All the Wars of Mohammad Were Defensive

Genealogical Table of the Arabs

The Persecutions.

The severe persecution which Mohammad and his early converts suffered at Mecca at the hands of their fellow-citizens, the Koreish, is a fact admitted by all historians.

The Koran, which may be regarded as a contemporary record of the ill-feeling manifested towards the Prophet and his followers, bears ample testimony to the fact. Not only were the early Moslems persecuted for renouncing the pagan religion and obtaining converts to the monotheistic religion of Mohammad, but they were also tortured and otherwise ill-treated to induce them to return to the religion which they had forsaken. The persecution seems to have been so great that Mohammad was compelled to recognize those of his followers, who by force and cruelty were compelled to renounce Islam and profess paganism, but were inwardly steadfast in their belief of the one true God, as true Moslems.

The Koran says:

"Whoso after he hath believed in God denieth Him, if he were forced to it, and if his heart remain steadfast in the faith, shall be guiltless; but whoso openeth his breast to infidelity, on them, in that case, shall be wrath from God, and a severe punishment awaiteth them."—Sura xvi, 108.

"The incarceration and tortures," says Mr. Stobart, "chiefly by thirst in the burning rays of the sun, to which these humble converts were subjected, to induce their recantation and adoration of the national idols, touched the heart of Mahomet, and by divine authority, he permitted them, under certain circumstances, to deny their faith so long as their hearts were steadfast in it."

The oppressions, trials, and sufferings which the early Moslems underwent compelled them to fly from their homes, leaving their families and property in the hands of their oppressors. They chose this course rather than revert to paganism. They held steadfastly to the one true God whom their Prophet had taught them to trust and believe. All these facts are clearly outlined in the following verses of the Koran:—

"And as to those who when oppressed have fled their country for the sake of God, We will surely provide them a goodly abode in this world, but greater the reward of next life, did they but know it."

"They who bear ills with patience, and put their trust in the Lord!"—xvi, 43, 44.

"To those also who after their trials fled their country, then did their utmost and endured with patience, verily, thy Lord will afterwards be forgiving, gracious."—Ibid, 111.

"But they who believe, and who fly their country, and do their utmost in the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy: and God is Gracious, Merciful."—ii, 215.

"And they who have fled their country and quitted their homes and suffered in my cause and have fought and fallen—I will blot out their sins from them and will bring them into gardens beneath which the streams do flow."—iii, 194.

"And as to those who fled their country for the cause of God, and were afterwards slain, or died, surely with goodly provision will God provide for them! for verily, God is the best of providers!"—xxii, 57.

"Those believers who sit at home free from trouble, and those who toil in the cause of God with their substance and their persons, shall not be treated alike. God hath assigned to those who strive with their persons and with their substance, a rank above those who sit at home. Goodly promises hath He made to all: But God hath assigned to those who make efforts a rich recompense above those who sit still at home."

"The angels, when they took the souls of those who had been unjust to their own weal, demanded, 'What hath been your state?' They said, 'We were the weak ones of the earth.' They replied, 'Was not God's earth broad enough for you to flee away in?' These! their home shall be Hell, and evil the passage to it"—

"Except the men and women and children who were not able through their weakness to find the means of escape, and were not guided on their way. These haply God will forgive: for God is Forgiving, Pardoning."—iv, 97, 99, 100.

"God doth not forbid you to deal with kindness and fairness towards those who have not made war upon you on account of your religion, or driven you forth from your homes: verily, God loveth those who act with fairness."

"Only doth God forbid you to make friends of those who, on account of your religion, have warred against you, and have driven you forth from your homes, and have aided your expulsion: and whoever maketh friends of them, these therefore are evil-doers."—lx, 8, 9.

The Prophet himself suffered insults and personal injuries from the hands of his persecutors. He was prevented from offering his prayers (xcvi, 10). He allowed himself to be spat upon, to have dust thrown upon him, and to be dragged out of the Kaaba by his own turban fastened to his neck. He bore all these indignities with the utmost humility, and he daily beheld his followers treated oppressively. After his uncle's death his life was attempted, but he escaped by flying to Medina.

"And call to mind when the unbelievers plotted against thee, to detain thee prisoner or to kill thee or to banish thee: they plotted—but God plotted; and of plotters is God the best."—viii, 30.

About 615 of the Christian era, the Koreish of Mecca began to persecute the faith of Islam. Those who had no protection among the early Moslems were hard pressed, as related above. A body of eleven men, some with their families, fled the country, and found refuge, notwithstanding their pursuit by the Koreish, across the Red Sea at the Court of Abyssinia. This was the first Hegira, or flight of the persecuted Moslems. After some time, the persecution being resumed by the Koreish more hotly than ever, a larger number of Moslems, more than hundred, emigrated to Abyssinia. This was the second flight of the Moslems. The Koreish had sent an embassy to the Court of Abyssinia to fetch back the refugees. The king denied their surrender. About two years later the Koreish formed a hostile confederacy, by which all intercourse with the Moslems and their supporters was suspended. The Koreish forced upon the Moslems, by their threats and menaces, to retire from the city. For about three years, they, together with the Prophet and the Hashimites and their families, had to shut themselves up in the Sheb of Abu Tálib. They remained there, cut off from communication with the outer world. The ban of separation was put rigorously in force. The terms of the social and civil ban put upon them were, that they would neither intermarry with the proscribed, nor sell to or buy from them anything, and that they would entirely cease from all intercourse with them. Mohammad, in the interval of the holy months, used to go forth and mingle with the pilgrims to Mecca, and preached to them the abhorrence of idolatry and the worship of the One True God. The Sheb, or quarter of Abu Tálib, lies under the rocks of Abu Cobeis. A low gateway cut them off from the outer world, and within they had to suffer all privations of a beleaguered garrison. No one would venture forth except in the sacred months, when all hostile feelings and acts had to be laid aside. The citizens could hear the voices of the half-famished children inside the Sheb and this state of endurance on the one side, and persecution on the other, went on for some three years. Five of the chief supporters of the adverse faction detached from the league and broke up the confederacy and released the imprisoned religionists. This was in the tenth year of Mohammad's ministry. Soon after Mohammad and the early Moslems suffered a great loss in the death of his venerable uncle and protector Abu Tálib. Thus, Mohammad and his followers became again exposed to the unchecked insults and persecutions incited by Abú Sofian, Abu Jahl, and others; and being a handful in the hostile city, were unable to cope with its rich and powerful chiefs. At this critical period, either because he found it unsafe to remain at Mecca, or because he trusted his message would find more acceptance elsewhere, Mohammad set off to Tayef of the Bani Thakif,—the town was one of the great strongholds of idolatry. There was a stone image, called Al-Lât, adorned with costly vestments and precious stones, was an object of worship, and esteemed to be one of the daughters of God. Here Mohammad preached to unwilling ears, and met with nothing but opposition and scorn from the chief men, which soon spread to the populace. He was driven out of the town, maltreated, and wounded. He could not return to and enter Mecca unless protected by Mut-im, a chief of the blood of Abd Shams.

At the yearly pilgrimage, a little group of worshippers from Medina was attracted and won over by the preaching of Islam; and the following year it increased to twelve. They met Mohammad and took an oath of allegiance. A teacher was deputed by Mohammad to Medina, and the new faith spread there with a marvellous rapidity. Again the time of pilgrimage arrived, and more than seventy disciples from Medina pledged themselves to receive and defend him at the risk of their lives and property. This was all done in secret; but the Koreish, having got notice of it, renewed such severities and persecutions, including, in some cases, imprisonment, as hastened the departure of the Moslems to Medina, their city of refuge.

Mohammad, being much troubled by the intolerance of the people and the personal safety and security of himself and his followers being endangered, and mutual intercourse denied, saw that it was hopeless to expect any forbearance on the part of the Koreish, who would not permit him to live and preach his religion at home, and looked for assistance and protection from a strange land. He asked the people of Medina to receive and protect him. The Medina converts, who had come to Mecca on pilgrimage, pledged themselves to Mohammad, and promised to defend him as they would defend their wives and children. The Medina converts, although not acting on the offensive, became at once objects of suspicion to the Koreish, who endeavoured to seize those who were in Mecca. They maltreated one of the Medina converts who fell into their hands, and the work of persecution was recommenced in right earnest. Two months elapsed before the believers, except those detained in confinement or who were unable to escape from slavery, or women and children, could emigrate. Families after families silently disappeared, and house after house was abandoned. One or two quarters of the city were entirely deserted. The Koreish held a council and proscribed Mohammad, who escaped together with Abu Bakr, leaving Ali in his house, around whom, to lull the suspicions of his neighbours, he threw his own mantle, and desired him to occupy his bed. Mohammad and his follower took refuge in a cave. The Koreish despatched scouts in all directions to search for Mohammad, but in vain. After hiding for three days in the cave, Mohammad and Abu Bakr started for Medina, where they arrived safely.

The foregoing circumstances would have fully justified immediate hostilities on the part of Mohammad, but he did not take up arms until compelled to do so by the attacks of the Meccans.

Notwithstanding the flight of the Prophet and of all the early Moslem converts who were able to effect an escape except their families, women and children, and those weak Moslems who could not leave Mecca, the Meccans or the Koreish did not forgive the fugitives and did not abstain from their aggressions against them. They maltreated the children and weak Moslems left at Mecca (iv, 77, 99 and 100), expelled the Moslems from their houses, and would not allow them to come back to Mecca for a pilgrimage (ii, 214). The Meccans several times invaded the Medina territory with the avowed intention of making war upon the Moslems (and actually fought the battles of Bedr, Ohad, Khandak or Ahzáb, at Medina), consequently the Moslems were forced to resort to arms in pure self-defence.

These were sufficient grounds for the Moslems to assume the offensive. They were desirous also of rescuing their families and those who had been unable to join in the flight from the tyranny and oppression of the Meccans. Yet they were in no instance the aggressors. Driven from their homes and families they did not resort to arms until absolutely compelled to do so in self-defence.

All that Mohammad claimed for himself and his followers was, full liberty of conscience and actions, and permission to preach and practice his religion without being molested. This being refused, he advised his followers to leave the city and seek refuge elsewhere. They emigrated twice to Abyssinia, and for the third time were expelled to Medina, where he himself followed, when his own life was attempted.

The Meccans or the Koreish.

The attitude of the Koreish towards the Prophet and his followers after the flight rapidly became more hostile. Kurz-ibn Jábir, one of the marauding chieftains of the Koreish, fell upon some of the camels and flocks of Medina, while feeding in a plain a few miles from the city, and carried them off.

Still there was no hostile response from Medina, till the aggressors (the Koreish) brought from Medina an army of 950 strong, mounted on 700 camels and 100 horses, to Badr, nine stages from Mecca, advancing towards Medina. Then the Prophet set out from Medina at the head of his small army of 305 to check the advance of his aggressors. This was the first offensive and defensive war between the Koreish and Mohammad respectively. The aggressors lost the battle.

After this Abu Sofian, the head of the Koreish, accompanied by 200 mounted followers, alarmed Mohammad and the people of Medina by a raid upon the cornfields and palm gardens two or three miles north-east of Medina. The nomad tribes of Suliem and Ghatafán, who were descended from a common stock with the Koreish, being probably incited by them, or at least by the example of Abu Sofian, had twice assembled and projected a plundering attack upon Medina—a task in itself congenial with their predatory habits.

The Koreish made great preparations for a fresh attack upon Medina. One year after the battle of Badr, they commenced their march,—three thousand in number, seven hundred were mailed warriors, and two hundred well mounted cavalry. Reaching Medina they encamped in an extensive and fertile plain to the west of Ohad.

Mohammad met Abu Sofian at the head of 700 followers and only two horsemen, but lost the battle and was wounded.

Mohammad's prestige being affected by the defeat at Ohad, many of the Bedouin tribes began to assume an hostile attitude towards him. The Bani Asad, a powerful tribe connected with the Koreish in Najd and Bani Lahyan in the vicinity of Mecca, prepared to make a raid upon Medina. The Mohammadan missionaries were killed at Rají and Bír Maúna. The marauding bands of Duma also threatened a raid upon the city. Bani Mustalik also raised forces to join the Koreish in their threatened attack upon Medina.

Abu Sofian, while retiring from the field, victorious as he was, threatened the Moslem with a fresh attack the next year as he said to Omar: "We shall meet again, let it be after a year, at Badr." Medina and the Moslems, however, enjoyed a long exemption from the threatened attack of the Koreish.

At length the time came when the forces of the Koreish and the Moslems were again to meet at Badr. But the year was one of great draught, and the Koreish were desirous that the expedition should be deferred to a more favorable season. Accordingly the Koreish engaged Naeem, an Arab of a neutral tribe, to repair to Medina, and there to give forth an exaggerated account of the preparations of the Koreish, in the hope that, with the field of Ohad fresh in memory, it might deter the Moslems from setting out to meet them. But Mohammad, with a force of fifteen hundred men and only ten horses, set forth for Badr. The Koreish, who never appeared mortified at the triumph of Mohammad, began to project another grand attack upon him.

The winter season in the next year was chosen for the renewal of hostilities by the Koreish. They joined an immense force of the Bedouin tribes (the entire army was estimated at ten thousand), marched against Mohammad, and besieged Medina. Mohammad defended the city by digging a Ditch. The army of Medina was posted within the trench, and that of the Koreish encamped opposite them. In the meantime Abu Sofian succeeded in detaching the Jewish tribe of Koreiza from their allegiance to Mohammad. The danger to Medina from this defection was great. The enemy made a general attack, which was repulsed. Bad weather set in, and Abu Sofian ordered the allied force to break up. The enemy retired, and never came again to attack the Moslems. This, therefore, was the last war of aggression on the part of the Koreish, and of defence on the part of Mohammad.

Six years had passed since the expulsion of Mohammad and his followers from Mecca. They had not since visited the Holy house, nor had they joined the yearly pilgrimage, which was an essential part of their social and religious life. Mohammad undertook to perform the lesser pilgrimage to Mecca in the month of Zalkada, in which war was unlawful throughout Arabia. Mohammad, with his followers, the pious and peaceful worshippers, fifteen hundred in number, set forth for Mecca. The pilgrims carried no arms, but such as were allowed by custom to travellers,—namely, each a sheathed sword. The Koreish, with their allies, the surrounding tribes, hearing of the approach of the pilgrims, took up arms. They pushed forward to obstruct the pilgrims. Mohammad encamped at Hodeibia, where a treaty of peace was concluded between the Koreish and Mohammad. The treaty was to the effect, that war should be suspended for ten years, neither party attacking the other. Whosoever wished to join Mohammad and enter into treaty with him, should have liberty to do so. "If any one goeth over to Mohammad, without the permission of his guardian, he shall be sent back to his guardian. But if any one from amongst the followers of Mohammad return to the Koreish, the same shall not be sent back, provided, on the part of the Koreish, that Mohammad and his followers retire from us this year without entering our city. In the coming year he may visit Mecca—he and his followers—for three days, when we shall retire therefrom. But they may not enter it with any weapons, save those of the travellers—namely, to each a sheathed sword." Bani Khozaá entered into the alliance of Mohammad, and Bani Bakr adhered to the Koreish.

The peace remained unbroken until the Koreish violated the treaty of Hodeibia and treacherously killed several men of the Bani Khozaá. Mohammad marched against them in the eighth year of the Hegira in defence of the injured and oppressed Bani Khozaá, and to chastize the Koreish for violation of the treaty. But the Koreish submitted to the authority of Mohammad before he arrived at Mecca, and the city was occupied without resistance.

Soon after, the great and warlike tribe of Hawazin and Thakeef assumed the offensive. They assembled at Autas, and advanced upon Honain to attack Mohammad. He was obliged to leave Mecca and set out to disperse them, who were beaten back at Honain (S. ix, 26-28). Taif of the Thakeef was besieged, but in vain.

The defensive character of the wars.

This brief sketch of the defensive wars of Mohammad with the Koreish will fully show, that those who assert that Mohammad was aggressive or revengeful in his wars, or that he made war to force his religion upon the people, are altogether in the wrong.

I will now quote some verses of the Koran, showing that all the wars of Mohammad with the Koreish were defensive wars.

39. "Verily, God will ward off mischief from believers: lo, God loveth not the false, the unbeliever."

40. "A sanction is given to those who have been fought, because they have suffered outrages, and verily, God is well able to succour them"—

41. "Those who have been driven forth from their homes wrongfully, only because they say, 'Our Lord is the God.' And if God had not repelled some men by others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques wherein the name of God is ever commemorated, would surely have been destroyed! And him who helpeth God will God surely help: Verily, God is Strong, Mighty."

42. "They who, if We established them in this land, will observe prayer and pay the alms of obligation and enjoin what is recognized as right—and forbid what is unlawful. And the final issue of all things is unto God."—Sura, xxii.

186. "And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: verily, God loveth not the unjust."

187. "And kill them wherever ye find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you, for (fitnah) persecution is worse than slaughter: yet attack them not at the sacred mosque, until they attack you therein; but if they attack you, then slay them—Such is the recompense of the infidels!"—

188. "But if they desist, then verily God is Gracious, Merciful!"

189. "And do battle against them until there be no more (fitnah) persecution, and the worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers."

214. "They will ask thee concerning war in the Sacred Month. Say: The act of fighting therein is a grave crime; but the act of turning others aside from the path of God, and unbelief in Him, and to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and to drive out his people, is worse in the sight of God; and persecution (fitnah) is worse than bloodshed. But they will not cease to war against you until they turn you from your religion, if they be able: but whoever of you shall turn from his religion, and die an infidel, their works shall be fruitless in this world and in the next: and they shall be consigned to the fire; therein to abide for aye."

215. "But they who believe, and who fly their country, and do their utmost in the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy: and God is Gracious, Merciful."

245. "And fight in the cause of God; and know that God is He who Heareth, Knoweth."

247. "Hast thou not considered the assembly of the children of Israel after the death of Moses, when they said to a prophet of theirs,—'Raise up for us a king; we will do battle for the cause of God?' He said, 'May it not be that if to fight were ordained you, ye would not fight?' They said, 'And why should we not fight in the cause of God, since we are driven forth from our dwellings and our children?' But when fighting was commanded them they turned back, save a few of them: But God knew the offenders!"

252. "And by the will of God they routed them; and (Dâood) David slew Goliath; and God gave him the kingship and wisdom, and taught him according to his will: and were it not for the restraint of one by the means of the other imposed on men by God, verily the earth had assuredly gone to ruin, but God is bounteous to his creatures."—Sura, ii.

76. "Let those then fight in the cause of God who barter this present life for that which is to come; for whoever fighteth on God's path, whether he be slain or conquer, We will in the end give him a great reward."

77. "But what hath come to you that ye fight not on the path of God, and for the weak among men, women and children, who say, 'O our Lord! bring us forth from this City whose inhabitants are oppressors; give us a champion from thy presence; and give us from thy presence a defender?'"

78. "They who believe, fight on the path of God; and they who believe not, fight on the path of Thâgoot: Fight then against the friends of Satan—Verily, the craft of Satan shall be powerless!"

86. "Fight then on the path of God: lay not burdens on any but thyself; and stir up the faithful. The prowess of the infidels, God will haply restrain; for God is the stronger in prowess, and the stronger to punish."

91. "They desire that ye should be unbelievers as they are unbelievers, and that ye should be alike. Take therefore none of them for friends, until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they turn back, then seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; but take none of them as friends or helpers."

92. "Except those who seek asylum among your allies, and those who come over to you—prevented by their own hearts by making war on you, or from making war on their own people. Had God pleased, He would certainly have given them power against you, and they would certainly have made war upon you! But, if they depart from you, and make not war against you and offer you peace, then God alloweth you no occasion against them."

93. "Ye will find others who seek to gain your confidence as well as that of their own people: So oft as they return to sedition, they shall be overthrown in it: But if they leave you not, nor propose terms of peace to you, nor withhold their hands, then seize them, and slay them wherever ye find them. Over these have We given you undoubted power."—Sura, iv.

19. "O Meccans! If ye desired a decision, now hath the decision come to you. It will be better for you if ye give over the struggle (or attacking upon Medina or the Moslem). If ye return to it we will return; and your forces, though they may be many, shall by no means avail you aught, because God is with the faithful."

39. "Say to the infidels: If they desist (from persecuting, obstructing, and attacking the Moslems), what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it (commit again the hostilities), they have already before them the doom of the ancients!"

40. "Fight then against them till civil strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's; and if they desist, verily God beholdeth what they do."

41. "But if they turn their back, know ye that God is your protector: Excellent protector! and excellent helper!"

73. " ... And they who have believed, but have not fled their homes, shall have no rights of kindred with you at all, until they too fly their country. Yet if they seek aid from you on account of the faith, your part it is to give them aid, except against a people between whom and yourselves there may be a treaty. And God beholdeth your actions."

74. "And the infidels have the like relationships one with another. Unless ye do the same (i.e., aid the oppressed and repel the oppressor), there will be discord in the land and great corruption."—Sura, viii.

(When the Meccans broke the Hodeibia treaty mentioned in the above paragraph, the Koreish and Bani Bakr attacked Bani Khozaá, who were in alliance with Mohammad. It became incumbent on him to assist Bani Bakr and to chastize the aggressors. The following verses were published on that occasion, but happily, before the expiration of the fixed period, the Koreish submitted and Mecca was taken without bloodshed, and these verses were not acted upon:—)

1. "An immunity from God and His Apostle to those with whom ye are in league (and they have violated the same—compare verses 4, 8 and 10) among the polytheist Meccans."

2. "Go ye therefore at large in the land four months (i.e., four sacred months from Shaw-wal. The treaty was violated by the Koreish in Ramzan, a month immediately previous to the sacred months. It is announced here that four months' time is given to the aggressors, who violated the treaty of Hodeibia, to make terms. After the time is over (verse 5) the Moslems will commence hostilities to defend their allies, the Bani Khozaá), but know that ye shall not find God feeble, and that those who believe not, God will put to shame."

3. "And a proclamation on the part of God and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage, that God is free from any engagement with those who worship other gods with God, as is his Apostle. If then, ye turn to God, it will be better for you; but if ye turn back, then know that ye shall not find God feeble: and to those who believe not, announce thou a grievous punishment."

4. "But this concerneth not those Polytheists with whom ye are in league, and who have afterwards in no way failed you, and not yet aided any one against you. Observe, therefore, your engagement with them through the whole time of their treaty. Verily, God loveth those who fear Him."

5. "And when the sacred months are passed kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye find them; and seize them, and besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush; but if they repent and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way. Verily, God is Gracious, Merciful."

6. "If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum of thee, grant him an asylum, in order that he hear the Word of God; then let him reach his place of safety. This, for that they are people devoid of knowledge."

7. "How can they who add gods to God be in league with God and His Apostle, save those with whom ye made a league at the sacred temple? So long as they are true to you, be ye true to them: verily, God loveth those who fear Him."

8. "How can they? since if they prevail against you, they will not regard in their dealing with you, either ties of blood or good faith: With their mouths they content you, but their hearts are averse, and most of them are perverse doers."

9. "They sell the signs of God for a mean price, and turn others aside from his way; of a truth, evil is it that they do!"

10. "They respect not with a believer either ties of blood or good faith; and these are the transgressors!"

11. "Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer, and pay the impost, then are they your brethren in religion: and We make clear the signs for men of knowledge."

12. "But if, after alliance made, they violate their covenant and revile your religion, then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity—verily there is no faith in them! Haply they will desist."

13. "Will ye not do battle with a people (the Meccans) who have broken their covenant and aimed to expel your Apostle and attacked you first? Will ye dread them? God truly is more worthy of your fear if ye are believers!"

14. "Make war on them: By your hands will God chastize them and put them to shame, and give victory over them, and heal the bosom of a people who believe."

36. " ... and attack those who join gods with God one and all, as they attack you one and all."—Sura, ix.

I need not repeat here what these verses and the facts related above show, that the wars of Mohammad with the Koreish were merely defensive, and the Koreish were the aggressors, and that Mohammad was quite justified in taking up arms against them.

"In the state of nature every man has a right to defend," writes Mr. Edward Gibbon, "by force of arms, his person and his possessions; to repel, or even to repeat, the violence of his enemies, and to extend his hostilities to a reasonable measure of satisfaction and retaliation. In the free society of the Arabs, the duties of subject and citizen imposed a feeble restraint; and Mahommed, in the exercise of a peaceful and benevolent mission, had been despoiled and banished by the injustice of his countrymen." It has been fully shown in the foregoing paragraphs that the Moslems in Mecca enjoyed neither safety nor security. Religious freedom was denied to them, though they were harmless and peaceful members of the community. Besides this they were expelled from their homes, leaving their families and their property in the hands of their persecutors, and were prevented from returning to Mecca, and were refused access to the Sacred Mosque; and, above all, they were attacked by the Meccans in force at Medina.

The persecution of the early Moslems by the Koreish was on religious grounds. They would not allow the believers to renounce the religion of their forefathers and profess Islam. Their intolerance was so strong and harsh that they tortured some of the professors of the new faith to renounce the same and to rejoin their former idolatry. "Taking away the lives, the fortune, the liberty, any of the rights of our brethren, merely for serving their Maker in such manner as they are persuaded they ought, when by so doing they hurt not human society, or any member of it, materially, is evidently inconsistent with all justice and humanity: for it is punishing those who have not injured us, and who, if they mistake, deserve only pity from us." The early Moslems had had every international right to resent persecution and intolerance of the Meccans and to establish themselves by force of arms, to enjoy their religious liberty and to practise their religion freely.

Some of the European biographers of Mohammad say, "that the first aggressions after the Hegira were solely on the part of Mahomet and his followers. It was not until several of their caravans had been waylaid and plundered, and blood had thus been shed, that the people of Mecca were forced in self-defence to resort to arms."

This is not correct. The aggressors, in the first instance, were the Koreish, who, as already shown, followed up their persecution of the Moslems by an attack upon the city in which the Prophet and his followers had taken refuge. Even taking it for granted that the Moslems were the first aggressors after the Hegira, was not the Hegira, or expulsion itself (leaving aside the previous persecutions and oppressions at Mecca), a sufficient reason for the commencement of hostilities by the Moslems, who were anxious to secure their moral and religious freedom, and to protect themselves and their relatives from further aggressions?

Sir William Muir admits, that "hostilities, indeed, were justified by the 'expulsion' of the believers from Mecca." "It may be said," says Major Vans Kennedy, "that, in these wars, Mohammad was the aggressor by his having, soon after his flight, attempted to intercept the caravans of Mecca. But the first aggression was, undoubtedly, the conspiracy of the Koreish to assassinate Mohammad, and when to save his life he fled from Mecca, himself and his followers were thus deprived of their property, and obliged to depend for their subsistence on the hospitality of the men of Medina, it could not be reasonably expected that they would allow the caravans of their enemies to pass unmolested."

There is no proof that Mohammad, after the Hegira, commenced hostilities against the Koreish by intercepting their caravans. The alleged instances of the caravans being waylaid by the Moslems at Medina are not corroborated by authentic and trustworthy traditions. They have also internal evidences of their improbability. The Medina people had pledged themselves only to defend the Prophet from attack, and not to join him in any aggressive steps against the Koreish. Therefore, it seems impossible that they should have allowed Mohammad to take any aggressive steps against the Koreish which would have involved them in great trouble.

The alleged expeditions against the Koreish caravans by Hamza and the other by Obeida in pursuit of caravans which escaped, are in themselves improbable. Mohammad would not send fifty or sixty persons to waylay a caravan guarded by two or three hundred armed men.

The alleged expeditions of Abwa, Bowat, and Osheira, said to have been led by Mohammad himself to intercept the Mecca caravans, but in vain, are altogether without foundation. He might have gone, if he had gone at all, to Abwa, and Osheira to negotiate friendly terms with Bani Dhumra and Bani Mudlij, as his biographers say, he did.

The affair of the Nakhla marauding party, as related in the traditions, is full of discrepancies, and is altogether inconsistent and untrustworthy. The very verse (Sura, ii, verse 214) which the biographers say was revealed on the occasion, and which I have quoted above (para. 16), contains a reference to the Meccans' fighting against the Moslems, which runs counter to the assumption of the European biographers, who make it an aggressive attack on the part of Mohammad. It is probable that Mohammad might have sent some six or eight scouts to bring in news of the movements and condition of the Koreish, whose attitude towards Mohammad had become more hostile since his flight to Medina. As the Koreish had a regular and uninterrupted route to Syria for traffic, it was only reasonable on the part of Mohammad to take precautions, and he was always on his guard. The biographers Ibn Is-hak, Ibn Hisham (p. 424), Tabri (Vol. II, p. 422), Ibnal Athir in Kamil (Vol. II, p. 87), Halabi in Insanul Oyoon (Vol. III, p. 318), say, that Mohammad had given written instructions to Abdoollah-bin-Jahsh, which was to the effect "bring me intelligence of their affairs." They also say that Mohammad was displeased with Abdoollah's affair at Nakhla, and said, "I never commanded thee to fight in the Sacred Month." The biographers also relate that Mohammad even paid blood-money for the slain.

Some of the European biographers of Mohammad allege, that the battle of Badr was brought by Mohammad himself. They appear to hesitate to justify Mohammad in defending himself against the superior numbers of the Koreish, who had advanced to attack him as far as Badr, three stages from Medina. It is alleged that Mohammad intended to attack the caravans returning from Syria, conducted by Abu Sofian, his arch-enemy, therefore he set out upon his march with eighty refugees and two hundred and twenty-five people of Medina, and halted at Safra to waylay the caravan. Abu Sofian, warned of Mohammad's intention, sent some one to Mecca for succour. The Koreish, with nine hundred and fifty strong, marched forth to rescue the caravan. In the meantime, the caravan had passed unmolested, but the Koreish held a council whether to return or go to war. On the one hand, the biographers say, it was argued that the object for which they had set out having been secured, the army should at once retrace its steps. Others demanded that the army should advance. Two tribes returned to Mecca, the rest marched onwards; but it is not fair to allege that Mohammad had set forth to attack the caravan. Had he any such intention, the people of Medina, who had pledged themselves only to defend him against personal attack, would not have accompanied him. The presence of a large number of the Ansárs, the people of Medina, more than double that of the Mohajirins, the refugees, is a strong proof that they had come out only in their defence.

Mohammad, on receiving intelligence of the advancing force of the Koreish, set out from Medina to check the advance of the Meccan force, and encountered it at Badr, three days' journey from Medina. The Meccan army had advanced nine days' journey from Mecca towards Medina. The forces met at Badr on the 17th of Ramzan (13th January 623), the Meccans had left Mecca on the 8th of Ramzan (4th January), and Mohammad started only on the 12th of Ramzan (8th January), about four days after the Meccan army had actually set out to attack him. Supposing Abu Sofian had some reason for apprehending an attack from Medina, and sent for succour from Mecca, but the object of the Meccan army of the Koreish for which they had set out having been secured, the caravan having passed unmolested, they ought at once to have retraced their steps. The fact that Mohammad left Medina four days after the Koreish had left Mecca with a large army advancing towards Medina, is strongly in his favour.

Even taking it for granted that the first aggressions after the Hegira were solely on the part of the Moslems, and that several of the caravans of the Koreish had been waylaid and plundered, and blood had been shed, it would be unfair to condemn Mohammad. Such attacks, had they been made, might fairly be looked upon as a retaliation for the ill-treatment of the Moslems before the flight from Mecca. "Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political continuous societies, forming organized units called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy and suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war. The citizen or native of hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of war." The almost universal rule of most remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous nations, that the private individual of a hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every description of family ties. But Mohammad protected the inoffensive citizen or private individual of the hostile country. He even protected those who had actually come out of Mecca to fight at Badr, but were reluctant to do so. Mohammad had desired quarters to be given to several persons in the Koreish army at Badr. Abul Bakhtari, Zamaa, Hárith Ibn Amir, Abbás and other Bani Háshim were amongst those named.

The Jews.

Mohammad, on his first arrival at Medina, made a treaty of alliance with the Jews, by which the free exercise of their religion and the possession of their rights and property were guaranteed. It was stipulated in the treaty that either party, if attacked, should come to the assistance of the other. Medina should be sacred and inviolable for all who joined the treaty. But the Jews broke their treaty and rebelled. They assisted the enemy during the siege of Medina, and committed treason against the city.

The Bani Kainúkaá were the first among the Jews who broke the treaty and fought against Mohammad between the battles of Badr and Ohad.

The Bani Nazeer broke their compact with Mohammad after his defeat at Ohad. They had also made a conspiracy to kill Mohammad. They were banished; some of them went over to Khyber. The Jewish tribe of Koreiza had defected from their allegiance to Mohammad, and entered into negotiations with the enemy, when Medina was besieged by the Koreish and Bedouin tribes at the battle of the Ditch. They were afterwards besieged by Mohammad. They surrendered at the discretion of Sád, who passed a bloody judgment against them. The Jews of Khyber (including those of Nazeer) and Bani Ghatafán, who had lately besieged Medina with the Koreish in the battle of the Ditch, made alliance against Mohammad, and were making preparations for an attack on him. They had been inciting the Bani Fezára and other Bedouin tribes in their depredations, and had combined with Bani Sád-Ibn Bakr to attack upon Medina. They were subjected at Khyber, and made tributaries, paying jizya in return of the protection guaranteed to them.

The treachery of the Bani Kainúkaá, Nazeer and Koreiza, and Khyber is noticed in the Koran in the following verses:—

58. "They with whom thou hadst leagued, but who ever afterwards break their league, and fear not God!"

59. "And if thou capture them in battle, then (by the example of their fate) put to flight those who are behind them—they will perhaps be warned:"—

60. "Or, if thou fear treachery from any people, throw back their treaty to them in like manner: verily, God loveth not the treacherous."

61. "And think not that the infidels shall get the better of Us! Verily, they shall not find God to be weak."

62. "Make ready then against them what force ye can, and squadrons of horse whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy, and into others beside them whom ye know not, but whom God knoweth; And all that you expend for the cause of God shall be repaid you; and ye shall not be wronged."

63. "But if they lean to peace, lean thou also to it; and put thy trust in God: He verily is the Hearing, the Knowing."

64. "But if they seek to betray thee, then verily God will be all-sufficient for thee. He it is who strengthened thee with his help and with the faithful and made their heart one. Hadst thou spent all the riches of the earth, thou wouldst not have united their hearts; but God hath united them: He verily is Mighty, Wise."

65. "O Prophet! God and such of the faithful as follow thee will be all-sufficient for thee!"

66. "O Prophet! stir up the faithful to the fight...."—Sura, viii.

26. "And He caused those of the people of the Book (the Jews) who had aided the confederates, to come down out of their fortresses, and cast dismay into their hearts: a part ye slew, a part ye took prisoners."—Sura, xxxiii.

29. "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given, as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and his apostles have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the Truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled."

124. "Believers! wage war against such of the unbelievers as are your neighbours, and let them assuredly find rigour in you: and know that God is with those who fear Him."—Sura, ix.

The Bani Koreiza had surrendered themselves to the judgment of Sâd, an Awsite of their allies, Bani Aws. To this Mohammad agreed. Sâd decreed that the male captives should be slaughtered. Mohammad, disapproving the judgment, remarked to Sâd: "Thou hast decided like the decision of a king," meaning thereby a despotic monarch. The best authentic tradition in Bokhari (Kitáb-ul-Jihád) has the word 'Malik,' monarch; but in other three places of Bokhari, Kitabul Monakib, Maghazi, and Istizan, the narrator has a doubt whether the word was Allah or Malik. Moslim, in his collection, has also 'Malik,' and in one place the sentence is not given at all. It was only to eulogize the memory of Sâd after his death, that some of the narrators of the story gave out that Mohammad had said that Sâd had decided like the decision of a Malak, angel; or some narrators interpreted the word Malik, king, as meaning God; and therefore put the word Allah in their traditions. Mohammad never said Malak, meaning angel, or Malik, allegorically meaning Allah; he simply said Malik, literally meaning a king or monarch.

The expedition against the Jews of Khyber was purely defensive in its character. They had, since the Jews of the tribe of Nazeer and Koreiza being banished from Medina in consequence of their treason against the Moslem commonwealth, had joined them, been guilty of inciting the surrounding tribes to attack upon Medina, and had made alliance with the Bani Ghatafán, who had taken a prominent part among the confederates who had besieged Medina at the battle of the Ditch, to make a combined attack upon Medina. They, especially Abul Hukeik, the chief of Bani Nazeer, had excited the Bani Fezára and other Beduoin tribes to commit incursions on Medina. They had made a combination with the Bani Sád-Ibn Bakr to make inroads on the Moslims. Bani Sád, a branch of Hawazin, were among the confederates who had besieged Medina. Lately, Oseir Ibn Zárim, the chief of Nazeer at Khyber, maintained the same relations with Bani Ghatafán, as their former chief had, to make a combined attack on Medina. The Bani Ghatafán, with their branches of Bani Fezára and Bani Murra, in league with those of Khyber, were always plotting mischief in the vicinity of Fadak at Khyber. They (the Ghatafán) had continued for a long time to alarm Medina with threatened attacks. At the seventh year of the Hegira timely information was received by Mohammad of the combined preparation of Khyber and Ghatafán. He rapidly set forth in his defence, and marched to Khyber at once. He took up a position at Rají, between Khyber and Ghatafán, to cut off their mutual assistance. So it was not a sudden and unprovoked invasion, as Sir W. Muir calls it. He writes: "Mahomet probably waited for some act of aggression on the part of the Jews of Kheibar (it was the fertile lands and villages of that tribe which he had destined for his followers), or on the part of their allies, the Bani Ghatafán, to furnish the excuse for an attack. But no such opportunity offering, he resolved, in the autumn of this year, on a sudden and unprovoked invasion of their territory." It will appear from what I have stated above, that the invasion of Khyber was purely defensive in its character.

The Christians or Romans.

The last expedition of Mohammad was that of Tabúk, and it was also purely defensive. The travellers and traders arriving from Syria brought news of the gathering of a large army on the borders of Syria. A year's pay, they said, had been advanced by the Greek or Roman Emperor, who was then at Hims, in order that the soldiers might be well-furnished for a long campaign; the tribes of the Syrian desert, the Bani Lakhm, Judzam, Amila, and Ghussan were flocking around the Roman Eagles, and the vanguard was already at Balcâ. Mohammad at once resolved to meet this danger. When he arrived in the vicinity of the Syrian border at Tabúk, he found no troops to oppose him. There were no signs of impending danger, and he therefore returned with his army to Medina. This was in the ninth year of the Hegira.

This concludes the description of all the wars of the Prophet. I hope I have shown, on good and reasonable grounds, and from the surest and most authentic sources, that the wars were not of an offensive and aggressive character; but, on the contrary, they were wars of defence and protection. The early Moslems were wronged, because they believed in the faith of Mohammad; they were deprived of their civil and religious rights, were driven forth from their homes and their properties, and after all were attacked first, by the Koreish and their confederates, the Jews and other Arabian tribes. They fought neither for revenge, nor to impose the faith of Mohammad by force of arms, nor for the plunder of the caravans which passed in proximity to their city. The permission to fight was only given to the believers because they were fought against or were attacked first, and had been wronged and driven from their homes without just cause. They therefore took up arms against those who first compelled them to fly from their homes, and then attacked them. This was in full accordance, therefore, with the law of nations and the sacred law of nature. The people of Medina had only pledged themselves to protect Mohammad from his enemies. They could not, and would not, have gone forth or allowed Mohammad and his ansárs to go forth to plunder the caravan of the Koreish passing by Medina.

The Intolerance.

Those people are greatly mistaken who say, that "the one common duty laid upon the Faithful is to be the agents of God's vengeance on those who believe not. These are to be slaughtered until they pay tribute, when they are allowed to go to Hell in their own way without further molestation." Mohammad did not wage war against the Koreish and the Jews because they did not believe in his mission, nor because he was to be the instrument of God's vengeance on them; on the contrary, he said, "He was no more than a warner."

"The truth is from your Lord, let him then who will, believe; and let him who will, be an unbeliever."

"Let there be no compulsion in religion." "Verily, they who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites, and the Christians, whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief." Even during active hostilities, those who did not believe were allowed to come and hear the preaching, and were then conveyed to their place of safety. Nor were the wars of Mohammad to exact tribute from the unbelievers. The tribute was only imposed upon those who had sought his protection, and even then they were exempted from other regular taxes which the Moslems paid to their Commonwealth.

On the contrary, as has already been shown, Mohammad merely took up arms in the instances of self-preservation. Had he neglected to defend himself after his settlement at Medina against the continued attacks of the Koreish and their allies, he with his followers would, in all probability, have been exterminated. They fought in defence of their lives as well as their moral and religious liberties.

In this sense the contest might be called a religious war, as the hostilities were commenced on religious grounds. Because the Koreish persecuted the Moslems, and expelled them for the reason that they had forsaken the religion of their forefathers, i.e., idolatry, and embraced the faith of Islam, the worship of One True God; but it was never a religious war in the sense of attacking the unbelievers aggressively to impose his own religion forcibly on them. How much is Sir W. Muir in the wrong, who says, that fighting was prescribed on religious grounds? "Hostilities," he says, "indeed, were justified by the 'expulsion' of the believers from Mecca. But the main and true issue of the warfare was not disguised to be the victory of Islam. They were to fight 'until the religion became the Lord's alone.'"

The verses of the Koran referred to above are as follows:

186. "And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: verily God loveth not the unjust."

187. "And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for (fitnah) persecution or civil discord is worse than slaughter but attack them not at the sacred Mosque, until they attack you therein, but if they attack you, then slay them—Such is the recompense of the infidel!"

188. "But if they desist, then verily God is Gracious, Merciful."

189. "And do battle against them until there be no more (fitnah) persecution or civil discord and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers."—Sura, ii.

These verses generally, and the last one especially, show that the warfare was prescribed on the ground of self-preservation, and to secure peace, safety and religious liberty, to prevent (fitnah) persecution.

By preventing or removing the persecution (fitnah), the religion of the Moslems was to be free and pure from intolerance and compulsion to revert to idolatry, or in other words, to be the only or wholly of God. That is, when you are free and unpersecuted in your religion, and not forced to worship idols and renounce Islam, then your religion will be pure and free. You shall have no fear of being forced to join other gods with God.

The same verse is repeated in Chapter VIII.

39. "Say to the unbelievers: If they desist, what is now past shall be forgiven them, but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the former."

40. "Fight then against them till fitnah (civil strife or persecution) be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's, and if they desist, verily God beholdeth what they do."

This shows that the fighting prescribed here against the Koreish was only in the case of their not desisting, and it was only to prevent and suppress their fitnah, and when their intolerance and persecution was suppressed, or was no more, then the Moslem religion was to become all of it God's. They were not forced to join any god with the true God.

Sir W. Muir, in his last chapter on the person and character of Mohammad, observes in reviewing the Medina period: "Intolerance quickly took the place of freedom; force, of persuasion." ... "Slay the unbelievers wheresoever ye find them" was now the watchword of Islam:—"Fight in the ways of God until opposition be crushed, and the Religion becometh the Lord's alone!" Here, Sir W. Muir plainly contradicts himself. He has already admitted at the 136th page of the fourth volume of his work that the course pursued by Mohammad at Medina was to leave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished without compulsion, and the same measure he intended to adopt at his triumphal entry into Mecca. His words are: "This movement obliged Mahomet to cut short of his stay at Mecca. Although the city had cheerfully accepted his supremacy, all its inhabitants had not yet embraced the new religion, or formally acknowledged his prophetic claim. Perhaps, he intended to follow the course he had pursued at Medina, and leave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished without compulsion." This was at the end of the eighth year after the Hegira.

Mohammad died at the beginning of the eleventh year, then the question naturally comes up, when was that alleged change to intolerance, and how Sir W. Muir says, this change is traced from the period of Mohammad's arrival at Medina? In the action taken in the fifth year of the Hegira against the Jewish tribe of Koreiza, who had treasoned against the city, Sir W. Muir admits that up to that period Mohammad did not profess to force men to join Islam, or to punish them for not embracing it. His words are: "The ostensible grounds upon which Mahomet proceeded were purely political, for as yet he did not profess to force men to join Islam, or to punish them for not embracing it." In a foot-note he remarks: "He still continued to reiterate in his Revelations the axiom used at Mecca, 'I am only a public preacher,' as will be shown in the next chapter." Further, Sir W. Muir, in his account of the first two years after Mohammad's arrival at Medina, admits in a foot-note (p. 32, Vol. III), that "as yet we have no distinct development of the intention of Mahomet to impose his religion on others by force: it would have been dangerous in the present state of parties to advance this principle."

It will appear from the foregoing statements that in each of the three distinct periods of Mohammad's sojourn in Medina, i.e., the first two years, the fifth year, and the eighth year, Sir W. Muir has himself admitted that Mohammad had no intention to impose his religion by force, and did not profess to force people to join Islam, or punish them for not embracing it, and that the conversion of the people at Medina was gradually accomplished without compulsion, and the same course he followed at his taking of Mecca. Then there is no room left for the uncalled for and self-contradictory remark of Sir W. Muir, that at Medina "Intolerance quickly took place of freedom; force, of persuasion." Up to the end of the eighth year when Mecca was captured, there was admittedly no persecution or constraint put in requisition to enforce religion. Mohammad breathed his last early in the eleventh year. During the two years that intervened, the din of war had ceased to sound, deputations continued to reach the Prophet from all quarters of Arabia, and not a single instance of intolerance or compulsory adoption of faith is found on record.

Mohammad, neither sooner, nor later, in his stay at Medina, swerved from the policy of forbearance and persuasion he himself had chalked out for the success of his mission. At Medina, he always preached his liberal profession of respect for other creeds, and reiterated assurances to the people that he was merely a preacher, and expressly gave out that compulsion in religion was out of question with him.

These are his revelations during the Medina period. "Verily, they who believe (Moslems), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the Christians, and the Sabeites,—whoever believeth in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord: and fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved."

Sura II, 59.

"And say to those who have been given the Scripture, and to the common folk, Do you surrender yourselves unto God? Then, if they become Moslems, are they guided aright; but if they turn away, then thy duty is only preaching and God's eye is on his servants."

Sura III, 19.

"The Apostle is only bound to preach: and God knoweth what ye bring to light, and what ye conceal."

Sura V, 99.

"Say: Obey God and obey the Apostle. But if ye turn back, still the burden of his duty is on him only, and the burden of your duty rests on you. And if ye obey him, ye shall have guidance; But plain preaching is all that devolves upon the Apostle."

Sura XXIV, 53.

"Let there be no compulsion in religion. Now is the right way made distinct from error; whoever therefore denieth Tâghoot, and believeth in God, hath taken hold on a strong handle that hath no flaw therein: And God is He who Heareth, Knoweth."

Sura II, 237.

"Whoso obeyeth the Apostle, in so doing obeyeth God and as to those who turn back from thee, We have not sent thee to be their keeper."

Sura IV, 82.

"Slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them" was never the watchword of Islam. It was only said in self-preservation and war of defence, and concerned only those who had taken up arms against the Moslems.

The verses—Suras II, 189; and VIII, 40—have been quoted above in paras. 17 and 37 (pp. , , and ), and they fully show by their context and scope that they only enjoined war against the Meccans, who used to come to war upon the Moslems. The object of making war is precisely set forth in these verses, and appears to mean that civil feuds and persecutions be at an end. But Sir W. Muir wrongly translates Fitnah as opposition. He himself has translated the meaning of the word in question as persecution, in Vol. II, p. 147, foot-note; in translating the tenth verse of the Sura LXXXV he writes: "Verily, they who persecute the believers, male and female, and repent themselves not." The original word there is Fatanoo, from Fitnah. I do not know why he should put a twofold version on the same word occurring in the same book. (Suras II, 187; VIII, 40.)

The Ninth Chapter, or Sura Barat.

Sir William Muir, while relating the publication of some verses of the ninth chapter of the Koran on the occasion of the great pilgrimage A.H. 9, and referring to the opening verses of the Sura (from 1st to 7th inclusive) writes: "The passages just quoted completed the system of Mahomet so far as its relations with idolatrous tribes and races were concerned. The few cases of truce excepted, uncompromising warfare was declared against them all." This is not correct. The mistake, he as well as others who follow him commit, lies in their taking the incipient verses of Chapter IX, as originally published at the end of the ninth year of the Hegira, after the conquest of Mecca, in order to set aside every obligation or league with the idolators to wage war with them, either within or without the sacred territory, and "they were to be killed, besieged, and laid in wait for wheresoever found." In fact it has no such bearing of generally setting aside the treaties, and declaring uncompromising warfare, and was not published for the first time on the occasion stated above. The opening verses of the ninth Sura of the Koran, which I have quoted in full together with necessary notes in para. 17 (pp. -25), revealed for the first time, were before the conquest of Mecca, when the idolators thereof had broken the truce of Hodeibia. Their violation of the treaty is expressly mentioned in verses 4, 8, 10 and 13, and the same verses also enjoin to respect and fulfil the treaties of those idolators who had not broken theirs. Therefore only those aggressors who had been guilty of a breach of faith, and instigated others to take up arms against the Moslems in the attack of Bani Bakr, on Khozáa, were to be waged war against, besieged, and taken captives after the expiration of four months from the date of the publication of the verses in question. But fortunately Abu Sofian compromised before the commencement of the sacred months, and before the period of the four months had elapsed. The people of Mecca submitted without bloodshed, and hence it is obvious that the injunctions contained in the commencement of the ninth chapter of the Koran were never carried out. They remained as dead letter, and will, I think, so remain perpetually. Almost all European writers, as far as I know, labour under the delusion that at the end of the ninth year Mohammad published the opening verses of the ninth Sura, commonly designated Súra Barát. But the fact is that it was published in the eighth year of the Hegira before the commencement of the sacred months, probably in the month of Shabán, while Mohammad marched in Ramzán against Mecca, not with the intention of prosecuting war, for it was to take place after the lapse of Zikad, Zelhaj and Moharram, but of taking Mecca by compromise and preconcerted understanding between himself and Abu Sofian. If it be admitted that the preliminary verses of Sura IX of the Koran were revealed or published for the first time in the last month of the ninth year of the Hegira, then they—the verses—become aimless, without being pregnant of any object in view. They contain injunctions for carrying hostile operations against those who had broken certain treaties, had helped others against the Moslems, and themselves had also attacked them. They proclaimed war against certain tribes, whose people did not regard ties of blood and good faith, and had been the first aggressors against the Moslems. Not many such persons were in the whole of Arabia at and after the time alleged for the promulgation of these verses, i.e., at the last month of the ninth and the whole tenth year. By this time, almost all Arabia had tendered voluntary submission to the authority of Mohammad.

Deputations from each tribe of the Arabs continued to reach Medina during the whole of this period, and were pledged protection and friendship by the founder of the Islamic faith. From Medina the sound of drums and the bray of clarions had now died away. Hereupon we are able to speak with certainty that these verses could not be, and were not, revealed at the end of the ninth year as it has been asserted by several writers, both Mohammadan and European. And for the above reasons the most suitable occasion for the revelation of these verses is the breach of the truce of Hodeibia by the Koreish and their allies during the eighth year of the Hegira which caused the reduction of Mecca by compromise. Several Mohammadan commentators are unanimous in their opinion as to this point. Consequently the verses, ordaining the manifestation of arms against the treaty-breakers and aggressors, as well as putting them to the sword wherever they were to be found, i.e., within or without the harem, or the precincts of the Sacred Mosque, were not complied with owing to the compromise by the Koreish.

The alleged Interception of the Koreishite Caravans.

It has been asserted by European biographers of Mohammad that several caravans of the Koreish going to and from Syria were intercepted and waylaid by the Moslems soon after the Hegira. The alleged incursions are as follow:

(1.) Seven months after Mohammad's arrival at Medina, an expedition headed by Hamza surprised a caravan under the conduct of Abu Jahl.

(2.) A month later a party led by Obeida was dispatched in the pursuit of another caravan guided by Abu Sofian.

(3.) After the expiration of another month, a third inroad headed by Sad proceeded to lie in ambush for the Koreish caravan on the way it was expected to pass.

(4.) Nearly twelve months after the Hegira, a fourth attempt was undertaken to plunder a caravan of the Koreishites by Mohammad himself at Abwa.

(5.) In the succeeding month Mohammad again marched to Bowat with the sole aim of despoiling a caravan composed of precious freight under the immediate escort of Omeya-bin Khalf.

(6.) After the lapse of two or three months Mohammad set out to Osheira to make aggression on another rich caravan proceeding to Syria led by Abu Sofian.

All these expeditions are said to have been not attended by any success on the part of the Moslems, the vigilance of the caravans in all cases eluding the pursuit made after them.

(7.) In Rajab A.H. 2, a small band composed of some six persons was ordered to march to Nakhla to lie in wait there for the caravan of the Koreish. The party had a scuffle at Nakhla, in which a man of the convoy was killed; while two prisoners and the pilfered goods were taken to Medina. Hereupon Mohammad was much displeased, and told Abdallah-bin Jahsh, "I never commanded thee to fight in the sacred month."

(8.) The caravan of the Koreish, which on its passage had safely escaped the chase of the Moslems, as already described in No. 6, was on its way back to Mecca. Mohammad anticipated their return, and prepared an attack, which terminated in the famous battle of Badr.

(9.) All these predatory inroads to intercept the caravans of Mecca are said to have happened during the first and the second year of the Hegira, or before the battle of Badr. It remains for me now to mention the only remaining instance of Moslem's foray upon the Koreishite caravan, which took place in the sixth year A.H. at Al-Is. The attack was completely successful.

I have already explained (from paras. 21-24) that these early expeditions, numbered 1 to 8, are not corroborated by authentic and trustworthy traditions, and I have also given the probable nature of those marked 4, 5 and 6.

It was impossible for Mohammad and his adherents, situated as they were, to make any hostile demonstrations or undertake a pillaging enterprise. The inhabitants of Medina, where the Prophet with his followers had sought a safe asylum, and at whose invitation he had entered their city, had solemnly bound themselves on sacred oaths to defend Mohammad, so long as he was not himself the aggressor, from his enemies as they would their wives and their children. Mohammad, on his own part, had entered into a holy compact with them not to plunder or commit depredations.

Upon these considerations it was impossible that the people of Medina would have permitted or overlooked the irruptions so often committed by Mohammad upon the caravans of the Koreish: much less would they have joined with their Prophet, had he or any of his colleagues ventured to do so. But granting that the Medinites allowed Mohammad to manifest enmity towards the Koreish by a display of arms, or that no restraint was put by them upon him when he encroached upon the territories of the neighbouring tribes, and that the caravans were molested without any grounds of justice, was it possible, I ask, for the people of Medina to avoid the troubles they would be necessarily involved in by the refuge they had given to their Prophet? They had long suffered from internal feuds, and the sanguinary conflict of Boás, a few years ago, which had paralyzed their country, and humiliated its citizens, was but too fresh in their memory yet.

Let us suppose that these alleged interceptions of the Meccan caravans by the Moslems did actually take place, as related by the biographers of Mohammad, were they not all justified by the International Code of the Arabs, or the ancient usage and military law of nations. It has been proved beyond all dispute that the Meccans were the first aggressors in persecuting the Moslems, and expelling them from their dear homes at Mecca with the unbearable annoyance, they caused the converts of the new faith in the peaceful prosecution of their religion; taking all these causes of offence into consideration, as well as the International law and the law of Nature, the Moslems might be said to have law and justice both on their sides in waging war with their harassers for the restoration of their property and homes, and even in retaliating and making reprisals until they attained the object long sought by them. When the Meccans, on their own part, had first trumpeted hostility against the Moslems, the right of self-defence, as well as military necessity, compelled the latter to destroy their property, and obstruct the ways and channels of communication by which their traffic was prospering; for, "from the moment one State is at war with another, it has, on general principles, a right to seize on all the enemy's property of whatsoever kind and wheresoever found, and to appropriate the property thus taken to its own use, or to that of the captors."

The alleged Assassinations.

There were certain executions of culprits who had perpetrated the crime of high treason against the Moslem Commonwealth. These executions, and certain other cases of murders not grounded on any credible evidences, are narrated by European biographers of Mohammad as assassinations committed through the countenance and connivance which he lent them. They were about five or six in number, and they are styled assassinations from there being no trials of the prisoners by a judge and a jury, nor by any systematic court-martial. The punishment of death was inflicted upon the persons condemned, either from private enmity or for the unpardonable offence of high treason against the State, but it cannot be said, as I will hereafter show, that these so-called cases of assassinations had received the high sanction of Mohammad, or they were brought about at his direct instigation and assent for their commission. The alleged instances are as follows:—

1. Asma-bint Marwán.
2. Abú Afak.
3. Káb-ibn Ashraf.
4. Sofian-ibn Khalid.
5. Abú Ráfe.
6. Oseir-ibu Zárim.
7. The attempted assassination of Abú Sofian.

Before reviewing the truth and falsity of evidence in each of these cases, and showing how far the Prophet was privy to them, I will avail myself of a quotation from Mr. Stanley Lane Poole, who has remarked with his usual deep discernment and accurate judgment, in his Introduction to Mr. E.W. Lane's Selections from the Koran:

"The execution of the half-dozen marked Jews is generally called assassination, because a Muslim was sent secretly to kill each of the criminals. The reason is almost too obvious to need explanation. There were no police or law-courts, or even courts-martial, at Medina; some one of the followers of Mohammad must therefore be the executer of the sentence of death, and it was better it should be done quietly, as the executing of a man openly before his clan would have caused a brawl and more bloodshed and retaliation, till the whole city had become mixed up in the quarrel. If secret assassination is the word for such deeds, secret assassination was a necessary part of the internal government of Medina. The men must be killed, and best in that way. In saying this I assume that Mohammad was cognisant of the deed, and that it was not merely a case of private vengeance; but in several instances the evidence that traces these executions to Mohammad's order is either entirely wanting or is too doubtful to claim our credence."

1.—Asma-bint Marwán.

"The first victim was a woman," writes Major Osborn, "Asma, daughter of Marwan; she had composed some satirical verses on the Prophet and his followers; and Muhammad, moved to anger, said publicly: 'Who will rid me of this woman?' Omeir, a blind man, but an ardent Moslem, heard the speech, and at dead of night crept into the apartment where Asma lay asleep surrounded by her little ones; he felt about in the darkness till his hand rested on the sleeping woman, and then, the next instance his sword was plunged into her breast."

The story of Asma's murder has been variously related by the Arabian writers, and the testimonies on which it rests are contradictory and conflicting in themselves. Wákidi, Ibn Sád, and Ibn Hishám relate a very strange thing about it, that she was killed by Omeir the blind at the dead of night. A blind person commits murder in a stranger's house during nocturnal quietness, and is not arrested by any one! Doctor Weil writes, that Omeir was a former husband of Asma, and the origin of the murder may be traced to a long-brooding and private malice. Ibn Asákar in his history (vide Seerat Shámee) relates that Asma was a fruit-seller; some person of her tribe asked her if she had better fruits. She said 'yes,' and entered her house followed by that man. She stooped down to take something up, the person turned right and left, and seeing that nobody was near, gave a violent blow on her head, and thus dispatched her.

The historians even relate that Omeir, being offended at the verses composed by Asma, had volunteered himself of his own free-will to kill her. She might have been a sacrifice to envy or hatred by the sword of her assassin, but Mohammad really had no hand in her death. She had made herself an outlaw by deluding the people of Medina to a breach of treaty with the Moslems, whereby the rights and jurisdictions of Jews and Moslems were definitively settled.

Ibn Ishak quietly leaves unnarrated any transaction with regard to Asma. Wakidi and Ibn Sád do not affirm that Mohammad, being annoyed at her lampoons, said dejectedly, "Who would rid me of that woman?" On the contrary, Wakidi writes, that Omeir had voluntarily swore to take her life. It is only Ibn Hisham who relates without citing his authority, that Mohammad, hearing Asma's verses, declared: "Is there nobody for me (i.e., to rid me) from Bint Marwán?" This version of the story has no corroborative proofs from the earliest biographers, and we are not inclined to put any faith in it.

2.—Abú Afak.

It has been related that Abú Afak of Bani Amr had enraged the Moslems by fomenting enmity and sedition against their Government, when one Háris was executed for his murdering treacherously his fellow-comrade in the battle of Ohad during the time they were fighting together side by side. A convert from amongst the Bani Amr vowed to slay Abú Afak, and falling unawares upon him killed him with a cruel blow of his sword. From Ibn Ishak we learn that Mohammad had said with reference to Abú Afak, "Who would rid me of this pestilent fellow?" The biographers do not give their authorities whence they derived their information of the words attributed to Mohammad which he is said to have uttered with relation to Abú Afak before his followers; while at the same time it is no fair justice to form a hasty opinion of the fact without a critical examination and well-balancing of evidences of men like Ibn Ishak and others who have forgotten to tell us the original sources of their own assertion. Besides, the words quoted above are not equivalent to a peremptory order, and even granting this last condition, we are not justified in construing them to mean assassination. Sir W. Muir writes that, "the Secretary of Wâckidi says distinctly—'Now this was by command of the Prophet.'" (Vol. III, p. 133, f.n.) But it is a very easy thing for the secretary or other biographers to give an ample play to their fancies, or to fabricate commands, which the Prophet had never given out, on a very slender basis, or on no reasonable basis at all. The tendency of the biographers is always to exonerate the companions of the Prophet at the expense of truth, and to justify their deeds by casting the whole blame upon him.

3.—Káb, son of Ashraf.

Káb-ibn Ashraf was an influential Jew connected with the tribe of Bani Nazeer. Being very much mortified by the defeat of the Meccans at the battle of Badr, he soon after proceeded to Mecca, where he stirred up the Koreish to avenge themselves on the Moslems of Medina. On his return to the latter place he manifested avowed hostility towards the Moslem Commonwealth. He was a traitor and a turncoat, for he not only violated his allegiance to the Moslems, but preached rebellion among their enemies. Under such circumstances, he deserved execution by the military and international law, and was decapitated at Medina accordingly. The mode of execution was a sudden violence or deception, but Mohammad never fulminated any harsh commands against him either for his assassination or for his murder. He deserved capital punishment for his treachery, which was duly measured out to him in the absence of any legal tribunals for trials of criminals by jury, for in that case any man was authorized to execute the sentence of the law. Even if it be taken for granted that the Prophet had prayed "O Lord, deliver me from the son of Ashraf, in whatsoever manner seemeth good unto thee, because of his open sedition and verses;" or said, "Who can ease me of the son of Ashraf?" This does not amount to a fiat for murder or execution, much less for assassination.

The biographers and narrators of the campaigns of Mohammad generally relate untrustworthy and fabulous details of such events, and are by no means to be relied upon. Mohammad Ibn Ishak, the earliest biographer, whose work exists, does not relate that Mohammad the Prophet ever prayed for, or said to his followers, to be got rid of Káb; whereas the latest biographers and traditionalists give us to understand that the Prophet sanctioned the murder of Káb by his own express orders. "I am far from asserting," says Sir W. Muir, "that every detail in the foregoing narrative, either of instigation by Mahomet or of deception by the assassins, is beyond suspicion. The actors in such scenes were not slow to magnify and embellish their own services at the expense of truth. There may also have been the desire to justify an act of perfidy, at which even the loose morality of the day was startled, by casting the burden of it on the infallible Prophet. But, after allowing all due weight to both of these considerations, enough remains to prove, in this case, the worst features of assassination, and the fact that they were directly countenanced, or rather prompted, by Mahomet himself." There is no substantial proof in this case which tends to establish the instigation Mohammad offered for the murder of Káb. The best traditions for the story of Káb's assassination rest with Jábir-bin Abdullah, and Ibn Abbás through Ikrama.

None of them can be an authority, for they were neither eye-witnesses, nor they heard the Prophet countenancing or prompting the assassination, nor they allude to their own authorities. Jábir-bin Abdullah was a mere boy at that time. He was not allowed to appear even at the battle of Ohad, which took place after the alleged execution of Káb, on account of his tender age. Ibn Abbás was even younger than Jábir, and besides, was putting up at Mecca at the period in question. Ikrama was a slave of Ibn Abbás, and was notoriously given to the forging of fictitious traditions.

4.—Sofian-bin Khalid.

After the reverse at Medina, in the battle of Ohad, large gatherings were organized in various quarters of Arabia against the Moslems. The Bani Lahyán, and other neighbouring tribes, rallied round the standard of their chief Sofián, the son of Khálid, at Orna with the avowed purpose of taking this occasion by the forelock when the tables were turned at Ohad. "Mahomet, knowing that their movements depended solely upon Sofiân, despatched Abdullah ibn Oneis with instructions to assassinate him." The accredited envoy volunteered himself for the service, which he accomplished by destroying Sofian by surprise. Neither Ibn Ishak, nor Ibn Hisham, nor Ibn Sád have anything to say about 'instructions' for assassination. Abdullah-bin Oneis may have been sent as a spy to reconnoitre the movements of Sofián and his army, or to bring advices concerning him, but it cannot be affirmed that he was tutored by Mohammad to assassinate Sofian, even on the supposition that his mission was to kill the latter.

Among the Arabs the international law of estates in their hostile relations, and the military law and usage of former times, not forgetting to mention the European international law as late as the last century, maintained the broad principle that "in war everything done against an enemy is lawful that he may be destroyed, though unarmed and defenceless; that fraud or even poison may be employed against him; that a most unlimited right is acquired to his person and property." Every sort of fraud except perfidy was allowed to be practised towards an enemy in war. "I allow of any kind of deceit," writes Bynkershoek, a writer on international law, the successor of Puffendorf and the predecessor of Wolff and Vattel, "perfidy alone excepted, not because anything is unlawful against an enemy, but because when our faith had been pledged to him, so far as the promise extends, he ceases to be an enemy."

In the case of Sofián there was no perfidy, treachery, or violation of faith, nor was there any permission granted by Mohammad for his assassination. He sent, if it be proved he did (but it is never proved), Abdullah against Sofián who had made every preparation of arms, and who had mustered together several Bedouin tribes to attack Mohammad, to fight and kill him; it was a straightforward course allowed by the usages of the military law. Mohammad had distinctly and expressly interdicted perfidy, deceit and assassination. "Do not," said he, charging his commanders and soldiers on the point of marching for a military expedition, "commit perfidy, and do not mutilate, and do not kill a child." He also laid down the golden maxim, "Belief is the restraint to assassination. No believer should commit assassination."

5.—Abú Rafe.

Abú Rafe, called also Sallám Ibn Abul Hokeik, was the chief of Bani Nazeer, who had warred with the Moslems at Medina, and had been banished to Khyber. He had taken a prominent part in the assembling of most of the Bedouin tribes at the war of the confederates when they besieged Medina. Subsequently, he had excited Bani Fezara and other Bedouin tribes to carry on their depredations among the Moslems. A band of the latter was dispatched to inflict condign punishment upon him, and he met with his death at their hands. But the account of his execution are full of contradictions and discrepancies. But none of these diverse stories has, that Mohammad commanded the assassination of Abú Rafe, while Ibn Ishak gives no account of him at all. Ibn Hisham has—"That Abú Rafe had brought the confederate army against Mohammad, and some of Khazraj had asked permission to kill him, and Mohammad permitted them." Sir W. Muir narrates that Mohammad "gave them command to make away with Abul Huckeick," whilst the Secretary of Wákidi, whom he follows, simply says, "He gave command to kill him." "Making away with a person" creates an idea of secret murder tantamount to 'assassination,' but such is not the wording of the original. Sending a party to kill, or fight with an enemy are synonymous, and permissible by the international or military law, the Arab mode of fighting mostly consisting of single combats.

6.—Oseir-bin Zárim.

Oseir-ibn Zarim, the chief of Bani Nazeer, had maintained a hostile animosity against the Moslems of Medina, to war with whom he had enrolled himself in the adverse tribe of Ghatafán. Preparations were briskly made by this tribe to make a havoc of Medina, and Oseir had been made the hero of the enterprise. Hereupon Mohammad delegated the mission of bringing the insurgent to Medina to Abdullah-bin Rawáha and some others, with a promise of making him Governor of Khyber, and treating him with marked distinction, if he yielded to the wishes of the Prophet. Oseir complied, and set out with his followers to Medina. On a camel were mounted Abdullah-bin, Oneis, and Oseir. Hardly they had travelled six miles when Oseir repented of his determination to go to Medina, and stretched forth his hand towards the sword of Abdullah, who leaped from the camel and cut off his leg, Oseir in the meantime wounding Abdullah's head with his camel staff.

Now, whether Oseir was assassinated or murdered perfidiously; whether he meditated treachery, and Abdullah struck him in his self-defence,—whatever might be the case, certainly there is nothing in the narrative of Oseir's death to show that Mohammad had sent him "on a secret errand with a view of getting rid of the Jewish chief" as Sir W. Muir explains. The story is not imparted by earliest writers like Ibn Ishak, and the traditions of a later date are incoherent, one-sided, and imperfect. Notwithstanding these inaccuracies, no account tells us that mandates were issued for fighting with or killing Oseir, much less for his assassination.

7.—The alleged intended Assassination of Abú Sofian.

A Bedouin Arab was sent by Abú Sofian to Medina to assassinate Mohammad. The emissary was tracked in his evil attempt, and confessed the purpose with which he had come. This is related by Ibn Sád Katib Wakidi as the cause of Mohammad's sending Amr Ibn Omeya to assassinate Abú Sofian. According to Hishamee, Amr was commissioned by the Prophet to fight with Abú Sofián, and to kill him in immediate revenge for the murder of Khobeib and his companions captured at Raji. Now, Ibn Ishak and Wákidí preserve absolute silence on this head. Ibn Hisham relates nothing about assassination. It is only Ibn Sád Kátib Wákidí who hands down to posterity the orders of Mohammad for the assassination of Abú Sofian. This tradition is neither strengthened by any sterling witness, nor is it a genuine one; and for this very reason it was not accepted by Ibn Ishák or even by Wakidi, so prone to the recital of apocryphal traditions.

Referring to the above attempted assassination Mr. Washington Irving says: "During this period of his career Mahomet in more than one instance narrowly escaped falling by the hand of an assassin. He himself is charged with the use of insidious means to rid himself of an enemy, for it is said that he sent Amru Ibn Omeya on a secret errand to Mecca, to assassinate Abu Sofian, but the plot was discovered, and the assassin only escaped by rapid flight. The charge, however, is not well substantiated, and is contrary to his general character and conduct."

Sir W. Muir writes: "There is just a shadow of possibility that the tradition may have been fabricated by the anti-Omeyad party to throw odium on the memory of Abu Sofiân, as having been deemed by Mahomet worthy of death. But this is not to be put against the evidence of unanimous and apparently independent traditions." But, in fact, there are no unanimous and apparently independent traditions of the command of Mohammad to assassinate Abú Sofian; there is only one and but one, by Ibn Sád, which is wholly unreliable, and that too from the lips of the would-be assassin himself who before the introduction of Islam was a professional cutthroat, whose narration, therefore, deserves not our belief.

Even if it be taken for granted that Mohammad did send some one to assassinate Abú Sofian, who had already sent some one to assassinate Mohammad as related by Ibn Sád, it was justified in self-defence. It was a measure for retaliation, not one of mere revenge, but only a means of protective retribution, which is lawful under the military law.

The alleged Cruelties in executing the Prisoners of War and others.

Some of the war prisoners had received the condign punishment of execution for their crimes in conformity with the laws of war. It has been alleged by some European biographers of Mohammad that their (the war prisoners') execution was cruel, and that they were accused of no crime except their scepticism and political antagonism.

The persons executed were as follows:—

1. Nadhr-bin-Harith.
2. Okba.
3. Abul Ozza.
4. Moavia-bin-Mughira.

Before reviewing the case of each prisoner, I must note, by way of introductory remarks, that, under the international or military law, a prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army for active aid, and who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the fields or in the hospitals, by individual surrender or capitulation. All soldiers, of whatever species of arms; all men who belong to the rising en masse of the hostile country; all those who are attached to the army for its efficiency and promote directly the object of the war, except religious persons, officers of medical staff, hospital nurses and servants, all disabled men or officers on the field, or elsewhere, if captured, all enemies who have thrown away their arms and asked for quarters, are prisoners of war, and as such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled to the privileges of a prisoner of war. He is subject to no punishment for being a public enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the international infliction of any suffering or disgrace, by cruel imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other barbarity. But a prisoner of war remains answerable for his crimes committed against the captor's army or people before he was captured, and for which he has not been punished by his own authorities. All prisoners of war are liable to the infliction of retaliatory measures.

1.—Nadhr-bin-Harith.

Nadhr (Nazr), one of the prisoners of war, was executed after the battle of Badr for his crime of severely tormenting the Moslems at Mecca. Musáb had distinctly reminded him of his torturing the companions of Mohammad, so there was nothing of a cruel and vindictive spirit of the Prophet displayed towards his enemies in the execution of Nazr as it is made out by Sir W. Muir. On the other hand, his execution is denied by some critics, like Ibn Manda and Abú Naeem, who say, that Nazr-bin-Haris was present at the battle of Honain, A.H. 8, six years after that of Badr, and was presented with one hundred camels by Mohammad. Sir W. Muir himself puts down very quietly Nadhir Ibn al Harith's name in a foot-note (Vol. IV, page 151) as a recipient of one hundred camels at Honain. The same Nadhr-bin-Harith is shown among the earliest Moslem refugees who had fled to Abyssinia. These discrepancies leave no doubt that the story of Nadhr's execution is not a fact. It is also related by the narrators, who assert Nazr's execution at Badr, that his daughter or sister came to Mohammad and addressed him several verses, the hearing of which produced such a tender emotion in him, that his eyes shed tears and said, he would not have issued orders for his execution had he heard these verses before. The following are two of the verses which Mohammad heard:

"Má kán Zarraka lao mananta va rubba mámannal
fata va ho-al mughizul mohnihoo."
Thou wouldst no harm have seen to set him free,
Anger how high for pardon has no plea.

But Zobier-bin-Bakár says, he heard some learned men who objected to these verses on the ground that they were all concocted; and I think that the whole story of Nazr's execution is a spurious one.

2.—Okba-bin-Mueit.

Another prisoner, named Okba, was executed after the battle of Badr for a crime similar to that of Nazr. It is related that while he was going to be executed, he asked who would take care of his little girl. Mohammad replied, "Hell-fire!" This is altogether an apocryphal story, and owes its origin to the relation of Okba to the tribe of Banunnar, or the "children of fire." Wackidi does not give his authorities for the story, and Ibn Is-hak gives only one immediately before him, which is cut short of another intervening link of authorities up to the scene of occurrence. Abu Daood narrates it from Masrook, who gave it on the authority of Abdullah-bin-Mas-ood, who does not say he was present at the scene or he heard it directly or indirectly from Mohammad. Besides the circumstances under which Masrook gave out this story are very suspicious, and show that calumny was at work. Masrook was proposed by Zohak to be entrusted with the administration of a certain district. Ommara, the son of Okba, objected to this, as Masrook was one of the murderers of Osman, the third Khalif. Masrook in reply said to Ommara, on the authority of Ibn Masood, that "when thy father was being executed, he had asked the Prophet, who will take care of his little girl." The Prophet replied, "Hell-fire." Therefore, I am satisfied for thee with what the Prophet had chosen for thy father.

There is a discrepancy in the mode of Okba's execution as well as about the person who executed him. Ibn Is-hak says, that it was Asim who killed him, and Ibn Hisham, that it was Ali. Ibrahim is of opinion, that Okba was executed at Taimee, and Mohammad-bin-Khobeib Hashimi, that he was crucified, from which others differ and say that he was beheaded. I have no belief in Okba's execution at all.

Abul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, and who was one of the persecutors of the Moslems at Mecca, had besought Mohammad to release him by way of compassion for his five daughters. Mohammad granted him his life and his liberty. This directly points to the universal generosity of the Prophet, and from this it will appear that the story of Okba's execution runs contrary to his general character and conduct. On these grounds the execution of Okba might be rejected as a fiction.

3.—Abul Ozza.

Abul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, was allowed his freedom without any ransom, on the condition that he would never again bear up arms in any war against the Prophet; but he proved a traitor. He exhorted the Arabs to make war on Mohammad, and joined himself the invading army of Mecca. He was doomed to misfortune, he was caught at Hamra, and duly executed. This was in full accordance with the laws and usages of war (vide ante, para. 58).

4.—Moavia Ibn Mughira.

Moavia Ibn Mughira, also a prisoner of war, was granted three days' truce, on the condition that if he were found in Medina after the appointed time, he was to be executed. The period had passed, and he was still lurking at Medina. At length he was found out and killed by Zeid and Ammar on their return from Hamra-al-Assad, after five or six days. It is apparent that Moavia violated his truce, and his lurking in Medina might be either as a spy or scout secretly seeking information.

Sir W. Muir, who calls him Othmân Ibn Mughîra, makes out a favourable case in his behalf. He writes: He "incautiously lingered at Medîna till the last day of his term of grace, when he set out for Mecca." But Ibn Hisham distinctly writes that he "stayed at Medina after the three days had passed and was found lurking there." Even according to Wackidi he was caught on the fourth day. But this is far from truth, for, according to his own account, Mohammad was absent after the battle of Ohad for five days at Hamra-al-Assad; then how he (Ibn Mughira) could have endeavoured to avoid the returning Moslem force from Hamra-al-Assad, and lose his way, as Sir W. Muir gives it out, only on the fourth day?

One of the enemies, who had invaded Medina and attacked Mohammad, was, after being captured, allowed three days' truce on explicit conditions that he was to be killed there if found after three days, and was also provided with a camel and provisions for the way, was discovered lurking thereabout on the fifth or sixth day, in consequence of which he lost his life. This is called by Sir W. Muir as being "perished by a too great confidence in the generosity of his enemy,"—i.e., Mohammad.

The intended Execution of the Prisoners of Badr.

Sir W. Muir writes: "It would even seem to have been contemplated at the close of the battle to kill all the prisoners. Mahomet is represented by tradition as himself directing this course." In a foot-note he says, "Thus Mahomet said: 'Tell not Saîd of his brother's death'" (Mábad, a prisoner, see above, page 110 note); "but kill ye every man his prisoner."—(Wâckidi, 100.) Again: "Take not any man his brother prisoner, but rather kill him" (page 101). "I would not, however, lay too much stress on these traditions. I am inclined rather to view them as called into existence by the passages quoted below from the Coran." The contemplated execution of the prisoners is not borne out by the traditions which Sir W. Muir himself looks upon as fabricated ones. The true translation of the passages in Wackidi referred to above is as follows:—

First passage.—"Tell not Said of his brother's killing (i.e., being killed), so he will kill every prisoner in your hands."—(Wackidi, page 100.) This obviously means, that do not let Saeed know that his brother Wáhid, who was made prisoner and killed by Omar or Abu Barda, was killed. If you do so, he will, being enraged, kill every prisoner now in your hands. It is very strange that Sir W. Muir translates the sentence to mean "kill ye every man his prisoner!"

Second passage.—"No body must take his brother's prisoner, so that he may be killed," meaning none of you should seize other person's prisoner. If you do so, perhaps, the other person may kill the prisoner in the contest. Sir W. Muir has quite misunderstood the sentence.

There are some fictitious traditions on the subject that Mohammad was reprimanded in the Koran (Sura, viii, 68, 69) for releasing the prisoners of Badr, meaning that he ought to have executed them. The verse is translated thus:—

"It is not for a Prophet to take prisoners until (hatta) he hath slaughtered in the land. Ye wish to have the goods of this world, but God wishes for the next, for God is Mighty, Wise! Were it not for a book from God that had gone before, there would have touched you, for which ye took, a mighty punishment."

The verse 68, if it is rightly translated, will mean that prisoners should not be executed. The word 'hatta' means 'until,' and is also used as a causative word. I prefer the latter, and translate—

"It is not for any Prophet that prisoners may be brought to him in order that he may make slaughter in the land," which means, that it is not proper for a Prophet to take prisoners of war in order to slaughter them. This meaning is in consonance with the other passage in the Koran (xlvii, 4), which restricts the treatment of the prisoners of war to either free dismissal or ransom.

In the first place, the verse rather reprimanded those who wished to kill the prisoners; and in the second, those who desired to exact ransom for their liberty. They ought to have set them at liberty without any pecuniary advantage, if they knew any good in their deserving free liberty.

Kind Treatment of the Prisoners of War by Mohammad.

The prisoners of war were always treated kindly by Mohammad, and the ancient practice of killing and enslaving them was much discouraged and abolished by the Koran.

"And when ye meet those who misbelieve, then strike off heads until ye have massacred them, and bind fast the bonds!"

"Then either a free grant (of liberty) or a ransom until the war shall have laid down its burdens."—Sura, xlvii, 4 and 5.

Regarding the prisoners of Badr Sir W. Muir writes: "In pursuance of Mahomet's commands, the citizens of Medina, and such of the refugees as possessed houses, received the prisoners and treated them with much consideration." "Blessing be on the men of Medina!" said these prisoners in latter days. "They made us ride, while they themselves walked; they gave us wheatened bread to eat, when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates." It is not surprising that when, some time after, their friends came to ransom them, several of the prisoners who had been thus received declared themselves adherents of Islam: and to such the Prophet granted a liberty without the usual payment.

The prisoners of the Bani Mustalik were released without paying any ransom.

The Bani Hawazin were made prisoners of war at Honain, fought in the eighth year of the Hegira, but were all set free without any exaction of ransom from them. Mohammad first released his prisoners, and the men of Mecca and Medina cheerfully followed his example. The prisoners were six thousand in number.

A party of eighty, as related by Moslim in his Saheeh, or of forty or fifty Koreish, as narrated by Ibn Hisham (p. 745), went round about Mohammad's camp while stationed at Hodeibia in A.H. 6, seeking to cut off any stray followers, and having attacked the camp itself with stones and arrows, they were caught and taken prisoners to Mohammad, who, with his usual generosity, pardoned and released them.

Khalid-Ibn-Waleed, in the year of his victory, A.H. 11, when he was sent to call the Bani Jazima to embrace Islam, had made them prisoners and ordered their execution. Some of the better-informed of the Moslems of the injunctions of the Koran, of releasing prisoners either freely or by exacting ransom, interposed and accused him of committing an act of the Time of Ignorance. Mohammad, much displeased, grieved at the intelligence, and said twice, 'O God! I am innocent of what Khalid hath done.'

The Execution of the Bani Koreiza.

The Bani Koreiza, a Jewish tribe living in the vicinity of Mecca had entered into an alliance with the Moslem Commonwealth to defend the city of Medina from the attack of the aggressors. While Medina was besieged by the ten thousand Koreish and other Bedouin tribes in A.H. 6, they (the Koreiza), instead of co-operating with the Moslems, defected from their allegiance and entered into negotiations with the besieging foe. After the cessation of the siege, they were besieged in their turn, and a fearful example was made of them, not by Mohammad, but by an arbiter chosen and appointed by themselves. The execution of some of them was not on account of their being prisoners of war; they were war-traitors and rebels, and deserved death according to the international law. Their crime was high treason against Medina while it was blockaded. There had no actual fighting taken place between the Bani Koreiza and the Moslems, after the former had thrown off their allegiance to the latter and had aided and abetted the enemies of the realm. They were besieged by the Moslems to punish them for their high treason, and consequently they were not prisoners of war. Even such prisoners of war suffer for high treason.

"Treating, in the field, the rebellious enemy according to the law and usages of war, has never prevented the legitimate Government from trying the leaders of the rebellion, or chief rebels for high treason, and from treating them accordingly, unless they are included in a general amnesty."

The whole tribe of the Bani Koreiza was not executed, nor all the male prisoners were put to the sword. The number slain was comparatively very small. That they were not executed at the commands of Mohammad, nor all of them were killed, nor a divine sanction was alleged for it, is shown by the following verse of the Koran:

"And he caused those of the people of the Book (the Jews) who had aided the confederates to come down of their fortresses, and cast dismay into their hearts: some ye slew; others ye took prisoners."—Sura, xxxiii, 26.

The slaying and taking of prisoners is attributed to them to whom the verse is addressed as their own act.

The rest of the Bani Koreiza,—male adults, women, and children,—were either liberated or got themselves ransomed. We read in Oyoon-al-Asar by Ibn Sayyad-al-Nas some account of the ransom. Osman-bin-Affan gathered much money by the transaction. But Sir W. Muir quotes from Hishamee, that the rest of the women and children were sent to be sold among the Bedouin tribes of Najd, in exchange of horse and arms. But there is no authority for this story. Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman, in his Campaigns of Mohammad, gives another account which is more probable. He writes:—

"Out of what was captured from Bani Koreiza Mohammad took seventeen horses and distributed them among his people. The rest he divided into two halves. One-half he sent with Sád bin Obádd to Syria, and the other half with Ans bin Quízí to the land of Ghatafán, and ordered that they may be used there for breeding purposes. They did so, and got good horses."

The number of male adults executed has been much exaggerated, though it is immaterial, when an execution duly authorized by the international law of a country takes place, to consider the smallness or greatness of the number. I cannot do better than quote Moulvie Ameer Ali of Calcutta on the subject, who has very judiciously criticised the same: "Passing now to the men executed," he says, "one can at once see how it has been exaggerated. Some say they were 400; others have carried the number even up to 900. But Christian historians generally give it as varying from 700 to 800. I look upon this as a gross exaggeration. Even 400 would seem an exaggerated number. The traditions agree in making the warlike materials of the Bani Koreiza consist of 300 cuirasses, 500 bucklers, 1,500 sabres, &c. In order to magnify the value of the spoil, the traditions probably exaggerated these numbers. But taking them as they stand, and remembering that such arms are always kept greatly in excess of the number of fighting men, I am led to the conclusion that the warriors could not have been more than 200 or 300. The mistake probably arose from confounding the whole body of prisoners who fell into the hands of the Moslems with those executed."

Even 200 seems to be a large number, as all of the prisoners were put up for the night in the house of Bint-al-Haris, which would have been insufficient for such a large number.

Some Miscellaneous Objections Refuted.

1.—Omm Kirfa.

The barbarous execution of Omm Kirfa, a female, who was notorious as the mistress of a nest of robbers, by tying her each leg to a separate camel and being torn asunder, is not a fact. It is only mentioned by Katib Wáckidi, and is not to be found in any other earliest account of Wáckidi, Ibn Is-hak, and Ibn Hisham. Even Katib Wáckidi does not say that the execution was ordered by Mohammad, and it is not fair on the part of Sir W. Muir to hold Mohammad an accomplice in the ferocious act, because he reads of no disapprobation expressed by the Prophet at such an inhuman treatment. But in the first place the narration is a mere fiction; and secondly, the traditions are, as a rule, always incomplete; in one place they are given shorter, and in another longer, according to the circumstances of the occasion on which they are originally recited. Ibn Hisham relates, that "Zaid-bin-Harisa ordered Kays-bin-Mosahhar to execute Omm Kirfa, so he executed her with a violent execution." ('Katlan Aneefan,' p. 980.) He does not relate that Mohammad was even informed of the execution after the party had returned from this terrible mission. I think the word 'aneef' (violent or severe), as used originally by the narrator, might have been the cause of the growth of the story of executing by tying up to two camels, by way of a gratuitous explanation or glossary, as another tradition relates that she was tied to the tails of two horses (vide Koostalanee in his Commentary on Bokharee, Vol. III, p. 307).

2.—Urnee Robbers.

Some Urnee robbers, lately converted, had plundered the camels of Medina and barbarously handled their herdsman, for they cut off his hands and legs, and struck thorny spikes into his tongue and eyes, till he died. The bandits were pursued, captured, and executed by Kurz-bin-Jabir. "They had merited death," says Sir W. Muir, "but the mode in which he inflicted it was barbarous and inhuman. The arms and legs of eight men were cut off, and their eyes were put out. The shapeless, sightless trunks of these wretched Bedouins were then impaled upon the plain of Al Ghâba, until life was extinct." As the robbers had mutilated the herdsman, this gave currency to their having been mutilated in retaliation. But in fact Mohammad never ordered mutilation in any case. He was so averse to this practice, that several traditions from various sources emanating from him to the effect, prove that he prohibited mutilation lest he himself be mutilated by divine judgment.

Sir W. Muir continues:—"On reflection, Mahomet appears to have felt that this punishment exceeded the bounds of humanity. He accordingly promulgated a Revelation, in which capital punishment is limited to simple death or crucifixion. Amputation of the hands and feet is, however, sanctioned as a penal measure; and amputation of the hands is even enjoined as the proper penalty for theft, whether the criminal be male or female. This barbarous custom has accordingly been perpetuated throughout the Mahometan world. But the putting out of the eyes is not recognized among the legal punishments."

These alternative punishments were prescribed for the heinous crimes of highway robbery, dacoity, and theft by house-breaking. They were (i) capital punishment, (ii) amputation, and (iii) banishment (Sura, v, 37, 42), according to the circumstances of the case. The last two were of a temporary nature substituted for imprisonment for want of an organized system of jails and prisons. When the Commonwealth was in its infancy, the troubles of the invasions and wars of the aggressive Koreish and their allies had left neither peace nor security at Medina to take such administrative measures as to organize a system of building, guarding, and maintaining jails, their inmates and their establishments. As soon as jails were established in the Mohammadan Commonwealth, amputation and banishment gave way to imprisonment. The prisoners of war, not being criminals, used to be made over by Mohammad to some citizens of Medina, as in the case of the prisoners of the battle of Badr, to keep them in their houses as guests, on account of the want of prisons; but as for the other criminals—the highway robbers, dacoits, and house-breakers—they could not be treated and entertained so hospitably. Thus there was left no alternative for them except either to banish such criminals, or to award them corporal punishment in the shape of amputation.

3.—Torture of Kinana.

It is related by the biographers "that Kinana, chief of the Jews of Khyber, and his cousin had kept back, in contravention of their compact, a portion of their riches. On the discovery of this attempt at imposition, Kinana was subjected to cruel torture—'fire being placed upon his breast till his breath had almost departed'—in the hope that he would confess where the rest of his treasures were concealed. Mahomet then gave command, and the heads of the chief and his cousin were severed from their bodies."

The story of Kinana's being subjected to extortion and put to death for hiding some treasure, for which he had contravened his contract, is altogether a spurious one. Kinana was executed in retaliation for treacherously killing Mahmud, the brother of Mohammad-bin-Moslama, to whom he was made over for execution. There is one tradition, without any authority, to the effect, that Zobeir was producing fire on Kinana's breast by the friction of flint and steel. This, if it be a fact, does not show that it was done by Mohammad's direction and approval. On the contrary, there are several traditions from the Prophet himself in which he has forbidden to punish any one with fire. It is related by Bokharee from Ibn Abbás, that Mohammad said, "God only can punish with fire." It is also related by Abu Daood from Abdullah, that the Prophet said, "No body ought to punish any one with fire except the Lord of the fire."

4.—A Singing-Girl executed.

"From general amnesty extended to the citizens of Mecca, Mahomet excluded ten or twelve persons. Of these, however, only four were actually put to death.... The two next were renegade Moslems, who having shed blood at Medina had fled to Mecca, and abjured Islam. They were both slain, and also a singing-girl belonging to one of them, who had been in the habit of annoying the Prophet by abusive verses."

"Their names are Abdallah ibn Khalal and Mikyas ibn Subâba. The murder committed by the former is said to have been wilful, that of the latter unintentional. Abdallah had two singing-girls. Both were sentenced to death, but one escaped and afterwards obtained quarter; the execution of the other appears to have been the worst act committed by Mahomet on the present occasion."

Abdullah had committed cold-blooded murder, and most probably the singing-girl belonging to him had taken a share in his crime. Her execution was owing to her being an accomplice or abettor in the foul act which was justified by law. Then why should the execution be considered a worst act? Mohammad felt the deepest respect for the weaker sex, and had enjoined during the warfares "not to kill women;" but the law makes no difference amongst the sexes, both sexes being liable to punishment according to their deserts.

The magnanimity, clemency, forbearance, and forgiveness of Mohammad at the time of his victory at Mecca were very remarkable. Mr. Stanley Lane Poole with his usual acumen writes:—"But the final keystone was set in the eighth year of the flight (A.D. 630), when a body of the Kureysh broke the truce by attacking an ally of the Muslims; and Mohammad forthwith marched upon Mekka with ten thousand men, and the city, defence being hopeless, surrendered. Now was the time for the Prophet to show his bloodthirsty nature. His old persecutors are at his feet. Will he not trample on them, torture them, revenge himself after his own cruel manner? Now the man will come forward in his true colours: we may prepare our horror, and cry shame beforehand.

"But what is this? Is there no blood in the streets? Where are the bodies of the thousands that have been butchered? Facts are hard things; and it is a fact that the day of Mohammad's greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Kureysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn they had inflicted on him: he gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mekka. Four criminals, whom justice condemned, made up Mohammad's proscription list when he entered as a conqueror the city of his bitterest enemies. The army followed the example, and entered quietly and peaceably; no house was robbed, no woman insulted."

5.—Abu Basír.

Sir W. Muir says that "Abu Basír, the free-booter, was countenanced by the Prophet in a manner scarcely consistent with the letter, and certainly opposed to the spirit, of the truce of Hodeibia." It was one of the articles of the treaty of Hodeibia between the Koreish and Mohammad, that if any one goeth over to Mohammad without the permission of his guardian, he shall be sent back to him. A short time after, Abu Basír, a Moslem imprisoned at Mecca, effected his escape and appeared at Medina. His guardians, Azhar and Akhnas, sent two servants to Mohammad with a letter and instructions to bring the deserter back to his house. The obligation of surrender was at once admitted by Mohammad, though Abu Basír pleaded the persecution which he used to suffer at Mecca as the cause of refusing to return, but Mohammad argued that it was not proper for him to break the terms of the peace, and Abu Basír was compelled to set out for Mecca. But he had travelled only a few miles when he treacherously seized the sword of one of his escorts and slew him. The other servant fled back to Medina, whither Abu Basír also followed him. On the return of the latter, he contended that the Prophet had already fulfilled the treaty to its very letter in delivering him up, but the Prophet replied, "Alas for his mother! What a kindler of war, if he had with him any one!" When he heard this "he knew that the Prophet was again going to send him back to his guardians, the Koreish, so he went away to the seashore, where he, with others who had joined him after their flight from captivity at Mecca, used to waylay the caravans from Mecca." This story, which is also briefly narrated by Ibn Is-hak, and more fully by Shamee, Zoorkanee and Ibn-al-Kyyim, does not show that Mohammad acted against the spirit and letter of the truce of Hodeibia.

He himself never countenanced Abu Basír; on the contrary, he delivered him up in conformity with the terms of the treaty of Hodeibia, and when he had returned, Abu Basír had every reason to believe that Mohammad would again despatch him to the quarters whence he had come. But it appears Abu Basír went away to the seashore, out of Mohammad's jurisdiction, and it was not the duty of the Prophet to effect his arrest and send him back to Mecca whilst he was not with him, or rather out of his jurisdiction. Had he even kept him with himself at Medina after he had once made him over to the party sent forth to take charge of him, and were no other demands made for his delivery, I do not think Mohammad could be fairly blamed for it according to the international law of the Arabs, or even according to the terms of the treaty of Hodeibia itself.

6.—Employment of Nueim to break up the confederates who had besieged Medina.

When Medina was besieged for several days by the Koreish and their confederates, the army of Medina was harassed and wearied with increasing watch and duty. Nueim, an Arab of a neutral tribe, represented himself as a secret believer, and offered his services to the Prophet, who accepted them, and employed him to hold back the confederates from the siege, if he could, saying "war verily was a game of deception." Nueim excited mutual distrust between the Jews and the Koreish. He told the Jews not to fight against Mohammad until they got hostages from the Koreish as a guarantee against their being deserted. And to the Koreish he said that the Jews intended to ask hostages from them. "Do not give them," he said, "they have promised Mahomet to give up the hostages to be slain."

This is one tradition, and there is another to the effect that the Jews had themselves asked for the hostages, but the Koreish had not replied yet, when Nueim came to the Jews and said, he was there with Abu Sofian when their messenger had come for the demand of hostages, and that Abu Sofian is not going to send them any.

A third tradition in Motamid Ibn Solyman's supplement to Wackidi's Campaigns of Mohammad gives no such story at all. It has altogether a different narration to the effect, that there was a spy of the Koreish in the Moslem camp who had overheard Abdullah-bin-Rawaha saying, that the Jews had asked the Koreish to send them seventy persons, who, on their arrival, would be killed by them. Nueim went to the Koreish, who were waiting for his message, and told what he had heard as already related. This contradicts the story given by Ibn Hisham and Mr. Muir. But anyhow the story does not prove that Mohammad had given permission to Nueim to speak falsehood or spread treacherous reports.

Sir W. Muir is not justified in his remarks when he writes,—"We cannot, indeed, approve the employment of Nueim to break up the confederacy by falsehood and deception, but this perhaps would hardly affect his character in Arab estimation;" and further on he writes,—"When Medîna was beleagured by the confederate army, Mahomet sought the services of Nueim, a traitor, and employed him to sow distrust among the enemy by false and treacherous reports: for," said he, "what else is war but a game at deception." The utmost that can be made out from the former tradition quoted by Mr. Muir, and contradicted by another tradition of equal force, is that Mohammad allowed deception in war by quoting the proverbial saying, that "war is a game at deception." In this he had the sanction of the military law or the international law, as deception in war is a "military necessity," and allowed by the law and usages of war. A modern author on the international law says:—

"Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist."

But supposing the modern morality does not approve of Mohammad what hardly "affected his character in Arab estimation," are there no diversities in moral judgments? The moral unity to be expected in different ages is not a unity of standard or of facts, but a unity of tendency.

"That some savage kill their old parents, that infanticide has been practised without compunction by even civilized nations, that the best Romans saw nothing wrong in the gladiatorial shows, that political or revengeful assassinations have been for centuries admitted, that slavery has been sometimes honoured and sometimes condemned, are unquestionable proofs, that the same act may be regarded in one age as innocent, and in another as criminal. Now it is undoubtedly true, that in many cases an historical examination will reveal special circumstances explaining or palliating the apparent anomaly. It has been often shown that the gladiatorial shows were originally a form of human sacrifice adopted through religious motives; that the rude nomadic life of savages rendering impossible the preservation of aged and helpless members of the tribe, the murder of parents was regarded as an act of mercy both by the murderer and the victim; that before an effective administration of justice was organized, private vengeance was the sole preservation against crime, and political assassination against usurpation; that the insensibility of some savages to the criminality of theft arises from the fact that they were accustomed to have all things in common; that the Spartan law legalizing theft arose partly from a desire to foster military dexterity among the people, but chiefly from a desire to discourage wealth; that slavery was introduced through motives of mercy to prevent conquerors from killing their prisoners. All this is true, but there is another and a more general answer. It is not to be expected, and it is not maintained, that men in all ages should have agreed about the application of their moral principles. All that is contended for is, that these principles are themselves the same. Some of what appear to us monstrous acts of cruelty were dictated by that very feeling of humanity, the universal perception of the merit of which they are cited to disprove; and even when this is not the case, all that can be inferred is, that the standard of humanity was very low. But still humanity was recognized as a virtue, and cruelty as a vice."

The alleged permission to kill the Jews.

It is related by some of the biographers of Mohammad, eagerly recited by others of Europe, that, "on the morning after the murder of Káb, Mahomet gave a general permission to his followers to slay any Jews whom they might chance to meet," and that the murder of Ibn Sanina, a Jewish merchant, by Muheiasa, a Moslem, was the direct consequence of this order. "When Huweisa upbraided Muheiasa for killing his confederate the Jew, and appropriating his wealth,—"By the Lord!" replied Muheiasa, "if he that commanded me to kill him commanded to kill thee also, I would have done it." "What!" Huweisa cried, "wouldst thou have slain thine own brother at Mahomet's bidding?"—"Even so," answered the fanatic. "Strange indeed!" Huweisa responded. "Hath the new religion reached to this pitch! Verily it is a wonderful Faith." And Huweisa was converted from that very hour."

Ibn Is-hak says this story was related to him by a freedman of the Bani Hárisa tribe from the daughter of Muheiasa, who had heard it from her father. (1) Now there is nothing known of this mysterious person, the freedman of the tribe of Háris, therefore no reliance can be put on his story. (2) We have no knowledge of the daughter of the murderer Muheiasa, or Moheisa, as he is called by the biographer, Ibn Hisham. (3) Muheiasa himself has not that respectable character which can lend even a shadow of veracity to his narration. (4) And lastly, the story that Mohammad had given general permission to his followers to slay any Jew whom they might chance to meet, and consequently Muheiasa killed Ibn Sanina, and Huweisa became a convert to Islam, is contradicted by another counter-tradition in Ibn Hisham (pp. 554-555), who has related from Abú Obeida, who relates from Abú Omar-al-Madaní, that, "during the execution of the Bani Koreiza (vide para. 68), one Káb-bin-Yahooza was made over to Muheiasa for execution. When the latter executed his victim, Huweisa, his brother, who was still unbelieving, upbraided Muheiasa. "If he," responded Muheiasa, "that commanded me to kill him had commanded me to kill thee also, I would have killed thee." Huweisa was quite surprised at his brother's reply, and went away astonished. During the night he used to wake up repeatedly, and wonder at his brother's staunch devotion to his faith. In the morning, he said, "By the Lord! This is a wonderful faith," and came to the Prophet to embrace Islam. These remarks show that the alleged permission to kill the Jews, and Ibn Sanina's murder, and Huweisa's conversion in consequence thereof, is all a mere concoction.

Even Sir W. Muir, though very fond of collecting all such apocryphal traditions reflecting on the character of the Prophet, doubts the veracity of this one, and declares its improbability and inexpediency. He writes:—

"But the order itself is a strange one, and must, one would suppose, have been accompanied by some conditions or reservations not here apparent. It was surely not expedient for the Prophet's cause at this time that the streets of Medîna should have flowed with blood by the strict execution of this command. Yet such is the distinct tenor of the best traditions.

"The order was not an unlikely one to have issued at a time when Mahomet was irritated against the Jews by their treachery; and Hishâmi has a tradition that it was promulgated when Mahomet directed the massacre of all the males of the Coreitza, which would have been the more likely version, if the other tradition had not been so strong and positive."

But the tradition quoted by him is by no means the best or strongest as I have shown above. Hishamee does not say that the order was promulgated at the execution of the Bani Koreiza. He simply narrates the story of Muheiasa and Huweisa to have taken place at that time.

The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer.

The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer has been censured by Sir W. Muir, who says: "The pretext on which the Bani Nadhîr were besieged and expatriated (namely, that Gabriel had revealed their design against the Prophet's life), was feeble and unworthy of an honest cause."

A whole Sura in the Koran is devoted to the Bani Nazeer, but it does not hint at the alleged crime of their attempt on the life of the Prophet or their expulsion for the same cause. The traditions on the subject are unsupported, ex parte, and legendary. Had such a tradition been current at the time of Mohammad, or what is called Sadr Av-val (the first or Apostolic Age), we should certainly have had scores of narrators on the subject. Their crime was treachery, and they were a dangerous element to Medina, for a combination, at any period, between the treacherous Jews and the aggressive Koreish, or other enemies of Islam, would have proved fatal to the safety of Medina. But their banishment was too mild a punishment.

It is said that Mohammad cut down the surrounding date trees and burned the choicest of them during the siege of the Bani Nazeer, and justified himself by publishing the verses of the LIX Sura of the Koran. But the date trees cut down were neither bearing fruit, nor did they supply any staple article of food to the Bani Nazeer, or the public in general. The Leena mentioned in the verse referred to above is a tree without fruit. Thus no fruit trees were destroyed. (Zoorkánee Vol. II, page 98.) Trees not bearing fruits were only cut, which is also justified under the Law of Moses. (See Deuteronomy XX, 20.)

Females and the Treaty of Hodeibia.

Females were not included in the truce of Hodeibia. The stipulation for the surrender of deserters referred only to the male sex. All women who were to come over to Medina from Mecca during the period of the peace were, by the dictates of Sura LX, 10, to be tried, and if their profession was found sincere, they were to be retained. They were prohibited from marrying the unbelievers. The guardians of such believing females were to receive from the Moslem commonwealth what they had spent upon their charges. Sir W. Muir understands from Sura LX, verse 10, that the women referred to therein were the wives of the Meccans, and says:—"The unbelief of their husbands dissolved the previous marriage; they now might legally contract fresh nuptials with believers, provided only that restitution were made of any sums expended by their former husbands as dower upon them." But there is nothing either to show that the women had their husbands at Mecca, or to prove, that, on account of their husbands' unbelief, their marriages were annulled. As marriage with women with husbands is forbidden in Sura IV, verse 28, and the verse LX, 10, under discussion, does not designate them as married women, I fairly conclude that this verse treats only of such as were not married. It is not the Law of the Koran that the unbelief of either party dissolves their previous marriage. It only enjoins neither to marry idolatresses, nor to wed Moslem daughters with idolaters until they believe.—(Sura II, 220.)

Sir William Muir, after quoting Sura LX, 10-12, says, "Stanley on Corinthians (1 Cor. VII, 1-40) quotes the above passage, and says that the rule it contains "resembles that of the Apostle," Vol. I, page 145. But there is really no analogy between them; the Gospel rule differs toto cœlo from that of Mahomet:—"If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.—And similarly the case of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband. (1 Cor. VII, 12-16.) Whereas Mahomet declares the marriage bond de facto annulled by the unbelief of either party, which indeed was only to be expected from his loose ideas regarding the marriage contract." I think Stanley is quite correct, and the Gospel and the Koranic rule resemble each other in this respect. Because the order, "they (the believing women) are not lawful for them (unbelievers), nor are the unbelievers lawful for these (believing women)," does not relate to the women already married; and the words, "do not retain any right in the infidel woman ... if any of your wives escape from you to the infidels ..." are to the same purport as 1 Cor. VII, 15, "But if the unbelieving depart let them depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases."

Mohammad had no loose ideas regarding the marriage tie. He had made the marriage contract more firm and irrevocable, except under very exceptional circumstances, than it was under the Arab society; and called it "a strict bond of union." Mohammad's own daughter, Zeinab, was the wife of an unbelieving husband and had fled to her father at Medina under the persecution at Mecca after the Hegira. Her marriage with her unbelieving partner was not cancelled by Mohammad, and on the conversion of the son-in-law, when he came after a period of six years after his wife had come to Medina, Mohammad rejoined them together under their previous marriage. Theirs was neither a fresh marriage nor a fresh dowry. (Vide Ibn Abbas' tradition in the collections of Ahmed, Ibn Abi Daood, Ibn Maja and Trimizee.) Safwan-bin-Omayya and Ikrama-bin Abi Jahl had believing wives at the time of the conquest of Mecca, and their marriages were not dissolved by Mohammad. (Vide Ibn Shahab's tradition in Movatta by Malik, and in the Tabakat of Ibn Sad Katib Wákidi.) Similarly Ibn Sofian and Hakeem-bin-Hizam had their unbelieving wives retained by them after they had themselves been converted to Islam, and their former connubial connection was not severed by Mohammad. (Vide the several traditions in Baihakee to the above effect.) It was only the legists and juris-consults of a later age who wrongly construed the passage in Sura LX, 10, to mean that the unbelief of either party dissolved the marriage tie.

The Popular Jihád or Crusade; According to the Mohammadan Common Law.

Almost all the common Mohammadan and European writers think that a religious war of aggression is one of the tenets of Islam, and prescribed by the Koran for the purpose of proselytizing or exacting tribute. But I do not find any such doctrine enjoined in the Koran, or taught, or preached by Mohammad. His mission was not to wage wars, or to make converts at the point of the sword, or to exact tribute or exterminate those who did not believe his religion. His sole mission was to enlighten the Arabs to the true worship of the one God, to recommend virtue and denounce vice, which he truly fulfilled. That he and his followers were persecuted, that they were expelled from their houses and were invaded upon and warred against; that to repel incursions and to gain the liberty of conscience and the security of his followers' lives and the freedom of their religion, he and they waged defensive wars, encountered superior numbers, made defensive treaties, securing the main object of the war, i.e., the freedom of their living unmolested at Mecca and Medina, and of having a free intercourse to the Sacred Mosque, and a free exercise of their religion: all these are questions quite separate and irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the subject in hand, i.e., the popular Jihad, or the crusade for the purpose of proselytizing, exacting tribute, and exterminating the idolaters, said to be one of the tenets of Islam. All the defensive wars, and the verses of the Koran relating to the same, were strictly temporary and transitory in their nature. They cannot be made an example of, or be construed into a tenet or injunction for aggressive wars, nor were they intended so to be. Even they cannot be an example or instruction for a defensive war to be waged by the Mohammadan community or commonwealth, because all the circumstances under which Mohammad waged his defensive wars were local and temporary. But almost all European writers do not understand that the Koran does not teach a war of aggression, but had only, under the adverse circumstances, to enjoin a war of defence, clearly setting forth the grounds in its justification and strictly prohibiting offensive measures.

All the fighting injunctions in the Koran are, in the first place, only in self-defence, and none of them has any reference to make warfare offensively. In the second place, it is to be particularly noted that they were transitory in their nature, and are not to be considered positive injunctions for future observance or religious precepts for coming generations. They were only temporary measures to meet the emergency of the aggressive circumstances. The Mohammadan Common Law is wrong on this point, where it allows unbelievers to be attacked without provocation. But this it places under the category of a non-positive injunction. A positive injunction is that which is incumbent on every believer. But attacking unbelievers without any provocation, or offensively, is not incumbent on every believer. The Hedaya has:—"The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of Mussulmans; and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest."

The Mohammadan Common Law makes the fighting only a positive injunction "where there is a general summons, (that is, where the infidels invade a Mussulman territory, and the Imâm for the time being issues a general proclamation, requiring all persons to stand forth to fight,) for in this case war becomes a positive injunction with respect to the whole of the inhabitants,"—this is sanctioned by the Law of Nations and the Law of Nature.

The Hedaya, or a Commentary of the Mohammadan Common Law by Nuraddin Ali of Murghinan (died in 593, A.H.) has:—

"The destruction of the sword is incurred by the infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from the various passages in the sacred writings which are generally received to this effect."

This assertion is not borne out by the sacred injunction of the Koran, and, on the contrary, is in direct contradiction to the same. There are several passages in the Koran already quoted in pages -25, which expressly forbid the taking of offensive measures, and enjoin only defensive wars. There are some other passages which are not so expressive as the several others referred to above, or in other words, are not conditional. But the law of interpretation, the general scope and tenor of the Koran, and the context of the verses and parallel passages, all show that those few verses which are not conditional should be construed as conditional in conformity with other passages more clear, expressive, and conditional, and with the general laws of scriptural interpretation. Now, the author of the Hedaya and other writers on the Common Law quote only those few passages from the Koran which are absolute or unconditional, and shut their eyes against those many conditional verses, and general scope and tenor of the Koran.

Limited, or Conditional. General, or Absolute.

Sura XXII, 39-42.
Sura II, 186-189.
" " 212.
" " 214.
Sura IV, 76, 77, 78, 86.
" " 91, 92, 93.
Sura VIII, 39-41, 58-66.
" " 73, 74.
Sura IX, 1-15.
" " 29, 36.
Quoted in pages 16-25, 35. Sura II, 245, (read together with 247.)
Sura IX, 124.

The context, parallel passages
and their history, show them
to be limited and conditional,
in conformity with the general
scope of the Koran.

Now, there are only two verses in the Koran (Sura II, v. 245, and Sura IX, v. 124) containing an absolute or non-conditional injunction for making war against the unbelievers. Perhaps you may be able to detach some more sentences, or dislocate some half verses from amongst those given under the head of conditional. But these absolute, as well as those detached and dislocated parts of some other verses will not, by any rule of interpretation, show absolute injunction to wage war against the unbelievers without any provocation or limitation. There is a rule in the exegesis of the Koran, as well as in other Scriptural interpretations, that when two commandments, one conditional, and the other general or absolute, are found on the same subject, the conditional is to be preferred, and the absolute should be construed as conditional, because the latter is more expressive of the views of the author than the general which is considered as vague in its expression.

The rule is:—Where a passage which is ambiguous, or which contains any unusual expression, or in which a doctrine is slightly treated, or is in general terms, must be interpreted agreeably to what is revealed more clearly in other parts, or where a subject is more clearly discussed. A single or general passage is not to be explained in contradiction to many others restricted, conditional, and limited consistently with them, and with proper reservations.

It is not to be wondered that the Mohammadan legists or the compilers of the Common Law are wrong in this point. Because, as a rule, or as a matter of fact, they have compiled the Common Law from different sources irrespective of the Koran, and the commentators of the Common Law take the trouble of vindicating its views, principles and casuistries, and justifying the Moslem conquests under the Khalifs by the authority of the Koran. Then only they commit the unpardonable blunder of citing isolated parts of solitary verses of the Koran, which are neither expressive enough nor are in general terms. In doing so, they avoid the many other conditional and more explicit verses on the same subject.

The author of Kifaya, a commentary on the Hedaya, who flourished in the seventh century of the Hegira, remarks on the words of the text, "The destruction of the sword is incurred by the infidels, although they be not the first aggressors," already quoted in the 92nd para., and says; "Fighting against the infidels who do not become converts to Islam, and do not pay the capitation-tax, is incumbent, though they do not attack first." The author of the Hedaya has mentioned this aggressive measure specially, because apparently the words of God, "if they attack you then slay them," indicate that the fighting against the unbelievers is only incumbent when they fight first, but, however, such is not the case. It is incumbent to fight with them, though they be not the aggressors.

The same author writes in continuation of the above quotation, and attempts to reconcile his theory with the numerous precepts of the Koran, which do not permit the war of aggression:—

"Know, that in the beginning the Prophet was enjoined to forgive, and withdraw from those who joined other gods with God. God said, 'wherefore dost thou forgive with kindly forgiveness, and withdraw from those who join other gods with Me.'"

"Then He enjoined him to summon the people to the faith by kind warning and kind disputation, saying, 'Summon thou to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and kindly warning: dispute with them in the kindest manner.'"

"Then He allowed fighting, when they, the unbelievers, were the aggressors, and said:—'A sanction is given to those who have fought because they have suffered outrages;' i.e., they are allowed to fight in self-defence. And God said, 'If they attack you, then kill them' (II, 187); and also said, 'If they lean to peace, lean thou also to it.' (VIII. 63)."

"Then he enjoined to fight aggressively during a certain period. God said, 'And when the sacred months are passed, kill them who join other gods with God, wherever ye find them, and seize them' (IX. 5)."

"After this He enjoined for fighting absolutely, at every time and in every place. God said, 'And do battle against them until there be no more (fitnah) persecution' (II. 189; VII. 40)."

Here the author of Kifaya has contrived to make out by way of subterfuge and sophistry five successive periods of the policy of the Koran regarding warfare against the unbelievers:

First Period Forgiveness and withdrawal Sura XV, 85. VI, 106

Second Period Summoning Sura XVI, 126.

Third Period Fighting in self-defence Sura XXII, 40. II, 187. VIII, 63.

Fourth Period Fighting aggressively during certain times Sura IX, 5.

Fifth Period Aggressive fighting absolutely. Sura II, 189. VIII, 40.

He is wrong in history, chronology as well as in understanding the general scope of the Koran and the tenor of the Suras. He does not regard even the context of the verses quoted.

The verses containing injunctions for turning aside, shunning, forgiving, passing over, and withdrawing are found even in the later period of the Medinite Suras.—(Vide Sura II, 103; V, 16, 46; Sura IV, 66, 83; and VII, 198.) They have nothing to do either with war or peace.

The summoning of people to the faith of God was the chief duty of the Prophetical office, and was not confined to any special period, and was alike during times of war and peace. Even during the actual warfare it was incumbent on the Prophet to give quarters to the enemy, if he desired, to listen to his preachings.—(Vide Sura IX, 6.)

The fifth verse of the ninth Sura is by no means an injunction to attack first or wage an aggressive war. This verse is one of the several published at Medina after the Meccans had violated the treaty of Hodeibia and attacked the Bani Khozaa, who were in alliance with Mohammad. The Meccans were given four months' time to submit, in default of which they were to be attacked for their violation of the treaty and for their attacking the Bani Khozaa. They submitted beforehand, and Mecca was conquered by compromise. The verses referred to above (Sura IX, 1-15, &c.) were not acted upon. So there was no injunction to wage an aggressive war. This subject has been discussed at pages 51-55 of this work, and the reader is referred to them for fuller information.

The 189th verse of the second Sura is not at all an absolute injunction to wage a war of aggression. The verses 186, 187, 188 and 189, if read together, will show that the injunction for fighting is only in defence. The verses are:—

186. And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first; verily God loveth not the unjust.

187. And kill them wherever ye shall find them; and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for (fitnah) persecution is worse than slaughter; yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque until they attack you therein, but if they attack you then slay them: such is the recompense of the infidels!

188. But if they desist, then verily God is Gracious, Merciful—

189. And do battle, against them until there be no more (fitnah) persecution and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers.

Besides, this verse as well as the fortieth verse of Sura VIII have indications in themselves of their relating to a defensive war. As the torture, aggression, in short, the persecutions suffered by the Moslems from the Koreish, are very clearly indicated by the word fitnah in these two verses, the object of fighting or counterfighting by the Moslems is plainly set forth, which is to suppress the persecutions.

They have clear reference to the persecution, to stop or remove which they enjoined fighting, and this was fighting in self-defence obviously.

They also show that the Meccans had not desisted from persecuting and attacking the Moslems, and therefore a provision was made that if they discontinue their incursions, there will be no more hostility. This is quite sufficient to show that these verses relate to the defensive wars of Mohammad.

Lastly, supposing the Koran permitted waging aggressive wars against the Meccans, who were the first aggressors, this does not corroborate the theory or principle of the Common Law of making lawful aggressive wars in future on the authority of these verses, as all of them in the Koran on the subject of war relate only to Pagan Arabs, who had long persevered in their hostility to the early Moslems or to the Jews, who, being in league with the Moslems, went over to their enemies, and aided them against the Moslems. These verses are not binding on other persons, who are not under the same circumstance as the Moslems were under, at Medina. [See para. 90.]

Another commentator of the Hedaya, Ainee (who died in 855) follows Kifaya already quoted, and mentions some other verses of the Koran on the war of aggression, which the author of Kifaya has left uncited in his work. They are as follows:—

" ...Then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity,—for no oaths are binding on them—that they may desist."—(Sura IX, 12.)

"War is prescribed to you, but from this ye are averse."—(Sura II, 212.)

"March ye forth, the light and heavy, and contend with your substance and your persons on the Way of God."—(Sura IX, 41.)

The first verse when it is complete runs thus:—"But if, after alliance made, they break their oaths and revile your religion, then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity,—for no oaths are binding on them—that they may desist;" and fully shows by its wording that it relates to the war of defence, as the breaking of alliances, and reviling of the Moslem religion were the grounds of making war with the object in view that the aggressors may desist. This verse is one of those in the beginning of the ninth Sura, which have already been discussed.—(Vide pages 51-55.)

The second verse (II, 212) does not allow a war of aggression, as the next verse (II, 214) expressly mentions the attacks made by the aggressors on the Moslems. It has been quoted at full length in page 18.

The third verse (IX, 41) was published on the occasion of the expedition of Tábuk, which was certainly a defensive measure, and has been discussed in pages 51 to 55.

Sarakhsee generally entitled Shums-ul-a-imma (the Sun of the Leaders), who died in 671 A.H., as quoted by Ibn Abdeen in his Radd-ul-Muhtár, makes several stages in publishing the injunctions for fighting. He writes:—

"Know thou, that the command for fighting has descended by degrees. First the Prophet was enjoined to proclaim and withdraw, 'Profess publicly then what thou hast been bidden and withdraw from those who join gods with God' (XV, 94). Then he was ordered to dispute kindly; 'Summon thou to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and with kindly warning: dispute with them in the kindest warning' (XVI, 126). Then they were allowed to fight, 'A sanction is given to those who are fought....' (XXII, 40). Then they were allowed to fight if they (the unbelievers) attacked them, 'If they attack you, then kill them' (II, 187). After this they were enjoined to fight on the condition of passing over the sacred months, 'And when the sacred months are passed, then kill the polytheists' (IX, 5). After this they were enjoined to fight absolutely, 'And fight for the cause of God....' (II, 186, 245). And thus the matter was settled."

There was no injunction for fighting absolutely or aggressively in the Koran. I have already explained the 5th verse of the ninth Sura as not allowing an offensive war. And the same is the case with the 186th verse of the second Sura, which has in itself the condition of fighting against those only who fought against the Moslems. The other verse, 245th, of the same Sura is restricted by the verse 186th, (and is explained by the verse 245th), which refers to the defensive measures. This verse is quoted in page 19 of this work.

Shahábudeen Ahmed-bin-Hajr Makki writes:—

"Fighting was prohibited before the Hegira, as the Prophet was enjoined only to preach and warn and to be patient in the persecutions of the unbelievers in order to conciliate them. After this, God gave sanction to the Moslems for fighting, (after that had been prohibited in seventy and odd verses), when the unbelievers were the aggressors, and said, 'And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you' (II, 187). And it is a genuine tradition from Zohri that the first revealed verse sanctioning it was, 'A sanction is given to those who are fought, because they have suffered outrages' (XXII, 40): that is a sanction was given for fighting on the ground of the word 'fought.' Then the war of aggression was made lawful in other than the sacred months, 'When the sacred months are over....' (IX, 5). After this, in the eighth year of the Hegira, after the victory of Mecca, the fighting was enjoined absolutely by the words of God; 'March ye forth, the light and the heavy' (IX, 41); and 'attack those who join gods with God in all' (IX, 36). And this is the very verse of the sword, and some say the preceding verse is the verse of the sword, while others think that both bear on the same subject, i.e., of the sword."

I have already explained the several verses quoted by the author in preceding paras., but have only to pass remarks on the only verse, i.e. (IX, 36), which the authors cited have not dared to mention, because it goes contrary to their assertion. Perhaps it is a slip in the rapidity of Ibn Hajar remarks, for which he may be excused. But I will not hesitate in saying that generally the Mohammadan legists, while quoting the Koran in support of their theories, quote some dislocated portion from a verse without any heed to its context, and thus cause a great and irreparable mischief by misleading others, especially the European writers, as it is apparent from the testimony of Mr. Lane quoted in para. 113 of this work.

The verse referred to by the author mentioned in the last para., Ibn Hajar Makki, is as follows: "Attack those who join gods with God in all, as they attack you in all."—(IX, 36.) This speaks evidently of the defensive war, and has not the slightest or faintest idea of a war of aggression on the part of the Moslems. This verse refers to the expedition of Tábuk.

Nooruddeen Ali al Halabi (died 1044 A.H.), the author of Insan-ul-Oyoon, a biography of the Prophet, writes:—

"It is not hidden that the Prophet for ten and odd years was warning and summoning people without fighting, and bearing patiently the severe persecutions of the Meccan Arabs and the Medinite Jews on himself and on his followers, because God had enjoined him to warn and to have patience to bear the injuries by withholding from them, in accordance with His words, 'Withdraw from them' (V, 46); and 'endure them with patience' (XVI, 128; XVIII, 27; XXXI, 16; LII, 48; and LXXIII, 10). He also used to promise them victory. His companions at Mecca used to come to him beaten and injured, and he used to tell them, 'Endure with patience, I am not commanded to fight,' because they were but a small party at Mecca. After this, when he was settled at Medina after the Hegira and his followers became numerous who preferred him to their fathers, children, and wives, and the unbelievers persisted in their idolatry, charging him with falsehoods, then God permitted his followers to fight, but against those only who used to fight against them (the Moslems), and were aggressors, as he said, 'If they fight you, then kill them' (II, 187). This was in the year of Safar A.H. 2.... Then the whole Arab host marched against the Moslems to fight against them from every direction. The Moslems passed whole nights in arms, and during the day they were in the same state, and longed to pass peaceful nights without fear from anybody except from God. Then it was revealed, 'God hath promised to those of you who believe and do the things that are right, that he will cause them to succeed others in the land, as he gave succession to those who were before them, and that He will establish for them that religion which they delight in, and after their fears He will give them security in exchange' (S. XXIV, 54). After this to attack first was allowed against those who had not fought, but in other than the sacred months, viz., Rajab, Zulkada, Zulhijja, and Mohuram, according to the precept, 'And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join gods with God ...' (IX, 5). Then the order became incumbent after the victory of Mecca, in the next year, to fight absolutely without any restriction, without any regard to any condition and time, by the words of God, 'Attack those who join gods with God in all' at any time (IX, 36). So it is known that the fighting was forbidden before the Hegira up to the month of Safar in its second year, as the Prophet was in this period ordered to preach and warn without any fighting, which was forbidden in seventy and odd verses. Then it was permitted to fight against only those who fought against them. Then it was allowed to fight against those who fought aggressively in other than the sacred months. After this it was enjoined absolutely to wage war against them whether they did or did not fight, at all times, whether during the sacred months, or others of the year."

Neither the fifth verse of the ninth Sura, nor the thirty-sixth of the same, allowed war of aggression. Both of them were published on the occasions of defensive wars, and the party against whom they were directed were the aggressors. All the verses quoted by Halabi, bearing on the subject, have been discussed and explained in the foregoing pages, from 92 to 106.

Ainee, the author of the commentary on the Hedaya, called Binayah, in justifying the war of aggression against the unbelievers, quotes two verses from the Koran, and two traditions from the Prophet, and says,—"If it be objected that these absolute injunctions are restricted by the word of God, 'if they attack you, then kill them' (II, 187), which shows that the fighting is only incumbent when the unbelievers are the aggressors in fighting, as it was held by Souri, the reply is that the verse was abrogated by another, 'So fight against them until there be no more persecution' (II, 189), and 'fight against those who do not believe in God.' (IX, 29)." But he is wrong in asserting that the verse II, 187 was abrogated by II, 189, and IX, 29. There is no authority for such a gratuitous assumption. And besides, both these verses (II, 189, and IX, 29) relate to defensive wars as it has been already explained in paras. 96-99.

The verse 189 shows by its very wording the existence of fitnah or persecution, torture, and fighting on the part of the aggressors. By suppressing the Meccans' persecution, the Moslems had to regain their civil and religious liberty, from which they were so unjustly deprived. And this war of the Moslems to repel the force of their aggressors was the war of defence and protection enjoined in the verse. The 29th verse of the ninth Sura appertains to the expedition of Tábuk if not to that of Khyber. These expeditions were of a defensive character. Vide pages 37 and 41.

The jurists further quote a tradition from the compilation of Abú Daood that the Prophet had said, "The Jihád will last up to the day of the Resurrection:" But in the first place, Jihád does not literally and classically mean warfare or fighting in a war. It means, as used by the classical poets as well as by the Koran, to do one's utmost; to labour; to toil; to exert one's-self or his power, efforts, endeavours, or ability; to employ one's-self vigorously, diligently, studiously, sedulously, earnestly, or with energy; to be diligent or studious, to take pains or extraordinary pains. Vide Appendix A.

In the second place, Yezid bin Abi Shaiba, a link in the chain of the tradition, is a Mujhool, i.e., his biography is not known, therefore his tradition can have no authority.

There is also another tradition in Bokháree to the effect that the Prophet had said, "I have been enjoined to fight the people until they confess that there is no god but the God." This tradition goes quite contrary to the verses of the Koran which enjoin to fight in defence,—that is, until the persecution or civil discord was removed.—(Vide Sura II, 189; VIII, 40.) Thus it appears that either the whole tradition is a spurious one, or some of the narrators were wrong in interpreting the words of the Prophet.

That the Koran did not allow war of aggression either when it was revealed, or in future as the early jurisconsults did infer from it, will be further shown from the opinions of the early Moslems; legists of the first and second century of the Hegira, like Ibn (son of) Omar the second khalif, Sotian Souri, Ibn Shobormah, Atá and Amar-bin-Dinar. All these early legists held that the fighting was not religiously incumbent (wájib), and that it was only a voluntary act, and that only those were to be fought against who attacked the Moslems.

I will give here short biographical sketches of the legists named above—

(1.) "Abû Abd-ur-Rahman Abdullah ibn Omar ibn-al Khattab was one of the most eminent among the companions of Muhammad by his piety, his generosity, his contempt of the world, his learning and his virtues. Though entitled by birth to aspire to the highest places in the empire, he never hearkened to the dictates of ambition; possessing a vast influence over the Moslims by his rank, his instruction, and his holy life, he neither employed nor abused it in favour of any party, and during the civil wars which raged among the followers of Islamism, he remained neutral, solely occupied with the duties of religion. For a period of thirty years persons came from all parts to consult him and learn from him the Traditions.... He died at Mekka A.H. 73 (A.D. 692-3) aged 84 years...."—[Tabakat al Fokaha, fol. 5.]

(2.) Atá Ibn Abi Rabah.—"He held a high rank at Mekka as a juris-consult, a Tâbî, and a devout ascetic; and he derived (his knowledge of the law and the Traditions) from the lips of Jábir Ibn Abd Allah al-Ansárí, and Abd Allah Ibn Abbas, Abd Allah Ibn Zubair, and many others of Muhammad's companions. His own authority as a traditionist was cited by Amr ibn Dinár, Al-Aamash, Al-Auzái, and a great number of others who had heard him teach. The office of Mufti at Mekka devolved on him and on Mujáhid, and was filled by them whilst they lived.... He died A.H. 115 (A.D. 733-4); some say 114 at the age of eighty-eight years."—[Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary, translated from the Arabic by Baron MacGuckin De Slane; Vol. II, pp. 203-204. London, MDCCCXLIII.]

(3.) Amr Ibn Dinár.—"He is counted among the most eminent of the Tábis and considered as a traditionist of very highest authority. He was only one of the Mujatahid Imáms. Died A.H. 126, (A.D. 743-4), aged eighty years."—[Tab-al-Fokaha].

(4.) "Abd Allah Ibn Shuburma ibn Tufail ad Dubbi, a celebrated Imám, and Tábi was an eminent jurisconsult of Kufa. He learned the Traditions from Ans, As-Shabi, and Ibn Sírín, and his own authority was cited for Traditions by Soffian Ath-Thauri, Sofyan ibn Oyaina, and others. His veracity and his eminence as a doctor of the law was universally acknowledged. He was an abstemious, intelligent, devout, generous, of a handsome countenance, and possessing a talent for poetry. He acted under the Khalif Al-Mamun, as kadí of the cultivated country (Sawád) around Kufa. Born A.H. 92, (A.D. 710-11); died A.H. 144 (A.D. 761-2)."—[Tabal-Fak. Al-Yáfi.]

(5.) "Sofyan Ath-Thauri (As-Sauri) was native of Kúfa and a master of the highest authority in the Traditions and other sciences; his piety, devotion, veracity, and contempt for worldly goods were universally acknowledged, and as an Imám, he is counted among the Mujtahids.... Sofyan ibn Oyaina declared that he did not know a man better informed than Soyfan Ath-Thauri respecting what was permitted and what was forbidden by the law.... Sofyan was born A.H. 95 (A.D. 713-4). Other accounts place his birth in 96 or 97. He died A.H. 161 (A.D. 713-4) at Basra.... It has been stated by some that Sofyan died A.H. 162, but the first is the true date."—[Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary, translated from the Arabic by Baron MacGuckin De Slane, Vol. I, pp. 576-8. London, MDCCCXLIII.]

That it is a mistake on the part of the European writers to assert that the Koran allows wars of aggression, or in other words, to wage war against the unbelievers without any provocation, is shown by the testimony of Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Edward William Lane. The latter writes: "Misled by the decision of those doctors, and an opinion prevalent in Europe, I represented the laws of 'holy war' as more severe than I found them to be according to the letter and spirit of the Kur-án, when carefully examined, and according to the Hanafee code. I am indebted to Mr. Urquhart for suggesting to me the necessity of revising my former statement on the subject; and must express my conviction that no precept is to be found in the Kur-án, which, taken with the context, can justify unprovoked war."

I will quote several remarks of European writers, including clergymen and Indian missionaries, to show how astray they go in attributing to the Koran and Mohammad the wars of aggressions and compulsory proselytizing. Sir William Muir represents the principles of Islam as requiring constant prosecutions of war, and writes—

"It was essential to the permanence of Islam that its aggressive course should be continuously pursued, and that its claim to an universal acceptance, or at the least to an universal supremacy, should be enforced at the point of the sword. Within the limits of Arabia the work appeared now to be accomplished. It remained to gain over the Christian and idolatrous tribes of the Syrian desert, and then in the name of the Lord to throw down the gauntlet of war before the empires of Rome and Persia, which, having treated with contempt the summons of the Prophet addressed to them in solemn warning four years ago, were now rife for chastisement."

The occasion to which Sir W. Muir refers here was to wipe out the memory of the reverse at Muta. The expedition to Muta was occasioned by the murder of a messenger or envoy dispatched by Mohammad to the Ghassànide prince at Bostra. A party was sent to punish the offending chief, Sharahbil. This could, by no means, be maintained as a warlike spirit or an aggressive course for the prosecution of war, or for enforcing the claim of universal supremacy at the point of the sword.

That Islam as preached by Mohammad was never aggressive has been fully shown in several places of the Koran. During the whole time of his ministry, Mohammad was persecuted, rejected, despised and at last made an outlaw by the Koreish at Mecca, and a fugitive seeking protection in a distant city; exiled, attacked upon, besieged, defeated, and prevented from returning to Mecca or visiting the Holy Kaaba by the same enemies at Mecca and other surrounding tribes who had joined them, and even from within Medina plotted against by the Jews who were not less aggressive towards him than their confederates of Mecca, the Koreish, whom they had instigated to make war on him and had brought an overwhelming army, had proved traitors, and, even more injurious than the Koreish themselves. Consequently, he was constantly in dangers and troubles, and under such circumstances it was impossible for him to be aggressive, to get time or opportunity to pursue any aggressive course, or enforce, at the point of the sword, any attempt of his for universal acceptance, or universal supremacy even if he had designed so. But it was far from his principles to have cherished the object of universal conquest. "That Islam ever stepped beyond the limits of Arabia and its border lands," admits Sir. W. Muir in his Rede Lecture for 1881, just twenty years after he had written the passage I am dealing with, "was due to circumstances rather than design. The faith was meant originally for the Arabs. From first to last, the call was addressed primarily to them." He writes in a footnote of the same lecture (page 5):

"It is true that three or four years before, Mahomet had addressed dispatches to the Kaiser, and the Chosroes, and other neighbouring potentates, summoning them to embrace the true faith. But the step had never been followed up in any way."

Mr. Freeman writes regarding Mohammad:—

"Mahomet had before him the example of Mosaic Law, which preached a far more rigorous mandate of extermination against the guilty nations of Canaan. He had before him the practice of all surrounding powers, Christian, Jewish, and Heathen; though, from the disaffection of Syria and Egypt to the orthodox throne of Constantinople, he might have learned how easily persecution defeats its own end.... Under his circumstances, it is really no very great ground to condemnation that he did appeal to the sword. He did no more than follow the precedents of his own and every surrounding nation. Yet one might say that a man of such mighty genius as Mahomet must have been, might have been, fairly expected to rise superior to the trammels of prejudice and precedent."

Mohammad never professed to have followed the footsteps of Moses and Joshua in waging war of extermination and proselytism. He only appealed to the sword in his and his followers' defence. Never he seems to have been anxious to copy the practice of the surrounding nations, Christians, Jews, and Egyptians. His wars of defence, as they certainly all were, were very mild, specially with regard to the treatment of children, women, and old men who were never to be attacked; and above all, in the mildness shown towards the captives of war who were either to be set free or ransomed,—but were never to be enslaved,—contrary to the practice of all the surrounding nations. This virtual abolition of slavery (vide Sura XLVII, 5, and Appendix B) has been a great boon to mankind in general as a beneficial result of Mohmamad's wars of defence.

The Reverend Mr. Stephens writes:—

"In the Koran, the Mussulman is absolutely and positively commanded to make war upon all those who decline to acknowledge the Prophet until they submit, or, in the case of Jews and Christians, purchase exemption from the conformity by the payment of tribute. The mission of the Mussulman, as declared in the Koran, is distinctly aggressive. We might say that Mahomet bequeathed to his disciples a roving commission to propagate his faith by the employment of force where persuasion failed. 'O Prophet, fight for the religion of God'—'Stir up the faithful to war,' such are commands which Mahomet believed to be given him by God. 'Fight against them who believe not a God, nor the last day,' 'attack the idolatrous in all the months,' such are his own exhortations to his disciples."

The Reverend gentleman is very much mistaken in his assertions against the Koran. There is no absolute or positive command in the Koran for a war of aggression or compulsory proselytism. The sentences quoted by Mr. Stephens are but mutilated verses forcibly dislocated from their context. A disjointed portion of a verse, or a single sentence of it cannot be brought forth to prove any doctrine or theory. Due regard must be made for the context, the general scope, and parallel passages. The verses referred to by Mr. Stephens are Sura IV, 86, and Sura IX, 29, 36. All these have been quoted in full and discussed elsewhere. They relate only to defensive wars.

Mr. Bosworth Smith says:—

"The free toleration of the purer among the creeds around him, which the Prophet had at first enjoined, gradually changes into intolerance. Persecuted no longer, Mohammed becomes a persecutor himself; with the Koran in one hand, the scymitar in the other, he goes forth to offer to the nations the threefold alternative of conversion, tribute, death."

Mohammad never changed his practice of toleration nor his own teachings into intolerance; he was always persecuted at Mecca and Medina, but, for all we know, he himself never turned a persecutor. The three-fold alternative so much talked of, and so little proved, is nowhere to be found in the Koran. This subject has been fully discussed in paras. 34-39.

Mr. George Sale, in his celebrated preliminary discourse to the translation of the Koran, writes, referring to the thirteenth year of Mohammad's mission:—

"Hitherto Mohammed had propagated his religion by fair means, so that the whole success of his enterprise, before his flight to Medina, must be attributed to persuasion only, and not to compulsion. For before this second oath of fealty or inauguration at al Akaba, he had no permission to use any force at all; and in several places of the Korân, which he pretended were revealed during his stay at Mecca, he declares his business was only to preach and admonish; that he had no authority to compel any person to embrace his religion; and that whether people believed or not, was none of his concern, but belonged solely to God. And he was so far from allowing his followers to use force, that he exhorted them to bear patiently those injuries which were offered them on account of their faith; and when persecuted himself chose rather to quit the place of his birth and retire to Medina, than to make any resistance. But this great passiveness and moderation seems entirely owing to his want of power and the great superiority of his oppressors for the first twelve years of his mission; for no sooner was he enabled by the assistance of those of Medina to make head against his enemies, than he gave out, that God had allowed him and his followers to defend themselves against the infidels; and at length, as his forces increased, he pretended to have the divine leave even to attack them, and to destroy idolatry, and set up the true faith by the sword; finding by experience that his designs would otherwise proceed very slowly, if they were not utterly overthrown, and knowing on the other hand that innovators, when they depend solely on their own strength, and can compel, seldom run any risk; from whence, the politician observes, it follows, that all the armed prophets have succeeded, and the unarmed ones have failed. Moses, Cyrus, Theseus and Romulus would not have been able to establish the observance of their institutions for any length of time had they not been armed. The first passage of the Korân, which gave Mohammed the permission of defending himself by arms, is said to have been that in the twenty-second chapter: after which a great number to the same purpose were revealed.

"That Mohammed had a right to take up arms for his own defence against his unjust persecutors, may perhaps be allowed; but whether he ought afterwards to have made use of that means for the establishing of his religion, is a question which I will not here determine. How far the secular power may or ought to interpose in affairs of this nature, mankind are not agreed. The method of converting by the sword gives no very favourable idea of the faith which is so propagated, and is disallowed by every body in those of another religion, though the same persons are willing to admit of it for the advancement of their own; supposing that though a false religion ought not to be established by authority, yet a true one may; and accordingly force is as constantly employed in these cases by those who have the power in their hands as it is constantly complained of by those who suffer the violence."

I do not agree with these words of Mr. George Sale regarding Mohammad, "and at length, as his forces increased, he pretended to have the divine leave even to attack them, and to destroy idolatry, and set up the true faith by the sword;" he never attacked the Koreish or others except in his own defence. The destruction of idolatry was the chief mission of Mohammad, and that even was not resorted to by force of arms. There were neither compulsory conversions nor his history points to any extirpation of the idolaters at the point of sword from their native countries, as the chief objects of his mission. The persecutions and civil discord were to be removed or put a stop to, and force was used to repel force, but nothing more. Conversion by the sword was not enforced on any proselyte by Mohammad.

Major Osborn has drawn a very dark picture of what he calls "The Doctrine of Jehad," in his Islam under the Arabs. The defensive wars of Mohammad are explained by him as "means of livelihood congenial to the Arab mind, and carrying with it no stain of disgrace or immorality. This was robbery. Why should not the faithful eke out their scanty means by adopting this lucrative and honourable profession, which was open to everyone who had a sword and knew how to use it?... Surely, to despoil these infidels and employ their property to feed the hungry and clothe the naked among the people of God, would be a work well pleasing in His sight.... And thus was the first advance made in the conversion of the religion of Islam with the religion of the sword" (pages 46-47). After this the Major writes again: "The ninth Sura is that which contains the Prophet's proclamation of war against the votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam" (page 52). Then he quotes several verses, some of them half sentences, violently distorted, from the eighth and ninth Suras, in a consecutive form, without giving the numbers. These are Sura IX, 20, 34, 35, 82, 121; Sura VIII, 67; Sura IX, 36, 5, 29, 19; Sura XLVII, 4; Sura IX, 5; and Sura VIII, 42. Lastly, the learned Major concludes by saying,—"Such was the character of the Sacred War enjoined upon the Faithful. It is Muhammad's greatest achievement and his worst. When subjected himself to the pains of persecution he had learned to perceive how powerless were torments applied to the body to work a change of conviction in the mind. 'Let there be no violence in religion' had then been one of the maxims he had laid down. 'Unto every one of you,' he had said in former days, speaking of Jews and Christians, 'have we given a law, and an open path; and if God had pleased He had surely made you one people; but He hath thought fit to give you different laws, that he might try you in that which He hath given you respectively. Therefore, strive to excel each other in good works; unto God shall ye all return, and then will He declare unto you that concerning which ye have disagreed.' But the intoxication of success had long ago stilled the voice of his better self. The aged Prophet standing on the brink of the grave, and leaving as his last legacy a mandate of universal war, irresistibly recalls, by force of contrast, the parting words to his disciples of another religious teacher that they should go forth and preach a gospel of peace to all nations. Nor less striking in their contrast is the response to either mandate;—the Arab, with the Koran in one hand and the sword in the other, spreading his creed amid the glare of burning cities, and the shrieks of violated homes, and the Apostles of Christ working in the moral darkness of the Roman world with the gentle but irresistible power of light, laying anew the foundations of society, and cleansing at their source the polluted springs of domestic and national life."

The learned author quoted above has either misunderstood the character of the wars of the Prophet of Islam, or has grossly misrepresented it. He errs in two points: First, he makes the wars as wars of conquest, compulsion, and aggression, whereas they were all undertaken in the defence of the civil and religious rights of the early Moslems, who were, as I have said before, persecuted, harassed, and tormented at Mecca for their religion, and after a long period of persecution with occasional fresh and vigorous measures, were condemned to severer and harder sufferings, were expelled from their homes, leaving their dear relations, and religious brethren to endure the calamities of the persecution, and while taking refuge at Medina were attacked upon by superior numbers, several of the surrounding tribes of Arabs and Jews joining the aggressive Koreish, making ruinous inroads and threatening the Moslems with still greater and heavier miseries. From this statement it will appear that these wars were neither of conquest nor of compulsory conversion. The second great mistake under which Major Osborn seems to labour is that he takes the injunctions of war against the Meccans or other aggressors as a general obligation to wage war against all unbelievers in the Moslem faith. In fact, these injunctions were only against those aggressors who had actually committed great encroachments on the rights and liberties of the early Moslems, and had inflicted very disastrous injuries on them. These injunctions had and have nothing to do with the future guidance of the Moslem world.

It is a great misrepresentation on the part of Major Osborn to assert that "the ninth Sura is that which contains the Prophet's proclamation of war against the votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam." No statement could be farther from truth than this of his. The ninth Sura, or, more correctly, the beginning or opening verses of it, contain the Prophet's proclamation of war against those of the Meccan idolaters, who, in violation of the treaty of Hodeibia, had attacked the Moslems.—(Sura IX, 4, 8, 10, 12 & 13, vide pages 23-25.) They were allowed four months' time (IX, 2, 5) to make terms. They submitted, and Mecca was taken by compromise, in consequence of which the threatened war was never waged. Those who had not broken their treaties were especially mentioned, with whom the proclamation or the period allowed for peace had no connection.—(Vide Sura IX, 4, 7, quoted above, pages 23-24.) Thus it is quite clear that the proclamation of war was only against the violators and aggressors, and not against the votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam. I have further discussed the ninth Sura in para. 40 of this work. The other verses of this Sura refer to the expedition of Tabúk, which was purely defensive in its nature as has been described in para. 33 of this book. (See also para. 42.)

The Reverend E.M. Wherry, M.A., in his note on Sale's Preliminary Discourse, says:—

"Though Muhammad undoubtedly took Moses as his pattern, and supposed himself following in his footsteps when he gave the command to fight against the infidels, yet there is no comparison between them whatever so far as warring against infidels is concerned. The Israelites were commanded to slay the Canaanites as divinely ordained instruments of destruction; but Muhammad inaugurated war as a means of proselytism. The Israelite was not permitted to proselytize from among the Canaanites, (Exod. XXIII. 27-33), but Muslims are required to proselytize by sword-power."

Mohammad never had said that he did follow the footsteps of Moses in giving the command of fighting in self-defence, and in repelling force by force. There could be no comparison whatsoever between the wars of Moses, which were merely wars of conquest, aggression, extermination, and expatriation, and those of Mohammad waged only in self-defence. Mohammad did not inaugurate his career by prosecuting war as a means of proselytism, and never did proselytized any one by the sheer strength of the sword. Mr. T.H. Horne, M.A., writes regarding the extirpation of the Canaanites:—

"After the time of God's forbearance was expired, they had still the alternative, either to flee elsewhere, as in fact, many of them did, or to surrender themselves, renounce their idolatries, and serve the God of Israel. Compare Deut. XX. 10-17." This was certainly compulsory conversion and proselytizing at the point of the sword.

There is only one instance in the Koran in which an example is cited for the war of defence by Mohammad, from the Jewish History. It is the asking of the children of Israel their prophet Samuel to raise up a king for them to fight in their defence against the Philistines, who had very much oppressed the Israelites. Saul was appointed king over the Israelites, and David killed Goliath, called Jálut in the Koran, which was in defence of the Israelites. I have quoted the verses relating to the above subject from the Koran (Sura II, 247 and 252) in page 19th of this work.

"Hast thou not considered the assembly of the children of Israel after the death of Moses, when they said to a prophet of theirs,—'Raise up for us a king; we will do battle for the cause of God?' He said, 'May it not be that when fighting is ordained you, ye would not fight?' They said, 'And why should we not fight in the cause of God, since we are driven forth from our dwellings and our children?'....

This shows that what the Koran or Mohammad took as an example from the history of the Jews was only their defensive war.

It is very unfair of the Christians to make too much of the wars of Mohammad, which were purely of a defensive nature, and offer apologies for the most cruel wars of conquest and extermination by Moses, Joshua and other Jewish worthies under the express commands of God.—(Vide Numbers XXXI; Deut. XXI, &c.) But see what Mr. Wherry says. He writes in his comments on the 191 verse of the second Sura of the Koran.

"(191). Kill them, &c. Much is made of expressions like this, by some Christian apologists, to show the cruel character of the Arabian prophet, and the inference is thence drawn that he was an impostor and his Qurán a fraud. Without denying that Muhammad was cruel, we think this mode of assault to be very unsatisfactory to say the least, as it is capable of being turned against the Old Testament Scriptures. If the claim of Muhammad to have received a divine command to exterminate idolatry by the slaughter of all impenitent idolaters be admitted, I can see no objection to his practice. The question at issue is this. Did God command such slaughter of idolaters, as he commanded the destruction of the Canaanites or of the Amalekites? Taking the stand of the Muslim, that God did so command Muhammad and his followers, his morality in this respect may be defended on precisely the same ground that the morality of Moses and Joshua is defended by the Christian."

The Revd. T.P. Hughes in his Notes on Muhammadanism writes:—

"Jihád (lit. 'an effort') is a religious war against the infidels, as enjoined by Muhammad in the Qurán."

Súrat-un-Nisa (VI.)

"Fight therefore for the religion of God."

"God hath indeed promised Paradise to every one. But God hath preferred those who fight for the faith." (IV, 97.) Súrat-ul-Muhammad (XLVII).

"Those who fight in the defence of God's true religion, God will not suffer their works to perish." (XLVII, 5.)

The first verse quoted by Mr. Hughes appertains to the war of defence. The verse in itself has express indications of its relating to the war of defence, but Mr. Hughes was not inclined, perhaps, to copy it in full. He merely quotes half a sentence, and shuts his eyes from other words and phrases of the same verse. The verse has been quoted in page 20. It is as follows:—

"Fight then on the path of God: lay not burdens on any but thyself; and stir up the faithful. The powers of the infidels, God will haply restrain; for God is stronger in prowess, and stronger to punish."—(Sura IV, 86.)

The severe persecution, the intense torture and mighty aggression of the Meccans and their allies is referred to in the original word Báss, rendered prowess into English and referred to in the previous verse 77, which shows that the war herein enjoined was to restrain the aggressions of the enemy and to repel force by force.

It is very unfair on the part of the Revd. T.P. Hughes to twist or dislocate half a sentence from a verse and put it forth to demonstrate and prove a certain object of his.

The second verse quoted by the same author is a mere mistranslation. There is no such word in the original which admits of being rendered as "fighting." The true translation of the sentence quoted above from Sura IV, verse 97, is as follows:—

"Good promises hath he made to all. But God hath assigned to the strenuous a rich recompense above those who sit still at home."

The word rendered "strenuous" is originally "mojahid" (plural "Mojahidin," from Jihád), which in classical Arabic and throughout the Koran means to do one's utmost, to make effort, to strive, to exert, to employ one's-self diligently, studiously, sedulously, earnestly, zealously, or with energy, and does not mean fighting or warfare. It was subsequently applied to religious war, but was never used in the Koran in such a sense. (Vide Appendix A.)

The third instance quoted by Mr. Hughes is also a mistranslation of a sentence in verse 5, Sura XLVII. The original word is "kotelú," which means "those who are killed," and not "those who fight," as explained and translated by the author. The correct rendering of the sentence is this: "And those who are killed, their work God will not suffer to miscarry."

Some read the word "kátalú," which means "those who fought," but the general and authorized reading is "kotelú," i.e., "those who are killed." Even if it be taken for granted that the former is the correct reading, it will be explained by several other verses which mean fighting in defence, and not fighting aggressively, which not only has been never taught in the Koran but is always prohibited (II, 186). The verse to that effect runs thus:—

"And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you; but commit not the injustice of attacking them first. Verily God loveth not the unjust."—(II, 186.)

This verse permitted only defensive war and prohibited every aggressive measure. All other verses mentioned in connection with fighting on the part of the Moslems must be interpreted in conformity with this.

The Rev. Malcolm MacColl writes:—

"The Koran divides the earth into parts: Dar-ul-Islam, or the House of Islam; and Dar-ul-Harb, or the House of the enemy. All who are not of Islam are thus against it, and it is accordingly the duty of the True Believers to fight against the infidels till they accept Islam, or are destroyed. This is called the Djihad or Holy War, which can only end with the conversion or death of the last infidel on earth. It is thus the sacred duty of the Commander of the Faithful to make war on the non-Mussulman world as occasion may offer. But Dar-ul-Harb or the non-Mussulman world, is subdivided into Idolaters and Ketabi, or 'People of the Book,'—i.e., people who possess divinely inspired Scriptures, namely, Jews, Samaritans, and Christians. All the inhabitants of Dar-ul-Harb are infidels, and consequently outside the pale of Salvation. But the Ketabi are entitled to certain privileges in this world, if they submit to the conditions which Islam imposes. Other infidels must make their choice between one of two alternatives—Islam or the sword. The Ketabi are allowed a third alternative, namely, submission and the payment of tribute. But if they refuse to submit, and presume to fight against the True Believers, they lapse at once into the condition of the rest of Dar-ul-Harb and may be summarily put to death or sold as slaves."

I am very sorry the Rev. gentleman is altogether wrong in his assertions against the Koran. There is neither such a division of the world in the Koran, nor such words as "Dar-ul-Islam" and "Dar-ul-Harb" are to be found anywhere in it. There is no injunction in the Koran to the True Believers to fight against the infidels till they accept Islam, failing which they are to be put to death. The words "Dar-ul-Islam" and "Dar-ul-Harb" are only to be found in the Mohammadan Common Law, and are only used in the question of jurisdiction. No Moslem magistrate will pass a sentence in a criminal case against a criminal who had committed an offence in a foreign country. The same is the case in civil courts. All the inhabitants of Dar-ul-Harb are not necessarily infidels. Mohammadans, either permanently or temporarily by obtaining permission from the sovereign of the foreign land, can be the inhabitants of a Dar-ul-Harb, a country out of the Moslem jurisdiction, or at war with it.

It is only a theory of our Common Law, in its military and political chapters, which allow waging unprovoked war with non-Moslems, exacting tribute from "the people of the Book," and other idolaters, except those of Arabia, for which the Hanafi Code of the Common Law has nothing short of conversion to Islam or destruction by the sword. As a rule, our canonical legists support their theories by quotations from the Mohammadan Revealed Law, i.e., the Koran, as well as from the Sonnah, or the traditions from the Prophet, however absurd and untenable may be their process of reasoning and argumentative deductions. In this theory of waging war with, and exacting tribute or the capitation-tax from, the non-Moslem world, they quote the 9th and other Suras. These verses have been copied and explained elsewhere in this book. The casuistic sophistry of the canonical legists in deducing these war theories from the Koran is altogether futile. These verses relate only to the wars waged by the Prophet and his followers purely in their self-defence. Neither these verses had anything to do with waging unprovoked war and exacting tributes during Mohammad's time, nor could they be made a law for future military conquest. These were only temporary in their operations and purely defensive in their nature. The Mohammadan Common Law is by no means divine or superhuman. It mostly consists of uncertain traditions, Arabian usages and customs, some frivolous and fortuitous analogical deductions from the Koran, and a multitudinous array of casuistical sophistry of the canonical legists. It has not been held sacred or unchangeable by enlightened Mohammadans of any Moslem country and in any age since its compilation in the fourth century of the Hejira. All the Mujtahids, Ahl Hadis, and other non-Mokallids had had no regard for the four schools of Mohammadan religious jurisprudence, or the Common Law.

Sura XLVIII, 16, is not generally quoted by the canonical legists in support of their theory of Jehád, but by some few. It is not in the shape of a command or injunction; it is in a prophetical tone:—

"Say to those Arabs of the desert who stayed behind, Ye shall be called forth against a people of mighty valour; Ye shall do battle with them, or they shall submit (Yoslemoon)...."

The verses 4 and 5 of Sura XLVII, like all other verses on the subject, appertain to the wars of defence, and no one has ever quoted them for wars of aggression. These verses have already been quoted at page 85. The abolition of the future slavery as enjoined in the 5th verse has been treated separately in Appendix B. The Arabs, like other barbarous nations round them, used either to kill the prisoners of war or to enslave them; but this injunction of the Koran abolished both of these barbarous practices. The prisoners henceforward were neither to be killed nor enslaved, but were to be set at liberty with or without ransom.