\naged 84 years....\"--[_Tabakat al Fokaha_, fol. 5.]\n\n(2.) Ata Ibn Abi Rabah.--\"He held a high rank at Mekka as a\njuris-consult, a _Tabi_, and a devout ascetic; and he derived (_his\nknowledge of the law and the Traditions_) from the lips of Jabir Ibn Abd\nAllah al-Ansari, and Abd Allah Ibn Abbas, Abd Allah Ibn Zubair, and many\nothers of Muhammad's companions. His own authority as a traditionist was\ncited by Amr ibn Dinar, Al-Aamash, Al-Auzai, and a great number of\nothers who had heard him teach. The office of _Mufti_ at Mekka devolved\non him and on Mujahid, and was filled by them whilst they lived.... He\ndied A.H. 115 (A.D. 733-4); some say 114 at the age of eighty-eight\nyears.\"--[_Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary, translated from the\nArabic by Baron MacGuckin De Slane; Vol. II, pp. 203-204. London,\nMDCCCXLIII._]\n\n(3.) Amr Ibn Dinar.--\"He is counted among the most eminent of the Tabis\nand considered as a traditionist of very highest authority. He was only\none of the Mujatahid Imams. Died A.H. 126, (A.D. 743-4), aged eighty\nyears.\"--[_Tab-al-Fokaha_].\n\n(4.) \"Abd Allah Ibn Shuburma ibn Tufail ad Dubbi, a celebrated Imam, and\nTabi was an eminent jurisconsult of Kufa. He learned the Traditions from\nAns, As-Shabi, and Ibn Sirin, and his own authority was cited for\nTraditions by Soffian Ath-Thauri, Sofyan ibn Oyaina, and others. His\nveracity and his eminence as a doctor of the law was universally\nacknowledged. He was an abstemious, intelligent, devout, generous, of a\nhandsome countenance, and possessing a talent for poetry. He acted under\nthe Khalif Al-Mamun, as kadi of the cultivated country (Sawad) around\nKufa. Born A.H. 92, (A.D. 710-11); died A.H. 144 (A.D.\n761-2).\"--[_Tabal-Fak. Al-Yafi._]\n\n(5.) \"Sofyan Ath-Thauri (As-Sauri) was native of Kufa and a master of\nthe highest authority in the Traditions and other sciences; his piety,\ndevotion, veracity, and contempt for worldly goods were universally\nacknowledged, and as an Imam, he is counted among the _Mujtahids_....\nSofyan ibn Oyaina declared that he did not know a man better informed\nthan Soyfan Ath-Thauri respecting what was permitted and what was\nforbidden by the law.... Sofyan was born A.H. 95 (A.D. 713-4). Other\naccounts place his birth in 96 or 97. He died A.H. 161 (A.D. 713-4) at\nBasra.... It has been stated by some that Sofyan died A.H. 162, but the\nfirst is the true date.\"--[_Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary,\ntranslated from the Arabic by Baron MacGuckin De Slane, Vol. I, pp.\n576-8. London, MDCCCXLIII._]\n\n[Sidenote: 113. European writers' mistake.]\n\nThat it is a mistake on the part of the European writers to assert that\nthe Koran allows wars of aggression, or in other words, to wage war\nagainst the unbelievers without any provocation, is shown by the\ntestimony of Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Edward William Lane. The latter\nwrites: \"Misled by the decision of those doctors, and an opinion\nprevalent in Europe, I represented the laws of 'holy war' as more severe\nthan I found them to be according to the letter and spirit of the\nKur-an, when carefully examined, and according to the Hanafee code. I am\nindebted to Mr. Urquhart for suggesting to me the necessity of revising\nmy former statement on the subject; and must express my conviction that\nno precept is to be found in the Kur-an, which, taken with the context,\ncan justify unprovoked war.\"[306]\n\n[Sidenote: 114. Sir William Muir quoted.]\n\nI will quote several remarks of European writers, including clergymen\nand Indian missionaries, to show how astray they go in attributing to\nthe Koran and Mohammad the wars of aggressions and compulsory\nproselytizing. Sir William Muir represents the principles of Islam as\nrequiring constant prosecutions of war, and writes--\n\n\"It was essential to the permanence of Islam that its aggressive course\nshould be continuously pursued, and that its claim to an universal\nacceptance, or at the least to an universal supremacy, should be\nenforced at the point of the sword. Within the limits of Arabia the work\nappeared now to be accomplished. It remained to gain over the Christian\nand idolatrous tribes of the Syrian desert, and then in the name of the\nLord to throw down the gauntlet of war before the empires of Rome and\nPersia, which, having treated with contempt the summons of the Prophet\naddressed to them in solemn warning four years ago, were now rife for\nchastisement.\"[307]\n\nThe occasion to which Sir W. Muir refers here was to wipe out the memory\nof the reverse at Muta. The expedition to Muta was occasioned by the\nmurder of a messenger or envoy dispatched by Mohammad to the Ghassanide\nprince at Bostra. A party was sent to punish the offending chief,\nSharahbil. This could, by no means, be maintained as a warlike spirit or\nan aggressive course for the prosecution of war, or for enforcing the\nclaim of universal supremacy at the point of the sword.\n\n[Sidenote: 115. Islam not aggressive.]\n\nThat Islam as preached by Mohammad was never aggressive has been fully\nshown in several places of the Koran. During the whole time of his\nministry, Mohammad was persecuted, rejected, despised and at last made\nan outlaw by the Koreish at Mecca, and a fugitive seeking protection in\na distant city; exiled, attacked upon, besieged, defeated, and prevented\nfrom returning to Mecca or visiting the Holy Kaaba by the same enemies\nat Mecca and other surrounding tribes who had joined them, and even from\nwithin Medina plotted against by the Jews who were not less aggressive\ntowards him than their confederates of Mecca, the Koreish, whom they had\ninstigated to make war on him and had brought an overwhelming army, had\nproved traitors, and, even more injurious than the Koreish themselves.\nConsequently, he was constantly in dangers and troubles, and under such\ncircumstances it was impossible for him to be aggressive, to get time or\nopportunity to pursue any aggressive course, or enforce, at the point of\nthe sword, any attempt of his for universal acceptance, or universal\nsupremacy even if he had designed so. But it was far from his principles\nto have cherished the object of universal conquest. \"That Islam ever\nstepped beyond the limits of Arabia and its border lands,\" admits Sir.\nW. Muir in his Rede Lecture for 1881, just twenty years after he had\nwritten the passage I am dealing with, \"was due to circumstances rather\nthan design. The faith was meant originally for the Arabs. From first to\nlast, the call was addressed primarily to them.\" He writes in a footnote\nof the same lecture (page 5):\n\n \"It is true that three or four years before, Mahomet had addressed\n dispatches to the Kaiser, and the Chosroes, and other neighbouring\n potentates, summoning them to embrace the true faith. But the step\n had never been followed up in any way.\"[308]\n\n[Sidenote: 116. Mr. Freeman quoted.]\n\nMr. Freeman writes regarding Mohammad:--\n\n\"Mahomet had before him the example of Mosaic Law, which preached a far\nmore rigorous mandate of extermination against the guilty nations of\nCanaan. He had before him the practice of all surrounding powers,\nChristian, Jewish, and Heathen; though, from the disaffection of Syria\nand Egypt to the orthodox throne of Constantinople, he might have\nlearned how easily persecution defeats its own end.... Under his\ncircumstances, it is really no very great ground to condemnation that he\ndid appeal to the sword. He did no more than follow the precedents of\nhis own and every surrounding nation. Yet one might say that a man of\nsuch mighty genius as Mahomet must have been, might have been, fairly\nexpected to rise superior to the trammels of prejudice and\nprecedent.\"[309]\n\nMohammad never professed to have followed the footsteps of Moses and\nJoshua in waging war of extermination and proselytism. He only appealed\nto the sword in his and his followers' defence. Never he seems to have\nbeen anxious to copy the practice of the surrounding nations,\nChristians, Jews, and Egyptians. His wars of defence, as they certainly\nall were, were very mild, specially with regard to the treatment of\nchildren, women, and old men who were never to be attacked; and above\nall, in the mildness shown towards the captives of war who were either\nto be set free or ransomed,--but were never to be enslaved,--contrary to\nthe practice of all the surrounding nations. This virtual abolition of\nslavery (_vide_ Sura XLVII, 5, and Appendix B) has been a great boon to\nmankind in general as a beneficial result of Mohmamad's wars of defence.\n\n[Sidenote: 117. The Revd. Stephens quoted.]\n\nThe Reverend Mr. Stephens writes:--\n\n\"In the Koran, the Mussulman is absolutely and positively commanded to\nmake war upon all those who decline to acknowledge the Prophet until\nthey submit, or, in the case of Jews and Christians, purchase exemption\nfrom the conformity by the payment of tribute. The mission of the\nMussulman, as declared in the Koran, is distinctly aggressive. We might\nsay that Mahomet bequeathed to his disciples a roving commission to\npropagate his faith by the employment of force where persuasion failed.\n'O Prophet, fight for the religion of God'--'Stir up the faithful to\nwar,' such are commands which Mahomet believed to be given him by God.\n'Fight against them who believe not a God, nor the last day,' 'attack\nthe idolatrous in all the months,' such are his own exhortations to his\ndisciples.\"[310]\n\nThe Reverend gentleman is very much mistaken in his assertions against\nthe Koran. There is no absolute or positive command in the Koran for a\nwar of aggression or compulsory proselytism. The sentences quoted by Mr.\nStephens are but mutilated verses forcibly dislocated from their\ncontext. A disjointed portion of a verse, or a single sentence of it\ncannot be brought forth to prove any doctrine or theory. Due regard must\nbe made for the context, the general scope, and parallel passages. The\nverses referred to by Mr. Stephens are Sura IV, 86, and Sura IX, 29, 36.\nAll these have been quoted in full and discussed elsewhere.[311] They\nrelate only to defensive wars.\n\n[Sidenote: 118. Mr. Bosworth Smith quoted.]\n\nMr. Bosworth Smith says:--\n\n\"The free toleration of the purer among the creeds around him, which the\nProphet had at first enjoined, gradually changes into intolerance.\nPersecuted no longer, Mohammed becomes a persecutor himself; with the\nKoran in one hand, the scymitar in the other, he goes forth to offer to\nthe nations the threefold alternative of conversion, tribute,\ndeath.\"[312]\n\nMohammad never changed his practice of toleration nor his own teachings\ninto intolerance; he was always persecuted at Mecca and Medina, but, for\nall we know, he himself never turned a persecutor. The three-fold\nalternative so much talked of, and so little proved, is nowhere to be\nfound in the Koran. This subject has been fully discussed in paras.\n34-39.\n\n[Sidenote: 119. Mr. G. Sale quoted.]\n\nMr. George Sale, in his celebrated preliminary discourse to the\ntranslation of the Koran, writes, referring to the thirteenth year of\nMohammad's mission:--\n\n\"Hitherto Mohammed had propagated his religion by fair means, so that\nthe whole success of his enterprise, before his flight to Medina, must\nbe attributed to persuasion only, and not to compulsion. For before this\nsecond oath of fealty or inauguration at al Akaba, he had no permission\nto use any force at all; and in several places of the Koran, which he\npretended were revealed during his stay at Mecca, he declares his\nbusiness was only to preach and admonish; that he had no authority to\ncompel any person to embrace his religion; and that whether people\nbelieved or not, was none of his concern, but belonged solely to God.\nAnd he was so far from allowing his followers to use force, that he\nexhorted them to bear patiently those injuries which were offered them\non account of their faith; and when persecuted himself chose rather to\nquit the place of his birth and retire to Medina, than to make any\nresistance. But this great passiveness and moderation seems entirely\nowing to his want of power and the great superiority of his oppressors\nfor the first twelve years of his mission; for no sooner was he enabled\nby the assistance of those of Medina to make head against his enemies,\nthan he gave out, that God had allowed him and his followers to defend\nthemselves against the infidels; and at length, as his forces increased,\nhe pretended to have the divine leave even to attack them, and to\ndestroy idolatry, and set up the true faith by the sword; finding by\nexperience that his designs would otherwise proceed very slowly, if they\nwere not utterly overthrown, and knowing on the other hand that\ninnovators, when they depend solely on their own strength, and can\ncompel, seldom run any risk; from whence, the politician observes, it\nfollows, that all the armed prophets have succeeded, and the unarmed\nones have failed. Moses, Cyrus, Theseus and Romulus would not have been\nable to establish the observance of their institutions for any length of\ntime had they not been armed. The first passage of the Koran, which gave\nMohammed the permission of defending himself by arms, is said to have\nbeen that in the twenty-second chapter: after which a great number to\nthe same purpose were revealed.\n\n\"That Mohammed had a right to take up arms for his own defence against\nhis unjust persecutors, may perhaps be allowed; but whether he ought\nafterwards to have made use of that means for the establishing of his\nreligion, is a question which I will not here determine. How far the\nsecular power may or ought to interpose in affairs of this nature,\nmankind are not agreed. The method of converting by the sword gives no\nvery favourable idea of the faith which is so propagated, and is\ndisallowed by every body in those of another religion, though the same\npersons are willing to admit of it for the advancement of their own;\nsupposing that though a false religion ought not to be established by\nauthority, yet a true one may; and accordingly force is as constantly\nemployed in these cases by those who have the power in their hands as it\nis constantly complained of by those who suffer the violence.\"[313]\n\nI do not agree with these words of Mr. George Sale regarding Mohammad,\n\"and at length, as his forces increased, he pretended to have the divine\nleave even to attack them, and to destroy idolatry, and set up the true\nfaith by the sword;\" he never attacked the Koreish or others except in\nhis own defence. The destruction of idolatry was the chief mission of\nMohammad, and that even was not resorted to by force of arms. There were\nneither compulsory conversions nor his history points to any extirpation\nof the idolaters at the point of sword from their native countries, as\nthe chief objects of his mission. The persecutions and civil discord\nwere to be removed or put a stop to, and force was used to repel force,\nbut nothing more. Conversion by the sword was not enforced on any\nproselyte by Mohammad.\n\n[Sidenote: 120. Major Osborn quoted.]\n\nMajor Osborn has drawn a very dark picture of what he calls \"The\nDoctrine of Jehad,\" in his _Islam under the Arabs_.[314] The defensive\nwars of Mohammad are explained by him as \"means of livelihood congenial\nto the Arab mind, and carrying with it no stain of disgrace or\nimmorality. This was robbery. Why should not the faithful eke out their\nscanty means by adopting this lucrative and honourable profession, which\nwas open to everyone who had a sword and knew how to use it?... Surely,\nto despoil these infidels and employ their property to feed the hungry\nand clothe the naked among the people of God, would be a work well\npleasing in His sight.... And thus was the first advance made in the\nconversion of the religion of Islam with the religion of the sword\"\n(pages 46-47). After this the Major writes again: \"The ninth Sura is\nthat which contains the Prophet's proclamation of war against the\nvotaries of all creeds other than that of Islam\" (page 52). Then he\nquotes several verses, some of them half sentences, violently distorted,\nfrom the eighth and ninth Suras, in a consecutive form, without giving\nthe numbers. These are Sura IX, 20, 34, 35, 82, 121; Sura VIII, 67; Sura\nIX, 36, 5, 29, 19; Sura XLVII, 4; Sura IX, 5; and Sura VIII, 42. Lastly,\nthe learned Major concludes by saying,--\"Such was the character of the\nSacred War enjoined upon the Faithful. It is Muhammad's greatest\nachievement and his worst. When subjected himself to the pains of\npersecution he had learned to perceive how powerless were torments\napplied to the body to work a change of conviction in the mind. 'Let\nthere be no violence in religion' had then been one of the maxims he had\nlaid down. 'Unto every one of you,' he had said in former days, speaking\nof Jews and Christians, 'have we given a law, and an open path; and if\nGod had pleased He had surely made you one people; but He hath thought\nfit to give you different laws, that he might try you in that which He\nhath given you respectively. Therefore, strive to excel each other in\ngood works; unto God shall ye all return, and then will He declare unto\nyou that concerning which ye have disagreed.' But the intoxication of\nsuccess had long ago stilled the voice of his better self. The aged\nProphet standing on the brink of the grave, and leaving as his last\nlegacy a mandate of universal war, irresistibly recalls, by force of\ncontrast, the parting words to his disciples of another religious\nteacher that they should go forth and preach a gospel of peace to all\nnations. Nor less striking in their contrast is the response to either\nmandate;--the Arab, with the Koran in one hand and the sword in the\nother, spreading his creed amid the glare of burning cities, and the\nshrieks of violated homes, and the Apostles of Christ working in the\nmoral darkness of the Roman world with the gentle but irresistible power\nof light, laying anew the foundations of society, and cleansing at their\nsource the polluted springs of domestic and national life.\"\n\n[Sidenote: 121. Major Osborn refuted.]\n\nThe learned author quoted above has either misunderstood the character\nof the wars of the Prophet of Islam, or has grossly misrepresented it.\nHe errs in two points: First, he makes the wars as wars of conquest,\ncompulsion, and aggression, whereas they were all undertaken in the\ndefence of the civil and religious rights of the early Moslems, who\nwere, as I have said before, persecuted, harassed, and tormented at\nMecca for their religion, and after a long period of persecution with\noccasional fresh and vigorous measures, were condemned to severer and\nharder sufferings, were expelled from their homes, leaving their dear\nrelations, and religious brethren to endure the calamities of the\npersecution, and while taking refuge at Medina were attacked upon by\nsuperior numbers, several of the surrounding tribes of Arabs and Jews\njoining the aggressive Koreish, making ruinous inroads and threatening\nthe Moslems with still greater and heavier miseries. From this statement\nit will appear that these wars were neither of conquest nor of\ncompulsory conversion. The second great mistake under which Major Osborn\nseems to labour is that he takes the injunctions of war against the\nMeccans or other aggressors as a general obligation to wage war against\nall unbelievers in the Moslem faith. In fact, these injunctions were\nonly against those aggressors who had actually committed great\nencroachments on the rights and liberties of the early Moslems, and had\ninflicted very disastrous injuries on them. These injunctions had and\nhave nothing to do with the future guidance of the Moslem world.\n\n[Sidenote: 122. The IXth Sura of the Koran.]\n\nIt is a great misrepresentation on the part of Major Osborn to assert\nthat \"the ninth Sura is that which contains the Prophet's proclamation\nof war against the votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam.\" No\nstatement could be farther from truth than this of his. The ninth Sura,\nor, more correctly, the beginning or opening verses of it, contain the\nProphet's proclamation of war against those of the Meccan idolaters,\nwho, in violation of the treaty of Hodeibia, had attacked the\nMoslems.--(Sura IX, 4, 8, 10, 12 & 13, _vide_ pages 23-25.) They were\nallowed four months' time (IX, 2, 5) to make terms. They submitted, and\nMecca was taken by compromise, in consequence of which the threatened\nwar was never waged. Those who had not broken their treaties were\nespecially mentioned, with whom the proclamation or the period allowed\nfor peace had no connection.--(_Vide_ Sura IX, 4, 7, quoted above, pages\n23-24.) Thus it is quite clear that the proclamation of war was only\nagainst the violators and aggressors, and not against the votaries of\nall creeds other than that of Islam. I have further discussed the ninth\nSura in para. 40 of this work. The other verses of this Sura refer to\nthe expedition of Tabuk, which was purely defensive in its nature as has\nbeen described in para. 33 of this book. (See also para. 42.)\n\n[Sidenote: 123. The Reverend Wherry quoted.]\n\nThe Reverend E.M. Wherry, M.A., in his note on Sale's Preliminary\nDiscourse, says:--\n\n\"Though Muhammad undoubtedly took Moses as his pattern, and supposed\nhimself following in his footsteps when he gave the command to fight\nagainst the infidels, yet there is no comparison between them whatever\nso far as warring against infidels is concerned. The Israelites were\ncommanded to slay the Canaanites as divinely ordained instruments of\n_destruction_; but Muhammad inaugurated war as a means of proselytism.\nThe Israelite was not permitted to proselytize from among the\nCanaanites, (Exod. XXIII. 27-33), but Muslims are required to\nproselytize by sword-power.\"[315]\n\nMohammad never had said that he did follow the footsteps of Moses in\ngiving the command of fighting in self-defence, and in repelling force\nby force. There could be no comparison whatsoever between the wars of\nMoses, which were merely wars of conquest, aggression, extermination,\nand expatriation, and those of Mohammad waged only in self-defence.\nMohammad did not inaugurate his career by prosecuting war as a means of\nproselytism, and never did proselytized any one by the sheer strength of\nthe sword. Mr. T.H. Horne, M.A., writes regarding the extirpation of the\nCanaanites:--\n\n\"After the time of God's forbearance was expired, they had still the\nalternative, either to flee elsewhere, as in fact, many of them did, or\nto surrender themselves, renounce their idolatries, and serve the God of\nIsrael. Compare Deut. XX. 10-17.\"[316] This was certainly compulsory\nconversion and proselytizing at the point of the sword.\n\n[Sidenote: 124. Example cited from the Jewish history.]\n\nThere is only one instance in the Koran in which an example is cited for\nthe war of defence by Mohammad, from the Jewish History. It is the\nasking of the children of Israel their prophet Samuel to raise up a king\nfor them to fight in their defence against the Philistines, who had very\nmuch oppressed the Israelites. Saul was appointed king over the\nIsraelites, and David killed Goliath, called _Jalut_ in the Koran, which\nwas in defence of the Israelites. I have quoted the verses relating to\nthe above subject from the Koran (Sura II, 247 and 252) in page 19th of\nthis work.\n\n\"Hast thou not considered the assembly of the children of Israel after\n_the death_ of Moses, when they said to a prophet of theirs,--'Raise up\nfor us a king; we will do battle for the cause of God?' He said, 'May it\nnot be that when fighting is ordained you, ye would not fight?' They\nsaid, 'And why should we not fight in the cause of God, since we are\ndriven forth from our dwellings and our children?'....\n\nThis shows that what the Koran or Mohammad took as an example from the\nhistory of the Jews was only their defensive war.\n\n[Sidenote: 125. Mosaic injunctions.]\n\nIt is very unfair of the Christians to make too much of the wars of\nMohammad, which were purely of a defensive nature, and offer apologies\nfor the most cruel wars of conquest and extermination by Moses, Joshua\nand other Jewish worthies under the express commands of God.--(_Vide_\nNumbers XXXI; Deut. XXI, &c.) But see what Mr. Wherry says. He writes in\nhis comments on the 191 verse of the second Sura of the Koran.\n\n\"(191). _Kill them, &c._ Much is made of expressions like this, by some\nChristian apologists, to show the cruel character of the Arabian\nprophet, and the inference is thence drawn that he was an impostor and\nhis Quran a fraud. Without denying that Muhammad was cruel, we think\nthis mode of assault to be very unsatisfactory to say the least, as it\nis capable of being turned against the Old Testament Scriptures. If the\nclaim of Muhammad to have received a divine command to exterminate\nidolatry by the slaughter of all impenitent idolaters be admitted, I can\nsee no objection to his practice. The question at issue is this. Did God\ncommand such slaughter of idolaters, as he commanded the destruction of\nthe Canaanites or of the Amalekites? Taking the stand of the Muslim,\nthat God did so command Muhammad and his followers, his morality in this\nrespect may be defended on precisely the same ground that the morality\nof Moses and Joshua is defended by the Christian.\"[317]\n\n[Sidenote: 126. The Revd. T.P. Hughes quoted.]\n\nThe Revd. T.P. Hughes in his Notes on Muhammadanism writes:--\n\n \"Jihad (lit. 'an effort') is a religious war against the infidels,\n as enjoined by Muhammad in the Quran.\"\n\n Surat-un-Nisa (VI.)\n\n \"Fight therefore for the religion of God.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\n \"God hath indeed promised Paradise to every one. But God hath\n preferred those who _fight for the faith_.\" (IV, 97.)\n Surat-ul-Muhammad (XLVII).\n\n \"Those who _fight in the defence of God's true religion_, God will\n not suffer their works to perish.\" (XLVII, 5.)[318]\n\nThe first verse quoted by Mr. Hughes appertains to the war of defence.\nThe verse in itself has express indications of its relating to the war\nof defence, but Mr. Hughes was not inclined, perhaps, to copy it in\nfull. He merely quotes half a sentence, and shuts his eyes from other\nwords and phrases of the same verse. The verse has been quoted in page\n20. It is as follows:--\n\n\"Fight then on the path of God: lay not burdens on any but thyself; and\nstir up the faithful. The powers of the infidels, God will haply\nrestrain; for God is stronger in prowess, and stronger to\npunish.\"--(Sura IV, 86.)\n\nThe severe persecution, the intense torture and mighty aggression of\nthe Meccans and their allies is referred to in the original word _Bass_,\nrendered _prowess_ into English and referred to in the previous verse\n77, which shows that the war herein enjoined was to restrain the\naggressions of the enemy and to repel force by force.\n\nIt is very unfair on the part of the Revd. T.P. Hughes to twist or\ndislocate half a sentence from a verse and put it forth to demonstrate\nand prove a certain object of his.\n\n[Sidenote: 127. Meaning of Jihad.]\n\nThe second verse quoted by the same author is a mere mistranslation.\nThere is no such word in the original which admits of being rendered as\n\"fighting.\" The true translation of the sentence quoted above from Sura\nIV, verse 97, is as follows:--\n\n\"Good promises hath he made to all. But God hath assigned to the\n_strenuous_ a rich recompense above those who sit still at home.\"\n\nThe word rendered \"_strenuous_\" is originally \"mojahid\" (plural\n\"Mojahidin,\" from Jihad), which in classical Arabic and throughout the\nKoran means to do one's utmost, to make effort, to strive, to exert, to\nemploy one's-self diligently, studiously, sedulously, earnestly,\nzealously, or with energy, and does not mean fighting or warfare. It was\nsubsequently applied to religious war, but was never used in the Koran\nin such a sense. (_Vide_ Appendix A.)\n\n[Sidenote: 128. Sura XLVII, v. 5.]\n\nThe third instance quoted by Mr. Hughes is also a mistranslation of a\nsentence in verse 5, Sura XLVII. The original word is \"_kotelu_,\" which\nmeans \"those who are _killed_,\" and not \"those who _fight_,\" as\nexplained and translated by the author. The correct rendering of the\nsentence is this: \"And those who are killed, their work God will not\nsuffer to miscarry.\"\n\nSome read the word \"_katalu_,\" which means \"those who fought,\" but the\ngeneral and authorized reading is \"_kotelu_,\" _i.e._, \"those who are\nkilled.\" Even if it be taken for granted that the former is the correct\nreading, it will be explained by several other verses which mean\nfighting in defence, and not fighting aggressively, which not only has\nbeen never taught in the Koran but is always prohibited (II, 186). The\nverse to that effect runs thus:--\n\n\"And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you; but\ncommit not the injustice of attacking them first. Verily God loveth not\nthe unjust.\"--(II, 186.)\n\nThis verse permitted only defensive war and prohibited every aggressive\nmeasure. All other verses mentioned in connection with fighting on the\npart of the Moslems must be interpreted in conformity with this.\n\n[Sidenote: 129. The Rev. Mr. Malcolm MacColl quoted.]\n\nThe Rev. Malcolm MacColl writes:--\n\n\"The Koran divides the earth into parts: Dar-ul-Islam, or the House of\nIslam; and Dar-ul-Harb, or the House of the enemy. All who are not of\nIslam are thus against it, and it is accordingly the duty of the True\nBelievers to fight against the infidels till they accept Islam, or are\ndestroyed. This is called the Djihad or Holy War, which can only end\nwith the conversion or death of the last infidel on earth. It is thus\nthe sacred duty of the Commander of the Faithful to make war on the\nnon-Mussulman world as occasion may offer. But Dar-ul-Harb or the\nnon-Mussulman world, is subdivided into Idolaters and Ketabi, or 'People\nof the Book,'--_i.e._, people who possess divinely inspired Scriptures,\nnamely, Jews, Samaritans, and Christians. All the inhabitants of\nDar-ul-Harb are infidels, and consequently outside the pale of\nSalvation. But the Ketabi are entitled to certain privileges in this\nworld, if they submit to the conditions which Islam imposes. Other\ninfidels must make their choice between one of two alternatives--Islam\nor the sword. The Ketabi are allowed a third alternative, namely,\nsubmission and the payment of tribute. But if they refuse to submit, and\npresume to fight against the True Believers, they lapse at once into the\ncondition of the rest of Dar-ul-Harb and may be summarily put to death\nor sold as slaves.\"[319]\n\nI am very sorry the Rev. gentleman is altogether wrong in his assertions\nagainst the Koran. There is neither such a division of the world in the\nKoran, nor such words as \"Dar-ul-Islam\" and \"Dar-ul-Harb\" are to be\nfound anywhere in it. There is no injunction in the Koran to the True\nBelievers to fight against the infidels till they accept Islam, failing\nwhich they are to be put to death. The words \"Dar-ul-Islam\" and\n\"Dar-ul-Harb\" are only to be found in the Mohammadan Common Law, and are\nonly used in the question of jurisdiction. No Moslem magistrate will\npass a sentence in a criminal case against a criminal who had committed\nan offence in a foreign country. The same is the case in civil\ncourts[320]. All the inhabitants of Dar-ul-Harb are not necessarily\ninfidels. Mohammadans, either permanently or temporarily by obtaining\npermission from the sovereign of the foreign land, can be the\ninhabitants of a Dar-ul-Harb, a country out of the Moslem jurisdiction,\nor at war with it.\n\n[Sidenote: 130. The untenable theories of the Common Law and\nconclusion.]\n\nIt is only a theory of our Common Law, in its military and political\nchapters, which allow waging unprovoked war with non-Moslems, exacting\ntribute from \"the people of the Book,\" and other idolaters, except those\nof Arabia, for which the Hanafi Code of the Common Law has nothing short\nof conversion to Islam or destruction by the sword. As a rule, our\ncanonical legists support their theories by quotations from the\nMohammadan Revealed Law, _i.e._, the Koran, as well as from the Sonnah,\nor the traditions from the Prophet, however absurd and untenable may be\ntheir process of reasoning and argumentative deductions. In this theory\nof waging war with, and exacting tribute or the capitation-tax from, the\nnon-Moslem world, they quote the 9th and other Suras. These verses have\nbeen copied and explained elsewhere in this book. The casuistic\nsophistry of the canonical legists in deducing these war theories from\nthe Koran is altogether futile. These verses relate only to the wars\nwaged by the Prophet and his followers purely in their self-defence.\nNeither these verses had anything to do with waging unprovoked war and\nexacting tributes during Mohammad's time, nor could they be made a law\nfor future military conquest. These were only temporary in their\noperations and purely defensive in their nature. The Mohammadan Common\nLaw is by no means divine or superhuman. It mostly consists of uncertain\ntraditions, Arabian usages and customs, some frivolous and fortuitous\nanalogical deductions from the Koran, and a multitudinous array of\ncasuistical sophistry of the canonical legists. It has not been held\nsacred or unchangeable by enlightened Mohammadans of any Moslem country\nand in any age since its compilation in the fourth century of the\nHejira. All the _Mujtahids_, _Ahl Hadis_, and other non-Mokallids had\nhad no regard for the four schools of Mohammadan religious\njurisprudence, or the Common Law.\n\n[Sidenote: Sura XLVII, 16, and Sura XLVII, 4 and 5.]\n\nSura XLVIII, 16, is not generally quoted by the canonical legists in\nsupport of their theory of Jehad, but by some few. It is not in the\nshape of a command or injunction; it is in a prophetical tone:--\n\n\"Say to those Arabs of the desert who stayed behind, Ye shall be called\nforth against a people of mighty valour; Ye shall do battle with them,\nor they shall submit (_Yoslemoon_)[321]....\"\n\nThe verses 4 and 5 of Sura XLVII, like all other verses on the subject,\nappertain to the wars of defence, and no one has ever quoted them for\nwars of aggression. These verses have already been quoted at page 85.\nThe abolition of the future slavery as enjoined in the 5th verse has\nbeen treated separately in Appendix B. The Arabs, like other barbarous\nnations round them, used either to kill the prisoners of war or to\nenslave them; but this injunction of the Koran abolished both of these\nbarbarous practices. The prisoners henceforward were neither to be\nkilled nor enslaved, but were to be set at liberty with or without\nransom.\n\n[Footnote 289: Ata, a learned legist of Mecca, who flourished at the end\nof the first century of the Hegira, and held a high rank there as a\njuris-consult, (_vide_ para. 112) held, that Jihad was only incumbent on\nthe Companions of the Prophet, and was not binding on any one else after\nthem. See para. 112, and _Tafsir Majma-ul-Bayan_ by Tabrasee under Sura\nII. 212.]\n\n[Footnote 290: The _Hedaya_ or Guide; or, A Commentary on the Mussulman\nLaws, translated by Charles Hamilton; Vol. II, Book IX, Ch. I, page 140\nLondon, MDCCXCI.]\n\n[Footnote 291: The _Hedaya_ or Guide; or, A Commentary on the Mussulman\nLaws, translated by Charles Hamilton; Vol. II, Book IX, Ch. I, page\n141.]\n\n[Footnote 292: \"Arab _Kattal_; meaning war in its _operation_, such as\n_fighting_, _slaying_,\" &c.]\n\n[Footnote 293: The _Hedaya_, Vol. II, 141.]\n\n[Footnote 294: Sura II, 187.]\n\n[Footnote 295: The Hedaya, with its commentary called Kifaya, Vol. II,\np. 708. Calcutta Medical Press, 1834.\n\nAs a general rule the Mohammadan authors do not refer to the verses of\nthe Koran by their number. They generally quote the first sentence, or\neven a portion of it. The No. of verses are mine. I have followed\nFluegel and Rodwell's numbers of verses in their editions and\ntranslations of the Koran.]\n\n[Footnote 296: Kifaya as before.]\n\n[Footnote 297: _Binayah_, a commentary of the _Hedaya_, by Ainee. Vol.\nII, Part II, page 789.]\n\n[Footnote 298: Part. III, page 219.]\n\n[Footnote 299: _Tuhfatul Muhtaj fi Sharah-al-Minhaj_, Part IV, page\n137.]\n\n[Footnote 300: _Insan-ul-Oyoon_, Part II, pp. 289, 291. Chapter on\n\"Campaign.\"]\n\n[Footnote 301: Sura IX, 5 and 12. These verses have been discussed at\npages 51-55.]\n\n[Footnote 302: \"The Jihad will last till the day of the Resurrection.\"\n\n\"I have been enjoined to fight the people until they confess there is no\ngod but the God.\" For these traditions see the next para.]\n\n[Footnote 303: _Vide_ Ainee's Commentary of the _Hedaya_, Vol. II, Part\nII, p. 790.]\n\n[Footnote 304: _Vide_ Ainee's Commentary of the _Hedaya_, Vol. II, Part\nII, p. 798.]\n\n[Footnote 305: _Vide_ Kazee Budrudeen Mahmood bin Ahmed Ainee's (who\ndied in 855 A.H.) Commentary on the _Hedaya_ called _Binayah_, and\ngenerally known by the name of Ainee, Vol. II, pp. 789-90, \"Book of\nInstitute.\"]\n\n[Footnote 306: The Modern Egyptians, by Edward William Lane; Vol. I, p.\n117, _note_: fifth edition, London, 1871.]\n\n[Footnote 307: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 251-252.]\n\n[Footnote 308: The Early Caliphate and Rise of Islam, being the Rede\nLecture for 1881, delivered before the University of Cambridge by Sir\nWilliam Muir, K.C.S.I., LL.D., page 5, London, 1881.]\n\n[Footnote 309: The History and Conquests of the Saracens, by Edward. A.\nFreeman, D.C.L., LL.D., pp. 41-42; London, 1877.]\n\n[Footnote 310: Christianity and Islam; The Bible and the Koran; by the\nRev. W.R.W. Stephens, London, 1877, pp. 98-99.]\n\n[Footnote 311: _Vide_ paras. 17, 29, 126.]\n\n[Footnote 312: Mohammed and Mohammedanism. Lectures delivered at the\nRoyal Institution of Great Britain in February and March 1874, by R.\nBosworth Smith, M.A., Second Edition, page 137; London, 1876.]\n\n[Footnote 313: The Koran, by George Sale. The \"_Chandos Classics_.\" The\nPreliminary Discourse, Section II, pp. 37-38.]\n\n[Footnote 314: London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1876, pp. 46-54.]\n\n[Footnote 315: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran; comprising\nSale's Translation and Preliminary Discourse, with additional Notes and\nEmendations, by the Revd. E.M. Wherry, M.A., page 220; London: Truebner &\nCo., 1882.]\n\n[Footnote 316: An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of\nthe Holy Scripture, by Thomas Hartwell Horne, Esq., M.A. Vol. II, page\n524; London. 1828.]\n\n[Footnote 317: Commentary on the Quran by the Revd. Wherry, page 358.]\n\n[Footnote 318: Notes on Muhammadanism; being outlines of the Religious\nSystem of Islam, by the Revd. T.P. Hughes, M.R.A.S., C.M.S., Missionary\nto the Afghans, page 206; Second Edition, 1877.]\n\n[Footnote 319: The Nineteenth Century; London, December 1877, page 832.]\n\n[Footnote 320: This subject has been fully treated in my \"The Proposed\nPolitical, Legal, and Social Reforms in Moslem States,\" pp. 22-25:\nBombay Education Society Press, 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 321: Sir W. Muir, with other European translators of the\nKoran, translates the word \"they shall profess Islam\" (The Life of\nMahomet, Vol. IV, p. 39, _footnote_). It ought to be translated \"they\nshall submit.\" There is a difference of opinion among the commentators\nand canonical legists in this word. Some translate the word _Yoslemoon_\n\"shall profess Islam,\" and others \"shall submit.\" This difference in the\ninterpretation of the same word is merely of a sectarian nature, each\nparty wishing to serve their own purpose. Those legists who held that\nthe polytheists and idolaters may either be fought against or be\nsubmitted to the authority of Islam by being tributaries, took the word\nin its proper sense of submission. Those who held that \"the people of\nthe Book\" ought only to be made tributaries, while all other idolaters\nand polytheists should be compelled either to perish or to embrace\nIslam, interpret the word technically to mean the religion of Islam. But\nas the verse is not a legal command, we condemn at once the casuistic\nsophistry of the legists.]\n\n\n\n\nAppendix A\n\nON THE WORD \"JIHAD\" AS OCCURRING IN THE KORAN AND WRONGLY TRANSLATED\n\"WARFARE.\"\n\n\n[Sidenote: Jihad or Jihd does not mean war or crusade.]\n\n1. The popular word _Jihad_ or _Jihd_, occurring in several passages of\nthe Koran, and generally construed by Christians and Moslems alike as\nmeaning hostility or the waging of war against infidels, does not\nclassically or literally signify war, warfare, hostility or fighting,\nand is never used in such a sense in the Koran. The Arabic terms for\nwarfare or fighting are _Harab_ and _Kital_.\n\n[Sidenote: Classical meaning of Jihad, &c.]\n\n2. The words _Jahada_, and _Jahada_ signify that a person strove,\nlaboured or toiled; exerted himself or his power, or efforts, or\nendeavours, or ability employed himself vigorously, diligently,\nstudiously, sedulously, earnestly or with energy; was diligent or\nstudious, took pains or extraordinary pains[322]; for example, the term\n_Jahada fil-amr_ signifies that a person did his utmost or used his\nutmost powers, or efforts, or endeavours, or ability in prosecuting an\naffair.[323] The infinitive noun _Jihadan_ also means difficulty or\nembarrassment, distress, affliction, trouble, inconvenience, fatigue, or\nweariness.[324] Jauharce, a lexicologist of great repute, whose work is\nconfined to classical terms and their significations, says in his Sihah\nthat _Jahada fi Sabeelillah_ or _Mojahadatan_ and _Jihadan_ and also\n_Ajtahada_ and _Tajahada_ mean expending power and effort. Fayoomee,\nauthor of _Misbahel Moneer_, which contains a very large collection of\nclassical words and phrases of frequent occurrence, also says that\n_Jahada fi Sabeelillah Jihadan_ and _Ajtahada fil Amr_ mean he expended\nhis utmost efforts and power in seeking to attain an object.\n\n[Sidenote: Post-classical or technical meaning of Jihad.]\n\n3. It is only a post-classical and technical meaning of _Jihad_ to use\nthe word as signifying fighting against an enemy. Mr. Lane says,\n\"_Jahada_ came to be used by the Moslems to signify generally _he\nfought_, _warred_ or waged war against _unbelievers_ and _the like_.\"\nThis signification is now given by those lexicologists who do not\nrestrict themselves to the definition of classical terms or\nsignifications, like the author of Kamoos. Mr. Lane, the celebrated\nauthor of _Maddool Kamoos_ an Arabic-English lexicologist, clearly shows\nthat the definition of _Jihad_, as the act of waging war, is only of\nMoslem origin and is not classical. And I will show in sequence that the\nMoslem usage of _Jihad_, as signifying the waging of war, is a\npost-Koranic usage, and that in the Koran it is used classically and\nliterally in its natural sense.\n\n[Sidenote: The Classical tongue and Arabian poets.]\n\n4. What is called the classical language of Arabia or the _loghat_, and\nis an authority for the genuineness of the Arabic terms and their\nsignifications, is the language which was spoken throughout the whole of\nthe Peninsula previous to the appearance of Mohammad. After the death of\nMohammad the language was rapidly corrupted by the introduction of\nforeign words. This was doubtless owing to the great extension of the\nMohammadan power at this period. The classical poets are those who died\nbefore these great conquests were effected, and are the most reliable\nauthorities for Arabic words and their significations, and they are\ncalled _Jahili_. Next to the classical poets are the post-classical, or\n_Mokhadrams_, _Islami_ and _Mowallads_. Mokhadram is a poet who lived\npartly before and partly after Mohammad, and who did not embrace\nIslamism during the life of the Prophet. The Islami poets are the\nMohammadan poets of the first and second centuries of the Hejira, and\nMowallads, the poets of the fourth rank, followed the Islamis. The\nearliest classical poets date only a century before the birth of\nMohammad, and the latest, about a century after his death. The period of\nthe Islami poets is the first and second centuries,--_i.e._, those who\nlived after the first corruption of the Arabic language, but before the\ncorruption had become extensive.\n\nThe Mowallads co-existed with the general and rapid corruption of the\nlanguage from the beginning or middle of the second century.\n\n[Sidenote: The conjugation and declension of _Jahd_ and _Jihad_]\n\n5. The words _Jahd_ and _Jihad_ and their derivations, amounting to\nfourteen in number, occur in the following passages in the Koran:--\n\n 1. \"Jahada\" Chapter xxix, 5; ix, 19.\n 2. \"Jahadaka\" Do. xxxi, 14, xxix, 7.\n 3. \"Jahadoo\" Do. ii, 215; viii, 73, 75,\n 76; ix, 16, 20, 89;\n xlix, 15; iii, 136;\n xvi, 111; xxix, 69.\n 4. \"Yojahido\" Do. xxix, 5.\n 5. \"Yojahidoona\" Do. v, 59.\n 6. \"Yojahidoo\" Do. ix, 44, 82.\n 7. \"Tojahidoona\" Do. lxi, 11.\n 8. \"Jihad\" Do. xxv, 54; xxii, 77;\n ix, 24; lx, 1.\n 8.* \"Jahd\" Do. v, 58; vi, 109;\n xvi, 40; xxiv, 52;\n xxxv, 40.\n 9.* \"Johd\" Do ix, 80.\n 10. \"Jahid\" Do. ix, 74; lxvi, 9.\n 11. \"Jahidhoom\" Do. xxv, 54.\n 12. \"Mojahidina\" Do. iv, 97; bis. xlvii, 33.\n 13. \"Mojahidoona\" Do. iv, 97.\n 14. \"Jahidoo\" Do. v, 39; ix, 41, 87; xxii, 77.\n\n[Sidenote: The number of instances in which they occur in the Koran.]\n\n6. There are altogether 36 verses in the Koran containing the words\nnoted above, in the following chapters and verses:--\n\n Chapter ii, 215.\n Do. iii, 136.\n Do. iv, 97.\n Do. v, 39, 58, 59.\n Do. vi, 109.\n Do. viii, 73, 75, 76.\n Do. ix, 16, 19, 20, 24, 41, 44, 74, 80, 82, 87, 89.\n Do. xvi, 40, 111.\n Do. xxii, 77.\n Do. xxiv, 52.\n Do. xxv, 54.\n Do. xxix, 5, 7, 69.\n Do. xxxi, 14.\n Do. xxxv, 40.\n Do. xlvii, 33.\n Do. xlix, 15.\n Do. xl, 1.\n Do. xli, 11.\n Do. xlvi, 9.\n\n[Sidenote: In what sense they are used in the Koran.]\n\n7. Out of the above, the verses containing the words \"Jahd\" and\n\"Johd,\"--_i.e._, v, 58; vi, 109; xvi, 40; xxiv, 52; xxxv, 40; and ix,\n80, marked *, are altogether out of dispute, as in all the former\npassages, except the last one, its obvious meaning is _most_ or _utmost_\nsolemn oaths,[325] or most _energetic_ oaths or _strongest_ or most\nforcible oaths,[326] and the latter signifies small provisions upon\nwhich a man possessing a little property can live with difficulty. The\nrest are of two kinds--_first_, the verses occurring in the Meccan\nSuras. As then the Moslems had not resorted to arms in their defence,\nthough suffering from persecutions, Mohammadan commentators and jurists\nand Christian writers are unanimous in construing _Jihad_ in its natural\nsense of exertion, effort, energy, and painstaking. Secondly, the verses\ncontaining the same words occurring in the Medina Suras, which were\nrevealed or published when the Moslems had taken arms in their defence.\nAs regards this period, the words are considered to have an entirely new\nand an altogether fortuitous meaning, _viz._, a religious war of\naggression. Even some verses of this period are rendered by Mohammadans\nand Christians in the literal sense of the word.\n\n[Sidenote: Conventional significations of _Jihad_.]\n\n8. I fully admit that in the post-classical language of the\nArabs,--_i.e._, that in use subsequent to the time of Mohammad, when the\nlanguage was rapidly corrupted, the word \"Jihad\" was used to signify\n\"warfare\" or fighting, but this was in a military sense. Since that\nperiod the word has come to be used as meaning the waging of a war or a\ncrusade only in military tactics, and more recently it found its way in\nthe same sense into the Mohammadan law-books and lexicons of later\ndates. But the subsequent corrupt or post-classical language cannot be\naccepted as a final or even a satisfactory authority upon the point.\n\n \"It was decided by common consent,\" says Mr. Edward William Lane,\n in his Arabic-English Lexicon (Preface, pp. viii and ix), \"that no\n poet, nor any other person, should be taken as an absolute and\n unquestionable authority with respect to the words or their\n significations, the grammar, or the prosody of the classical\n language, unless he were one who had died before the promulgation\n of El-Islam, or who had lived partly before and partly after that\n event; or, as they term it, unless he were a 'Jahilee' or a\n 'Mukhadram,' or (as some pronounce it) 'Mukhadrim,' or 'Muhadram'\n or 'Muhadrim.' A poet of the class next after the Mukhadrams is\n termed an 'Islamee:' and as the corruption of the language had\n become considerable in his time, even among those who aimed at\n chasteness of speech, he is not cited as an authority absolutely\n and unquestionably like the two preceding classes. A poet of the\n next class, which is the last, is termed 'Muwelled;' he is\n absolutely post-classical; and is cited as an unquestionable\n authority with respect only to the rhetorical sciences. The\n commencement of the period of the Muwelleds is not distinctly\n stated: but it must have preceded the middle of the second century\n of the Flight; for the classical age may be correctly defined as\n having nearly ended with the first century, when very few persons\n born before the establishment of El-Islam through Arabia were\n living. Thus the best of the Islami poets may be regarded, and are\n generally regarded, as holding classical rank, though not as being\n absolute authorities with respect to the words and the\n significations, the grammar, and the prosody of the classical\n language.\"\n\nMr. Thomas Chenry, M.A., writes:[327]--\n\n \"Within a century of Mohammad's flight from Mecca, the Moslem\n empire stretched from Kashgar and Mooltan to Morocco and the\n Pyrenees, and the Arab man of letters was exposed to the corrupting\n propinquity of men of very different races. Only a poet of\n Ignorance, that is, one who died before the preaching of Islam, or\n a Mokhadram, that is, who was contemporary with it, was looked upon\n as of paramount and unquestionable authority. An Islami, that is,\n one who was born after the rise of Islam, was of least\n consideration, and after the first century, the poets are called\n Muwalladun and are only quoted for their literary beauties, and not\n as authorities for the Arab tongue.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Mohammadan commentators, &c., quoted.]\n\n9. All commentators, paraphrasts, and jurisconsults admit that the\nprimary and original signification of the words \"_Jahad_\" and \"_Jihad_\"\nis power, ability, and toil, and that its use, as making wars or\ncrusades, is conventional and figurative. Ibn Attiah says regarding\nverse 69, Chapter XXIX, that it is Meccan, and was revealed before the\nenjoining of the _Orfee_ or conventional _Jihad_ (_vide_ Fat-hul bayan\nfi maquasidil Koran, Vol. II, page 517, by Siddik Hussan). Khateeb\nKoostlane, in his _Irshadussari_, a paraphrase of Bokhari, says that\n\"_Jihad_ is derived from _Jahd_, which means toil and labour, or from\n_Johd_, which means power. And in technical language it means fighting\nwith infidels to assist Islam\" (Vol. V, page 26). Mohammad Allauddin Al\nHaskafi (died 1088 A.H.), the author of Dur-ral-Mukhtar, a commentary on\nTanviral Absar, by Sheikh Mohammad Al Tamartashi (died 1004), says in\nthe chapter on _Jihad_, that \"in the classical language it is the\ninfinitive noun of _Jahada fi Sabil-Allah_, and in the language of the\nlaw it means inviting the infidels to the true faith and fighting with\nhim who does not accept it.\" And Ibn Abidin Shami, in his annotation on\nthe above work, says:\n\n \"The infinitive noun of _Jahada_ means to do one's utmost, and that\n it is general, and includes any person who supports all that is\n reasonable and forbids what is wrong.\"\n\n[Sidenote: When the word Jihad was diverted from its original\nsignification to its figurative meaning of waging religious war?]\n\n10. It is admitted by all lexicologists, commentators, and jurisconsults\nthat _Jihad_ in classical Arabic means to labour, strive earnestly, and\nthat the change of its meaning or the technical signification occurred\nonly in the post-classical period, _i.e._, long after the publication\nof the Koran. It is obviously improper, therefore, to apply the\npost-classical meaning of the word where it occurs in the Koran. This\nfact is further admitted by all the Mohammadan commentators and English\ntranslators of the Koran, who render the word in its original and\nliteral meaning in all the Meccan and in the early Medinite Suras or\nChapters of the Koran.[328]\n\nIt is only in a few of the latest chapters of the Koran published at\nlater dates at Medina, that they (the commentators and translators)\ndeviate from the original meaning, and prefer the subsequent unclassical\nand technical signification of waging war or crusade.\n\n[Sidenote: All verses of the Koran containing the word Jihad and its\nderivation quoted and explained.]\n\n11. I herein place in juxtaposition the several English translations of\nthe word \"_Jihad_,\" together with its etymological derivation and\nseveral grammatical forms, to show, in the first place, that Mr. George\nSale and the Rev. J.M. Rodwell and other European authors generally give\nthe literal, original, and classical meaning; and in the second place,\nto show how they differ in giving various meanings, literal and\ntechnical, in some passages to the same word in the same verses.\n\nIt will be observed from a perusal of the statement, that the Rev. Mr.\nRodwell, M.A., is more correct than the earliest English translator of\nthe Koran, Mr. George Sale, and the latest, Mr. W.H. Palmer. The latter\nis the most unsatisfactory of all in this respect, as everywhere, except\nin six places--XXIX, 7; V, 39, 59; IV, 97; and IX, 74, 89--he translates\n_Jihad_ as meaning fighting--a circumstance which not unnaturally leads\nto the supposition that he had paid but slight heed to the context.\n\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n |Serial No.\n | | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.\n | | | Original Words. ----------------------------\n | | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH\n | | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }\n | | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n | 1 |\n | | XXXI. 14\n | | | \"Jahadaka\"\n | | | | \"Strive\"\n | | | | | \"Endeavour to prevail\"\n | | | | | | \"Strive.\"\n | 2 |\n | | XXV. 54\n | | | \"Jahid,\" \"Jihadan.\"\n | | | | \"Oppose them herewith with strong opposition.\"\n | | | | | \"By means of the Koran strive against them with\n | | | | | a mighty strife.\"\n | | | | | | \"Fight strenuously; strenuous fight.\"\n | 3 |\n | | XXII. 77\n | | | \"Jahidoo\"\n | | | | \"Fight in the defence of God's religion.\"\n | | | | | \"Do valiantly\"\n | | | | | | \"Fight strenuously.\"\n | 4 |\n | | XVI. 111\n | | | \"Jahadoo\"\n | | | | \"Have since sought _in the_ defence of the true religion.\"\n | | | | | \"Fought\"\n | | | | | | \"Fought strenuously.\"\n | 5 |\n | | XXIX. 5\n | | | \"Jahada\"\n | | | | \"Striveth\"\n | | | | | \"Maketh efforts\"\n | | | | | | \"Fight strenuously; fight strenuously.\"\n | 6 |\n | | XXIX. 7\n | | | \"Jahadaka\"\n | | | | \"Endeavour\"\n | | | | | \"Strive\"\n | | | | | | \"Strive.\"\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n |Serial No.\n | | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.\n | | | Original Words. ----------------------------\n | | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH\n | | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }\n | | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n | 7 |\n | | XXIX. 69\n | | | \"Jahadoo\"\n | | | | \"Utmost endeavour\"\n | | | | | \"Made efforts\"\n | | | | | | \"Fight strenuously.\"\n | 8 |\n | | XVI. 40\n | | | \"Jahd\"\n | | | | \"Most solemnly\"\n | | | | | \"Most sacred\"\n | | | | | | \"Most strenuous.\"\n | 9 |\n | | XXXV. 40\n | | | \"Jahd\"\n | | | | \"Most solemn\"\n | | | | | \"Mightiest\"\n | | | | | | \"Most strenuous.\"\n | 10 |\n | | II. 215\n | | | \"Jahadoo\"\n | | | | \"Fight in God's cause\"\n | | | | | \"Fight\"\n | | | | | | \"Wage war.\"\n | 11 |\n | | III. 136\n | | | \"Jahadoo\"\n | | | | \"Those who fought strenuously.\"\n | | | | | \"Did valiantly\"\n | | | | | | \"Fought well.\"\n | 12 |\n | | VIII. 73\n | | | \"Jahadoo be-am-walhim-w-anfosa-him.\"\n | | | | \"Employed their substance and their persons in fight for\n | | | | the religion of God.\"\n | | | | | \"Spent their substance and themselves for the cause\n | | | | | of God.\"\n | | | | | | \"Fought strenuously with their wealth and\n | | | | | | person.\"\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n |Serial No.\n | | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.\n | | | Original Words. ----------------------------\n | | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH\n | | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }\n | | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n | 13 |\n | | VIII. 75\n | | | \"Jahadoo\"\n | | | | \"Have fought for God's true religion.\"\n | | | | | \"Fought\"\n | | | | | | \"Fought strenuously.\"\n | 14 |\n | | VIII. 76\n | | | \"Jahadoo\"\n | | | | \"Have fought with you.\"\n | | | | | \"Fought\"\n | | | | | | \"Fought strenuously.\"\n | 15 |\n | | VI. 109\n | | | \"Jahd\"\n | | | | \"Most solemn\"\n | | | | | \"Most binding\"\n | | | | | | \"Most strenuous\"\n | 16 |\n | | XLVII. 33\n | | | \"Mojahidina\"\n | | | | \"Who fight valiantly\"\n | | | | | \"Valiant\"\n | | | | | | \"Fought strenuously.\"\n | 17 |\n | | LXI. 11\n | | | \"Jahidoo\"\n | | | | \"Defend God's true religion with your substance and in\n | | | | your person.\"\n | | | | | \"Do valiantly\"\n | | | | | | \"To fight strenuously.\"\n | 18 |\n | | IV. 97\n | | | 1st. \"Mojahidina\"\n | | | | 1st. \"Those who employ their fortune and their persons\n | | | | for the religion of God.\"\n | | | | | 1. \"Defend God's true religion valiantly.\"\n | | | | | | 1. \"Strenuous.\"\n | | | 2nd. \"Mojahidina.\"\n | | | | 2nd. \"Those who employ their fortune and persons.\"\n | | | | | 2. \"Contend earnestly.\"\n | | | | | | 2. \"Strenuous.\"\n | | | 3rd. \"Mojahidina.\"\n | | | | 3rd. \"Those who fight\"\n | | | | | 3. \"Strenuous\"\n | | | | | | 3. \"Strenuous.\"\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n |Serial No.\n | | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.\n | | | Original Words. ----------------------------\n | | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH\n | | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }\n | | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n | 19 |\n | | XXIV. 52\n | | | \"Jahd\"\n | | | | \"Most solemn\"\n | | | | | \"Most solemn\"\n | | | | | | \"Most strenuous.\"\n | 20 |\n | | LXVI. 9\n | | | \"Jahid\"\n | | | | \"Attack the hypocrites with arguments.\"\n | | | | | \"Make war\"\n | | | | | | \"Fight strenuously.\"\n | 21 |\n | | IX. 74\n | | | \"Jahid\"\n | | | | \"Wage war\"\n | | | | | \"Contend\"\n | | | | | | \"Strive strenuously.\"\n | 22 |\n | | LXI. 1\n | | | \"Jihadan\"\n | | | | \"To fight in the defence of my religion.\"\n | | | | | \"To fight\"\n | | | | | | \"Fighting strenuously.\"\n | 23 |\n | | XLIX. 5\n | | | \"Jahadoo\"\n | | | | \"Who employ their substance and their person in the\n | | | | defence of God's true religion.\"\n | | | | | \"Contend with their substance and their person.\"\n | | | | | | \"Fight strenuously with their wealth and their\n | | | | | | persons.\"\n | 24 |\n | | IX. 16\n | | | \"Jahadoo\"\n | | | | \"Those among you who sought for his religion.\"\n | | | | | \"Valiantly\"\n | | | | | | \"Fought strenuously.\"\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n |Serial No.\n | | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.\n | | | Original Words. ----------------------------\n | | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH\n | | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }\n | | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n | 25 |\n | | IX. 19\n | | | \"Jahada\"\n | | | | \"Fighteth\"\n | | | | | \"Fighteth\"\n | | | | | | \"Strenuous.\"\n | 26 |\n | | IX. 20\n | | | \"Jahadoo\"\n | | | | \"Fought for his religion.\"\n | | | | | \"Do valiantly\"\n | | | | | | \"Fought strenuously.\"\n | 27 |\n | | IX. 24\n | | | \"Jihadan\"\n | | | | \"Advancement\"\n | | | | | \"Efforts\"\n | | | | | | \"Fighting strenuously.\"\n | 28 |\n | | IX. 41\n | | | \"Jahidoo\"\n | | | | \"Employ your substance and your person for the advancement\n | | | | of God's religion.\"\n | | | | | \"Contend with your substance and with your person.\"\n | | | | | | \"Fight strenuously with your wealth and your\n | | | | | | persons.\"\n | 29 |\n | | IX. 44\n | | | \"Yojahidoo\"\n | | | | \"Employing their substance and their persons for the\n | | | | advancement of God's true religion.\"\n | | | | | \"Contending with your substance and your person.\"\n | | | | | | \"Fighting strenuously.\"\n | 30 |\n | | IX. 82\n | | | \"Yojahidoo\"\n | | | | \"Employ their substance and their persons for the\n | | | | advancement of God's true religion.\"\n | | | | | \"Contending with their riches and their persons.\"\n | | | | | | \"Fighting strenuously with their wealth and\n | | | | | | their persons.\"\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n |Serial No.\n | | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.\n | | | Original Words. ----------------------------\n | | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH\n | | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }\n | | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n | 31 |\n | | IX. 87\n | | | \"Jahidoo\"\n | | | | \"Go forth to war\"\n | | | | | \"Contend\"\n | | | | | | \"Fight strenuously.\"\n | 32 |\n | | IX. 89\n | | | \"Jahidoo\"\n | | | | \"Expose their fortunes and their lives.\"\n | | | | | \"Contend with purse and persons.\"\n | | | | | | \"Strenuous with their wealth and with their\n | | | | | | person.\"\n | 33 |\n | | V. 39\n | | | \"Jahidoo\"\n | | | | \"Fight for his religion.\"\n | | | | | \"Contend earnestly\"\n | | | | | | \"Be strenuous.\"\n | 34 |\n | | V. 58\n | | | \"Jahd\"\n | | | | \"Most firm\"\n | | | | | \"Most solemn\"\n | | | | | | \"Most strenuous.\"\n | 35 |\n | | V. 59\n | | | \"Yojahidoona\"\n | | | | \"They shall fight for the religion of God.\"\n | | | | | \"Will they contend\"\n | | | | | | \"Strenuous.\"\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n |Serial No.\n | | No. of the Chapter and the Verse of the Koran.\n | | | Original Words. ----------------------------\n | | | | George Sale's Translation. } ENGLISH\n | | | | | Rev. Rodwell's Translation. }\n | | | | | | Henry Palmer's Translation. } TRANSLATIONS.\n |----+-----+----+----+----+---------------------------------------------\n\n12. The above verses quoted with remarks. I will now proceed to give a\ncorrect translation of all the verses of the Koran referred to above, in\nthe chronological order of the chapters of the Koran as far as it is\nascertained together with my observations and remarks on them, and\nquotations from Mohammadan commentators when necessary.\n\nI.--THE MECCAN SURAS.\n\n[Sidenote: (1) Lokman, XXXI, 14.]\n\n 13. \"But if they exert their utmost (Jahadaka) to make thee to join\n that with Me of which thou hadst no knowledge, obey them not.\"\n\nChapter XXXI is one of the oldest of the Meccan Suras, having been\nrevealed between the sixth and tenth year of the Prophet's mission. The\nadmonition relates to a man's behaviour to his parents. He is enjoined\nto treat them with kindness, but not to obey them if they lead him to\npolytheism.\n\nHere \"_Jahada_\" means \"if they two (parents) task or toil thee, or make\nefforts and endeavour (that thou shouldst associate any god with God),\"\nand none of the translators and commentators take the word to mean the\nmaking of war or hostilities or fighting.\n\n[Sidenote: (2) Furkan, XXV, 53, 54.]\n\n 14. \"Moreover had We pleasured We had certainly raised up a warner\n in every city.\"\n\n \"Do not then obey the unbelievers, but by means of this (_Jahid_)\n exert with them with a (_Jihadan kabira_) strenuous exertion (or\n labour with great labour).\"\n\nThis evidently relates to the Koran, or the warning mentioned in the\npreceding verse, and it is wrong to translate \"_Jihad_\" as meaning to\nfight strenuously with them, or as inciting to strenuous fighting as\ntranslated by Henry Palmer (Vol. II, p. 88). Mr. Sale and the Rev. Mr.\nRodwell do not translate it fighting, and so Mohammadan commentators.\nFakhr-ud-din Razi (died 606 A.H.), the Imam, in his great commentary\nsays:\n\n \"Some say _Jahid hoom bihi Jihadan Kabira_ means to make efforts in\n preaching, but some say it meant fighting, and others say it meant\n both; but the former is nearer the truth, as the chapter was\n revealed at Mecca, and the command for fighting was issued after\n the Flight, some time afterwards\" (Vol. VI, p. 490).\n\n[Sidenote: (3) The Pilgrimage,[329] XXII, 76, 78.]\n\n 15. \"Believers! bow down with worship your Lord and work\n righteousness, haply ye may prosper.\"\n\n \"And ('_Jahidoo_') make efforts in God, as (_Jihadehi_) your making\n efforts is His due, He hath elected you, and hath not laid on you\n any hardship in religion, the Faith of your father Abraham. He hath\n named you the Muslims.\"\n\nMessrs. Sale and Palmer translate the word here as meaning fighting,\nwhich is wrong, as it is unclassical and not literal. Rodwell translates\nit \"do valiantly,\" and Sir William Muir says it is used in the more\ngeneral sense (Vol. III, p. 32).\n\nThis verse is a brief and concise version of the great maxim in Deut.\nVI. 5; Mark XII. 30; and Luke X. 27,--\n\n \"Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,\n and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.\"\n\n See also Luke XIII. 24: \"Strive to enter in at the straight gate.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (4) The Bee, XVI, 108, 111.]\n\n 16. \"Whoso after he hath believed in God denieth Him if he were\n forced to it, and if his heart remain steadfast in the faith, shall\n be guiltless; but whoso openeth his heart to infidelity--on them,\n in that case, shall be wrath from God, and a severe punishment\n awaiteth them.\"\n\n \"To those also who after their trials fled their country, then\n (_Jahadoo_) toiled and endured with patience. Verily, thy Lord will\n afterwards be forgiving, gracious.\"\n\nDr. Sprenger (Life of Mohammad, p. 159) explains this verse of the seven\nslaves purchased and manumitted by Abu Bekr. They had been tortured for\nprofessing Islam, shortly after Mohammad assumed the prophetic office.\nThe flight referred to in verse 111th is the early Abyssinian flight.\nThese verses relate to the persecutions endured by humble and needy\nMoslems from their townspeople of Mecca. These Moslems, after being\npersecuted and forced as far as denying God, while their remaining\nsteadfast in the faith, had to flee elsewhere, and then suffered much in\ntheir wanderings; but they endured their labours and fatigues, losses,\ndisadvantages both in body and mind, patiently. There is no allusion to\nfighting or waging war. The Rev. Mr. Rodwell and Mr. Palmer are both\nwrong in translating '_Jahadoo_' as fighting. Sale is right in not\ntranslating it as fighting, but he is too paraphrastic when he\ntranslates, \"and who have since fought _in defence of the true\nreligion_,\" as their \"Jihad\" was only their great exertion and toil in\nsuffering from persecutions.\n\n[Sidenote: (5) The Spider, XXIX, 5.]\n\n 17. \"And whoso ('_Jahada_') labours ('_Yojahido_') toils for his\n own good only. Verily God is independent of all the worlds.\"\n\nMr. Palmer is wrong in making _Jahada_ and _Yojahido_ to mean fighting\nstrenuously. Mr. Sale and the Rev. W. Rodwell are right in translating\nby \"striveth\" and \"efforts\" respectively, and so is Sir W. Muir in\ntaking it into, what he styles, the general sense of the verse (The Life\nof Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 32).\n\n[Sidenote: (6) The Spider, XXIX, 7.]\n\n 18. \"Moreover We have enjoined on man to show kindness to parents,\n but if they (_Jahada_) strive with thee in order that thou join\n that with Me of which thou hast no knowledge, then obey them not.\n To Me do ye return, and I will tell you of your doings.\"\n\nNone of the commentators take the word _Jahada_ in this passage to mean\nfighting or crusade, and it is difficult, therefore, to understand why\nthe word should have been distorted from its proper literal and\nclassical meaning in other places of the same book.\n\n[Sidenote: (7) The Spider, XXIX, 69.]\n\n 19. \"And those who (_Jahadoo_) made efforts for Us, in our path\n will we surely guide; for verily God is with those who do righteous\n deeds.\"\n\nMr. Palmer translates the word here as meaning \"fought,\" contrary to Mr.\nSale, the Rev. Mr. Rodwell, and Sir William Muir, who translate it\n\"endeavour,\" \"effort,\" and \"strive.\" The conventional term Jihad,\nmeaning crusade or warfare, was not in use in the time of the revelation\nof the Koran.\n\n[Sidenote: (8) The Bee, XVI, 40.]\n\n 20. \"And they swear by God with their (_Jahd_) utmost oaths that\n 'God will never raise him who once is dead.' Nay; but on Him is a\n promise binding though most men know it not.\"\n\nSale renders the word \"most solemnly;\" Rodwell, \"most sacred oath;\"\nPalmer, \"most strenuous oath.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (9) Creator, XXXV, 40.]\n\n 21. \"They swore by God with their (_Jahd_) utmost oath that should\n a preacher come to them they would yield to guidance more than any\n people: but when the preacher came to them, it only increased in\n them their estrangement.\"\n\nSale's rendering is \"most solemn oath,\" Rodwell's, \"mightiest oath,\" and\nPalmer's, \"most strenuous oath.\"\n\nII.--THE MEDINITE SURAS.\n\n[Sidenote: (10) The Cow or Heifer, II, 215.]\n\n 22. \"But they who believe, and who fly their country, and\n (_Jahadoo_) exert their utmost in the way of God, may hope for\n God's mercy, and God is Gracious and Merciful.\"\n\nMr. Sale and the Rev. Mr. Rodwell translate _Jahadoo_ as those who\n_fight_, and Mr. Palmer as those who _wage war_; but there is no reason\nto change the proper meaning of the word. Sir William Muir translates\nthe verse thus:--\n\n \"But they that believe and they who emigrate for the sake of their\n faith and strive earnestly in the way of God, let them hope in the\n mercy of God, for God is forgiving, merciful.\"[330]\n\nIn a footnote he says:--\"The word Jihad is the same as that subsequently\nused for a religious war; but it had not yet probably acquired its fixed\napplication. It was employed in its _general_ sense before the Hejira,\nand probably up to the battle of Badr.\"[331] I have only to add that the\nword never acquired its fixed application during the lifetime of the\nProphet, nor is it used as such in any chapter of the Koran either\nbefore or after the Hejira.\n\nThe connection of flight mentioned in the verse as put together with\nJihad, shows that it means the labour, toil, and distress which befel\nthe fugitives in leaving their families unprotected in the hands of\ntheir persecutors on their expulsion from their country.\n\n[Sidenote: (11) A'l Amran, III, 136.]\n\n 23. \"Do ye think that ye could enter Paradise without God taking\n knowledge of those among you who (_Jahadoo_) have toiled and of\n those who steadfastly endured.\"\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Rodwell translates _Jahadoo_, \"did valiantly,\" and does not\nagree with Sale and Palmer, who translate it, \"fought strenuously,\" or\n\"fought well.\"\n\nBy the connection of enduring patiently, the word _Jahadoo_ probably\nmeans those who toiled and suffered in their exile from Mecca.\n\n[Sidenote: (12) The Spoils, VIII, 73.]\n\n 24. \"Verily, they who believe and have fled their homes and\n (_Jahadoo_) toiled with their substance and themselves in the way\n of God, and they who have taken in and have helped, shall be near\n of kin the one to the other. And they who have believed, but have\n not fled their homes, shall have no rights of kindred with you at\n all, _until_ they too fly their country. Yet if they seek aid from\n you, on account of the faith, your part is to give them aid, except\n against a people between whom and yourself there may be a treaty.\n And God beholdeth your actions.\"\n\n Sale renders the word _Jihad_ (or _Jahadoo_) in this passage as\n meaning \"employed their substance and their persons in\n fighting.\"\n Rodwell ... \"Spent their substance and themselves.\"\n Palmer ... \"Fought strenuously with their wealth and person.\"\n\nAs the word _Jihad_ has been applied here to both one's-self and his\nsubstance or wealth, it cannot mean \"fighting,\" even if taken in the\ntechnical signification.\n\n[Sidenote: (13) The Spoil, VIII, 75.]\n\n 25. \"But as for those who have believed and fled their country and\n (_Jahadoo_) took pains in the way of God, and have been a refuge or\n help, these are the faithful, mercy is their due and a noble\n provision.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Fought.\"\n Rodwell ... \"Fought.\"\n Palmer ... \"Fought strenuously.\"\n\nThere is nothing in this passage to warrant a departure from the literal\nand proper signification of the word _Jahadoo_, and using it in a\npost-Koranic sense.\n\n[Sidenote: (14) The Spoil, VIII, 76.]\n\n 26. \"And they who have believed and have since fled their country,\n (_Jahadoo_) toiled with you, these also are of you. Those who are\n united by the ties of blood are the nearest of kin to each other.\n This is in the Book of God. Verily God knoweth all things.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Fought.\"\n Rodwell ... \"Fought.\"\n Palmer ... \"Fought strenuously.\"\n\nThere is no valid excuse here for changing the signification of the word\n_Jahadoo_ into that which is never used in the Koran or in the classical\nArabic.\n\n[Sidenote: (15) The Cattle, VI, 109.]\n\n 27. \"With their (_Jahd_) most binding oath have they sworn by\n God....\"\n\n Sale ... \"Most solemn oath.\"\n Rodwell ... \"Most binding oath.\"\n Palmer ... \"Most strenuous oath.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (16) Mohammad, XLVII, 33]\n\n 28. \"And We will surely test you until We know (_Mojahideena_) who\n did their utmost, and who were the steadfast among you; and We will\n test the reports.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Who fight valiantly.\"\n Rodwell ... \"Valiant.\"\n Palmer ... \"Fought valiantly.\"\n\n\"_Mojahid_\" is not synonymous with \"_Mokatil_\"\n\n[Sidenote: (17) Battle Array, LXI, 11.]\n\n 29. \"Believe in God and His Apostle and (_Jahidoo_) do strive in\n the way of God with your wealth and your persons!\"\n\n Sale ... \"Who fought valiantly.\"\n Rodwell ... \"Who fought valiantly.\"\n Palmer ... \"Fight strenuously.\"\n\nDevotion or worship has been divided into two kinds,--bodily, which also\nincludes mental; and pecuniary or monetary, and the believers are\nexhorted here to worship God both bodily and mentally.\n\n[Sidenote: (18) Women, IV, 97.]\n\n 30. \"Those believers who sit at home free from trouble and those\n who (1, _Mojahidoona_) toil in the way of God with their substance\n and their persons shall not be treated alike. God has assigned to\n those who (2, _Majahadoona_) strive with their persons and with\n their substance a rank above those who sit at home. Goodly promises\n hath He made to all; but God hath assigned to those (3,\n _Mojahadina_) who make efforts a rich recompense above those who\n sit at home.\"\n\n Sale: _1st_ ... \"Those who employ their fortune and their\n substance for the religion of God.\"\n\n _2nd_ ... \"Those who employ their fortune and their\n substance.\"\n\n _3rd_ ... \"Those who fight.\"\n\n Rodwell: _1st_ ... \"Those who fight valiantly.\"\n\n _2nd_ ... \"Contend earnestly.\"\n\n _3rd_ ... \"Strenuous.\"\n\n Palmer: _1st_ ... \"Strenuous.\"\n\n _2nd_ ... \"Strenuous.\"\n\n _3rd_ ... \"Strenuous.\"\n\nI have already explained the two sorts of worship or service of\nGod--bodily and mental. The same applies here too.\n\n[Sidenote: (19) Light, XXIV, 52.]\n\n 31. \"And they swore by God with their utmost oath....\"\n\n Sale ... \"Most solemn oath.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Most solemn oath.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Most strenuous oath.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (20) The Forbidding, LXVI, 9.]\n\n 32. \"O Prophet, (_Jahid_) do thy utmost with the unbelievers and\n hypocrites, and be strict towards them.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Attack the infidels with arms and the\n hypocrites with arguments.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Make war.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Fight strenuously.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (21) The Immunity, IX, 74.]\n\n 33. The same verse, word for word.\n\n Sale ... \"Wage war.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Contend against.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Strive strenuously.\"\n\nThe word _Jahid_ is the same in both the passages, yet the translators\ndiffer in their interpretation of it. As there had been no war against\nthe hypocrites, the word cannot be held to bear the construction they\nput on it, even if we deprived it of its proper signification. In one\nplace Sale takes _Jahid_ to mean \"attacking with arms,\" and in another\nhe takes it in the sense of attacking with arguments.\n\nThere is no signification of \"attacking\" in _Jihad_, but only that of\n\"exerting,\" and the verse simply means, \"exert thyself in preaching to,\nand remonstrating with, the unbelievers and hypocrites, and also be\nstrict towards them,\"--_i.e._, not to be smooth with them, nor to be\nbeguiled by them.[332]\n\n[Sidenote: (22) The tried, LXI.]\n\n 34. \"O Ye believers! take not my foe and your foe for friends: ye\n show them kindness although they believe not that truth which hath\n come to you: they drive forth the Apostle and yourself because ye\n believe in God your Lord! If ye have come forth[333] (_Jihadan_)\n labouring in my cause, and from a desire to please Me, ye show them\n kindness in private, then I well know what ye conceal and what ye\n discover! And whoso of you doth this hath verily, therefore, gone\n astray from the even way.\"\n\n Sale translates _Jihadan_ as meaning \"to fight in the\n defence of my religion.\"\n Rodwell ... \"To fight on my path.\"\n Palmer ... \"Fighting strenuously.\"\n\nThe translators quoted above say that Hatib had informed the Meccans of\nan intended surprise of Mecca on the part of Mohammad with the view of\nmaking terms for his own family, which had been left there. On this\noccasion the passage was revealed. This shows that the campaign of Mecca\nis termed _Jihad_. But Sir William Muir does not agree with them. He\nsays in a footnote:--\"The opening verses of the sixtieth Sura are said\nto refer to Hatib; but they appear to have a general bearing against too\ngreat intimacy with the Coreish during the truce and to be, therefore,\nof a prior date.\"[334]\n\n35. Hatib's story. The story regarding Hatib's revelation of the\nintended attack upon Mecca by Mohammad, is not supported by authentic\nand trustworthy traditions. The authentic tradition of Bokhari[335] only\nstates that the occasion of the verse being revealed was in the case of\nHatib, but does not say that it was during the campaign of Mecca, nor\nthat the information contained anything about the intended campaign. The\nauthentic tradition only says that the report contained information\nregarding some of the affairs of the Prophet.\n\nBesides this, it is wrong to translate _in kun tum kharajtum Jihadan fi\nSabili_, as \"if ye go forth to fight in defence of my religion,\" or \"if\nye go forth to fight on my path,\" or \"if ye go forth fighting\nstrenuously in my cause.\" It simply means, \"if you have come out\nstriving in my cause,\" and the sentence is a complement or correlative\nof the verse, meaning, if you have come out of Mecca, striving, or to\nstrive, in my cause, suffering from exile and undergoing the afflictions\nand distresses of living homeless, leaving your family and property\nunprotected, and all these pains (_Jihad_) you have taken to please me,\nthen you should not make friends with my foes and your foes, who do not\nbelieve in the truth which has come to you, and have driven out the\nProphet and yourselves (from Mecca, your home) only for the reason that\nyou believe in God your Lord.\n\n[Sidenote: (23) The Apartment, XLIX, 15.]\n\n 36. \"The true believers are those only who believe in God and his\n Apostle and afterwards doubt not; and who (_Jahadoo_) strive with\n their substance and their persons on the path of God. These are the\n sincere.\"\n\n Sale here translates _Jahadoo_ those \"who employ their substance\n and their persons in the defence of God's true religions.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Contend with their substance and their persons.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Fight strenuously with their wealth and persons.\"\n\nSee my observations under No. 17, para. 28.\n\n[Sidenote: (24) The Immunity, IX, 16.]\n\n 37. \"Think not that ye shall be forsaken and that God doth not yet\n know those among you who (_Jahadoo_) do their utmost and take none\n for their intimate friends besides God and His Apostles and the\n faithful. But God is well apprised of your doings.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Fought for his religion.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Fought valiantly.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Fought strenuously.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (25) _Ibid_, 19.]\n\n 38. \"Do ye place the giving drink to the pilgrims and the\n visitation of the sacred temple on the same level with him who\n believeth in God and the last day, and (_Jahada_) taketh pains in\n the way of God. They are not held equal by God, and God guideth not\n the unrighteous.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Fighteth.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Fighteth.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Is strenuous.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (26) The Immunity, IX, 20.]\n\n 39. \"They who have believed and fled their homes and (_Jahadoo_)\n toiled with their substance and with their persons on the path of\n God are of the highest degree with God, and these are they who\n shall enjoy felicity!\"\n\n Sale ... \"Employ their substance and their\n persons in the defence of God's true\n religion.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"And striven with their substance and\n with their persons in the path of\n God.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Been strenuous in the way of God\n with their wealth and their persons.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (27) _Ibid_, 24.]\n\n 40. \"Say, if your father and your sons and your brethren and your\n wives, and your kindred and wealth which ye have gained, and\n merchandise which ye fear may be unsold, and dwellings wherein ye\n may delight be dearer to you than God and His Apostle and\n (_Jihadan_) toiling in My cause, then wait until God shall Himself\n enter on His work; God guideth not the impious.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Advancement of his religion.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Efforts on his path.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Fighting strenuously.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (28) _Ibid_, 41.]\n\n 41. \"March ye forth light and heavy and (_Jahidoo_) toil with your\n substance and persons on the way of God. This, if ye knew it, will\n be best for you.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Employ your substance and your persons\n for the advancement of God's\n true religion.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Contend with your....\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Fight strenuously with your wealth\n and persons.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (29) The Immunity, IX, 44.]\n\n 42. \"They who believe in God and in the last day will not ask leave\n to be exempt from (_Yojahadoo_) toiling with their substance and\n their persons. But God knoweth them that fear Him.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Employ their substance and their persons\n for the advancement of God's\n true religion.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Contending with their substance and\n persons.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Fighting strenuously.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (30) _Ibid_, 82.]\n\n 43. \"They who were left in their homes were delighted behind God's\n Apostle and were averse from (_Yojahidoo_) exerting with their\n riches and their persons for the cause of God, and said, 'March not\n out in the heat.' Say, a fiercer heat will be the fire of hell!\n Would that they understood this.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Employ their substance and their persons\n for the advancement of God's\n true religion.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Contending with their riches and their\n persons.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Fighting strenuously with their wealth\n and their person.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (31) _Ibid_, 87.]\n\n 44. \"Moreover when a Sura was sent down with 'Believe in God, and\n (_Jahidoo_) toil in company with his Apostle,' those of them who\n are possessed of riches demanded exemption, and said, 'Allow us to\n be with those who sit _at home_.'\"\n\n Sale ... \"Go forth to war.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Contend.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Fight strenuously.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (32) The Immunity, IX, 89.]\n\n 45. \"But the Apostle, and those who share his faith (_Jahadoo_)\n exerted with their substance and their persons, and these ! good\n things await them and these are they who shall be happy.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Expose their fortune and their lives.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Contend with purse and person.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Are strenuous with their wealth and\n with their persons.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (33) The Table, V, 39.]\n\n 46. \"O ye who believe! fear God and desire union with Him and\n (_Jahidoo_) toil on His path. It may be that you will obtain\n happiness.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Fight.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Contend earnestly.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Be strenuous.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (34) _Ibid_, 58.]\n\n 47. \"And the faithful will say, 'Are these they who swore by God\n their (_Jahda_) utmost oath that they were surely on your side?'\n Vain their works; and they themselves shall come to ruin.\"\n\n Sale ... \"Most firm.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"Most solemn.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Most strenuous.\"\n\n[Sidenote: (35) _Ibid_, 59.]\n\n 48. \"O ye who believe! should any of you desert his religion, God\n will then raise up a people whom He loveth, and who love Him, lowly\n towards the faithful, lofty to the unbelievers (_Yojahidoona_)\n striving in the path of God, and not fearing the blame of the\n blamer. This is the Grace of God; on whom He will He bestoweth it,\n and God is all-embracing, Omniscient!\"\n\n Sale ... \"They shall fight for the religion of God.\"\n\n Rodwell ... \"For the cause of God will they contend.\"\n\n Palmer ... \"Strenuous in the way of God.\"\n\n[Sidenote: _Jihad_ does not mean the waging of war.]\n\n49. These are all the verses of the Koran which contain the word\n\"_Jahd_\" or \"_Jihad_,\" or any derivations from them. I believe that I\nhave clearly shown by means of a careful comparison between the\ntranslators and commentators and the original passages in the Koran,\nthat the word _Jahd_ or _Jihad_ in the classical Arabic and as used in\nthe Koran does not mean waging war or fighting, but only to do one's\nutmost and to exert, labour or toil. The meaning which has come to be\nascribed to the word is undoubtedly a conventional one, and is one that\nhas been applied to it at a period much less recent than the revelation\nof the various chapters of the Koran.\n\n[Sidenote: _Katal_ and _Kital_.]\n\n50. I do not mean to contend that the Koran does not contain injunctions\nto fight or wage war. There are many verses enjoining the Prophet's\nfollowers to prosecute a defensive war, but not one of aggression. The\nwords \"_katal_\" and \"_kital_\" distinctly indicate this.\n\n[Sidenote: Conclusion.]\n\n51. I have already analysed all the verses containing these words\n(_katal_ and _kital_) in this book. What I have aimed at in the Appendix\nis to show that those authors and translators who cite certain verses of\nthe Koran containing the word _Jahd_ or _Jihad_ and its derivations in\nsupport of their assertion, and that the Mohammadan religion sanctions\nthe waging of war and the shedding of blood, are altogether in the\nwrong.\n\n[Footnote 322: The Sihah of Jouhari (who died 397 or 398), the Asas of\nZamakhshire (born 467, died 538 A.H.), Lisanul-Arab of Ibn Mokarram\n(born 630, died 711), and Kamoos of Fyrozabadee (born 729, died 816),\n_vide_ Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, Book I, Part II, page 473.]\n[Footnote 323: The Misbah by Fayoomee (finished 734 A.H.), _vide_ Lane's\nArabic-English Lexicon, Book I, Part II, page 473.]\n\n[Footnote 324: Sihah, Asas, Ibnel Atheer Jezree, author of Nihayeh (died\n606), the Mughrib of Almotarrazi (born 536, died 610), the Misbah and\nKamoos, _vide_ Lane, _ibid_, page 474.]\n\n[Footnote 325: _Vide_ Rodwell's Translation of the Koran _in loco_.]\n\n[Footnote 326: _Vide_ Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon _in loco_.]\n\n[Footnote 327: The Assemblies of Al Hariri, translated from the Arabic\nby Thomas Chenry, M.A., Vol. I, Introduction, p. 67. William and\nNorgate, 1867.]\n\n[Footnote 328: In the treaty of Medina, which was made as early as the\nsecond year of the Hejira, the word Jihad is used, regarding which Sir\nW. Muir says:--\"This word came subsequently to have exclusively the\ntechnical signification of Jihad or _crusade_ or _fighting_ for the\nFaith. If we give it this signification here, it would involve the\nclause in the suspicion of being a later addition; for as yet we have no\ndistinct development of the intention of Mahomet to impose his religion\non others by force: it would have been dangerous, in the present state\nof parties, to advance this principle. The word is sometimes used in the\nmore general sense in the Coran; Sura XXIX, 5, 69; XX, 77, and a few\nother places.\"--Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 32. Again he says\nwith reference to Sura II, v. 215, which also contains the same word:\n\"The word (_Jihad_) is the same as that subsequently used for a\nreligious war, but it had not yet probably acquired its fixed\napplication. It was applied in its _general_ sense before the Hejira,\nand probably up to the battle of Badr.\"--_Ibid_, p. 74, footnote.]\n\n[Footnote 329: This Sura is generally said to have been revealed at\nMecca, but this is probably only the case as regards verses 1, 24, 43,\n56, 60, 65, 67, 75. Mr. Muir places it at the close of the Meccan Suras\nof the fifth period. See Nold, p. 158; Rev. Rodwell, p. 500.]\n\n[Footnote 330: _Vide_ Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, 74.]\n\n[Footnote 331: _Ibid, footnote._]\n\n[Footnote 332: _Vide_ Sura LXXII, 9; XVII, 69.]\n\n[Footnote 333: _i.e._, from Mecca when driven out of it by the Meccans\nin your persecution.]\n\n[Footnote 334: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 114.]\n\n[Footnote 335: _Kitabul Jihad_, _Maghazi_ and _Tafseer_.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B.\n\nSLAVERY AND CONCUBINE-SLAVES AS CONCOMITANT EVILS OF WAR.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Slavery and concubinage not allowed by the Koran.]\n\n1. It is a false accusation against the Koran, that it allows\nenslavement of the captives of war, and sanctions female captives to the\nconquerors' embrace, or, in other words, female captives are made\nconcubines on the field of battle. There is not a single sentence in the\nKoran allowing either of the above allegations. Sir W. Muir, in his\n\"Life of Mahomet,\" could neither quote any verse of the Koran\nsanctioning the enslavement of the captives of war or servile\nconcubinage, nor was he able to relate any instance of them during the\nseveral battles described therein. Yet, in a recent work,[336] he refers\nboldly, but vaguely, to the Koran; and regarding the battle of Walaja\nfought by Khalid against the Persians in A.H. 12 writes, after quoting\nKhalid's oration on gaining the victory:--\n\n \"Now, also, the cunning device of the Coran, with respect to the\n other sex, began to tell. Persian ladies, both maids and matrons,\n 'taken captive by the right hand,' were forthwith, without stint of\n number, lawful to the conquerors' embrace; and, in the enjoyment of\n this privilege, they were nothing loth to execute upon the heathen\n 'the judgment written.'\"\n\nI do not understand why, if such was the case, Khalid did not refer the\nbelievers to the so-called \"cunning device\" of the Koran? By referring\nto this imaginary device of the Koran to the lawfulness of female\ncaptives \"to the conquerors' embrace,\" he might have struck a chord, at\nwhich every Bedouin heart would have leapt with joy, instead of\nreferring, as he did, merely to the riches of the land and fair fields.\nIn fact there is no such inducement in the Koran.\n\n[Sidenote: Measures taken by the Koran to abolish slavery.]\n\n2. Slaves are mentioned in the Koran _defacto_, but not _dejure_. The\nKoran took several measures to abolish future slavery. Its steps for its\nabolition were taken in every moral, legal, religious, and political\ndepartments. The liberation of slaves was morally declared to be a work\nof piety and righteousness--(Sura XC, 13; II, 172).[337] Legally the\nslaves were to be emancipated on their agreeing to pay a ransom--(Sura\nXXIV, 33).[338] They were to be set at liberty as a penalty for culpable\nhomicide--(Sura IV, 94);[339] or in expiation for using an objectionable\nform of divorce--(Sura LVIII, 4);[340] and also they were to be\nmanumitted from the Public Funds out of the poor-taxes--(Sura IX,\n60).[341] They were religiously to be freed in expiation of a false oath\ntaken in mistake--(Sura V, 91).[342] These were the measures for the\nabolition of existing slavery. The future slavery was abolished by the\nKoran by putting hammer deep unto its root and by annihilating its real\nsource. The captives of war were, according to the clear injunctions of\nthe Koran contained in the 5th verse of the 47th Sura, to be dismissed\neither by a free grant or by exacting a ransom. They were neither to be\nenslaved nor killed.\n\n 4. \"When ye encounter the unbelievers strike off their heads, till\n ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of _the rest_ make\n fast the fetters.\"\n\n 5. \"And afterwards let there either be free dismissals or\n ransoming, till the war hath laid down its burdens. Thus do....\"\n\n _Sura_ XLVII.\n\nThese verses convey very clearly the decree of the abolition of future\nslavery, and do not require any further remarks. Moreover they were\nacted upon accordingly even in the lifetime of the Prophet.\n\n[Sidenote: None of the prisoners of war were enslaved.]\n\n3. None of the prisoners of Badr A.H. 2, of Karkart-al-Kadr A.H. 3, of\nKatan in Najd A.H. 4, of Zat-al Riqa[343] A.H. 5, of Bani Mustalik A.H.\n5, of Koreiza A.H. 5, of Batan Makka A.H. 6,[344] or of Honain (Hawazin)\nA.H. 8,[345] was enslaved. All, without an exception, were set free\neither by way of free dismissal, or by exacting ransom (in cash or in\nexchange of Moslem prisoners) in strict conformity with the dictates of\nSura XLVII, 5. There were no prisoners in the battles of Ohad A.H. 3,\nAhzab A.H. 5, and Khyber A.H. 7.[346]\n\n[Sidenote: Bani Koreiza not enslaved.]\n\n4. Some will contend regarding the Bani Koreiza that their women and\nchildren were made slaves, and as such sold in Najd. Sir W. Muir quotes\nthe judgment of Sad in the case of the Bani Koreiza,--\"That the female\ncaptives and the children shall be sold into slavery,\" and that it was\napproved of by Mohammad. He writes further:--\n\n \"A fifth of the booty was, as usual, reserved for the Prophet, and\n the rest divided. From the fifth Mahomet made certain presents to\n his friends of female slaves and servants; and then sent the rest\n of the women and children to be sold among the Bedouin tribes of\n Najd in exchange for horses and arms.\"[347]\n\nI have shown in para. 30 of this book (pages 37 and 38) that Mohammad\nnever appreciated the judgment of Sad. And I have further to add that\nthe said judgment, according to true reports, did not contain the\nillegal verdict of enslaving the women and children of the Bani Koreiza,\nas this might have gone directly against the Koran and the precedents of\nthe Prophet. In the collections of Bokhari, Book of Campaigns, Chapter\non Bani Koreiza, there are two traditions cited on the subject. Both of\nthem quote the words of Sad to the effect that \"the women and children\nbe imprisoned.\" The same is the case in Bokhari's other chapters (Book\nof _Jihad_, Chapter on the Surrender of Enemy, Book of _Manakib_,\nChapter on the Merits of Sad).\n\nIt is not a fact that Mohammad made certain presents to his friends of\nthe female slaves out of the captives of Bani Koreiza. The captives were\nnot made slaves, therefore it is wrong to confound captives with slaves.\nThere is no proof to the effect that they were enslaved. The Koran\ndistinctly says that they were prisoners (Sura XXXIII, 26).\n\nIn fact, the women and children were not guilty of treason, and\ndeserved no punishment. Sad's judgment must be either wrong regarding\nthem, or applied only to those who were guilty. \"One woman alone,\"\naccording to Sir W. Muir, \"was put to death; it was she who threw the\nmillstone from the battlements\" (Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 277). I\nconclude, therefore, that all the women and children were released\nafterwards; some ransomed themselves, others went off with their\nfreedom. But nobody was ever sold in slavery. The assertion of Hishamee,\nquoted by Sir W. Muir, that the women and children were sent to be sold\namong the Bedouin tribes of Najd in exchange for horses and arms (Vol.\nIII, page 279), is void of all authority, and is in direct contradiction\nof what Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman bin Tarkhan (died 143 A.H. and was prior\nto Hishamee) says, and whose account seems to be more probable. His\nversion is that the horses of Bani Koreiza were sent by Mohammad to\nSyria and Najd for the purpose of breeding, and that they got big\nhorses. _Vide_ Wakidi Campaigns of Mohammad, page 374, Calcutta, 1855.\nThis shows that only horses, and not women and children, were sent to\nNajd. The words of Hishamee (page 693) are \"_sabaya min sabaya Bani\nKoreiza_.\" _Sabaya_, plural of _sabi_, applies to both person and\nproperty, as they say _sabal aduvva vaghairohu_, he made captive,\ncaptured or took prisoner the enemy, and other than an enemy. (_Vide_\nLane's Arabic Dictionary, page 1303, col. 1.) So probably Hishamee had\nin view only the horses captured of the Bani Koreiza and sent to Najd,\nbut not the women and children of the captives of Koreiza.\n\n[Sidenote: Rihana.]\n\n5. Rihana, a woman of the captives of Koreiza, is said by Sir W. Muir to\nhave been taken by Mohammad \"for his concubine.\" He always confounds\nprisoners with slaves, and female captives as well as slaves with\nconcubines. There are several conflicting and contradictory traditions\nregarding Rihana. Mohammad bin Sad Katib Wakidi has related various\ntraditions from Omar-bin-al Hakam, Mohammad bin Kab, and from other\nvarious sources that Mohammad had married Rihana. The Katib says \"this\ntradition is held by learned men. But he has also heard some one\nrelating that she was his concubine.\"[348] But Sir W. Muir chooses the\nlatter uncertain and unauthentic traditions. He writes in a footnote:--\n\n \"She is represented as saying, when he offered her marriage and the\n same privileges as his other wives: 'Nay, O Prophet! But let me\n remain as thy slave; this will be easier both for me and for\n thee.'\"[349]\n\nEven if this tradition be a genuine one, he is not authorized in his\nremarks in the text, where he says--\n\n \"He invited her to be his wife, but she declined; and chose to\n remain (as indeed, having refused marriage, she had no alternative)\n his slave or concubine.\"\n\nShe was neither enslaved, nor made a concubine. It is to be regretted\nthat the writer of the \"Life of Mahomet\" most absurdly confounds slavery\nand concubinage.\n\n[Sidenote: Omar, the second Khalif, liberated all the Arab slaves.]\n\n6. During the sovereignty of Omar, the second Khalif, in accordance with\nthe injunctions of Mohammad to abolish slavery, all the existing Arab\nslaves were set free. It will appear that the wishes of Mohammad to that\neffect were but partially carried out. In ages that succeeded the death\nof Mohammad, they were altogether lost sight of, and even Arabs were\nallowed to be enslaved by the later jurists. Sir W. Muir, in his latest\nwork, entitled \"The Annals of the Early Caliphate,\" says:--\n\n \"Yet great numbers of the Arabs themselves were slaves, taken\n prisoner during the apostasy, or in the previous intertribal\n warfare, and held in captivity by their fellow-countrymen. Omar\n felt the inconsistency. It was not fit that any of the noble race\n should remain in bondage. When, therefore, he succeeded to the\n Caliphate, he decreed: 'The Lord,' he said, 'hath given to us of\n Arab blood the victory, and great conquests without. It is not meet\n that any one of us, taken in the days of Ignorance,[350] or in the\n wars against the apostate tribes, should be holden in slavery.' All\n slaves of the Arab descent were accordingly ransomed, excepting\n only such bondmaids as had borne their masters' children. Men who\n had lost wives or children now set out in search, if haply they\n might find and claim them. Strange tales are told of some of the\n disconsolate journeys. Ashath recovered two of his wives taken\n captive in Nojeir. But some of the women who had been carried\n prisoners to Medina preferred remaining with their captors.\"[351]\n\nEven this speech of Omar shows that no one was enslaved during the wars\nof Mohammad, as he only refers to the captives of the days of Ignorance\nbefore the Prophet, and those taken in wars against the apostate tribes\nafter him having been enslaved.\n\n[Sidenote: Concubinage.]\n\n7. The Koran has never allowed concubinage with female captives. And\nafter the abolition of future slavery enjoined in the Koran, there is no\ngood in discussing the subject of concubinage, which depends on the\nlegality or otherwise of slavery. The Koran had taken early measures for\npreventing the evil directly and indirectly, positively and negatively.\nIn the first place, it recognizes marriage as the only legal condition\nof the union of both sexes. Marriage was also enjoined with the existing\nfemale slaves. (_Vide_ Sura IV, 3, 29; and XXIV, 32, 33.) The prevention\nof concubinage is set forth in plain terms in Sura V, 7. The verses run\nthus:--\n\n 3. \"And if ye are apprehensive that ye shall not deal fairly with\n orphans, then of _other_ women who seem good in your eyes marry,\n _but_ two or three or four, and if ye _still_ fear that ye shall\n not act equitably, then (marry) one only; or (marry) the slaves\n whom ye have acquired. This will be more proper that ye may not\n have numerous families or households. And give women their dowry as\n a free gift; but if of their own free will they kindly give up\n aught thereof to you, then enjoy it as convenient _and_\n profitable.\"\n\n 29. \"And whoever of you is not rich enough to marry free-believing\n women, then let him marry such of your believing maidens as have\n fallen into your hands as slaves. God well knoweth your faith. Ye\n are sprung, the one from the other. Marry them then with the leave\n of their masters, and give them a fair dower; but let them be\n chaste and free from fornication, and not entertainers of\n lovers.\"--Sura IV.\n\n 32. \"And marry those among you who are single, and your good\n servants and your handmaidens. If they are poor, God of his bounty\n will enrich them. And God is all-bounteous, knowing. And let those\n who cannot find a match live in continence till God of his bounty\n shall enrich them.\"\n\n 33. \"And to those of your slaves who desire a deed of\n _manumission_, execute it for them, if ye know good in them, and\n give them a portion of the wealth of God which He hath given\n you.\"--Sura XXIV. \"And _you are permitted to marry_ virtuous women,\n who are believers, and virtuous women of those who have been given\n the Scriptures before you, when you have provided them their\n portions, living _chastely with them_ without fornication, and not\n taking concubines.\"--Sura V.\n\nThe 28th verse of the fourth Sura does by no means sanction concubinage.\nIt has nothing to do with it. It only treats of marriage. It, together\nwith its preceding verse, points out whom we can marry and whom not. Its\nnext verse interdicts concubinage when it enjoins marriage with the then\nexisting slaves.\n\n[Sidenote: Maria the Coptic.]\n\n8. I will here take the opportunity of noticing Maria the Coptic, who is\nalleged to have been a concubine-slave of Mohammad, although she does\nnot come under the category of prisoners made slaves. According to Sir\nW. Muir, the Roman Governor of Egypt had written to Mohammad:--\"I send\nfor thine acceptance two damsels, highly esteemed among the Copts.\"[352]\nThe writer converts them at once into \"two slave-girls,\" and remarks, \"a\nstrange present, however, for a Christian Governor to make.\"[353] She\nwas neither a captive, nor a slave, nor was she described as such in the\nGovernor's letter. I am at a loss to know why or how she has been\ntreated by the biographers of the Prophet as a slave or a concubine.\n\n(1) I have great doubts regarding the truth of the story that Mokowkas\nthe Governor had sent two maids to Mohammad, and taking it for granted\nthey were so sent, that one of them was the alleged Maria; (2) it is not\na fact that she was a slave; (3) nor a concubine-slave of the Prophet;\n(4) nor she as such bore a son to him; (5) and lastly, the notorious\nscandal about her much talked of by European writers is a mere calumny\nand a false story.\n\nIt will be a very tedious and irksome task to copy the various\ntraditions bearing on the above subjects and to discuss their\nauthenticity, and criticise their genuineness, on the principles of the\ntechnicalities peculiar to the Science of Traditions, as well as on the\nbasis of scientific and rational criticism. Therefore I will notice only\nbriefly each of the above subjects.\n\n[Sidenote: Dispatch to Mokowkas.]\n\n9. (1) That Mohammad had sent a dispatch to Mokowkas, the Roman Governor\nof Egypt, and that in reply he had sent Maria the Coptic maid, together\nwith other presents, to Mohammad, is not to be found in the traditions\ncollected by the best critics of Mohammadan traditions like Bokhari and\nMuslim, who had sifted the whole incoherent mass of genuine and\napocryphal traditions regarding the Prophet, and had picked up but a\nvery small portion of them which they thought to be relatively genuine.\nWe can fairly conclude that such a tradition, which is related by other\nnon-critics and story-tellers, who have indiscriminately narrated every\ntradition--whether genuine or apocryphal--like Wakidi and Ibn Sad, was\nsurely rejected by these Imams (Doctors in the Science of Tradition) as\nhaving not the least possibility of its genuineness. Even Ibn Ishak\n(died 150),[354] Hisham-bin-Abdul Malik (died 213 A.H.),[355] and Abul\nMo'tamar Soleiman (died 143 A.H.[356])[357] have not inserted the\nportion of the tradition of Maria the Coptic maid being sent by the\nEgyptian Governor to Mohammad. The tradition narrated by Ibn Sad--(1)\nthrough Wakidi and Abd-ul-Hamid from Jafar, (2) and Abdullah bin Abdur\nRahman bin Abi Sasata--is undoubtedly apocryphal, Wakidi and\nAbd-ul-Hamid are of impeached integrity, or no authority at all. Ibn\nKhallikan, in his Biographical Dictionary, translated by Slane, writes\nregarding Wakidi:--\"The Traditions received from him are considered of\nfeeble authority, and doubts have been expressed on the subject of his\n(_veracity_.)\"[358] Ibn Hajar Askalani writes regarding Wakidi in his\n_Takrib_, that \"he has been struck off as an authority (literally left\nout), notwithstanding his vast knowledge.\" Zahabi's opinion of Wakidi\nin Mizan-al-Etedal is that Ahmed bin Hanbal said \"he was the greatest\nliar.\" Bokhari and Abu Hatim say he is struck off (or left out as an\nauthority).\n\nRegarding Abd-ul-Hamid, Zahabi writes that Abu Hatim said he is not\nquoted as an authority, and Sofian said he was a weak authority.\n\nJafar and Abdullah bin Abdur Rahman bin Abi Sasata are of the middle\nperiod in the Tabaeen's class, and do not quote their authority on the\nsubject.\n\n[Sidenote: Maria neither a slave;]\n\n10. (2) Supposing that the Governor of Egypt had sent two Coptic maids,\nwith other presents, to Mohammad, it does not follow necessarily that\nthey were slave-girls. It is never stated in history that they were\ncaptives of war, or, if they were so, that they were enslaved\nsubsequently. There is no authority for a haphazard conjecture that they\nwere slave-girls.\n\n[Sidenote: nor a concubine-slave.]\n\n11. (3) Even if it be admitted that Maria the Coptic was a slave-girl,\nthere is no proof that she was a concubine-slave. It is a stereotyped\nfabrication of traditionists, and the unpardonable blunder on the part\nof European writers, that they almost always confound female-slaves, and\neven sometimes captives, with concubine-slaves. None of the six standard\ncollectors of traditions--Imams Bokhari (died 256 A.H.), Muslim (died\n261 A.H.), Aboo Daood (died 275 A.H.), Tirmizee (died 279 A.H.), Nasaee\n(died 303 A.H.), and Ibn Maja (died 273 A.H.)--has narrated that Maria\nthe Coptic was a concubine-slave of the Prophet. Even the early\nbiographers--Ibn Ishak (died 150 A.H.) and Ibn Hisham (died 213 A.H.)\nhave not made any mention to this effect. It is only Mohammad bin Sad,\nthe Secretary to Wakidi, who narrates the tradition,--firstly through\nWakidi, Abd-ul-Hamid, and Jafar, and secondly through Wakidi, Yakoob bin\nMohammad, and Abdullah bin Abdur Rahman bin Abi Sasata. These both\nascriptions are apocryphal. I have already quoted my authorities against\nWakidi and Abd-ul-Hamid. Yakoob bin Mohammad has been impeached by Abu\nZaraa, a critic in the Science of Traditions.[359] Jafar and Abdullah\nboth flourished after the first century. Their evidence to the supposed\nfact about a century ago is inadmissible.\n\nIn the Biographical Dictionaries of the contemporaries of the Prophet,\nthere are three persons named Maria.[360] One is said to have been a\nhousemaid of the Prophet; the second was a housemaid whose _kunniat_\n(patronymic) is given as Omm Rabab (mother of Rabab). The third is\ncalled Maria the Coptic. It appears there was only one Maria; she may\nhave been a female servant in the household of the Prophet. The\nnarrators have, by citing different circumstances regarding them, made\nthem three different persons, and one of them a concubine-slave, as they\ncould not think a house or family complete without a slave-girl or a\nconcubine-slave. The biographers often commit such blunders. In giving\ndifferent anecdotes of really the same persons, they make as many\npersons as they have anecdotes. That anyone of the Marias was a\nconcubine-slave is a mere conjecture, or a stereotyped form of\ntraditional confusion in mixing up maidservants with slaves or\nconcubine-slaves.\n\n[Sidenote: Maria had no son.]\n\n12. (4) Those who have converted Maria into a slave or a concubine-slave\nhave furnished her--the creature of their own imagination--with a son.\nThere are various traditions as to the number and names of the Prophet's\nsons, all of whom died in infancy. Some traditions give different names\nto one, and others give as many sons as the names are reported. There\nmight have been a son of Mohammad by the name of Ibrahim, but that he\nwas born of Maria the Coptic is a perfect myth. This piece of the story\nis the continuation of the traditions of Ibn Sad, which I have already\ncriticized in paras. 9 and 11. Ibn Sad has related another tradition\nthrough Omar bin Asim and Katada to the effect that Mohammad's son\nIbrahim was born of a captive woman. Asim has been condemned by Abu\nHatim, a doctor and critic in the Mohammadan traditional\nliterature;[361] and Katada (died 117 A.H.) was not a contemporary\nwitness of what he relates. Thus he fails in giving any authority to his\nnarration. There are two more traditions in Ibn Sad from similar\nauthorities like Katada, namely, Zohri (died 124 A.H.) and Mak-hool\n(died 118 A.H.)--not contemporaries of Mohammad, but of the class of\nTabaeen--to the effect that Mohammad had said, \"Had Ibrahim lived, the\ncapitation-tax would have been remitted to every Copt!\" and that \"Had\nIbrahim lived, his maternal uncles would never have been enslaved!\" They\ndo not say who was Ibrahim!\n\nAnother and the last tradition in Ibn Sad through Yahia bin Hammad, Abu\nAvana, Soleiman-al-Aamash, Muslim, and Bara is to the effect that\nIbrahim was born from a Coptic maid of the Prophet. The narrator\nSoleiman-al-Aamash was a _modallis_ (_Takrib_ in loco), or in other\nwords, a liar. Besides the whole chain of the narration is _Mo-an-an_.\n\nIn none of the canonical collections of traditions like those of\nBokhari, Muslim, and others Ibrahim is said to have been born of Maria.\nTherefore any of their traditions regarding Ibrahim is not against us.\n\nIt is also related in some genuine traditions that an eclipse of the sun\ntook place on the day of Ibrahim's death.[362] The historians have\nrelated only one eclipse, which occurred in the sixth year of the\nHejira, when Mohammad was at Hodeibia. This shows that Ibrahim could not\nbe Maria's son. She only could come to Arabia a year later, as the\ndispatches to several princes were sent only in the seventh year.\nYafaee, in his history _Mirat-uz-Zaman_, has noted that the sun was\neclipsed in the sixth year of the Hejira. In the tenth year, he\nsays,--\"A genuine tradition has that the sun was eclipsed on the day of\nIbrahim's death, and it has been stated above that it was eclipsed in\nthe sixth year. There is some difficulty. It was noted once only during\nthe time of the Prophet. If it occurred twice, there is no difficulty;\nand if not, one of these two events must be wrong, either the eclipse\ntook place in the tenth year, or the Prophet's son died in the sixth\nyear.\" But historically the eclipse was noticed only in the sixth year.\nThere are different dates of Ibrahim's death reported by the\nbiographers--the fourth, tenth, and fourteenth of lunar months, but in\nnone of them can an eclipse take place.\n\n[Sidenote: The story of Haphsa and Maria a spurious one.]\n\n13. (5) Lastly, I have to notice the infamous calumny against Mohammad\nconcocted up by his enemies, that Haphsa surprized the Prophet in her\nown private room with Maria. \"She reproached her lord bitterly, and\nthreatened to make the occurrence known to all his wives. Afraid of the\nexposure and anxious to appease his offended wife, he begged of her to\nkeep the matter quiet, and promised to forego the society of Maria\naltogether.\" But he afterwards released himself from it by a special\nrevelation--(Sura LXVI, 1). Sir W. Muir remarks:--\n\n \"As in the case of Zeinab, Mahomet produced a message from Heaven,\n which disallowed his promise of separation from Mary....\"\n\nThe passage in the Koran relating to the affair is as follows:--\n\n \"O Prophet! Why hast thou forbidden thyself that which God hath\n made lawful unto thee,[363] out of desire to please thy wives; for\n God is forgiving and merciful?\"[364]\n\n[Sidenote: The affair not noticed in the early biographies.]\n\n14. Now this is perfectly a fictitious story. Neither there was any such\naffair, nor is there anything on this head mentioned in the Koran. It is\nvery strange that Sir W. Muir has abruptly left aside, in this instance,\nall his principal authorities, the Arabian biographers, Ibn Ishak,\nWakidi (his secretary), and Tabari. The story is not to be found in any\nof these biographies, nor in the canonical collections of Bokhari,\nMuslim, and Tirmizee. Sir W. Muir had himself laid down the rule that\nonly these original authorities are to be depended upon, and the later\nauthors are to be rejected. He writes:--\n\n \"To the three biographies by Ibn Hisham, by Wackidi his secretary,\n and Tabari, the judicious historian of Mahomet will, as his\n original authorities, confine himself. He will also receive with a\n similar respect such traditions in the general collections of the\n earliest traditionists--Bokhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, &c.--as may bear\n upon his subject. But he will reject as _evidence_ all later\n authors, to whose so-called traditions he will not allow any\n historical weight whatever.\"[365]\n\n[Sidenote: Sir W. Muir's authorities not valid.]\n\n15. But in this instance, Sir W. Muir, being anxious to quote his\nfictitious story to calumniate Mohammad, has ceased to be a judicious\nhistorian, and deviates from his self-imposed rule. He does not reject\nthe story as he ought judiciously and conscientiously to have done, as\nit is not to be found in any of the earliest and original authorities\nmentioned by him; on the contrary, he compromises himself by\ncondescending to quote from secondary and later authors. He writes in a\nfootnote without quoting his original authority:--\n\n \"The version given in the text is accredited by Jelalood-deen,\n Yahia, Beizawi, and Zamakshari, &c.\" (Vol. III, page 163.)\n\nThese authors were neither biographers nor historians, and are therefore\nno authorities at all. Zamakshari and Beizawi were commentators in the\nsixth and seventh centuries respectively. They give two stories, one\nregarding Maria and another to the effect that the oath or promise of\nMohammad had been to the effect that he would not again partake of a\nspecies of strong-scented honey disliked by his wives. Jelal-ud-deen\nMahalli was a commentator of the ninth century of the Hejira. Yahia is\nnot known among the commentators. He may be one of the latest authors.\n\nThe commentators are generally no authority in the matter of traditional\nliterature. \"To illustrate allusions in the Coran, they are always ready\nwith a story in point, but unfortunately there are almost always\ndifferent tales, all equally opposite to the same allusion. The\nallusion, in fact, was often the father of the story. What was\noriginally, perhaps, a mere conjecture of supposed events that might\nhave given rise to an expression in the Coran, or was a single surmise\nin explanation of some passage, by degrees assume the garb of fact. The\ntradition and the facts which it professes to attest thus, no doubt,\noften rest on no better authority than that of the verse or passage\nitself.\"[366]\n\n[Sidenote: The best commentators and traditionists refute the story.]\n\n16. Those commentators who are well versed in the Science of Traditions,\nas well as doctors in the traditional literature, have rejected the\nstory of Maria as the subject-matter of Sura LXVI, as apocryphal.\n\nBaghvi, the author of _Misbah_ (the text of Mishkat), says that the Sura\nwas revealed on the subject of honey, and not in the case of Maria. The\nlatter story is neither in the _Sahihain_ (Bokhari and Muslim), nor has\nit been narrated in any authentic way.\n\nHafiz Ishmael Ibn Kaseeral Qarashi, as quoted by Kustlanee (notes on\nBokhari, Vol. VII, page 313), says that the Sura was certainly in the\ncase of honey.\n\nImam Noavee, in his notes on Muslim, (Vol. I, page 463,) says:--\"In fact\nit was revealed in the case of the honey, and not in the case of Maria.\"\n\n[Sidenote: The story not accredited by the Koran.]\n\n17. Sir W. Muir himself admits that the earliest biographers do not\nrelate the story, but gives a false excuse for his not following their\nexample. He writes:--\n\n \"The biographers pass over the scene in decent silence, and I\n should gladly have followed their example, if the Coran itself had\n not accredited the facts, and stamped them with unavoidable\n notoriety.\"[367]\n\nThe allegation is absurdly false, as everybody can satisfy himself by\nreferring to the Koran, which does not contain the fictitious and\nspurious story.\n\n[Sidenote: The story when fabricated.]\n\n18. The currency of the story did neither take place during the time of\nMohammad, its proper age, nor during the lifetime of the companions. It\nwas fabricated and imposed on some of the _Tabaee_ of weak authority in\nthe second century.[368] There is no doubt that the whole story is a\nsheer fabrication from beginning to end.\n\n[Sidenote: Zeinab's case.]\n\n19. In conclusion, I will offer a few remarks in passing regarding Sir\nW. Muir's reference here to Zeinab's case. He writes:--\n\n \"The charms of a second Zeinab were by accident discovered too\n fully before the Prophet's admiring gaze. She was the wife of Zeid,\n his adopted son and bosom friend; but he was unable to smother the\n flame she had kindled in his breast, and by _divine_ command she\n was taken to his bed.\"[369]\n\nThe story is from the beginning to end all untrue. Mohammad knew Zeinab\nfrom her infancy, she was his cousin; and he had himself arranged her\nmarriage with Zeid. When Zeid divorced her, she was thirty-five years\nold, and possibly could have no charms to fascinate even a stranger. Had\nshe been charming or fair to look upon, Zeid should not have separated\nhimself from her. There is no historical authority for this, or for any\nother version of the story. The Koran, while treating the subject, has\nnot the slightest reference to any of the stories afterwards made out to\nthe effect that Mohammad had been to Zeid's house, and, having\naccidentally seen the beauty of Zeinab's figure through the half-opened\ndoor; or that the wind blew aside the curtain of Zeinab's chamber, and\ndisclosed her in a scanty undress, was smitten by the sight.[370]\n\n[Sidenote: The story a spurious one.]\n\n20. These stories, and I believe a few more varied accounts of the same,\nlike those of the story of Maria the Coptic, were originally mere\nconjectures of supposed events that might have given rise to an\nexpression in the Koran (Sura XXXIII, verse 37)--if not wilful\nmisrepresentations of story-tellers and enemies of Islam--which the\nEuropean writers represent in the garb of facts. The words of the Koran\nwhich have been the father of the story are:--\n\n \"And when thou saidst to him unto whom God had shewn favour, and\n unto whom thou also hadst shewn favour, 'keep thy wife to thyself,\n and fear God,' and thou didst hide in thy mind what God would bring\n to light, and thou didst fear men; but more right it had been to\n fear God.\"\n\nThis shows Mohammad dissuaded Zeid from divorcing his wife,\nnotwithstanding the great facility of divorce common at that time in\nArabia.\n\nSir W. Muir is not justified in copying these stories from Tabari. They\nare not related by earliest biographers from any authentic and reliable\nsource. He ought to have rejected them as spurious fabrications under\nhistorical criticism, as he rejects other traditions which are on a\nbetter footing of truth than these false and maliciously forged stories.\n\n[Sidenote: Sir W. Muir's conjectures not justified.]\n\n21. Sir W. Muir has exceeded the limit he himself had marked out for a\njudicious historian of Mohammad when he abounds in his wild fancies, and\nobserves--\n\n \"Zeid went straightway to Mahomet, and declared his readiness to\n divorce Zeinab for him. This Mahomet declined: 'Keep thy wife to\n thyself,' he said, 'and fear God.' _But Zeid could plainly see that\n these words proceeded from unwilling lips, and that the Prophet had\n still a longing eye for Zeinab._\"[371]\n\nNow this is a mere libellous surmise. He goes on still with his\ndefamatory conjectures, and writes:--\n\n \"Still the passion for Zeinab could not be smothered; it continued\n to burn within the heart of Mahomet, and at last bursting forth,\n scattered other considerations to the wind.\"[372]\n\nMohammad never professed to have received a divine command to marry\nZeinab. It was not necessary for him to have done so. The outcry raised\nby the Pagan Arabs was not because they suspected an intrigue on the\nProphet's part to secure a divorce, but because they looked upon an\nadopted son in the light of a true son, and considered, therefore, the\nmarriage with Zeinab, after her divorce from Zeid, as falling within the\nprohibited degrees. This adoptive affinity was already abolished in the\nKoran (Sura XXXIII, 4): \"God hath not made your adopted sons as your own\nsons.\"\n\nSir W. Muir gravely mistakes in his remarks when he says:--\n\n \"The marriage caused much obloquy, and to save his reputation,\n Mahomet had the impious effrontery to sanction it by special\n Revelation from on high, in which the Almighty is represented as\n formally recording a divine warrant for the union.\"[373]\n\nHe quotes verse 36, Sura XXXIII. But he has himself admitted (Vol. III,\npage 229 footnote) \"that this verse is rather in a recitative style of a\npast event,\" and not a divine command to marry Zeinab. The words \"we\njoined thee in marriage unto her\" in the verse do not mean a command for\nmarriage. They simply mean that the marriage had taken place. The phrase\n\"we joined thee in marriage unto her\" is a mere form of expression.\nAlmost all human actions are attributed to God in the Koran, and\nwhatever occurs in the world by the ordinary course of nature, and by\nthe free agency of men, is referred in the Koran to the immediate agency\nof God.\n\n[Sidenote: A wrong translation of Sir W. Muir.]\n\n22. In the next verse--\"There is no offence chargeable to the Prophet in\nthat which God hath enjoined upon him\"--he wrongly translates _Faraza_\nas enjoined, and thus conveys an idea of a divine command. _Faraza_\nmeans he made (a thing) lawful or allowable. [See Lane's Arabic\nDictionary, Bk. I, Pt. VI, page 2373.] In giving the above meaning Mr.\nLane quotes this very verse.[374] Such unions were made lawful not only\nto Mohammad, but for all the Moslems, and there was nothing partaking of\na special prerogative for him. No special sanction is conveyed by these\nverses. No special revelation from on high was brought forward to secure\nhis own object or to give him an exceptional privilege. It was merely\nsaid that no blame attached to the Prophet for doing what was lawful.\n\nThe word \"_Amr_,\" translated \"command\" and \"behest,\" in XXXIII, 37 and\n38, by Sir W. Muir and others, in fact means here and in other similar\npassage (XIX, 21; IV, 50; XI, 76; and VIII, 43, 46),--God's\nforeknowledge of future contingencies and not a legal command. The same\nis the case with the word \"_Qadr_\" in XXXIII, 38, as well as in XV, 60,\nand LXXIII, 20, which means God's prescience and not a predestinated\ndecree.\n\n[Sidenote: In Zeinab's case no exceptional privilege was secured.]\n\n23. In conclusion, Sir W. Muir remarks:--\n\n \"Our only matter of wonder is that the Revelations of Mahomet\n continued after this to be regarded by his people as inspired\n communications from the Almighty, when they were so palpably formed\n to secure his own objects, and pander even to his evil desires. We\n hear of no doubts or questionings, and we can only attribute the\n confiding and credulous spirit of his followers to the absolute\n ascendency of his powerful mind over all who came within its\n influence.\"[375]\n\nThe verses 37 and 38 of the thirty-third Sura had not in any way\n\"secured the objects of Mohammad, much less pandered to his evil\ndesire.\" As his marriage with Zeinab had taken place long before they\nwere published, they could not be said to confer any exceptional\nprivilege upon him.\n\n[Sidenote: The false story traced to Mukatil.]\n\n24. The story copied by commentators that Mohammad had accidentally seen\nZeinab and admired her is traced to Mukatil,[376] a commentator of the\nKoran in the second century, who died at Basra 150 A.H. \"The doctors\n(_in traditions_),\" writes Ibn Khallikan in his Biographical Dictionary,\ntranslated by Slane, \"differ in opinion respecting Mukatil: some declare\nthat, as a traditionist, he was worthy of confidence, and others accused\nhim of falsehood.\"\n\n... Ahmed bin Saiyar says:--\n\n\"Mukatil Ibn Sulaiman, a native of Balkh, went to Marw, whence he\nproceeded to Irak. His veracity is suspected; his Traditions should be\nleft aside and declarations should be rejected. Speaking of the divine\nattributes, he said things which it would be sinful to repeat.\" Ibrahim\nIbn Yakub-al-Juz-Jani called Mukatil an audacious liar. Abu Abd\nar-Rahman an Nasai said:--\"Liars notorious for forging Traditions and\npassing them off as coming from the Prophet were four in number: Ibn Abi\nYahya, at Medina; Al-Wakidi, at Baghdad; Mukatil Ibn Sulaiman, in\nKhorasan; and Muhammad Ibn Said, surnamed _Al-Maslub_, in Syria.\" Waki\nIbn al-Jarrah said of Mukatil that he was a confirmed liar. Abu Bakr\nal-Ajurri said: \"I asked Abu Dawud Sulaiman Ibn al Ashath concerning\nMukatil, and he answered:--'All Traditions given by him should be\nrejected.' According to Omar Ibn al-Ghallas, Mukatil Ibn Sulaiman was a\nliar, and his traditions were to be rejected.\" \"As for Mukatil Ibn\nSulaiman,\" said Al-Bukhari, \"pass him over in silence.\" In another\nplace, he says of him: \"He is just nothing at all.\" Yahya Ibn Moin\ndeclared that Mukatil's traditions were of no value; and Ahmad Ibn\nHanbal said: \"As for Mukatil Ibn Sulaiman, the author of the Commentary,\nI should not like to cite anything on his authority.\" \"His Traditions\nare to be rejected,\" said Abu Hatim ar-Razi. According to Zakariya Ibn\nYahya as-Saji, people said of Mukatil Ibn Sulaiman, the native of\nKhorasan, \"that he was a liar, and that his traditions should be\nrejected.\"[377]\n\n[Sidenote: Ikrama.]\n\nIkrama (died 107 A.H.), another liar, had only surmised before Mukatil\nthat Mohammad might have admired Zeinab. His words, as related by the\ntraditionists, Abd bin Hamid and Ibn-al-Munzar, are \"as if she had\nfallen deep in his mind.\"[378] But Mukatil has converted this hazardous\nconjecture into a fact.\n\nAbd Allah Ibn al-Harith relates as follows:--\n\n \"I went to visit Ali, the son of Abd Allah Ibu Abbas, and I saw\n Ikrama tied up at the door of a privy, on which I said: 'Is it thus\n that you treat your slave?' To which he replied. 'Know that that\n fellow has told lies of my father.'\"[379]\n\n[Sidenote: Mohammad bin Yahya.]\n\nMohammad bin Yahya bin Habban[380] (died 121 A.H.) has also given the\ntradition of Mohammad's admiring Zeinab at Zeid's house, but does not\ngive his authority. He was not a contemporary narrator, therefore his\nnarration is apocryphal and technically _Mursal_.\n\n[Sidenote: Katada's conjectural interpretation not warranted.]\n\n25. All these silly fables, wild romances, and scandalous conjectures\nhave their origin in Katada's improper interpretation of these words,\n\"and thou didst hide in thy mind what God would bring to light\" (Sura\nXXXIII, 37). Katada (died 117 A.H.) conjectured that the Prophet\nconcealed his desire that Zeid should divorce Zeinab. But all other\nauthors[381] have found fault with Katada in his surmise, which is not\nsupported by any word in the text or by any contemporary evidence. This\ninterpretation of Katada is contradicted by the very words of Mohammad\nto Zeid in the same verse: \"Keep thy wife to thyself and fear God.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Other conjectures.]\n\n26. Many have been the conjectures as to what did Mohammad hide in his\nmind. There is one by Katada already explained. Another is this, that he\nknew Zeid would divorce her, but concealing this in his mind, he\ninterdicted Zeid from doing so. A third conjecture is this, that he\nconcealed in his mind that if Zeid, contrary to his (Mohammad's) advice,\nwere to divorce her (Zeinab), he (Mohammad) would marry her. These\nconjectures are all far-fetched and arbitrary, but it appears more\nprobable that the social inharmony and domestic disturbances between\nZeid and Zeinab, and their resolve of separation, were withheld from the\npublic by Mohammad, fearing the scandal it might give rise to among his\nenemies. This is the only secret referred to in the verse so often\ncited.\n\n[Footnote 336: _Annals of the Early Caliphate_. By Sir W. Muir,\nK.C.S.I., LL.D., D.C.L., page 75, London, 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 337: \"It is to ransom the captive.\"--XC, 13.\n\n\"There is no piety in turning your faces towards the east or the west,\nbut he is pious who believeth in God and the Last Day, and the Angels\nand the Scriptures and the Prophets; who for the love of God disburseth\nhis wealth to his kindred and to the orphans and the needy, and the\nwayfarer and those who ask; and for ransoming,\" &c.--II, 172.]\n\n[Footnote 338: \"And to those of your slaves who desire a deed of\n_manumission_, execute it for them, if ye know good in them, and give\nthem a portion of the wealth of God which He hath given you. Force not\nyour female slaves into sin, in order that ye may gain he casual\nfruitions of this world, if they wish to preserve their modesty. Yet if\nany one compel them, then verily, after their compulsion, will God be\nForgiving, Merciful.\"--XXIV, 33.]\n\n[Footnote 339: \"A believer killeth not a believer but by mischance: and\nwhoso killeth a believer by mischance shall be bound to free a believer\nfrom slavery,\" &c.--IV, 94.]\n\n[Footnote 340: \"And those who _thus_ put away their wives, and\nafterwards would recall their words, must free a captive before they can\ncome together _again_,\" &c.--LVIII, 4.]\n\n[Footnote 341: \"But alms are only _to be given_ to the poor and the\nneedy, and those who collect them, and to those whose hearts are won _to\nIslam_, and for ransoming and for debtors, and for the cause of God, and\nthe wayfarer,\" &c.--IX, 60.]\n\n[Footnote 342: \"God will not punish you for a mistaken word in your\noaths; but He will punish you in regard to an oath taken seriously. Its\nexpiation shall be to feed ten poor persons with such middling _food_ as\nye feed your families with, or to clothe them; or to set free a captive:\nbut he who cannot find the means shall fast three days. This is the\nexpiation of your oaths when ye have sworn. Keep then your oaths. Thus\nGod maketh his signs clear to you. Haply ye will be thankful.\"--V, 91.]\n\n[Footnote 343: _Vide_ Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 223.]\n\n[Footnote 344: According to Hishami, p. 745, a party of fifty or forty\nKoreish went round about Mohammad's camp at Hodeibia, seeking to cut off\nany stray followers; and having attacked the camp itself with stones and\narrows, they were caught and taken to Mohammad, who pardoned and\nreleased them.--_Vide_ Muir's Life of Mahomet, IV, p. 31, _f.n._; and\nMoslim's collection of genuine traditions _Kitab-ul Jihad vas-Siyar_,\nchapter on _Tanfeel_ and _Ransom_.]\n\n[Footnote 345: All the prisoners of Hawazin at Honain were released\nwithout taking any ransom and were not made slaves. See Muir's Life of\nMahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 148-149. That Mohammad had presented three female\nslaves to Ali, Othman, and Omar from the captives of Bard Hawazin, as\nstated by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, p. 149, is void of all truth. The\ncaptives were not enslaved. They were mere prisoners, as Sir W. Muir\nhimself calls them so (_ibid_, pp. 148-149); yet he styles these three\nof them \"female slaves.\" The captives together with the captured camp\nwere removed to the valley of Jierana, pending negotiations (_ibid_, p.\n142). At the end of the negotiations the prisoners were released. Thus\nthere could be no distribution of prisoners to anyone.]\n\n[Footnote 346: Sir W. Muir writes:--\"Hishamee says that from the time of\nKheibar _slaves_ became very plentiful among the Moslems, p. 333. I do\nnot find that, excepting the family of Kinana, any mention is made of\nslaves taken at Kheibar. But money, which the victors obtained\nplentifully at Kheibar, could purchase them cheaply in any part of\nArabia.\" (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 73-74, and _footnote_.) But\nthe word originally used by Hishamee, \"_sabaya_,\" means captives and\nproperty captured, and not slaves, though captives, if not ransomed,\nwere used to be made slaves under the Arab International Law. Besides\nthis even the family of Kinana was never enslaved. Kinana was taken\ncaptive and executed, because he had killed Mahamud bin Muslama. _Vide_\npara. 75 of this book. The story that Mohammad immediately on Kinana's\nexecution sent for her and cast his mantle over her, signifying that she\nwas to be his own, and consummated his marriage with her, and that her\ndower was her freedom (_vide_ Muir, _ibid_, pp. 68-69), is not genuine\nand authentic. His family, by which is meant Sofia and her cousin, was\nnot enslaved, and there is no tradition, genuine or apocryphal, to\ncorroborate it. I here take the opportunity of quoting a speech ascribed\nto Mohammad while addressing Sofia, the widow of Kinana, copied by Abul\nMo'tamar Soleiman (died A.H. 143) in his \"Campaigns of Mohammad.\"\nMohammad addressed her thus:--\"I give thee choice either of Islam, or of\nJudaism. If thou acceptest Islam, perhaps I may keep thee for myself.\nBut if thou preferest Judaism, I may perhaps liberate thee, and join\nthee to thy family.\" _Vide_ Wakidi's \"Campaigns of Mohammad,\" page 393,\nCalcutta, 1856. This speech shows amply that Mohammad had no intention\nof enslaving Sofia.\n\nThe story of Mohammad's marriage with Sofia after her being given to and\npurchased from Dihya, emanates from Anas, who cannot be relied upon.\nAnas had very recently been associated with Mohammad. He entered\nMohammad's service only the other day when he started for the expedition\nof Khyber, and was but a boy only a dozen-years old at that time. It is\nrelated by Bokhari from Anas himself, who said that the Prophet had\nasked Abu Tulhah to get him a boy to serve him during the Khyber\nexpedition. So he took me to him, and I was a boy close to maturity\n(_Bokhari-Kitabul Jihad_). Anas has given two contradictory accounts\nabout Sofia; in one he says, \"Dihya asked Mohammad's permission for a\ncaptive girl, and took Sofia. When Mohammad heard about Sofia, he asked\nDihya to take another one; and having liberated Sofia married her, and\nher freedom was her dower.\" In another tradition, Anas relates that\n\"Sofia fell to the lot of Dihya, and Mohammad purchased her from him for\nseven camels.\" He says:--\"The people did not know whether he had married\nher, or had made her a concubine-slave, but when she rode on a camel,\nand Mohammad put veil round her, the people knew from this that she was\nhis wife.\" Both these traditions are narrated from Anas by Moslem in his\n_Saheeh_ (Book on Marriage).\n\nThe idea that Mohammad married Sofia under the circumstances noted above\nis not satisfactorily established. It was only the fancy of the people,\nor was a conjecture of Anas. Yet Sir W. Muir has the effrontery to\nremark against Mohammad that: \"Indeed, he is not free from the suspicion\nof being influenced in the destruction of Kinana by the desire of\nobtaining his wife.\" (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 68,\n_footnote_.) Kinana was executed for killing Mahmood bin Muslama, and\nSofia was neither enslaved nor married by Mohammad. Even if it be shown\nthat Mohammad married her afterwards under some other circumstances, it\n(Sir W. Muir's presumption) is an idle guess unwarranted by any\nreasonable argument.\n\nThe traditionists, Anas and others, have probably confounded Sofia, the\naunt of Mohammad, who was with him during the expedition of Khyber\n(_vide_ Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 66, _footnote_), with\nKinana's widow of the same name, whom they fancied Mohammad might have\nmarried and carried with him on the same camel. The lady for whom\nMohammad lowered his knee to help her to ascend the camel (_ibid_, page\n70) was most probably Sofia, his aunt.]\n\n[Footnote 347: Vol. III, pp. 278-279.]\n\n[Footnote 348: _Vide_ The Biographical Dictionary of Persons who knew\nMohammad, by Ibn Hajar. In _Biblotheca Indica_. A collection of oriental\nSeries, published by the Asiatic Society, Bengal, No. 215, Vol. IV.\nFasciculus 7, Calcutta, 1866; Art. Rehana, No. 444.]\n\n[Footnote 349: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 278.]\n\n[Footnote 350: \"The days of Ignorance, that is, the period preceding\nIslam.\"]\n\n[Footnote 351: \"Two such are named by Tabari, I, page 248.\"\n\n\"A light ransom was fixed for each Arab slave--seven camels and six\nyoung ones. In the case of some tribes which had suffered most severely\n(as the Beni Hanifa, the Beni Kinda, and the people of Oman discomfited\nat Daba) even this was remitted.\"\n\nAnnals of Early Caliphate. By Sir W. Muir, K.C.S.I., LL.D., D.C.L.,\nLondon, 1883, pp. 63, 64.]\n\n[Footnote 352: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 56.]\n\n[Footnote 353: _Ibid_, page 57, footnote.]\n\n[Footnote 354: _Vide_ Hishamee, page 972.]\n\n[Footnote 355: _Ibid_, page 971.]\n\n[Footnote 356: _Vide Takrib_ by Ibn Hajar.]\n\n[Footnote 357: _Vide_ History of Muhammad's Campaigns by Wakidi; edited\nby Von Kremer, Calcutta, 1856, from p. 360 to the end.]\n\n[Footnote 358: Vol. III, page 62.]\n\n[Footnote 359: _Vide_ Mizan-ul-Etedal by Zahabi.]\n\n[Footnote 360: _Vide_ Nos. 976, 977, and 978 in the Biographical\nDictionary of Persons who knew Mohammad, by Ibn Hajar, published by the\nAsiatic Society, Bengal, Calcutta, 1870, Vol. IV, pp. 779, 780, and\n781.]\n\n[Footnote 361: _Vide_ Mizan, by Zahabi.]\n\n[Footnote 362: \"An eclipse of the sun occurred on the same day, and the\npeople spoke of it as a tribute to the death of the Prophet's son. A\nvulgar impostor would have accepted and confirmed the delusion; but\nMahomet rejected the idea.\"--\"The Life of Mahomet\" by Sir W. Muir, Vol.\nIV, page 166.]\n\n[Footnote 363: \"Meaning the company of his female slave.\"]\n\n[Footnote 364: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 161 and 162.\n\nTaking concubine-slaves was an established and recognized institution of\nthe Arab society, until Mohammad abolished it. Practically the custom\nhas prevailed up to the present time. No blame attached to such\nalliances in the social system of the Arabs. \"The Caliphs of the House\nof Abbas were all of them the children of concubines except as--Saffah,\nAl-Mahdi, and Al-Amin\" (History of Caliphs. By Sayute. Translated by\nMajor Jarret, page 20, Calcutta, 1880). If the story regarding Mohammad\nbe true, there was no fear of exposure or offending the wives.]\n\n[Footnote 365: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, Introduction, page ciii.]\n\n[Footnote 366: \"The Calcutta Review,\" Feby. 1868, page 374.]\n\n[Footnote 367: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 160.]\n\n[Footnote 368: Zeid bin Aslam (in _Tabrani_), who narrates the story,\nthough he does not mention Maria, is a Tabaee (died A.H. 136), and does\nnot quote his authority. Besides, his authority itself is impeached;\n_vide_ Ibn Adi in his Kamal.\n\nMasrook (in Saeed bin Mansoor) only came to Medina long after Mohammad's\ndeath; therefore his narration, even if it be genuine, is not reliable.\n\nZohak Ibn Muzahim (in _Tabrani_), also a Tabaee and of impeached\nauthority, narrates it from Ibn Abbas, but he never heard any tradition\nfrom him, nor had he even seen him (_vide Mzan-ul-Etedal_, by Zahabi,\nand _Ansab_, by Sam-ani). His narration must be hence considered as\napocryphal.\n\nThe ascription of Ibn Omar's (died 73 A.H.) story, not strictly to the\npoint, is untrustworthy.\n\nAbu Hurera's narration is also admitted as apocryphal; _vide\nDur-rul-mansoor_, by Soyuti.\n\nAll these traditions are noted by Soyuti in his _Dur-rul-mansoor_.\n\nThe tradition by Nasaee (died 303 A.H.) from Anas (died 90 A.H.)\nregarding the affair of a slave is equally contradicted by the tradition\nfrom Ayesha, the widow of the Prophet, narrated by the traditionist\nNasaee in the same place of his collection of traditions. This is the\nstory of the honey. _Vide_ para. 16, _ubi supra_. Ayesha's tradition is\nmore trustworthy than that of Anas. Hammad bin Salma, a narrator in the\nascription of Anas, has been impeached owing to the confusion of his\nmemory in the later days of his life (_vide Tekreeb_). Sabit, another\nlink in the same chain, was a story-teller by profession (_vide Zahabi's\nTabakat_,) and cannot be depended upon. And Nasaee himself has rejected\nthe tradition ascribed to Anas, and is reported to have said that\nAyesha's tradition has good ascription, while there is nothing valid in\nthat regarding Maria; _vide_ Kamalain's Annotations on _Jelalain in\nloco_.]\n\n[Footnote 369: The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 310.]\n\n[Footnote 370: _Ibid_, Vol. III, page 228, and _footnote_ at pp. 229 and\n230.]\n\n[Footnote 371: The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, page 228. The\n_italics_ are mine.]\n\n[Footnote 372: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 229. The tradition\nquoted by Sir W. Muir in this page is apocryphal and technically\n_Mursal_.]\n\n[Footnote 373: _Ibid_, p. 230.]\n\n[Footnote 374: \"(T.A.) _he made_ [a thing] _lawful_, or _allowable_, to\nhim (Jel in XXXIII, 38, and Kull in page 275 and T.A.*) relating to a\ncase into which a man has brought himself (Kull): this is said to be the\nmeaning when the phrase occurs in the Kur:\" An Arabic-English Lexicon,\nby Edward William Lane, page 2375.]\n\n[Footnote 375: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 231.]\n\n[Footnote 376: Vide _Seerat Halabi_; or, _Insan-ul-Oyoon_, Vol. II, page\n402.]\n\n[Footnote 377: Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary, Vol. III, pp.\n409-410.]\n\n[Footnote 378: Vide _Dur-rul-mansoor_, by Sayuti, _in loco_.]\n\n[Footnote 379: Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary, Vol. II, page\n207.]\n\n[Footnote 380: Narrated by Ibn Sad and Hakim.]\n\n[Footnote 381: _Vide_ Abdur Razzak. Abd bin Hamid, Ibn Jarir,\nIbn-al-Monzar, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Tabrani's Collections of Traditions.]\n\n\n\n\nAppendix C.\n\n\nThe references to the particular events and circumstances relating to\nthe defensive wars mentioned in the Koran, quoted and referred by me in\nthis work, may be classified as follows:--\n\nI.--The Persecutions of the Koreish at Mecca (B.H. 10-1).\n\n Sura xvi, 43, 44, 111.\n Sura ii, 210, 214, 215.\n Sura iii, 194.\n Sura iv, 97, 99, 100.\n Sura xxii, 57.\n Sura lx, 8, 9.\n Sura xlvii, 14.\n Sura xlviii, 25.\n Sura ix, 40, 48, 95.\n\nII.--The Aggressions of the Koreish at Medina, as well as those of the\nInhabitants thereof (A.H. 10).\n\n Sura ii, 214; Sura viii, 72; Sura ix, 13, 48, 72.\n\nIII. The Wars of Defence against the Koreish and the Arabs, &c., with\nseveral References to their Aggressions (A.H. 1-8).\n\n Sura xxii, 39-42.\n Sura ii, 186-189, 214, 215, 245, 247, 252.\n Sura iv, 76-78, 86, 91, 93.\n Sura viii, 19, 39-41, 58-66, 73, 74.\n Sura ix, 10, 13.\n\nIV.--The Various Battles, &c.\n\n (1) _The Battle of Badr_ (A.H. 2).\n Sura iii, 11, 119;\n Sura viii, 5-19, 39-52, 66-72;\n Sura xlvii, 4, 15.\n\n (2) _The Battle of Ohad_ (A.H. 3).\n Sura iii, 117-122;\n 134-154;\n 159-162.\n\n (3) _The Second Battle of Badr_ (A.H. 4), and _The Expulsion\n of the Bani Nazeer_ (A.H. 4).\n Sura iii, 167; and\n Sura lix, 2-14.\n\n (4) _The Battle of Ahzab_ (A.H. 5).\n Sura xxxiii, 9-25.\n\n (5) _The Jews, Bani Koreiza, &c._ (A.H. 5).\n Sura viii, 58-66;\n Sura xxxiii, 26-27.\n\n (6) _The pilgrimic Expedition to Hodeibia_ (A.H. 6).\n Sura xlviii, 1-3, 10, 11, 24, 25;\n Sura lx.\n\n (7) _The Expedition to Khyber_ (A.H. 7).\n Sura xlviii, 17, 20-22.\n\n (8) _The breach of the truce of Hodeibia by the Koreish_\n (A.H. 8).\n\n (_a_) Before the Conquest of Mecca.\n Sura ix, 1-15.\n\n (_b_) After the Conquest of Mecca,\n Sura ix, 16-24.\n\n (9) _The Battle of Honain_ (A.H. 8).\n Sura ix, 25-27.\n\n (10) _After the Battle of Honain_ (A.H. 9).\n Sura ix, 28.\n\n (11) _The Expedition to Tabuk against the Christians\n (Romans) and their Jewish Allies_ (A.H. 9).\n\n (_a_) Exhortation to go to war in defence.\n Sura ix, 29-41, 124.\n\n (_b_) Backwardness reproached.\n 42-52, 56-57, 82-90.\n\n (_c_) Exhortations for contribution.\n 53-55, 58-60, 81.\n\n (_d_) The disaffected chided.\n 65-76, 121, 122, 125-130.\n\n (_e_) The Bedouins reprobated.\n 91-102.\n\n (_f_) The penitents forgiven.\n 103-107, 118.\n\n_THE END._\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\nA.\n\nAamir, lii.\n\nAamir bin Tofeil, chief of Bani Aamir, xlvi.\n\nAbbas, 34.\n\nAbd-bin Hamid, 109 _f.n._, 222.\n\nAbd bin Kosayy, xxxiii.\n\nAbd Monat, xvii _f.n._\n\nAbd Shams, xxviii, 7.\n\nAbdel Malik ibn Hisham, 72 _f.n._, 73 _f.n._\n\nAbd-ud-Dar, xxxiii.\n\nAbd-ul-Kays, xlvi, lii.\n\nAbdul Hamid, 206, 208.\n\nAbdul Rahman, Mohammad's instruction to him, xxvii.\n\nAbdullah, 96, 97.\n\nAbdullah bin Abdur Rahaman bin Abi Sasta, 206, 208.\n\nAbdullah bin al Harith, 222.\n\nAbdullah bin Jahsh, 31, 56.\n\nAbdullah bin Khalal, 96.\n\nAbdullah bin Omar, 68 _f.n._\n\nAbdullah ibn Abbas, 135.\n\nAbdullah ibn Masood, 79, 80.\n\nAbdullah ibn Oneis, 69, 73.\n\nAbdullah ibn Rawaha, 72, 102.\n\nAbdullah ibn Shuburma, ibn Tufail ad Dubbi, 136.\n\nAbdullah ibn Zubair, 135.\n\nAbdur Razzak, 110 _f.n._\n\nAbs, xxxiv, xli, xlii, xlvi.\n\nAbu Abd-ur-Rahman Abdullah ibn Omar ibn-al Khattab, 135.\n\nAbu Abd-ur Rahman an Nasai, 221.\n\nAbu Afak, 61, 64, 65.\n\nAbu Avana, 210.\n\nAbu Bakr, vi, lix, 9, 179.\n\nAbu Bakr al Ajurri, 221.\n\nAbu Barda, 83.\n\nAbu Basir, 98, 99, 101.\n\nAbu Bera Amr ibn Malik, a chief of Bani Aamir, xlvi.\n\nAbu Cobeis, 6.\n\nAbu Daood, his book of Jihad, 71 _f.n._, 78 _f.n._, 79, 80 _f.n._,\n 96, 133, 207.\n\nAbu Hattim, 207, 209.\n\nAbu Hurera, 215.\n\nAbu Jahl, 7, 55.\n\nAbu Naeem, 78.\n\nAbu Obeida, 107.\n\nAbu Omar-ad-Damishki, 68 _f.n._\n\nAbu Omar-al-Madni, 107.\n\nAbu Rafe, chief of the Bani Nazeer, 61, 71-72.\n\nAbu Sofian, viii, 7, 11, 14, 31, 32, 34, 53, 55, 56, 74, 75, 76;\n attempted assassination of, 61.\n\nAbu Talib, 6;\n his death, 7.\n\nAbu Yola, xxii.\n\nAbu Zara, 208.\n\nAbul Bakhtari, 34.\n\nAbul Hukeik, the chief of Bani Nazeer, 39.\n\nAbul Mo'tamar Soleiman, 89, 197, 200, 206.\n\nAbul Ozza, 76, 80, 81.\n\nAbwa, Expedition of, 29, 56.\n\nAbyssinia, The emigration of the Moslems to, v, xxxiii, 5;\n the two emigrations of, 11;\n Nadhir ibn Hareth's flight to, 78, 179.\n\nAge, The Apostolic, 109.\n\nAhl Hadis, 160.\n\nAhmas, liii.\n\nAhmed bin Hanbal, 221.\n\nAhmed ibn Abi Daood, 113.\n\nAhmed Khan, Syed;\n his Commentary of the Koran, 95 _f.n._\n\nAhzab, vii, xxii, xxiii, 10, 197.\n\nAinee, a Commentary of the Hedaya, 125, 132, 134 _f.n._\n\nAjtahada, 164.\n\nAjtahada fil Amr, 164.\n\nAkhnas, 99.\n\nAl-Aamash, 135.\n\nAl-Amaran, 182.\n\nAl-Amin, 212 _f.n._\n\nAl-Auzai, 135.\n\nAli, 9, 80, 196.\n\nAli bin Abdullah bin Abbas, 68.\n\nAl-Is, 57.\n\nAl-Lat, 7.\n\nAllah, 38.\n\nAllauddin Al Haskafi, 170\n\nAlmotarrazi, 164.\n\nAl-Mamun, Khalif, 136.\n\nAl Yafi, 136.\n\nAmalekites, 153.\n\nAmar, commissioned to fight with Abu Sofian, 74, 81, 219.\n\nAmar-bin-Dinar, 134, 135, 136.\n\nAmeer Ali, Moulvie, quoted, 90.\n\nAmr, 64.\n\nAmr bin Saasaa, xxxiv, xli.\n\nAmru ibn Omerga, 75.\n\nAnaza, lii.\n\nAnnajmus Saqib (star of piercing radiance), xxxvi.\n\nAnnals of the Eastern Caliphate quoted, 193, 202.\n\nAns, 93 _f.n._, 136, 197-198, 215.\n\nAns bin Qizi, 89.\n\nAnsab, 215.\n\nAnsars, people of Medina, 32, 41.\n\nApartment, The (Sura), 188.\n\nArabs, their society, ii, 26;\n pagan, 125.\n\nArafat, xlviii.\n\nArqam, Mohammad sought refuge in the house of, xxxiii.\n\nAsad, xii, xiii, xxxiii, xlvi, lii.\n\nAsas of Zamakhshire, 163 _f.n._, 164.\n\nAshar, xvi.\n\nAshja, xii, xiii, xlii, xliii, xlv.\n\nAshraf, 66.\n\nAsim, 80.\n\nAslam, xliii.\n\nAsma bint Marwan, 61, 62-64.\n\nAssemblies of Ali Hariri, translated by Thomas Chenry, 169.\n\nAs Sauri, 137.\n\nAs Shabi, 136.\n\nAstromancy of the Jinns, xxxvi.\n\nAta, 68, 116 _f.n._, 134.\n\nAta ibn Abi Rabah, 135.\n\nAutas, xxiii, 16.\n\nAws Allah, xxxix.\n\nAws Tribes (The), xxxix, xlii, xliv.\n\nAyesha, 215, 216.\n\nAyla, the Christian chief, xix.\n\nAzd, xlv, lii.\n\nAzdite Tribes (The), xxxix, xlv.\n\nAzhar, 99.\n\nAzruh, The Jews of, xix.\n\n\nB.\n\nBadr, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xxii, xli, xlii, 10;\n the battle of, 11, 32, 34;\n Nadhir executed at, 78, 110 _f.n._, 170, 181, 196.\n\nBaghdad, 221.\n\nBaghvi, 214.\n\nBahrein, li.\n\nBaihakee, his traditions, 114.\n\nBalca, 40.\n\nBalkh, 22.\n\nBahila, lii.\n\nBahra, lii.\n\nBajila, lii.\n\nBakka, xxxiv, lii.\n\nBakr, xvii, xxviii, xli, xlii, lii, 15, 22, 53.\n\nBali, xlvi, liv.\n\nBariq, liv.\n\nBaus, Meaning of, xxi.\n\nBir Mauna, xii.\n\nBoas, Battle of, xlii.\n\nBokharee, xxii, 96, 134, 199, 207.\n\n\nC.\n\nCalcutta Review (The) quoted, 213.\n\nCampaigns of Mohammad by Wackidi, 78 _f.n._, 102, 197, 198.\n\nCanaan, 140.\n\nCanaanites, 153.\n\nCapitation-tax, 120, 159.\n\nCattle, The (Sura), 183.\n\nCaussin de Perceval, xxvii.\n\nCazenove, Dr., xxvii.\n\nChaldean, xxxv.\n\nChenry, Thomas, quoted, 169.\n\nChosroes, 140.\n\nChristians, 141, 142, 147, 157.\n\nCode, The Hanafee, 137, 159.\n\nCommentary of the Koran, 154.\n\nCommentary on International Law, xxx.\n\nConcubinage not allowed by the Koran, 193;\n of Rihana with the Prophet not proved, 201;\n of Maria the Coptic, 204-211;\n of Haphsa and Maria, 211.\n\nCoppee's (Henry) History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arabs quoted, xxix.\n\nCorinthians, 1, vii, 12-16; vii, 15, 112.\n\nCow, The (Sura), 181.\n\nCreator, The (Sura), 181.\n\nCushite Tribes (The), xxxv.\n\nCyrus, 145.\n\n\nD.\n\nDahis, The war of, xli.\n\nDaniel, The Book of, xxxv.\n\nDaree, liv.\n\nDar-ul-Harb, 157, 158.\n\nDar-ul-Islam, 157, 158.\n\nDavid, 152.\n\nDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire, xxiv.\n\nDescriptive Astronomy by Chambers quoted, xxxvi.\n\nDeutronomy, xx, 20, 110.\n Ditto, xx, 10-17, 152.\n Ditto, xxi, 153.\n Ditto, vi, 5, 178.\n\nDhumra, 30.\n\nDictionary, Biographical, by Ibn Khallikan quoted, 135-137, 206, 230.\n\nDictionary, Biographical, of persons who knew Mohammad, 208.\n\nDihya sent by Mohammad to the Roman Emperor, xiii, 197.\n\nDitch, Battle of the, 13, 35.\n\nDods, Dr., quoted, lx, lxxiii, lxxxiii.\n\nDous, xlv.\n\nDuma, The Christian chief of, xix, 12.\n\nDumatal Jandal, xii.\n\nDur-rul-Mansoor, 215.\n\nDur-rul-Mukhtar, 170.\n\nDzu Nowas, xxxix.\n\n\nE.\n\nEarly Caliphate and rise of Islam, by Sir W. Muir, 140.\n\nEgypt, 140;\n Governor of, 205, 206.\n\nExodus, xxiii, 27-33, 151.\n\nExtraordinary Popular Delusions, by Charles Mackay, quoted, xxxviii.\n\n\nF.\n\nFadak, 15 _f.n._, 39.\n\nFakhr-ud-deen Razi, 178.\n\nFaraza, 219.\n\nFarwa, liv.\n\nFasad, The war of, xliii.\n\nFayoomee, Author of Misbahel Moneer, 164.\n\nFemales in connection with the treaty of Hodeibia, 110-112.\n\nFezara, xiii, xxxiv, xlii, xlv, xlvi, liv, 35, 39;\n executed by Abu Rafe, 71.\n\nFitnah (Persecutions), ii, xvii, 17, 18, 44, 45, 122, 133.\n\nFluegel, Translation of the Koran by, 120.\n\nForbidding, The (Sura), 185.\n\nFreeman, Dr., quoted, 140, 141.\n\nFruit-trees, 109-110.\n\nFurkan, 177.\n\nFyrozabadee, 163 _f.n._\n\n\nG.\n\nGhaba, Al, 93.\n\nGhafiq, liv.\n\nGhanim, liv.\n\nGhassan, The tribes of, xxxiv, xlii, xlvi, liv.\n\nGhassanide, Prince at Bostra (The), xxxix, 16, 139.\n\nGhatafan, xii, xiii, xli, 12, 35, 39;\n tribes of, 72, 89.\n\nGhaus, xliii.\n\nGhazavat, Meaning of the word, xxi.\n\nGhifar, xliii.\n\nGhussan, 40.\n\nGibbon quoted, xxiv, 26, 49 _f.n._\n\nGreen, The Revd. Samuel, quoted, xxiii-xxiv.\n\n\nH.\n\nHabbar, 113 _f.n._\n\nHafasa, xxxiv.\n\nHafiz Ishmael ibn Kaseer-al-Qarashi, 214.\n\nHakeem-bin-Hizam, 114.\n\nHalabi, 30;\n Insan-al-Oyoon of, 91;\n quoted and refuted, 129-132.\n\nHall's (William Edward) International Law, xxix.\n\nHallam, lxiii, lxv.\n\nHamadan, liv.\n\nHammad bin Salma, 215.\n\nHamra, Abul Ozza caught at, 81, 82.\n\nHamza, 29, 55.\n\nHanafee Code (The), 137, 159.\n\nHanifa, xxxiv, xxxix, liv, lv, 203.\n\nHaphsa, 211.\n\nHarb (Warfare), 163.\n\nHarb-fijar, Battle of, xli.\n\nHaris, xxxiii, xxxiv, xlii, lv, 48 _f.n._, 64, 106.\n\nHarith of Najran, xxxix.\n\nHarith ibn Amir, 34.\n\nHashim, xxxiv, 34.\n\nHashimites (The), xxxiii, 6.\n\nHatib's story, 187.\n\nHawazin, xlii, xliii, xlvi, xlviii, 16, 39, 86, 196.\n\nHazaramaut, li.\n\nHedaya (The), 116;\n quoted, 117, 118, 120, 125.\n\nHegira (The), 8.\n\nHilal bin Amr, bin Saasaa, lv.\n\nHims, 40.\n\nHimyar, xliii, xlvi, lv.\n\nHimyarite stock, xlv.\n\nHinzala Tribe (The), xxxiv.\n\nHira, The Kingdom of, xli.\n\nHisham, 34.\n\nHishami, xxxiii, 74, 81 _f.n._, 89, 196, 197, 200.\n\nHisham-bin-Abdul Malik, 206.\n\nHistory and Conquest of the Saracens quoted, 140, 141.\n\nHistory of European Morals quoted, 105.\n\nHistory of Mohammadanism (The), quoted, xxviii.\n\nHistory of the Conquest of Spain by the Arabs, xxix.\n\nHistory, The Jewish, 152.\n\nHodeibia, Truce of, xi, xiv;\n violation of the truce, xvi, xxvi, xliii, xlix, 15, 22, 86;\n one of the articles of the treaty of Hodeibia, 99;\n females in connection with it, 110, 196.\n\nHonain, xviii, xxii, xlvii, 16;\n Nadhir ibn Harith present at the Battle of, 78, 86, 196.\n\nHorne, T.H., 151.\n\nHughes, The Revd. T.P., quoted, 154.\n\nHuweisa, 106, 107.\n\n\nI.\n\nIbn Abbas;\n his evidence, 68, 96, 113, 215.\n\nIbn Abdeen, 127.\n\nIbn Abi Yahya, 221.\n\nIbn Adi, 215.\n\nIbn Al Athir, 30, 164 _f.n._\n\nIbn Ky-yim, 100.\n\nIbn al Mosayyib, 68.\n\nIbn Attiah, 170.\n\nIbn Hajr al Askalani, 63, 206, 208;\n quoted and refuted, 128, 129.\n\nIbn Hisham, xv, xxii, xxxvi, xlvii, 30, 63, 64, 68 _f.n._, 69, 71, 74,\n 78, 80, 82, 86, 91, 92, 93 _f.n._, 102, 106, 107, 109 _f.n._,\n 207, 214.\n\nIbn Ishak, xxii, 30, 64, 69, 71, 73, 74, 79, 80, 91, 93 _f.n._, 100,\n 106, 109 _f.n._, 206, 207.\n\nIbn Jarir Tabari, 93 _f.n._\n\nIbn Khaldun, 90.\n\nIbn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary quoted, 136 _f.n._, 137, 206,\n 220.\n\nIbn Maja, 113, 207.\n\nIbn Manda, 78.\n\nIbn Mardaveih, 93 _f.n._, 109 _f.n._\n\nIbn Mas-ood, 79, 80.\n\nIbn Mokrram, 163 _f.n._\n\nIbn Ockba, 109 _f.n._\n\nIbn Omar, 215.\n\nIbn Omeya, 74.\n\nIbn Sad Katib Wakidi, xxii, 63, 69, 74, 75, 78, 114, 206, 208, 210.\n\nIbn Saniua, 106, 107.\n\nIbn Sayyad al Nas, 89.\n\nIbn Shahab, 113.\n\nIbn Shobormah, 134.\n\nIbn Sirni, 136.\n\nIbn Sofian, 114.\n\nIbrahim, 80.\n\nIbrahim, the son of Mohammad, 209, 210.\n\nIbrahim bin Maisura, 68 _f.n._\n\nIbrahim ibn Yakub al Juz Jani, 221.\n\nIdolatry, Mohammad's abhorence of, 6.\n\nIgnorance, Time of, 87, 169, 202.\n\nIkrama bin Abi Jahl, his lying character, 68, 113, 222.\n\nImam (The), 117;\n the Mujtahid, 136, 206.\n\nImmunity, The (Sura), 185, 188, 189, 190, 191.\n\nInsan-ul-Oyoon, 30, 80 _f.n._, 81 _f.n._, 91 _f.n._, 102,\n 129, 131 _f.n._\n\nInternational Law, by W.E. Hall, quoted, xxix.\n\nIntolerance of the Koreish, 8;\n allegation on Mohammad, xxxi, 42, 51.\n\nIntroduction of the Book, p. i.\n\nIntroduction of the critical study and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, by\n T.H. Horne, quoted, 151, 152.\n\nIrak, 221.\n\nIrshadussari, 170.\n\nIrving, W., quoted, 74.\n\nIslam, the first propagation at Mecca, xxxii-xli;\n the impediments it received on account of internecine wars, xl.\n\nIslam under the Arabs, by Major R.D. Osborn, quoted, 146, 148.\n\nIslami poets, 165, 169.\n\nIsrael, 152.\n\nIsraelites commanded to slay the Canaanites, 151.\n\nIstizan, 38.\n\n\nJ.\n\nJaad, lv.\n\nJaafir bin Kelab ibn Rabia, lv.\n\nJabir, xxii.\n\nJabir ibn Abdullah, 68, 135.\n\nJabra, The Jews of, xix.\n\nJadila, xliii.\n\nJafar, 206, 208.\n\nJahad, 170, 192.\n\nJahada, 163, 166, 170, 191.\n\nJahada fil Amr, 163.\n\nJahada fi Sabeel Allah, 164, 170.\n\nJahadaka, 166, 173.\n\nJahadoo, 166, 173, 179, 180, 181, 182, 188, 189, 191.\n\nJahd, 166, 167, 170, 181, 183.\n\nJahid, 166, 173, 185.\n\nJahid-hom, 166.\n\nJahidoo, 166, 173, 175, 176, 180.\n\nJahili, 165, 168.\n\nJalut (Goliath), 152.\n\nJarret's (Major) Translation of History of Caliphs by Sayute, 212.\n\nJazima, 87.\n\nJedda, The abode of Bani Ashar, xlv.\n\nJeifer bin al Jalandi, lvi.\n\nJelalud-Deen Mahalli, 213.\n\nJews (The) of Medina, iv, 34-40, 73;\n excited to take up arms by Nueim, 107, 125, 139, 141, 142, 147, 157.\n\nJierana, The valley of, 196.\n\nJihad, The popular, 114-161;\n meaning defined, 155;\n does not mean war or crusade, 163;\n classical meaning of Jihad, &c., 163;\n post-classical or technical meaning of Jihad, 164;\n the classical tongue and Arabian poets, 165;\n the conjugation and declination of Jahd and Jihad, 166;\n the number of instances in which they occur in the Koran, 166;\n in what sense they are used in the Koran, 167;\n conventional significations of, 168;\n Mohammadan commentators quoted, 170;\n when the word 'Jihad' was diverted from its original signification to its\n figurative meaning, of waging religious war, 170;\n all the verses of the Koran containing the word Jihad and its derivatives\n quoted and explained, 171-192.\n\nJihadan, 164, 170, 175, 186.\n\nJinn, Tribe of, xxxiv-xxxviii.\n\nJizya, 35.\n\nJohd, 167, 169.\n\nJoheina, xlii, xliii, xlvi, lvi.\n\nJomahites (The), xxxiii.\n\nJoshua, 141, 153.\n\nJouhari, 163 _f.n._, 164.\n\nJudzam, xiii, xlvi, 40.\n\nJufi, lvi.\n\nJuzam, _see_ Judzam.\n\n\nK.\n\nKaaba, viii;\n Moslems prevented from, xlv, 5, 139;\n stripped of its idols, xlix, l.\n\nKab, xxxiv, lvi.\n\nKab bin Yahooza, 107.\n\nKab ibn Ashraf, 61, 66-68, 106.\n\nKahins, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxviii;\n Kahinite stock (The), xlv.\n\nKahlanite stock, xxxix, xlv, xlvi.\n\nKainuka, xlii, 34, 35.\n\nKalb, xxxiv, lvi.\n\nKatib Wakidi, xlvi.\n\nKent's Commentary on International Law, xxx.\n\nKhalid ibn Waleed, 87, 193.\n\nKhasafa, xlvi.\n\nKhas-am bin Ammar, lvi.\n\nKhaulan, lvi.\n\nKhazraj tribes, xxxix, xlii, xliv.\n\nKhozaa, xii, xvi, xvii, xliii, 123.\n\nKhozeimah, xxxiv.\n\nKhushain, xlv.\n\nKhyber, xiii, xviii, xxii, xxiii, 37 _f.n._\n\nKifaya, 122, 125.\n\nKilab, lii.\n\nKinana, Tortures of, lvi, 95;\n Bani, lii.\n\nKinda, xxxiv, xlii, lvi.\n\nKitab-ul-Maghazi, xxii.\n\nKital (Warfare), 163, 192, 193.\n\nKoostlanee, his Commentary of Bokharee, xxii, 92, 93, 170.\n\nKoran does not enjoin compulsory conversion, xxxi.\n everywhere preaches tolerance of every religion, xxxii.\n\nKoreish, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xxiv, xxxiii, xxxix;\n the heavy persecutions of, l;\n their embassy to the Court of Abyssinia, 5;\n send scouts to search for Mohammad, 9;\n their severity to fugitives, _id._;\n their maltreatment of children and women, _id._;\n become more and more hostile, 11;\n joined by the Bani Mustalik, 12;\n their anxiety to postpone hostilities, 13;\n besiege Medina once more, 14;\n violate the treaty of Hodeibia, xvi, 15;\n their intolerance, 27;\n excited to take up arms by Nueim, an Arab, 101, 139, 187.\n\nKoreishite persecution, xxxiv;\n caravans alleged to be intercepted, 55, 56, 57.\n\nKoreiza, The Jewish tribes of, xiii, xix, xxii, xlii, 14, 34;\n execution of, 87-94, 196-200.\n\nKotelu, 156.\n\nKoukabi Durrari Sharah, 68.\n\nKozaaite Tribe (The), xliii, xlvi.\n\nKufa, 136;\n the abode of Bani Shaitan, xxxiv.\n\nKulab, xlii.\n\nKunniat (patronymic), 208.\n\nKurz-bin-Jabir, a Koreish, commits a raid upon Medina, xi, 11, 92.\n\nKustalani, _vide_ Koostalanee.\n\n\nL.\n\nLa-Arjomonnaka (I will assuredly say of thee), xxxviii.\n\nLahyan, xii, 12, 69.\n\nLakhm, 40.\n\nLane, E.W., quoted, 137-138 _f.n._, 168-169.\n\nLane's Arabic-English Lexicon, xxxviii, 163 _f.n._, 164, 167, 200, 219.\n\nLa-taatadu (do not attack first), xxvii.\n\nLaw, The common, in connection with Jihad, 116-117;\n its commentators, 119-120, 158.\n\nLaw of Moses (The), 110, 140.\n\nLaw of Scriptural interpretations;\n limited or conditional, general or absolute, 118.\n\nLaw of the Koran with regard to unbelievers, 111.\n\nLaw, The Mohammadan Revealed, or the Koran, 159.\n\nLecky, his standard of Morality, 104-105.\n\nLecture, The Rede, quoted, 140.\n\nLeena, 110.\n\nLegists, The early Moslem, against Jihad, 134;\n their biographical sketches, 135-137.\n\nLeith, 15 _f.n._\n\nLieber Francis quoted, 33, 76, 88;\n on Military necessity, 104.\n\nLife of Mahomet, founder of the Religion of Islamism, by the Revd. S. Green,\n xxiv.\n\nLife of Mohammad by Dr. Sprenger quoted, xxiv.\n\nLight, The (Sura), 185.\n\nLisanul-Arab of Ibn Mokarram, 163.\n\nLoghat, or The Classical Tongue of Arabia, 165.\n\nLokman, 177.\n\nLuke, x, 27;\n and xiii, 124, 178.\n\n\nM.\n\nMacColl, The Revd. Malcolm, quoted, 157.\n\nMacna, The Jews of, xix.\n\nMaddool Kamoos, by Mr. Lane, 164.\n\nMaghazi, 38, 187 (accounts of the Campaigns of Mohammad), xliv.\n\nMahmud, killed by Kinana, 95.\n\nMahmud bin Muslama, brother of Mohammad bin Muslama, 95, 197.\n\nMahrah, lvi.\n\nMak-hool, 209.\n\nMalak, 38.\n\nMalik, 38.\n\nManakib, 199.\n\nMarafat, Anwaa ilm Hadees, 68.\n\nMaria the Coptic, 204;\n sent by the Roman Governor to Mohammad, 205;\n neither a slave nor a concubine, 206-208;\n had no son, 209;\n the spurious character about her story, 211, 214, 216.\n\nMark, XII, 30, p. 178.\n\nMarr-al Zahran, xlviii.\n\nMarriage, a strict bond of union in the Koran, 113.\n\nMarw, 221.\n\nMarwan, 62.\n\nMasrook, 79, 215.\n\nMecca, xvi, xxii, 7.\n\nMeccans, iii, 9;\n their invasion of Medina, 10, 32.\n\nMedina, 100;\n Koreish march upon, vi, vii, xiii;\n the flight of Mohammad to, 5.\n\nMesopotamia, xxxv, xlviii.\n\nMikyas ibn Subaba, 96.\n\nMill's (Charles) History of Mohammadanism quoted, xxviii.\n\nMirat-uz-Zaman, 210.\n\nMisbah-ul-Moneer of Fayoomee, 164, 214.\n\nMishkat (Book of Retaliation), 71 _f.n._, 96 _f.n._\n\nMizan-ul-Etedal, 68, 208, 210, 215.\n\nMoadd, xlvi.\n\nMoaddite stock (The), xxxiv, xliii, xlvii.\n\nMo-an-an, 210.\n\nMoavia ibn Mughira, 76, 81-83.\n\nModallis, 210.\n\nModern Egyptians of Lane, 137, 138.\n\nMohajirin (Refugees), 32.\n\nMoharib, xxxiv, lvi.\n\nMoharram, 23 _f.n._, 53.\n\nMojahadatan, 164.\n\nMojahadina, 184.\n\nMojahadoona, 184.\n\nMojahid, 155, 184.\n\nMojahiddin, 155.\n\nMojahidina, 166, 174, 184.\n\nMojahidoona, 166, 174, 184.\n\nMoleil bin Zamra, xliii.\n\nMohammad, his incapacity to undertake offensive wars against his enemies,\n the Koreish, pp. ii, iv, v;\n had no intention to waylay the caravans at Badr, viii-x;\n his singular toleration and his wars of self-defence, xiv;\n the number of his wars, xx, xxiii;\n considered a sanguinary tyrant by the Revd. M. Green, xxix;\n defence of his allegation, xxiv-xxv;\n a second view of the wars of Mohammad, xxviii-xxx.\n His imprisonment, his preaching at Tayif, xxxiv;\n his followers persecuted, 1;\n insults offered him, 5;\n prevented from offering his prayers, _id._;\n his preaching against idolatry, 6;\n his insecurity at Mecca, 7;\n sets off to Tayif, _id._;\n proscribed by the Koreish, 9;\n hides himself for three days in a cave, _id._;\n gains the battle of Badr, 10;\n defeated and wounded at Ohad, 12;\n fights the battle of the Ditch, 14;\n undertakes the lesser pilgrimage of Mecca, _id._;\n encamps at Hodeibia, 15;\n marches to defend the Bani Khozaa, 16;\n his wars purely defensive, 17-26;\n was justified in taking up arms, 27;\n his attacks mere acts of retaliation, 33;\n gives quarters to his enemies, and enters into a treaty with the Jews,\n 34-40;\n his last war with the Romans, 41;\n never taught intolerance, 43;\n the object of his wars, 50-51;\n his alleged interceptions of the Koreish caravans, 55-57;\n the alleged interceptions proved impossible, 58;\n the assassinations said to have taken place at his own instructions,\n 60-76;\n his alleged cruelty in executing the prisoners of war, 76-83;\n represented as directing the execution of the prisoners of Badr, 83-85;\n his kind treatment of the prisoners of war, 85-87;\n had no share in the execution of a singing girl as alleged by his\n biographers, 96-97;\n never refused Abu Basir from going back to his guardian, 99;\n his adherence to the treaty of Hodeibia, 100;\n never gave any permission for the murder of Sanina, 106-107;\n his Koran never teaches aggressive wars, 125;\n Freeman Stephens, Bosworth Smith, George Sale, Major Osborn, the Revd.\n Wherry, the Revd. Hughes, and the Revd. MacColl, on the wars of\n Mohammad, 146-161.\n\nMohammad (Sura), 184.\n\nMohammad bin Ishak, 68.\n\nMohammad bin Kobeib Hashimi, 80.\n\nMohammad bin Muslama, 95.\n\nMohammad bin Sad Kalib Wakidi, 68, 201, 207.\n\nMohammad bin Sireen, 68.\n\nMohammad bin Yahya bin Habban, 222.\n\nMohammad, Buddha and Christ, by Dr. Dods, quoted, lxxiv.\n\nMohammad Karamat-ul Ali of Delhi, 100 _f.n._\n\nMohammad and Mohammadanism, by B. Smith, quoted, 143.\n\nMokatil, 184, 220-221.\n\nMokhadrams, poets, 165, 169.\n\nMokowkas, the Roman Governor, 205.\n\nMoleil-bin-Zamra, xliii.\n\nMooahib of Koostlanee, 93 _f.n._\n\nMooltan, 169.\n\nMorad, lvi.\n\nMorocco, 169.\n\nMosaic injunctions, 153.\n\nMoses, The law of, 110, 140, 141, 145, 150, 152, 153.\n\nMosheim, Dr., quoted, lxi, lxiii, lxv.\n\nMoslems forced to resort to arms in pure self-defence, 10;\n threatened by Abu Sofian with an attack, 7, 13.\n\nMoslim, his collections, 71 _f.n._, 86, 196, 198, 210, 214.\n\nMovatta, by Malik, 114.\n\nMowallads, poets, 165.\n\nMozar, xlvi.\n\nMozeina, xlii, xliii.\n\nMuallafa Qolubohum (those whose hearts are to be won over), xlviii.\n\nMudlij, lv;\n a tribe of Kinana, iv, 30.\n\nMufti, 136.\n\nMughrib of Almotarrazi (The), 164 _f.n._\n\nMuheiasa, the murderer of Ibn Sanina, 106, 107.\n\nMuir's (Sir W.) Life of Mahomet quoted, i, vi, viii, ix _f.n._, xxvii,\n xxviii, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiv, xxxix, xliii, xlvi, xlviii, xlix, l, lxvi,\n lxvii, lxx, lxxii, lxxviii, lxxx, 9 _f.n._, 27, 29 _f.n._, 30\n _f.n._, 39, 43, 46, 47, 49 _f.n._, 51, 52, 56, 58 _f.n._, 64\n _f.n._, 65, 67, 68 _f.n._, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 82, 83, 85, 89,\n 91, 93, 97, 98, 99, 102, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113 _f.n._, 138,\n 140, 160 _f.n._, 170, 178, 180, 181, 187, 188, 193, 196, 197, 198, 200,\n 201, 205, 210, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219.\n\nMujanna, xlviii.\n\nMujhool, 134.\n\nMujtahid, 137, 160.\n\nMukwhumites (The), xxxiii.\n\nMuntafiq, lvi.\n\nMuraisia, xviii.\n\nMurra, xiii, xlv, xlvi, lvi, 15, 39.\n\nMursul, 109 _f.n._\n\nMusa-bin-Akba, xxii.\n\nMusab, 78.\n\nMustalik, xii, xviii;\n a branch of Khozaa, xxiii, 12;\n released without ransom, 86, 196.\n\nMuta, Expedition to, 138.\n\nMut-im, 7.\n\n\nN.\n\nNadhirbin Harith, 76, 77-78.\n\nNaeem, 13.\n\nNajashee, xxxiii.\n\nNajd, xii, 12;\n the Bedouin tribes of, xli, xlii, xliii, 89, 196, 199, 200;\n celebrated for Bani Tamim, xlvii.\n\nNajran, The Christians of, xxxiii, 37, 48.\n\nNakha, lvi.\n\nNakhla, the Jinns converted at, xxxv, xxxvi, 30, 56.\n\nNasaee, 207, 215, 216.\n\nNations, The battle of, 13.\n\nNazeer treasoned against Medina, xii, xlii, 34, 66, 71;\n its chief, 72;\n the expulsion of, 108-110.\n\nNazr, xxxiv, 78.\n\nNihayeh of Ibn-al-Atheer, 164 _f.n._\n\nNineteenth century (The) quoted, 158.\n\nNineveh, xxxv.\n\nNisibin, xxxv.\n\nNoavee, 214.\n\nNohd, lvi.\n\nNotes on Muhammadanism, by Revd. T.P. Hughes, 154.\n\nNueim, his alleged employment to break up the confederates who had besieged\n Medina, 101-105.\n\nNumbers, xxxi, 153.\n\nNuraddin Ali-al-Halabi quoted and refuted, 129-132.\n\n\nO.\n\nObada-bin-Samat, 58 _f.n._\n\nObeida, 29, 55.\n\nOhad, Battle of, vii, xii, xviii, xxii, xlii, xlvii, 10, 11, 34, 69, 197.\n\nOkaz, xlviii.\n\nOkba bin Mueit, 76, 79-81.\n\nOman, li.\n\nOmar, 83, 196, 202.\n\nOmar bin Asim, 209.\n\nOmar ibn al Ghallas, 209.\n\nOmar ibn al Hakam, 201.\n\nOmeir, 62, 63.\n\nOmeya bin Khalf, 56.\n\nOmiyyiads, xxxiii.\n\nOmm Kirfa, 91.\n\nOmm Rabab, 208.\n\nOmmara, 80.\n\nOneis, 73.\n\nOrfee, 170.\n\nOrna, 69.\n\nOsaba-fi-Tamiz Issahaba, 68 _f.n._\n\nOsborn, R.D., Major, quoted, 42, 62;\n refuted, lxviii, lxxxv, lxxxvii, lxxxviii, lxxxix, 146-149.\n\nOseir ibn Zarim, the chief of Nazeer of Khyber, 39, 61, 72-73.\n\nOsheira, Expedition of, 29, 56.\n\nOsman, the Moslem envoy to Mecca, xv.\n\nOsman, 80, 196.\n\nOsman bin Affan, 89.\n\nOsman bin Zaed, 91 _f.n._\n\nOtheil, 78 _f.n._\n\nOyoon-al Asar, 89.\n\nOzra, xxxiv, lvi, lvii.\n\n\nP.\n\nPalmer's (H.) Translation of the Koran quoted, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,\n 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191.\n\nPatriarchal form of Government at Mecca, iii.\n\nPargod (Veil), xxxviii.\n\nPeople of the Book (Kitabi), 157.\n\nPersia, The Empire of, 138.\n\nPersecution of the early Moslems, 1;\n noticed in the Koran, 2-4;\n their historical summary, 5;\n of the Medina converts, 9;\n of the Moslems by the Koreish after their flight from Mecca, 9;\n of the Koreish at Mecca, 225.\n\nPhilistines, 152.\n\nPilgrimage, 14, 178.\n\nPilgrims, 8.\n\nPoets Jahili, Mokhadrams, Islami, and Mowallads, 165.\n\nPoole, S.L., quoted, lxxxv, 61, 97-98.\n\nPrisoners of war defined, 76.\n\nPuffendorf, 70.\n\nPunishment, Forms of primitive, 94-95.\n\nPyrenees, 169.\n\n\nQ.\n\nQadr, 220.\n\nQalqashandi's Dictionary of Arab tribes, xxxiv.\n\nQarashi, 214.\n\n\nR.\n\nRabia, The Bani Abd-ul-Kays, the descendants of, xlvii.\n\nRadd-ul Muhtar of Ibn Abdeen, 127.\n\nRaha, lvii.\n\nRahrahan, Battle of, xli.\n\nRaid of a Koreish chief upon Medina, 11.\n of Bani Asad and Bani Lahyan, 12.\n of Bani Duma, 12.\n\nRajab, 56.\n\nRaji, xii, 12, 39, 74.\n\nRajm, Meaning of, xxxviii.\n\nRamzan, 23 _f.n._, 32, 53.\n\nRawasa, lvii.\n\nRed Sea, 5.\n\nReforms, The proposed, political, social, and legal, 113 _f.n._, 158\n _f.n._\n\nResurrection, The day of, and Jihad, 133.\n\nRifaa, a Koreishite, 88 _f.n._\n\nRihana, 201.\n\nRil, a clan of Bani Aamir, xlvi.\n\nRobbers, The Urnee, 92-95.\n\nRodwell's Translation of the Koran quoted, 120 _f.n._, 167, 172, 173,\n 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189,\n 190, 191.\n\nRojum (conjecture), xxxviii.\n\nRomans, The expedition against them, 40-41.\n\nRome, The Empire of, 138.\n\nRomulus, 145.\n\n\nS.\n\nSaad, xiii, xlii.\n\nSaad Hozeim, lvii.\n\nSaad ibn Bakr, xiii, xl, xliii, xlv.\n\nSabaya, 197-200.\n\nSabit, 215.\n\nSad, 35;\n his judgment, 37-38, 55, 198, 199.\n\nSad bin Obadah, 89.\n\nSadif, lvii.\n\nSadoos, lvii.\n\nSadr Av-val (the Apostolic Age), 109.\n\nSaeed, 83.\n\nSaeed bin Mansoor, 215.\n\nSaffah-al-Mahdi, 212.\n\nSafra, 31.\n\nSafwan bin Omayya, 113.\n\nSaheeh, 198.\n\nSaheeh Bokharee, 68.\n\nSaheeh of Moslim, 86.\n\nSahim, lvii.\n\nSahm, xxxiii _f.n._\n\nSakeef, lvii.\n\nSakifites (The), xviii, xxxvi.\n\nSalaba, xlvi.\n\nSalamani, lviii.\n\nSale, G., his Translation of the Koran, xxix;\n quoted, 143-146, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184,\n 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191.\n\nSaleim, xii, xiii, 15 _f.n._\n\nSalim, 65 _f.n._\n\nSallam ibn Abul Hokeik, Abu Rafe, 71.\n\nSam-ain, 215 _f.n._\n\nSamaritan, 157.\n\nSamuel, 152.\n\nSaraya, Meaning of, xxi.\n\nSawad, 136.\n\nSayute's History of Caliphs, 212 _f.n._, 215 _f.n._\n\nSchedim (Demons), xxxviii.\n\nSecker, Archbishop, quoted, 27.\n\nSeerat Halabi, 80 _f.n._, 81 _f.n._, 100 _f.n._, 102 _f.n._\n\nSeerat Shamee, 63, 100 _f.n._\n\nSeerat-ul-Mohammadiya, 100.\n\nSeleucas, xxxv.\n\nSelf-defence, Right of, xxv.\n\nShaban, 53.\n\nShahbudeen Ahmed bin Hajr Makki, quoted and refuted, 128-129.\n\nShaiban, lviii.\n\nShaitain, Battle of, xxviii, xlii.\n\nShamee, 100.\n\nShamsuddin Karmani, 68 _f.n._\n\nSarakhsee Sums-ul-Aimma (the sun of leaders), 126-128.\n\nShaw-wal, 23.\n\nSheb, the quarter of Abu Taleb, 6.\n\nSheb Jabala, Battle of, xli.\n\nSheikh Mohammad Al Tamartashi, 170.\n\nSihab of Jouhari, 163, 164.\n\nSlane, De, Baron MacGuckin, 135-137.\n\nSlavery and concubine-slaves as concomitant evils of war, 193-224;\n slavery and concubinage not allowed in the Koran, 193;\n Sir W. Muir quoted, 193;\n measures taken by Mohammad in the Koran to abolish slavery, 194-196;\n none of the prisoners of war was enslaved, 197-198;\n the Bani Koreiza not enslaved, 198-200;\n Omar the second Khalif liberated all Arab slaves, 202-203.\n\nSmith, Bosworth, quoted, i, xxvii, 143.\n\nSmith's (W.) Dictionary of the Bible, xxxvi.\n\nSodaa, lviii.\n\nSoffian Ath-Thauri, 136-137.\n\nSofia, 197, 198.\n\nSofian ibn Khalid, 61, 69-71.\n\nSofian ibn Oyaina, 136, 137.\n\nSofian Sowri, 134.\n\nSohail, 93 _f.n._\n\nSoleiman-al-Aamash, 210.\n\nSpider, The (Sura), 180.\n\nSpoils, The (Sura), 182, 183.\n\nSprenger, Dr., Life of Mahomet quoted, xxix, xxxiii, 179.\n\nStanley defended, 112.\n\nStephens, The Revd., quoted, lxxv, 141-142.\n\nStobart quoted, lxviii, 2, 52.\n\nStrabo, xxxv.\n\nSuleim, xii, xiii, xlii, xlv, xlvi, 12.\n\nSura II, xvi, xxvi, xxvii, 3, 10, 18-19, 42 _f.n._, 44, 49, 50, 51,\n 111, 116 _f.n._, 118, 120 _f.n._, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126,\n 127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 134, 152, 156, 166, 171 _f.n._, 173 _f.n._,\n 181, 194, 225.\n\nSura III, xii, 3, 50, 166, 174, 182, 225, 226.\n\nSura IV, xv, xl, 4, 10, 19-21, 50, 95, 111, 113, 118, 122, 142, 154, 155,\n 166-167, 172, 174, 184, 195, 203, 204, 219, 225.\n\nSura V, xxvi, xxxiii, 42 _f.n._, 50, 122, 130, 166, 167, 191, 195, 203,\n 204.\n\nSura VI, 122, 154, 166, 167, 174, 176, 183.\n\nSura VII, 122.\n\nSura VIII, viii, ix, x, xv, xvi, xxvi, 5, 21, 22, 35-36, 45, 51, 118, 121,\n 122, 124, 134, 147, 166, 167, 174, 182, 183, 219, 225, 226.\n\nSura IX (Sura Barat), xi, xvii, xix, xx, 1, 4, 16, 22, 25, 36-37, 42\n _f.n._, 51-55, 118, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131,\n 132, 133, 143, 147, 149-150, 159, 166-167, 172, 173, 175, 176, 185, 188,\n 189, 190, 191, 195, 225, 226, 227.\n\nSura XI, 219.\n\nSura XV, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, 122, 127, 220.\n\nSura XVI, 2, 3, 122, 127, 130, 166, 167, 173, 180, 225.\n\nSura XVIII, xxxviii, 42 _f.n._, 130.\n\nSura XIX, xxxviii, 219.\n\nSura XX, 171 _f.n._\n\nSura XXII, vi, 1, 3, 17, 118, 122, 127, 128, 166, 167, 173, 178, 225.\n\nSura XXIV, iv, xviii, 50, 131, 166, 167, 185, 194, 203, 204.\n\nSura XXV, 166, 167, 173, 175, 177.\n\nSura XXVI, xxxvii, xxxviii.\n\nSura XXIX, 166, 167, 170, 171 _f.n._, 172, 173, 179, 180.\n\nSura XXXI, 130, 166, 167, 173, 177.\n\nSura XXXII, xxxvii, xxxviii.\n\nSura XXXIII, 37, 89, 199, 216, 218, 219, 220, 222, 226.\n\nSura XXXV, 166, 167, 173, 181.\n\nSura XL, 167.\n\nSura XLI, xxxviii, 167.\n\nSura XLVI, xxxv, 167.\n\nSura XLVII, xxvii, 85, 141, 147, 154, 156, 160, 161, 166, 167, 174, 184,\n 195, 196, 197, 225, 226.\n\nSura XLVIII, xv, xvi, xl, 160, 225, 226.\n\nSura XLIX, 166, 167, 173, 175, 188.\n\nSura LII, 130.\n\nSura LVIII, 195.\n\nSura LIX, 110, 226.\n\nSura LX, 4, 110, 111, 112 _f.n._, 166, 225, 226.\n\nSura LXI, 166, 173, 175, 184, 186.\n\nSura LXVI, 166, 185, 211, 214.\n\nSura LXVII, xxxvii.\n\nSura LXXII, xxxvi, xxxvii, 186 _f.n._\n\nSura LXXIII, 130, 220.\n\nSura LXXXV, 50.\n\nSura LXXXVI, xxxvi.\n\nSura XC, 194.\n\nSura XCVI, 5.\n\nSuras, Meccan, 177-181.\n\nSuras, Medinite, 181-191.\n\nSurat-al-Mohammad, 154.\n\nSurat-un-Nisa, 154.\n\nSyed Ameer Ali Moulvie, M.A., LLB., 91 _f.n._\n\nSyria, viii, 30, 40, 89, 140, 200.\n\n\nT.\n\nTabaeen, 209, 215-216.\n\nTabakat al Fokaha, 135-136.\n\nTabakat of Ibn Sad Katib Wakidi, 114.\n\nTabari 30, 212.\n\nTabi, 135, 136.\n\nTabikha, The ancestors of Bani Tamim, xlvii.\n\nTable, The (Sura), 191.\n\nTabuk, xix, 37 _f.n._;\n the last expedition of Mohammad against, 40.\n\nTafseer Majma-ul-Bayan Tabarasee, 116 _f.n._, 187.\n\nTaghlib, lviii.\n\nTaimee, Okba executed at, 80.\n\nTajahada, 164.\n\nTajeeb, lviii.\n\nTakreeb, 210, 215.\n\nTamim (The), xxvii, xxxiv, xli, xlvi, lviii.\n\nTanfeel, 7, 196.\n\nTanvir-al Absar, 170.\n\nTariq (Comet or night comer), xxxvi.\n\nTay, xxxix, xliii, lviii.\n\nTayif, xxii;\n Mohammad preaches at, xxxiv;\n sacrilegious war at, xli.\n\nTaym bin Morra, xxxiii.\n\nTestament, The Old, 153.\n\nThakeef, lvii, 16.\n\nTheseus, 145.\n\nTirmizee, 113, 207.\n\nTojahidoona, 166.\n\nTradition (a mursal), 109 _f.n._\n\nTraditions quoted and refuted, 133.\n\nTried, The (Sura), 186.\n\nTuhfat-ul-Muhtaj fi Sharah-al-Minhaj, 129 _f.n._\n\nTuleiba, chief of Bani Asad bin Khozeima, xlvii.\n\n\nU.\n\nUrnee Robbers, 92-95.\n\nUrquhart, 137.\n\nUs Tayif, xxxvi.\n\nUsseya, a clan of Bani Aamir, xlvi.\n\nUyeina, the chief of the Bani Fezara, xiii, xlvi.\n\n\nV.\n\nVans Kennedy, Major, quoted, 28.\n\nVon Kemer's History of Mohammad's Campaigns, 90 _f.n._, 102.\n\n\nW.\n\nWady-al-Koraa, The Jews of, xiii, xliii.\n\nWahid, 83.\n\nWajib (Legal), Jihad not, 134.\n\nWaki ibn al-Jarrah, 221.\n\nWakidi, 29 _f.n._, 30, 63, 64, 74, 78 _f.n._, 80 _f.n._,\n 31 _f.n._, 91;\n Campaigns of Mohammad, xliii, 102, 197, 200, 201, 205, 206, 208, 212,\n 221.\n\nWars of Mohammad, their defensive nature, ii.\n\nWeil, Dr., 63.\n\nWheaton's International Law, 70 _f.n._\n\nWherry, The Revd. E.M., quoted, 150-152, 154 _f.n._\n\nWolff, 70 _f.n._\n\nWoman, The (Sura), 184.\n\n\nY.\n\nYafa-ee, 210.\n\nYahya, 213.\n\nYahya bin Hammad, 210.\n\nYahya bin Moin, 221.\n\nYahya bin Saeed al Ansaree, 68.\n\nYakoob bin Mohammad, 208.\n\nYemama, li.\n\nYenbo, the abode of Bani Joheina, xliii.\n\nYemen, xxxix, li.\n\nYezid bin Abi Shaiba, 133.\n\nYojahido, 166, 179.\n\nYojahidoo, 166, 176, 190.\n\nYojahidoona, 166, 176, 191.\n\nYoseir bin Razim (Oseir bin Zarim), 72 _f.n._\n\nYoslemoon, 160.\n\n\nZ.\n\nZad-al-maad of Ibn al Kyyim, 100 _f.n._\n\nZahabi, 215.\n\nZakawan, a clan of Bani Aamir, xlvi.\n\nZalkada, 14, 23 _f.n._, 53.\n\nZamaa, 34.\n\nZamra, iv.\n\nZamakhshire, 163, 213.\n\nZat-al-Rikaa, xii, 196.\n\nZat Atlah, 15 _f.n._\n\nZeid killed Moavia, 81.\n\nZeid, the adopted son of Mohammad, and his connection with Zeinab, 215,\n 216, 217, 218, 222.\n\nZeid bin Arqam, xxii.\n\nZeid bin Aslam, 215.\n\nZeid bin Haris, seized and plundered by the Bani Fezara, xiii.\n\nZeid Monat, xxxiv.\n\nZeinab, 113, 211;\n her story, 215-216;\n the story of Mohammad's amour, a spurious one, 216;\n Sir W. Muir's conjectures about her, not justified, 218;\n in her case no exceptional privilege was secured to Mohammad, 220;\n the false story traced to Mukatil, 222.\n\nZu Towa, the Koreish encamped at, xv.\n\nZil Kassa, a party of Moslems slain at, xiii.\n\nZobeid, lviii.\n\nZobeir, a Koreishite, 88, 96.\n\nZobian, xli, xlii, xlvi.\n\nZohak, 80.\n\nZohak ibn Muzahim, 215.\n\nZohra, xxxiii.\n\nZohri, 128, 209.\n\nZorkanee, 80 _f.n._;\n on Mooahib, 93, 100, 109 _f.n._, 110 _f.n._\n\nZu-kar, Battle of, xli.\n\nZulhij, 23 _f.n._, 53.\n\nZul-Kada, xiii, 23 _f.n._\n\nZul-Majaz xlviii.\n\n\n\n\n_Calcutta; December, 1887._\n\nTHACKER, SPINK & CO.'S\n\nLAW PUBLICATIONS.\n\n\n_THIRD EDITION IN PREPARATION._\n\nTHE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,\n\nACT XIV OF 1882,\n\n_WITH NOTES, APPENDICES, &c._\n\nBy the Hon'ble J. O'KINEALY,\n\n_One of the Judges of Her Majesty's High Court of Judicature, Bengal._\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Third Edition. Royal 8vo., cloth. Rs. 12; Post-free, Rs. 12-6._\n\nTHE INDIAN PENAL CODE,\n\nAnd other Laws and Acts of Parliament relating to the Criminal\nCourts of India. With Notes, &c.\n\nThird Edition.\n\nBy the Hon'ble J. O'KINEALY,\n\n_One of the Judges of Her Majesty's High Court of Judicature, Bengal._\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Second Edition. Just Published. Royal Octavo, cloth. Rs. 18._\n\nTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,\n\nACT X OF 1882,\n\nTOGETHER WITH\n\nRulings, Circular Orders, Notifications, etc., of all the High\nCourts in India; and Notifications and Orders of the\nGovernment of India and the Local Governments.\n\n_EDITED WITH COPIOUS NOTES AND FULL INDEX._\n\nBy WILLIAM FISCHER AGNEW, Esq,.\n_Barrister-at-Law_,\n\nand GILBERT S. HENDERSON, Esq. M.A.,\n_Barrister-at-Law,_\n_Author of \"A Treatise on the Law of Succession in India.\"_\n\nSecond Edition,\n\nBy GILBERT S. HENDERSON\n\n\"To judge from the style in which their present work is edited, the\nnumber of cases cited bearing upon the various sections, the ample notes\nappended where any explanation is necessary, and the full and complete\nindexes to the cases cited, we have little hesitation in saying that,\nwhile undoubtedly it is at present the best work on the subject, it need\nfear no competition in the future.\"--_Englishman._","title":"A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jih\u00e1d': Showing that all the Wars of Mohammad Were Defensive; and; that Aggressive War, or Compulsory Conversion, is not; Allowed in The Koran - 1885","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":97092}